Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Texas > San Antonio
 [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 11-05-2007, 06:28 PM
 
5,643 posts, read 15,643,046 times
Reputation: 2758

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Insomniac View Post
SA is still in the top 2 or 3 for city population growth.
Tell people to stop breeding, please.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-05-2007, 11:14 PM
 
Location: San Antonio North
4,147 posts, read 7,968,906 times
Reputation: 1010
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guerilla View Post
It is behind Houston, Phoenix, and LA (so far, I haven't checked other cities raw numbers). NYC actually didn't gain that much.
No its growing faster than Houston proper.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-06-2007, 06:26 AM
 
Location: Texas
2,703 posts, read 3,382,588 times
Reputation: 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by ryneone View Post
No its growing faster than Houston proper.
Percentage wise, but not in terms of raw numbers.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-06-2007, 10:43 AM
 
Location: San Antonio North
4,147 posts, read 7,968,906 times
Reputation: 1010
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guerilla View Post
Percentage wise, but not in terms of raw numbers.
Houston proper grew by 56,059 people from 2000 to 20006. San Antonio grew by 70,079 people during the same period. Granted the Houston metro way outgrew San Antonio's but if were just looking at the actual city San Antonio grew faster in both ways. (percentage and raw numbers)

A question to any who can help. Why does the percentage growth matter?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-06-2007, 11:05 AM
 
81 posts, read 229,225 times
Reputation: 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by ryneone View Post
A question to any who can help. Why does the percentage growth matter?
Here's a totally non-scientific stab at your question: percentage growth (rather than numeric) is more meaningful much of the time because it does a better job of describing the significance of that growth on the particular city.

For an extreme hypothetical example, let's say that over the next four years, the town of Bulverde (pop. 4,608) and the city of San Antonio (pop. 1,296,682) each add 100,000 people to their respective populations. Looking only at the raw numbers, the growth is equal. However, when compared to the populations at the beginning of the period in question, it's obvious that the Bulverde population increase was much more significant and had much greater impact on the town than the numerically identical growth in San Antonio. The percentage increases (2170% versus 7.7%) do a better job of describing and comparing the growth.

Percentages are normally more useful than raw numbers for making comparisons in other applications as well (interest rates, dividend yields, mixtures of various ingredients, etc.)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-06-2007, 11:07 AM
 
925 posts, read 1,214,101 times
Reputation: 129
Quote:
Originally Posted by ryneone View Post
Houston proper grew by 56,059 people from 2000 to 20006. San Antonio grew by 70,079 people during the same period. Granted the Houston metro way outgrew San Antonio's but if were just looking at the actual city San Antonio grew faster in both ways. (percentage and raw numbers)

A question to any who can help. Why does the percentage growth matter?
Ryneone, the numbers you're posting from the link you posted are from 2000-2003 not 2000-2006.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-06-2007, 03:18 PM
 
Location: Texas
2,703 posts, read 3,382,588 times
Reputation: 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by ryneone View Post
Houston proper grew by 56,059 people from 2000 to 20006. San Antonio grew by 70,079 people during the same period. Granted the Houston metro way outgrew San Antonio's but if were just looking at the actual city San Antonio grew faster in both ways. (percentage and raw numbers)

A question to any who can help. Why does the percentage growth matter?
Houston proper grew by 192,000 from 2000-2006. SA proper grew by 152,000 in the same time period.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-06-2007, 10:12 PM
 
Location: San Antonio North
4,147 posts, read 7,968,906 times
Reputation: 1010
Its is so funny that we can all type in the same thing into our search engine and come out with totally different tally s. Guerilla are you using different sources for the same numbers? I went on the actual census site and found the San Antonio growth of 152,036. But Houston's was only 62,951. Why is this?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-07-2007, 06:31 AM
 
Location: Texas
2,703 posts, read 3,382,588 times
Reputation: 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by ryneone View Post
Its is so funny that we can all type in the same thing into our search engine and come out with totally different tally s. Guerilla are you using different sources for the same numbers? I went on the actual census site and found the San Antonio growth of 152,036. But Houston's was only 62,951. Why is this?
Your using the wrong numbers, or subtracting wrong.

Houston city, Texas - Population Finder - American FactFinder

Rounds to about a 191,000 growth for Houston.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-08-2007, 06:28 AM
 
Location: Texas
2,703 posts, read 3,382,588 times
Reputation: 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by ddrewa View Post
Here's a totally non-scientific stab at your question: percentage growth (rather than numeric) is more meaningful much of the time because it does a better job of describing the significance of that growth on the particular city.

For an extreme hypothetical example, let's say that over the next four years, the town of Bulverde (pop. 4,608) and the city of San Antonio (pop. 1,296,682) each add 100,000 people to their respective populations. Looking only at the raw numbers, the growth is equal. However, when compared to the populations at the beginning of the period in question, it's obvious that the Bulverde population increase was much more significant and had much greater impact on the town than the numerically identical growth in San Antonio. The percentage increases (2170% versus 7.7%) do a better job of describing and comparing the growth.

Percentages are normally more useful than raw numbers for making comparisons in other applications as well (interest rates, dividend yields, mixtures of various ingredients, etc.)
I don't think percentages are better to use than raw numbers in term of seeing which city is actually growing faster.
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:


Settings
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2020 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram


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 > Texas > San Antonio

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - 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, 36, 37 - Top