U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Covid-19 Information Page
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S. > City vs. City
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
 
Old 05-22-2016, 07:06 PM
 
10,276 posts, read 8,334,670 times
Reputation: 10644

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by SEAandATL View Post
Do you think LA city will ever consolidate with the country and create a Metropolitan Government like Tokyo does with Tokyo Prefecture?
The opposite trend is more likely, as West Hollywood already seceded, and Hollywood and the San Fernando Valley have already have failed secession campaigns.

LA hasn't annexed any land since basically WW2 and CA state law doesn't really make annexation feasible.

And, damn, that would be a HUGE city geographically. Nearly 5,000 square miles. It would make Houston look like Hong Kong. It would put suburbanites and rural dwellers in charge of the nation's second largest city.
Rate this post positively Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-23-2016, 09:07 AM
 
Location: The Greatest city on Earth: City of Atlanta Proper
8,073 posts, read 12,886,798 times
Reputation: 6135
Quote:
Originally Posted by qworldorder View Post
Care to explain? If that were the case, the city wouldn't be posting overall population gains.
They have just enough births and incoming residents to offset the losses. Here's a great document to explain how it works: https://www.census.gov/popest/method...tcopr-meth.pdf

See below for the rest.


Quote:
Originally Posted by jamezz View Post
In the 1960-2000s, but not anymore.

NYC is one of the few cities that is composed of counties that are all completely within its city limits, so you can find this in the American Community Survey's components of population change county estimates released a few months ago:

Population due to Net Migration (2010-2015)
New York City (New York, Kings, Queens, Bronx, Richmond Counties) + 56,639
You used incomplete data to make your point. Yes, New York has crazy in-migration, but they also have crazy high out-migration.

I couldn't find the data from 2010-2015, but here is what 2010-2013 looked like:
Metro Area Population, Migration Data

Kings County (Brooklyn)

International Migration: 66,193
Domestic Migration: -59,588

Queens County

International Migration: 75,728
Domestic Migration: -59,485

New York County (Manhattan)

International Migration: 42,681
Domestic Migration: -31,351

Bronx County

International Migration: 41,307
Domestic Migration: -47,854

Richmond Country (Staten Island)

International Migration: 3718
Domestic Migration: -6370

Total International Migration: 225946
Total Domestic Migration: -204,648
Total growth 2010-2013: +21,298

NYC isn't at risk for losing population (those days are over for now), but they are breaking just above even when it comes to population growth. If you go to the source above, you'll see that every single county in the New York Metro is losing population domestically. There are many factors for this but basically there are enough new international immigrants and babies being born to offset the losses out-migration and deaths. If not for them, NYC would be seeing massive population losses exceeding those that occurred in the 60s and 70s.

I'm not knocking NYC though, this data is massively fascinating to me. You must however go behind the positive growth numbers to understand what's truly going on.
Rate this post positively Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-23-2016, 10:21 AM
 
10,276 posts, read 8,334,670 times
Reputation: 10644
Quote:
Originally Posted by waronxmas View Post

NYC isn't at risk for losing population (those days are over for now), but they are breaking just above even when it comes to population growth.
NYC has the highest numeric population growth in the U.S.

If you define "best in the entire U.S." as "breaking just above even" then you are being intellectual dishonest. There are over 4,000 incorporated communities in the U.S. and you are saying the #1 city in growth is "just above even".
Quote:
Originally Posted by waronxmas View Post
If you go to the source above, you'll see that every single county in the New York Metro is losing population domestically.
Yes, but this has been true forever. This is basically the whole way gateway cities function. It will probably always be true, as long as there is a NYC.

You basically can't have a gateway city, with tons of immigrants, and not have negative domestic migration, because when you're importing massive numbers of people from abroad this will have effects on the economy and housing market. You will encourage grandma to cash out her house, and move to Boca, because her home is worth three times what it would be worth if it were somewhere else. The same thing goes on in Paris, London, and the like, and domestically in cities like LA and Miami.

If you break down the data by neighborhood, you see exactly this. The NYC-area neighborhoods with the highest domestic outmigration are the immigrant neighborhoods. Neighborhoods with fewer immigrants (say the yuppie/hipster areas) have positive domestic immigration, which makes sense, as they are attracting Americans from elsewhere moreso than immigrants.

If immigration to NYC ever stopped, what probably would happen is that domestic outmigration would plummet, because there would be less reason to cash out. You see exactly that happening in neighborhoods with less immigration than in previous decades, and in fact NYC (the city proper, not the metro) has run slight domestic positive inmigration trends in the last couple of years. Partially this is because NYC is more attractive than in past years, but partially this is also immigrants bypassing the inner cities for the suburbs.
Rate this post positively Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-23-2016, 11:16 AM
 
Location: The Greatest city on Earth: City of Atlanta Proper
8,073 posts, read 12,886,798 times
Reputation: 6135
Quote:
Originally Posted by NOLA101 View Post
NYC has the highest numeric population growth in the U.S.

If you define "best in the entire U.S." as "breaking just above even" then you are being intellectual dishonest. There are over 4,000 incorporated communities in the U.S. and you are saying the #1 city in growth is "just above even".
True, but that doesn't mean they aren't losing a ton of people each year for whatever reason. I'm merely commenting on how fascinating the churn is. That's a lot of people in both directions, and is pretty much unique among the big cities in this country outside of LA which has the same dynamic going on.


Quote:
Originally Posted by NOLA101 View Post
Yes, but this has been true forever. This is basically the whole way gateway cities function. It will probably always be true, as long as there is a NYC.

You basically can't have a gateway city, with tons of immigrants, and not have negative domestic migration, because when you're importing massive numbers of people from abroad this will have effects on the economy and housing market. You will encourage grandma to cash out her house, and move to Boca, because her home is worth three times what it would be worth if it were somewhere else. The same thing goes on in Paris, London, and the like, and domestically in cities like LA and Miami.
With this I disagree.

In NYC case, this wasn't the situation from the end of the Civil War until the 1960s. This is why they got as big as they did. Things only changed when people started migrating south en masse due to retiries going to Florida and the Second Great Migration. Prior to that time, that didn't happen.


Quote:
Originally Posted by NOLA101 View Post
If you break down the data by neighborhood, you see exactly this. The NYC-area neighborhoods with the highest domestic outmigration are the immigrant neighborhoods. Neighborhoods with fewer immigrants (say the yuppie/hipster areas) have positive domestic immigration, which makes sense, as they are attracting Americans from elsewhere moreso than immigrants.
Yes and also there is a lot of people who have been in New York for generations leaving. For example, some estimates put the number of people whom have moved out of Queens and Brooklyn during the Second Migration to be some where around 1 million.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NOLA101 View Post
If immigration to NYC ever stopped, what probably would happen is that domestic outmigration would plummet, because there would be less reason to cash out. You see exactly that happening in neighborhoods with less immigration than in previous decades, and in fact NYC (the city proper, not the metro) has run slight domestic positive inmigration trends in the last couple of years. Partially this is because NYC is more attractive than in past years, but partially this is also immigrants bypassing the inner cities for the suburbs.
It's hard to say what would happen, but based on my own family's experience (my parents family are from Queens) I don't think the flow would stop. These people, mostly lower and working class, are leaving for greener pastures. If the immigrants stopped coming, NYC wouldn't all of sudden become affordable.

But these are just "what if's". You guys are taking my statements places I didn't take them.
Rate this post positively Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-23-2016, 11:28 AM
 
10,276 posts, read 8,334,670 times
Reputation: 10644
Quote:
Originally Posted by waronxmas View Post

In NYC case, this wasn't the situation from the end of the Civil War until the 1960s. This is why they got as big as they did. Things only changed when people started migrating south en masse due to retiries going to Florida and the Second Great Migration. Prior to that time, that didn't happen.
.
This simply isn't true. NYC has been a gateway for immigration since its founding. All major immigrant centers have net domestic outmigration.

In fact, domestic outmigration was lower during the 1960's than in previous decades, because there was less immigration. Many of NYC's population loss years actually had lower domestic outmigration than many of its population gain years, which makes sense, as immigration leads to domestic outmigration, and when you don't have enough immigration, you have population loss.

The interesting thing during NYC's "bad years" isn't that people were leaving, it's that people weren't moving in. Domestic and international inmigration was too low, it wasn't that domestic outmigration was too high. In fact domestic outmigration was higher during the 2000-2010 era than in any previous decade, yet population growth in the city was the highest in modern cities.
Quote:
Originally Posted by waronxmas View Post
It's hard to say what would happen, but based on my own family's experience (my parents family are from Queens) I don't think the flow would stop. These people, mostly lower and working class, are leaving for greener pastures. If the immigrants stopped coming, NYC wouldn't all of sudden become affordable.
Of course it would become more affordable. And there would be a void, which would be filled by domestic migrants. And the push-pull factors of migration would be reversed. Aunt Mary wouldn't be as compelled to sell her home and move to Florida if her kids/grandkids won't benefit as much as before, and Aunt Mary's neighborhood wouldn't have changed much in the first place.

The point is that domestic outmigration is not a particularly useful stat, as it's largely a function of international inmigration. In fact NYC, LA and Miami have larger domestic outmigration than even the Rust Belt cities, because you largely need immigrants to get big domestic population loss. Miami would probably still have the rednecks of 50 years ago, if the Latin American masses didn't move to South Florida.
Rate this post positively Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-23-2016, 11:41 AM
 
528 posts, read 213,289 times
Reputation: 517
DMA are not the same as metros. They have specific meaning relative to that industry.

And very little of that is relevant to city population (or metro for that matter) discussions.
Rate this post positively Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-23-2016, 10:32 PM
 
62 posts, read 50,866 times
Reputation: 84
To be fair, Houston metro nearly doubled NYC's metro growth in raw numbers and that's being 3x smaller in population.
Rate this post positively Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-23-2016, 11:32 PM
 
321 posts, read 325,975 times
Reputation: 417
Quote:
Originally Posted by NOLA101 View Post

And, damn, that would be a HUGE city geographically. Nearly 5,000 square miles. It would make Houston look like Hong Kong. It would put suburbanites and rural dwellers in charge of the nation's second largest city.
In fact, it would put those people in charge of the largest city in the United States, as LA would surpass NY if all of LA County (which has a population of almost 10 million people according to this site) was included in the city limits.
Rate this post positively Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-24-2016, 12:46 AM
 
1,687 posts, read 1,109,603 times
Reputation: 342
Quote:
Originally Posted by NOLA101 View Post
The opposite trend is more likely, as West Hollywood already seceded, and Hollywood and the San Fernando Valley have already have failed secession campaigns.

LA hasn't annexed any land since basically WW2 and CA state law doesn't really make annexation feasible.

And, damn, that would be a HUGE city geographically. Nearly 5,000 square miles. It would make Houston look like Hong Kong. It would put suburbanites and rural dwellers in charge of the nation's second largest city.
Yes, because LA County has so many rural dwellers..
Maybe 10,000 out of ten milllion. If that. What are the rural communities exactly?
Talk about control.
Rate this post positively Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-24-2016, 01:26 AM
 
Location: Seattle WA, USA
4,759 posts, read 2,993,834 times
Reputation: 3356
Renton, WA is now the 8th city to pass the 100,000 mark.
2015 (100,242)
2014 (98,404)
2010 (90,927)

By 2020 I predict that WA will add another 2 cities to that list making it 10 cities. Those would be Federal Way, WA and Spokane Valley, WA

Federal Way
2015 (95,171)
2014 (93,544)
2010 (89,306)

Spokane Valley
2015 (94,919)
2014 (93,162)
2010 (89,755)

another city that might squeeze in is Yakima
2015 (93,701)
2014 (93,361)
2010 (91,067)

Also Seattle has made some huge strides and it's very possible that by 2020 Seattle will be over 700,000
2015 (684,451)
2014 (669,112)
2010 (608,660)

Denver is also having a similar growth pattern and might even over take Seattle by 2020.
2015 (682,545)
2014 (663,963)
2010 (600,158)
Rate this post positively Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


 
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:
Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S. > City vs. City

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2021, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top