2015 City Proper population estimates are released! (largest, metropolitan, size, states)

[Trafalgar Law]

Originally Posted by pontiac51

UA, MSA, CSA along with city proper are all problematic metrics!!! At least the city proper metric is what it is!!!

So basically it is trash?

[mjlo]

Originally Posted by pontiac51

UA, MSA, CSA along with city proper are all problematic metrics!!! At least the city proper metric is what it is!!!

It's the most inconsistent metric of them all. There is no common basis by which a city boundary is drawn. Sunbelt cities can annex surrounding areas, legacy cities are landlocked by other redundant municipalities and cannot. El Paso is bigger than Detroit by city population. But is El Paso really bigger than Detroit? It covers 116 more square miles in land than Detroit does that's almost double the land area. If you add 116 square miles of surrounding Detroit suburbs to it's population, Detroit becomes a city of 1.4 million people.

City population is the most arbitrary and intellectually dishonest way of comparing any two cities. Zoning and annexation laws vary so widely throughout different regions you might as well be comparing mice to oranges. It only benefits homers who want to paint as rosey a picture of their city as they possibly can.

[the topper]

Originally Posted by dollaztx

Dallas grew by 9,236 in the 2010 census. According to this estimate last year alone it grew 19,642. Glad to see it getting denser.

Don't worry: net growth for Dallas from 2010 to 2020 will only be 21,000 when the actual count is in.

[the topper]

My prediction for San Antonio when the final 2020 count is in: 1,470,000

[iknowftbll]

Colorado has a fairly impressive number of cities over 100,000, especially for a state of about 5.5 million.

Denver: 682,545
Colorado Springs: 456,568
Aurora: 359,407
Fort Collins: 161,175
Lakewood: 152,597
Thornton: 133,451
Arvada: 115,368
Westminster: 113,130
Centennial: 109,741
Pueblo: 109,412
Boulder: 107,349
Greeley: 100,883

Of course, most of these are in the Denver area, where around 3/5 of the state's population lives.

[Gantz]

My Excel screenshot, top 50 cities:

[gladhands]

Originally Posted by mjlo

It's the most inconsistent metric of them all. There is no common basis by which a city boundary is drawn. Sunbelt cities can annex surrounding areas, legacy cities are landlocked by other redundant municipalities and cannot. El Paso is bigger than Detroit by city population. But is El Paso really bigger than Detroit? It covers 116 more square miles in land than Detroit does that's almost double the land area. If you add 116 square miles of surrounding Detroit suburbs to it's population, Detroit becomes a city of 1.4 million people.

City population is the most arbitrary and intellectually dishonest way of comparing any two cities. Zoning and annexation laws vary so widely throughout different regions you might as well be comparing mice to oranges. It only benefits homers who want to paint as rosey a picture of their city as they possibly can.

City proper matters to people who actually live in cities. People who put pay city taxes, who put their kids in city schools, who vote for city Council. People who don't simply use the city for its resources, like jobs cultural institutions and infrastructure.

Also, cities are anything but arbitrary. There finite and have meaning. CSA's are unwieldy and lack cohesion. No one with a working knowledge of Washington DC or Baltimore we consider those two cities part of a unit. Even MSAs are too big. I live in an MSA the comprises seven counties, many of whom's only connection to the core city is it sports fandom. These aren't suburbs, or even exurbs.

[Stonemass55]

Originally Posted by peterlemonjello

No, its because this census doesn't account for the downturn.


O&G is 45% of our economy.

Doesn't matter Houston has had plus growth since it founding even in the 80,s and 90,s ir saw population growth and the oil down turn then was far worse

[mhays25]

Originally Posted by gladhands

City proper matters to people who actually live in cities. People who put pay city taxes, who put their kids in city schools, who vote for city Council. People who don't simply use the city for its resources, like jobs cultural institutions and infrastructure.

Also, cities are anything but arbitrary. There finite and have meaning. CSA's are unwieldy and lack cohesion. No one with a working knowledge of Washington DC or Baltimore we consider those two cities part of a unit. Even MSAs are too big. I live in an MSA the comprises seven counties, many of whom's only connection to the core city is it sports fandom. These aren't suburbs, or even exurbs.

Depends what you're counting.

If it's about your local administrative district, the city limits matter.

But some people say asinine things "Boston feels big for a city of 667,000." Obviously the population of the city of Boston has little to do with what the urban core looks like or feels like.

Or they'll wonder why a city of 500,000 has a team while a city of 600,000 doesn't...oblivious to the fact that fandoms are also more like metros.

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by IrishIllini

What many here do not realize is that Chicago is UP since 2010. The estimates show a marginal loss from 2014-2015. One year of estimated declines does not indicate an exodus or decline.

http://www.chicagobusiness.com/reale...-third-in-2016

http://www.chicagobusiness.com/artic...gos-underlying

Chicago is very much a tale of two cities at the moment. You have a healthy core, north side, and near west and south neighborhoods, and struggling neighborhoods pretty much everywhere else.

Yeah, pretty much. Unfortunately it's all part of the same city, but what is fairly healthy growth (not amazing compared to some other cities but healthy) in numerous parts of the city has a lot being nullified by other parts mostly on the south side (some on the west side too). If you didn't know these facts and figures and you just arrived in the city and spent time downtown and some other areas, you'd probably have the thought that the city is growing because there's a good amount of new construction happening downtown again (and some other areas). But again - areas like Englewood and West Englewood are experiencing enough population loss to take away a lot of it when you look at the city as a whole and don't actually delve any deeper into it. All part of the same city though - pretty sad that you have one part of the city doing fairly well and another part that might as well be in a different city. It's pretty messed up especially if you spend enough time in the city to see both sides of it - needs to be fixed.