HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #1  
Old Posted Apr 24, 2017, 10:55 AM
Commentariat Commentariat is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 51
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2  
Old Posted Apr 24, 2017, 11:29 AM
Crawford Crawford is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NYC/Polanco, DF
Posts: 13,949
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3  
Old Posted Apr 24, 2017, 11:30 AM
Swede's Avatar
Swede Swede is offline
YIMBY co-founder
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: sol.III.eu.se.08
Posts: 6,693
For what period?
__________________
Forumers met so far:
Huopa, Nightsky, Jo, wolkenkrabber, ThisSideofSteinway, jacksom, New Jack City, LeCom, Ellatur, Jan, Dennis, Ace, Bardamu, AtlanticaC5, Ringil, Dysfunctional, stacey, karakhal, ch1le, Hviid, staff, kjetilab, Þróndeimr, queetz, FREKI, sander, Blue Viking, nomels, Mantas, ristov, Rafal_T, khaan, Chilenofuturista, Jonte Myra, safta20, AW, Pas, Jarmo K, IceCheese, Sideshow_Bob, sk, Ingenioren, Ayreonaut, Silver Creations, Hasse78, Svartmetall
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4  
Old Posted Apr 24, 2017, 8:07 PM
tech12's Avatar
tech12 tech12 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Oakland
Posts: 3,092
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crawford View Post
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.
Using the CSA measurement for SF and LA (which the OP noted), is perfectly sensible though.

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?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5  
Old Posted Apr 24, 2017, 8:50 PM
Crawford Crawford is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NYC/Polanco, DF
Posts: 13,949
Quote:
Originally Posted by tech12 View Post
Using the CSA measurement for SF and LA (which the OP noted), is perfectly sensible though.
That's fine, but then you have to use CSA for all. You can't pick and choose various metro area definitions based on what "feels right", or the data is nonsensical. Business rules need to be applied in the same manner for all.

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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6  
Old Posted Apr 25, 2017, 1:16 AM
ssiguy ssiguy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: White Rock BC
Posts: 5,145
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7  
Old Posted Apr 25, 2017, 1:30 AM
Crawford Crawford is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NYC/Polanco, DF
Posts: 13,949
Quote:
Originally Posted by ssiguy View Post
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.
But that wouldn't be an apples-to-apples comparison.

Canadian, and especially UK metros, are geographically much more contained, so comparison of equal geographies wouldn't make any sense.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8  
Old Posted Apr 25, 2017, 3:12 AM
mhays mhays is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 15,801
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.
__________________
When did people starting thinking "alot" was a word?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9  
Old Posted Apr 25, 2017, 5:25 AM
isaidso isaidso is offline
The New Republic
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: United Provinces of America
Posts: 7,687
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crawford View Post
But that wouldn't be an apples-to-apples comparison.

Canadian, and especially UK metros, are geographically much more contained, so comparison of equal geographies wouldn't make any sense.
True but it's not quite as cut and dry as that. Combining San Francisco and San Jose is fine but if you're doing that Toronto needs to add Oshawa and Hamilton at the bare minimum. You could include St. Catharines-Niagara, Brantford, Guelph, Kitchener-Waterloo, Peterborough, and Barrie too. The 9 metros in the GGH recorded a combined population increase of 148,612 over that year to hit 8,974,252. Then there are all the places in between that don't fall within a metro boundary; probably another 300,000 people. What to count and what to omit?

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.
__________________
World's First Documented Baseball Game: Beachville, Ontario, June 4th, 1838.
World's First Documented Gridiron Game: University College, Toronto, November 9th, 1861.
Hamilton Tiger-Cats since 1869 & Toronto Argonauts since 1873: North America's 2 oldest pro football teams

Last edited by isaidso; Apr 25, 2017 at 5:44 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10  
Old Posted Apr 25, 2017, 4:49 PM
toddguy toddguy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Columbus Ohio
Posts: 536
Quote:
Originally Posted by ssiguy View Post
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.
Not all are in the South and Westcoast. Minneapolis, Columbus, and Kansas City made this list from the Great Lakes/midwest..and New York and Boston are on there too. And Columbus is not that far really from Perth? -21,000 vs. 27,000 growth with nearly the same population? -surprising.

Also Surprising that Adelaide with over 1.25 million people is not on this list.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #11  
Old Posted Apr 25, 2017, 6:07 PM
Leo the Dog Leo the Dog is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: The Lower-48
Posts: 4,789
CA cities, low but steady growth.
LA: .5%
SF: .8%
SD: .8%
Sac: 1.3%

Texas and Florida cities' growth continue to remain strong.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #12  
Old Posted Apr 25, 2017, 6:16 PM
Pedestrian's Avatar
Pedestrian Pedestrian is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 1,944
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leo the Dog View Post
CA cities, low but steady growth.
LA: .5%
SF: .8%
SD: .8%
Sac: 1.3%

Texas and Florida cities' growth continue to remain strong.
Due to the cost of living, there is a slow, steady outflow of retiring baby boomers and some other native born folks from coastal California but they are being replaced by newer generations of immigrants and young, single college grads. The TV show "Siiicon Valley" accurately shows the phenomenon of 5 or 6 young grads living communally in a home occupied 20/30/40 years ago buy a middle class family (such a family being able to afford it today being scarce).

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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #13  
Old Posted Apr 25, 2017, 6:50 PM
Leo the Dog Leo the Dog is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: The Lower-48
Posts: 4,789
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pedestrian View Post
Due to the cost of living, there is a slow, steady outflow of retiring baby boomers and some other native born folks from coastal California but they are being replaced by newer generations of immigrants and young, single college grads. The TV show "Siiicon Valley" accurately shows the phenomenon of 5 or 6 young grads living communally in a home occupied 20/30/40 years ago buy a middle class family (such a family being able to afford it today being scarce).
This article I read earlier reminds me of your post.
A Twitter employee earning $160,000 in San Francisco says he's scraping by
Quote:
"Families are priced out of the market," he says, explaining that it's hard to compete with the hordes of 20-somethings willing to pile into a shared house — and still pay $2,000 per person for a room.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #14  
Old Posted Apr 25, 2017, 8:51 PM
isaidso isaidso is offline
The New Republic
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: United Provinces of America
Posts: 7,687
Quote:
Originally Posted by toddguy View Post
Also Surprising that Adelaide with over 1.25 million people is not on this list.
Adelaide likely missed the 20,000 cut off by a hair. Surprisingly, Winnipeg wasn't that far off adding 17,145 people (+2.2%). Very good growth for a metro of only 811,874 people, in the middle of the northern prairie, and no natural resources to speak of.
__________________
World's First Documented Baseball Game: Beachville, Ontario, June 4th, 1838.
World's First Documented Gridiron Game: University College, Toronto, November 9th, 1861.
Hamilton Tiger-Cats since 1869 & Toronto Argonauts since 1873: North America's 2 oldest pro football teams

Last edited by isaidso; Apr 25, 2017 at 9:02 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #15  
Old Posted May 7, 2017, 3:24 AM
tayser's Avatar
tayser tayser is offline
Vires acquirit eundo
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 3,052
^ Adelaide wouldn't have been anywhere near the 20,000 mark. It's a perpetual slow growth city.
__________________
Real man drives a manual, smart man takes Public Transport
"America gave the world George Bush, France gave the world the ménage à trois... Game Over."

Editor/Admin at Urban Melbourne
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #16  
Old Posted May 8, 2017, 2:57 AM
muppet's Avatar
muppet muppet is offline
if I sang out of tune
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: London
Posts: 4,350
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.



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
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #17  
Old Posted May 8, 2017, 8:39 AM
Commentariat Commentariat is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by tayser View Post
^ Adelaide wouldn't have been anywhere near the 20,000 mark. It's a perpetual slow growth city.
Adelaide usually grows by about 10-15,000 people per annum, but only grew by 9,371 in 2015/16.

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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #18  
Old Posted May 8, 2017, 8:40 AM
Commentariat Commentariat is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppet View Post
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.



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
I used the Larger Urban Zone as defined by Eurostat. This includes most of the classic commuter towns surrounding London like St Albans, Basildon, Chelmsford, Sevenoaks, Tunbridge Wells, Guildford, Watford and Slough. But it excludes standalone cities like Cambridge, Oxford, Canterbury, Brighton, Southampton, Portsmouth and Ipswich even if it is feasible to commute to London from them, given the small geographical size of England. Of course, you could argue until the cows come home about where to draw the line (although anything that includes Norfolk as part of metropolitan London is stretching the furthest bounds of credulity if you ask me).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #19  
Old Posted May 8, 2017, 7:08 PM
muppet's Avatar
muppet muppet is offline
if I sang out of tune
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: London
Posts: 4,350
sure, but the same with NYC. The metro counts only 6% commuters as a threshold for its exurbs.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #20  
Old Posted May 8, 2017, 7:25 PM
Crawford Crawford is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NYC/Polanco, DF
Posts: 13,949
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppet View Post
sure, but the same with NYC. The metro counts only 6% commuters as a threshold for its exurbs.
The London commuter threshold is geographically much smaller than the NYC commuter threshold.

London according to U.S. MSA or CSA calculations would probably be in the 12-15 million range.
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 > Discussion Forums > City Discussions
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 1:44 PM.

     

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