2006 Census Estimates

[Spartan]

Myrtle Beach has a suprisingly high amount of REdevelopment taking place and new condo towers going up all over. They also have a lot more growth behind the waterway than I would have expected.

The MSA/CSA thing is based largely on commuting patterns, among other things, so as far as the Upstate is concerned, its going to depend on how much sharing there is going on with our population.

With Anderson, it will depend on how much of a pull Powdersville has. As a direct extension of Greenville, you are naturally going to see more commuters there. I'd say that of all the people in Anderson County who commute to Greenville, the majority of them (over 50%) live in Powdersville/NE Anderson. That is pure speculation on my part. But how many people in Anderson proper commute and how that growth has occured relative to Powdersville's growth is a huge question in determining the status of the MSA.

With Spartanburg its a whole different story. There is a lot more cross commuting taking place between Greenville and Spartanburg than Greenville and Anderson. Its only a net gain of 1,000 for Greenville- which in the larger picture really isnt that much. That figure was from 2000 I think, and it has undoubtedly changed by now especially with all of the new businesses opening up in the Greenville-Spartanburg area. But it still gives you an idea of what kind of situation we are dealing with here. Greer is the big question mark, IMO, because so much growth (and job growth) is occuring in western Spartanburg County, its hard to say what the net effect will be on the relationship between commuting and population growth with Greenville.

I'm curious to see what kind of scenario it would take given the current population conditions and current MSA definitions for the GSA MSA to be reinstated. If I get any spare time I will try and look into that.

[Spartan]

I was in Myrtle Beach last week to drop off my resume at the area hospitals, and yes, the growth there is incredible. I'm not surprised the county grew that much. The major, MAJOR problem when I was there is the lack of transportation infrastructure. None of the highways are widened, but they can be...and there also needs to be a mass transit rail, or monorail, or commuter train, something to help with the traffic. I could not believe how unbearable the traffic is there. I think cities like Cola and Chas have LESS traffic!

[krazeeboi]

I'm curious to see what kind of scenario it would take given the current population conditions and current MSA definitions for the GSA MSA to be reinstated. If I get any spare time I will try and look into that.

[CorgiMatt]

I was in Myrtle Beach last week to drop off my resume at the area hospitals, and yes, the growth there is incredible. I'm not surprised the county grew that much. The major, MAJOR problem when I was there is the lack of transportation infrastructure. None of the highways are widened, but they can be...and there also needs to be a mass transit rail, or monorail, or commuter train, something to help with the traffic. I could not believe how unbearable the traffic is there. I think cities like Cola and Chas have LESS traffic!

[motonenterprises]

While I agree that the Upstate will eventually become one single MSA again, it may not happen at the time of the next census. It might happen before or after that, depending on when the Census Bureau decides to tweak the definitions again; the last time it happened was in 2005, which wasn't a census year. Also, whenever that occurs, it's sure to affect other metros in the state; when it last happened, Columbia got a few counties added to its MSA, for instance. I wouldn't be surprised to possibly see Georgetown added to Myrtle Beach's MSA, or Colleton County joining the Charleston MSA to form a Charleston-North Charleston-Walterboro CSA, or Newberry County added to Columbia's MSA or Columbia and Sumter forming a CSA. I'd also say that commuting patterns by that time will warrant the creation of a new metro, the Hilton Head-Beaufort MSA.

While most who reside in metro areas that were broken up by the Census Bureau in 2005 were a little disappointed by that, I think it serves as a positive for the smaller cities that gained their own MSA. It demonstrated that they had enough clout to draw surrounding areas into their economic orbits, and that they weren't just suburbs of the largest city in the region. Perhaps if these metro areas go back to being a single MSA, there can be a new designation, akin to the metropolitan division, that would account for these smaller cities that, while part of a larger region, still have their own thing going on.

I still don't know what exactly changed in 2005 that would warrant the Upstate, along with other metro areas, to get broken up, while some, like Miami/Fort Lauderdale and Dallas/Fort Worth, were merged under the same new standard.

[waccamatt]

Newberry is in Columbia's CSA, but not our MSA. I wouldn't be surprised to see Sumter and/or Orangeburg counties added in 2010 due to the high number of people that commute to Columbia from those 2 counties.

[gs3]

Newberry is in Columbia's CSA, but not our MSA. I wouldn't be surprised to see Sumter and/or Orangeburg counties added in 2010 due to the high number of people that commute to Columbia from those 2 counties.

[krazeeboi]

^In this particular case, it wouldn't be as much a sign of sprawl as it would be a sign that Sumter isn't doing as well as it could be economically and is thus relying more on Richland for jobs; after all, you can't have sprawl without growth, and Sumter County is actually losing people. Furthermore, Sumter County and Richland County are located right next to each other. You only need 25% of the county's residents going into Richland County (not necessarily the city of Columbia) for work for it to be included in the MSA (15% for the CSA); they don't necessarily have to be commuting from the city of Sumter, however (although a certain percentage will be).

[krazeeboi]

As most of you know, the 2006 city population estimates have been released. Charleston is the central city with the highest growth rate in 2006 (here is an article from the Post and Courier that compares Charleston's rate of growth with Columbia's), and Rock Hill isn't doing too shabby either.

I think the article missed a very significant reason as to why Charleston is growing faster than Columbia: aggressive annexation.

[Spartan]

Thats exactly right. Annexation is key. Thats why its frustrating to compare cities to cities in this way. People get hung up on an artificial political boundary, and assume that it means more than it does. And no offense to Rock Hill, but we all know its not the 5th largest place in SC (or whatever it is).

[erm1981]

^^^Rock Hill city is larger than Greenville city....chuckle....

[monsoon]

^^^Rock Hill city is larger than Greenville city....chuckle....

[goodbye]

When you look at the two cities on paper and then in person you get it. It is "chuckle-worthy" to myself as well.

It just proves our point that actual city population data alone is not a completely accurate source of information to use regarding the size of cities.

[krazeeboi]

Rock Hill certainly isn't the fifth largest "place" in SC, but you can't fault the city for being proactive when it comes to growth and annexation. That isn't laughable; it's laudable. And it's beneficial, since higher numbers do equal greater exposure (and a potentially greater reputation) in a sense. I just don't get why it almost seems as though Rock Hill gets ridiculed for doing the smart thing.

[sonofaque86]

Rock Hill seems like the only SC city that shows its true size because of their smart thinking. Kudos to RH. I wish the other SC cities could do the same to show their true size as well.

[CorgiMatt]

As most of you know, the 2006 city population estimates have been released. Charleston is the central city with the highest growth rate in 2006 (here is an article from the Post and Courier that compares Charleston's rate of growth with Columbia's), and Rock Hill isn't doing too shabby either.

I think the article missed a very significant reason as to why Charleston is growing faster than Columbia: aggressive annexation.

[vicupstate]

Rock Hill seems like the only SC city that shows its true size because of their smart thinking. Kudos to RH. I wish the other SC cities could do the same to show their true size as well.

[sonofaque86]

Richland County which includes Columbia is growing MUCH faster than Charleston County. As well as the metro as a whole. The only reason why Charleston is gaining at a faster rate is because of aggressive annexing. But Columbia has been straing to annex more in the Northeast and Southeast so we'll see next years numbers for 07'

[krazeeboi]

In the article itself I noticed they said Charleston is growing faster than Columbia because of its strong economy. Krazeeboi, you recently posted jobs stats from "South Carolina Workforce Trends" that show Columbia's economy is also strong. But in the article they then turned around and said Columbia is bigger than Charleston because it is a capital city and is centrally located. Can anyone else see the incoherency here?

[sonofaque86]

Can't believe Orangeubrg grew by 6.3%! Good to see a reverse trend in the city losing population for decades

[Spartan]

Rock Hill certainly isn't the fifth largest "place" in SC, but you can't fault the city for being proactive when it comes to growth and annexation. That isn't laughable; it's laudable. And it's beneficial, since higher numbers do equal greater exposure (and a potentially greater reputation) in a sense. I just don't get why it almost seems as though Rock Hill gets ridiculed for doing the smart thing.

[krazeeboi]

Can't believe Orangeubrg grew by 6.3%! Good to see a reverse trend in the city losing population for decades

[erm1981]

Well I really was not talking bad about Rock Hill with the "chuckle" comment. Its good that Rock Hill is growing fast, mainly because of Charlotte nearby. I doubt I will see Greenville city ever get over 100,000 people in my lifetime, and I am in my twenties. Rock Hill will definetly get over 100,000 easy someday because they are pro-active, and did their homework. Yes, I am aware of this. Its just funny how big Greenville's urban area is and then you see the city number and people are like what the heck! I also know that this is from our weak annexation laws. It is sad that we could not have followed along with North Carolina when they were being pro-active.

[goodbye]

If population numbers are extremely vital, then cities like Greenville and Spartanburg should have been losing exposure while they lost residents up until the latest pop estimates, right?

[krazeeboi]

I've had to remove one post due to trolling and baiting. I absolutely will NOT tolerate any city versus city debate here.

Skyliner, notice I said nothing about population numbers being "extremely vital," nor did I say or imply that a higher population figure is the only way for a city to gain increased exposure, but it is one way to do so. For instance, Concord edged out Rock Hill in city population a few years ago, and now Rock Hill's name is no longer included in the MSA designation. Hopefully that will change in the next couple of years. There are certain lists out there that only include cities with a certain population (e.g., above 100K). Those are just two examples. Again, I'm not saying nor have I ever said that a higher city population figure is the only way to increase exposure, or even the most important way, but it is one way to do so.

City population isn't everything, but this is the thread in which we're discussing what it does do for a city. I have absolutely no doubt that if our cities reflected their true sizes on paper, it would be more beneficial in that regard. We've already discussed the fiscal aspects of that in another thread, but I'm just speaking of an aspect of general exposure here.