Jump to content

RVA growth 1950 to today


flaneur

Recommended Posts

30 minutes ago, rjp212 said:

Estimates from World Population Review has us being just behind Norfolk. They estimate the census will say we are just over 237,000 people and Norfolk is about 241,000.  

source: https://worldpopulationreview.com/us-cities/

 

 

3951433F-5271-4EF7-86C5-1B8EB9EA287E.png

Not sure about that estimate for Norfolk as they have started growing again, but at a meager 1%.  Using last available rate-of-growth I have been estimating Norfolk to be around 246k and Richmond around 236k (close to this estimate).  At those rates we would pass Norfolk around 2029.

We are 84th in density while 95th in population.  Given our small restricted borders I look forward to watching that density grow!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


4 hours ago, rjp212 said:

Estimates from World Population Review has us being just behind Norfolk. They estimate the census will say we are just over 237,000 people and Norfolk is about 241,000.  

source: https://worldpopulationreview.com/us-cities/

 

 

3951433F-5271-4EF7-86C5-1B8EB9EA287E.png

I was not familiar with this website.  I went to check my hometown population and they didn't have the city in the correct county.  Well at least not the county where the city was founded and has the highest population. 

Heck, Richmond is not that far away from passing Buffalo NY.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The site mentions that Norfolk lost population from last year. 

However, they are just estimates based off previous growth rates. Census is being conducted this year and we should have more accurate numbers next year. 

Edited by rjp212
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, RVA-Is-The-Best said:

Those numbers can't be right if it's purportedly 2020.... Norfolk is listed at 241k. It was 242,628 in 2011... I doubt they've lost population since then..

They were losing earlier in the decade but I doubt that is the case now given the amount of residential development.  Certainly excited for results of the Census!

 

12 hours ago, rjp212 said:

The site mentions that Norfolk lost population from last year. 

However, they are just estimates based off previous growth rates. Census is being conducted this year and we should have more accurate numbers next year. 

That was in comparison to 2010.  They need to look at growth rates over the past couple years rather than the net growth over the decade which is skewed by the earlier losses.  Norfolk seemed to be about 10 years behind Richmond's recovery.

Edited by Icetera
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Icetera said:

They were losing earlier in the decade but I doubt that is the case now given the amount of residential development.  Certainly excited for results of the Census!

 

That was in comparison to 2010.  They need to look at growth rates over the past couple years rather than the net growth over the decade which is skewed by the earlier losses.  Norfolk seemed to be about 10 years behind Richmond's recovery.

They have 2020, 2010, and then the ANNUAL growth rate.   Again they could have provided more thorough information. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, rjp212 said:

They have 2020, 2010, and then the ANNUAL growth rate.   Again they could have provided more thorough information. 

I see the details now and went back to the data I have been collecting over the years.  I swore they had gotten back on track but looking back that is not the case.  That really surprises me given the amount of new units they are building.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They very well could be.   Probably similar to how we were growing at 3-4k/yr then slowed down to about 1k, but now seem to be ticking back up.   Both cities are pretty much built out, so any new development is at the sake of older development. Often times that displaces a 4 person house, with only 2 people.   There's a lag between the development starting and it being filled.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


5 minutes ago, rjp212 said:

They very well could be.   Probably similar to how we were growing at 3-4k/yr then slowed down to about 1k, but now seem to be ticking back up.   Both cities are pretty much built out, so any new development is at the sake of older development. Often times that displaces a 4 person house, with only 2 people.   There's a lag between the development starting and it being filled.

Here, I bet a part of that decline was the lack of available new rental units.  2020 results  and the next few years should be interesting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm intrigued to see how society reacts once the pandemic is behind us.   I already had my parents tell me a few weeks back that, "I am in a city, so my chances of getting the virus are higher".  Not saying that is accurate, but I'm wondering if the average laymen will shun urban development because of fear (more so than they already do).

Edited by rjp212
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, rjp212 said:

I'm intrigued to see how society reacts once the pandemic is behind us.   I already had my parents tell me a few weeks back that, "I am in a city, so my chances of getting the virus are higher".  Not saying that is accurate, but I'm wondering if the average laymen will shun urban development because of fear (more so than they already do).

Realistically, it is accurate, but we also have better services and access to such.  Due to that, rural areas will likely see a higher rate of fatality so the question will be how everyone perceives that.  Given that newer urban dwellers are typically younger, I would be surprised it we see much of a negative effect.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, rjp212 said:

I'm intrigued to see how society reacts once the pandemic is behind us.   I already had my parents tell me a few weeks back that, "I am in a city, so my chances of getting the virus are higher".  Not saying that is accurate, but I'm wondering if the average laymen will shun urban development because of fear (more so than they already do).

Mega cities like New York where the density is extremely high, I'd suggest folks might shun moving to such locations down the road. I'd tend to think Richmond likely won't suffer from folks afraid to live in cities.

10 hours ago, rjp212 said:

They very well could be.   Probably similar to how we were growing at 3-4k/yr then slowed down to about 1k, but now seem to be ticking back up.   Both cities are pretty much built out, so any new development is at the sake of older development. Often times that displaces a 4 person house, with only 2 people.   There's a lag between the development starting and it being filled.

I'd argue Richmond is far from built out. Just look at the sea of parking lots that make up Monroe Ward. PLUS -- even if every square inch of land had a building on it, there is still room to build vertically. Richmond can and should strive to build skyward and increase her density. The city has a long way to go and hopefully will keep going 'up'. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

By built out, I meant no large tracts of land available for development (meaning multiple acres, not city blocks).  Yes the cities have plenty of opportunity for infill, but from a development standpoint the cities are labeled as built out.     Developing a parking lot often requires some sort of remediation, etc which delays a quick population jump compared to building a subdivision out in Chesterfield.  I absolutely agree the city should continue to focus on densification, but the average citizen doesn’t geek out on this stuff like we do.  My debate is I could see people turn towards the exurbs based off of misinformation on “density”. 

 

List of articles from planners debating the same aspects.  Some optimistic and some pessimistic.  
 

https://www.planetizen.com/blogs/108814-debating-future-cities-and-urban-density-after-pandemic

Edited by rjp212
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here in VA, almost in raw numbers and as a percentage of the population, semi-rural James City County is faring the worst right now (that’s sure to change).  
Big outbreaks in small communities will scare the people in those communities. 
 

Personally I’d rather live where the ventilators and hospitals are, where the water stays on after the power goes out :) 

I do think that people will be weary of crowds for a while.  I can’t imagine people electively sitting beside a stranger in a movie theater the weekend after the shelter in place directives are lifted.  Long term I suspect development patterns remain the same.
 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again, I would think places like NYC, where density is extremely high relative to other U.S. cities, would potentially scare people away from living in such huge population centers more so than locations in Virginia. Hopefully, Richmond will continue to see outstanding population growth. Relative to Norfolk, it does appear Richmond is growing at a much faster rate (whether or not Norfolk is growing or continuing to lose population) -- and hopefully, given the increased emphasis on density in areas like Manchester, Scott's Addition and now the VCU area, Richmond will continue to see more rapid growth and keep up momentum. Obviously the pandemic is shutting things down but we can only hope this will pass sooner rather than later.

Stay safe and stay well, guys!

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • 1 month later...
45 minutes ago, rjp212 said:

Census released their 2019 estimates.  Seems we passed 230,000 last year.  Still seems like an undercount, but I guess we will find out next year. 
 

https://www2.census.gov/programs-surveys/popest/tables/2010-2019/cities/totals/SUB-IP-EST2019-ANNRNK.xlsx

By these estimates, it seems like we could pass Norfolk city by in population within the next decade. Cool news

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

I feel like something that's being lost in the COVID conversation regarding urbanization/density here in the US -- and the fear/apprehension that's being raised about cities - is that overlooks what's happening abroad. Did our highly dense cities, like NYC, get hit pretty bad? You bet they did. But the critique of cities assumes that increased risk of viral exposure is inherent in all dense places, when that doesn't have to be the case. Look at Hong Kong  for example- it's one of the densest places in the world, and yet for a population of 7.5 million, so far there were only 2,500 cases and 18 deaths. Relatively, that's exceptional - heck, that's probably better than some of the more rural counties here in the US. So the conversation shouldn't be about, "are cities inherently unsafe/dangerous due to increased virus risk?" but rather "how do we make cities safer in the event of a pandemic?" because clearly it's being done around the world - just not here. In the future, we'll learn from this and hopefully apply things like stricter and earlier lock-down measures, mask usage, assistance with obtaining food/daily items etc particularly  in high dense cities.  Hopefully the fear factor in this doesn't keep people away from all cities. What I'm interested to see, though, is how "remote work" becoming more of an accepted and popular option will impact city growth. Hopefully, people will still see the benefit of living in mixed-use communities with easy walkability to groceries, etc, but I'm not sure.

With that being said - the potential impact this could have to growth in a smaller city like Richmond is an interesting debate. Could we see folks from big northern cities like New York and Philly moving down to a smaller place like Richmond?  Or will people just want to flock to the suburbs? 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Richmonder23 said:

I feel like something that's being lost in the COVID conversation regarding urbanization/density here in the US -- and the fear/apprehension that's being raised about cities - is that overlooks what's happening abroad. Did our highly dense cities, like NYC, get hit pretty bad? You bet they did. But the critique of cities assumes that increased risk of viral exposure is inherent in all dense places, when that doesn't have to be the case. Look at Hong Kong  for example- it's one of the densest places in the world, and yet for a population of 7.5 million, so far there were only 2,500 cases and 18 deaths. Relatively, that's exceptional - heck, that's probably better than some of the more rural counties here in the US. So the conversation shouldn't be about, "are cities inherently unsafe/dangerous due to increased virus risk?" but rather "how do we make cities safer in the event of a pandemic?" because clearly it's being done around the world - just not here. In the future, we'll learn from this and hopefully apply things like stricter and earlier lock-down measures, mask usage, assistance with obtaining food/daily items etc particularly  in high dense cities.  Hopefully the fear factor in this doesn't keep people away from all cities. What I'm interested to see, though, is how "remote work" becoming more of an accepted and popular option will impact city growth. Hopefully, people will still see the benefit of living in mixed-use communities with easy walkability to groceries, etc, but I'm not sure.

With that being said - the potential impact this could have to growth in a smaller city like Richmond is an interesting debate. Could we see folks from big northern cities like New York and Philly moving down to a smaller place like Richmond?  Or will people just want to flock to the suburbs? 

This is a really valid point that must be considered going forward. How COVID will impact the development of all cities remains to be seen. The key, of course, is in how it is handled. Hong Kong is an EXCELLENT example of a super-dense city that has come to through to this point with minimal impact. In fact, I believe Hong Kong's actual population density EXCEEDS that of New York (even though NYC's population is larger overall, approaching 9 million). And the COVID results are like night and day.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 6 months later...

An Air Filter company (?) decided to rank US cities by population density.  We come in at 55 of mid sized cities.   Just for fun, Norfolk came in at 35.  If we had the same density as Norfolk, we’d be about 273,000 people.  Seems very possible in the next 10 years.  
 

https://filterbuy.com/resources/most-and-least-densely-populated-cities/

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...
  • 2 weeks later...

Census data is slowly working its way out.  State and National numbers are out for redistributing Congressional seats with local data still in the works.  The final count for the U.S. is short by 304,649 (-0.09%) compared to 2020 Estimates (331,449,281 vs 331,753,930).  Considering we lost around 250k to COVID-19 during collection period, that actually sounds really close.  Preliminary results suggest that urban areas may have had a better turnout than others so despite the national numbers being slightly shy of estimates Richmond could still be higher.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • 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.