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 wouldn't say growth is limited to Sunbelt states. It's just that the growth ISN'T in the rust belt cities which seem to be losing population, and some northeast cities which have stable population.
Seattle and Portland are both still growing like crazy, and they're definitely in no "Sunbelt."
Nebraska and Iowa have rapidly growing populations.
NYC's population is exploding, and Chicago's population loss has been curbed (curved?). I think St. Louis' has, also.
Heck, the entire Mountain West is seeing its cities becoming major population centers. Most of the Great Plains is seeing the same thing; even the northern states.
The Sunbelt states are growing the fastest for sure, though. But that doesn't mean they're the only states that are growing.
Yeah I think Washington is one of the states expected to add a seat in Congress. The source indicates Portland, Oregon is indeed growing quite well and Seattle did to a lesser extent. It also lists Indianapolis, Kansas City, and Salt Lake City as growing more than Seattle or Miami in the decade. Interestingly Columbus, Ohio also is listed as having higher growth than Miami or San Diego.
Actually I hadn't looked at the link much until now as I'm sometimes leery of PDF. Going by it Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania is doing bad in terms of migration and natural increase or "births exceeding deaths." Virginia Beach looks about the least appealing to international migrants or I suppose maybe they just get lots of people going overseas thereby counteracting any coming from overseas. NYC does look to be the "biggest loser" in terms of domestic migration, but that's counteracted by international migrants and natural increase.
Los Angeles looks to be the biggest winner in "natural increase." NYC has a larger birth rate, but also has a larger death rate. In domestic migration Phoenix looked to be the highest. Of cities that I don't think had as dramatic a "real estate bust" Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington looks to have done well on domestic migration. NYC is the bigger winner on international migration.
I might try to look up this "Appendix II" as I'm interested in what's the biggest gainer or losers among metros and not just among the fifty largest metros.
Okay it was in a Table 20, but it doesn't get to specifics on components of change.
Metros that grew by more than 30% include
Provo-Orem, Utah - 47.4% (Growth throughout, gradual slowing of it over the decade's course)
Raleigh-Cary, North Carolina - 41.2% (Fairly consistent growth throughout, but 2008-2009 a bit slower)
Greeley, Colorado - 40.2% although they have a note on it. (Growth throughout, some slowing in time)
Las Vegas-Paradise - 38.3% (Growth throughout, some slowing after 2007)
Austin-Round Rock - 36.4% (Growth throughout, a bit slower in 2008-2009)
Myrtle Beach-North Myrtle Beach-Conway, South Carolina 34.2% (Growth throughout, a bit slower in 2008-2009)
Phoenix, Arizona - 34.2% (Growth throughout, noticeable slowing in 2008-2009 yet still high)
Fayetteville-Springdale-Rogers, Arkansas - 33.9% (Growth throughout, some slowing after 2007)
Cape Coral-Ft. Myers, Florida - 33.1% (Decline from 2008 to 2009, hard-hit by the recession as I recall)
Charlotte-Gastonia-Concord - 31.2% (Growth throughout, a bit slower in 2008-2009)
Boise-Nampa - 30.4% (Growth throughout, a bit slower in 2008-2009)
McAllen-Edinburg-Mission, Texas - 30.1% (Consistent growth throughout, 2008-2009 actually looks higher than previous years)
Metros that declined by over 1.1% include
New Orleans-Metairie-Kenner - 9.6% decline (Grew from 2007 to 2009)
Youngstown-Warren-Boardman - 6.6% decline (Consistent decline throughout)
Buffalo-Niagara Falls, New York - 4% decline (Stable from 2008 to 2009)
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania - 3.1% decline (Stable from 2007 to 2009)
Flint, Michigan - 2.8% decline (Consistent decline after 2005)
Cleveland-Elyria-Mentor - 2.6% decline (Consistent decline throughout, I know that contradicts threads here)
Utica-Rome, New York - 2.2% decline (Stable from 2006)
Scranton-Wilkes Barre 2% decline (Basically stable since 2005)
Charleston, West Virginia - 1.8% decline (Basically stable since 2005)
Beaumont-Port Arthur, Texas - 1.7% decline (Modest growth since 2006)
Dayton, Ohio - 1.5% decline (Consistent decline throughout)
Three of Omaha's metro counties are in Iowa so that changes things by about 150,000 people or so. The eastern portion of the state (Omaha, Lincoln) is certainly the most populated area. Cherry county in western Nebraska has just under 6,000 people and is bigger than Connecticut, Rhode Island, or Deleware. This is just one county! Think about this, Cherry county has less than 1 person per square mile. As the years go on, the rural population of the state is falling greatly, while the eastern cities are growing pace that is exceeding the rural decline for an overall gain in population.
51% of the state's population reside in three counties. Douglas county (Omaha's country) with 510,000 people; Sarpy (Omaha metro) with 160,000 people; Lancaster (Lincoln's county) with 280,000 people. Lancaster and Sarpy county just about border each other (a couple of miles of Omaha MSA counties separate them Cass and Saunders Counties).
The Omaha MSA exists in Iowa as Laserdisque states. Pottawattamie county is growing a little faster each decade and is near 90,000 people alone.
Nebraska actually has had two decades of more in-migration than out-migration despite the drastic rural declines (more than 5% in the last decade) in 90% of the land area the state occupies. This trend of rural to urban migration in the state has accelerated even more this decade, but the impact of rural decline is lessening overall due to the growth of the cities offsetting the decline of the rural areas.
A fascinating fact is the amount of rural migration tends (besides Omaha, Lincoln and tri-cities) to migrate to Denver, Kansas City, Minneapolis and Salt Lake City (amongst others). Despite this out-state migration of rural people, Omaha-Lincoln pull have such a pull nationally that it has more than offset that out migration; this lead to a state in-migration in both the 2000s and 2010s.
Metros that grew fairly consistently over the decade and whose rate of growth actually was higher in 2008-2009 than 2007-2008
McAllen-Edinburg-Mission, Texas - 30.1% growth for the decade, 2.77% growth for 2008-2009.
Savannah, Georgia - 17.% growth for the decade, 2.388% growth for 2008-2009.
Visalia-Porterville, California - 16.8% growth for the decade, 1.89% growth for 2008-2009.
DC-Arlington-Alexandria metro - 14.2% growth for the decade, 1.822% growth for 2008-2009.
Madison, Wisconsin - 13.6% growth for the decade, 1.42% for 2008-9.
Riverside-San-Bernardino-Ontario, California - 27.3% growth for the decade, 1.2% growth for 2008-2009. (I don't get it either, must be birth-rate)
Metros that declined in every year they list, include
Youngstown-Warren-Boardman - 6.6% decline for the decade.
Cleveland-Elyria-Mentor - 2.6% decline for the decade. (Their Renaissance must be more in economics than population)
Dayton, Ohio - 1.5% decline for the decade.
It's projected that 88% of the America's population increase for the next 30 years will be in "the Sunbelt". Hey, I believe it, even with "slow downs" I still believe it. Even with "bad economies in some Sunbelt states" I still believe it. It's the reality. And its been the reality since air condition was invented and since Westward expansion to the Pacific initially started off.
There is a reason why the Northeast & Midwest's populations overall only grew by 3% or so apiece. And you want to know whats insane, numerically 1/4th the Midwest's population gains came from Chicago Metropolitan Area alone. 1/4th the Northeast's population gain came from New York City's Metropolitan Area alone.
Not a good sign for those that want to capitalize on "high growth" in those regions. I like New York & Illinois, but lets get real their passed their prime in terms of growth.
88%? That seems a just a little far fetched. 50%, believable. 60%, sounds fair. 70%, I'm asking questions. 75%, I'm dialing the nearest mental institution asking if they have an escaped patient. That seems like a crazy amount of growth for what, 1/2 of the continental U.S...
I wouldn't say growth is limited to Sunbelt states. It's just that the growth ISN'T in the rust belt cities which seem to be losing population, and some northeast cities which have stable population.
Seattle and Portland are both still growing like crazy, and they're definitely in no "Sunbelt."
Nebraska and Iowa have rapidly growing populations.
NYC's population is exploding, and Chicago's population loss has been curbed (curved?). I think St. Louis' has, also.
Heck, the entire Mountain West is seeing its cities becoming major population centers. Most of the Great Plains is seeing the same thing; even the northern states.
The Sunbelt states are growing the fastest for sure, though. But that doesn't mean they're the only states that are growing.
Well just like Nebraska, Iowa is growing, but the state itself isn't growing very fast - it's the cities.
From 1990 to 2010, Iowa grew by 270,000.
From 1990 to 2010, the Des Moines/Ames and Iowa City/Cedar Rapids areas grew from:
Des Moines/Ames:
1990: 416,000
2010: 580,000
Cedar Rapids/Iowa City:
1990: 326,000
2010: 415,000
Total change was 253,000 in a state that grew by 270,000 during the same period. It might not look like crazy growth at all for the sunbelt or other areas, but for Iowa it's a huge change where many rural areas and smaller cities are sitting in the background, and these two areas are really starting to stand out as large population centers.
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.
