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.
Should stick with the offical 10 year census data. Period!
Dallas if you think you are being short changed, kindly check back in 2011 or 2012 after the 2010 census data has been extrapilated.
Way way too much renegade information, unsubstanciated lists, and tom-foolery.
CMSA 2000 Census
Philadelphia- 6,188,463
Dallas- 5,106,931
MSA 2000 Census
Philadelphia- 5,221,801
Dallas-3,519,176
Not when the officialy 10-year census data is 10 YEARS OLD. We get population estimates from the Census Bureau each year that, if not completely accurate, give us a good idea of the population changes. We all know these two cities are going in oppposite directions, so why use 10-year-old data when there is more current data available?
Not when the officialy 10-year census data is 10 YEARS OLD. We get population estimates from the Census Bureau each year that, if not completely accurate, give us a good idea of the population changes. We all know these two cities are going in oppposite directions, so why use 10-year-old data when there is more current data available?
Philadelphia's population loss has dramatically slowed, and I would not be surprised if there was a very slight population gain from the 2000 census after the 2010 census data is released. So, it's a bit off-base to say they're going in opposite directions when Philadelphia's population has just about stabilized.
Not when the officialy 10-year census data is 10 YEARS OLD. We get population estimates from the Census Bureau each year that, if not completely accurate, give us a good idea of the population changes. We all know these two cities are going in oppposite directions, so why use 10-year-old data when there is more current data available?
Just be patient grasshopper, wait until the official 2010 data is calculated. If the guessing and hypothesizing comes to fruition and you want to pound your chest in 2011 then more power to you.
Just be patient grasshopper, wait until the official 2010 data is calculated. If the guessing and hypothesizing comes to fruition and you want to pound your chest in 2011 then more power to you.
Again, it's not guessing and hypothesizing...it's information from the Census Bureau - the same one that does the 10 year counts. I can guarantee if you were from a city that's growing, you would be all for using the more updated census numbers. There is really no need to argue about it...the 2009 estimated population numbers are commonly used figures and not often questioned on this site or any other. What would be questioned is an attempt to use 2000 statistics when YOU KNOW that those numbers are way off.
I believe Dallas/Fort Worth has added about 1.5-2 million people to the metro sense 2000. Philly may have gained a hundred thousand people or so, but it really can't compare to the growth in Dallas.
Proving you did NOT check the source. I am aware of Wikipedias data...it is fairly accurate however and since I used WIKI for BOTH cities; I just do NOT see the problem.....
BOGUS??????? I told you take it up with WIKI and stay on topic...you have a tendency to ruin threads! .
You have a tendency to start flame wars and then pretend like ur some innocent angel. Yup.
Furthermore, Wikipedia is not a credible source and anyone who cites their stats really needs to verify where Wikipedia got it from. Otherwise a cloud of suspicion hangs over it.
In any event, your data on Gross Product was totally inaccurate and bogus.
Philadelphia, neither at MSA or CSA level, does NOT hav a larger GDP than Dallas.
What we have to consider here too is that the DFW metroplex is growing faster than any other in the United States. As much as rainrock would love to argue that its because of the land area, its not. People are moving into the same 3,300 square miles that already inhabit between 5.3 and 5.5 million people. This are is Collin, Denton, Dallas, and Tarrant counties.
I recall having this same discussion with the Atlanta zealots.
Guys, Denton Dallas Tarrant Collin Counties are basically unchartered and 900sq miles each. Philadlephia, Delaware Camden Counties are 130 sq miles and pretty much maxed out as far as growth potential. The newer suburban counties in metro Philly(Chester-Montgomery Bucks) do grow 8%-13% albeit much slower than Dallas. The newer Philly suburban counties most likely could grow faster if they wanted to. There is a huge preservation influence in the suburban Philly area which makes development incredibly difficult.
Keep in mind that the geographical differences of the 2 regions. Not to disparage the Dallas area but there really is nothing spectacular to prevent unnecessary growth. Its pretty flat, fairly boring landscape. On the otherhand the Pa suburbs are naturally gifted and the household median income levels show that. The Philly suburbs are not for entry level growth like Dallas and Atlanta, you aren't going to get a bunch of new "ham and egger" type growth in the Philly suburbs, its not encouraged or wanted. Not that I necessarily agree with that mindset.
Philly suburbs its not about quantity, its all about quality. I'm extremely happy that Chester County is growing 11% and not 50% like the Texas counties.It would be absolutely criminal to carve up the Pa countryside
I recall having this same discussion with the Atlanta zealots.
Hmm, so to my knowledge you've argued this with SF people, Atlanta people and now Dallas people.
Are you sure your not the zealous one?
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.