Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S. > City vs. City
 [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 08-29-2011, 07:02 PM
 
Location: Up on the moon laughing down on you
18,495 posts, read 32,943,565 times
Reputation: 7752

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by DelaneyRudd View Post
Keep in mind Portland and Denver have faster than average growth too.
SA has a growth rate of 25%.

Portland is at 15% and Denver is at 16%


SA is growing quite a bit faster.
In Fact Sacramento has a faster growth rate than Both Portland and Denver but that didn't stop SA and Orlando from passing it


Looks like Austin passed Indianapolis and is on the heels of Charlotte.
both should pass Columbus and San Jose Soon.

Columbus itself just passed San Jose.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-29-2011, 07:13 PM
 
Location: Los Altos Hills, CA
36,655 posts, read 67,506,468 times
Reputation: 21239
Quote:
Originally Posted by HtownLove View Post
I dunno, the numbers for Houston (195K), DFW (185K), DC (130K) and ATL (122k) seem a bit high to me.

its only been 17 months
Yes, I find some those projections to be extremely optimistic.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-29-2011, 07:20 PM
 
Location: The canyon (with my pistols and knife)
14,186 posts, read 22,738,907 times
Reputation: 17398
Quote:
Originally Posted by 18Montclair View Post
Yes, I find some those projections to be extremely optimistic.
Yeah, considering the Houston MSA grew by 950,000 during the 1990's and 910,000 during the 2000's, I seriously doubt that it'll grow by 1,300,000 during the 2010's.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-29-2011, 07:20 PM
 
Location: Up on the moon laughing down on you
18,495 posts, read 32,943,565 times
Reputation: 7752
Quote:
Originally Posted by 18Montclair View Post
Yes, I find some those projections to be extremely optimistic.
there was a clear slowing down mid decade so taking the average for the decade for places like DFW, ATL, Vegas and Riverside will produce errors. All 4 of these metros came in under the 2009 estimate by hundreds of thousands because they were projecting based on info from the start of last decade included.

Even Houston, whose metro didn't come in under estimate, has estimates that seem way too high


Quote:
Originally Posted by Gnutella View Post
Yeah, considering the Houston MSA grew by 950,000 during the 1990's and 910,000 during the 2000's, I seriously doubt that it'll grow by 1,300,000 people during the 2010's.
Houston grew by 1,231,393 in the 2000's not 910k. You are short changing us 300K people
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-29-2011, 07:26 PM
 
Location: The canyon (with my pistols and knife)
14,186 posts, read 22,738,907 times
Reputation: 17398
Quote:
Originally Posted by HtownLove View Post
there was a clear slowing down mid decade so taking the average for the decade for places like DFW, ATL, Vegas and Riverside will produce errors. All 4 of these metros came in under the 2009 estimate by hundreds of thousands because they were projecting based on info from the start of last decade included.

Even Houston, whose metro didn't come in under estimate, has estimates that seem way too high



Houston grew by 1,231,393 in the 2000's not 910. You are short changing us 300K people
Oh, never mind. I was looking at 2007 estimates.

Be that as it may, the 2010's are going to be a lost decade here in the United States, which will slow down migration, so adding 1.3M people will be a stretch.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-29-2011, 07:34 PM
 
Location: Up on the moon laughing down on you
18,495 posts, read 32,943,565 times
Reputation: 7752
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gnutella View Post
Oh, never mind. I was looking at 2007 estimates.

Be that as it may, the 2010's are going to be a lost decade here in the United States, which will slow down migration, so adding 1.3M people will be a stretch.
yeah, migration has already slowed.

I dunno how it is affecting Houston because the slow didn't really show in the census figures. Probably because they may have been underestimating Houston in the start of the 2000's. I remember there was talk of ATL and DC passing Houston earlier in the decade. So I guess by the time the bad economy hit, the early underestimates may have reflected in an evening out instead of an overestimate like the other fast growing metros.


I think Houston will pull off another 1M, but not 1.3M
Same For DFW, and a bit less for ATL, Riverside and Phoenix.

DC may actually pick up steam and Join Houston and DFW
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-29-2011, 07:46 PM
 
Location: Los Altos Hills, CA
36,655 posts, read 67,506,468 times
Reputation: 21239
Quote:
Originally Posted by HtownLove View Post
yeah, migration has already slowed.

I dunno how it is affecting Houston because the slow didn't really show in the census figures. Probably because they may have been underestimating Houston in the start of the 2000's. I remember there was talk of ATL and DC passing Houston earlier in the decade. So I guess by the time the bad economy hit, the early underestimates may have reflected in an evening out instead of an overestimate like the other fast growing metros.


I think Houston will pull off another 1M, but not 1.3M
Which is why I wonder where this particular organization gets its info from which to base population growth estimates when we can all see as clear as day that growth in the second half of the last decade tapered off in the high growth metros you mentioned.

We are all privy to the exact same official data as they are and they have no inside track to something we don't know, so how do they make these guesses??

Its as if they totally ignored the actual census and base their growth on 2009 growth estimates.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-29-2011, 07:56 PM
 
Location: Up on the moon laughing down on you
18,495 posts, read 32,943,565 times
Reputation: 7752
Quote:
Originally Posted by 18Montclair View Post
Which is why I wonder where this particular organization gets its info from which to base population growth estimates when we can all see as clear as day that growth in the second half of the last decade tapered off in the high growth metros you mentioned.

We are all privy to the exact same official data as they are and they have no inside track to something we don't know, so how do they make these guesses??

Its as if they totally ignored the actual census and base their growth on 2009 growth estimates.
I dunno but up until summer this year their web site was listing estimates for certain metros that were hundreds of thousands of people higher than it should be.

In fact they estimated DFW earlier this to be more than they are estimating now. They are only now factoring in the 2010 results. for earlier estimates they simply added people to 2009 numbers.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-29-2011, 10:38 PM
 
Location: Franklin, TN
6,662 posts, read 13,330,051 times
Reputation: 7614
Almost 39k growth estimated for the Nashville area. That might be a little high, but isn't unreasonable.

My guess is that they used the Census numbers as the official 2010 numbers, but used their own estimates for the base (which might explain why some of them seem high during the recession).

In any case, we should've passed Providence by now. Norfolk-Va Beach -- you're next.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-29-2011, 10:48 PM
 
Location: Up on the moon laughing down on you
18,495 posts, read 32,943,565 times
Reputation: 7752
Quote:
Originally Posted by nashvols View Post
Almost 39k growth estimated for the Nashville area. That might be a little high, but isn't unreasonable.

My guess is that they used the Census numbers as the official 2010 numbers, but used their own estimates for the base (which might explain why some of them seem high during the recession).

In any case, we should've passed Providence by now. Norfolk-Va Beach -- you're next.
looks like they used the 2010 census results and multiplied by the metro's respective rate of growth over the past decade and added the figure to the 2010 numbers
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. > City vs. City

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