1960 Census data trivia

[teshadoh]

^ If that is the case, then how significant is gentrification occuring in Greenville? When gentrification occurs, population density drops because young middle income couples are replacing one to sometimes two family units of over 5+ each.

[Spartan]

But in Spartanburg gentrification is virtually nonexistant, particularly on a larger scale like Greenville. How do you account for that?

[vicupstate]

While gentificating areas do tend to have low density households, often new construction or conversions occur in areas that had NO population at all before. Poinsett Corners was a parking lot previously, now it has like around 80 units, many of which are 2 Br. Same thing for the Bookends, 400 N. Main, 100 Court St, the Riverplace properties, Lofts at Mills Mill, etc.

Of course other areas like Viola Street demolished a large number of high density houses with fewer houses.

You have plusses and minuses, but the number of births overall has declined from the '60s, which is the time period those census figures represent.

[teshadoh]

Oh well.

[krazeeboi]

Those look like 1970 census figures(as opposed to '75 census estimates).  I remember that Florence was 89k that year.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You are correct; these are 1970 census figures. My bad.

Howerver, the 1975 estimate for the entire state was 2,658,000.

[waccamatt]

It's hard to believe that Lexington County was behind Florence in 1970 and now has double the population of Florence County. (Florence County has hardly grown at all) The Columbia MSA moved from 3rd to 1st place over the last 30 years, Richland County from 3rd to 2nd, Lexington from 8th to 5th, Greenville County from 2nd to a solid 1st and Charleston County from 1st to 3rd place.

[krazeeboi]

Seems like Greenville County has always been a leader in SC as far as population goes.

[sonofaque86]

Wow. Columbia's population (city limit) is basically the same

[vicupstate]

Wow. Columbia's population (city limit) is basically the same

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Meanwhile, Charlotte's population which was 201,000 in '60 is now between 600,000 and 650,000. Me thinks that might be part of the reason why they have NFL, NBA, and about 10 Fortune 500 companies, compared to 0, 0 and 0 for Columbia and any other SC city.

[krazeeboi]

^We must remember that Charlotte also grew in terms of land area as well, while Columbia grew little, if at all, in that category. Charlotte has people, but is certainly not a super dense place.

[Mr.Marc]

Meanwhile, Charlotte's population which was 201,000 in '60 is now between 600,000 and 650,000.  Me thinks that might be part of the reason why they have NFL, NBA, and about 10 Fortune 500 companies, compared to 0, 0 and 0 for Columbia and any other SC city.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That's sad

[krazeeboi]

Yep. I did some checking, and the donut hole bill and the bill to allow incorporation based on density were sent to committee on February 24th, 2005. The latest versions were released on March 4th, 2005. So, its been a while since anything has been done with it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I was just browsing scstatehouse.net, and saw that the urban donut holes can be annexed by simple city ordinance, unless the area:

(1) contains more than fifty acres;

(2) contains more than twenty-five registered electors; and

(3) has been completely surrounded by the municipality for less than three years.

I wonder if these provisions would actually restrict the number of donut holes that could be annexed in our cities.

[Spartan]

That does indeed, as most of them are probably much older than 3 years alone.

Perhaps the new law is degined to make it easier to do that.

[vicupstate]

I was just browsing scstatehouse.net, and saw that the urban donut holes can be annexed by simple city ordinance, unless the area:

(1)    contains more than fifty acres;

(2)    contains more than twenty-five registered electors; and

(3)    has been completely surrounded by the municipality for less than three years.

I wonder if these provisions would actually restrict the number of donut holes that could be annexed in our cities.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I assume these restrictions would apply only to annexations via city ordinance, and not the annexation by petition method already in place. There would be some donut holes that don't meet one of these restrictions, but to any donuts holes without the owners consent would be a significant improvement. Some cities will benefit much more than others. Charleston would have dozens if not hundreds of donut holes that it could annex. Not many other cities that I know of would have anywhere close to that.

Nevertheless, I wouldn't hold my breath on this becoming law. It is very unlikely to pass IMO.