Jump to content

Nashville area population trends 1950-2012

UTgrad09

By UTgrad09
in Nashville

Recommended Posts

UTgrad09 Town

UTgrad09

Posted
Posted
County  ---------- 1950 ------- 1960 ------ 1970 ------ 1980 ------- 1990 -------- 2000 ------- 2010 -------- 2012
 
Cannon  -------- *9,174 ----- *8,537 ----- *8,467  -- *10,234  --- *10,467  ----- 12,826 ---- 13,801 ------ 13,811
change ------------- N/A -------- -637 --------- -70 ----- 1,767 --------- 233 -------- 2,359 -------- 975 ----------- 10
percentage -------- N/A ----- -6.94% ---- -0.82%---- 20.87% ------ 2.28% ----- 22.54% ----- 7.60% ------- 0.07%
 
Cheatham  ----- *9,167 ----- *9,428 --- *13,199 ---- 21,616 ----- 27,140 ----- 35,912 ----- 39,105 ------ 39,271
change ------------- N/A ---------- 261 ----- 3,771 ------ 8,417 ------ 5,524 ------- 8,772 ------- 3,193 --------- 166
percentage -------- N/A ------- 2.85% --- 40.00% --- 63.77% ---- 25.56% ----- 32.32% ------- 8.89% ------- 0.42%
 
Davidson  ---- 321,758 -- 399,743 --- 448,003 -- 477,811 ---- 510,784 --- 569,891 --- 626,681 ----- 648,295
change ------------- N/A ----- 77,985 ----- 48,260 --- 29,808 ------ 32,973 ----- 59,107 ---- 56,790 ------- 21,614
percentage -------- N/A ----- 24.24% ---- 12.07% ---- 6.65% -------- 6.90% ---- 11.57% ------ 9.97% -------- 3.45%
 
Dickson ------- *18,805 --- *18,839 --- *21,977 ---- 30,037 ------ 35,061 ----- 43,156 ---- 49,666 ------ 50,381
change ------------- N/A ----------- 34 ------ 3,138 ----- 8,060 -------- 5,024 ------ 8,095 ------ 6,510 ---------- 715
percentage -------- N/A ------- 0.18% --- 16.66% --- 36.67% ------ 16.73% ---- 23.09% ---- 15.08% -------- 1.44%
 
Hickman ------ *13,353 ---- *11,862 --- *12,096 --- *15,151 ---- *16,754 ----- 22,295 ----- 24,690 ------ 24,170
change ------------- N/A ------- -1,491 ------- 234 ------ 3,055 ------- 1,603 ------ 5,541 ------- 2,359 --------- -520
percentage -------- N/A ----- -11.17% ---- 1.97% --- 25.26% ----- 10.58% ---- 33.07% ----- 10.74% ------ -2.11%
 
Macon --------- *13,599 --- *12,197 --- *12,315 --- *15,700 ---- *15,906 ------ 20,386 ---- 22,248 ------ 22,498
change ------------- N/A ------ -1,402 -------- 118 ------ 3,385 --------- 206 ------- 4,480 ------ 1,862 ---------- 250
percentage -------- N/A ---- -10.31% ----- 0.97% --- 27.49% ------ 1.31% ----- 28.17% ----- 9.13% -------- 1.12%
 
Maury ---------- *40,368 --- *41,699 --- *43,376 --- *51,095 ---- *54,812 ----- *69,498 ---- 80,956 ------ 81,990
change ------------- N/A ------- 1,331 ------ 1,677 ----- 7,719 ------- 3,717 ------ 14,686 ---- 11,458 -------- 1,034
percentage -------- N/A ------- 3.30% ----- 4.02% --- 17.80% ------ 7.27% ----- 26.79% --- 16.49% -------- 1.28%
 
County  ---------- 1950 ------- 1960 ------ 1970 ------ 1980 ------- 1990 -------- 2000 ------- 2010 -------- 2012

 

Robertson ---- *27,024 --- *27,335 --- *29,102 ---- 37,021 ----- 41,494 ------ 54,433 ---- 66,283 ------ 66,931
change ------------- N/A ---------- 311 ----- 1,767 ------ 7,919 ------- 4,473 ------ 12,939 ---- 11,850 ---------- 648
percentage -------- N/A ------- 1.15% ----- 6.46% --- 27.21% ------12.08% ----- 31.18% ---- 21.77% -------- 0.98%
 
Rutherford --- *40,696 --- *52,368 --- *59,428 ---- 84,058 ---- 118,570 ---- 182,023 --- 262,604 ---- 274,454
change ------------- N/A ------ 11,672 ----- 7,060 ---- 24,630 ------ 34,512 ----- 63,453 ----- 80,581 ------ 11,850
percentage -------- N/A ------ 28.68% -- 13.48% --- 41.45% ------ 41.06% ----- 53.52% ---- 44.27% -------- 4.51%
 
Smith ----------- *14,098 --- *12,059 --- *12,509 --- *14,935 ---- *14,143 ------ 17,712 ---- 19,166 ------ 19,102
change ------------- N/A ------ -2,039 -------- 450 ------ 2,426 -------- -792 -------- 3,569 ----- 1,454 ----------- -64
percentage -------- N/A ---- -14.46% ----- 3.73% ---- 19.39% ---- -5.30% ------ 25.24% ---- 8.21% ------- -0.33%
 
Sumner -------- *33,533 --- *36,217 ---- 56,106 ---- 85,790 --- 103,281 ---- 130,449 ---- 160,645 ---- 166,123
change ------------- N/A ------- 2,684 ---- 19,889 ----- 29,684 -----17,491 ------ 27,168 ----- 30,196 ------- 5,478
percentage -------- N/A ------- 8.00% --- 54.92% ---- 52.91% ---- 20.39% ------ 26.30% ----- 23.15% ------- 3.41%
 
Trousdale ------- *5,520 ---- *4,914 ---- *5,155 ----- *6,137 ------ *5,920 ------- 7,259 ------- 7,870 ------- 7,795
change ------------- N/A --------- -606 -------- 241 -------- 982 -------- -217 ------- 1,339 ---------- 611 --------- -75
percentage -------- N/A ----- -10.98% ---- 4.90% --- 19.05% ----- -3.54% ----- 22.62% ------- 8.42% ------ -0.95%
 
Williamson ---- *24,307 --- *25,267 -- *34,330 ----- 58,108 ----- 81,021 ---- 126,638 ---- 183,182 ---- 192,911
change ------------- N/A ---------- 960 ----- 9,063 ----- 23,778 ----- 22,913 ----- 45,617 ------ 56,544 ------- 9,729
percentage -------- N/A ------- 3.95% --- 35.87% ---- 69.26% ---- 39.43% ----- 56.30% ------ 44.65% ------- 5.31%
 
Wilson ---------- *26,318 --- *27,668 --- 36,999 ---- 56,064 ----- 67,675 ------ 88,809 ---- 113,993 ----- 118,961
change ------------- N/A -------- 1,350 ----- 9,331 ---- 19,065 ----- 11,611 ------ 21,134 ----- 25,184 -------- 4,968
percentage -------- N/A -------- 5.13% -- 33.72% ---- 51.53% ---- 20.71% ------ 31.23% ----- 28.36% -------- 4.36%
 
County  ---------- 1950 ------- 1960 ------ 1970 ------ 1980 ------- 1990 -------- 2000 -------- 2010 -------- 2012
 
MSA ------------- 321,758 -- 399,743 - 541,108 --- 850,505 ---- 985,026 - 1,311,789 -- 1,670,890 -- 1,726,693
change** ----------- N/A ------ 77,985 --- 77,480 --- 151,361 ---- 134,521 ---- 263,573 ---- 289,603 ------ 55,803
percentage** ------ N/A ------ 24.24% ---16.71% ---- 21.65% ----- 15.82% ----- 25.14% ------ 20.97% ------- 3.34%

 

Region --------- 597,720 -- 688,133 - 793,062 --- 963,757 -- 1,103,028 - 1,381,287 -- 1,670,890 -- 1,726,693
change ------------- N/A ------ 90,413 - 104,929 --- 170,695 ----- 139,271 --- 278,259 ---- 289,603 ------ 55,803
percentage -------- N/A ------ 15.13% -- 15.25% --- 21.52% ------ 14.45% ---- 25.23% ----- 20.97% ------- 3.34%
 

*not part of the MSA at the time

**adjusted to offset the addition of counties by retroactively adding them to the previous Census

 

Timeline of Nashville's MSA

---1950 --------- 1960 --------- 1970 --------- 1980 --------- 1990 --------- 2000 --------- 2010 --------- 2012

Davidson      Davidson       Davidson      Davidson      Davidson       Davidson      Davidson       Davidson

                                          Sumner         Sumner         Sumner         Sumner         Sumner         Sumner

                                          Wilson           Wilson          Wilson           Wilson           Wilson           Wilson

                                                               Cheatham     Cheatham     Cheatham     Cheatham     Cheatham

                                                               Dickson         Dickson         Dickson        Dickson         Dickson

                                                               Robertson     Robertson     Robertson    Robertson     Robertson

                                                               Rutherford    Rutherford     Rutherford    Rutherford    Rutherford

                                                               Williamson    Williamson     Williamson     Williamson    Williamson

                                                                                                          Cannon         Cannon        Cannon

                                                                                                          Hickman        Hickman        Hickman

                                                                                                          Macon           Macon           Macon

                                                                                                          Smith            Smith             Smith

                                                                                                          Trousdale     Trousdale      Trousdale

                                                                                                                               Maury            Maury

 

 

Cumulative change 1950-2012

County ------------- change ------- %growth ---- share of region growth

Cannon --------------- 4,637 ---------- 50.55% --------------- 0.41%

Cheatham ---------- 30,104 --------- 328.40% --------------- 2.67%

Davidson ---------- 326,537 -------- 101.49% -------------- 28.92%

Dickson -------------- 31,576 -------- 167.91% --------------- 2.80%

Hickman ------------- 10,817 ---------- 81.01% --------------- 0.96%

Macon ----------------- 8,899 ---------- 65.44% --------------- 0.79%

Maury ---------------- 41,622 -------- 103.11% --------------- 3.69%

Robertson ----------- 39,907 -------- 147.67% --------------- 3.53%

Rutherford --------- 233,758 -------- 574.40% ------------- 20.71%

Smith ------------------- 5,004 --------- 35.49% --------------- 0.44%

Sumner ------------- 132,590 -------- 395.40% ------------- 11.74%

Trousdale ------------- 2,275 ---------- 41.21% -------------- 0.20%

Williamson --------- 168,604 -------- 693.64% ------------- 14.93%

Wilson ---------------- 92,643 -------- 352.01% -------------- 8.21%

Region total ----- 1,128,973 -------- 188.88% ----------- 100.00%

 

Top gainers by decade:

1950s

Davidson     77,985

Rutherford  11,672

Sumner         2,684

Wilson           1,350

Maury            1,331

 

1960s

Davidson     48,260

Sumner       19,889

Wilson           9,331

Williamson    9,063

Rutherford    7,060

 

1970s

Davidson     29,808

Sumner       29,684

Rutherford   24,630

Williamson   23,778

Wilson         19,065

 

1980s

Rutherford   34,512

Davidson     32,973

Williamson   22,913

Sumner        17,491

Wilson          11,611

 

1990s

Rutherford   63,453

Davidson     59,107

Williamson   45,617

Sumner        27,168

Wilson         21,134

 

2000s

Rutherford   80,581

Davidson     56,790

Williamson   56,544

Sumner       30,196

Wilson         25,184

 

Top growth rate by decade:

1950s

Rutherford   28.68%

Davidson     24.24%

Sumner         8,00%

Wilson           5.13%

Williamson     3.95%

 

1960s

Sumner          54.92%

Cheatham      40,00%

Williamson      35.87%

Wilson            33.72%

Dickson          16.66%

 

1970s

Williamson      69.26%

Cheatham      63.77%

Sumner          52.91%

Wilson            51.53%

Rutherford     41.45%

 

1980s

Rutherford     41.06%

Williamson     39.43%

Cheatham      25.56%

Wilson            20.71%

Sumner          20.39%

 

1990s

Williamson     56.30%

Rutherford     53.52%

Hickman         33.07%

Cheatham      32.32%

Wilson            31.23%

 

2000s

Williamson     44.65%

Rutherford     44.27%

Wilson            28.36%

Sumner          23.15%

Robertson      21.77%

 

 

 

I do plan to add some commentary to this. Feel free to point out your own thoughts as well. It's a lot of data...and while I'm fairly confident everything on here is correct, I may have made a clerical error transcribing this, so if you see something that seems off, kindly tell me so. The data is just here to take in -- but any discussion of the trends or the tie-ins with development and sprawl are welcome -- but please do keep it civil. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 9
  • Created
  • Last Reply
UTgrad09 Town

UTgrad09

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Interesting trends:

 

-Davidson County is the only county (not too surprisingly) to have added at least 10,000 per decade. Rutherford and Sumner did for all but one decade each. In fact, Davidson County has added at least 10,000 residents each decade since 1860.

 

-Davidson County's share of the region's population growth:

---1950s - 86.25%

---1960s - 45.99%

---1970s - 17.46%

---1980s - 23.68%

---1990s - 21.24%

---2000s - 19.61%

---2010-12 - 38.73%

 

-Maury County used to be a lot more important. In 1950, it was a mere 328 people shy of Rutherford County, making it the 3rd largest in this region (throw in Montgomery County, and it was 4th largest in Middle Tennessee). Now Williamson, Sumner, and Wilson have all rocketed past.

 

-The rural roller coaster: specifically Cannon, Hickman, Macon, Smith, and Trousdale Counties:

---the group lost 6,175 from 1950-1960 (-11.08%)

---the group had a meager gain of 973 from 1960-1970 (1.96%)

---the group had strong growth of 11,615 from 1970-1980 (22.98%)

---the group again had a meager gain of 1,033 from 1980-1990 (1.66%)

---the group then had strong growth of 17,288 from 1990-2000 (27.36%)

---the group had more modest growth of 7,297 from 2000-2010 (9.07%)

---the group is showing signs of declining (-399) in the early 2010s.

It's a far cry from the consistent gains of the closer suburbs. I would imagine economic conditions are far more influential in these areas.

 

-Sumner was first county to really see significant growth (it was also one of the first metro counties, along with Wilson). From 1960-1980 it grew by 49,583 (137%) and actually passed Rutherford county as the 2nd largest county in Middle Tennessee. Since then, Rutherford has blown past, though Sumner still enjoys steady growth.

 

-Williamson and Wilson mirrored each other until the 1980s. The pair were separated by roughly 2-3,000 people going back as far as 1900...then Williamson exploded, and is now 62% larger (almost 74,000).

 

The top 5 by decade:

----1950----------1960----------1970----------1980----------1990----------2000----------2010----------2012

Davidson       Davidson      Davidson     Davidson      Davidson      Davidson      Davidson     Davidson

Rutherford     Rutherford    Rutherford  Sumner         Rutherford    Rutherford   Rutherford   Rutherford

Maury            Maury           Sumner       Rutherford    Sumner         Sumner        Williamson   Williamson

Sumner         Sumner         Maury          Williamson    Williamson    Williamson    Sumner       Sumner

Wilson           Wilson           Wilson         Wilson          Wilson           Wilson          Wilson         Wilson

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 1 year later...
NashvilleTaylor Whistle-Stop

NashvilleTaylor

Posted
Posted

I can't wait to see the 2020 census.  Nashville is growing like crazy.  I never understood why so many counties were added to the MSA.  Imo it seems kind of greedy.  Most of those counties are extremely rural.  The Nashville MSA really should just include Davidson, Rutherford, Williamson and Wilson and Sumner.  Clarksville, while close, isn't really part of the same urban area.  The northwestern part of Davidson county is super rural and it continues for most of the way up to Clarksville.  I can say the same for Dickson.  Starting at the Cheatham-Davidson county line going west on 40 it's very rural, continuing into Dickson County.  We might as well include Bowling Green in the MSA as well, and Jackson, Cookeville, Manchester.  Hell, why stop there, Chattanooga is just down the road...

 

EDIT: btw taking just those five counties the metro pop is 1.4 million

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MLBrumby Metropolis

MLBrumby

Posted
Posted

That determination is based on the percentage of residents who work in/commute to another county, and if that county is in the designated Metropolitan area, then above a certain percentage of commuters will make a county be included in the Metro area.  I think it's 30% of commuters (working population)????

Link to comment
Share on other sites
UTgrad09 Town

UTgrad09

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Bet it's somewhere in the 1 Million range.

 

It's not that high. It's not as high as you would think. Remember, a modest number of Davidson County residents reverse commute.

 

The data from 2010 shows Nashville (not Davidson County) with about 690,000....but that was before the Census numbers came out (they were probably from the ACS), because it listed Nashville's normal population as being 587,000, and the 2010 Census showed 601,000.

 

Assuming the ratios stay relatively the same (percentage increase in daytime population from that estimate to now), then with a population of 634,000 (2013 -- currently we may *actually* have hit the 650,000 mark), then the number would be around 744,000. 

 

Of course, what we don't know is how all the new job announcements have affected the numbers. It's hard to quantify that (since we don't know WHERE the people at those jobs live).

 

 

 

So, in summary, probably somewhere in the 750,000 ballpark.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nashville Cliff Hamlet

Nashville Cliff

Posted
Posted

According to Wikipedia its the total of in and out commuting. 25% or more, with exceptions.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metropolitan_statistical_area#Definitions

 

Here is an excerpt from the 2010 OMB standards for CBSAs (core based statistical areas; MSAs are a type of CBSA) describing central and outlying counties:

 

Section 2. Central Counties
The central county or counties of a
CBSA are those counties that:
(a) Have at least 50 percent of their
population in urban areas of at least
10,000 population; or
(b) Have within their boundaries a
population of at least 5,000 located in a
single urban area of at least 10,000
population.
A central county is associated with
the urbanized area or urban cluster that
accounts for the largest portion of the
county’s population. The central
counties associated with a particular
urbanized area or urban cluster are
grouped to form a single cluster of
central counties for purposes of
measuring commuting to and from
potentially qualifying outlying counties.
 
Section 3. Outlying Counties
A county qualifies as an outlying
county of a CBSA if it meets the
following commuting requirements:
(a) At least 25 percent of the workers
living in the county work in the central
county or counties of the CBSA; or
(b) At least 25 percent of the
employment in the county is accounted
for by workers who reside in the central
county or counties of the CBSA.
A county may be included in only one
CBSA. If a county qualifies as a central
county of one CBSA and as outlying in
another, it falls within the CBSA in
which it is a central county. A county
that qualifies as outlying to multiple
CBSAs falls within the CBSA with
which it has the strongest commuting
tie, as measured by either 3(a) or 3(b)
above. The counties included in a CBSA
must be contiguous; if a county is not
contiguous with other counties in the
CBSA, it will not fall within the CBSA. 
 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.