Metro Population Growth Stats - US, UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand
For the stats nerds, here are population growth figures for metro areas in the US, UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand which I have collated , based on the latest figures I could find. I have used growth of at least 20,000 people as the cut-off.
Metro Area..........Increase...........Population........Growth Rate London, UK..........175,246............13,653,039.........1.3% Dallas, TX............143,435..............7,233,323.........2.0% Houston, TX.........125,005...............6,772,470........1.9% Toronto, ON.........118,343..............6,242,273.........1.9% Melbourne, VIC....107,770..............4,641,636.........2.4% Los Angeles, CA.....96,038............18,688,022.........0.5% Phoenix, AZ..........93,680..............4,661,537.........2.1% Atlanta, GA...........90,650..............5,789,700.........1.6% Sydney, NSW.........82,797.............5,005,358..........1.7% Seattle, WA...........71,805.............3,798,902..........1.6% San Francisco, CA...66,230.............8,751,807.........0.8% Miami, FL..............64,670.............6,066,387.........1.1% Tampa, FL.............61,085.............3,032,171..........2.1% Orlando, FL...........59,125..............2,441,257.........2.5% Austin, TX.............58,301..............2,056,405.........2.9% Washington, DC.....53,508..............6,131,977.........0.9% Salt Lake City, UT...50,929.............2,514,748..........2.1% Charlotte, NC........49,671..............2,474,314.........2.0% San Antonio, TX.....47,906..............2,429,609.........2.0% Las Vegas, NV.......46,375..............2,155,664..........2.2% Auckland, NZ........44,400..............1,614,300..........2.8% Denver, CO...........44,261..............2,853,077..........1.6% Montreal, QC........44,135..............4,093,767..........1.1% Vancouver, BC.......41,320..............2,548,740.........1.6% Brisbane, QLD.......41,135..............2,349,699.........1.8% Portland, OR.........40,148..............2,424,955..........1.7% Nashville, TN........36,337..............1,865,298..........2.0% Calgary, AB..........35,769..............1,469,341..........2.5% New York, NY........35,571............20,152,634..........0.2% Edmonton, AB.......33,436..............1,392,594..........2.4% Minneapolis, MN....32,784..............3,551,036..........0.9% Raleigh, NC..........31,565..............1,302,946..........2.5% Jacksonville, FL.....30,196..............1,478,212..........2.1% Sacramento, CA....28,830..............2,296,418..........1.3% Boston, MA...........27,692..............4,794,447..........0.6% San Diego, CA.......27,504..............3,317,749..........0.8% Perth, WA.............27,428..............2,066,564..........1.3% Birmingham, UK....25,201..............2,833,557..........0.9% Manchester, UK.....23,308..............2,756,162..........0.8% Fort Myers, FL.......22,057................722,336..........3.1% Columbus, OH.......21,376..............2,041,520..........1.1% Ottawa, ON...........21,328..............1,351,135..........1.6% Sarasota, FL.........20,444.................788,457..........2.7% Kansas City, MO.....20,045..............2,104,509..........1.0% Notable Others: Chicago, IL..........-19,570...............9,512,999.........-0.2% Detroit, MI.................79...............4,297,617..........0.0% Philadelphia, PA......8,197...............6,070,500...........0.1% Notes: (1) ‘London’ is based on the ‘Larger Urban Zone’ as defined by Eurostat, with the component parts taken from this Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_commuter_belt. I think this is a sensible definition of the metro area. (2) UK figures are the 2015 mid-year estimates available from this page: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulat...orthernireland The 2016 mid-year estimates aren’t available yet. (2) US figures are ‘Metropolitan Statistical Areas’ at 1 July 2016 taken from https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/...xhtml?src=bkmk , with the following exceptions: - CSA is used for Los Angeles and San Francisco – I think it is generally recognized that the MSAs are understated due to the split between LA/Riverside and SF/San Jose - CSA is used for Salt Lake City as otherwise it was split into 3 MSAs each below 20,000 increase (Salt Lake City, Provo, Orem) Beside these metro areas, there is generally not a great deal of difference between the MSA and CSA growth figures – the only metros where the difference exceeds 10,000 are Miami, Orlando, Portland, Raleigh, Seattle and Washington. (3) Australian figures are ‘Greater Capital City Statistical Areas’ at 30 June 2016 taken from this page: http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@....-16&num=&view= (4) Canadian figures are ‘Census Metropolitan Areas’ at 1 July 2016 taken from this page: http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/91-214-...tbl1-1-eng.htm (5) New Zealand figures are 'Subnational Population Estimates' at 30 June 2016 taken from this page: http://www.stats.govt.nz/browse_for_...16/Tables.aspx Whilst we can quibble at the margins about what should and should not be included in a metro area, I think the figures I have selected are reasonably comparable. Any major differences generally arise from adding additional areas which are a long way from the centre of the metro area. If anybody has figures from other countries, feel free to post them here. |
The U.S. figures don't make sense, as you're comparing apples to oranges.
Use MSA or CSA, but you have to pick one. Cherrypicking based on what "feels right" is nonsensical. |
For what period?
|
Quote:
That's because the MSA methodology isn't infallible, and doesn't work well with polycentric metro areas. So we can rigidly apply a measurement that severely underestimates two of the nation's largest metro areas, or we can include a couple CSAs in the list. I think the second option makes a lot more sense. Or are you going to to pretend that the SF metro area only has 4.5 million people and the San Jose metro area only has 1.8 million, and that cities like Vallejo and Santa Rosa are completely separate metros from the Bay Area? |
Quote:
The other (probably smaller) issue with the list is that it appears to show the latest 12 months of data (I think), but the 12 months listed will vary based on country. |
Totally appreciate the info and hard work and gives a good indication of how and what cities are growing.
The US is quite interesting in that there is very little growth in the entire Atlantic Seaboard or Great Lakes and the vast majority seems to be concentrated in Florida, Texas, nd the Pacific. The UK growth seems to be completely dominated by London with the rest of the country picking up the scraps. Melbourne is rocking and all of Australia is growing quickly and Auckland too. Canada is doing well especially Toronto. Those Canadian stats are for 2016 which does not include the standard "undercount" by StatsCan which is why 2015 figures are actually larger than 2016 figures. It's clear that most people are funneling into a rather select few cities and in the US all those places are in the South and Westcoast resulting in a decline of everywhere else. The problem when comparing more specifically is what exactly constitures as metropolitan area. The US and Australian cities in particular are massive in sq area and similar sq areas used for many UK and Canadian cities would show substantially larger numbers. Still makes for interesting reading and comparisons. |
Quote:
Canadian, and especially UK metros, are geographically much more contained, so comparison of equal geographies wouldn't make any sense. |
CSAs are one system. There are other systems. The fact that one is by a government doesn't mean it can do everything. As long as it's clear what's been done and there's a good reason, that's fine.
The London area is still much narrower than a CSA. Even the "commuter belt" omits a lot of places with large commuter populations. |
Quote:
The Bay Area and the Greater Golden Horseshoe are roughly the same size in area. Are the cities in the GGH as inter connected as those in the Bay Area? It's all connected by GO Transit so I'd say yes. It opens up a can of worms when one starts using CSAs and comparing them to metros in other countries. I can see his rationale for making an exception for SF and LA but the same would need to be done in other countries too. Which ever way he goes there will be 'problems'. The data he compiled is great but it should be looked at as a rough guide. |
Quote:
Also Surprising that Adelaide with over 1.25 million people is not on this list. |
CA cities, low but steady growth.
LA: .5% SF: .8% SD: .8% Sac: 1.3% Texas and Florida cities' growth continue to remain strong. |
Quote:
Places like Florida and Texas probably aren't seeing as many fokks move away. Unlike in CA, in those places you probably can't sell your long-time family home for a million $ (or more) and go somewhere else, buy a replacement home for 1/4 of that and live off the rest for the rest of your life. |
Quote:
A Twitter employee earning $160,000 in San Francisco says he's scraping by Quote:
|
Quote:
|
^ Adelaide wouldn't have been anywhere near the 20,000 mark. It's a perpetual slow growth city.
|
Are the London figures calculated as a metro? If so you'll have to include not just London and SE England, but also East England too.
This would increase the UK metro definition into line with the US ones, based on similar commuting patterns and densities. http://www.picturesofengland.com/ima...anglia-map.gif Check this out: http://www.newgeography.com/content/...n-and-new-york "The London and New York areas had almost identical populations in 2014. New York had 23.663 million residents and London had 23.431 million residents, just one percent less. London, however, is growing more rapidly, adding 1.1 percent per year since the 2011 census, while New York's increase has been 0.8 percent annually since the 2010 census (Figure 1). The land areas are also similar (Figure 2). The London commute shed covers 15,400 square miles (39,800 square kilometers). The New York area is about 10 percent smaller, covering 13,900 square miles (36,000 square kilometers)." In other words the metro should be growing by 200-240,000 p/a. file:///C:/Users/Kin/Downloads/Subnational%20population%20projections%20for%20England%202014-based%20projections.pdf |
Quote:
The Australian figures are somewhat atypical, in that Melbourne and Sydney are growing at a faster rate than Brisbane and Perth for the first time in many years. Growth in Perth has slowed as the big mining/gas construction projects that were fuelling the economy have come to an end, but it peaked at 3.9% in 2011/12. Brisbane/SE Queensland has been the fastest growing part of the country for most of the past 40 years or so, but it has also fallen off the pace a bit recently. I'd expect the distribution to become more balanced over the next few years. |
Quote:
|
sure, but the same with NYC. The metro counts only 6% commuters as a threshold for its exurbs.
|
Quote:
London according to U.S. MSA or CSA calculations would probably be in the 12-15 million range. |
All times are GMT. The time now is 7:35 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.