Current Delineation MSA/CSA Population Trends, 1900-2016 (transplants, 2015)

[manitopiaaa]

I noticed that there are a lot of MSA/CSA historical comparisons that judge MSAs/CSAs (in their 2016 delineation) with MSAs/CSAs (in their historical delineation).

This makes it difficult to discern whether a city's growth was because of pure population gain, or merely because the city's metro area added counties throughout the years.

To correct this, I decided to lock in cities by their 2016 MSA/CSA boundary and to look back at 2016 delineation area's population since 1900.

I'm starting off looking at MSA population trends for the 21 cities which currently have CSAs over 3,000,000 people.

First off, the Northeast:









Analysis: They are all over the map. Boston is actually currently in its Golden Age. It has never grown faster (though it came close in the 1960s). New York, conversely, peaked in the 1920s, when it was growing by nearly 250k a year (!). That's 2x faster than the big Texas duo and even more incredible considering the U.S. had 123 million people in 1930.

[manitopiaaa]

The Midwest 4:









From what I've heard about how Chicago and Detroit exploded in the late 1800s/early 1900s, I expected to see faster growth then.

I also think Minneapolis is a clear outlier. It's worst decade was the 1930s (Dust Bowl/Great Recession) while Chicago is currently in its nadir, Cleveland was in its nadir in the 1970s and Detroit in the 2000s. So while the Midwest has been hurting for the past 50 years (with the exception of the 1990s), Minneapolis has bucked the trend.

[manitopiaaa]

The Florida Trio:







In 1900, these three cities COMBINED had less than 73,000 (half of Sioux Falls, South Dakota). Today these MSAs have more than 11.5 million. I don't think there's a state that has changed as much as Florida in the past 116 years.

[manitopiaaa]

The Southern Hegemons:







From 1 million people in 1900 to 20 million today. These are the 3 cities that are quickly moving up the American hierarchy.

Look at the average gain for Houston, with one notable exception, the city's aggregate growth has grown in every decade. Dallas too has had increasing aggregate population gains for the past 50 years.

Atlanta hit its Golden Age in the 1990s and has since fallen behind the Texas juggernauts, but it's growth is still commendable.

[manitopiaaa]

The West Outside Cali.

The Interior West:





The Pacific Northwest:





If you think Phoenix is the star of the West, Denver and Seattle are actually the two currently in their Golden Age. The current Phoenix MSA had 28,000 people in 1900!

[manitopiaaa]

The Golden State:







San Francisco followed its worst decade (the 1930s) with its best (the 1940s). Los Angeles looks to have picked up some mojo since 2010. From 2000-2010 it was awfully close to being its second worst decade of growth since 1900.

[manitopiaaa]

And here are the 21 cities by population in 1900 (under current MSA boundaries):

The Big Four
1. New York 5,417,277
2. Chicago 2,255,623
3. Philadelphia 2,052,017
4. Boston 1,890,122

The Up-and-Coming
5. Minneapolis 649,735
6. Washington 595,110
7. Cleveland 552,359
8.Atlanta 533,667
9. Detroit 529,362
10. San Francisco 518,821
11. Dallas 452,170

The Pygmies
12. Houston 202,438
13. Los Angeles 189,994
14. Seattle 189,518
15. Denver 185,314
16. Portland 172,056

The Hamlets
17. Tampa 45,705
18. San Diego 35,090
19. Phoenix 28,236
20. Orlando 22,285
21. Miami 4,955

In 1900, Dallas was 2x bigger than Houston. This is because all of the Dallas MSA counties had impressive populations. Hunt and Ellis Counties had over 50,000, meaning they were already well-established population centers even before suburbanization. Dallas only had 33k more people than these two counties.

Denver and Seattle were also in similar growth in 1900. I find that interesting considering they are both going through their Golden Ages right now.

I just find it incredible that half of America's biggest cities today had less than 200,000 people in 1900!

[TommyCarcetti]

You left Baltimore out...

[Trafalgar Law]

Good work, a couple of notes and observations (and some rambling). I also tend to do subjects like this as well, ones that invoke studying trends (see here and here for two such examples).

1. Phoenix has incrementally leveled off. Its peak appears to be in the 1990s when it went +101,340 on average each year over the 10 year span of the decade and has gradually shown a cooling off in each of the two decades following the 1990s. I suspect that the level off in the 2000s was due to the Great Recession, which while globally was in its nadir in 2008 and 2009, it actually started with recessionary trends a few years earlier on in the hardest hit American states (i.e. Florida, Arizona, Nevada, California) in 2006 and 2007. What the Great Recession did was temper domestic migration nationwide, as people stopped moving across the country during the recession due to the volatile and fragile nature of the housing market in both the city they already lived in and quite possibly and especially more so in the cities they may have wanted to move to. This also explains the 2010s decade for Phoenix as well, as the hardest hit areas by the Great Recession didn't come back in full force until 2014 and in some cases 2015. Some of them still haven't yet recovered back to the growth levels they used to be. I expect the 2020s decade to be better for Phoenix than the 2000s were and the 2010s are.

2. You're right about Boston being in its "Golden Age" and that's commendable for that city, as I always say, they are a model city and an ideal template for many places to borrow things and emulate due to their success. Great performer and city, however by the time the 2020 census comes out, it will reveal that this can no longer be considered Boston's Golden Age. Boston each year for the last few years has slowed down more and more and these trends will continue onwards for the rest of the decade, as trajectory points to a high probability of doing so, as well as the United States moving further away from the Great Recession and domestic migration trends begin to take their pre-recession form again.

Here is the Boston MSA's annual population gain for each year of this 2010s decade, so far, notice the incremental cooling off each year compared to the year before:

2011: + 56,008
2012: + 43,601
2013: + 44,282
2014: + 38,418
2015: + 32,044
2016: + 27,692

As the United States moves further away from the Great Recession, people become more apt to moving out and resuming the same migration trends that persisted prior to the Great Recession. The Great Recession due to its nature and the way it affected both banks/lending institutions and the housing market actually served as a boon for places that had high domestic outward migration in the 2000s as it kept those people at bay (for obvious reasons) rather than allowing them to move away.

We will have a very good idea about Boston in 2017 next month when state population growth totals for 2017 are released in December. Greater Boston comprises of like 95% of Massachusetts population growth, so we'll have an idea of where Boston stands soon. The reason I assert that this decade wont finish as Boston's Golden Age is because by your data compilation suggests, it is just a thin hair (and I mean real thin) ahead of the 1960s Boston MSA growth. Even a slowdown of 1,500 people in Boston MSA will push the average annual gains for this decade for Boston down below the 1960s and that appears to be the most likely scenario given the incremental trends of this decade thus far.

I am not worried about Boston posting a decline at all, it has enough luster to keep itself afloat, the place is pretty cutting edge like New York. So I think they will be fine but are a candidate to see further deceleration if you go by annual year-to-year trends so far this decade where it has decelerated just about each year from the prior year.

3. You know, ironically the last 15 years or so, New York, Los Angeles, and Chicago have actually grown more slowly during time periods when the United States economy as a whole is booming. Take a look at New York, Los Angeles, and Chicago's population growth from 2000 to 2007 when the national economy was booming and construction was close to peak levels across the country. Their populations grew more slowly because of high price appreciation on homes that pushed people out to other areas of the country because of it and in turn fueled the population explosion in places like NV, AZ, GA, and NC that the migrants from these places often relocated to. The Great Recession actually helped cities like New York, Los Angeles, and Chicago when the United States economy was in doldrums, people were staying put and not moving because they didn't want to take the risk of relocating to an area where the housing prices were bottoming out as that would be a risky investment as your investments value would plummet. They waited it out until the national economy improved and are now back to their outward migration trends. Notice how each year that passes this decade the American economy becomes stronger, these 3 cities have very good (or at least respectable job growth this decade so far) but each year their outward domestic migration hole only widens instead of narrowing. That will probably continue, expect areas like Las Vegas and Phoenix (and some others) to finish this decade with tremendous population growth for the remaining 3-4 years due to the outward migration increasing for New York, Los Angeles, and Chicago.

4. Dallas and Houston are two of the youngest metropolitan areas in the United States demographically, only Salt Lake City, Austin, and San Antonio are either younger or comparable in age. Their best decade is supposed to be either next decade in the 2020s or the decade after in the 2030s due to their expansion friendly fertility rates (Texas is one of the absolute top states for fertility rate after Utah, which is #1), immigration trends and advantages, and abundant developable land which keep cost overruns in check (as the core becomes more expensive, nodes are built more outward and keep market prices at bay). Houston's actually having its best decade on record for immigration, while Dallas' immigration trends were better in the 2000s than they are now, they're still holding very strong, among the Top 6-7 in all of the United States despite that. Enough to get the job done the next two decades. The only things that can derail these two in the next 20 years is them becoming excruciatingly expensive, which is not much of a concern due to their pro-growth policies and abundant land as well as decentralized model of expansion. So they will in all likelihood be fine, probably will be #1 and #2 respectively in all of North America for raw population growth (well, along with Mexico City). As crazy as it may seem, the 2010s decade is probably not going to stay Dallas and Houston's "Golden Age" for long, I expect the next two decades to be better for it as they reach their peak growth potential then (peak growth is just as much about timing as it is about trends).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...fertility_rate

5. I find Atlanta to be complex. It is more vulnerable than either Dallas or Houston because it is far more reliant on domestic migration trends for its growth (in raw numbers) than those places are (Dallas and Houston are both significantly higher than Atlanta on immigration and natural increase related growth). For instance, in 2016 Dallas' natural increase netted it 56,000 people off births and immigration netted another 25,000 people, for a combined total of + 81,000 from just natural increase + immigration put together. Houston netted nearly 62,000 people from natural increase and 35,000 by immigration for a combined total of + 97,000 off of just natural increase + immigration. In contrast, Atlanta netted 35,000 people by natural increase and 18,000 people by immigration for a combined total of + 53,000 people by natural increase + immigration. While I haven't posted the domestic migration numbers for any of the three in this post, as you can see though, one of the three is not like the other two with regards to the mechanisms that make them grow. Population growth in the United States comes from three sources: 1) natural increase (births minus deaths); 2) immigration (people from outside the U.S.); and 3) domestic migration (number of Americans moving in as compared to moving out). Atlanta's generally very reliant on domestic migration for its growth, it's actually why it has a lower fertility rate and higher median age than Dallas or Houston, because the transplants Atlanta attracts are from much older parts of the country (age wise demographically).

So a lot of Atlanta's growth can and will depend on the outlook of the areas that feed its pipeline of migrants. I think like Phoenix, Atlanta's 2010s decade is more or less done and will not be able to stand up to its 1990s decade or 2000s decade, 6 years of the 2010s decade are already in the books and Atlanta hasn't even cracked 100,000 people per year even once this decade as an MSA. Not even in 2011, which was a 15 month cycle instead of the standard 12 month one all the other years are. Atlanta has to make up too much ground in the remaining 3-4 years (2017, 2018, 2019, and 2020) to get to 100,000 people per year average for the entire decade and + 1,000,000 for the entire decade. It's possible but the region would have to go off for something like 150,000 people per year for every year remaining to do it, which is asking for too much for an area that still hasn't reached 6-figures any year this decade so far.

Like Phoenix, I expect the 2020s decade to be better for Atlanta than the 2010s are because the Great Recession and the slow recovery from it wasted 4-5 years for Atlanta this decade. The city is off to a great start now but will have to make up much more ground. That being said, this city will move up the population rankings by 2020. Its MSA will move from #9 to #8, surpassing Philadelphia MSA by the 2020 census (its barely behind now, the gap is less than 300,000 with 4 more census estimates to go before the decade is over, and Atlanta is growing significantly faster in raw counts) and its CSA will likely move from #11 to #10 sometime after the 2020 census (like 2024 or so), surpassing Philadelphia to get into the Top 10 for the first time in its history. So lots of upside to be had for Atlanta going forward, so long as the United States' economy stays afloat.

6. The Florida cities are dynamic as hell. Aside from Texas, Florida is the only other state I would call a "growth machine and beast" in this aspect. It's also made a strong recovery from the Great Recession. I expect in the decades to come for Tampa Bay Area to consolidate with the surroundings to form a new CSA when Sarasota, Lakeland, and Homosassa Springs are finally added in. Believe it or not, I think at some point this century that Miami's position as the most populous metropolis in Florida will come under the threat of being surpassed by either Orlando or Tampa. If I were hedging bets, mine would go to Tampa Bay Area as it has the most interlinked economy of all the major Floridian cities to the national U.S. economy as a whole and has the best factors going for it. That being said, I see Miami as a metropolis CSA getting to at least 9 million by midcentury, the Tampa Bay Area under its new definition will get to 8 million (that area is already like 4.9 million now), and Orlando to get to somewhere in the 7 millions by midcentury as it too will consolidate and add in an area like Palm Bay-Melbourne into its CSA and the rest all off organic population growth.

Like I mentioned for Phoenix and Atlanta, the Florida cities will probably have a better decade in the 2020s than they did in the 2010s and 2000s due to the Great Recession. So long as the national economy doesn't have another recession as bad as the Great Recession, its a safe bet to hedge on Florida for incremental and impressive growth going forward for some more decades.

7. Population growth for the United States as a whole is dropping to some of its slowest levels in nearly a century, both by percentage and by raw numbers. This is especially concerning for major areas that are barely adding people right now as it is, as the trends continue they are in jeopardy of posting declines as the country goes through rapid aging, fertility rates continue to drop, and immigration continues to disperse to newer fast growth magnets or already established immigrant gateways. Places that have low fertility rates and high median ages will drop from stagnation into decline. I am not wishing for that to happen but as someone that studies these trends hard, I already see it starting to happen now.

Next month is a good litmus test when the 2017 state population estimates are released. It will show that America has further slowed down in 2017 compared to the year before in 2016 and the places that have had decelerating growth each year as this decade has progressed onwards, will continue to lose more growth share to somewhere else. America's slowdown will affect certain places and certain parts of the country (particularly to more demographically older aged ones) more than the younger and more fertile ones, at least for another generation, possibly two.

[goat314]

Originally Posted by manitopiaaa

The Midwest 4:









From what I've heard about how Chicago and Detroit exploded in the late 1800s/early 1900s, I expected to see faster growth then.

I also think Minneapolis is a clear outlier. It's worst decade was the 1930s (Dust Bowl/Great Recession) while Chicago is currently in its nadir, Cleveland was in its nadir in the 1970s and Detroit in the 2000s. So while the Midwest has been hurting for the past 50 years (with the exception of the 1990s), Minneapolis has bucked the trend.

St. Louis is the fourth largest MSA in Midwest. I don't think there is CSA numbers, but St. Louis has a significantly larger MSA than Cleveland.