[vertex]

The one we've all been waiting for, these are for MSA's


The Excel File found here (http://www.census.gov/population/www/estimates/metro_general/2007/CBSA-EST2007-01.xls)

The top 10, in terms of change from 7/1/06 - 7/1/07

City - Number - % Change from 06-07

Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, TX - 162,250 - 2.7
Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Marietta, GA - 151,063 - 2.9
Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale, AZ - 132,513 - 3.3
Houston-Sugar Land-Baytown, TX - 120,544 - 2.2
Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario, CA - 86,660 - 2.2
Charlotte-Gastonia-Concord, NC-SC - 66,724 - 4.2
Chicago-Naperville-Joliet, IL-IN-WI - 66,231 - 0.7
Austin-Round Rock, TX - 65,880 - 4.3
Las Vegas-Paradise, NV - 59,165 - 3.3
San Antonio, TX - 53,925 - 2.8

[MontroseNeighborhood]

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y62/andrewadair/311xInlineGallery-8.jpg

If it seems like more houses are being built in your neighborhood, your hunch is right.

March 27, 2008, 12:02AM
NEW HEAD COUNT BY THE CENSUS
Texas cities on top in population growth
As the Lone Star State's economy keeps growing, four metropolitan areas, including Houston, see a boom of their own

By SUSAN CARROLL
Copyright 2008 Houston Chronicle

The Houston metropolitan area ranked fourth in the nation for overall population growth between 2006 and 2007, according to new census data — an increase demographers attributed largely to the region's economy.

The Houston-Sugar Land-Baytown area attracted slightly more than 120,500 new residents from July 2006 through July 2007, according to U.S. Census Bureau estimates released today for geographic regions known as metropolitan statistical areas.

The Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington area ranked No. 1 in the nation in terms of raw population growth, and Austin-Round Rock and San Antonio also made the top 10. Karl Eschbach, director of the Texas State Data Center in San Antonio, said the job market and economy are driving the state's population growth.

"It's the combination of international and domestic migration that's pushing Texas cities to the top," Eschbach said.

New Orleans showed the first signs of recovery in the population estimates, though Eschbach warned that does not necessarily herald a "rapid recovery." After reporting record-setting population losses after Hurricane Katrina in 2005, the New Orleans metropolitan area had an estimated population increase of about 39,885 from summer 2006 through 2007, making it the eighth-fastest-growing in the nation.

"The most important thing about the data for the New Orleans area is how modest the population gains have been, given the magnitude of the losses there," Eschbach said. "It's not cause for excitement."

Barton Smith, a University of Houston economist, said about two-thirds of Houston growth is from migration, surpassing additions from the birth rate.

"That only happens when the economy is doing substantially better than other places," Smith said. "Houston's economy is going to continue to outperform the national economy in a significant way, so when unemployment starts to creep up in other parts of the country, many people are going to leave Michigan and Ohio and Florida and look for jobs in Texas."

The Dallas-Fort Worth region increased by 162,250, followed by the Atlanta (151,063) and Phoenix (132,513) areas. Austin-Round Rock was the nation's fifth-fastest-growing metro area, at 4.3 percent, as well as the eighth-largest overall population gainer, at 65,880, according to the census.

The government tabulates the estimates to provide consistent federal data of geographic areas.


WHAT'S AN MSA?
A metropolitan statistical area is generally a core area containing a substantial population nucleus with adjacent communities having a high degree of economic and social integration with that core. Each MSA must have at least one urban area of 50,000 or more people. Counties or equivalent entities form the geographic "building blocks" for MSAs. The population estimates for MSAs are based on birth, death and migration data.

[vertex]

n/m

[MontroseNeighborhood]

That was not my intention. I thought the article simply related to the topic. I did not find it necessary to start a completely new tread. I have noticed other people adding articles to threads just like this one.

[emathias]

^^^Why are you slapping a Houston news article in this thread? This thread is an open discussion about metro growth estimates, not a private cheering section.

If you want another Houston thread, go start one. Thats what the regional sections are all about.

I'm from Chicago, but when 4 out of the top 10 cities are from one state, it's kinda nice to see a news article from a source local to that state in the discussion. I know this board isn't a democracy, but if it were I'd vote to leave the article in.

[vertex]

whatever, go nuts. I'm not a mod...

Anyway, LA lagged quite a bit last year (comparatively speaking), even when you include Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario. Chicago continues it's mini-boom, and DFW continues to wail on everyone else.

[emathias]

...
The top 10, in terms of change from 7/1/06 - 7/1/07
...

I'm kinda surprised that New York isn't on there. I didn't expect it to be Top-10 in terms of percentage growth, but just for sheer size I figured it'd be Top-10 for raw numerical growth. I'm also surprised that of the California MSAs, only the Inland Empire ranked. Final surprise is that the Seattle area didn't rank given the strong economy and relative strength of the housing market there.

[tdawg]

The ten usual suspects. Be interesting to see how the recession affects these numbers going into 2010.

[urbanactivistTX]

In reference to the Texas cities, It would be great to see exactly how much growth took place within the inner core areas, as opposed to direct outer growth (traditional sprawl). With the highrise booms happening in both Dallas and Austin, I think many forumers would be quite surprised. In Houston there has been lots of densification within the inner loop, along with street level retail projects.

^For all intensive purposes, the recession hasn't quite caught Texas yet. If current trends keep up, we will hopefully ride out the worst of it.

[Buckeye Native 001]

From the March 27 Cincinnati Enquirer:

http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080327/NEWS01/803270372/1077/COL02
Metro area now Ohio's biggest
BY TONY LANG | TLANG@ENQUIRER.COM
The 15-county Cincinnati metropolitan area, which includes seven counties in Northern Kentucky and three in Southeast Indiana, now ranks as Ohio's largest metropolitan area. Census estimates released today show the area has overtaken metro Cleveland in total population the last two years.

Dallas-Fort Worth led all metros in one-year gain, adding 162,250 people to its rolls. Even Hurricane Katrina-ravaged New Orleans ranked as the eighth-fastest-growing metro area in percentage growth with a 4 percent population gain.

But Greater Cincinnati added 12,550 people to rank 24th in population. Cleveland-Elyria-Mentor slipped to 25th, with a loss of 8,808.

"This is good news people need to seize upon," said Mark Policinski, executive director of the Ohio-Kentucky-Indiana Regional Council of Governments. "People have to remember this region is growing at a healthy, sustainable rate, when other parts of the Midwest are losing population."

The Census Bureau pegged the Cincinnati region's total population at 2,133,678 as of July 1, 2007. Metro Cleveland's total declined to 2,096,471. Both Columbus and Indianapolis showed bigger numerical gains than Cincinnati's, but they still lag in metro population totals, with Columbus at 1,754,337 and Indianapolis at 1,695,037.

Policinski, an economist by training and former Commerce Department official, isn't discouraged by reports earlier this month that Hamilton County lost nearly 5,000 people during the same time period.

"This is one region," he insisted, "and the loss of nearly 5,000 in Hamilton County should be viewed against the overall gain of 12,550. This region is growing day by day, and it's all interconnected. Eleven percent of the people who work in Uptown (around the University of Cincinnati and Pill Hill's hospitals) live in Northern Kentucky. People are finding a reason to locate here.

"We have to look at our advantages - a diversified economic base not dominated by heavy manufacturing, great higher educational institutions, major world-class companies."

He sees it as a positive that the area is not growing so quickly that it's running out of water and roads (like Las Vegas), and isn't plagued with rush-hour gridlock like Atlanta. "The average commute time here at a.m. peak hasn't changed in 30 years," he said. And his counterpart in Cleveland tells him when people lose their jobs at that end of the state, they leave the area instead of just their neighborhood.

He said a combined Cincinnati-Dayton metro may not happen in the next two or three years, because of still-unresolved technical issues, but should that merger take place, it would catapult this region even higher in the rankings. He sees West Chester as positioning itself as the epicenter of that eventual Cincinnati-Dayton-Northern Kentucky megaregion.

Doug Moorman thinks the new rankings should lead to more federal dollars.

"The numbers should bolster our case that we have bigger transportation problems that need to be resolved, like a new Brent Spence Bridge," said the Cincinnati USA Regional Chamber vice president for economic development. He speculated that Cleveland's loss could be detrimental to keeping all its congressional districts.

"When businesses want to relocate, they look at regional population and the work force pool they can draw from. It's one of the cases we make to low-cost carriers to come to the airport here. ... It should help keep us on airlines' radar screen."

Our region is no Dallas-Fort Worth, but Moorman thinks the new rankings could give Cincinnati an emerging competitive edge.

"Ikea located here," Moorman said. "They didn't pick Cleveland. And it's not only for our great transportation system. There are more people here."

[Cirrus]

Here are the 11 largest CSAs, after which there is a sizable population gap before #12. Note that Dallas has passed Philadelphia since the 2006 estimates.

CSA Component Component Pop Total Pop
New York New York 18,815,988 21,961,994
Brdgprt-Stmfrd 895,015
New Have 845,494
Poughkeepsie 669,915
Trenton 365,449
Torrington 188,273
Kingston 181,860

Los Angeles Los Angeles 12,875,587 17,755,322
Riverside-SB 4,081,371
Oxnard 798,364

Chicago Chicago 9,524,673 9,745,165
Michigan City 109,787
Kankakee 110,705

Washington Washington 5,306,565 8,241,912
Baltimore 2,668,056
Winchester 121,190
Lexington Park 100,378
Culpeper 45,723

Boston Boston 4,482,857 7,476,689
Providence 1,600,856
Worcester 781,352
Manchester 402,302
Concord 148,274
Laconia 61,048

San Francisco S Frn-Oklnd 4,203,898 7,264,887
San Jose 1,803,643
Santa Rosa 464,435
Vallejo 408,599
Santa Cruz 251,747
Napa 132,565

Dallas Dallas-FW 6,145,037 6,498,410
Sherman 118,675
Athens 78,897
Granbury 56,927
Gainesville 38,486
Bonham 33,067
Mineral Wells 27,321

Philadelphia Philadelphia 5,827,962 6,385,461
Reading 401,955
Vineland 155,544

Houston Houston 5,628,101 5,729,027
Huntsville 63,902
Bay City 37,024

Atlanta Atlanta 5,278,904 5,626,400
Gainesville 180,175
LaGrange 63,535
Cedartown 41,460
Valley 34,764
Thomaston 27,562

Detroit Detroit 4,467,592 5,288,037
Flint 434,715
Ann Arbor 350,003
Monro 35,727

[Rail Claimore]

I find it amazing that Chicago is the only top 10 numerical gainer outside the Sunbelt.

[liat91]

Anyone notice that Orlando gained Volusia county into it's CSA. I think Seattle gained one to. I'd guess Skagit county.

[urbanactivistTX]

whatever, go nuts. I'm not a mod...

Anyway, LA lagged quite a bit last year (comparatively speaking), even when you include Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario. Chicago continues it's mini-boom, and DFW continues to wail on everyone else.

aww, man come on. Don't hate, assimilate!!:upload_71700:

[wanderer34]

I wonder how Boston gained a lot of population???

Maybe it has to do with putting Providence with it's metro, which is seemingly unfair since the rest of MA is actually losing population. And to top it off, since RI is closer to Boston, it's going to follow Boston sports, but it has it's own media, and not a lot of people from Providence really want to be considered part of Boston, even though it's thirty minutes away.

Also, Philly and Trenton go together like rum and Coke. Even though NYC is over an hour away, there's more of a "Philly" feel with Trenton, plus no NYC media outlet really covers the city of Trenton unless it has to do with state issues.

[bryson662001]

I wonder how Boston gained a lot of population???

Maybe it has to do with putting Providence with it's metro, which is seemingly unfair since the rest of MA is actually losing population. And to top it off, since RI is closer to Boston, it's going to follow Boston sports, but it has it's own media, and not a lot of people from Providence really want to be considered part of Boston, even though it's thirty minutes away.


It's the same as when they lump SF together with San Jose or Washington with Baltimore. It really creates a false impression.

[Steely Dan]

I find it amazing that Chicago is the only top 10 numerical gainer outside the Sunbelt.
it's not that surprising. chicagoland is huge and with births outnumbering deaths, population growth is inevitable. however more people still moved out of chicagoland last year than moved into it. if you look at percenatges, chicagoland's growth is nothing dramatic, it's just the already large size of the place that yields relatively large raw-number growth.

[Rail Claimore]

it's not that surprising. chicagoland is huge and with births outnumbering deaths, population growth is inevitable. however more people still moved out of chicagoland last year than moved into it. if you look at percenatges, chicagoland's growth is nothing dramatic, it's just the already large size of the place that yields relatively large raw-number growth.

It's not the numbers that are so surprising as is the implication that it's an outlier. Surely NYC or maybe Minneapolis would have also been in there somewhere.

[KB0679]

Re the Ohio article, I think it's just a matter of time until Columbus overtakes Cincy as the largest metro area in the state. It would be something to see Columbus and Cleveland swap places in a relatively short period of time.

[brickell]

As mentioned in the previous thread, Miami metro actually lost people, most out of Broward county. The domestic flight out of South Florida is going strong.

[tech12]

It's the same as when they lump SF together with San Jose or Washington with Baltimore. It really creates a false impression.

SF and San Jose are connected though, more so than Boston and Providence. The urban fabric between the two is continuous, many people commute between the two, there's public transportation between them as well, and they share the same media, radio, and TV stations. They're both part of the Bay Area.

A closer comparison would probably be if Sacramento were included in the SF metro. That would be stretching it, though in the future it might happen, because people do commute between the two, and development is slowly closing the gap (it won't happen for a while though, if it does).

[peanut gallery]

Exactly right, tech12. Separating SJ from SF is what causes a false impression. I can't speak for the other metros mentioned.

[Buckeye Native 001]

Re the Ohio article, I think it's just a matter of time until Columbus overtakes Cincy as the largest metro area in the state. It would be something to see Columbus and Cleveland swap places in a relatively short period of time.

The problem with Columbus is that it's metro already extends out to outlying towns that make up the Columbus-Marion-Chillicothe Metropolitan Consoliated Area, without many other small to medium size towns left to claim as part of the MCA.

Cincinnati has as the largest metro in the state, and the census report still hasn't merged it with Dayton's metro (although that'll probably happen in the next decade whether Dayton likes it or not...), which would bring the grand total to well over 3 million. Greater Metro Columbus stands at about 1.6 million right now.

[Steely Dan]

It's not the numbers that are so surprising as is the implication that it's an outlier. Surely NYC or maybe Minneapolis would have also been in there somewhere.

yeah, new york's absence from the top 10 in raw number growth did surprise me. but in terms of percentage growth, i'd be shocked if any northeast/midwest metros cracked the top 10 in the nation.

[Evergrey]

The problem with Columbus is that it's metro already extends out to outlying towns that make up the Columbus-Marion-Chillicothe Metropolitan Consoliated Area, without many other small to medium size towns left to claim as part of the MCA.

Cincinnati has as the largest metro in the state, and the census report still hasn't merged it with Dayton's metro (although that'll probably happen in the next decade whether Dayton likes it or not...), which would bring the grand total to well over 3 million. Greater Metro Columbus stands at about 1.6 million right now.

The Ohio portion of Metro Cincy still ranks 3rd in population behind Cleveland and Columbus.

[mhays]

To answer the question about Seattle's new county, it's Mason if I recall.

I wouldn't consider a central city like Baltimore to be similar to San Jose, which for all its size is more of a suburb.

[Evergrey]

To answer the question about Seattle's new county, it's Mason if I recall.

I wouldn't consider a central city like Baltimore to be similar to San Jose, which for all its size is more of a suburb.

In fact, the city of San Jose does experience a "daytime population decrease"... one of only two "major core cities" (over 250,000) that exhibits that "suburban-esque" phenomenon...

[tdawg]

Orlando gained Volusia County? Isn't that Daytona? That seems a stretch.

[Trae]

whatever, go nuts. I'm not a mod...

Anyway, LA lagged quite a bit last year (comparatively speaking), even when you include Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario. Chicago continues it's mini-boom, and DFW continues to wail on everyone else.
Not like it has been. This was the first time DFW was first in growth (raw numbers) in the US for over 8 years. Texas growth is amazing, and Austin surprised me. This year (July 07-July 08) should be interesting with the way the economy is, etc.

[Topher1]

Orlando gained Volusia County? Isn't that Daytona? That seems a stretch.

Not really a stretch. Deltona is Volusia's largest city (all sprawl) and it's entirely an Orlando suburb. Daytona Beach is a stretch, but since it's in the same county as Deltona, Deland, and other southwest Volusia cities, it gets included too.

However, what is a stretch, is that Flagler Co. (Palm Coast) is also included in the CSA. I suppose it piggybacks off of Daytona. But it would be deceiving to assume that there's a large Orlando commuting presence in Flagler...

[APPRAISER]

Growth of cities located within the "Sun Belt" didn't surprise me at all.
Chicago's growth didn't either. Chicago has a strong job market which attracts many younger people from other states, while "Sun Belt" states attract many retiring "Baby Boomers".
With that, Texas is a great place to live with nice weather, and with cheaper housing than a lot of large metropolitan areas.

[Trae]

The Sunbelt (especially Texas) attract FAR more than just retiring baby boomers. Many young families move to the Sunbelt for cheaper homes and the jobs down here. Houston has led the nation in growth (raw numbers) for the past two years, so the internal migration is probably large again.

[Marcu]

Growth of cities located within the "Sun Belt" didn't surprise me at all.
Chicago's growth didn't either. Chicago has a strong job market which attracts many younger people from other states, while "Sun Belt" states attract many retiring "Baby Boomers".
With that, Texas is a great place to live with nice weather, and with cheaper housing than a lot of large metropolitan areas.

Actually, Chicago's job market is anything but "strong" in relation to the rest of the nation. For example, unemployment rate for 08 Q1 was 5.8% compared to 4.8 for the rest of the nation. (http://www.economagic.com/em-cgi/data.exe/blsla/lauMT17169803). Wage growth has also trailed the rest of the nation since 00. No city ranking placng Chicago on top or some other media booster piece can mask that.

Population wise Chicago is benefitting tremendously from the industrial decline of the rest of the midwest. A huge number of people from metro Detroit, Cleveland, and smaller cities like Green Bay move to Chicago after college in hopes of better job prospects while still being a half a day's drive away from friends/relatives. While Chicago may not have the economic opportunities of an economic boom town like Atlanta or Houston, it's just more practical, closer to home, and economically stable.

[Capsule F]

This poor country.

[Raining Inside]

This poor country.

You must be from a northern state.

[JMancuso]

houston's growth is evident with entire subdivisions sprouting up as well as the high-rise condo boom. meanwhile in my hometown, the area is hemorrhaging residents and the city continues to lose houses through arson and neglect.

[LMich]

Wait, can someone make a list of counties gained or lost over the last estimate year? Did Boston really add a county(ies)?

[LMich]

Here are the 11 largest CSAs, after which there is a sizable population gap before #12. Note that Dallas has passed Philadelphia since the 2006 estimates.

CSA Component Component Pop Total Pop
New York New York 18,815,988 21,961,994
Brdgprt-Stmfrd 895,015
New Have 845,494
Poughkeepsie 669,915
Trenton 365,449
Torrington 188,273
Kingston 181,860

Los Angeles Los Angeles 12,875,587 17,755,322
Riverside-SB 4,081,371
Oxnard 798,364

Chicago Chicago 9,524,673 9,745,165
Michigan City 109,787
Kankakee 110,705

Washington Washington 5,306,565 8,241,912
Baltimore 2,668,056
Winchester 121,190
Lexington Park 100,378
Culpeper 45,723

Boston Boston 4,482,857 7,476,689
Providence 1,600,856
Worcester 781,352
Manchester 402,302
Concord 148,274
Laconia 61,048

San Francisco S Frn-Oklnd 4,203,898 7,264,887
San Jose 1,803,643
Santa Rosa 464,435
Vallejo 408,599
Santa Cruz 251,747
Napa 132,565

Dallas Dallas-FW 6,145,037 6,498,410
Sherman 118,675
Athens 78,897
Granbury 56,927
Gainesville 38,486
Bonham 33,067
Mineral Wells 27,321

Philadelphia Philadelphia 5,827,962 6,385,461
Reading 401,955
Vineland 155,544

Houston Houston 5,628,101 5,729,027
Huntsville 63,902
Bay City 37,024

Atlanta Atlanta 5,278,904 5,626,400
Gainesville 180,175
LaGrange 63,535
Cedartown 41,460
Valley 34,764
Thomaston 27,562

Detroit Detroit 4,467,592 5,288,037
Flint 434,715
Ann Arbor 350,003
Monro 35,727

Just a correction, the Detroit number is actually about 117,000 persons higher at 5,405,918. For Monroe County you must have used another counties population. Monroe County is well over 100,000 in population.

[APPRAISER]

Actually, Chicago's job market is anything but "strong" in relation to the rest of the nation. For example, unemployment rate for 08 Q1 was 5.8% compared to 4.8 for the rest of the nation. (http://www.economagic.com/em-cgi/data.exe/blsla/lauMT17169803). Wage growth has also trailed the rest of the nation since 00. No city ranking placng Chicago on top or some other media booster piece can mask that.

Population wise Chicago is benefiting tremendously from the industrial decline of the rest of the Midwest. A huge number of people from metro Detroit, Cleveland, and smaller cities like Green Bay move to Chicago after college in hopes of better job prospects while still being a half a day's drive away from friends/relatives. While Chicago may not have the economic opportunities of an economic boom town like Atlanta or Houston, it's just more practical, closer to home, and economically stable.

Your last statement is exactly what I was saying! Chicago benefits from neighboring states and cities for growth, just like any other city.
For your stats on unemployment, you need to look at it a bit harder, and closer when it comes to why people are becoming unemployed to those who are getting jobs. Chicago, is shedding away with its "Blue Collar, Industrial" ways, and becoming more and more a "White Collar" city!
Look at Detroit!! Detroit has lost so many people due to the decrease demand of American automobiles and steel. After many, many job cuts, the city, and its metro area, has lost hundreds of thousands of people!
The problem with Detroit, is that is has had a hard time attracting international, typical corporate jobs, or fortune 500 companies to counter this affect.
Chicago, on the other hand, was a industrial city, that "HAS" been evolving into a corporate city.
I live in downtown Chicago, like many other formers, and see too many businesses to count within the city and in its suburbs.
9.7 million people don't live here just because Chicago is such a "Warm and pleasant" place to live most times during the year!
Chicago is hot and humid during the summer, and very cold and dry during the winter! With that..........If I had to look from the outside looking in..........I better have a great job to deal with that kinda environment!
I knew I was going to get some heat, in regards to my post, but what I was trying to say is that, population growth in Texas does not surprise me!
It's pretty pleasant their most of the year, and the cities are great!
I have family their!!
It's just funny to me how some people get so upset when they think someone else is "Down Playing" their city! I am not!!

Thanks!

[Goody]

I don’t get why Providence doesn’t go with Boston. They are separate but deeply linked at the same time. The northern parts of the NH boundary I think are much more disputable, but then who cares about 61,000 people.

[JackStraw]

In fact, the city of San Jose does experience a "daytime population decrease"... one of only two "major core cities" (over 250,000) that exhibits that "suburban-esque" phenomenon...

What is the other one? I am guessing it is Aurora, Co....

[Trae]

Probably Arlington, Texas (population 350,000, or around there).

[Shawn]

I don’t get why Providence doesn’t go with Boston. They are separate but deeply linked at the same time. The northern parts of the NH boundary I think are much more disputable, but then who cares about 61,000 people.

As someone with extensive family ties to Norfolk and Bristol counties, including Providence in the Boston CSA makes far more sense than including Concord and Laconia.

The southern border of Boston city in Hyde Park is just 28 miles from the northern border of Providence city in the Mt. Hope neighborhood. The Providence MSA starts just 10 miles from Boston's border (Easton, MA). Drive down Rt. 1 and 1A through Dedham, Norwood, Walpole, Foxboro, North Attleboro, Attleboro and Pawtucket to see that while not as densely connected as SF and SJ are in the Bay Area, Boston and Providence are certainly more directly connected than, say, Poughkeepsie is to NYC, Santa Rosa is to SF, Vineland is to Philly, or Flint is to Detroit.

The two media markets overlap extensively. Providence absolutely bleeds Sox and Pats blue and red, C's green and B's black and gold. The MBTA's busiest commuter line is the Providence Line. Logan International and TF Green actively coordinate to alleviate congestion in Boston. I believe a full third of Rhode Islanders work in Mass, I'm looking for the Boston Globe article I recently read covering this very topic.

And the most telling fact of all: while Mass has the second highest per capita number of Dunkins in the country, Rhodie is number one. Case closed.

http://www.dunkindonutscenter.com/images/top_hat.jpg

[seaskyfan]

To answer the question about Seattle's new county, it's Mason if I recall.

I wouldn't consider a central city like Baltimore to be similar to San Jose, which for all its size is more of a suburb.

We picked up Mason county a while ago. Looks like the new one is Skagit for the CSA. Population estimate for Seattle-Tacoma-Olympia CSA is 4,038,741.

Here's a link to the unbelievably difficult to find OMB memo that contains the changes:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/bulletins/fy2007/b07-01.pdf

[Evergrey]

Actually, Chicago's job market is anything but "strong" in relation to the rest of the nation. For example, unemployment rate for 08 Q1 was 5.8% compared to 4.8 for the rest of the nation. (http://www.economagic.com/em-cgi/data.exe/blsla/lauMT17169803). Wage growth has also trailed the rest of the nation since 00. No city ranking placng Chicago on top or some other media booster piece can mask that.

Population wise Chicago is benefitting tremendously from the industrial decline of the rest of the midwest. A huge number of people from metro Detroit, Cleveland, and smaller cities like Green Bay move to Chicago after college in hopes of better job prospects while still being a half a day's drive away from friends/relatives. While Chicago may not have the economic opportunities of an economic boom town like Atlanta or Houston, it's just more practical, closer to home, and economically stable.

Metro Chicago is also around 10,000 jobs below its 2001 employment peak. It has had some considerable recovery the past couple years after huge job losses in the years after 9/11.

[Evergrey]

What is the other one? I am guessing it is Aurora, Co....

Detroit

I know Aurora and Arlington are huge and have large daytime decreases... but I said "major core city"... not gigantic suburb

[Goody]

And the most telling fact of all: while Mass has the second highest per capita number of Dunkins in the country, Rhodie is number one. Case closed.

http://www.dunkindonutscenter.com/images/top_hat.jpg

:haha: so true

[Rail Claimore]

Actually, Chicago's job market is anything but "strong" in relation to the rest of the nation. For example, unemployment rate for 08 Q1 was 5.8% compared to 4.8 for the rest of the nation. (http://www.economagic.com/em-cgi/data.exe/blsla/lauMT17169803). Wage growth has also trailed the rest of the nation since 00. No city ranking placng Chicago on top or some other media booster piece can mask that.

Population wise Chicago is benefitting tremendously from the industrial decline of the rest of the midwest. A huge number of people from metro Detroit, Cleveland, and smaller cities like Green Bay move to Chicago after college in hopes of better job prospects while still being a half a day's drive away from friends/relatives. While Chicago may not have the economic opportunities of an economic boom town like Atlanta or Houston, it's just more practical, closer to home, and economically stable.

I agree with most of what you're saying, but it's also important to note the economic differences among states within the Midwest/Rustbelt. Michigan, northern Ohio, western Pennsylvania, and upstate New York have economies that are a bit different from the likes of Indiana, Illinois, Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Missouri. The latter group of states as a whole have long been less reliant on heavy industries such as automotive and steel. While it's true that these states have lots of manufacturing jobs, the jobs within that large sector are also diverse... meaning the manufacturing economies of those states have been much more adaptable to macro-economic changes. The fact that they're also more service-oriented doesn't need much mention.

The main reason for Illinois' lackluster performance on some economic indicators has more to do with bad government than anything else. In the case of Wisconsin and Minnesota, high taxes are more to blame.

[the urban politician]

it's not that surprising. chicagoland is huge and with births outnumbering deaths, population growth is inevitable. however more people still moved out of chicagoland last year than moved into it. if you look at percenatges, chicagoland's growth is nothing dramatic, it's just the already large size of the place that yields relatively large raw-number growth.

^ Right, but given that logic LA or NY should have easily made the top 10 list, given their huge sizes. Since that's not the case, then what has happened with Chicago's population recently is a bit of an anomaly.

The fact is, Chicago is the only non-"sunbelt" metro that made it into the top 10 in raw population growth. That's very impressive and it speaks volumes. It's also exciting to know that Chicago is only a few years away from being in the double digits (in millions of people)

[unusualfire]

Metro Chicago is also around 10,000 jobs below its 2001 employment peak. It has had some considerable recovery the past couple years after huge job losses in the years after 9/11.So the 100's of thousands that moved there during that period don't have jobs ?

[SlidellWx]

Just want to add that the city of New Orleans is challenging the census estimate. According to local demographers...the estimate is undercounting the population by around 40-60,000 people. These demographers are going to present the case for the city.

Here are those demographers websites.

http://www.gnocdc.org/

http://www.gcr1.com/

This would put the overall metro increase closer to 100,000.

[seaskyfan]

^ Great to see New Orleans bouncing back.

Thanks for the links.

[Evergrey]

So the 100's of thousands that moved there during that period don't have jobs ?

And there were even more 100s of thousands that moved out. Metro Chicago's population growth is a function of "natural increase". Enough children are born to overcome deaths and the migration net loss. These children don't tend to have jobs. That's not to say that Chicago's economy has collapsed or anything drastic... it's very close to its pre 9/11 peak. The entire country lost jobs for a couple years after 9/11. Chicago has just been a couple years slower than much of the rest of the country in recouping the lost jobs.

[LaSalle.St.Station]

Yep, Chicago is picking up a bit from metro detroit, but the overall roll is from the Mexican population boom ( high birth rates, immigration ) compared to the birth control megalomania in the existing population. More native Chicagoans are raising dogs thans kids these days.

[pip]

And there were even more 100s of thousands that moved out. Metro Chicago's population growth is a function of "natural increase". Enough children are born to overcome deaths and the migration net loss. These children don't tend to have jobs. That's not to say that Chicago's economy has collapsed or anything drastic... it's very close to its pre 9/11 peak. The entire country lost jobs for a couple years after 9/11. Chicago has just been a couple years slower than much of the rest of the country in recouping the lost jobs.

Deaths + domestic out migration is equel in number roughly to births. The growth is basically immigration and some domestic migration. Total population growth is almost the same as immigration growth. The birth rates and death rates vary from metro to metro but not nearly to the same extent immigration rates, domestic in and out migration rates.

[Evergrey]

Deaths + domestic out migration is equel in number roughly to births. The growth is basically immigration. Total population growth is almost the same as immigration growth. It really depends on how you want to do the math.

That is true.

For example... here's the numbers for the 2006 estimate (the story's been pretty similar for the estimates this decade)

Population
9,505,748
Growth
0.6
Total Population Change
59,183
Births
137,812
Deaths
69,679
International Immigration
57,331
Domestic Migration
-66,074

I look at it and see a total migration (domestic and international) of about -9,000 with a natural increase of about 68,000 easily making up for the migration loss and fully accounting for Chicagoland's population gain.

But you can also look at it from the angle that Chicagoland's population gain is entirely due to international migration... the net gain of international migrants is amazingly almost equal to Chicagoland's total population gain. Domestic migration and natural increase essentially sum out to zero.

Excellent point, pip.

[pip]

snip

I look at it and see a total migration (domestic and international) of about -9,000 with a natural increase of about 68,000 easily making up for the migration loss and fully accounting for Chicagoland's population gain.

But you can also look at it from the angle that Chicagoland's population gain is entirely due to international migration... the net gain of international migrants is amazingly almost equal to Chicagoland's total population gain. Domestic migration and natural increase essentially sum out to zero.

Excellent point, pip.

Hey thanks.

The reason I look at it more from the second angle is that Chicago area is getting less black/white as a percent of the population and more immigrant born and their kids fast as a percent of the population. Essentially it is whites and now blacks moving away from metro Chicago. And a small smattering in reality to all the other much larger numbers of college educated young moving here.

In conclusion I believe the population growth is in large part due to immigrants and the children they have or you could say that the growth is non white and non black. The percent of white and black is shrinking in metro Chicago. As it is whites and now blacks who are moving away in the biggest numbers.

[Evergrey]

Does anyone know why the Census Bureau estimates the population of Columbus, GA-AL to have shrunk by 2.6% last year? That is by far the largest percentage decrease of any MSA in the country. It had the 3rd largest raw decrease of -7,591, falling to a population of 282,759. Could this be due to population fluctuations at massive Fort Benning, which has a population of about 100,000? I assume these people are counted as part of the Columbus MSA.

[PA Pride]

THose CSA numbers are quite interesting.

I never thought of metro Boston being larger than the Bay Area...

Also, why is Dallas soo popular? Is it the energy industry driving growth? What other factors are making it the fastest growing metro?

[Marcu]

^ It's one of the biggest tech/intellectual property centers in the country. By some measures, bigger than Sillicon Valley ever was.

[JMancuso]

And the most telling fact of all: while Mass has the second highest per capita number of Dunkins in the country, Rhodie is number one. Case closed.

http://www.dunkindonutscenter.com/images/top_hat.jpg

yes! i was amazed on just how many DD's were crammed in such a small area. there must have been thousands within providence-attlebro-bristol. millions perhaps.

[LMich]

When Dunkin Donuts recently announced they'd be adding a 100 new locations here in Michigan (Detroit, Flint, & Lansing) over the next few years I nearly did a backflip. I hope that they, along with Tim Horton's who's been expanding healthfully in Michigan, will be able to keep Krispy Kreme at bay.

[Shawn]

When Dunkin Donuts recently announced they'd be adding a 100 new locations here in Michigan (Detroit, Flint, & Lansing) over the next few years I nearly did a backflip. I hope that they, along with Tim Horton's who's been expanding healthfully in Michigan, will be able to keep Krispy Kreme at bay.

Krispy Kreme tried to expand into the heart of Dunkin Donuts Nation a few years ago, opening a few stores in greater Boston. They did will for a few months due to the novelty factor (we always heard rumors about this amazing donut chain from somewhere south of the Connecticut border, so we all had to see what the fuss was about), but once people realized that the donuts were only good right out of the deep fryer and that the coffee was abhorrent, interest faded fast. I believe all Krispy Kreme locations in Mass have since shut down.

[atlantaguy]

Does anyone know why the Census Bureau estimates the population of Columbus, GA-AL to have shrunk by 2.6% last year? That is by far the largest percentage decrease of any MSA in the country. It had the 3rd largest raw decrease of -7,591, falling to a population of 282,759. Could this be due to population fluctuations at massive Fort Benning, which has a population of about 100,000? I assume these people are counted as part of the Columbus MSA.

Bingo! You're right, Evergrey - Fort Benning is massive, and these figures just represent troops rotating in and out. The latest BRAC realignment will reverse these numbers in the very near future. The area actually is booming right now in anticipation of all the new growth. I think I read that over 35,000 new troops will be sent there soon.

[Cirrus]

Guys, Providence *is* included in the Boston CSA.

[jcathens]

Looks like Atlanta may pass Washington in the next couple of years.

[SteveD]

Looks like Atlanta may pass Washington in the next couple of years.

No, JC. Washington CSA is 8.2 million and Atlanta CSA is 5.6 million. Even at Atlanta's breakneck population growth, it won't reach the 8 million mark for at least a couple more decades. The top ten won't change that much over the next couple decades, with the exception of both Houston and Atlanta passing Philly in the next 5 to 10 years, and Dallas getting past San Fran and Boston, also in the next 5 to 10 years. Just speculation, of course...growth patterns can change quickly, but Atlanta CSA is not passing Washington CSA any time soon.

[Alliance]

I find it amazing that Chicago is the only top 10 numerical gainer outside the Sunbelt.

Its not that surpizing if you look at what the city is doing.

[urbanactivistTX]

I doubt Houston or Atlanta will be able to pass up Philly... It will soon be swallowed up by New York.

Of course in the case of Houston and Atlanta, there are no "twins" or "major contributor cities" like the others.

[SteveD]

Of course, urbanactivist, if the census bureau merges Philly and New York into one gigantic CSA all bets are off...but, if that doesn't happen, and growth patterns remain about the same, then yes, they both will.

[bobdreamz]

As mentioned in the previous thread, Miami metro actually lost people, most out of Broward county. The domestic flight out of South Florida is going strong.

Miami metro county numbers:

Miami Dade: +10,827
Broward: -13,154
Palm Beach: +99
----------------------
net loss : -2,228

I guess it is safe to say that Miami is the only major sunbelt metro to lose population last year.

[SteveD]

Miami metro county numbers:

Miami Dade: +10,827
Broward: -13,154
Palm Beach: +99
----------------------
net loss : -2,228

I guess it is safe to say that Miami is the only major sunbelt metro to lose population last year.

bobdreamz...I don't understand that! How is that possible?

[jcathens]

No, JC. Washington CSA is 8.2 million and Atlanta CSA is 5.6 million. Even at Atlanta's breakneck population growth, it won't reach the 8 million mark for at least a couple more decades. The top ten won't change that much over the next couple decades, with the exception of both Houston and Atlanta passing Philly in the next 5 to 10 years, and Dallas getting past San Fran and Boston, also in the next 5 to 10 years. Just speculation, of course...growth patterns can change quickly, but Atlanta CSA is not passing Washington CSA any time soon.



I'm talking about the MSA, not the CSA.

I would never compare Atlanta to two cities like the Baltimore and Washington combined, even if Atlanta's CSA population passed theirs.

DC: 5,306,365 + 45,660

Atlanta: 5,278,904 + 151,063

So it is very realistic.

[bobdreamz]

SteveD south Florida is becoming very expensive to live in. You have rising home prices, property taxes plus escalating homeowner's insurance and the average middle class family is being squeezed out. Many have been talking about an exodus for a while and it seems to be finally happening.

What I find interesting is that Miami Dade continues to grow while Ft Lauderdale loses population. The only time I can remember when Miami Dade county lost population was after Hurricane Andrew in 1992 when roughly 100,000 people left.

[futuresooner]

This is true, I don't think Amendment 1, which unfortunately passed, could help. It is just too much for the avg. family to live there. The exodus probably won't be devastating, this is jsut a correction that neede to happen. The avg. home price there would buy a 5,000 to 6,000 sq. ft. home in my home, Nashville-Murfreesboro MSA, easily. Its rediculous, the price of paradise can only go so high. S. FL needs this to happen in order for prices to continue to fall. You can't try and sell all those units to foreign tourists and such or the upper class if they can't even get insurance! Also, FYI, what Charlie Christ is doing, according to research and many others agree, he could bankrupt the state, or at the least, really cut into public services severly.

[SteveD]

I'm talking about the MSA, not the CSA.

I would never compare Atlanta to two cities like the Baltimore and Washington combined, even if Atlanta's CSA population passed theirs.

DC: 5,306,365 + 45,660

Atlanta: 5,278,904 + 151,063

So it is very realistic.

Yes, talking MSAs, absolutely true...in fact given that the data references July 1, 2007, some 9 months ago, it may have already occurred.

[jcathens]

Yes, talking MSAs, absolutely true...in fact given that the data references July 1, 2007, some 9 months ago, it may have already occurred.

Its unbelievable that Atlanta could quite possibly be the 8th largest MSA now.

[unusualfire]

^Where does it end? Does Atlanta and Phoenix want to be #1?

[jcathens]

Well it hasn't ended in LA yet, so who knows.

[MayorOfChicago]

So the 100's of thousands that moved there during that period don't have jobs ?

Well the job market went south here really fast and furious, and has now been performing fairly decent. The population growth also slowed down around the 2003 to 2004 period, but is now rebounding quite a bit.

I think that's how Chicago made it into the top 10 this year. We gained 66,000 people last year, and 23,000 jobs in the metro. That's a fairly good ratio.

The Unemployment rate in the metro went from around 4.3% in 2002, to over 7% within a year or so. Then slowly went back down to 4.2%, and had now clicked back up to around 5.4%.

Chicagoland's employment levels dropped by over 190,000 from 2000 to 2003, but from 2003 to today, the employment levels have increased by 310,000.

That's also a reason why the population has been increasing quite a bit as of late...

[Gordo]

I continue to be baffled that San Jose and San Francisco are separate MSAs. So let me get this straight - East Palo Alto is clearly part of the the SF MSA and Palo Alto is clearly part of the SJ MSA? What?

Everywhere else seems to at least make some sense.

[dimondpark]

San Francisco S Frn-Oklnd 4,203,898 7,264,887
San Jose 1,803,643
Santa Rosa 464,435
Vallejo 408,599
Santa Cruz 251,747
Napa 132,565



The state's own estimates peg the CSA population at 7,567,531(2007) bu the real story in the Bay Area's numbers are the year to year numerical growth- estimated at +89,981. We havent seen that kind of numerical growth since the 80s. 60% of that is from immigration-primarily to Silicon Valley and related fields throughout the greater bay area.

[KB0679]

Does anyone know why the Census Bureau estimates the population of Columbus, GA-AL to have shrunk by 2.6% last year? That is by far the largest percentage decrease of any MSA in the country. It had the 3rd largest raw decrease of -7,591, falling to a population of 282,759. Could this be due to population fluctuations at massive Fort Benning, which has a population of about 100,000? I assume these people are counted as part of the Columbus MSA.

Troop deployment.

[alex1]

Miami metro county numbers:

Miami Dade: +10,827
Broward: -13,154
Palm Beach: +99
----------------------
net loss : -2,228

I guess it is safe to say that Miami is the only major sunbelt metro to lose population last year.

this to me is the story of the year. I don't understand it. It's not necessarily a bad thing but it is pretty surprising.

[brickell]

bobdreamz...I don't understand that! How is that possible?

As I've said in other threads, another thing to consider is that South Florida as a whole and Broward county in particular is nearing build out. Don't get me wrong, there's plenty of sprawl, but they're not building them like they used to. There just isn't any more large lots to plop big new subdivisions on, which seems to be what the middle class continues to gravitate too. Miami is close, but has also taken densification and urbanism more seriously than Broward has.

Most of the places on the top 10 seem to have that in common, cheap sprawl that will go for days. Fortunately, South Florida will no longer play that game.

[dave8721]

As I've said in other threads, another thing to consider is that South Florida as a whole and Broward county in particular is nearing build out. Don't get me wrong, there's plenty of sprawl, but they're not building them like they used to. There just isn't any more large lots to plop big new subdivisions on, which seems to be what the middle class continues to gravitate too. Miami is close, but has also taken densification and urbanism more seriously than Broward has.

Most of the places on the top 10 seem to have that in common, cheap sprawl that will go for days. Fortunately, South Florida will no longer play that game.

It is also interesting to note that the City of Miami is rapidly gaining population (and Miami-Dade County is still slowly adding population) but the far suburbs are the areas that are losing population. Pretty much opposite of the national trend.

[JackStraw]

Detroit

I know Aurora and Arlington are huge and have large daytime decreases... but I said "major core city"... not gigantic suburb

oh, I feel stupid.....

[JDRCRASH]

I'm interested in why Orange County as well as Ventura County were neither included in the Los Angeles-Riverside-SB-Ontario pop.?:shrug:

IMO, Southern California ends at the 36th parallel North. It also says it on Wikipedia:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/76/Southern_California.png
Wikipedia, by Menchi

[VivaLFuego]

this to me is the story of the year. I don't understand it. It's not necessarily a bad thing but it is pretty surprising.

Just throwing it out there, but could it have to do with the retirement populations (largely from the east coast and Chicago) dying out, with new retirees headed now to other locales? When my grandparents moved to South Florida in the early 80s it was a much different (smaller/quieter) place, and probably wouldn't make the same move today.

I have no numbers to back this up, but I know Broward was a huuuuuuge epicenter of retirement migration from the north, and the largest waves of those retirees (moved in the 70s and 80s) are currently in the dying-off stage.

[jcathens]

I continue to be baffled that San Jose and San Francisco are separate MSAs. So let me get this straight - East Palo Alto is clearly part of the the SF MSA and Palo Alto is clearly part of the SJ MSA? What?

Everywhere else seems to at least make some sense.


They are combined as a CSA. Thats why we have that category. San Francisco and San Jose are two separate functioning cities. One is not a suburb of the other. They just have just grown together.

We all know the city of Boston and its suburbs don't account for anywhere near 7 million people. Anybody who has been there can tell that just by going there, but the entire region that functions together from New Hampshire to Rhode Island does. The two separate classifications makes perfect sense to me.

[seaskyfan]

I'm interested in why Orange County as well as Ventura County were neither included in the Los Angeles-Riverside-SB-Ontario pop.?:shrug:


Ventura and Orange Counties are both part of the LA CSA.

Here's a link to the current CSA map:

http://www.census.gov/geo/www/maps/msa_maps2006/msa2006_previews_html/cbsa_csa_us_wall_1206.html

[futuresooner]

I believe the OC is its own MSA, but part of the Los Angeles CSA. Its sad that San Bernadino County, is half the size of Tennessee, at just over 41,000 sq. miles, wtf?!

[Gordo]

They are combined as a CSA. Thats why we have that category. San Francisco and San Jose are two separate functioning cities. One is not a suburb of the other. They just have just grown together.

One is not a suburb of the other, sure. But the same could be said of Dallas and Fort Worth, Seattle and Tacoma, Minneapolis and St. Paul, etc, etc. MSAs are supposed to be based on commuting patterns, which would certainly place SF and SJ in the same MSA - the cross commuting between the two is into the hundreds of thousands daily. There is already a heavily used commuter rail system connecting the two and plans for a subway-grade heavy rail connection (which I don't support, but it certainly shows that the Bay Area is now one metropolitan area, not simply two cities whose suburbs grew together, like DC and Baltimore). Simply based on commuting patterns, San Jose IS a suburb - of the smaller Silicon Valley cities (Santa Clara, Mountain View, Cupertino, Palo Alto, etc), not SF.

[Trae]

Just throwing it out there, but could it have to do with the retirement populations (largely from the east coast and Chicago) dying out, with new retirees headed now to other locales? When my grandparents moved to South Florida in the early 80s it was a much different (smaller/quieter) place, and probably wouldn't make the same move today.

I have no numbers to back this up, but I know Broward was a huuuuuuge epicenter of retirement migration from the north, and the largest waves of those retirees (moved in the 70s and 80s) are currently in the dying-off stage.
Never thought of that. I think you are right.

[brickell]

Retirees dieing off isn't the issue. Natural growth is still strong. The problem is that international immigration is not making up for the accelerating domestic emigration.


As posted on Eye on Miami: http://eyeonmiami.blogspot.com/2008/03/graph-on-population-growth-in-miami.html
http://bp3.blogger.com/_DfVzTzSWk6o/R-T-5Sv8x4I/AAAAAAAACfw/pfbPREgEVcE/s1600/population%2Bgrowth.jpg

[Evergrey]

Natural decline is having an impact on a couple smaller Florida metros (can't remember the names but I examined the components earlier)... metros that I assume are largely retirement-based.

[PhillyRising]

As I've said in other threads, another thing to consider is that South Florida as a whole and Broward county in particular is nearing build out. Don't get me wrong, there's plenty of sprawl, but they're not building them like they used to. There just isn't any more large lots to plop big new subdivisions on, which seems to be what the middle class continues to gravitate too. Miami is close, but has also taken densification and urbanism more seriously than Broward has.

Most of the places on the top 10 seem to have that in common, cheap sprawl that will go for days. Fortunately, South Florida will no longer play that game.

Did they stop building out along where Alligator Alley and the Sawgrass Expressway meet? My mom used to wonder who would want to live out there almost into the Everglades.

[alex1]

Retirees dieing off isn't the issue. Natural growth is still strong. The problem is that international immigration is not making up for the accelerating domestic emigration.


As posted on Eye on Miami: http://eyeonmiami.blogspot.com/2008/03/graph-on-population-growth-in-miami.html
http://bp3.blogger.com/_DfVzTzSWk6o/R-T-5Sv8x4I/AAAAAAAACfw/pfbPREgEVcE/s1600/population%2Bgrowth.jpg

yeah, when I lived in Sarasota for my undergrad (gulf coast) there were many Miami retirees that were sick of the traffic (and non-whiteness of Miami). The trend to head somewhere more easy going had already begun and that was 6 years ago.

but still, from really healthy population just two years ago to virtual negative growth. Amazing stuff. I've never seen something like this in my life.

[MNMike]

Minneapolis-St paul added 36,000, not too bad, the msa is up to 3,208,000. Also, the CSA (including St. Cloud) is up to 3,538,000.

[dktshb]

Oh boy, all the places that sprawl... America should be so proud.