HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > United States > Texas & Southcentral > Austin

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #41  
Old Posted May 4, 2015, 1:26 PM
Novacek Novacek is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 1,026
Quote:
Originally Posted by wwmiv View Post
Because one of them is an estimate and the other is a count that suffers from significant problems re: undercounting in areas with higher transient populations. Austin has a high transient immigrant population, thus suffers more greatly from undercounting than other areas.

Re: new thread. I'm pretty sure there's an austin sub-forum thread on the census estimates already there, but if not I support a new one as well since that is a hot topic occasionally.
I'm pretty sure it's not that (or the majority isn't that).

The difference is annexation.

The census number includes everyone who was in the city limits at the time (2010). But in addition to growing, the city has also annexed additional areas in the past 4/5 years. If you compare the current city population to the census number, you're not only seeing growth you're also seeing that.

I believe the baseline goes back and (tries) to figure out what the total population was in the area of the current city limits, to get a better idea on what the actual growth was.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #42  
Old Posted May 4, 2015, 3:00 PM
wwmiv wwmiv is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Austin -> San Antonio -> Columbia
Posts: 3,313
Quote:
Originally Posted by Novacek View Post
I'm pretty sure it's not that (or the majority isn't that).

The difference is annexation.

The census number includes everyone who was in the city limits at the time (2010). But in addition to growing, the city has also annexed additional areas in the past 4/5 years. If you compare the current city population to the census number, you're not only seeing growth you're also seeing that.

I believe the baseline goes back and (tries) to figure out what the total population was in the area of the current city limits, to get a better idea on what the actual growth was.
No, you're wrong. The census bureau themselves says that the difference is largely due to count v. estimate procedures.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #43  
Old Posted May 4, 2015, 4:31 PM
Novacek Novacek is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 1,026
Quote:
Originally Posted by wwmiv View Post
No, you're wrong. The census bureau themselves says that the difference is largely due to count v. estimate procedures.
They say that in general (for all cities) or for Austin in particular? They certainly call out annexation as one of the correction factors. And Austin has had significant annexation post-census (for instance, the Springwoods MUD annexation probably accounts for close to 10K of that difference).

"The April 1, 2010 Population Estimates base reflects changes to the 2010 Census population from the Boundary and Annexation Survey (BAS) and other geographic program revisions."

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/met..._PST040210.htm
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #44  
Old Posted May 4, 2015, 4:40 PM
wwmiv wwmiv is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Austin -> San Antonio -> Columbia
Posts: 3,313
Quote:
Originally Posted by Novacek View Post
They say that in general (for all cities) or for Austin in particular? They certainly call out annexation as one of the correction factors. And Austin has had significant annexation post-census (for instance, the Springwoods MUD annexation probably accounts for close to 10K of that difference).

"The April 1, 2010 Population Estimates base reflects changes to the 2010 Census population from the Boundary and Annexation Survey (BAS) and other geographic program revisions."

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/met..._PST040210.htm
Generally, geographic revisions are not the major component for most cities.

I'm not sure the Springwoods MUD annexation occurred during the proper time of year for it to count as part of the revision here.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #45  
Old Posted May 4, 2015, 5:17 PM
Jdawgboy's Avatar
Jdawgboy Jdawgboy is offline
Representing the ATX!!!
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Austin
Posts: 3,769
I remember reading somewhere a few years back that the city had annexed around 30K just after the official census was taken so the city was actually around 820K rather than 790k.
__________________
"GOOD TIMES!!!" Jerri Blank (Strangers With Candy)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #46  
Old Posted May 4, 2015, 5:30 PM
wwmiv wwmiv is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Austin -> San Antonio -> Columbia
Posts: 3,313
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jdawgboy View Post
I remember reading somewhere a few years back that the city had annexed around 30K just after the official census was taken so the city was actually around 820K rather than 790k.
If that's the case, then yes annexations would account for the vast majority of the difference between the estimate and the count.

However, I'll note that in almost all other cases, estimation procedures account for the difference.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #47  
Old Posted May 21, 2015, 5:27 AM
LoneStarMike's Avatar
LoneStarMike LoneStarMike is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Austin
Posts: 2,117
Census: San Marcos fastest-growing U.S. city — again
Austin American Statesman
May 20, 2015


Story highlights:

Quote:
The U.S. Census Bureau names San Marcos the country’s fastest-growing city for the third year in a row.

Georgetown was the second-fastest growing; New Braunfels the 13th and Cedar Park 24th.

Austin was once again the fastest-growing major U.S. city, now with a population of 912,791.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #48  
Old Posted May 21, 2015, 2:25 PM
Digatisdi's Avatar
Digatisdi Digatisdi is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Downtown Austin
Posts: 429
If I've got this calculated right, our density shot up from 2,758.43 people/mi² to 3,358.32 people/mi² between 2013 and 2014.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #49  
Old Posted May 21, 2015, 3:32 PM
pscajunguy's Avatar
pscajunguy pscajunguy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by Digatisdi View Post
If I've got this calculated right, our density shot up from 2,758.43 people/mi² to 3,358.32 people/mi² between 2013 and 2014.
That would be almost 25%. How did you get those figures? Either Austin would have had to have un-annexed a lot of land or grown 200,000 in one year.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #50  
Old Posted May 21, 2015, 3:40 PM
Digatisdi's Avatar
Digatisdi Digatisdi is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Downtown Austin
Posts: 429
I took the population figures for 2013 and 2014 and divided them by the total land area numbers I could find respectively. One of the land numbers might be outdated.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #51  
Old Posted May 21, 2015, 11:23 PM
drummer drummer is online now
德克萨斯人 y'all
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Asia by way of Texas
Posts: 1,917
It seems a bit off, to me. The population of the core and other moderately dense areas scattered throughout don't seem high enough to change the population density for the entire city that much. The urban population would have to be much higher. Granted, it's moving in that direction...I just think that's a bit of a jump for such a short time.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #52  
Old Posted May 22, 2015, 12:30 AM
The ATX's Avatar
The ATX The ATX is offline
Right here, right now
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Suburban Low-rise
Posts: 5,013
Austin is 321 square miles. Now the math part will be easy.
__________________
Austin on Urban Planet:
http://www.urbanplanet.org/forums/forum/215-austin/
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #53  
Old Posted May 22, 2015, 1:50 AM
LoneStarMike's Avatar
LoneStarMike LoneStarMike is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Austin
Posts: 2,117
That works out to 2843.59 people per sq mi. If the previous total was 2758.43 people per sq mi, that's an increase of 85.16 more people per sq mi or about a 3.087% increase.

Last year's population estimate was 885,400 and this year is 912,791 - an increase of 27,391 people. That works out to a 3.093% increase, so population increase and increase in density are roughly the same.

That makes a lot more sense.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #54  
Old Posted May 22, 2015, 2:17 AM
the Genral's Avatar
the Genral the Genral is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: 3rd house on the right
Posts: 2,150
With San Jose now topping one million, the top ten cities in regards to population all have over one millions residents. We should be celebrating or bemoaning that distinction in about 3 years give or take a few months. But we probably have risen as high in the ranks as we ever will, at least in my life time. I wonder if our one millionth resident will get a free pass to the front of the line at Franklin's?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #55  
Old Posted May 22, 2015, 5:07 AM
Digatisdi's Avatar
Digatisdi Digatisdi is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Downtown Austin
Posts: 429
Quote:
Originally Posted by LoneStarMike View Post
That works out to 2843.59 people per sq mi. If the previous total was 2758.43 people per sq mi, that's an increase of 85.16 more people per sq mi or about a 3.087% increase.

Last year's population estimate was 885,400 and this year is 912,791 - an increase of 27,391 people. That works out to a 3.093% increase, so population increase and increase in density are roughly the same.

That makes a lot more sense.
See this kind of thing is exactly why I try to put a disclaimer about my abysmal math ability in any post that involves me doing math. Thanks for checking my bizarro-math
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #56  
Old Posted May 22, 2015, 7:39 AM
The ATX's Avatar
The ATX The ATX is offline
Right here, right now
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Suburban Low-rise
Posts: 5,013
Quote:
Originally Posted by the Genral View Post
With San Jose now topping one million, the top ten cities in regards to population all have over one millions residents. We should be celebrating or bemoaning that distinction in about 3 years give or take a few months. But we probably have risen as high in the ranks as we ever will, at least in my life time. I wonder if our one millionth resident will get a free pass to the front of the line at Franklin's?
Don't give up Genral! It may not be too long before Austin passes San Jose and moves into the 10th spot.

I did some late night math and plugged some formulas into a spreadsheet to compare the population growth of Austin and San Jose. Of course it's hard to predict too far out into the future with any accuracy, so I don't like to do population projections for more than five to 10 years out. Also, I find it best to only use the annual growth rates from the last annual census going back to the previous two decennial censuses.

Using the 2010 to 2014 growth rates of each city Austin should pass San Jose to become the 10th largest city in late 2018. This may not be reflected until the 2020 census since it would be too late in the year to be reflected in the 2019 release.

Using the 2000 to 2014 growth rates of each city Austin will move up to 10th in early 2018 which may be reflected in the 2019 release.

Austin also has one big advantage over San Jose besides a faster growth rate. San Jose is land locked, and population increases need to come from greater density. Austin on the other hand, can annex close to 250,000 people living in unincorporated areas in the ETJ. If Austin would change its current annexation policy and become more aggressive, the population increases would be, well do the math.
__________________
Austin on Urban Planet:
http://www.urbanplanet.org/forums/forum/215-austin/

Last edited by The ATX; May 22, 2015 at 8:04 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #57  
Old Posted May 22, 2015, 9:23 AM
pscajunguy's Avatar
pscajunguy pscajunguy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hill Country View Post
Don't give up Genral! It may not be too long before Austin passes San Jose and moves into the 10th spot.

I did some late night math and plugged some formulas into a spreadsheet to compare the population growth of Austin and San Jose. Of course it's hard to predict too far out into the future with any accuracy, so I don't like to do population projections for more than five to 10 years out. Also, I find it best to only use the annual growth rates from the last annual census going back to the previous two decennial censuses.

Using the 2010 to 2014 growth rates of each city Austin should pass San Jose to become the 10th largest city in late 2018. This may not be reflected until the 2020 census since it would be too late in the year to be reflected in the 2019 release.

Using the 2000 to 2014 growth rates of each city Austin will move up to 10th in early 2018 which may be reflected in the 2019 release.

Austin also has one big advantage over San Jose besides a faster growth rate. San Jose is land locked, and population increases need to come from greater density. Austin on the other hand, can annex close to 250,000 people living in unincorporated areas in the ETJ. If Austin would change its current annexation policy and become more aggressive, the population increases would be, well do the math.
Right. San Jose is surrounded by cities, the Bay and steep rugged mountains on all sides but the south, and they can't expand much further south until they hit Morgan Hill city limits, and Morgan Hill is growing into San Jose faster than San Jose is growing into Morgan Hill. San Jose doesn't really want to provide expensive city services down there. If they grew too much down there, 101 would make IH35 seem like a country lane, and they only have room for one highway down there, because the mountains on the east and west get closer together in the south. They have filled in all the land that they can, and their height restrictions are 250 feet, virtually citywide, because of San Jose International next to downtown and Reid-Hillview airport in the south, not to mention the very stringent earthquake codes due to their silty, sandy soil. San Jose has grown about as much as it can, and considering apartment rents are even higher than San Francisco (imagine that!), they are not likely to be building many of those, and that's exactly why they don't. People could not afford it, and many people who work in San Jose commute from almost 100 miles away (Tracy and Stockton. i.e.), because of that fact. They can catch BART in Concord, halfway, and take light rail/commuter bus from the Fremont-Mission San Jose Bart Station into town. San Jose's policy of encouraging McMansions developments in gentrifying neighborhoods pretty well negates further density.
All Austin would need to do to pass San Jose is to annex not a whole lot of our ETJ, even just the pockets that are entirely encircled by the city. Austin already has to supply many of the services there.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #58  
Old Posted May 23, 2015, 7:37 AM
Jdawgboy's Avatar
Jdawgboy Jdawgboy is offline
Representing the ATX!!!
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Austin
Posts: 3,769
These numbers are from July 2013 to July 2014 and does not include the growth that we have seen since. It was also reported at the time that the city had annexed 30,000 after the census finished counting in 2010 so the 790K number should have been 820K. Assuming the numbers since 2010 are still based off of the 790K number then it's likely our current population as of right now is closer to 960K and thats if we end up only adding 18K from July 2014 to this July. We were 4th in the nation in numerical growth from July 2013 to July 2014 with 25,667.

Funny enough Angelo Angelou had a similar figure which if I recall some on here were saying he wasn't referring to city population even though he said Austin is roughly 40k below San Jose.

Either way it's safe to say that we are somewhere between 912K and 960K given that it's just estimated numbers.
__________________
"GOOD TIMES!!!" Jerri Blank (Strangers With Candy)

Last edited by Jdawgboy; May 23, 2015 at 8:08 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #59  
Old Posted May 23, 2015, 8:31 AM
pscajunguy's Avatar
pscajunguy pscajunguy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jdawgboy View Post
These numbers are from July 2013 to July 2014 and does not include the growth that we have seen since. It was also reported at the time that the city had annexed 30,000 after the census finished counting in 2010 so the 790K number should have been 820K. Assuming the numbers since 2010 are still based off of the 790K number then it's likely our current population as of right now is closer to 960K and thats if we end up only adding 18K from July 2014 to this July. We were 4th in the nation in numerical growth from July 2013 to July 2014 with 25,667.

Funny enough Angelo Angelou had a similar figure which if I recall some on here were saying he wasn't referring to city population even though he said Austin is roughly 40k below San Jose.

Either way it's safe to say that we are somewhere between 912K and 960K given that it's just estimated numbers.
If you look at the City of Austin April 1 Census, it was 790,390, but the "Census Base" was 811,458 for April 1, 1980. Most other cities had the two numbers about the same, give or take a few. The estimate for 7/1 2010 was 816,622. Since then Austin has added roughly 25,000 every year. Somehow I think the new annexation figures were the difference between the 790,390 and the 811,458. At least it makes some kind of sense. Even Dallas or Houston were about the same for the 2010 Census and the "Census Base", so I don't think that was an estimated homeless number. Do you think that might be what happened?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #60  
Old Posted May 24, 2015, 5:17 AM
Tech House's Avatar
Tech House Tech House is offline
Harbinger of Skullduggery
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 749
Austin's population density is under 3,000 ppsm. Really?
Moscow, Idaho, has a density of nearly 3500.
Greeley, CO, is just shy of 3100.
Plano, TX, crams 3600+ into an average section.
I want to send specially designed toilet paper to the NIMBY-enablers on the council and in all other departments, and this t.p. will list cities in declining density. When they get to Austin, they know it's time to load a new roll. Of course Austin deserves big time credit for preserving wilderness areas within its limits, but that doesn't explain away the sprawl that defines our favorite sunbelt boomtown.

I'm in Lynnwood, WA, for the month of May. This is a suburb north of Seattle. It's an area without any intelligent planning, and the sprawl goes on for tens of miles in all directions that aren't large bodies of water. Something that this area has in common with Austin is the rapid emergence of generic VMU developments that look nearly identical to one another and to all those same buildings in Austin. Developed by the same corporations, no doubt. But it's an improvement over the prior model of sprawl, a big improvement. In those areas with VMU there's more of a sense of location and community, it makes sense. But there are vast areas north and NE of Seattle where huge residential houses or projects are jammed together on tiny lots on private "roads" (shared driveways), with no place to pull over or park other than garages, and not a store within a mile in any direction. No bike lanes, no sidewalks, no shoulder, miles and miles of this in all directions. It's pretty surprising to see this in the supposedly-progressive Seattle area.

Now, about San Marcos, I wonder how that city is managing to grow so rapidly when it is so constrained in its ability to grow near downtown. Obviously the new development must be taking place mainly east of 35. It's a tricky place and I will admire anyone who manages to preserve what is "cute" and charming about the town, while simultaneously improving traffic flow, increasing density, nudging building heights upward where appropriate, and preserving the springs and river. To that person or persons, may the odds be ever in your favor.
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 > Texas & Southcentral > Austin
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 6:25 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.