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.
I expect most places (the medium sized ones, I mean) to actually be larger than these numbers with census redefinitions taken into account and for medium sized places like Las Vegas, Austin, San Antonio, and Raleigh/Durham I fully expect their raw number growth to actually go up the bigger they get (similar to what occurred with Dallas, Houston, Phoenix, Miami, and Atlanta -- also what is happening to Orlando right now). So these literally serve as conservative estimates for the medium sized cities, possibly a tad bit optimistic for the really massive cities but fun to look at either way.
I think it's very fair to expect that the mid sized cities will accelerate growth as they get larger. For Raleigh, I know that it has routinely exceeded longer term projections for its growth. I haven't seen anything to suggest that the future will be any different.
Can someone post the stats on the greatest city in the world:
Waco, Texas.
What's even more interesting is that the central Texas IH 35 corridor from Waco to San Antonio grew 120,000 in 1 year. That's alot of growth for 1 year! With the central Texas economy being healthly and a low unemployment rate for those cities, I expect the growth to continue to be high or higher. We could reach up to almost 150,000 per year this year.
Here is a closer look at the metro numbers and the components of growth by region. I looked at the 100 largest metros and broke down the components of change. I used the 2010-2015 period rather than the single year 2014-2015. Because of this, some metros may have lost or grown population 2014-2015, but have done the opposite during the longer period. Keep that in mind.
First, let's look at the % of change comprised of natural growth (births vs. deaths) by region.
Western Metros: 63.9%
Northern Metros: 57.0%
Southern Metros: 42.4%
Surprising, Western metros have the highest % of their total growth coming from just more births than deaths. I would've thought that would've been the case with the Northern ones. Either way, there is a big step down between the North and South in terms of natural growth.
Here were the top 25 metros, from any region, most reliant on natural for their growth and are currently growing.
Regarding the metros above that are at 100%, all of them saw positive international migration, but domestic migration was negative enough that the metro saw overall negative out-migration, and only positive natural growth prevented them from losing population 2010-2015.
Here are the top 25 metros that are least dependent on natural growth and are currently growing. That's the nice way of saying that these metros have bad to terrible natural growth rates relative to their overall growth.
Here is the % by region of total growth from domestic migration.
Southern Metros: 39.1%
Western Metros: 16.0%
Northern Metros: 3.2%
Southern metros do the best here, obviously. However, this does NOT indicate that domestic migration to Southern metros is from the North. In fact, contrary to popular belief and what always seems to be reported in the media, the majority of domestic migration in Southern metros is from either the state they are located in or the local region- i.e. other Southern states.
Here are the top 25 metros that most depend on domestic migration and are currently growing.
With the 3 metros above at 100%, they have negative natural growth and low international growth. They are only growing due to domestic migration and would otherwise be shrinking. All the rest would be growing significantly more slowly without a high domestic migration rate relative to their overall growth rates.
There are at least 25 metros that had 0% domestic migration growth, yet grew during the 2010-2015 period.
Here is the regional % of growth made up of international migration.
Western Metros: 19.6%
Northern Metros: 17.4%
Southern Metros: 17.4%
There is really not a huge difference here between the 3 regions. They all attract similar percentages of foreign immigrants.
Here are the top 25 metros that most rely on international migration for growth and are currently growing.
Overall, the numbers show that domestic migration is the smaller part of growth in most metros. Natural and international combined are typically much bigger. As mentioned above, this goes against the general narrative of an exploding Sun Belt due to domestic migration from Northern states and cities.
It grew by just shy of 14,000 people in the last one year.
In contrast;
- El Paso-Las Cruces, TX-NM CSA: 1,053,267
The Rio Grande Valley is making the gap between it and the El Paso area wider each year.
Also I am looking forward to the release of census information from both Canada and Mexico soon. Would be great to have an idea of how massive San Diego-Tijuana are now, in addition to Detroit-Windsor, Vancouver-Bellingham, El Paso-Juarez, and both the American side and Mexican side of the Rio Grande Valley put together.
In addition to see where the Greater Golden Horseshoe (Toronto) and smaller scaled metrics such as the Toronto CMA and Greater Toronto Area (GTA) are at now.
Also I am looking forward to the release of census information from both Canada and Mexico soon. Would be great to have an idea of how massive San Diego-Tijuana are now, in addition to Detroit-Windsor, Vancouver-Bellingham, El Paso-Juarez, and both the American side and Mexican side of the Rio Grande Valley put together.
In addition to see where the Greater Golden Horseshoe (Toronto) and smaller scaled metrics such as the Toronto CMA and Greater Toronto Area (GTA) are at now.
How populous would Buffalo's immediate metropolitan area be if the Canadian side of the border were counted?
How populous would Buffalo's immediate metropolitan area be if the Canadian side of the border were counted?
Buffalo's CSA is around 1.2 million. Niagara Falls metro in Canada has close to 400,000(2011), so thats 1.6 million for the cross border area. Maybe a little more since the Canadian side is growing.
Actually Tampa on that particular list was my bad altogether. I didn't mean to intentionally use that definition in the official population count list. I had forgotten to change Tampa back to its official designated MSA. I had just copied and pasted the earlier PCSA list that I compiled in this thread and added a few more American places (over 2 million) and the Mexican and Canadian ones that applied.
The Tampa Bay Area, as defined by the Florida State Departments and the Regional Planning Commissions as comprised of the following;
Tampa Bay Area
- Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, FL MSA: 2,975,225
- North Port-Sarasota, FL CSA: 977,491
- Lakeland-Winter Haven, FL MSA: 650,092
- Homosassa Springs, FL MSA: 141,058
- Tampa Bay Area 2015: 4,743,866
- Tampa Bay Area 2014: 4,644,683
- Difference in 12 months: + 99,183
Last edited by Trafalgar Law; 03-31-2016 at 08:04 AM..
Also the Laredo - Nuevo Laredo MSA should be close to 700,000.
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.
