HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > United States

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
     
     
  #1  
Old Posted Apr 10, 2007, 1:22 PM
SteveD's Avatar
SteveD SteveD is offline
Back on the road again
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: East Atlanta Village
Posts: 2,032
July 1 '06 CSA Census estimates (large MSAs with no CSAs added)

Hi folks, there's been much talk recently about the latest census bureau MSA population estimates, based on the July 1 '06 estimates, but I checked the website yesterday and saw that they'd also compiled the CSAs, so I thought I'd post it. I added large MSAs to the list below, in cases where they don't have a corresponding CSA. The second number represents the raw growth from July 1 2000 (NOT April, 2000) to July 1 2006.

1. New York-Newark-Bridgeport, NY-NJ-CT-PA 21,976,224 569,491
2. Los Angeles-Long Beach-Riverside, CA 17,775,984 1,334,406
3. Chicago-Naperville-Michigan City, IL-IN-WI 9,725,317 390,434
4. Washington-Baltimore-Northern Virginia, DC-MD-VA-WV 8,211,213 607,300
5. Boston-Worcester-Manchester, MA-RI-NH 7,465,634 148,278
6. San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland, CA 7,228,948 112,261
7. Philadelphia-Camden-Vineland, PA-NJ-DE-MD 6,382,714 167,901
8. Dallas-Fort Worth, TX 6,359,758 834,498
9. Houston-Baytown-Huntsville, TX 5,641,077 799,262
10. Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Gainesville, GA-AL 5,478,667 894,341

11. Miami-Fort Lauderdale-Miami Beach, FL (MSA) 5,463,857 434,568
12. Detroit-Warren-Flint, MI 5,410,014 43,549
13. Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale, AZ (MSA) 4,039,182 760,650
14. Seattle-Tacoma-Olympia, WA 3,876,211 261,465
15. Minneapolis-St. Paul-St. Cloud, MN-WI 3,502,891 217,464
16. San Diego-Carlsbad-San Marcos, CA (MSA) 2,941,454 116,521
17. Denver-Aurora-Boulder, CO 2,927,911 279,657
18. Cleveland-Akron-Elyria, OH 2,917,801 -29,219
19. St. Louis-St. Charles-Farmington, MO-IL 2,858,549 100,861
20. Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, FL (MSA) 2,697,731 293,296

21. Pittsburgh-New Castle, PA 2,462,571 -61,418
22. Sacramento--Arden-Arcade--Truckee, CA-NV 2,211,790 269,032
23. Charlotte-Gastonia-Salisbury, NC-SC 2,191,604 282,925
24. Cincinnati-Middletown-Wilmington, OH-KY-IN 2,147,617 92,322
25. Portland-Vancouver-Beaverton, OR-WA (MSA) 2,137,565 201,236
26. Orlando-The Villages, FL 2,053,623 343,546
27. Kansas City-Overland Park-Kansas City, MO-KS 2,034,796 126,627
28. Indianapolis-Anderson-Columbus, IN 1,984,644 134,760
29. Columbus-Marion-Chillicothe, OH 1,953,575 111,836
30. San Antonio, TX (MSA) 1,942,217 222,751

31. Las Vegas-Paradise-Pahrump, NV 1,820,232 393,927
__________________
Maybe Martians could do better than we've done

Last edited by SteveD; Apr 11, 2007 at 1:19 PM. Reason: pasting the longer list into this first post
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2  
Old Posted Apr 10, 2007, 2:56 PM
Reverberation's Avatar
Reverberation Reverberation is offline
disorient yourself?
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Houston's Urbs
Posts: 3,817
How did Houston end up gaining less people in the CSA count than it did in the MSA count? These figures show an increase of 799,262 while the MSA count showed an increase of 824,547. It just looked weird since I would expect the CSA to be a larger area.
__________________
RT60
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3  
Old Posted Apr 10, 2007, 3:06 PM
shanthemanatl shanthemanatl is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 490
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reverberation View Post
How did Houston end up gaining less people in the CSA count than it did in the MSA count? These figures show an increase of 799,262 while the MSA count showed an increase of 824,547. It just looked weird since I would expect the CSA to be a larger area.
Is it possible that the part of the Houston CSA that is not in the Houston MSA might have lost population?

Or did Houston lose some counties that were previously included in its CSA?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4  
Old Posted Apr 10, 2007, 3:09 PM
SteveD's Avatar
SteveD SteveD is offline
Back on the road again
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: East Atlanta Village
Posts: 2,032
I'm using a July to July reference period, NOT an April 2000 to July reference period. That's the difference you're noting. It would affect every number shown above, but in an equal manner for each CSA. I thought it was more informative to present an even 6-yr growth number versus a 6-yr plus 3 months period, in case people wanted to scale off the numbers for hypothetical future growth possibilities.
__________________
Maybe Martians could do better than we've done

Last edited by SteveD; Apr 10, 2007 at 6:33 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5  
Old Posted Apr 10, 2007, 6:10 PM
bnk's Avatar
bnk bnk is offline
પટેલ. કે ન
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: chicagoland
Posts: 10,184
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reverberation View Post
How did Houston end up gaining less people in the CSA count than it did in the MSA count? These figures show an increase of 799,262 while the MSA count showed an increase of 824,547. It just looked weird since I would expect the CSA to be a larger area.
Same thing for Chicago 407K MSA vs 390K CSA growth??
__________________
facebook
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6  
Old Posted Apr 10, 2007, 6:22 PM
SteveD's Avatar
SteveD SteveD is offline
Back on the road again
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: East Atlanta Village
Posts: 2,032
Quote:
Originally Posted by bnk View Post
Same thing for Chicago 407K MSA vs 390K CSA growth??
well, before this gets out of hand, let me post some numbers, again, these are directly from the census tables, and reflect JULY 1, 2000 through JULY 1 2006 growth.

Atlanta MSA 856,266 Atlanta CSA 894,341
Houston MSA 797,790 Houston CSA 799,262
Chicago MSA 384,966 Chicago CSA 390,434

I think the discrepancies you are citing are going back to the April 1 2000 census base as a reference. I'm using July 1 through July 1 to get an even-year number comparison, not six years plus three months.
__________________
Maybe Martians could do better than we've done

Last edited by SteveD; Apr 10, 2007 at 6:29 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7  
Old Posted Apr 10, 2007, 6:33 PM
bnk's Avatar
bnk bnk is offline
પટેલ. કે ન
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: chicagoland
Posts: 10,184
Quote:
Originally Posted by SteveD View Post
well, before this gets out of hand, let me post some numbers, again, these are directly from the census tables, and reflect JULY 1, 2000 through JULY 1 2006 growth.

Atlanta MSA 856,266 Atlanta CSA 894,341
Houston MSA 797,790 Houston CSA 799,262
Chicago MSA 384,966 Chicago CSA 390,434

I think the discrepancies you are citing are going back to the April 1 2000 census base as a reference. I'm using July 1 through July 1 to get an even-year number comparison, not six years plus three months.
Baby boom adds to area's growth
(http://www.suburbanchicagonews.com/h...SUS_S1.article)

April 6, 2007

By ANDREA HEIN STAFF WRITER

JOLIET -- News that the population of the Chicago metropolitan area, including Joliet, has increased since 2000 probably won't shock most residents.

But people may be interested to learn that recent figures from the U.S. Census Bureau show that the number of births within the 14 counties stretching from Wisconsin through Indiana added more to the population than people moving into the area alone.

Understanding just how much Joliet, Will County and the Chicago region are expanding and how they rank compared to population changes nationwide depends on the population statistics and what is included or excluded from that data.

This week the U.S. Census Bureau released its list of population growth from 2000 to 2006 within metropolitan areas.

Defined by the U.S. Office of Management and Budget for statistical purposes, the Chicago Metro Area includes Chicago, Naperville, Joliet, Elgin, Arlington Heights, Evanston, Schaumburg, Skokie, Des Plaines and Gary, Ind.

During the past six years, the Chicago Metro Area grew by more than 407,000 people: It now ranks 10th in the nation for numerical population growth, according to census data.
__________________
facebook
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8  
Old Posted Apr 10, 2007, 6:37 PM
SteveD's Avatar
SteveD SteveD is offline
Back on the road again
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: East Atlanta Village
Posts: 2,032
yes, as I've stated a few times now, the difference is whether you are starting from April 2000 or July 2000 as a base. I posted a six year July to July comparison. That is the correct number for the Chicago MSA if you reference the April 2000 population numbers, but that's NOT what I used for my first post, for Chicago, Houston, Atlanta, or any other metro.
__________________
Maybe Martians could do better than we've done
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9  
Old Posted Apr 10, 2007, 5:10 PM
JiminyCricket II JiminyCricket II is offline
good time not a long time
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: San Jose
Posts: 3,671
it's amazing to think that within the next decade LA will pass New York... who ever would have thought that the NY metro wouldn't be the biggest in the nation even 15 years ago?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10  
Old Posted Apr 10, 2007, 5:24 PM
vertex's Avatar
vertex vertex is offline
under the influence...
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Chandler, AZ
Posts: 2,600
I'm betting it won't. Judging by trends in the Los Angeles-Long Beach-Glendale metropolitan division of the MSA (it actually shrank so far this decade), along with the build-out in Orange county, the only place left for rampant growth is inland.

And judging by the quality-of-life problems already present for folks living inland, I think more people will simply vote with their feet and move on.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #11  
Old Posted Apr 11, 2007, 5:46 AM
dktshb's Avatar
dktshb dktshb is offline
Environmental Sabotage
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: San Francisco/ Los Angeles
Posts: 4,618
Quote:
Originally Posted by vertex View Post
I'm betting it won't. Judging by trends in the Los Angeles-Long Beach-Glendale metropolitan division of the MSA (it actually shrank so far this decade), along with the build-out in Orange county, the only place left for rampant growth is inland.

And judging by the quality-of-life problems already present for folks living inland, I think more people will simply vote with their feet and move on.
Would you please post the link because the MSA rankings have an increase of 544,620 or +4.9% from 2000 to 2006 for the Los Angeles Long Beach Santa Ana MSA:

http://proximityone.com/msa06rnk.htm

For the individual cities you mentioned the 2006 population estimates are:

Los Angeles 2006 3,976,071 up from 3,694,820 in 2000 census;
Long Beach 2006 490,166 up from 461,522 in 2000 census;
Glendale 2006 206,308 up from 194,973 in 2000 census.

Los Angeles county 2006 10,245,572 up from 9,519,338 in 2000 census

http://www.laalmanac.com/population/

It would appear you're incorrect.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #12  
Old Posted Apr 11, 2007, 7:52 AM
vertex's Avatar
vertex vertex is offline
under the influence...
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Chandler, AZ
Posts: 2,600
Quote:
Originally Posted by dktshb View Post
Would you please post the link because the MSA rankings have an increase of 544,620 or +4.9% from 2000 to 2006 for the Los Angeles Long Beach Santa Ana MSA:

http://proximityone.com/msa06rnk.htm

For the individual cities you mentioned the 2006 population estimates are:

Los Angeles 2006 3,976,071 up from 3,694,820 in 2000 census;
Long Beach 2006 490,166 up from 461,522 in 2000 census;
Glendale 2006 206,308 up from 194,973 in 2000 census.

Los Angeles county 2006 10,245,572 up from 9,519,338 in 2000 census

http://www.laalmanac.com/population/

It would appear you're incorrect.
you're right, I read it wrong.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #13  
Old Posted Apr 11, 2007, 12:28 PM
SteveD's Avatar
SteveD SteveD is offline
Back on the road again
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: East Atlanta Village
Posts: 2,032
One post up...LMich...thanks for posting that. I've said several times in this forum that, while enormous, Atlanta's land area is really not out of line with several other of the nation's largest metros, in particular other sunbelt sprawlers. This is not meant to minimize Atlanta's jaw-dropping sprawl, but it is meant to point out that the area is sometimes unfairly singled out, since there's really comparable sprawl in many other areas.
__________________
Maybe Martians could do better than we've done
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #14  
Old Posted Apr 10, 2007, 5:28 PM
Crawford Crawford is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NYC/Polanco, DF
Posts: 18,658
Quote:
Originally Posted by JiminyCricket II View Post
it's amazing to think that within the next decade LA will pass New York... who ever would have thought that the NY metro wouldn't be the biggest in the nation even 15 years ago?
How on earth would the above data lead you to this conclusion?

LA might pass NYC or it might not, but nothing in the above data would indicate LA's relative growth would lead it to pass NYC in the next decade.

I don't think LA will pass NYC anytime soon, not because of growth rates, but because of MSA/CSA definitions.

NYC is close to adding a few populous counties in PA and might even "steal" a county in NJ from Philly (Burlington) in the next few years. Also, NYC will merge with Philly long before LA merges with further away and smaller San Diego.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #15  
Old Posted Apr 10, 2007, 5:41 PM
JiminyCricket II JiminyCricket II is offline
good time not a long time
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: San Jose
Posts: 3,671
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crawford View Post
How on earth would the above data lead you to this conclusion?
i don't know... maybe because LA's growing 80% faster?

At the above stated CSA definitions and growth rates, LA is likely to pass NY soon. how is that not realistic?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #16  
Old Posted Apr 10, 2007, 5:48 PM
Crawford Crawford is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NYC/Polanco, DF
Posts: 18,658
Quote:
Originally Posted by JiminyCricket II View Post
i don't know... maybe because LA's growing 80% faster?

At the above stated CSA definitions and growth rates, LA is likely to pass NY soon. how is that not realistic?

LA is not growing 80% faster. Check your math.

You claimed LA is going to pass NYC in a decade. Using the above growth rate, it would still be short a few million 10 years from now.

You are also assuming:

1. Constant growth rates (which won't happen, rates for both cities will go up or go down) and
2. No change in the composition of the two CSAs (which probably won't happen).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #17  
Old Posted Apr 10, 2007, 5:49 PM
vertex's Avatar
vertex vertex is offline
under the influence...
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Chandler, AZ
Posts: 2,600
Quote:
Originally Posted by JiminyCricket II View Post
i don't know... maybe because LA's growing 80% faster?

At the above stated CSA definitions and growth rates, LA is likely to pass NY soon. how is that not realistic?
If you simply extrapolate the numbers in a linear fashion, you could come to that conclusion.

But as we all know, growth is not linear. The only real growth occurring in the LA CSA right now is in Riverside, and I think that will slow down before LA can pass NY.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #18  
Old Posted Apr 10, 2007, 5:57 PM
donybrx donybrx is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 4,966
Quote:
Originally Posted by JiminyCricket II View Post
it's amazing to think that within the next decade LA will pass New York... who ever would have thought that the NY metro wouldn't be the biggest in the nation even 15 years ago?
As I think about this prospect, even if possible, notwithstanding earthquake activity, water shortages and the like (or severe drought in the east, for that matter)................who the hell cares?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #19  
Old Posted Apr 10, 2007, 6:13 PM
SteveD's Avatar
SteveD SteveD is offline
Back on the road again
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: East Atlanta Village
Posts: 2,032
Well, as far as who the hell cares, there are some individuals, myself included, who enjoy tracking population trends and who are fascinated by population stats. So there's that. I agree with prior posters, however, that if the LA CSA passes the NYC CSA it would have to still be a couple to several decades down the road, for reasons previously cited by several posters. Without question though, if and when that happens, it would be a momentous and historic shift in the nation's demographics, since the NYC area has been the most populous for, seemingly, forever. So, it's interesting and fun to think about.
__________________
Maybe Martians could do better than we've done
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #20  
Old Posted Apr 10, 2007, 7:47 PM
ltsmotorsport's Avatar
ltsmotorsport ltsmotorsport is offline
Here we stAy
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: The grid of course
Posts: 8,046
Do you have the figures for the next 15?
__________________
Rubicon Brewing Co. 1987 - 2017
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > United States
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:39 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.