[tdawg]

Nice surprises, NYC continues to grow fast and Atlanta, with 24% growth, now larger than it's ever been.

TABLE: Top 75 U.S. cities ranked by population

The 75 most populous cities — based on July 1, 2007, estimates — and the change over seven years:
2007 pop. % chng. 2000-07 2007 rank 2000 rank
New York 8,274,527 3.3% 1 1
Los Angeles 3,834,340 3.8% 2 2
Chicago 2,836,658 -2.1% 3 3
Houston 2,208,180 11.8% 4 4
Phoenix 1,552,259 17.4% 5 6
Philadelphia 1,449,634 -4.5% 6 5
San Antonio 1,328,984 14.6% 7 9
San Diego 1,266,731 3.5% 8 7
Dallas 1,240,499 4.4% 9 8
San Jose 939,899 4.9% 10 11
Detroit 916,952 -3.6% 11 10
Jacksonville 805,605 9.5% 12 14
Indianapolis 795,458 1.7% 13 12
San Francisco 764,976 -1.5% 14 13
Columbus, Ohio 747,755 4.9% 15 15
Austin 743,074 12.6% 16 17
Fort Worth 681,818 25.9% 17 28
Memphis 674,028 -2.4% 18 16
Charlotte 671,588 18.5% 19 22
Baltimore 637,455 -2.1% 20 18
El Paso 606,913 7.6% 21 23
Milwaukee 602,191 0.9% 22 19
Boston 599,351 1.7% 23 20
Seattle 594,210 5.5% 24 24
Nashville- Davidson, Tenn. 590,807 8.3% 25 27
Denver 588,349 6.3% 26 25
Washington 588,292 2.8% 27 21
Las Vegas 558,880 16.4% 28 33
Louisville-Jefferson, Ky. 557,789 1.2% 29 26
Portland, Ore. 550,396 4.0% 30 29
Oklahoma City 547,274 8.1% 31 30
Tucson 525,529 7.8% 32 31
Atlanta 519,145 24.2% 33 40
Albuquerque 518,271 15.3% 34 36
Fresno 470,508 9.5% 35 38
Long Beach 466,520 1.1% 36 35
Sacramento 460,242 13.1% 37 41
Mesa, Ariz. 452,933 13.8% 38 43
Kansas City, Mo. 450,375 2.0% 39 37
Cleveland 438,042 -8.3% 40 34
Virginia Beach 434,743 2.2% 41 39
Omaha 424,482 8.5% 42 45
Miami 409,719 13.0% 43 48
Oakland 401,489 0.5% 44 42
Tulsa 384,037 -2.3% 45 44
Minneapolis 377,392 -1.4% 46 46
Colorado Springs 376,427 4.2% 47 49
Raleigh, N.C. 375,806 31.6% 48 61
Honolulu 375,571 1.1% 49 47
Arlington, Texas 371,038 11.4% 50 54
Wichita 361,420 2.7% 51 50
St. Louis 350,759 0.7% 52 51
Santa Ana, Calif. 339,555 0.5% 53 52
Tampa 336,823 11.0% 54 58
Anaheim, Calif. 333,249 1.4% 55 56
Cincinnati 332,458 0.4% 56 55
Bakersfield, Calif. 315,837 29.6% 57 70
Aurora, Colo. 311,794 12.8% 58 63
Pittsburgh 311,218 -7.0% 59 53
Toledo, Ohio 295,029 -6.0% 60 57
Riverside, Calif. 294,437 15.1% 61 67
Stockton, Calif. 287,245 18.1% 62 71
Corpus Christi, Texas 285,507 2.9% 63 62
Newark 280,135 2.8% 64 64
Anchorage 279,671 7.4% 65 66
Lexington-Fayette, Ky. 279,044 7.1% 66 65
St. Paul 277,251 -3.3% 67 60
Buffalo 272,632 -6.8% 68 59
Plano, Texas 260,796 17.3% 69 79
Glendale, Ariz. 253,152 15.2% 70 81
Fort Wayne, Ind. 251,247 -0.2% 71 68
Henderson, Nev. 249,386 42.3% 72 119
Lincoln, Neb. 248,744 9.9% 73 78
Greensboro, N.C. 247,183 8.2% 74 76
St. Petersburg, Fla. 246,407 -0.8% 75 69
Source: Analysis of Census Bureau data by Paul Overberg, USA TODAY

[MolsonExport]

Gotta love those NYC numbers.

[dave8721]

And Miami's 13% increase is pretty impressive considering its only 36 square miles (imagine similarly sized cities like Boston or SF increasing their populations by 13%). Miami added over 1000 people per square mile.

[urbanactivistTX]

^^ It's amazing to think about how much growth is occurring in some cities, yet commuter traffic continues to lighten. I'd love to see the difference in traffic congestion among the growing metros.

Texas cities by percentage growth... go Ft. Worth!!!
Fort Worth 681,818 25.9% 17 28
Plano, Texas 260,796 17.3% 69 79
San Antonio 1,328,984 14.6% 7 9
Austin 743,074 12.6% 16 17
Houston 2,208,180 11.8% 4 4
Arlington, Texas 371,038 11.4% 50 54
El Paso 606,913 7.6% 21 23
Dallas 1,240,499 4.4% 9 8


NOT enthused with Arlington, who could conceivably be pushing 400k by 2010 :( . Just think of how cool it would be if those people were moving into central Dallas. Maybe rising fuel costs will serve as a catalyst for this pattern.

[j korzeniowski]

houston may be the nation's 3rd largest city by 2020.

living in chicago, i view the decline since 2000 with some skepticism, as they always seem to get this city wrong. plus, aside from the gleaming new residential skyscrapers that will not have that much effect on population changes, it just *seems* like there are more people, from more parts of the u.s. and world here.

the census bureau predicted further population losses heading into 2000 (wrong), and it also predicted population gains going into 1990 (also wrong).

lastly, is miami city proper really that small? that is paris-esque size, but paris squeezes 2.5 million people into 40 sq mi. the mind boggles.

[Trae]

And the majority of Houston's growth is not from master-planned communities in the city limits (like you see in Phoenix, San Antonio, etc.). Most of the Houston's city limits is already developed. The growth is coming from densification and redevelopment.

[Echo Park]

2007 pop. % chng. 2000-07 2007 rank 2000 rank
Houston 2,208,180 11.8% 4 4
Phoenix 1,552,259 17.4% 5 6
San Antonio 1,328,984 14.6% 7 9
Jacksonville 805,605 9.5% 12 14
Fort Worth 681,818 25.9% 17 28
Charlotte 671,588 18.5% 19 22
Las Vegas 558,880 16.4% 28 33
Atlanta 519,145 24.2% 33 40
Albuquerque 518,271 15.3% 34 36
Mesa, Ariz. 452,933 13.8% 38 43
Raleigh, N.C. 375,806 31.6% 48 61
Arlington, Texas 371,038 11.4% 50 54
Tampa 336,823 11.0% 54 58
Bakersfield, Calif. 315,837 29.6% 57 70
Aurora, Colo. 311,794 12.8% 58 63
Riverside, Calif. 294,437 15.1% 61 67
Stockton, Calif. 287,245 18.1% 62 71
Plano, Texas 260,796 17.3% 69 79
Glendale, Ariz. 253,152 15.2% 70 81
Henderson, Nev. 249,386 42.3% 72 119


The future of America, folks.

[Antares41]

Just don't seem to be any stemming of the tide of population loss for some of the old rust belt cities like Buffalo, Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Detriot,and Toledo to name a few:( .

[Echo Park]

^I hope things turn around for those cities. Those cities are gems in our nation's urban heritage. It's sad to see them continue to decline.

[Antares41]

The future of America, folks.

Certainly can't argue with the numbers.

[VivaLFuego]

Interesting, though I'd be more curious to see MSAs in terms of both percentage change and absolute change for a better comparison given the arbitrary boundaries of inner cities (Houston is over twice as large, in terms of land area, as Chicago for example). I certainly wouldn't be surprised if Chicago's city population is staying more or less stagnant, because for as much downtown and north side development as there has been, the ghettos are still emptying out.

[Antares41]

^^ It's amazing to think about how much growth is occurring in some cities, yet commuter traffic continues to lighten. I'd love to see the difference in traffic congestion among the growing metros.

Texas cities by percentage growth... go Ft. Worth!!!
Fort Worth 681,818 25.9% 17 28
Plano, Texas 260,796 17.3% 69 79
San Antonio 1,328,984 14.6% 7 9
Austin 743,074 12.6% 16 17
Houston 2,208,180 11.8% 4 4
Arlington, Texas 371,038 11.4% 50 54
El Paso 606,913 7.6% 21 23
Dallas 1,240,499 4.4% 9 8


NOT enthused with Arlington, who could conceivably be pushing 400k by 2010 :( . Just think of how cool it would be if those people were moving into central Dallas. Maybe rising fuel costs will serve as a catalyst for this pattern.


What is the reason for such impressive growth for Fort Worth? I knew it was growing, but, not that fast!

[vertex]

And the majority of Houston's growth is not from master-planned communities in the city limits (like you see in Phoenix, San Antonio, etc.). Most of the Houston's city limits is already developed...

And that's why Houston's growth will plateau within the next 20 years. Take away the post-Katrina bump, and the city's growth is limited to 18-20k per year.

All of this growth has occurred during a cinderella-like economic period for the city. Take away the peak oil, and Houston will start look less like Chicago, and more like Detroit.

[Trae]

And that's why Houston's growth will plateau within the next 20 years. Take away the post-Katrina bump, and the city's growth is limited to 18-20k per year.

18K to 20K is still healthy growth for a city. Don't get me wrong though, there is still room in Houston's city limits for smaller master-planned communities (Northeast side near Lake Houston), but that is still the only empty area left (that is desirable). South Houston is empty and is being filled in with ugly starter homes.

In 20 years, I see it being kind of like Dallas is right now. Houston's still going to add a ton of people because of redevelopment in the core (Inner Loop at 95 square miles is at 600,000 people and growing).

All of this growth has occurred during a cinderella-like economic period for the city. Take away the peak oil, and Houston will start look less like Chicago, and more like Detroit.

Hardly. Houston would still be growing. The metro was gaining over 100,000 a year before the energy boom. This energy boom is not slowing down though. There are hardly any drilling for oil, etc., within a 40 mile radius of Houston. Energy is a lot more than oil now. You should check out the Houston wind energy thread. Or you could check this out from the Washington Post: Houston: Pipelines of Prosperity (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/22/AR2008062202084.html).

[mhays]

Houston's Inner Loop was more like 300,000 people in 2000 per the link. I'm failing to find the source I found before about more current numbers but I believe it's way less than the 600,000 you say.

http://www.bizjournals.com/houston/stories/2000/07/03/focus4.html

[krudmonk]

Those aren't new. I recall all California estimates being much higher last year.

[Trae]

Houston's Inner Loop was more like 300,000 people in 2000 per the link. I'm failing to find the source I found before about more current numbers but I believe it's way less than the 600,000 you say.

http://www.bizjournals.com/houston/stories/2000/07/03/focus4.html

If you add up the Inner Loop zip codes, it comes out to near 600,000.

[mhays]

Here's a 2000 census map. http://www.h-gac.com/NR/rdonlyres/evojsllwq3xo7isevdfvzoifoj6y6xt54cejsylufcaxrzhzdqpxdtbryx42b3zrox7p7ja65wq4hwf3m2ntku57rkc/pop_density00.pdf

I realize it's gone way up since then, but just don't believe it doubled.

[mhays]

I'll look at that later.

[BnaBreaker]

It's still so funny to me that Phoenix can claim to be "the fifth largest city in the nation".

[dimondpark]

Those aren't new. I recall all California estimates being much higher last year.

Its strange how the Census and the state are very close in their estimates of some cities yet so far apart in their estimates for others...

Census Estimates
Los Angeles 3,834,340
San Diego 1,266,731
San Jose 939,899
San Francisco 764,976
Fresno 470,508
Long Beach 466,520
Sacramento 460,242
Oakland 401,489
Santa Ana 339,555
Anaheim 333,249
Bakersfield 315,837
Riverside 294,437
Stockon 287,245


State of California Estimates
Los Angeles 4,045,873
San Diego 1,336,865
San Jose 989,496
San Francisco 824,525
Long Beach 492,642
Fresno 486,171
Sacramento 475,743
Oakland 420,183
Santa Ana 353,184
Anaheim 346,823
Bakersfield 328,692
Riverside 296,842
Stockton 289,927

I'm confident as in all other previous decades, once the actual Census is taken, it will reveal that the state was right all along.

[Don B.]

Nice surprises, NYC continues to grow fast and Atlanta, with 24% growth, now larger than it's ever been.

3.3% growth in seven years is not "fast growth." In fact, that's still less than the rate of natural increase, meaning that NYC is still losing population.

If no one moved in to the corporate city limits of NYC and no one moved out, in a western civilization, NYC should be growing at the rate of about .7 percent per year (that's 7/10s of one percent annually). That works out to 7% per decade. This is called natural increase, which is growth due to the number of births in a fixed population minus the number of deaths.

In seven years, NYC should have gained almost 5% in population, if people weren't moving out (.7 x 7 = 4.9%). It grew by 3.3%, which means that a net 1.6% of NYC's population moved out from 2000 to 2007. That amounts to about 132,392 people.

We all know that NYC is sustaining a lot of immigration from other places around the world, so I suspect that even more people are moving out than these numbers suggest, probably more like 200k to 300k per decade. They are just offset by the new immigrants coming in.

As for the sunbelt, clearly growth rates are reducing due to the economy and real estate markets. The article in today's Arizona Republic summed it up nicely. Annual growth of the Phoenix metro area dropped significantly last year, from 150k per year in 2006 (the peak ever) to about 70,000 in 2007. I suspect these numbers will continue to decline as there is evidence of a wholesale mass exodus of hispanic people fleeing Arizona in the last 12 months due to the highly polarized climate and the antics of our joke of a Sheriff. Coupled with a decline of other people moving here (can't move to a new state if you can't sell your home in the old state), and Phoenix could be facing her first population decline ever.

--don

[j korzeniowski]

The future of America, folks.

which is why i'm glad i'm leaving.

[DBR96A]

Certainly can't argue with the numbers.

Pittsburgh is shrinking, but getting markedly richer in the process. Here's a graph detailing the "real" per capita income growth in various major metropolitan areas between 2000 and 2006:

http://www.clevelandfed.org/research/Trends/2008/0608/02regact-4.gif
Courtesy of the Fourth District Office of the United States Federal Reserve.

Real PCI growth is determined by gross per capita income growth minus growth in the regional consumer price index. Among the 24 largest metro areas in the U.S., only Houston has experienced a higher rate of real PCI growth than Pittsburgh since 2000. That's not the mark of a "dying city."

ASIDE: I'm surprised at the way Atlanta's real PCI growth has cratered since 2000. The Atlanta metropolitan area is getting poorer, figuratively.

[dimondpark]

Pittsburgh is shrinking, but getting markedly richer in the process. Here's a graph detailing the "real" per capita income growth in various major metropolitan areas between 2000 and 2006:

http://www.clevelandfed.org/research/Trends/2008/0608/02regact-4.gif
Courtesy of the Fourth District Office of the United States Federal Reserve.

Real PCI growth is determined by gross per capita income growth minus growth in the regional consumer price index. Among the 24 largest metro areas in the U.S., only Houston has experienced a higher rate of real PCI growth than Pittsburgh since 2000. That's not the mark of a "dying city."

ASIDE: I'm surprised at the way Atlanta's real PCI growth has cratered since 2000. The Atlanta metropolitan area is getting poorer, figuratively.

Portland-Salem, OR-UH?

What is UH??

[DBR96A]

Portland-Salem, OR-UH?

What is UH??

Uh...I dunno. I think that was supposed to say "WA." I guess whoever put the graph together didn't proofread. :haha:

[dimondpark]

Uh...I dunno. I think that was supposed to say "WA." I guess whoever put the graph together didn't proofread. :haha:

LOL


University of Hawaii maybe?

[urbanactivistTX]

Houston's Inner Loop was more like 300,000 people in 2000 per the link. I'm failing to find the source I found before about more current numbers but I believe it's way less than the 600,000 you say.

http://www.bizjournals.com/houston/stories/2000/07/03/focus4.html

By 2007 estimates, we already know the the Houston MSA gained almost half a million people, and we're still three years out from 2010.

Have you been to Houston within the last two or three years? Inner loop growth (mostly gentrification) has been substantial. Fourth Ward no longer exists, as it has been taken over by Midtown. And the East End... once an abandoned Rail Yard and warehouse district, is now converting into its own neighborhood. The Medical Center also has at least twice the amount of residential surrounding it.

[urbanactivistTX]

double post

[Trae]

By 2007 estimates, we already know the the Houston MSA gained almost half a million people, and we're still three years out from 2010.

Have you been to Houston within the last two or three years? Inner loop growth (mostly gentrification) has been substantial. Fourth Ward no longer exists, as it has been taken over by Midtown. And the East End... once an abandoned Rail Yard and warehouse district, is now converting into its own neighborhood. The Medical Center also has at least twice the amount of residential surrounding it.

Houston's MSA has gained 915,000 people. By 2010, it will have gained probably 1.3 million total.

[JMancuso]

yeah, inner loop houston is growing fast (lot's high density condo/townhouse/ highrise construction) but i don't think we'll be passing chicago by 2020.

and no, the city no longer hangs on the oil industry has its lifeline and it continues to ween itself away from the energy sector every year. it's still the biggest industry but the local economy is far more diversified than it was 20-30 years ago and will even be more so in another 20-30 years. i suspect medicine and biotechnology will be the leading industry here in the not too distant future. the amount of money being thrown at the TMC is mind boggling.

[Trae]

Sure is. In the 1980s, energy was 70% of Houston's economy. Now, it is down to around 40%, and dropping every year.

[Mr Roboto]

Been said before countless times probably, but its the UA population that is the best indicator of a city's size, not municipality populations.

Even still, chicago's city population estimates are always total bs. No way is the city emptying out that fast. Id guess either a slight gain, or roughly the same pop as 2000. But again, whatever.

[mhays]

I wish the Census had tract maps for each year. But they only have 2000.

I'd love to hear four or five examples of Houston tracts that have doubled or tripled their populations since 2000. The 2000 map suggests a lower figure, and a lot of tracts must have exploded since then.

[peanut gallery]

Portland-Salem, OR-UH?

What is UH??

It must refer to that little-known CSA: Portland, Oregon/Salem, Utah*. There have been some changes in the definition of CSA, apparently.


* Yes, I know Utah is UT not UH, but work with me here.

[tablemtn]

Oddly enough, the only scheduled commercial passenger flights from Salem, Oregon's airport go to Salt Lake City, Utah.

[blade_bltz]

The future of America, folks.

*vomit*

[manuelpr]

Fort Worth climbed up 11 spots. Is this the highest or what city has gone up on the ranking the most? Which one has gone down the most?

[tjh1]

What is the reason for such impressive growth for Fort Worth? I knew it was growing, but, not that fast!

The Barnett Shale sits directly under Fort Worth, which is pumping not just oil but jobs into the city's economy. Being the largest city in the shale area it is at the center of the wheeling and dealing. I'm sure there are other reasons, but that is the most evident explanation i can think of for their growth.

[Trae]

The Barnett Shale sits directly under Fort Worth, which is pumping not just oil but jobs into the city's economy. Being the largest city in the shale area it is at the center of the wheeling and dealing. I'm sure there are other reasons, but that is the most evident explanation i can think of for their growth.

Fort Worth is cheap, and annexed a ton of empty land that is not being filled up with average suburban communities.

[manuelpr]

The Barnett Shale sits directly under Fort Worth, which is pumping not just oil but jobs into the city's economy. Being the largest city in the shale area it is at the center of the wheeling and dealing. I'm sure there are other reasons, but that is the most evident explanation i can think of for their growth.

Well adding to that would be cheaper housing that can be found pretty much all over Texas and the Southwest. Another reason would be that its the second biggest city in Dallas-Fort Worth. Which means that it has a lot to offer compared to other cities similar in size that have grown by themselves in the middle of nowhere. People want to move to cheaper places, but they also want to have fun. And unlike Dallas, Fort Worth has a lot of land available for development.

[TWAK]

Dang I had no idea San Antonio had over a million people. For a million people this city sure does....

[KB0679]

^And it's the 2nd largest in Texas, larger and growing faster than Dallas.

[Raining Inside]

Austin's city population actually increased about 34,000 over the previous year's released figures. The Census Bureau adjusted the 2006 number from about 709,000 to 725,000 and this accounts for the difference. They did the same thing when they released the metro population numbers earlier in the year.

[Rail Claimore]

Pittsburgh is shrinking, but getting markedly richer in the process. Here's a graph detailing the "real" per capita income growth in various major metropolitan areas between 2000 and 2006:

http://www.clevelandfed.org/research/Trends/2008/0608/02regact-4.gif
Courtesy of the Fourth District Office of the United States Federal Reserve.

Real PCI growth is determined by gross per capita income growth minus growth in the regional consumer price index. Among the 24 largest metro areas in the U.S., only Houston has experienced a higher rate of real PCI growth than Pittsburgh since 2000. That's not the mark of a "dying city."

ASIDE: I'm surprised at the way Atlanta's real PCI growth has cratered since 2000. The Atlanta metropolitan area is getting poorer, figuratively.

I think large-scale immigration might have something to do with that. Only in the past 10 years has Atlanta seen a huge influx in Hispanics and Asians, whereas previously, it was mostly whites and blacks moving to the metro area (and they still are in relatively large numbers). In this sense, Atlanta is 10-20 years behind peer cities like Houston and Dallas. Things usually take time to balance out. I'd expect to see Atlanta back toward the right end of that chart some time next decade.

[DBR96A]

I think large-scale immigration might have something to do with that. Only in the past 10 years has Atlanta seen a huge influx in Hispanics and Asians, whereas previously, it was mostly whites and blacks moving to the metro area (and they still are in relatively large numbers). In this sense, Atlanta is 10-20 years behind peer cities like Houston and Dallas. Things usually take time to balance out. I'd expect to see Atlanta back toward the right end of that chart some time next decade.

That could be a factor. Another factor is probably the implosion of the airline industry since 9/11. It is getting noticeably more expensive to live there, though, from what I've heard.

Pittsburgh will probably be about 10 to 20 years behind all the Sun Belt cities when it comes to non-white immigration. The same way the South was "the last frontier" economically (in other words, the last region of the country to really develop and urbanize), I think the interior Northeast will be "the last frontier" with regard to non-white immigration. The Latinos and Asians migrating from the Sun Belt haven't yet made it that far north or east, and the ones from the megalopolis haven't yet crossed the Appalachian Mountains. They may begin to in the near future, though, as many of them get priced out.

The relative lack of foreign immigration is a major reason why the population numbers in the Pittsburgh area continue to decrease. Many other major cities have been able to offset domestic outmigration with foreign immigration; and in many cases, it's the single reason why they haven't lost population themselves.

[BTinSF]

Here's a graph detailing the "real" per capita income growth

I see the "law of large numbers" in effect here. The higher the base, the greater the change (growth) required to equal the same percentage. I'm guessing Atlanta and Detroit are not starting from a high base. What's remarkable is the position of the next 8.

[Antares41]

Atlanta low PCI could be explained by an influx of young people just starting out in their careers ( i.e. little or no money but lots of ambition). Versus a Pittsburgh which has an older population (i.e. riched and more establish or stable income). Not the total story but a factor nonetheless.

[Trae]

^^I'm sure the young have been moving to places like Houston and Dallas, too, just like in Atlanta. The average age for the three cities are relatively the same.

I think large-scale immigration might have something to do with that. Only in the past 10 years has Atlanta seen a huge influx in Hispanics and Asians, whereas previously, it was mostly whites and blacks moving to the metro area (and they still are in relatively large numbers). In this sense, Atlanta is 10-20 years behind peer cities like Houston and Dallas. Things usually take time to balance out. I'd expect to see Atlanta back toward the right end of that chart some time next decade.

This is true. Atlanta wasn't even in the tens of thousands in terms of international migration until 1997. Now, its numbers are the same with Phoenix in terms of international migration

[Reverberation]

I wish the Census had tract maps for each year. But they only have 2000.

I'd love to hear four or five examples of Houston tracts that have doubled or tripled their populations since 2000. The 2000 map suggests a lower figure, and a lot of tracts must have exploded since then.

I moved to Houston in 1999. It is a completely different city now. I used local.live.com and snagged some aerials of some of the changes in the neighborhoods on the Westside. Much of this was either single family or slum 5 years ago.

http://i32.photobucket.com/albums/d38/Tigerdude07/Slide4.jpg

http://i32.photobucket.com/albums/d38/Tigerdude07/Slide1.jpg

http://i32.photobucket.com/albums/d38/Tigerdude07/Slide2.jpg

http://i32.photobucket.com/albums/d38/Tigerdude07/Slide3.jpg

[LMich]

Surprised to see that even after the 2006 correction that Detroit's loss has slowed way-the-heck down, it seems. I'll wait one more year to see if it wasn't just a fluke, but Detroit's decline from 2006 to 2007 is something like -.2%

[Evergrey]

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/breaking/s_577108.html

Morgantown, Martinsburg grow

By The Associated Press
Friday, July 11, 2008

CHARLESTON, W.Va. -- Only two big West Virginia cities have experienced sustained population growth in recent years, mostly because they were boosted by high-tech industries, education and younger populations, according to Census figures released Thursday.

The U.S. Census Bureau reported yesterday that Morgantown and Martinsburg are the only two large cities in the state to see significant population increases from 2000 to 2007.

They were the only two among the 10 largest cities to see increases in that period, although Fairmont and Beckley recorded modest increases from 2006 to 2007, the Census estimates.

Morgantown, in fact, overtook Wheeling to become the fourth-largest city in the state, with 29,361 residents, or 260 more than the Northern Panhandle city. Morgantown grew from 26,676 residents in 2000.

Martinsburg, the state's ninth-largest city with 16,450 residents, grew from 14,943 in 2000.

Charleston is still the largest city in the state, and the only city with more than 50,000 residents. Huntington is the second largest, and Parkersburg is third.

The growth of Morgantown and Martinsburg is an indication that while the state's older industries -- like steel, once the pillar of Wheeling's economy -- are in decline, new job creation in high-tech areas like the research parks clustered in Monongalia County are drawing people to the state.

"There are a lot of factors that drive city growth, but economic growth is certainly an important one," said George Hammond, associate director of West Virginia University's Bureau for Business and Economic Research.

Monongalia County, where WVU and Morgantown are located, has added 11,100 new jobs since 2000, Hammond said, more than double the next-highest job growth in the state -- the 4,500 jobs created in Berkeley County, where Martinsburg is the county seat.

Another factor is demographics. Morgantown has not only benefited from rising enrollment at WVU, but from a younger overall population, while Martinsburg and the Eastern Panhandle have boomed with a growing population of commuters to Washington, D.C.

Since 2000, West Virginia has seen an overall "negative natural increase," Hammond said, meaning there have been 941 more deaths than births statewide. But in Monongalia County, the decade has seen 1,934 more births than deaths, and Berkeley County has recorded 3,722 more births than deaths.

Cities with shrinking populations face the possibility of losing some federal funding and a declining tax base. Some of those concerns have prompted Kanawha County officials to explore the idea of consolidating in a form of metro government, which would boost Charleston's population to nearly 200,000.

The city's current population is 50,478, down from 53,340 in 2000.

"That's nipping and tucking," Mayor Danny Jones said yesterday. "Charleston's going to be fine either way, but it would reflect positively on our status to stay above 50,000."

The smallest of the 233 West Virginia incorporated areas included in the Census estimate is the Fayette County town of Thurmond, with a population of seven, which has held steady since 2000.

Copyright 2008 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

[HurricaneHugo]

Hmm....the numbers for San Diego are 70k lower than the ones the state calculated, wonder why the big difference.

Either way, I wonder how long until it falls to 9th. :(

[NYC4Life]

From: Crain's New York

NYC grows, upstate cities shrink

The population in New York City grew by 23,960 people in the 12 months ended July 2007, while upstate cities continued to lose residents, according to the latest Census data.


(AP) - The Big Apple is getting bigger as the largest cities in upstate New York continue to lose more people, according census estimates released Thursday.

New York City grew by 23,960 people in the 12 months ending July 2007 for a population of 8.27 million, according to the yearly estimates from the U.S. Census. The city has been steadily growing for years and remains a magnet for immigrants and young people.

Population growth in New York has been centered for years in the metropolitan area. Some suburban villages north of the city in the Hudson Valley were among the fastest growing in the state over the 12 months, including Wurtsboro (7.9%), the Hasidic enclave of Kiryas Joel (5.2%) and Wappingers Falls (4.8%).

The story was different around much of upstate New York, where the largest cities showed slight losses in the annual estimate. Buffalo's population of 272,632 was down 0.93% over the year; Rochester, at 206,759, was down 0.40%; Syracuse, 139,079, down 0.78%; Albany, 94,172, down 0.46%, according to the estimates.

The numbers reflect a long-term trend of population losses in upstate areas as manufacturing jobs dry up and people settle in the South and the West. California and Texas each had five cities among the 25 fastest-growing cities in the census estimates released Thursday. Politicians in New York are particularly concerned about the exodus of young people just out of college, the so-called brain drain.

Among the upstate cities that grew over the year were Saratoga Springs (up 0.68%), Plattsburgh (0.16%) and Ithaca (0.14%).

Census estimates released earlier this year showed the state's population nudged up over the period by 15,741 to 19.3 million people.

[PhillyRising]

I don't believe for a second that Philadelphia is still shedding residents. The Census Bureau has it's head up it's ass.

[Paul in S.A TX]

Dang I had no idea San Antonio had over a million people. For a million people this city sure does....

Well... it for sure better than Sacramentas, thats for sure!

[Machiavelli]

I did some research for the discussion on Houston's inner population.

Houston Inner Loop: 440, 242 (using City of Houston Super Neighborhood data from 1999. So, estimating the Inner Loop population at 600,000 for 2008 isn't that farfetched.)

[Gordo]

How many square miles is the "Inner Loop Area" in Houston?

[Trae]

How many square miles is the "Inner Loop Area" in Houston?

95 square miles. The 95 square miles includes water (part of the Port of Houston is in the Inner Loop) and Memorial Park, which takes up a huge chunk of the Inner Loop.

[Capsule F]

95 square miles. The 95 square miles includes water (part of the Port of Houston is in the Inner Loop) and Memorial Park, which takes up a huge chunk of the Inner Loop.

Like 5 sq miles?

[Trae]

Like 5 sq miles?

I don't know. Probably a little more than that, because I think Memorial Park is almost that big. The Inner Loop isn't the densest part of Houston though. That's Southwest Houston.

[WilliamTheArtist]

Ugh, poor Tulsa. -2.3% The first 3 years of this decade really killed us with the telecom bust here then the oil exodus to Houston. One 18 month period we lost over 25,000 jobs. That, plus several other years of bad losses is devastating for this small a city.

However, during that time our inner ring suburbs and metro were gaining, often double digits and the metro over 100,000. The last 2 years have seen Tulsa itself growing again, plus with the suburbs having double digit growth all is not gloom and doom. I bet this year and next we will see decent growth numbers returning. Just took quite a lot of fight to get back all those jobs and people we lost a few years ago.

[Evergrey]

Well... it for sure better than Sacramentas, thats for sure!

:haha:

[Trae]

:haha:

Yeah, like for real, where is Sacramentas?

Ugh, poor Tulsa. -2.3% The first 3 years of this decade really killed us with the telecom bust here then the oil exodus to Houston. One 18 month period we lost over 25,000 jobs. That, plus several other years of bad losses is devastating for this small a city.

However, during that time our inner ring suburbs and metro were gaining, often double digits and the metro over 100,000. The last 2 years have seen Tulsa itself growing again, plus with the suburbs having double digit growth all is not gloom and doom. I bet this year and next we will see decent growth numbers returning. Just took quite a lot of fight to get back all those jobs and people we lost a few years ago.

http://recenter.tamu.edu/data/popm00/pcbsa46140.html

[Gordo]

95 square miles. The 95 square miles includes water (part of the Port of Houston is in the Inner Loop)

From maps and satellite it doesn't look like much water exists at all in the Inner Loop. Sure, there are some port facilities, but the actual water looks to be much less than the average inner city would have in the form of rivers, lakes, and ponds.

Regardless, the 600,000 population figure looks probable considering the amount of land and the increasing density.

[urbanactivistTX]

From maps and satellite it doesn't look like much water exists at all in the Inner Loop. Sure, there are some port facilities, but the actual water looks to be much less than the average inner city would have in the form of rivers, lakes, and ponds.

Regardless, the 600,000 population figure looks probable considering the amount of land and the increasing density.

The port only starts inside the inner loop, so it's mostly just the turning basin... not very much water at all.

And just to clarify... about HALF of the inner loop is densifying at an alarming rate... mostly midtown, Montrose, the upper east end (closest to downtown), and residential areas surrounding the medical center. The third ward can be added to the "slow gentrification" list as well. Some neighborhoods like Eastwood are growing slowly b/c they're still flying under the radar. The northeast quadrant of the loop is mostly factories, warehouses and heavy industry so very few people live there. Memorial Park (1,466 acres), Hermann Park (445 acres) and Mason Park in combination with Gus Wortham Golf Course (255 acres together) are probably the three largest urban parks within the loop, with a wealth of additional smaller parks that litter the area.

[VivaLFuego]

^ As of right now, this is all speculation. You won't actually know where the population growth is occurring in Houston until the 2010 census lets you compare tract-by-tract.

I bring this up because my frame of reference is Chicago, where not only have we built new neighborhoods from scratch since 2000, but these are highrise neighborhoods and far denser than the Houston Inner Loop infill. I'd wager Chicago has built more housing units in the downtown and the hot/trendy areas than Houston has in the inner loop over the past 8 years, but it's still not surprising to me that Chicago's population stagnates or even declines, because several outer neighborhoods are still emptying out amidst: 1) people affording to escape the ghetto, 2) the projects getting torn down, and 3) ever-decreasing average household size. The Chicago area is growing (in absolute, not percentage terms) has added a slightly less number than Houston over the past 10 years, but that growth is in the 'burbs despite the 50,000+ housing units being built downtown.

Point being, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if the majority of Houston's population growth is occurring in the fringes of the incorporated area of the city. Houston is immense in terms of square mileage, and vast amounts of the outer areas (I'm thinking more around the 8 Tollway than 610) have turned from greenfield into developed subdivision over the past 8 years. Even 1,000 large inner loop townhome developments with 20 units each (can you find that many for me?) couldn't come close to accounting for Houston's striking population growth. The Medical District undoubtedly drives some Inner Loop growth, but the major economic drivers of Houston's boom are way out west along I-10, or east towards the port: i.e. the fringe. So, were I a gambling man, I'd wager that's where most of the population growth has occurred as well.

That, and the influx of Mexicans and Katrinans, neither of which are in an economic class that would drive much housing construction.

[urbanactivistTX]

Well yeah, it sounds like a safe wager, but these are different cities, with different standards of urbanity, and at different stages of individual urban development... no matter how "similar" the population sizes my appear.

I wasn't speculating, but merely observing the day to day changes that are occurring around me. But my point was never to compare Chicago to Houston, or denote where Houstonians choose to live. I'd be heavily surprised and concerned if Houston were densifying in the same way that Chicago is... our cities are nothing alike. I'm certainly not going to argue with "the majority of growth" being on the fringes of the city limits, but I don't think anyone has suggested otherwise. I suppose I could have used better word choice than "densifying at an alarming rate", but to me it seems so, b/c every week I stumble upon new home construction within the loop.

[Gordo]

The port only starts inside the inner loop, so it's mostly just the turning basin... not very much water at all.

And just to clarify... about HALF of the inner loop is densifying at an alarming rate... mostly midtown, Montrose, the upper east end (closest to downtown), and residential areas surrounding the medical center. The third ward can be added to the "slow gentrification" list as well. Some neighborhoods like Eastwood are growing slowly b/c they're still flying under the radar. The northeast quadrant of the loop is mostly factories, warehouses and heavy industry so very few people live there. Memorial Park (1,466 acres), Hermann Park (445 acres) and Mason Park in combination with Gus Wortham Golf Course (255 acres together) are probably the three largest urban parks within the loop, with a wealth of additional smaller parks that litter the area.

Those are good sized parks, but I worry about the future of a lot of areas in the US that first developed as low density that are now densifying. If you take a look at a satellite photo of the Inner Loop of Houston and compare that to any area in the US or Europe that developed first as higher density, the lack of parkland is alarming. I wonder what the long term consequences of this will be - I'm all for increased densification, but I wonder about future quality of life concerns. There are probably some industrial lands that can be converted to parkland, but it will be hard to establish the small parks sprinkled around for each neighborhood to walk to at this stage (And this is referring to many, many places - I'm not trying to single Houston out).

[VivaLFuego]

Those are good sized parks, but I worry about the future of a lot of areas in the US that first developed as low density that are now densifying. If you take a look at a satellite photo of the Inner Loop of Houston and compare that to any area in the US or Europe that developed first as higher density, the lack of parkland is alarming. I wonder what the long term consequences of this will be - I'm all for increased densification, but I wonder about future quality of life concerns. There are probably some industrial lands that can be converted to parkland, but it will be hard to establish the small parks sprinkled around for each neighborhood to walk to at this stage (And this is referring to many, many places - I'm not trying to single Houston out).


There is ample precedent. Chicago developed very densely and overcrowded and had basically no public parks, which contributed to its perception as the dumpiest crappiest ugliest place to live. I was struck just comparing aerial photos of now to those from the 1930s, and seeing the number of formerly densely built blocks that are now parkland and open space.

There is also a great investigation and discussion of a similar process of neighborhood park-building in New York, undertaken by Robert Moses, in "The Power Broker."

But long story short, basically an empowered municipal park district acquires land from private property owners (either through voluntary purchase, eminent domain, donation, etc.) and converts it to parkland.

But the political climate has to be right for such acquisitions, and the funding has to be there too.

[VivaLFuego]

Well yeah, it sounds like a safe wager, but these are different cities, with different standards of urbanity, and at different stages of individual urban development... no matter how "similar" the population sizes my appear.

I wasn't speculating, but merely observing the day to day changes that are occurring around me. But my point was never to compare Chicago to Houston, or denote where Houstonians choose to live. I'd be heavily surprised and concerned if Houston were densifying in the same way that Chicago is... our cities are nothing alike. I'm certainly not going to argue with "the majority of growth" being on the fringes of the city limits, but I don't think anyone has suggested otherwise. I suppose I could have used better word choice than "densifying at an alarming rate", but to me it seems so, b/c every week I stumble upon new home construction within the loop.

OK - I was responding more to the general conversation which seemed to focus on Houston's Inner Loop growth. While that growth is noteworthy and positive (I especially dig how the lack of zoning and rising land values let you witness land economics in action: plots on side streets with single family homes get replaced with townhomes, single-family and one-story commercial on arterial streets gets replaced with apartment complexes, etc.), I don't perceive that urban gentrification is the primary driver of population growth in any US metro area at this time.

[Jularc]

40,000 New Yorkers Flee State for Atlanta


By STEVE MATTHEWS, Bloomberg News | July 11, 2008

Atlanta sounded pretty good to Scott Merritt while he was squeezed into his parents' home on Long Island with his wife and two children.

He took a new job in the Georgia capital and moved his family to a $275,000 house in the suburbs with four bedrooms, a two-car garage, and a yard with a swimming pool. It came at a cost to his New York sensibilities.

"I haven't found a single slice of pizza I have been remotely satisfied with," Mr. Merritt, 34, said. "I am not going to the corner pharmacy and being welcomed by name any longer. It was a culture shock."

The Merritts are among throngs of New Yorkers relocating to Georgia for affordable housing, a lower cost of living, a thriving job market, and warmer winters. Displaced Northerners must adjust to Southern accents, a slower lifestyle, restaurants that close early, a ban on Sunday liquor sales, and a reverence for "Gone With the Wind."

They're hunkering down by sticking together. New Yorkers in Atlanta have their own group on MySpace.com, and crowd athletic venues when the Mets, Islanders, or Jets visit. One exile has a Web log called Voted Off the Island.

"We have this pocket of all relocated New Yorkers who hang out together," Mr. Merritt said. "All damn Yankees."

About 40,000 New Yorkers resettled in Atlanta between 2000 and 2005, double the number from any other state, according to the Atlanta Regional Commission. An additional 14,000 came from New Jersey. Atlanta gained 1 million people in the past seven years, the most of any American metropolitan area. It added 177,549 jobs from 2003 to 2006.

"There is a huge migration from high-cost areas to lower-cost areas, and Atlanta is a big beneficiary," a senior economist with Wachovia Corp. in Charlotte, N.C., Mark Vitner, said.

Housing is the biggest catalyst, a real-estate agent and former New Yorker in Marietta, Ga., who helps others relocate, Barry Wolfert, 42, said. The Atlanta area's median sales price for an existing single-family home was $172,000 last year, compared with $469,700 for the New York-Northern New Jersey region, according to the National Association of Realtors.

"For the money, you get double or triple the home," Mr. Wolfert said.

A career move spurred George Fleck, 32, to give up a $1,800 rent-controlled, studio apartment in Chelsea last year. For $1,300, he got a one-bedroom apartment with a balcony overlooking downtown Atlanta's Piedmont Park.

Mr. Fleck said he walks to his job at a midtown hotel and gets stares when he tells local residents that he doesn't have a car. Atlanta's Marta subway system has just two lines and fewer than 50 stops.

Differences like that make some transplants disdainful of their new address 900 miles south.

"Atlanta is a second-tier city," Jessica Harlan, 36, who relocated two years ago, said. "New York is cooler and more exciting in every respect."

New Yorkers may even take exception to the way Georgians speak. Their drawl, and expressions like "y'all" and "bless her heart," grate on some newcomers.

"If my kids have a Southern accent, I will kill myself," Brooklyn native Jodi Fleisig, an Atlanta resident since 1998, said. Ms. Fleisig said she tends to socialize with ex-New Yorkers, and finds inviting Southerners to lunch can be troublesome.

"Being Southern means you wait for someone to finish a sentence," she said. "We talk really fast. They can't get a word in edgewise."

City and business leaders have welcomed the new arrivals as good for the economy.

"There are not many of us natives left," Atlanta's mayor from 1970 to 1974 and now head of the Buckhead Coalition, a political and business group dedicated to improving that area, Sam Massell, said. "There is a Southern hospitality here. The newcomers have adapted to that style very comfortably."

Skeptics say Atlanta, home of the 1996 Summer Olympics, risks becoming too cosmopolitan.

"We are not going to get that sophisticated, damn it," native Mary Dobbs, 62, said. "We are not that involved in sports. We have other things to do."

Atlantans bear no personal hostility toward New Yorkers, another native, who is director of the Gone With the Wind Museum, Connie Sutherland, said.

"Since 9/11, everybody in the country has bonded with New York," she said.

Some New York transfers embrace the Southern lifestyle.

Steve Segall, 23, who moved to Atlanta after graduating from Cornell University, said friends up north are envious that when they have a foot of snow on the ground, Atlanta's climate allows him to play golf after work.

Even so, the New Yorkers-in-Atlanta group on Myspace.com draws suggestions of places for partying together and alerts on low airfares home.

"I miss the lawn on Central Park," Simone Joye, 42, who organized the site after moving to suburban Stone Mountain three years ago, said. "I miss pizza — real pizza — and bagels and lox. I miss bridges and the water, which creates a sense of serenity. Atlanta has no beaches."

The pull of Atlanta's affordability versus New York's excitement sometimes results in boomerangs. Amy Josephson, 46, moved to Atlanta a first time in 1992, returned to New York in 2005, then came back to Atlanta in September.

"I am a New Yorker through and through," she said, yet she missed her friends in Atlanta and its lower cost of living. "I may feel different tomorrow."


http://www.nysun.com/new-york/40000-new-yorkers-flee-state-for-atlanta/81690/

[urbanactivistTX]

Those are good sized parks, but I worry about the future of a lot of areas in the US that first developed as low density that are now densifying. If you take a look at a satellite photo of the Inner Loop of Houston and compare that to any area in the US or Europe that developed first as higher density, the lack of parkland is alarming. I wonder what the long term consequences of this will be - I'm all for increased densification, but I wonder about future quality of life concerns. There are probably some industrial lands that can be converted to parkland, but it will be hard to establish the small parks sprinkled around for each neighborhood to walk to at this stage (And this is referring to many, many places - I'm not trying to single Houston out).


I never really thought about it. I guess my view of Houston is clouded by the fact that I live in a part of the city that was a "streetcar burb" at one point... there's several small parks, and a good share of hike and bike trails. But for the overall area, sunbelt cities are just poorly planned in regards to public space. It's just another negative consequence that was spawned from the Post WWII habitation pattern. :(

But seeing projects like Discovery Green, I'm quite optimistic that we can reclaim efficient land usage... even in sunbelt cities. 21st century Americans are very concerned with balancing their living spaces, being more careful to the environment, and improving overall health. These trends are going to continue, and I think we'll be reaping the benefits of this mindset, even as early as 2020.

[texcolo]

http://i142.photobucket.com/albums/r112/texcolo/UrbanDetroit.jpg

I google-earthed this picture just outside downtown Detroit. There's hardly any houses left.

:(

[PA Pride]

^Ha.. Oh no; Urban crop circles!

[Paul in S.A TX]

Yeah, like for real, where is Sacramentas?



http://recenter.tamu.edu/data/popm00/pcbsa46140.html

lol, I was just kidding. :)

[david23]

NYC has gained almost 1.4 million residents(almost 20% growth) since the late 70's bottom. That is an amazing outlier among the Northern US cities.

Probable population changes in major Northern cities this decade:

Chicago: stagnant/slight growth
Philly: slight decline/stagnant
Detroit: decline
Indy: US average growth
Columbus: US average growth
Baltimore: slight decline/decline
Milwaukee: decline
Boston: slight growth(third decade in a row)
DC: slight growth(first decade since the 1940's)
Cleveland: decline
KC, MO: slight growth
Minneapolis: slight growth
St. Louis: slight growth/stagnant
Wichita: US average growth
Pittsburgh: decline
Cincinnati: decline
Toledo: decline
Buffalo: decline
St. Paul: slight increase
Newark: slight increase

[LMich]

Probable population changes in major Northern cities this decade:

Chicago: stagnant/slight growth
Philly: slight decline/stagnant
Detroit: decline
Indy: US average growth
Columbus: US average growth
Baltimore: slight decline/decline
Milwaukee: decline
Boston: slight growth(third decade in a row)
DC: slight growth(first decade since the 1940's)
Cleveland: decline
KC, MO: slight growth
Minneapolis: slight growth
St. Louis: slight growth/stagnant
Wichita: US average growth
Pittsburgh: decline
Cincinnati: decline
Toledo: decline
Buffalo: decline
St. Paul: slight increase
Newark: slight increase

Out of curiosity, have you followed the yearly estimate numbers for all or most of those cities this decade? I only ask because if you're using Census estimates as part of your prediction, you're wrong on a few of them, already. Cincy is estimated to have already began to gain slightly over it's 2000 number, as has Milwaukee.

What exactly are you basing your predictions on. Hunches?

[tdawg]

I read that article yesterday about the New Yorkers fleeing to Atlanta. I love Atlanta, but those people they interview sound like major A-holes. That woman would kill herself if her kid got a Southern Accent? Compared to her (probable) Brooklyn accent??? Idiots.

[david23]

Out of curiosity, have you followed the yearly estimate numbers for all or most of those cities this decade? I only ask because if you're using Census estimates as part of your prediction, you're wrong on a few of them, already. Cincy is estimated to have already began to gain slightly over it's 2000 number, as has Milwaukee.

What exactly are you basing your predictions on. Hunches?

Hunches? WTF

I wouldn't even be posting anything if I thought my predictions weren't at least somewhat accurate.

I made a mistake about Cincy, because I was trying to do the list so fast I forgot that Cincy has had a slight increase since 2000. I didn't know anything what has been going on in Milwaukee, so that one was a pure guess based on the city's economics and census data. The other predictions are based on careful research and analysis of what has been going on in each city over the last eight years. I base my predictions primarily on economic data.

I have a hard time believing that Milwaukee will grow this decade since the overall metro employment has declined. Detroit will see the biggest decline, because the whole metro never even had an economic expansion this decade, just constant decline over the last eight years.

[SlidellWx]

www.gnocdc.org put out new numbers as of May 2008 according to the USPS household data they use. The city is challenging the census numbers using data from this and one other demographic agency.

According to the site, New Orleans has regained 72% of it's pre-storm population...putting the city at around 327,000.

Here is the percent returned for each Zip Code in New Orleans. I consider an area 95% or higher to have seen little change or to be growing...an area between 80 and 95% to be mostly recovered...50% to 80% partially recovered...and anything between 20 and 50% to be barely recovered. If it is less than 20% no real recovery has taken place. I also showed the change from last summer. It is interesting to see the population become more spread out in the last year. A few high ground areas actually lost population, while the flood zones grew substantially with the Bullard Ave. corridor in New Orleans East leading the way.

Orleans Parish:

70112 (Medical District)
105.3% (area has grown)
percent change from last summer: +4.8%

70113 (Central City)
89.8% (mostly recovered)
percent change from last summer: -17.2%...largest population decline.

70114 (Algiers Point/Behrman/Naval Support)
88.0% (mostly recovered)
percent change from last summer: -10.6%

70115 (Irish Channel/Uptown/Garden District/Touro/Milan)
92.9% (mostly recovered)
percent change from last summer: +2.9%

70116 (Treme/Marigny/French Quarter)
87.5% (mostly recovered)
percent change from last summer: +1.8%

70117 (Upper/Lower 9th Ward)
50.4% (partially recovered)
percent change from last summer: +6.0%

70118 (Carrollton/Hollygrove/University/Audubon Park)
90.8% (mostly recovered)
percent change from last summer: +3.5%

70119 (MidCity/7th Ward)
76.4% (partially recovered)
percent change from last summer: +1.6%

70122 (Gentilly)
56.4% (partially recovered)
percent change from last summer: +3.7%

70124 (Lakeview)
53.7% (partially recovered)
percent change from last summer: +14.3%

70125 (Broadmoor)
66.6% (partially recovered)
percent change from last summer: +13.3%

70126 (Pontchartrain Park/NOE west of Crowder)
43.7% (barely recovered)
percent change from last summer: +8.9%

70127 (Read Blvd. Area)
48.8% (barely recovered)
percent change from last summer: +13.0%

70128 (Bullard Ave. Area)
67.3% (partially recovered)
percent change from last summer: +16.9%...largest population increase in the city.

70129 (Village D'lest/Venetian Isles)
56.6% (partially recovered)
percent change from last summer: no change

70130 (CBD/Warehouse District/Lower Garden District)
99.0% (little change)
percent change from last summer: +3.7%

70131 (English Turn/Lakewood/Lower Algiers)
101.0% (area has grown)
percent change from last summer: -0.3%

[DBR96A]

Atlanta low PCI could be explained by an influx of young people just starting out in their careers ( i.e. little or no money but lots of ambition). Versus a Pittsburgh which has an older population (i.e. riched and more establish or stable income). Not the total story but a factor nonetheless.

This deals with the growth of real per capita income. That's measured by the gross rate of PCI growth minus the growth in the rate of the consumer price index. Atlanta attracted a lot of young workers in the '90s, but the real PCI growth was still very positive nonetheless. There has to be something much larger at work here that would skew Atlanta's numbers down that low. Either salaries in Atlanta aren't as high as everybody thinks, or the cost of living has gotten a lot higher. (Considering the standard of living in Atlanta in the '90s, my money is on the latter.)

As for Pittsburgh, the rich elderly all leave for Florida or Myrtle Beach. Elderly Pittsburghers ain't rich, unless they're living in Sewickley or Fox Chapel. Besides, rich people wouldn't be the ones driving real PCI growth -- there aren't enough rich people in any region of the country to have that kind of effect. The growth has to be driven by the middle class, and, like in Atlanta, there has to be something much larger at work. I think a lot of it has to do with the quality of the jobs being created in the region. The region lags in the quantity of jobs created, but not the quality. Most of the region's growth is in population-independent job sectors, which tend to have higher salaries. Pittsburgh's job growth rate in population-independent sectors is almost twice the national average. The reason Pittsburgh lags in overall job growth is because population-independent jobs are only one third of all jobs in the U.S.

[Matthew]

In Asheville-Hendersonville, there are northerners who won't let their children use words like "ya'll" and have a fear their children will have a southern accent. I'm guessing this is also true in other southern cities? One transplant from New Jersey moved from a small town to the city, because he thought his child was becoming too southern.

Winston-Salem's mayor said he will challenge the Census estimates, since the city was underestimated by 15,000 people. The city should have around 230,000 people.

[LMich]

Detroit will see the biggest decline, because the whole metro never even had an economic expansion this decade, just constant decline over the last eight years.

Not sure why you blew up. You just admitted that a few of those predictions were based on hunches. Anyway, have you seen Detroit's predicted loss since 2000?

[hudkina]

Metro Detroit's current estimates are still higher than 2000's numbers, and will probably still be by 2010. Hell, Detroit could actually see a few counties join its MSA by 2010.

If Detroit's urbanized area merges with Ann Arbor's urbanized area before 2010, then Detroit's MSA could balloon to 5.1 million by 2010, while it's CSA could grow to 5.9 million.

This is a map I made showing what a possible futre Detroit metro could look like:
http://www.downriverdetroit.net/detroit2010.gif

The orange (dark and light) represents Detroit's MSA, while the yellow represents adjacent MSAs that could join a CSA. The blue represents adjacent MSAs that probably won't join a CSA by 2010, though who knows in the future. Lansing and Toledo are both about halfway to the 15% minimum to be considered for inclusion in a CSA.

[hudkina]

Oh, and BTW, texcolo, I google-earthed this picture of Detroit. Lots of houses everywhere. Cool huh?

http://www.downriverdetroit.net/waynecounty/001.jpg

[Trae]

I'm still seeing empty lots ;) (its normal in most cities). Still, you can't deny Detroit's steady decline. The city will probably lose about 100,000 total from 2000-2010.

[Jasonhouse]

And Miami's 13% increase is pretty impressive considering its only 36 square miles (imagine similarly sized cities like Boston or SF increasing their populations by 13%). Miami added over 1000 people per square mile.
Yeah, there's no way around that one. Densifying by roughly 1,000 people per square mile in 8 years is pretty damn impressive.

[Jasonhouse]

The orange (dark and light) represents Detroit's MSA, while the yellow represents adjacent MSAs that could join a CSA. The blue represents adjacent MSAs that probably won't join a CSA by 2010, though who knows in the future. Lansing and Toledo are both about halfway to the 15% minimum to be considered for inclusion in a CSA.
Do you think that transit distances are going to continue to rise, given the outlook on fuel prices?

I don't. I think that in the real estate market, we're going to see a fairly large and rapid increase in demand for housing near employment centers. My guess is that counties that looked to be added may well be in 2010, only to see them removed in 2020. I, along with many others have been saying it for several years now, people are going to change their attitudes about their wasteful lifestyles once the bill starts coming due. It is, and they are.



Btw, did folks see the recent stat about Americans driving 20 billion miles less, just in the first four months of this year alone? And that's when gas was what, 20-35 cents a gallon less? Imagine how much less they will drive once they get in the habit of it, and prices keep going up. Effects from the 70's oil shock lasted for years, and I don't see why the effects of this one won't last as long, or longer (Islamic fundie terrorism adding more pressure to keep away from oil)

[hudkina]

I'm still seeing empty lots ;) (its normal in most cities). Still, you can't deny Detroit's steady decline. The city will probably lose about 100,000 total from 2000-2010.

Considering the estimates only show the population has dropped by a little more than 30,000 people between 2000 and 2007, I doubt the city is going to lose another 70,000 by 2010. Detroit's population by 2010 will probably be around 910,000, which would be a loss of around 40,000 between 2000 and 2010.

[hudkina]

Do you think that transit distances are going to continue to rise, given the outlook on fuel prices?

I don't. I think that in the real estate market, we're going to see a fairly large and rapid increase in demand for housing near employment centers. My guess is that counties that looked to be added may well be in 2010, only to see them removed in 2020. I, along with many others have been saying it for several years now, people are going to change their attitudes about their wasteful lifestyles once the bill starts coming due. It is, and they are.


While I agree that the distance that people commute will probably start shrinking over the next decade or two, remember that Detroit had one of the smallest MSAs in the country amongst the major cities. Detroit's MSA is only 3,900 sq. mi.; compare that to Houston which has an MSA of over 8,900 sq. mi. You can nearly fit two Detroit CSAs (5,800 sq. mi.) in the same area of one Houston CSA (10,800 sq. mi.) So while I'll agree that commutes will fall in the long run, I think that Detroit won't be as affected as many other metro areas. Even the larger CSA at 8,200 sq. mi. would still be nearly 700 sq. mi. smaller than Houston's current MSA.

And really, the employment/population centers of Jackson County and Lenawee County are only about 30 miles from the edge of Ann Arbor's UA. If Ann Arbor wasn't already a part of Detroit's CSA, then those two metros would have undoubtedly been in a CSA with Ann Arbor. Those are really the only two metros that aren't already in Detroit's CSA. Sanilac County already has several thousand residents living in Port Huron's urbanized area, and if that number rises to at least 5,000 by 2010 then it will join the Detroit MSA via its connection to Port Huron/St. Clair County.

The numbers I used were from Census 2000 and represent what the MSA/CSA would have looked if the Census Bureau had decided to combine the Ann Arbor UA with the Detroit UA. The only thing that has kept the two from being combined is Willow Run Airport, however development has been slowly surrounding the airport on all sides, meaning that as early as 2010 the Detroit UA may absorb the Ann Arbor UA.

[Trae]

Considering the estimates only show the population has dropped by a little more than 30,000 people between 2000 and 2007, I doubt the city is going to lose another 70,000 by 2010. Detroit's population by 2010 will probably be around 910,000, which would be a loss of around 40,000 between 2000 and 2010.

I was looking at Wiki, and accidentally took the 1990 number as the 2000 number. My math would have still been off (well, I didn't do any math).

While I agree that the distance that people commute will probably start shrinking over the next decade or two, remember that Detroit had one of the smallest MSAs in the country amongst the major cities. Detroit's MSA is only 3,900 sq. mi.; compare that to Houston which has an MSA of over 8,900 sq. mi. You can nearly fit two Detroit CSAs (5,800 sq. mi.) in the same area of one Houston CSA (10,800 sq. mi.) So while I'll agree that commutes will fall in the long run, I think that Detroit won't be as affected as many other metro areas. Even the larger CSA at 8,200 sq. mi. would still be nearly 700 sq. mi. smaller than Houston's current MSA.

That's only because Texas counties are so huge. If you look at urban areas, Detroit and Houston are around the same size.

http://www.demographia.com/db-ua2000pop.htm

[bryson662001]

As has been pointed out more than once, these figures are completely meaningless. Where is the wisdom in counting the people on one side of the street and ignoring the people on the other side of the street because of an artificial political boundry? It is the physical city that counts......not the political one.

[PA Pride]

In Asheville-Hendersonville, there are northerners who won't let their children use words like "ya'll" and have a fear their children will have a southern accent.

If I moved to the south to start a family, I wouldn't let my kids talk like that either. Especially "y'all".

[Trae]

What's wrong with "yall"? I think that's pretty common throughout the US now.

[bobdreamz]

houston may be the nation's 3rd largest city by 2020.
lastly, is miami city proper really that small? that is paris-esque size, but paris squeezes 2.5 million people into 40 sq mi. the mind boggles.

yes Miami is 35.6 square miles however how many cities compare to Paris in density even worldwide? I think Miami does fairly well in density for a US city (surely somewhere in the Top 10 at 11,508 p/per sq. mile) considering it's also one of the youngest at 111 years of age.

[Rail Claimore]

What's wrong with "yall"? I think that's pretty common throughout the US now.

It must be everywhere except the northeast. You hear it even here in the Midwest about as frequently as "you guys."

[Trae]

I hear it out in California all the time, too. I guess the Northeast is just behind ;).

[TexasPlaya]

If I moved to the south to start a family, I wouldn't let my kids talk like that either. Especially "y'all".

That cracks me up. People from the North/NE sound just as uneducated as people from the South.

[blade_bltz]

Yes, the Northeast is certainly behind in terms of massive, widespread stupidity. And no, people from California don't say y'all either. Except for the idiots.