113 replies to this topic

[waccamatt]

CorgiMatt, on Apr 17 2007, 06:47 PM, said:

This might have already been discussed on here, but I just happened to notice on the Census Bureau's site that the Columbia MSA gained 12,812 new residents just between July, 2005 and July 2006.

That is pretty significant - 128,000 if we averaged that rate for the 2000-2010 period. Columbia's metro has never grown by 100,000+ between censuses (without adding new counties). If another county or 2 is added for the next census we could see an extremely healthy increase of as much as 200,000.

[krazeeboi]

^I think I have a more accurate way to gauge average growth for this decade.

Here are the yearly population change figures of the MSA from 2000 based on Census estimates:

2000-2001: 8,303
2001-2002: 5,799
2002-2003: 9,634
2003-2004: 11,724
2004-2005: 6,395
2005-2006: 12,812

That's a yearly average increase of roughly 9,100, giving a decade figure closer to 91,000. Adding that figure to the 2000 MSA population (647K), this would give Columbia an MSA population of about 738K in 2010--if the current growth trends hold. I expect the yearly change to at least be 10K until the end of the decade, so the figure could be closer to 750K or even 775K, barring any other counties being added to the MSA (which I doubt). I think it's very possible to see the MSA knocking on the door of a 100K increase this decade, if not slightly surpassing that figure.

[waccamatt]

I was actually only saying "if" we averaged that for the entire decade. It seems very odd that the growth numbers for 2005-06 were more than double the numbers for 2004-05. Wouldn't it be nice if the growth doubled again for 2006-07?

[krazeeboi]

Yeah, I wonder if those figures correlate with job growth or anything. But so far, the 2005-2006 period was the biggest increase for the metro area so far this decade. A 24K increase from 2006-2007 would definitely be unprecedented.

[waccamatt]

I wouldn't expect another huge jump, but I sure wouldn't complain about it.

[krazeeboi]

The MSA numerical increase from 2006-2007 was 12,247--a little over 500 less than the increase seen from 2005-2006.  Still good to see a five-figure increase though.

[waccamatt]

Considering the status of the national housing market, that isn't a bad increase. This is just a continuation of the trend that the Columbia area never sees a boom or a bust, just steady growth.

[CorgiMatt]

Even Dallas-Forth Worth's 2006-2007 numerical gain was down compared to 2005-2006, but they gained more than any other MSA in the nation, with over 162,000 new inhabitants.  An article in the Dallas Morning News cited the housing downturn as the reason.

[sonofaque86]

Here is an article in today's State newspaper about population and growth of the municipalities in and around Columbia. The article says that Columbia is about 125,000 as of 2007. That's up about 9,000 residents from the census in 2000 of 116,000... Lexington is the next largest and Blythewood has the largest percent increase

Arcadia Lakes: 836, 3.1 percent decrease

Batesburg-Leesville: 5,545, 0.1 increase

Blythewood: 1,299, 56.9 percent increase

Camden: 7,029, 5.2 percent increase

Cayce: 12,556, 3.1 percent increase

Elgin: 1,074, 33.3 increase

Forest Acres: 9,968, 5.8 percent decrease

Irmo: 11,542, 3 percent increase

Lexington: 14,995, 44 percent increase

West Columbia: 13,907, 4.3 percent increase

Census Finds Slow Growth For Columbia

Edited by sonofaque86, 09 July 2008 - 11:16 PM.

[waccamatt]

The State's headline for that article was quite a misnomer. How can they consider a 1.4% annual growth to be slow? That would a very healthy 14% growth rate between decennial censuses. It has been quite awhile since the city proper grew by 14% between censuses. I think that is really showing the move back into the city because I don't think we annexed any new areas during that time period.

[CorgiMatt]

In my opinion postings about Columbia's population growth need to be in a more prominent place than Columbia Coffee House, and I note that the title of this topic is Columbia's Metro Growth whereas the subject presently at hand is municipal growth and not metro growth.  I don't know how to move things around to other forums.  Any volunteers?  

Also, I am ticked that the writer of the article said Charleston's growth outpaced Columbia's, when the Census Bureau's report shows Charleston's population decreased between 2006 and 2007 by about 20 people.  These writers don't compare apples to apples and oranges to oranges when they write these stories.  She talked about Columbia's popluation growing by only 1.4 percent last year in the same breath that she said Charleston's rate of growth was 60th compared to Columbia's 127th (from 2000 to 2007), but she failed to mention that from 2006 to 2007 Charleston's population decreased while Columbia's increased by 1.4%.  The headline of the article could have said "Columbia still growing, Charleston stagnant."  

I tried to attach the Census Bureau's table, but I can't figure out how.  Any volunteers?

[sonofaque86]

I'm sorry, I didn't know whether to start a whole thread on this or just post it in here, since it's the only thing about population. Maybe a moderator can move this to a new topic outside of the coffee house.

[krazeeboi]

I've changed the name of this thread to "Columbia Area Population Statistics" so we can discuss all population figures--municipal, MSA, CSA, etc.--in one thread. No need to have separate threads for these.

I think that showing overall population trends over several years gives us a better picture of population trends than the year-to-year figures. With annexation being so difficult to achieve in SC, it's not unusual for there to be slight decreases between years. With that said, I think it would be inaccurate to describe Charleston's growth as stagnant or Columbia's as healthy simply based on a one year estimate, which is just that: an estimate.

[CorgiMatt]

My point was that the writer's comparisons tell only part of the story.  In the table I mentioned I noticed a population figure, though, that seems like a number pulled out of a hat somewhere.  The table says Columbia's population as of 7/1/04 was 126,000+.  I follow their stats religiously every year and I have followed these forums closely, and I do not recall ever seeing an estimate of 126,000+.  I would remember that.  Does anyone want to figure out how to put the table on this forum for all to see conveniently?

[CorgiMatt]

I notice also that Forest Acres, the place that calls itself "A City Apart" on its new signs, lost 5.8% of its population since 2000.  I live near Forest Acres in Columbia and I am always quick to correct someone when they call where I live Forest Acres.  The average person thinks my differentiation is tedious, but I'm compelled to make the correction every time.  Any thoughts on why FA is losing population?

[krazeeboi]

"A City Apart"? Oh please...

[vicupstate]

krazeeboi, on Jul 10 2008, 01:42 PM, said:

I've changed the name of this thread to "Columbia Area Population Statistics" so we can discuss all population figures--municipal, MSA, CSA, etc.--in one thread. No need to have separate threads for these.

I think that showing overall population trends over several years gives us a better picture of population trends than the year-to-year figures. With annexation being so difficult to achieve in SC, it's not unusual for there to be slight decreases between years. With that said, I think it would be inaccurate to describe Charleston's growth as stagnant or Columbia's as healthy simply based on a one year estimate, which is just that: an estimate.

Not only are they estimates, but they are very frequently way off base versus the actual census.  It is not uncommon for these estimates to show population loss or minimal gain and then the census occurs and the subject city has in reality grown significantly.  Charleston's city compiled figures show a 3,000 gain in calendar year 2007.  Obviously, one source or the other is off base by a large margin.  Of course, any estimate is just that, an estimate.      

CorgiMatt, on Jul 10 2008, 05:04 PM, said:

I notice also that Forest Acres, the place that calls itself "A City Apart" on its new signs, lost 5.8% of its population since 2000.  I live near Forest Acres in Columbia and I am always quick to correct someone when they call where I live Forest Acres.  The average person thinks my differentiation is tedious, but I'm compelled to make the correction every time.  Any thoughts on why FA is losing population?

As stated before, this could be off base entirely.  If it is true, it is most likely because FA households have become 'empty nests' to a significant degree.  The kids grew up and left, and it's just the parents in the household now.  That is a common  reason for drops in population.

[waccamatt]

I agree with Vic's guess about Forest Acres - it is a town with an older average population so there are definitely increasing numbers of empty nesters and possibly some widows, also. Corgi is right, Columbia's populatioon was never 126,000 a few years ago. The 124,000+ estimate this year would be the highest and with over 700 housing permits issued in the city last year, I'm sure it's a good guess as far as the 1.4% population increase.

[sonofaque86]

I think the biggest development that's actually being built as we speak in the city limits will have a big boost for the population off of Garners Ferry and Pineview Rd. I think it's about 200 acres? They're already starting to put some stuff up and looks like widening the roads. Isn't that supposed to add about 3 or 4,000?

Edited by sonofaque86, 11 July 2008 - 11:13 AM.

[Hybrid0NE]

So, how much has the Greater Columbia region grown compared to city limits? I'm sure the unincorporated areas in Richland, Lexington and Kershaw have continued to pick up the majority of growth.