Mecklenburg losing ground to Wake County

[A2]

If any of you guys get some free time compare the Population densities of different cities to CLT. I think you will be impressed. I was.

BTW, the site is updated daily. They even have Katrina Info on the NO page of their site.

A2

[atlrvr]

The county estimated the population at 769,843 for 2004, and has the county has been adding about 19,000 people a year roughly. That would put the population around 789,000 people. The county bases this on people applying for services....food stamps, social services, schools etc.....therefore it would not count illegal immigrants.....so the true number should be a little higher.

[A2]

The county estimated the population at 769,843 for 2004, and has the county has been adding about 19,000 people a year roughly.  That would put the population around 789,000 people.  The county bases this on people applying for services....food stamps, social services, schools etc.....therefore it would not count illegal immigrants.....so the true number should be a little higher.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

then I would have to agree that the 800K figure is probably close to right. We could nit-pick the hell out of the numbers just to get to what we want out of them. I guess I have just got bored at the office again. C'mon MB, where are you at??? It is time to get the guys in the Southern Forum a run for their money again. haha

A2

[monsoon]

I was taking a nap.

Winkipedia is even less reliable than the chamber of commerce.

[spectacle21]

I live in Cabarrus county and Ivre noticed plenty of land while driving in Northeast and far east meck county. Areas on Rocky River rd, Harrisburg rd in Meck county seem to have lots of undeveloped land available.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I agree with you. I live rite off the Harrisburg Exit on I-485 and the drive between Robinson Church Road & Harrisburg Road is filled with alot of open spaces. But, I doubt they'll all be there in the next 15-20 years.

[atlrvr]

Just to throw a few more numbers in the mix. I was using ESRI demographic data today and ran a few reports. There extimates are usually pretty sound and err on the side of conservative. For those who care, they look at the number of active postal addresses being when determining households along with other factors. This is one of the better methodologies used.

Anyway......this is their numbers.

Mecklenburg County - 2005=813,852 ..... 2010=946,370

Charlotte MSA - 2005=1,533,401 ..... 2010=1,755,707

[UrbanCharlotte]

So when should we expect Charlotte to reach 1mil?

[A2]

Just to throw a few more numbers in the mix.  I was using ESRI demographic data today and ran a few reports.  There extimates are usually pretty sound and err on the side of conservative.  For those who care, they look at the number of active postal addresses being when determining households along with other factors.  This is one of the better methodologies used.

Anyway......this is their numbers.

Mecklenburg County - 2005=813,852 ..... 2010=946,370

Charlotte MSA - 2005=1,533,401 ..... 2010=1,755,707

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Does ESRI determine future MSA's by current counties listed within the MSA, or does it consider the addition or subtraction of counties going forward (ie Lancaster or Anson)???

I would tend to believe they determine their numbers based on the current situation.

A2

[atlrvr]

Correct.....it is based on the current definition, which includes 6 counties.

Just for you A2, I ran the CSA numbers.

Charlotte CSA 2005= 2.14 million ..... 2010=2.39 million

[A2]

Correct.....it is based on the current definition, which includes 6 counties.

Just for you A2, I ran the CSA numbers.

Charlotte CSA 2005= 2.14 million ..... 2010=2.39 million

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

thx atlrvr. I think these numbers are pretty accurate

A2

[monsoon]

Correct.....it is based on the current definition, which includes 6 counties.

Just for you A2, I ran the CSA numbers.

Charlotte CSA 2005= 2.14 million ..... 2010=2.39 million

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The numbers are over-estimates according to the US Census and the State of NC. ESRI is trying to sell a product and does well where they estimate numbers higher than the government. They are not going to sell something that makes an area look bad.

The methology used by the US census to determine population counts is very complex taking into account the birth rate, death rate, medicare registrations for people over 65 who often are not represented well by addresses and other common methods, etc. It was said earlier they are conservative, but their count is the official one used by the Federal & Local governments, and is the only one that is consistant across the USA which means it is the only one that should be used for comparisons.

I don't think Meck has crossed the 800K mark yet.

[atlrvr]

But all those methods still miss illegal aliens....which is what postal addresses helps pick up. The census is very conservative for a reason.....higher numbers means higher federal subsidies. Also, the federal government doesn't subsidize illegals, so for them it is worthless to estimate them. ESRI don't try to sell services by making a place look good, they try to sell services based on accuracy.

On of my responsibilities at my firm is to meet with demographic vendors and to discuss methodologies to determine who provides the best data. I selected ESRI for a couple of reasons over Claritas who we had been using, but certainly I felt comfortable with their numbers (i've given abreviated versions of methodologies).

[monsoon]

It was my opinion. And we all know what that is worth in the scheme of things.

[A2]

I can't believe we are back on the population debate again. I seem to always get roped back into this somehow. I was speaking to atlrvr and Meisian Corners about this the other week and told them of my Obsession w/ numbers. I find myself going bonkers of the whole debate.

I wish there was a way to gauge the accuracyof CLT's city pop and MSA/CSA figures. IMO, the best solution is to take the conservative numbers and then the more over-inflated figures, add them, and then divide by two. Than I get a blend of both debated figures. That way I can finally satisfy my mind on this highly debated subject.

For what its worth, I tend to agree with atlrvr's argument, with respect to the Gov't being overly conservative. This is a money game to the gov't and has a huge impact on federal monies being handed out to various municipalities.

Another huge problem with not having accurate pop counts is the whole idea that a state can lose or gain representation in Washington based on the states population count.

I remember not to long ago there was a huge argument over NC's pop count and Utah's since it changed the representive count of the respective states in the House of Representatives. Utah got pissed.

A2

[teshadoh]

  ESRI don't try to sell services by making a place look good, they try to sell services based on accuracy.

On of my responsibilities at my firm is to meet with demographic vendors and to discuss methodologies to determine who provides the best data.  I selected ESRI for a couple of reasons over Claritas who we had been using, but certainly I felt comfortable with their numbers (i've given abreviated versions of methodologies).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Correct - ESRI's demographic data is provided by a company that ESRI bought some years ago. ESRI's primary focus is selling software, not data - data is provided as a service to ESRI users. I have more faith in private data firms or metro planning organizations than census estimates or obviously chamber of commerce or municipal estimates.

Does Charlotte's MPO provide population estimates?

[atlrvr]

EDIT**** I was using old MSA definitions in my original post. Below is the share of the MSA's population contained within Mecklenburg.

1990 - 50.0%

2000 - 52.3%

2005 - 50.0% (estimated)

2010 - 48.4% (projected)

It looks like the rest of the MSA is now finally growing at a faster rate than the core county, though I would guess that the difference isn't as dramatic as in most other large MSAs.

[A2]

EDIT**** I was using old MSA definitions in my original post.  Below is the share of the MSA's population contained within Mecklenburg.

1990 - 50.0%

2000 - 52.3%

2005 - 50.0% (estimated)

2010 - 48.4% (projected)

It looks like the rest of the MSA is now finally growing at a faster rate than the core county, though I would guess that the difference isn't as dramatic as in most other large MSAs.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This is a strong indicator for how we control Sprawl. If that number gets smaller than 40%, I might be a bit concerned.

I wonder what Atlanta's number would look like. Granted their counties are much smaller, but I am sure the number would still be shocking.

A2

[atlrvr]

Actual Fulton county itself is almost the exact same size as Mecklenburg, though many of the suburban counties are a good bit smaller.

Depending on if you believe the census or Fulton Couny's estimates, the share in Fulton ranges from about 17.5% to 18.5%.

Looking at a percent of the MSA with the Urbanized Area (UA) would be a better way at looking at sprawl, though the UA cutoff of 1,000 psm is a bit low, and a lot of bad sprawl can exist at that density. A better measure would be to look at percent contained within a contiguous area exceeding 3,000 psm.

[monsoon]

Fulton's population growth has slowed to be almost non-existant relative to the Atlanta metro. I believe that it even lost population a couple of the years since the 2000 census.

[atlrvr]

Oops....1 more time here.....these are the real %s, I promise for Mecklenburg's population share of the MSA.

1990=50.0%

2000=52.3%

2005=53.1% (estimated)

2010=53.9% (projected)

So Mecklenburg is in fact growing faster than the MSA......this seems healthy, though as I said, looking at the quality of that new development is the most important factor. One positive is though is that regulating the growth in as few jurisdictions as possible is usually more efficient.

[teshadoh]

Fulton's population growth has slowed to be almost non-existant relative to the Atlanta metro.

[monsoon]

If you trust the census population estimates, otherwise Fulton County is still growing at a healthy clip.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I have no reason not to. Nobody here has presented any information or data which proves they are wrong. Growth in Fulton, and for that matter the city of Atlanta is dismal compared to the metro.

[teshadoh]

I have no reason not to.  Nobody here has presented any information or data which proves they are wrong.  Growth in Fulton, and for that matter the city of Atlanta is dismal compared to the metro.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

By that arguement no one has presented any information / data that proves the ARC population estimates are wrong. The primary difference is that the Census Bureau, & this is understandable, generalizes permit data based on zip code, which is the aggregated to the county. The problem is in most cases, zip code boundaries overlap county boundaries - thus counties that are faster growing will be assumed to possess that zip code data.

Otherwise, when compared to most if not all similar sized metro areas, Atlanta is actually highly respectable in terms of population growth. Especially when reviewing population growth in 5 or 10 mile radius.

But the arguement that the central core population growth is subpar to the metro is an obvious one. My only resentment is the erroneous claim that Atlanta is somehow the posterchild concerning this pattern. Charlotte is in the same boat, when comparing population growth within Mecklenburg Co - the majority is in developing suburban areas, not the central core.

But this is obviously off topic, just as bringing up Fulton Co's supposed population loss is as well.

[monsoon]

By that arguement no one has presented any information / data that proves the ARC population estimates are wrong. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Maybe I missed something but I don't thing anyone here as said anyting about those numbers except you. You said, "if you trust the census population estimates" and I replied "I have no reason not to". What part of that is hard to understand?

If you were somehow attempting to justify your statement about the census being incorrect because you think the ARC's methodology is superior thats fine. It's another opinion. And as I earlier, we all know what that is worth.

[Subway Scoundrel]

I thought somewhere back I saw a comment that said Charlotte/Meck median income was much higher than Raleigh/Wake. I did some research on this.

1999 NCHEMS Information Center

Wake $67,149

Meck $60,608

2002 Census Info

Wake $71,000

Meck $64,000

2000 US Census HUD report

Raleigh $62,800

Charlotte $57,100

Numbers vary but all show Wake with roughly the same percentage above. Just thought it was interesting !!