Archived

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

krazeeboi

Metropolitan growth projections

31 posts in this topic

Bizjournals recently analyzed recent county-by-county growth patterns within each state, and then used that information to predict metropolitan growth at five-year intervals between 2005 and 2025 (the full methodology can be found here). According to these projections, here's how the populations of the state's metros will look in 2025.

Myrtle Beach

2005 pop: 228,254

2025 pop: 399,626

Growth rate: 75.08%

Raw change: 171,372

Charleston

2005 pop: 601,162

2025 pop: 810,615

Growth rate: 34.84%

Raw change: 209,453

Greenville

2005 pop: 588,714

2025 pop: 710,478

Growth rate: 20.68%

Raw change: 121,764

Columbia

2005 pop: 690,717

2025 pop: 807,303

Growth rate: 16.88%

Raw change: 116,586

Anderson

2005 pop: 174,232

2025 pop: 202,615

Growth rate: 16.29%

Raw change: 28,383

Spartanburg

2005 pop: 265,282

2025 pop: 307,919

Growth rate: 16.07%

Raw change: 42,637

Florence

2005 pop: 196,670

2025 pop: 190,554

Growth rate: -3.11%

Raw change: -6,116

If Greenville, Spartanburg, and Anderson were to be recombined into one MSA by 2025, then the total projected population would be 1,221,012.

Personally, I don't put much stock into projections since there are several factors that can influence growth--not to mention the addition/subtraction of counties from an MSA--but I thought the figures would make for good discussion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


The projections are already off because Columbia's 2008 estimate was around 730,000. If that rate continues we would be close to 900,000 by 2025.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The list projects Columbia at 740,815 for 2010, but being that the MSA seems to gain roughly 12K people every year (at least for the past few years), that figure seems more appropriate for 2009. Most projections do tend to seriously fall short, but as I said, I thought it was interesting for discussion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And about the time I decide I'm moving to Charleston because it's the biggest, a major hurricane will come along and blow 'em all up to Columbia.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why didn't they just look at the Census Bureau's projections? The ones I've seen have Columbia having the most in 2030.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why didn't they just look at the Census Bureau's projections? The ones I've seen have Columbia having the most in 2030.

Is it really THAT important to you? :dontknow:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And about the time I decide I'm moving to Charleston because it's the biggest, a major hurricane will come along and blow 'em all up to Columbia.

Don't say that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why didn't they just look at the Census Bureau's projections? The ones I've seen have Columbia having the most in 2030.

The Census has good estimates, but they are not the "end all be all" with population projects. There are multiple methodologies that can be used when projecting population growth. The SC Office of Research & Statistics has its own projections that are just as valid as the Census or these new ones.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Hmm, according to the South Carolina Office of Reasearch and Statistics, in 2030 it will be Columbia 887,870 and Charleston 746,530. And in 2035 it will be Columbia 927,320 and Charleston 771,140. I guess I'll stay in Columbia after all. I was already planning my yard sale.

http://www.sccommunityprofiles.org/census/proj2035.php

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do you care so much whether Columbia is the biggest in the state or not when it comes to population? :dontknow: I just don't see why people on this forum get so heated about who is the biggest in the state. I'm not going to switch jobs and move to a different city because one city is bigger than the one I currently live in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do you care so much whether Columbia is the biggest in the state or not when it comes to population? :dontknow: I just don't see why people on this forum get so heated about who is the biggest in the state. I'm not going to switch jobs and move to a different city because one city is bigger than the one I currently live in.

Bigger means better, right? :tough: ... :lol: clearly not always.

The projections have the Greenville metro adding, on average, about 8,000/year. Greenville County alone has been adding well over that for the past several years. However, they ARE estimates. I'll give serious thought to the 2025 numbers, when 2025 gets here. As for now, it's 2009 and other than an economic slow down, Greenville is looking great, still adding great projects to the City and County, improving the details, and taking care of each day a day at a time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's Proximity's take on MSA population projections to the year 2020. I guess they know as much as Bizjournal, huh?

http://proximityone.com/metros.htm#msa2020

Actually their methodology is more comprehensive and makes more sense than any other I've seen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do you care so much whether Columbia is the biggest in the state or not when it comes to population? :dontknow: I just don't see why people on this forum get so heated about who is the biggest in the state. I'm not going to switch jobs and move to a different city because one city is bigger than the one I currently live in.

Citylife, I have been wondering the same thing. :dontknow: Columbia is no larger than any of the other two major ones in the state. I guess if we don't acknowledge Columbia then people get bent out of shape. :scared:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Remember that these numbers assume the current MSA designations will be the same in 2020, 2030, and 2035. I think that is highly unlikely, even for all three major metros. Also, we are talking about 3 pretty even metros here and give or take 100k will not really make a noticeable difference either way. Especially since the big 3 border right up to other metros (not included), so it is difficult to tell where metros end or begin anyway. Ex. when driving through Greer; unless you see a county line sign, can you really tell when you have gone from Gville MSA to Sptbg MSA? What about driving from Easley through Powdersville. Can you really tell these are two seperate MSA's without the "Welcome to Anderson County" sign? I am sure the same can be said for metros bordering Chas and Cola. We are splitting hairs here guys. :silly:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


I can settle this pretty easily. Greenville and Spartanburg will be recombined at some point. Most likely in 2010 but certainly by 2020. Regardless of when it occurs, Greenville-Spartanburg will be the largest MSA in South Carolina (again).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We have to remember that the GSA MSA never went away. It's just that for the purpose of reporting unemployment figures, GDP figures, etc. , CBMSA's (Core-based metropolitan statistical areas) are now used instead. Is Spartanburg going to volunteer or are they going to have to give in and say that Greenville is the core and they are a suburb? Will Durham, NC, do that for Raleigh as well?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can settle this pretty easily. Greenville and Spartanburg will be recombined at some point. Most likely in 2010 but certainly by 2020. Regardless of when it occurs, Greenville-Spartanburg will be the largest MSA in South Carolina (again).

It could actually happen at any time. MSA designations can change in off years. Wasn't it in 2003 that GSP got split up and Columbia had a few other counties added to its MSA?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Columbia never had any counties added to its MSA. The Census Bureau created the new designation: core-based metropolitan areas as a truer reflection of a city's importance and relationships with its surrounding areas. Columbia's MSA is still just Richland and Lexington counties, and the the GSA MSA never went anywhere. The other counties surrounding Columbia are counted only as part of Columbia's core-based metropolitan area, not as part of its MSA. It's not surprising that the two terms are getting used interchangeably, as did "metropolitan statistical area" and "metropolitan area," but they mean two different things. MSA's always included even the rural parts of counties, while metropolitan areas counted only urban and suburban areas. Core-based metropolitan areas count rural, suburban and urban areas, but count only one area as being at the core, usually only one city, Columbia for instance. It's hard to think of Greenville as being the core compared with the other two cities in its MSA, because the other two cities have too much of their own thing going on, and the three cities together aren't enough of a core compared with the rest of the Upstate's population layout, according to the Census Bureau. In order for that to change we would need to see a lot more sprawl across the Upstate counties so that the population of the Upstate as a whole thought of Greenville, Spartanburg and Anderson altogether as their core. When and if that happens there will be a lot more sharing the glory among the Upstate's big three.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Columbia never had any counties added to its MSA. The Census Bureau created the new designation: core-based metropolitan areas as a truer reflection of a city's importance and relationships with its surrounding areas. Columbia's MSA is still just Richland and Lexington counties, and the the GSA MSA never went anywhere. The other counties surrounding Columbia are counted only as part of Columbia's core-based metropolitan area, not as part of its MSA. It's not surprising that the two terms are getting used interchangeably, as did "metropolitan statistical area" and "metropolitan area," but they mean two different things. MSA's always included even the rural parts of counties, while metropolitan areas counted only urban and suburban areas. Core-based metropolitan areas count rural, suburban and urban areas, but count only one area as being at the core, usually only one city, Columbia for instance.

This is incorrect according to the Census Bureau: "Metropolitan and micropolitan statistical areas (metro and micro areas) are geographic entities defined by the U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for use by Federal statistical agencies in collecting, tabulating, and publishing Federal statistics. The term 'Core Based Statistical Area' (CBSA) is a collective term for both metro and micro areas. A metro area contains a core urban area of 50,000 or more population, and a micro area contains an urban core of at least 10,000 (but less than 50,000) population."

Furthermore, this OMB attachment from 2007 shows that Columbia's metropolitan statistical area officially consists of Richland, Lexington, Kershaw, Fairfield, and Calhoun counties (pg. 29); Greenville's consists of Greenville, Pickens, and Laurens counties (pg. 34); and Spartanburg's consists of only Spartanburg County (pg. 50).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's OK; they change definitions so often you've got to work to keep up with them. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would you agree, though, that MSA's have become more core-based by definition and that in order for cities to be included together in an MSA they have to function together more as one whole (one core) compared to the rest of the territory included in the MSA? That's what I was getting at.

I remember reading about and being aware of the changes in MSA's, etc., but obviously I forgot some of what I read.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I really don't know exactly how the new MSA definition differs from the old, so it's hard to say. But what you're describing seems more applicable to metropolitan divisions that occur in metro areas of higher populations (2.5 million is the threshold I think).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By the time the GSA area hits 2.5 million, the three cities together will probably have the contiguous density needed to be considered one nucleus or core, and then they will probably be recombined as an MSA, unless by smart land use the three cities keep their distance from each other development-wise and continue to think of themselves as separate nuclei.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.