Jump to content

Columbia Area Population Statistics


CorgiMatt

Recommended Posts

In my opinion postings about Columbia's population growth need to be in a more prominent place than Columbia Coffee House, and I note that the title of this topic is Columbia's Metro Growth whereas the subject presently at hand is municipal growth and not metro growth. I don't know how to move things around to other forums. Any volunteers?

Also, I am ticked that the writer of the article said Charleston's growth outpaced Columbia's, when the Census Bureau's report shows Charleston's population decreased between 2006 and 2007 by about 20 people. These writers don't compare apples to apples and oranges to oranges when they write these stories. She talked about Columbia's popluation growing by only 1.4 percent last year in the same breath that she said Charleston's rate of growth was 60th compared to Columbia's 127th (from 2000 to 2007), but she failed to mention that from 2006 to 2007 Charleston's population decreased while Columbia's increased by 1.4%. The headline of the article could have said "Columbia still growing, Charleston stagnant."

I tried to attach the Census Bureau's table, but I can't figure out how. Any volunteers?

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Replies 124
  • Created
  • Last Reply

I've changed the name of this thread to "Columbia Area Population Statistics" so we can discuss all population figures--municipal, MSA, CSA, etc.--in one thread. No need to have separate threads for these.

I think that showing overall population trends over several years gives us a better picture of population trends than the year-to-year figures. With annexation being so difficult to achieve in SC, it's not unusual for there to be slight decreases between years. With that said, I think it would be inaccurate to describe Charleston's growth as stagnant or Columbia's as healthy simply based on a one year estimate, which is just that: an estimate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My point was that the writer's comparisons tell only part of the story. In the table I mentioned I noticed a population figure, though, that seems like a number pulled out of a hat somewhere. The table says Columbia's population as of 7/1/04 was 126,000+. I follow their stats religiously every year and I have followed these forums closely, and I do not recall ever seeing an estimate of 126,000+. I would remember that. Does anyone want to figure out how to put the table on this forum for all to see conveniently?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I notice also that Forest Acres, the place that calls itself "A City Apart" on its new signs, lost 5.8% of its population since 2000. I live near Forest Acres in Columbia and I am always quick to correct someone when they call where I live Forest Acres. The average person thinks my differentiation is tedious, but I'm compelled to make the correction every time. Any thoughts on why FA is losing population?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've changed the name of this thread to "Columbia Area Population Statistics" so we can discuss all population figures--municipal, MSA, CSA, etc.--in one thread. No need to have separate threads for these.

I think that showing overall population trends over several years gives us a better picture of population trends than the year-to-year figures. With annexation being so difficult to achieve in SC, it's not unusual for there to be slight decreases between years. With that said, I think it would be inaccurate to describe Charleston's growth as stagnant or Columbia's as healthy simply based on a one year estimate, which is just that: an estimate.

Not only are they estimates, but they are very frequently way off base versus the actual census. It is not uncommon for these estimates to show population loss or minimal gain and then the census occurs and the subject city has in reality grown significantly. Charleston's city compiled figures show a 3,000 gain in calendar year 2007. Obviously, one source or the other is off base by a large margin. Of course, any estimate is just that, an estimate.

I notice also that Forest Acres, the place that calls itself "A City Apart" on its new signs, lost 5.8% of its population since 2000. I live near Forest Acres in Columbia and I am always quick to correct someone when they call where I live Forest Acres. The average person thinks my differentiation is tedious, but I'm compelled to make the correction every time. Any thoughts on why FA is losing population?

As stated before, this could be off base entirely. If it is true, it is most likely because FA households have become 'empty nests' to a significant degree. The kids grew up and left, and it's just the parents in the household now. That is a common reason for drops in population.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with Vic's guess about Forest Acres - it is a town with an older average population so there are definitely increasing numbers of empty nesters and possibly some widows, also. Corgi is right, Columbia's populatioon was never 126,000 a few years ago. The 124,000+ estimate this year would be the highest and with over 700 housing permits issued in the city last year, I'm sure it's a good guess as far as the 1.4% population increase.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the biggest development that's actually being built as we speak in the city limits will have a big boost for the population off of Garners Ferry and Pineview Rd. I think it's about 200 acres? They're already starting to put some stuff up and looks like widening the roads. Isn't that supposed to add about 3 or 4,000?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 10 months later...

I think its a good move. The donut holes make providing services difficult. The Senate was considering a law that would allow cities to use compulsory annexation to remove the holes, but obviously it failed, so kudos to the city for doing something about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Columbia Star newspaper says Columbia city council seems to be moving forward with their plan to annex donut holes and primary areas next to the city limits. Maybe they can get this done in time for the 2010 census coming up in April.

http://www.thecolumbiastar.com/news/2009/0...rnment/009.html

Dammit, Bike-to-work day was today!

Back on topic, I agree, it's pretty important that they finish this before the 2010 census.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A little annexation progress is better than none at all, but I's still like to see Columbia annex all of the unincorporated portions of Richland County.

While I can see the donut holes, I know plenty of people in umincorporated Richland that are vehemently against becoming part of Columbia...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sure they don't mind bragging to someone from say Manning that they live in Columbia, though. Isn't that the way it typically works?

I don't think it's a case of "bragging," but is merely done for the sake of convenience. It would just be plain weird to hear the response "I live in unincorporated Richland County" when someone asks them where they live.

Anyhoo, I'm of the mindset that if you're a non-resident of the city using city services, you need to pay for them--i.e., get annexed. Otherwise, it's nothing more than a form of welfare.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sure they don't mind bragging to someone from say Manning that they live in Columbia, though. Isn't that the way it typically works?

No.

I don't think it's a case of "bragging," but is merely done for the sake of convenience. It would just be plain weird to hear the response "I live in unincorporated Richland County" when someone asks them where they live.

No, they'd say, "I'm from Hopkins."

I don't think you guys realize how many people out in Hopkins have wells and septic tanks. Being annexed by Columbia does nothing for them except raise taxes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

  • 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.