Population loss/gain Southern City Roundup

[monsoon]

[TopTenn]

In Nashville's case most of its resident are moving to the suburban counties because of the cheap real-estate

[Spartan]

I read somewhere that DC's population is down over 100,000 since its peak. Not sure when that peak was though.

[benjamin]

I really dont think that is acurate. Atlanta has not grown 6000 people in 5 years, thats just not right. Where would they even get these numbers considering there hasn't been a census since 2000?

[brewerw]

These numbers lie. Nasvhille is growing very rapidly in its suburbs. It is turning out to be a little atlanta(that is probably not good). There were also very little developments in Nashville. Finally the developeres have decide it would be smart to put residental zoning downtown. I would bet you by the next census Nasvhille is a fast growing city.

[vicupstate]

I really dont think that is acurate. Atlanta has not grown 6000 people in 5 years, thats just not right. Where would they even get these numbers considering there hasn't been a census since 2000?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Atlanta's population (the city proper) grew 10% between 1990 and 2000. That was after decades of losing population. Intown Atlanta is hot as a firecracker and has been for some time.

These numbers are census bureau estimates. When an actual census is done, they frequently turn out to be off the mark quite a bit (+ or -). They are mostly indicative of trends more than hard numbers.

[mwfsu84]

Jacksonville's growth is somewhat misleading; Jacksonville is consolidated with most of Duval County and covers more than just the central city, but the fast growing outlying areas too.

Still, for a county it's size (roughly 830,000) Duval, is groiwing at a fast clip. Once depressed areas like downtown and the Northside are opening up to development. This is particulary true downtown, where it seems like a new high rise condo project is announced every day.

[rocket9561]

These numbers lie. Nasvhille is growing very rapidly in its suburbs. It is turning out to be a little atlanta(that is probably not good). There were also very little developments in Nashville. Finally the developeres have decide it would be smart to put residental zoning downtown. I would bet you by the next census Nasvhille is a fast growing city.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Nashville pulled out at 12% increase between 1990 and 2000 and I certainly see more development in the city now than I did then as we've added many more jobs in Davidson County in the past few years whereas in the 90s most job growth occurred in Williamson and Rutherford County. I know most of the Suburban Counties have been projected at the same or faster growth rates than in the 90s so I imagine when the census comes out Nashville/Davidson will still be moving along as well.

[Brickell]

why does the census even try anymore? I find it incredible that people on these urban forrums question the numbers so much. Sure, they're just estimates, but they're the best we got.

[monsoon]

[rocket9561]

The only thing that we know about the 1990 to 2000 figures is they are 5 years out of date at best and represent data that is 15 years old.

[BrandonTO416]

I think the West is still the fastest growing part of the USA if you check the stats. From Las Vegas, LA, Salt Lake City, Denver, all the way to Seattle its really outpaced southeastern growth for a while.

Check out the stats for yourself.

http://www.census.gov/population/cen2000/phc-t3/tab03.txt

Top 10 western metro growth

Metro area - 1990 population - 2000 population - # increase

LA - 14,531,529 - 16,373,645 - 1,842,116

Phoenix - 2,238,480 - 3,251,876 - 1,013,396

SF - 6,253,311 - 7,039,362 - 786,051

Las Vegas - 852,737 - 1,563,282 - 710,545

Denver - 1,980,140 - 2,581,506 - 601,366

Seattle - 2,970,328 - 3,554,760 - 584,432

Portland - 1,793,476 - 2,265,223 - 471,747

San Diego - 2,498,016 - 2,813,833 - 315,817

Sacramento - 1,481,102 - 1,796,857 - 315,755

Salt Lake City - 1,072,227 - 1,333,914 - 261,687

What makes these numbers even worse for the south is that the west is incapable of sprawling the same way the southeast is because of geographic or natural resource (Phoenix and LA in particular) issues. Half the growth in Atlanta, for example, is so far removed from the real city that it's not really ATLANTA growth. At least in LA the growth is contiguous even if its 50 miles away. Also urban town centers abound in LA's metro. Atlanta, Dallas, Houston have no such luck.

[BrandonTO416]

Another thing to remember about southeast metros is annexation. If these numbers are purely for urban boundary gains instead of metro wide gains, this means the numbers are skewed even further.

Southeastern metros annex more land to claim growth then any other region of the nation. Its a well known fact, historically and at present.

[bobliocatt]

Any idea of the density of the Western cities, compared to the Southeastern cities?

[Brickell]

I don't think they're annexing just so it looks good on paper to geeks like us. Give them a little credit. If the cities don't annex then the county gets the population and the tax rolls at the expense of the city. All cities should be annexing. It shouldn't be looked at as a negative.

[bobliocatt]

I agree, annexation is a good thing. If done right, it lowers taxes, streamlines government, eliminates local municipality competition, and makes it easier for cities to plan and finance large projects (ex. rail transit, parks, streetscapes, better public facilities, etc.) that enhance the local region's quality of life.

[vicupstate]

I don't think they're annexing just so it looks good on paper to geeks like us.  Give them a little credit.  If the cities don't annex then the county gets the population and the tax rolls at the expense of the city.  All cities should be annexing.  It shouldn't be looked at as a negative.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I absolutely agree that it is NOT a negative. I think the point is that it makes it difficult to do an apples-to-apples comparison between cities. Cities like Atlanta and Miami are getting their growth from increased density within static borders. Other cities are showing higher numbers and percentages from annexations and possibly also from increased density. But how do you breakout the gain from annexation vs. gains from increased density?

[Aessotariq]

I believe you could look at the populations within the individual census tracts that fall within the city's corporate boundaries.

I know there are flaws in this method, but see if this follows:

If I wanted to track density, I could look at year A's city area and the populations of the census tracts (in aggregate), and then look at year B's census tract population figures (using year A's boundaries) to see if density change was a factor in growth or decline.

Then I would look at the census tracts representing the annexed area, and compare year A to year B in a similar way.

[benjamin]

I think the West is still the fastest growing part of the USA if you check the stats. From Las Vegas, LA, Salt Lake City, Denver, all the way to Seattle its really outpaced southeastern growth for a while.

Check out the stats for yourself.

http://www.census.gov/population/cen2000/phc-t3/tab03.txt

Top 10 western metro growth

Metro area - 1990 population - 2000 population - # increase

LA - 14,531,529 - 16,373,645 - 1,842,116

Phoenix - 2,238,480 - 3,251,876 - 1,013,396

SF - 6,253,311 - 7,039,362 - 786,051

Las Vegas - 852,737 - 1,563,282 - 710,545

Denver - 1,980,140 - 2,581,506 - 601,366

Seattle - 2,970,328 - 3,554,760 - 584,432

Portland - 1,793,476 - 2,265,223 - 471,747

San Diego - 2,498,016 - 2,813,833 - 315,817

Sacramento - 1,481,102 - 1,796,857 - 315,755

Salt Lake City - 1,072,227 - 1,333,914 - 261,687

What makes these numbers even worse for the south is that the west is incapable of sprawling the same way the southeast is because of geographic or natural resource (Phoenix and LA in particular) issues. Half the growth in Atlanta, for example, is so far removed from the real city that it's not really ATLANTA growth. At least in LA the growth is contiguous even if its 50 miles away. Also urban town centers abound in LA's metro. Atlanta, Dallas, Houston have no such luck.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You are completely and totally distorting the facts. First of all, 1990-2000 isn;t an accurate respresentation of what is happening now. Secondly, even in these numbers the south is growing more than the west. Look at your own source....

5602 1 New York--Northern New Jersey--Long Island, NY--NJ--CT--PA CMSA 21,199,865 19,549,649 1,650,216 8.4%

4472 2 Los Angeles--Riverside--Orange County, CA CMSA 16,373,645 14,531,529 1,842,116 12.7%

1602 3 Chicago--Gary--Kenosha, IL--IN--WI CMSA 9,157,540 8,239,820 917,720 11.1%

8872 4 Washington--Baltimore, DC--MD--VA--WV CMSA 7,608,070 6,727,050 881,020 13.1%

7362 5 San Francisco--Oakland--San Jose, CA CMSA 7,039,362 6,253,311 786,051 12.6%

6162 6 Philadelphia--Wilmington--Atlantic City, PA--NJ--DE--MD CMSA 6,188,463 5,892,937 295,526 5.0%

1122 7 Boston--Worcester--Lawrence, MA--NH--ME--CT CMSA 5,819,100 5,455,403 363,697 6.7%

2162 8 Detroit--Ann Arbor--Flint, MI CMSA 5,456,428 5,187,171 269,257 5.2%

1922 9 Dallas--Fort Worth, TX CMSA 5,221,801 4,037,282 1,184,519 29.3%

3362 10 Houston--Galveston--Brazoria, TX CMSA 4,669,571 3,731,131 938,440 25.2%

0520 11 Atlanta, GA MSA

The southern cities beat the western cities in percentage of growth (those rankings are in sheer numbers) LOL

[it's just dave]

Nashville, Jacksonville and now Louisville would be tough to predict since our cities/counties are one. I think all these numbers are, as monsoon said, the best we can do for now. But since the urban revivals are relatively new as far as central cities are concerned, it would seem likely to see even more surprising numbers in central city numbers in the coming years. Sampling some cities listed in the negative columns, I venture to say that Nashville, Birmingham and Memphis, among others, will likely show postives numbers... and in some cases, quite dramatically so.

[BrandonTO416]

I'm not here to argue benjamin, believe what you want. Los Angeles is growing as much as Atlanta and Miami combined alone - two of the largest southeastern metros. Las Vegas is a tiny metro by comparison and is growing almost as fast as Atlanta.

Cities big and small are beating southeastern metros. The 4 big southern metros don't offset anything else, and again Atlanta's sprawl is a unique mess that totally detracts from the entire metro regardless how much it grows. Atlanta is well known for being the most sprawled major metropolitan area in the nation. A vast majority of people in the nation don't care for Atlanta in general. Atlanta is a city you either love or hate, and most people who love it will of course live there. Everyone else, well, you know the story. Atlantans are the ones who care about Atlanta & little else.

[alexr15]

I'm not here to argue benjamin, believe what you want. Los Angeles is growing as much as Atlanta and Miami combined alone - two of the largest southeastern metros. Las Vegas is a tiny metro by comparison and is growing almost as fast as Atlanta.

Cities big and small are beating southeastern metros. The 4 big southern metros don't offset anything else, and again Atlanta's sprawl is a unique mess that totally detracts from the entire metro regardless how much it grows. Atlanta is well known for being the most sprawled major metropolitan area in the nation. A vast majority of people in the nation don't care for Atlanta in general. Atlanta is a city you either love or hate, and most people who love it will of course live there. Everyone else, well, you know the story. Atlantans are the ones who care about Atlanta & little else.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Actually, Atlanta may be sprawl happy but cities like Houston and Phoenix rival it for sure. And like someone said earlier, cities like Atlanta and Miami are increasing their populations through increased density while Houston goes on annexing it sprawling suburbs.

And I dont know where you got that Las Vegas was growing almost as fast as Atlanta. Maybe percentage wise...

And HOW can YOU speak for the majority of the people in the nation?

[BrandonTO416]

Las Vegas grew by 700,000, Atlanta grew by 1.1 million. That's a 400,000 difference & for the overall size of each metro that shows how the west is winning the growth title.

[Spades]

Actually, Atlanta may be sprawl happy but cities like Houston and Phoenix rival it for sure.  And like someone said earlier, cities like Atlanta and Miami are increasing their populations through increased density while Houston goes on annexing it sprawling suburbs.

And I dont know where you got that Las Vegas was growing almost as fast as Atlanta. Maybe percentage wise...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Houston hasn't annexed since 1996 and will not annex in a while if ever at all probably. The population of Houston was 1.8 million at that time. It has 2.1 million now w/o annexing and also. Houston is increasing there populations throough incresed density as well. All the infill the city is doing inside the loop is nice. When's the last time you visited Houston.

[alexr15]

Las Vegas grew by 700,000, Atlanta grew by 1.1 million. That's a 400,000 difference & for the overall size of each metro that shows how the west is winning the growth title.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Do you actually think Las Vegas can maintain that growth rate? Its a city in the desert with limited water resources, skyrocketing home prices, and increasing air pollution.

And how does that show that the west is winning the growth title?

The only places in the west that added over a million people were Los Angeles and Phoenix. No other place was even very close to a million with Las Vegas in third adding about 634,306. In the south I see Atlanta and Dallas with over a million and Miami and Houston with well over 900,000; and if you want to count DC metro it added more than Las Vegas also.

I agree Las Vegas is growing crazy fast but I dont see how that can be sustained in the long run.