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.
Largest CSAs and Uncombined MSAs 2014 Population
3,000,000+
New York 23,632,722
Los Angeles 18,550,288
Chicago 9,928,312
Washington DC 9,546,579
San Francisco 8,607,423
Boston 8,099,575
Dallas 7,352,613
Philadelphia 7,164,790
Houston 6,686,318
Miami 6,558,143
Atlanta 6,258,875
Detroit 5,315,251
Seattle 4,526,991
Phoenix 4,489,109
Minneapolis 3,835,050
Cleveland 3,497,851
Denver 3,345,261
San Diego 3,263,431
Portland 3,060,078
Orlando 3,045,707
Annual Population Growth, 2013-2014
Houston +156,745
Los Angeles +143,205
Dallas +134,291
San Francisco +113,366
Atlanta +94,293
New York +92,767
Phoenix +84,980
Washington DC +82,946
Miami +75,803
Orlando +64,999
Denver +64,650
Seattle +64,555
Boston +42,370
San Diego +40,152
Minneapolis +34,045
Philadelphia +16,179
Chicago +8,119
Detroit +589
Cleveland -1,749
Last edited by 18Montclair; 03-26-2015 at 10:22 AM..
Reason: Thanks Red John
I suspect that, come 2020, there are going to be some numbers that are way off. Estimates are interesting and can be useful for trends, but the fact that even after 1 year they're revised so much shows just how off they can be. Compounded over a decade and the differences can be wide. This is especially true with the fastest-growing places, or at least those places estimated to be growing the fastest. They'll end up being way too high or not high enough. Places like Chicago are a crapshoot, but I bet it's not growing that slowly.
I still think the Atlanta city proper measure in 2010 is off and it's going to show a massive jump on the 2020 census. I also agree with you that these estimates are probably underestimated for the most part. I think they are overestimates in a lot of places between 2000-2010 and now they are being more conservative.
I always say the best way to know how fast an area is growing is to look at percentage annual job growth.
That's the thing people tend to ignore about these reports. For the most part, the numbers aren't showing how "popular" a metro is, rather it's showing which metros have more births than deaths. Sure, people moving has a part in it (and in the case of NYC and LA, is the primary driver of their populations) but it is a smaller thing that most people realize.
What's going to be interesting is that in the next few decades, we should begin to see a significant drop in population in some cities as boomers start to die. Not only because they make up a significant portion of the population in many cities, but also because their children (Gen Xers) and younger millenials aren't even having children at the rate their parents did, and that's even less than the birth rate for the pre-Boomer era.
In other words, other metropolitan areas will begin to deal with what the Pittsburgh metropolitan area has been dealing with since 2000. The glut of old people who lived there in 2000 weren't going to live forever. They're all dying now, and it's happening so fast that the birth rate can't keep up. That's why the population estimates in 2013 showed essentially zero growth in the Pittsburgh area despite the net migration of +3,197. And with the 2014 estimates coming on the heels of a year-long pause in job growth, net migration turned out to be only +411, which is why the estimates are showing a loss of a few thousand. Basically, it appears that the Pittsburgh metropolitan area needs net migration of at least +3,500 in order to offset the natural decline that's occurring. The good news is that job growth has returned to normal in the last nine to 12 months, so +3,500 seems doable for the 2015 estimates next year.
I think population growth across the United States will begin to slow down after 2020 and last until 2040 as the "Baby Boomer" generation dies off. The United States has a glut of Baby Boomers just as the Pittsburgh metropolitan area has had a glut of the "Greatest Generation" (and a relative dearth of Baby Boomers).
The biggest complaint people have with census bureau estimates always point to the 2010 census results with the undercounting and overcounting that occurred then.
Actually the census bureau took a massive reputation hit with the way those results were conducted and they've implemented SEVERAL changes to make their estimate counts more efficient and accurate since the 2010 census. Essentially the issue was documenting domestic migration because deaths, births, and immigration are all well recorded not just by the OMB but by other government agencies too (Department of Homeland Security does the immigration information year-after-year).
You can Google it, the census bureau will tell you as much about their new census estimating process.
Besides, its now 2015 and we have to go by the estimates anyhow, it's been half a decade since the census was taken and while I understand that some places may or may not have changed by much, several places have grown by over half-a-million people already since then. So we cant really look at 2010 numbers and still apply them to these places at all. These census estimates will have to do.
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.
