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.
Oh, I will take the over-under here. If the poster is from Seattle, he probably, (most likely) does not want another million in his metro. I will disagree. As a Seattle native, the reason why Seattle has grown into an international city is becuase it has attracted others from around the US, and the World for that matter. There still is a minority who want to put up the fence, but they don't understand that their livlihoods are dependent on people moving to the area, increasing commece, and increasing their quality of life. These isolationists are just plain wrong, and if they had their way, Seattle would become a backwater city within the next decade. Wake up, Seattle. You are a major city. You need investment from outside of your provincial backyard. Dont like it? Move to Spokane or Boise.
No, I'm not from Seattle. And as far as I'm concerned, Washington can have their million extra people as their environment is already rather compromised. What I do wish is that those 800k people who may be moving to Oregon would head north of the border as well. A figure I read a while back for the projected growth of the Portland metro area was closer to a million also. I don't mean to turn this into a growth/anti-growth debate, but quality of life and commerce/economic growth do not inexorably go hand in hand with each other. That's an outworn paradigm as far as I personally am concerned. Seattle is a great city, and if it were overcrowded and kept growing, as it has, by leaps and bounds, I feel the quality of life would really tank.
I wonder if this was done before or after the big housing fiasco? And if that even has a long term impact?
When the economy first starts to turn around, and the banks finally start to loan out more money to home-buyers, I think that you'll see a brief period where a lot of people rush to states like FL, NV, and AZ to get in on the dirt cheap housing that currently exists due to foreclosures. As this is happening, the supply and demand curve will do its thing, prices will go back up, and the rush will slow back down.
So, no, I don't think it will make much of a long-term difference...only for maybe a few years.
Detroit is projected to shrink between 2015 and 2020? Seems strange that they can predict growth, a plateau and decline.
Overall it seems very reasonable. Houston, Atlanta and other sunbelt cities are growing very fast. But then again, who knows what will happen.
i do not think it is prudent to believe many of these numbers---as actual hard or projective numbers. many of the numbers reported are not accurate concerning the areas for which they are reported. i point out the fact that memphis, tn is a city of about 725,000 residents. shelby county, in which memphis is the county seat, has a total population of about 915,000. the figures reported in bizj report a 2010 projected population of 1.3 million. this number may be correct for the metr area, but it is incorrect for the area reported. to continue my observations, i would point out that nashville, tn has a current population of 546,000 residents. davidson county, the county in which nashville is located, currently has an estimated population of 651,000 residents. the report from bizj gives a figure that is woefully incorrect for the nashville-davidson area. the figures being reported include a total of 13 middle tn counties, the majority of which are rural. the population reported in the journal is more in keeping w/ the total population projection for the 13 county area, which is about 1.5 million, maybe. this number is not representative of an accurate population in the city of nashville or davidson county, tn., which is much more accurately reflected in the total 651,000 number.
most would not argue that population counts and geographical size, along w/ other factors, influence, to a great degree, both a city's political and geographical reach. if the numbers reported in these reports are not reflective of the cities reported, why would one rely on any of the statistics reported. i believe that a city should have distinct and separate recognition throughout its life. if it stands as a separate city from its sister city or geographic region, then it should be judged and rewarded on its individual merits, and, to me, that includes its city population count. many of the numbers reported in this chart are inaccurate, to say the least. what about your area?
i do not think it is prudent to believe many of these numbers---as actual hard or projective numbers. many of the numbers reported are not accurate concerning the areas for which they are reported. i point out the fact that memphis, tn is a city of about 725,000 residents. shelby county, in which memphis is the county seat, has a total population of about 915,000. the figures reported in bizj report a 2010 projected population of 1.3 million. this number may be correct for the metr area, but it is incorrect for the area reported. to continue my observations, i would point out that nashville, tn has a current population of 546,000 residents. davidson county, the county in which nashville is located, currently has an estimated population of 651,000 residents. the report from bizj gives a figure that is woefully incorrect for the nashville-davidson area. the figures being reported include a total of 13 middle tn counties, the majority of which are rural. the population reported in the journal is more in keeping w/ the total population projection for the 13 county area, which is about 1.5 million, maybe. this number is not representative of an accurate population in the city of nashville or davidson county, tn., which is much more accurately reflected in the total 651,000 number.
most would not argue that population counts and geographical size, along w/ other factors, influence, to a great degree, both a city's political and geographical reach. if the numbers reported in these reports are not reflective of the cities reported, why would one rely on any of the statistics reported. i believe that a city should have distinct and separate recognition throughout its life. if it stands as a separate city from its sister city or geographic region, then it should be judged and rewarded on its individual merits, and, to me, that includes its city population count. many of the numbers reported in this chart are inaccurate, to say the least. what about your area?
You're wrong. Again. You've overstated the population of Memphis and understated the population of Nashville.
In 2007 Nashville had 590,807 residents.
In 2007 Memphis had 674,028 residents.
Stats courtesy of the US Census. You might want to check it out sometime.
The rest of your anti-Nashville rant is gibberish.
No, I'm not from Seattle. And as far as I'm concerned, Washington can have their million extra people as their environment is already rather compromised. What I do wish is that those 800k people who may be moving to Oregon would head north of the border as well. A figure I read a while back for the projected growth of the Portland metro area was closer to a million also. I don't mean to turn this into a growth/anti-growth debate, but quality of life and commerce/economic growth do not inexorably go hand in hand with each other. That's an outworn paradigm as far as I personally am concerned. Seattle is a great city, and if it were overcrowded and kept growing, as it has, by leaps and bounds, I feel the quality of life would really tank.
the population of the US keeps growing. People need to live somewhere...
You're wrong. Again. You've overstated the population of Memphis and understated the population of Nashville.
In 2007 Nashville had 590,807 residents.
In 2007 Memphis had 674,028 residents.
Stats courtesy of the US Census. You might want to check it out sometime.
The rest of your anti-Nashville rant is gibberish.
the facts stand: nashville has a current population of 552,120, according to the on-line metro government facts.
the figure for memphis includes its corrected immigrant population. weep, if you must.
You're wrong. Again. You've overstated the population of Memphis and understated the population of Nashville.
In 2007 Nashville had 590,807 residents.
In 2007 Memphis had 674,028 residents.
Stats courtesy of the US Census. You might want to check it out sometime.
The rest of your anti-Nashville rant is gibberish.
i'm never wrong. and, just like the woman who barged into a rather busy corporate meeting and demanded to see my superiors, i replied, "madam i have no superiors and damn few equals!"
These numbers are completely ridiculous and anybody who believes them is foolish. All they did was extrapolate recent growth out to 2025. It doesn't take economic factors or anything into account. For example, does anyone really think the New Orleans metro will continue to shrink by that much? It's actually one of the fastest growing in the country right now post-Katrina. These projections mean NOTHING and could have been calculated by a second grader.
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.
go figure?
