U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S.
 [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)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 01-07-2011, 04:36 PM
 
Location: Brooklyn, New York
3,804 posts, read 3,891,715 times
Reputation: 3623

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by LauraC View Post
The Losers (population decrease rate between 2000 and 2009):
1. New York City-Long Island-Northern NJ, New York/NJ (minus 9.6%)
What the hell? This can't be right.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-07-2011, 04:49 PM
 
Location: South Beach and DT Raleigh
11,810 posts, read 18,905,946 times
Reputation: 11155
Quote:
Originally Posted by Omahahonors View Post
It also says that Nebrska would grow from 1,711,000 in 2000 to surpass 1,820,000 for the first time in 2030. It surpassed it in 2009 and reached 1,826,000 in 2010 (1,831,000 including military personell).

I'm sure they will revise it to surpassing 1,970,000 by 2040 but will actually do it by 2018. Their projections have been like this every decade.
I didn't realize that the entire state of Nebraska was less than 2 million. That's interesting to know. So, almost half the population of the state lives in the Omaha area?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-07-2011, 04:51 PM
 
Location: moving again
4,382 posts, read 15,358,573 times
Reputation: 1594
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chicago60614 View Post
You looked at the wrong line. That was New Orleans that had -9.6%.

New York City grew by almost 750,000 people.

I knew that couldn't have been right!!!
LOL i knew something was off
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-07-2011, 05:58 PM
 
Location: Silverthorne, Colorado
884 posts, read 1,531,926 times
Reputation: 737
I wouldn't say growth is limited to Sunbelt states. It's just that the growth ISN'T in the rust belt cities which seem to be losing population, and some northeast cities which have stable population.

Seattle and Portland are both still growing like crazy, and they're definitely in no "Sunbelt."

Nebraska and Iowa have rapidly growing populations.

NYC's population is exploding, and Chicago's population loss has been curbed (curved?). I think St. Louis' has, also.

Heck, the entire Mountain West is seeing its cities becoming major population centers. Most of the Great Plains is seeing the same thing; even the northern states.

The Sunbelt states are growing the fastest for sure, though. But that doesn't mean they're the only states that are growing.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-07-2011, 06:09 PM
 
Location: Omaha
481 posts, read 1,156,796 times
Reputation: 211
Quote:
Originally Posted by rnc2mbfl View Post
I didn't realize that the entire state of Nebraska was less than 2 million. That's interesting to know. So, almost half the population of the state lives in the Omaha area?
Three of Omaha's metro counties are in Iowa so that changes things by about 150,000 people or so. The eastern portion of the state (Omaha, Lincoln) is certainly the most populated area. Cherry county in western Nebraska has just under 6,000 people and is bigger than Connecticut, Rhode Island, or Deleware. This is just one county! Think about this, Cherry county has less than 1 person per square mile. As the years go on, the rural population of the state is falling greatly, while the eastern cities are growing pace that is exceeding the rural decline for an overall gain in population.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-07-2011, 06:22 PM
 
Location: South Beach and DT Raleigh
11,810 posts, read 18,905,946 times
Reputation: 11155
Quote:
Originally Posted by laserdisque View Post
Three of Omaha's metro counties are in Iowa so that changes things by about 150,000 people or so. The eastern portion of the state (Omaha, Lincoln) is certainly the most populated area. Cherry county in western Nebraska has just under 6,000 people and is bigger than Connecticut, Rhode Island, or Deleware. This is just one county! Think about this, Cherry county has less than 1 person per square mile. As the years go on, the rural population of the state is falling greatly, while the eastern cities are growing pace that is exceeding the rural decline for an overall gain in population.
Oh yes...how could I forget my friends in Iowa? I really like the people in that state and have always felt a warmth of the community in every city I have visited.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-07-2011, 06:59 PM
 
6 posts, read 6,223 times
Reputation: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by LauraC View Post
"Lottery revenues and metropolitan population growth are just two of more than a thousand topics addressed in the U.S. Census Bureau's Statistical Abstract of the United States: 2011. The Abstract is perennially the federal government's best-selling reference book. Contained in the 130th edition are 1,407 tables of social, political and economic facts that collectively describe the state of our nation and athe world. Included this year are 65 new tables, covering topics such as insufficient rest or sleep, nursing home occupancy, homeschooling, earthquakes, U.S. Border Patrol apprehensions, organic farmland, honey bee colonies, crashes involving distracted drivers and cities with the highest transit savings."

U.S. Census Bureau Releases 130th Edition of Federal Government's Best-Selling Reference Book -- WASHINGTON, Dec. 6, 2011 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ --

So what might interest this General US forum?

How about from among the nation's 50 largest metro areas in 2009, who had the highest rate of population increase between 2000 and 2009 (Table 21):

http://www.census.gov/compendia/stat...es/11s0021.pdf

1. Raleigh-Cary, North Carolina (41.2% increase)
2. Las Vegas-Paradise, Nevada (38.3% increase)
3. Austin-Round Rock, Texas (36.4% increase)
4. Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale, Arizona (34.2% increase)
5. Charlotte-Gastonia-Concord, NC/SC (31.2% increase)

The Losers (population decrease rate between 2000 and 2009):

1. New York City-Long Island-Northern NJ, New York/NJ (minus 9.6%)
2. Buffalo-Niagra Falls, New York (minus 4.0%)
3. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (minus 3.1%)
4. Cleveland-Elyria-Mentor, Ohio (minus 2.6%)
5. Detroit-Warren-Livonia, Michigan (minus 1.1%)

Why them (increases and decreases)?


Umm, you might want to edit your post.

NYC-Long Island-NNJ grew by 4%. It was New Orleans decreased by 9.6%

You're looking at the wrong line.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-07-2011, 07:05 PM
 
Location: Austin, TX/Chicago, IL/Houston, TX/Washington, DC
10,171 posts, read 12,874,206 times
Reputation: 4047
New York City didn't see a population loss. Out migration yes, but it was put into surplus with immigration & births minus deaths.

Tri-State Area (New York City MSA):

2000 & 2001: 18,490,029
Birth: 325,245
Death: 179,177
Domestic Migration: -218,481
International Immigration: 200,922
The Gain/Loss (+/-) from the previous year: + 167,027

2002: 18,590,085
Birth: 258,410
Death: 147,873
Domestic Migration: -207,348
International Immigration: 147,104
The Gain/Loss (+/-) from the previous year: + 100,056

2003: 18,671,320
Birth: 260,838
Death: 143,875
Domestic Migration: -236,039
International Immigration: 125,082
The Gain/Loss (+/-) from the previous year: + 81,235

2004: 18,747,431
Birth: 261,955
Death: 142,855
Domestic Migration: -247,541
International Immigration: 110,156
The Gain/Loss (+/-) from the previous year: + 76,111

2005: 18,798,114
Birth: 254,197
Death: 140,235
Domestic Migration: -283,328
International Immigration: 113,065
The Gain/Loss (+/-) from the previous year: + 50,683

2006: 18,825,633
Birth: 250,259
Death: 134,715
Domestic Migration: -288,260
International Immigration: 114,870
The Gain/Loss (+/-) from the previous year: + 27,519

2007: 18,901,167
Birth: 256,195
Death: 135,487
Domestic Migration: -220,521
International Immigration: 103,640
The Gain/Loss (+/-) from the previous year: + 75,534

2008: 18,968,501
Birth: 253,731
Death: 137,584
Domestic Migration: -150,259
International Immigration: 100,643
The Gain/Loss (+/-) from the previous year: + 67,334

2009: 19,069,796
Birth: 250,337
Death: 141,948
Domestic Migration: -110,278
International Immigration: 100,669
The Gain/Loss (+/-) from the previous year: + 101,295

For measures sake:



Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-07-2011, 09:37 PM
 
Location: Carrboro and Concord, NC
964 posts, read 2,056,564 times
Reputation: 1235
Quote:
Originally Posted by DANNYY View Post
It's projected that 88% of the America's population increase for the next 30 years will be in "the Sunbelt". Hey, I believe it, even with "slow downs" I still believe it. Even with "bad economies in some Sunbelt states" I still believe it. It's the reality. And its been the reality since air condition was invented and since Westward expansion to the Pacific initially started off.

There is a reason why the Northeast & Midwest's populations overall only grew by 3% or so apiece. And you want to know whats insane, numerically 1/4th the Midwest's population gains came from Chicago Metropolitan Area alone. 1/4th the Northeast's population gain came from New York City's Metropolitan Area alone.

Not a good sign for those that want to capitalize on "high growth" in those regions. I like New York & Illinois, but lets get real their passed their prime in terms of growth.
Generally I agree with you, for the most part. There are parts of the Southeast that I think are very, very well-poised to do quite well post-recession - specifically the Southeast Atlantic states (GA, SC, NC, VA), plus Texas. Likewise Washington, Oregon, and also Idaho. Idaho has real-estate crash issues, but also has a somewhat more varied economy that places like AZ or NV, and thus is more likely to do well in the long run.

FL and CA have serious issues, though in the long run FL might have a bit better of a chance than CA does.

Several other posts here - the Nebraska specific ones in particular - point towards the other region to watch. The cities in the Plains states have done very well, a stark contrast with the eastern end of the Midwest, and apart from Texas it's most notable in the northern Plains cities. Omaha, Des Moines, Iowa City, Sioux Falls, Fargo, Grand Forks, Billings have been posting some very steady growth rates for a few decades, and it's slowly been ramping up each decade - solid and dependable. Several of those cities are also starting to get a lot of good press for it. The rural areas of those states are a vastly different story (the rural counties out there started losing population in some cases in the 1930s, and haven't stopped), but some of those cities are gonna surprise people in another decade or two.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-07-2011, 11:58 PM
 
Location: St Paul, MN - NJ's Gold Coast
5,256 posts, read 12,009,132 times
Reputation: 3104
It was New Orleans that lost 9.6% of its population, not NYC.
Reply With Quote 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.


Reply
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.
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - 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 - Top