2010 urbanized area figures

[teshadoh]

If we're talking sheer population numbers, the Upstate will continue to keep pace with the rest of the state, even though the other major centers of growth will continue to strengthen as well. You have to consider that the cities in the Upstate have lost numbers to the suburbs for the past couple of decades (latest estimate was 6 years ago), while the suburbs have steadily exploded over that same period of time. With the renaissance of downtown and the city as the true urban core (heart) of the region, it cannot be denied that Greenville-Spartanburg-Anderson (the Upstate) will continue to remain equally as powerful, if not continue to retain its status as the top economic powerhouse in the state of South Carolina.

Another regional factor is the growth of Asheville just north of Greenville and Spartanburg. The alliance between Greenville and Asheville has been growing recently, and this will continue to be the case throughout the progression of time. It is legitimate to imagine a possible megalopolis that includes Greenville, Spartanburg, Anderson, Clemson, Hendersonville, and Asheville. It is not as far off as some of you would want to say it is.

The towns of Tryon, Columbus & Saluda NC are already exurbs of Spartanburg. DIrectly north of that of course is Hendersonville which is itself an exurb of Asheville. So you're right - in the commuting sense. Development wise though, a possibly bigger growth trend might be retirement communities taking advantage of nearby health facilities & of course the beauty. As for a megalopolis, the upstate will already have been strongly entrenched into the greater carolina megalopolis for Asheville to be noticed that much.

But again - Greenville will likely be a big gainer in 2010, of course Mauldin but the possibility of Clemson UC (which will be over 50k) & several other urban clusters will push Greenville to possibly #1. Otherwise I agree that unless you're talking about a long time trend of employment loss, population figures usually don't represent that. In fact - in the case of SC that has experienced employment losses, the larger cities will always experience immediate gains for at least a few years. Of course, if the employment losses continue for the next coming years, the population will eventually drop to reflect that. But I don't think most people expect Greenville to suffer any further employment losses anyways.

[GvilleSC]

Here's some more perspective:

The growth rates for counties (which should have some correlation to UA). Here's the two main counties for each UA and their growth between 1990-2000:

Lexington 28.88%

Richland 12.23%

Greenville 18.57%

Pickens 17.96%

Charleston 5.06%

Berkeley 10.77%

JOB GROWTH:

Metro Area-------NonManufacturing----------------Manufacturing-------------

-------------------1969-1989---1989-1999---------1969-1999---1989-1999---

Greenville............181%............36%.....................3%..............-11%......

Columbia.............145%............30%.....................36%.............-7%.......

Charleston...........132%............17%.....................22%..............7%.......

[Infinite1]

This is why.....

Change in Metro Employment 2001 - 2004

Metro, Jobs in 2001, Jobs in 2004, Change, Percentage

1. Myrtle Beach, 102.4, 116.5, 14,090, 13.75%
   
2. Florence, 66.1, 70.1, 4,000, 6.06%
   
3. Charleston, 255.9, 266.4, 10,510, 4.11%
   
4. Sumter, 42.3, 42.6, 230, 0.63%
   
5. Columbia, 311.7, 304.7, -6,950,-2.23%
   
6. Greenville, 488.8, 470.0, -29,840,-5.97%
   

yeah...but if you look deeper in those numbers you will see that ALL of the decline was in 2001 and early 2002 and these areas have been on the rebound ever since for both Cola and GVille. In addition, Charleston challenged the initial report of these findings successfully and had their numbers changed. those two factors cause me to look at these numbers skeptically.

It is very difficult to say what the future holds, but unless someone starts making more ocean, the coast will remain a popular destination. I see the coastal regions growing at a slightly higher clip than the midlands and upstate areas.

[krazeeboi]

LOL @ "making more ocean."

And those employment figures are for METROS according to 2000 standards. So Greenville's figure will be somewhat skewed, since it correlates to the old GSA metro.

Teshadoh, I found the GIS maps of urbanized areas on the Census site, but was unable to interpret them.

[CorgiMatt]

There's a veryinteresting article on the front page of the Post and Courier today. It is must reading for this topic.

[waccamatt]

yeah...but if you look deeper in those numbers you will see that ALL of the decline was in 2001 and early 2002 and these areas have been on the rebound ever since for both Cola and GVille. In addition, Charleston challenged the initial report of these findings successfully and had their numbers changed. those two factors cause me to look at these numbers skeptically.

It is very difficult to say what the future holds, but unless someone starts making more ocean, the coast will remain a popular destination. I see the coastal regions growing at a slightly higher clip than the midlands and upstate areas.

One thing to keep in mind about coastal growth is that severe hurricanes may make drastic changes. Look at New Orleans.

[CorgiMatt]

I don't know why my post on this topic from yesterday didn't take, but I said that yesterday's (Sunday, feb. 19) edition of the Post and Courier had a front page article that is must read material for this topic. Don't miss it.

OK, what's going on. This is my third attempt to post this here. Yesterday and just now my posts did not take. Yesterday's Charleston Post and Courier had a front page article that is must read material on this topic. Don't miss it.

[Charleston native]

^ Of course P & C is going to publish an article like that because the controversy helps subscriptions and readers. Of course Columbians are going to believe thatarticle over the others saying that there is a boom in Chas. Must we repeat numbers? The Chas and MB areas are the fastest growing MSAs in the state...and there has not been any change, period.

UA predictions:

Charleston: 543,000

Columbia: 525,000

Greenville: 485,000

Cola is not the juggernaut of jobs. Again, there have been job losses here as metro stated. Chas is also gaining a huge manufacturing boost with the Vought/Alenia plants. I know many Cola people want to downplay Chas since they've been number one so long, but the reality is its happening.

The Census reports that the P & C article (link here) use are not the most accurate, because they don't involve an actual census. We've always seen how we have different numbers are posted in between the census decades and what the census numbers actually say. So, before taking that article to heart, I think we just need to wait when actual census numbers are given in 2010.

[CorgiMatt]

^ Of course P & C is going to publish an article like that because the controversy helps subscriptions and readers. Of course Columbians are going to believe thatarticle over the others saying that there is a boom in Chas. Must we repeat numbers? The Chas and MB areas are the fastest growing MSAs in the state...and there has not been any change, period.

UA predictions:

Charleston: 543,000

Columbia: 525,000

Greenville: 485,000

Cola is not the juggernaut of jobs. Again, there have been job losses here as metro stated. Chas is also gaining a huge manufacturing boost with the Vought/Alenia plants. I know many Cola people want to downplay Chas since they've been number one so long, but the reality is its happening.

The Census reports that the P & C article (link here) use are not the most accurate, because they don't involve an actual census. We've always seen how we have different numbers are posted in between the census decades and what the census numbers actually say. So, before taking that article to heart, I think we just need to wait when actual census numbers are given in 2010.

I've said all along that we'll just have to wait and see. I don't need to repeat anything else I've said on the subject.

[Charleston native]

One thing to keep in mind about coastal growth is that severe hurricanes may make drastic changes. Look at New Orleans.

Natural disasters alone will not quell growth. New Orleans is a bad example, because it is the worst example. Has anyone forgotten Hugo? Chas was ground zero for that hurricane, and it experienced major growth soon afterwards. As a matter of fact, the census was taken just a few months AFTER the hurricane.

I think many people here are afraid to admit it or something, but coastal cities are one of the most popular places to live, and they're increasing in popularity. Thus, the Chas UA will remain to have the highest in population.

[GvilleSC]

Natural disasters alone will not quell growth. New Orleans is a bad example, because it is the worst example. Has anyone forgotten Hugo? Chas was ground zero for that hurricane, and it experienced major growth soon afterwards. As a matter of fact, the census was taken just a few months AFTER the hurricane.

I think many people here are afraid to admit it or something, but coastal cities are one of the most popular places to live, and they're increasing in popularity. Thus, the Chas UA will remain to have the highest in population.

You're right, one hurricane won't do Charleston in, but if the SC coast were to be hit by 5 in one season or pose enough of a threat to cause evacuations and some damage, then the possbility is definitely there. No one wants to constantly be on the run. It gets expensive and businesses lose money (which could cause them to leave or less corporations would be interested in investing in the area- which would cause a slow down in population). Just because Charleston is beautiful and nice doesn't mean its immune to natural disasters' "scare" effect on people.

[monsoon]

As long as the government pays out for subsidized Federal Flood insurance to rebuild waterfront property, Charleston and Myrtle Beach will continue to thrive. There is no incentive to build in much safer places otherwise. Why not rebuild your million dollar beach home, for example if the governent will rebuild it when a storm blows it down. However the day the government cuts this social program off for the rich, I think Myrtle Beach and Charleston's growth will be sharply curtailed. Especially if the storm activity continues to increase, as they are predicting, because of climate change.

[Spartan]

Census 2000

1) Charleston--North Charleston: 423,410

2) Columbia: 420,537

3) Greenville: 302,194

4) Spartanburg: 145,058

5) Myrtle Beach: 122,984

6) Mauldin-Simpsonville: 77,831

7) Anderson: 70,436

8) Rock Hill: 70,007

9) Florence: 67,314

10) Sumter: 64,320

There is no accurate way to predict urbaized area because of policy changes or other influences, but I think that this order is probably fairly accurate even though the numbers are undoubtedly way off.

• Charleston-North Charleston 450,000
  
• Columbia 435,000
  
• Greenville 385,000
  
• Spartanburg 155,000
  
• Myrtle Beach 145,000
  
• Rock Hill 79,000
  
• Anderson 72,000
  
• Florence 68,000
  
• Sumter 65,000
  

Maudlin will be absorbed by Greenville. Spartanburg will remain above Myrtle Beach for the time being, but by 2020 MB will surpass it. The growth in Horry County is phenominal, but I don't think it will have surpassed Spartanburg's numbers just yet. Definately by 2020.

[krazeeboi]

Spartan, I have to say that your estimates seem to be extremely conservative here. Rock Hill's UA only 79,000 in 2010, a paltry 9,000 increase from 2000? The city itself has gained over 8,000 residents from 2000-2004, and there's no way the growth in western York County is slowing down anytime soon. I predict that Rock Hill's UA will be at least 90,000 in 2010.

Greenville's estimate is waaaayyy too conservative as well. That figure is basically Greenville's and Mauldin-Simpsonville's UAs combined in 2000.

[Spartan]

You're probably right. I don't like guessing at what numbers will be anymore. This is difficult to do with any accuracy unless you know the area and can say with first hand knowledge what it will be. The ranking still stands though.

[krazeeboi]

I'm inclined to agree with the ranking as well. I also think that Greenville's UA, with the addition of Mauldin-Simpsonville, will definitely crack 400K.

[Charleston native]

...The growth rates for counties (which should have some correlation to UA). Here's the two main counties for each UA and their growth between 1990-2000...

Charleston 5.06%

Berkeley 10.77%

JOB GROWTH:

Metro Area-------NonManufacturing----------------Manufacturing-------------

-------------------1969-1989---1989-1999---------1969-1999---1989-1999---

Greenville............181%............36%.....................3%..............-11%......

Columbia.............145%............30%.....................36%.............-7%.......

Charleston...........132%............17%.....................22%..............7%.......

Some important things to remember when posting these rates. The UA for Chas also now includes Summerville in Dorchester County, which had a significant growth rate.

Also, what everybody seems to forget about Chas when comparing these rates in the 90s is that Chas experienced several major problems. One was the hurricane, and the other, which is far more important, was the closure of the naval base. This was a huge loss to the Chas economy...around 18,000 jobs. YET, Chas still had a strong growth rate!

Metro, you have a good point, but I don't think it's a good example. Look at Florida. They've been hit in the same fashion you have suggested, yet people are continuing to build there and move there. The state is still booming. Granted, FL does have stronger economic incentives and foundations, but Chas and MB have enough incentives for people to want to remain and rebuild there, if necessary. And the government does not provide to the rich for rebuilding their homes. Most people who live or own these houses have the money to rebuild their buildings themselves. Usually because insurance is so high on these properties, the wealthy have to provide the money to rebuild on their own. Government only gives partial assistance, if any.

[monsoon]

Florida is exactly the example that I am speaking about. Federal flood insurance is building back all those homes that were destroyed by the 4 hurricanes in 2004. Some of them were under construction and re-destroyed by Katrina and others in 2005. Now more government money will be used to put them up yet again. If the government stopped doing this, you would see a dramatic decrease in the amount of growth in Florida real estate. I predict the same for coastal SC as well.

[Charleston native]

Florida is exactly the example that I am speaking about. Federal flood insurance is building back all those homes that were destroyed by the 4 hurricanes in 2004. Some of them were under construction and re-destroyed by Katrina and others in 2005. Now more government money will be used to put them up yet again. If the government stopped doing this, you would see a dramatic decrease in the amount of growth in Florida real estate. I predict the same for coastal SC as well.

But from what I've read, I understood that most of the wealthy homeowners were paying to rebuild out of their own pocket. As for the middle-class homes and neighborhoods in more inland communities such as Winter Haven, I know the government does provide financial relief, but that's only if the house is uninsured. Most people are insured with hurricane insurance and/or flood insurance. I think the information you're seeing is the exception, not the norm.

[teshadoh]

These population forecasts are likely VERY LIBERAL, but I based these on block group level areas that are either in the UA or will likely be in the UA. Some of my earlier comments weren't accurate either - Lexington is already part of Columbia UA & there weren't any new urban clusters to consolidate. What I did find out is Greenville has a great potential, though my estimate is likely far off. Nonetheless, it is a more sprawling urban area, which often means a greater opportunity for population gain. The other population estimate that might be far off is Myrtle Beach, but again - a high population rate & a great possibility of spreading. I think there will be 3 new UA's, but Clemson will only be around this decade, next decade it will either be part of Anderson or Greenville, as will Rock Hill.

Greenville UA

480,000

Columbia UA

475,000

Charleston UA

470,000

Myrtle Beach UA

205,000

(15,000 in NC)

Spartanburg UA

165,000

Rock Hill UA

95,000

Anderson UA

80,000

Florence UA

70,000

Sumter UA

65,000

Beaufort UA

60,000

Hilton Head UA

60,000

Clemson UA

55,000

Charlotte UA (in SC)

40,000

Augusta UA (in SC)

95,000

[GvilleSC]

Hmm, I'd say you're maybe 30,000-40,000 over on Greenville's number realistically. But I'd say that your rankings would be pretty accurate for 2020. I'd say Charleston would be 2nd.

[teshadoh]

Greenville is hard to predict, because outside the qualifying 500 to 1000 people per square mile threshold, the area is very populated. Hence the issue regarding 'sprawl', the Upstate region has a large rural population. So I agree, I doubt Greenville will hit 480,000 but I went ahead & posted what I came up with. But again, with Greenville it does have a greater potential than other SC cities in being larger, due to how 'the blocks connect'. UA definitions are very odd birds, as evidanced by Greenville's UA being a short sub-mile from Clemson's UC.

As for 2020, Greenville will easily be over 50k, Pickens County is a big spot for development & Clemson & Greenville will by that time be a continious (if not low dense sprawling) urban area. Anderson will be a question mark, but will likely remain independant even though it will be adjacent the Greenville/Clemson UA around I-85 south of Clemson & likely on the east side of Anderson County between Pelzer. Spartanburg will likely also be an independant UA even though they will be adjacent from east of Greer south to I-85 near the airport.

I don't think there is any question that Greenville, situated halfway between Charlotte & Atlanta will experience even greater population gains in the coming decades.

[UrbanSoutherner]

The only changes to the UA listings that would hazard a guess about are:

Myrtle Beach stands a good chance to pass Spartanburg to become the 4th largest SC UA. Perhaps in 30 to 40 years, Myrtle Beach will really challenge the big three.

Beaufort will become a UA (Hilton Head as well perhaps). Clemson will either become a UA or be absorbed by another adjacent one.

I agree with the earlier post that there are no other urban clusters capable of becoming UAs in the next several decades barring some dramatic and unlikely development.

For the big three, Charleston could very pass Columbia. As someone else pointed out, Charleston's figures from the 1990s were held back by the base closing, which really was quite a large blow in the short term. Greenville will remain behind Columbia and Charleston unless the various UA and urban cluster nodes of the Upstate start to connect. However, I would say that such a sprawling and "stringy" streaming of cities and towns is not quite the same as a fairly focused urban mass like Charlotte. I do not consider a long, narrow extended arm like the Aiken projection coming out of Augusta's UA to really be fully a part of the central core of the UA.

[Spartan]

Indeed. I don't see these stringy UA's as being the same. I mean, living in Clemson, I can tell you with 100% certainty that we are not tied in with Greenville in an urban sense. I have driven 93 all the way to Easley, and its just flat out rural out there. IF they are tied together, it will be for political reasons, not statistical ones. Bumping up numbers for more funding. Not cool.

If you take a look at the existing UA on a map, you can see that they run it along the road to connect it to the other pockets of built up area.

Thats Clemson on the far left.

[GvilleSC]

Is that BIG hole between Greenville and Mauldin- Verdae, ICAR, and Millenium Campus?