Phoenix census 2020 (Mesa, Glendale, Scottsdale: bus, light rail, suburbs)
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.
You have to take into account that Philadelphia is growing at its fastest rate since 1950. Philly is starting to hit its stride and is already starting to model after NYC in regards to "building up" its growing population rather than "spreading out". The city already has the infrastructure in place to accomplish this goal. Despite all the problems the city of Philadelphia has faced, it has become one of the fastest growing cities in the Northeast region and could very well become among the fastest growing cities in the entire US.
Both Phoenix and Philadelphia will be neck and neck when it comes to overall population in the coming future. To be honest, I am happy for both places as both cities do great things for different reasons. I think we can all agree that this decade will be interesting to see what unfolds.
It would take a lot of tearing down and rebuilding if you expect your city to come close to hitting any stride. A lot of the city is old and run-down.
Phoenix and Philadelphia are total opposites. Phoenix is much cleaner, newer, and has room to grow. Philadelphia has history, culture, and a better downtown but it also has plenty of bad areas most people want to stay away from.
Last edited by singlegirlinaz; 08-15-2021 at 10:51 AM..
It would take a lot of tearing down and rebuilding if you expect your city to come close to hitting any stride. A lot of the city is old and run-down.
Actually it wouldn't require that much tearing down as you think it would. Philadelphia's infrastructure is built more like New York City than cities like Phoenix and Houston as Philly can easily build up and add significant population with no land area to expand into. It's already happening in certain sections of the city and will only continue to increase in the future. Don't forget that NYC added more than 600,000 people to its population from the latest census results.
Quote:
Phoenix and Philadelphia are total opposites. Phoenix is much cleaner, newer, and has room to grow. Philadelphia has history, culture, and a better downtown but it also has plenty of bad areas most people want to stay away from.
I love what Philadelphia has to offer as a city but what I really do like about Phoenix is its large and always growing Latino population (as Latinas are my dating preference ) so I know that's at least one thing I would love if I ever decided to move to there in the future.
Last edited by gwillyfromphilly; 08-15-2021 at 01:44 PM..
Even the pompous New York Times acknowledged the fact that Phoenix is officially the fastest growing large city in the nation. Even with this, I think Phoenix will remain #5 in the nation for the next few decades, unless something dramatic happens. Houston has Phoenix beat by about 700,000 residents, and it's still growing. Also interesting to note that we beat Philadelphia by only 5,000 residents. Austin is looking to crack the one million mark & break into the top 10 soon, which could overtake San Jose.
My brother and I are both demographic trend data geeks from way back. So, when he told me the other day that he had seen a headline that said Phoenix was the fastest growing large city in the U.S. I pushed back against that because I already knew that New York City had grown by a raw figure of 630,000 and I knew that Phoenix had not grown anywhere near that number. But, I did not find out how it was that the NYTimes gave the "fastest growing" title to Phoenix until today.
It was on the basis of the 11.2% growth that Phoenix recorded from 2010-2020 that caused the NYT to say Phoenix was the fastest growing large city.
I hate to rain on the parade here folks, but... The numerical growth of 630,000 in New York City completely outstripped the 160,000 growth of Phoenix. And that is what has caught the eye of most of the population/demography & statistics world as well as old fashioned population data geeks such as myself who prefer to use the metric of a numerical growth total as the basis for determining something such as the fastest grower.
I could see some measure for wriggle room for the cause of Phoenix if the New York City total had say only only come in at 200,000. But it didn't. It was 630,000!
Lets' be honest here, i.e. in that that's in a completely different level or class of numerical growth!
In view of that, the actual population growth number for New York City of 630,000 is what most folks, outside of Phoenix and the New York Times, would think of as being the basis for the title of "Fastest Growing City in the U.S.".
I mean c'mon folks...
Besides, as much as the media & p.r. bandwagon has been piling onto NYC in recent years saying that it is dying & people are fleeing it, who could possibly have foreseen that New York City would post a growth number of 630,000 in the last decade? The answer:" No one, myself included.
My brother and I are both demographic trend data geeks from way back. So, when he told me the other day that he had seen a headline that said Phoenix was the fastest growing large city in the U.S. I pushed back against that because I already knew that New York City had grown by a raw figure of 630,000 and I knew that Phoenix had not grown anywhere near that number. But, I did not find out how it was that the NYTimes gave the "fastest growing" title to Phoenix until today.
It was on the basis of the 11.2% growth that Phoenix recorded from 2010-2020 that caused the NYT to say Phoenix was the fastest growing large city.
I hate to rain on the parade here folks, but... The numerical growth of 630,000 in New York City completely outstripped the 160,000 growth of Phoenix. And that is what has caught the eye of most of the population/demography & statistics world as well as old fashioned population data geeks such as myself who prefer to use the metric of a numerical growth total as the basis for determining something such as the fastest grower.
I could see some measure for wriggle room for the cause of Phoenix if the New York City total had say only only come in at 200,000. But it didn't. It was 630,000!
Lets' be honest here, i.e. in that that's in a completely different level or class of numerical growth!
In view of that, the actual population growth number for New York City of 630,000 is what most folks, outside of Phoenix and the New York Times, would think of as being the basis for the title of "Fastest Growing City in the U.S.".
I mean c'mon folks...
Besides, as much as the media & p.r. bandwagon has been piling onto NYC in recent years saying that it is dying & people are fleeing it, who could possibly have foreseen that New York City would post a growth number of 630,000 in the last decade? The answer:" No one, myself included.
It's not that hard to understand that this is focused on growth rate (percentage), not overall numbers which is somewhat meaningless as a statistic of comparison. I don't know how a self proclaimed "demographics trend data geek" would not understand that
This sort of compares to stock pundits talking about the "fastest growing stocks". Yes, GOOGL may go from $3500 to $3700 a share in a month, but a smaller company going from $15 to $20 a share is a faster growing stock. Of course the largest cities will have the most births and possibly the highest overall population growth, but as a percentage it is not the fastest growing.
It's not that hard to understand that this is focused on growth rate (percentage), not overall numbers which is somewhat meaningless as a statistic of comparison. I don't know how a self proclaimed "demographics trend data geek" would not understand that
This sort of compares to stock pundits talking about the "fastest growing stocks". Yes, GOOGL may go from $3500 to $3700 a share in a month, but a smaller company going from $15 to $20 a share is a faster growing stock. Of course the largest cities will have the most births and possibly the highest overall population growth, but as a percentage it is not the fastest growing.
What led you to think that I , "...would not understand that.." Good grief... I'm not stupid. Of course I did understand that & I even specifically mentioned that in my post.
In reply here I will ask how could you not have seen and understood that I knew that given I specifically wrote about the 2 types of ways to look at and then compare growth, i.e. in percentage terms or in raw number terms? And neither of them qualifies the other as "meaningless" as you wrote. That is a terrifically wrong fallacy of yours which, if you studied demography, you would know that to be the case.
I merely made the observation as to which set of numbers have often been the most important to demographers and or data or census geeks. You apparently being a "homer" here on the Phoenix forum, do not want to value those 2 data sets the way others traditionally have and that's your right to do so. But, in so doing, you needn't make the disingenuous claim that I do do not understand the data.
In my years of paying attention to census data and new census counts decade by decade, and also what to us "census data geeks" write or post online, it's not been so much the percentage growth that gets discussed the most but rather the raw growth numbers. Putting it bluntly, most of that class of demographers & geeks often pay less attention to percentage growth than they do to the raw number counts.
I can't help it.... that's just the way it has been over the course of my years of paying attention to this stuff since the mid 1960's.
For instance, in the 1960's demographers constantly referred to Los Angeles as the fastest growing large city in the U.S." because of it's 1950's era growth of 509,000 that was the largest numerical increase which took it's population up to just shy of 2.500,000.
During that same decade, Phoenix by comparison mushroomed up via quadrupling it's population from 106,000 to 439,000.
That was a stunning level of growth in percentage and in raw numbers by Phoenix but yet, it was Los Angeles that was discussed as the fastest growing city of the 1950's because it's raw growth topped half a million in that one decade.
I can't help it. That's just how it was then. And as a result of that, and the rise of California into 2nd place in state population rank during that decade, we in America were constantly presented with press and reports & discussions of that phenomenal 1950's era growth as can be seen by the myriad story links with the various photos at the page below.
If you weren't alive then, you probably can't begin to understand how back then it was always "California this" or "LA that". But, know that it was the largest in America numerical growth of LA that decade that gave LA the fastest title.
What led you to think that I , "...would not understand that.." Good grief... I'm not stupid. Of course I did understand that & I even specifically mentioned that in my post.
In reply here I will ask how could you not have seen and understood that I knew that given I specifically wrote about the 2 types of ways to look at and then compare growth, i.e. in percentage terms or in raw number terms? And neither of them qualifies the other as "meaningless" as you wrote. That is a terrifically wrong fallacy of yours which, if you studied demography, you would know that to be the case.
I merely made the observation as to which set of numbers have often been the most important to demographers and or data or census geeks. You apparently being a "homer" here on the Phoenix forum, do not want to value those 2 data sets the way others traditionally have and that's your right to do so. But, in so doing, you needn't make the disingenuous claim that I do do not understand the data.
In my years of paying attention to census data and new census counts decade by decade, and also what to us "census data geeks" write or post online, it's not been so much the percentage growth that gets discussed the most but rather the raw growth numbers. Putting it bluntly, most of that class of demographers & geeks often pay less attention to percentage growth than they do to the raw number counts.
I can't help it.... that's just the way it has been over the course of my years of paying attention to this stuff since the mid 1960's.
For instance, in the 1960's demographers constantly referred to Los Angeles as the fastest growing large city in the U.S." because of it's 1950's era growth of 509,000 that was the largest numerical increase which took it's population up to just shy of 2.500,000.
During that same decade, Phoenix by comparison mushroomed up via quadrupling it's population from 106,000 to 439,000.
That was a stunning level of growth in percentage and in raw numbers by Phoenix but yet, it was Los Angeles that was discussed as the fastest growing city of the 1950's because it's raw growth topped half a million in that one decade.
I can't help it. That's just how it was then. And as a result of that, and the rise of California into 2nd place in state population rank during that decade, we in America were constantly presented with press and reports & discussions of that phenomenal 1950's era growth as can be seen by the myriad story links with the various photos at the page below.
If you weren't alive then, you probably can't begin to understand how back then it was always "California this" or "LA that". But, know that it was the largest in America numerical growth of LA that decade that gave LA the fastest title.
There's no way I'm going to sit here and read that entire wall of text, but to answer your question in the first paragraph, you said "I hate to rain on the parade" in regards to Phoenix being the fastest growing large city so that is where I drew the conclusion you don't understand.
Google the definition of "growth rate" and you will have your answer.
Is there a way to factor in those of us who are seasonal? I own a home in Scottsdale, but filled out the census for Ohio. I would think Phoenix numbers are considerably higher.
Actually it wouldn't require that much tearing down as you think it would. Philadelphia's infrastructure is built more like New York City than cities like Phoenix and Houston as Philly can easily build up and add significant population with no land area to expand into. It's already happening in certain sections of the city and will only continue to increase in the future. Don't forget that NYC added more than 600,000 people to its population from the latest census results.
I love what Philadelphia has to offer as a city but what I really do like about Phoenix is its large and always growing Latino population (as Latinas are my dating preference ) so I know that's at least one thing I would love if I ever decided to move to there in the future.
I agree, gentrification of row houses is going crazy in Philly. There are some nice streets. The nice areas are still near sketchy ones, but it is getting better. If they can find a way to better deal with the homeless and drugs, downtown Philly has a strong future. They also need to take care of their public transportation, most don't feel safe on the septic, I mean SEPTA.
I agree, gentrification of row houses is going crazy in Philly. There are some nice streets. The nice areas are still near sketchy ones, but it is getting better. If they can find a way to better deal with the homeless and drugs, downtown Philly has a strong future. They also need to take care of their public transportation, most don't feel safe on the septic, I mean SEPTA.
Philly has many more older, ghetto type neighborhoods than Phoenix does ... yet, Phoenix (city) still has plenty of sketchy areas, as well as a few absolutely horrible parts, and they're mostly on the west side. So basically, we could say the same things about Phoenix if we want to have a bright future:
* Deal with our homeless problem. It's not bad like some cities, but it certainly exists.
* Attempt to revitalize some of the lower income areas. I'm not sure if anything can be done about Maryvale, but I think Alhambra & Sunnyslope could be vibrant areas if there is enough interest & effort.
* Revamp our public transportation. I've seen quite a few empty buses running on streets during certain times of the day, and other times when buses are standing room only. With this in mind, the proposed light rail lines need to be completely overhauled. There is no need to have light rail in suburban areas with ending points at obsolete shopping malls like Metrocenter or PV. Light rail should be confined to heavier demand areas, such as on more streets in central & west Phoenix.
Philly has many more older, ghetto type neighborhoods than Phoenix does ... yet, Phoenix (city) still has plenty of sketchy areas, as well as a few absolutely horrible parts, and they're mostly on the west side. So basically, we could say the same things about Phoenix if we want to have a bright future:
* Deal with our homeless problem. It's not bad like some cities, but it certainly exists.
* Attempt to revitalize some of the lower income areas. I'm not sure if anything can be done about Maryvale, but I think Alhambra & Sunnyslope could be vibrant areas if there is enough interest & effort.
* Revamp our public transportation. I've seen quite a few empty buses running on streets during certain times of the day, and other times when buses are standing room only. With this in mind, the proposed light rail lines need to be completely overhauled. There is no need to have light rail in suburban areas with ending points at obsolete shopping malls like Metrocenter or PV. Light rail should be confined to heavier demand areas, such as on more streets in central & west Phoenix.
The obviously light rail omission to me is the South Scottsdale area.
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.
) so I know that's at least one thing I would love if I ever decided to move to there in the future.
Phoenix census 2020
