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.
Yeah and that somehow explains how Harris County gained 700,000 people last decade.
Harris County 2000: 3,400,578
Harris County 2009: 4,070,989
And the fact remains that Harris County is almost completely engulfed by Houston's Urban Area boundaries along with half of Fort Bend (Was in 2000 and still is in 2010). And maybe in the US Urban Areas version it will include Montgomery County also (The Woodlands). And yet the 2000 to 2009 only showed a mere 350,000 increase in Urban Area.
Brazoria County in comparison in the same time frame hasn't gained jack compared to Harris County by sheer numbers.
Honestly, I went out of my way to ask questions and contact people I haven't ever met, just to get clarifications the least posters on this site can do is at least try to give credit where its due. I am tired of the daily basis of disproving things that actually are and boosting things that actually aren't. And also another thing that is frustrating is when people here feel they have more authority to speak than agencies like United Nations, US Census Bureau, the US Government, & Other Federal Jurisdictions.
Simple as that.
yeah it would be nice if the urban area extended further north into montgomery county.
It doesn't have to go that far into Brazoria county, most of the population of that county is already in the UA.
I know the feeling about some posters on here.
people were breathing down my neck when I made the thread about the old metropolitan area definitions. The info was lifted right off the census website but somehow they were claiming I got it wrong. I don't know how much you can lose by copy and pasting info.
some people will argue that the data is wrong just for arguing sake. That Ohio guy is probably still saying the data is wrong.
Obviously they have a low definition of Urban, because I'm pretty sure the woodlands is not urban. Thats like saying the pinebarrens is urban.
So what train do I hope on to get from the woodlands to DT Houston? What train do I get on do get from sanfran to DT sanHo? Theres a train that goes from CC to manhatten. Or the chinatown bus.
the woodlands is not in our UA silly
get your facts in order before you try to put us down
Quote:
Originally Posted by theATLien
Atlanta jumped up 4 spots. I think that's the largest jump. That's a good look. Miami has really jumped on the scene too.
lol, don't pull that crap. you can't just claim other people's UA. If it was one continuous urban area it would be listed as such
Philly is going down.
pretty soon the city of San Antonio and Dallas will surpass it. citywise
But Killakoolaide is right, the Philly urban area and New York urban area clearly overlap. Trenton, NJ is part of the Philly urban area and according to DANNYY source it shows that the Trenton area was added to New York urban area as well, which proves that the Philly urban area is continuous with the New York urban area. That should mean that the New York and Philly urban area should be one single urban area not a seperate one.
Location: Austin, TX/Chicago, IL/Houston, TX/Washington, DC
10,138 posts, read 16,035,535 times
Reputation: 4047
Quote:
Originally Posted by HtownLove
yeah it would be nice if the urban area extended further north into montgomery county.
I think its okay even if it doesn't. The Woodlands would be a nice addition, but given the land area of all the Metropolitan Areas with large Urban Areas. I think Houston is in a good fit for that.
It's largest gains numerically are still in Harris County, so even if they don't add in Montgomery County its okay because its still going to increase, especially given that it includes half of Fort Bend County, which is the 2nd largest gainer numerically in the MSA. So it's a given pretty much.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HtownLove
I know the feeling about some posters on here.
Eh its whatever though, seriously best thing to do is post, and that's it. Not much thought given on certain posters.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HtownLove
people were breathing down my neck when I made the thread about the old metropolitan area definitions. The info was lifted right off the census website but somehow they were claiming I got it wrong. I don't know how much you can lose by copy and pasting info.
some people will argue that the data is wrong just for arguing sake. That Ohio guy is probably still saying the data is wrong.
The one where a CMSA or something for Los Angeles was larger than New York City?
Yeah that thread in general was bound to get ugly, just like how I predict this one will as well. It's a given.
Quote:
Originally Posted by killakoolaide
If you read the top of the post you woulda saw that it clearly says Houston has added in the woodlands.
No it only does for the WORLD URBAN AREAS not the US Urban Areas. I posted two different things in my first post.
The first list with all the cities in the world is the one designated by the United Nations.
The lists at the bottom are from the US Government, I posted the 2000 version and the 2006 version to compare relatively. Sorry about the mix up, but I didn't want to make two threads on it, the mods would have probably killed me for that.
I think its okay even if it doesn't. The Woodlands would be a nice addition, but given the land area of all the Metropolitan Areas with large Urban Areas. I think Houston is in a good fit for that.
It's largest gains numerically are still in Harris County, so even if they don't add in Montgomery County its okay because its still going to increase, especially given that it includes half of Fort Bend County, which is the 2nd largest gainer numerically in the MSA. So it's a given pretty much.
Eh its whatever though, seriously best thing to do is post, and that's it. Not much thought given on certain posters.
The one where a CMSA or something for Los Angeles was larger than New York City?
Yeah that thread in general was bound to get ugly, just like how I predict this one will as well. It's a given.
No it only does for the WORLD URBAN AREAS not the US Urban Areas. I posted two different things in my first post.
The first list with all the cities in the world is the one designated by the United Nations.
The lists at the bottom are from the US Government, I posted the 2000 version and the 2006 version to compare relatively. Sorry about the mix up, but I didn't want to make two threads on it, the mods would have probably killed me for that.
Location: Austin, TX/Chicago, IL/Houston, TX/Washington, DC
10,138 posts, read 16,035,535 times
Reputation: 4047
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwillyfromphilly
But Killakoolaide is right, the Philly urban area and New York urban area clearly overlap. Trenton, NJ is part of the Philly urban area and according to DANNYY source it shows that the Trenton area was added to New York urban area as well, which proves that the Philly urban area is continuous with the New York urban area. That should mean that the New York and Philly urban area should be one single urban area not a seperate one.
You're completely right about this GwillyfromPhilly. Trenton I know for a fact is in Philadelphia's sphere and it was added into New York City.
But the United Nations, US Government, and Local Jurisdictions didn't combine the New York City & Philadelphia Urban Areas though. That's the only cut off about it there, the defining term that they didn't include in.
Quote:
Originally Posted by killakoolaide
The World standard holds more weight.
I don't disagree. I am with you on this, the World Standard does hold more weight.
Yes there is a difference between the two. And I just couldn't make two separate threads on this it would probably have angered the mods, along with the fact that 5 threads I've made in the past are in the top page right now.
Please read closely, this is important that you read instructions before spouting off about what you think and stuff.
I'll start it off with the World Urban Areas list from 2010 and then I'll do the Urban Areas (US) from 2006 (the last time they configured the population).
And PLEASE do NOT discuss any of the other cities that are not in North America on this list. Apart of Terms of Services it is prohibited to discuss places like Shanghai, and whatnot.
Demographia states its source for its information (In Order from most accepted to least):
- National Population Authorities, where representative agglomeration data is available such as the United States, United Kingdom, Australia, Sweden, France, Canada, & Norway.
- Demographia population estimates developed lower order jurisdictional data from national census authorities.
- Estimates based on United Nations Population Prospects, Revision of 2007 database. The UN database contains important deviations from agglomeration authority.
- Estimates from Local Jurisdictions
The Changes in World Urban Areas From the Year 2000 (Changes will be effective in 2010):
- Toronto has added in Oshawa & Hamilton
- Vancouver has added in Abbotsford
- Boston has added in Nashue & Worcester
- Chicago has added in Kenosha & Round Lake
- Dallas-Fort Worth has added in Denton
- Houston has added in The Woodlands
- Los Angeles has added in Riverside-San Bernardino & Mission Viejo
- New York City has added in Bridgeport, New Haven, Trenton, Danbury, & Highstown
- San Francisco-Oakland has added in San Jose & Concord
Location: Austin, TX/Chicago, IL/Houston, TX/Washington, DC
10,138 posts, read 16,035,535 times
Reputation: 4047
Quote:
Originally Posted by killakoolaide
You slipped and let the conspiracy out.
What conspiracy?
I'm not the one in charge of the United Nations and told them, hey at all costs make sure New York City inherits Philadelphia's surroundings and make sure Philadelphia gets weaker.
Dude its not my problem that you guys have a location next to that monster that is swallowing everything up. What can you expect me to do about it? I'm just 20 and when I log off, I go to real life mode where I seriously don't give an F what is taking place.
So I found a couple of things to be wrong with ACS/Factfinder quite a good bit and I emailed my concerns to them directly. The things I found to be flawed were as the following:
- How is it possible for Dallas-Fort Worth to lose nearly 40% of its Korean population from 2008 to 2009?
- How was it possible for Rio Rnancho to gain 14,000 Irish people in 1 year? When that even exceeds their net migration overall.
- How is it possible for Dallas-Fort Worth to gain 20,000 Asian Indians from 2008 to 2009 when Immigration from India only brought in 3,400? The net flow and migration from other cities into DFW was not enough to bring such a massive amount to DFW in one year.
- How was it possible for Chicago to grow 103,000 people in the city limits between 2008 and 2009? That's unheard of especially given Chicago has not increased land boundaries/
- How is it possible for Houston/DFW/Washington DC/Atlanta/Miami to gain between 750,000 people to 1,300,000 people from 2000 to 2010 and their urban areas only gained a pinch drop amount? Where as their urban areas in 2000 correlated directly to their MSA population in 2000.
It doesnt stop there. According to the 2008-2009 estimates, Greater Houston lost 10,000 Chinese and 7,000 Filipinos and Greater Atlanta lost 5,000 Koreans.
The simple answer is none of that happened. They seem to be over/under estimating year on year.
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.
