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.
Theirs one factor that people are not taking into account that the world population is leveling off and stabilizing . Look at China , part of it's current economic problem being that lack of young people . The world population is aging and some parts their is neg. growth as in Europe and Japan . The U.S. birth rate and death rate are
near equilibrium so we can't expect the same population growth as in the past .
There are three different adjacent MSAs in the greater SLC area that all daisy chain together: SLC, Odgen/Clearfield and Provo/Orem.
In Charlotte, there are several satellite cities that are included in its MSA and CSA that are not contiguous with its urban area. In the Demographia definitions of UAs, these gaps exclude these satellite towns from being included in the UA.
Which isn't fair at all. Especially when those satellite cities and towns are either in adjacent counties and are less than 50 miles from Charlotte. It's really not fair and not an accurate depiction of the true Charlotte area.
This is every UA estimate over 1 million in the USA, the number of people they are estimated to have been added since 2010 and the rank in absolute numbers of their projected growth.
NYC is both the largest UA and has added the most new residents.
The ten UAs that added the most population are all among the top 13 in total UA population (the big are getting bigger). That said, Chicago and Philadelphia particularly underperformed relative to their peers in the top 10.
The most over-performing cities relative to UA rank in order are Raleigh (36th in rank but 18th in growth), Austin (30th in rank but 13th in growth) and Charlotte (35th in rank but 19th in growth)
Detroit and Cleveland are the only 2 that have been projected to have actually lost population in their UAs.
I tested several of the density metrics on their site but none of them was accurate vis-a-vis the stated land area and population estimate. They seem useless.
Demographia has combined adjacent core UAs in multiple MSAs where there is no UA gap between them (San Francisco/San Jose &, Raleigh/Durham are examples of this)
I just want to point out here that Pittsburgh's urban area is growing it's the rural areas in the far reaches of the MSA that are perpetually bleeding population, overtaking the progress we have made in the core and suburbs.
Location: Watching half my country turn into Gilead
3,530 posts, read 4,172,934 times
Reputation: 2925
Quote:
Originally Posted by kingtutaaa
Theirs one factor that people are not taking into account that the world population is leveling off and stabilizing . Look at China , part of it's current economic problem being that lack of young people . The world population is aging and some parts their is neg. growth as in Europe and Japan . The U.S. birth rate and death rate are
near equilibrium so we can't expect the same population growth as in the past .
Very true.
Quote:
Originally Posted by speagles84
I just want to point out here that Pittsburgh's urban area is growing it's the rural areas in the far reaches of the MSA that are perpetually bleeding population, overtaking the progress we have made in the core and suburbs.
I hadn't thought of that, but this list validates that analysis. Detroit would be the opposite, as it posted a very slight gain in its MSA this year, but has lost population in its urban core.
Nice gains for Boston and frankly it is much overdue.
That being said, population growth isn't on Boston's side and within 10 years or less (probably less than 10 years) it will find itself passed up by the same places it leapfrogged when it added Providence (i.e. Toronto, Dallas/Fort Worth Metroplex, San Francisco Bay Area, Houston, Miami/Fort Lauderdale).
However, in the meantime, this is definitely good news for Boston, frankly 7.2 million is a pretty respectable size, very good. Happy to see this.
I expected San Jose to be larger. When people say the Bay Area, is this what they usually mean? All I know is that I've been told it is larger than just the San Francisco MSA but not the entire CSA
Location: Watching half my country turn into Gilead
3,530 posts, read 4,172,934 times
Reputation: 2925
Quote:
Originally Posted by mjtinmemphis
Salt Lake City doesn't feel larger then St Louis?
Nashville is one step up from Memphis blows a hole in Nashvilles ego.
Atlanta doesn't seem to have a larger urban area then DC.
Quote:
Originally Posted by VA All Day
I've always been bothered how Boston counts pretty much all of NE in its numbers, but this one in particular. Complete distortion.
Wouldn't consider Atlanta more urban than DC either.
Atlanta's urban area is over twice as large as DC's (which has been separated from Baltimore here). For its size, Atlanta is probably the most sprawling metro on Earth, with a density of only 600 ppsm.
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 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.
it's the rural areas in the far reaches of the MSA that are perpetually bleeding population, overtaking the progress we have made in the core and suburbs.
