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.
Probably so, I do know they do revise up almost every year so if 702,000 is the original estimate, I'd guess a couple thousand more based on consecutive trends year after year.
MSA is not the measure of a city, false.
Okay, then, I guess a more true measure of A city, is to add lots of other cities with their own MSA, to their population? Makes no sense, to me. If I want to know how big Baltimore is, for example, I wouldn't expect someone to include Washington DC, etc. I would want the MSA for an answer.
Another thing with LA that others don’t mention is the American addiction to new housing in rural areas and thus the explosion of growth in Inland Empire. Eventually LA will stagnate but the IE will continue to grow same with San Diego. Both of these areas feed into at least half the growth in that region it seems. Stockton seemingly might become San Francisco’s IE as well, the way things are going as long as suburban sprawl dominates, we will continue to see growth in other MSA’s that is actually growth in a larger MSA nearby. Same situation with Baltimore-Washington. Tampa-Orlando and eventually San Antonio-Austin will have the same problems, were Austin centered areas are actually in one MSA and vice versa.
Location: That star on your map in the middle of the East Coast, DMV
8,128 posts, read 7,565,972 times
Reputation: 5785
Quote:
Originally Posted by Enean
Okay, then, I guess a more true measure of A city, is to add lots of other cities with their own MSA, to their population? Makes no sense, to me. If I want to know how big Baltimore is, for example, I wouldn't expect someone to include Washington DC, etc. I would want the MSA for an answer.
You're obviously butt hurt over this, it's just statistics. There are CSA's and there are MSA's, there are single entity ones and there are poly centric ones, take your beef up with the Census. Baltimore's MSA conjoins with another MSA of 6.2 million so therefore it is part of a larger CSA that is surpassing Chicagoland, whether you or I like it or not.
Use the different measurements however you want to disseminate whatever information you like. That is the purpose of having a Census.
You're obviously butt hurt over this, it's just statistics. There are CSA's and there are MSA's, there are single entity ones and there are poly centric ones, take your beef up with the Census. Baltimore's MSA conjoins with another MSA of 6.2 million so therefore it is part of a larger CSA that is surpassing Chicagoland, whether you or I like it or not.
Use the different measurements however you want to disseminate whatever information you like. That is the purpose of having a Census.
Not butt hurt, at all, I just think MSA is a more true measure of a CITY. When one looks at population, as I said, for Baltimore, you don't include DC.... Kind of interesting, that Chicago meets that number with its MSA, though.
Location: That star on your map in the middle of the East Coast, DMV
8,128 posts, read 7,565,972 times
Reputation: 5785
Quote:
Originally Posted by Enean
Not butt hurt, at all, I just think MSA is a more true measure of a CITY. When one looks at population, as I said, for Baltimore, you don't include DC.... Kind of interesting, that Chicago meets that number with its MSA, though.
City proper population is the measurement of a city. Chicago's city is 2.7 million not 9.5 mil.
The trend has been that the faster population growth numbers in percentage terms are now shifting to the West instead of the South. Most of the Midwest and Northeast is losing population with the exception of some of the metro areas. Rural areas in general are declining at a much greater rate now than at almost any time in the past. This is true for rural areas regardless of region unless they have offer high-end levels of scenery that appeal to retirees with wealth like mountains, coastal areas, or lakes.
Percentages don't mean much. Remember North Dakota was once the fastest-growing in terms of % once, but it's population is already so low, the % can be very high with relatively few people moving there. Personally, I prefer totals.
That said, I disagree with your assessment of the Midwest in general. Every Midwest state grew except for Illinois, and 4 were in the top 20, 6 in the top half. Every region had declining states, the South with the most at 4.
City proper population is the measurement of a city. Chicago's city is 2.7 million not 9.5 mil.
Only for one version of "city," and I'd argue the least relevant to what's on the ground.
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.
