American Demographics Thread

[desertpunk]

Originally Posted by -Corey-

Im in shock with this figures, I'm glad New York City is recovering . So what's the total population? 315 million?

Here's the Commerce Dept. estimate for Jan 1 2012:http://www.commerce.gov/blog/2011/12...years-day-2012



-Give or take!

[desertpunk]

And some more cheesy Census Bureau graphics:







And a look at metropolitan and Micropolitan changes:


http://economyutah.blogspot.com/

[ducus]

Originally Posted by ducus

List of US states by unemployed people, according to:
www.usdebtclock.org
1. California 1997000
2.Texas 994000
3.Florida 875000
4.New York 750000
5.Illinois 671000
I've rounded the data to make it easier to read.
We should check these data again in a month, to see the diference.

Comparision a month after:
1.California 1983300 (-13700)
2.Texas 993900
3.Florida 863400 (-11600)
4.New York 748000 (-2000)
5.Illinois 673500 (+2500)
_____________________________
Official unemployed 12338400
Actual unemployed 22425500

[CITYofDREAMS]

Originally Posted by Yuri S Andrade

The CSAs over 5,000,000 inhabitants. I'll post the rest later:

Metropolitan Area --- Pop. 2011 --- Pop. 2010 --- Growth

1 - New York, NY-NJ-CT-PA --- 22,214,083 --- 22,085,649 --- 0.58% --- 128,434

2 - Los Angeles, CA --- 18,081,569 --- 17,877,006 --- 1.14% --- 204,563

3 - Chicago, IL --- 9,729,825 --- 9,686,021 --- 0.45% --- 43,804

4 - Washington-Baltimore, DC-MD-VA-WV --- 8,718,083 --- 8,572,971 --- 1.69% --- 145,112

5 - Boston, MA-RI-NH --- 7,601,061 --- 7,559,060 --- 0.56% --- 42,001

6 - San Francisco, CA --- 7,563,460 --- 7,468,390 --- 1.27% --- 95,070

7 - Dallas, TX --- 6,887,383 --- 6,731,317 --- 2.32% --- 156,066

8 - Philadelphia, PA-NJ-DE-MD --- 6,562,287 --- 6,533,683 --- 0.44% --- 28,604

9 - Houston, TX --- 6,191,434 --- 6,051,363 --- 2.31% --- 140,071

10 - Atlanta, GA-AL --- 5,712,148 --- 5,618,431 --- 1.67% --- 93,717

11 - Miami, FL --- 5,670,125 --- 5,564,635 --- 1.90% --- 105,490

12 - Detroit, MI --- 5,207,434 --- 5,218,852 --- -0.22% --- -11,418



--- New York with very strong numbers reversing the poor first decade of the century;

--- It's becoming harder and harder for Los Angeles to take over New York as the most populated metro area of the country. On this pace, only in 2070;

--- Chicago continues to post very shy growth. Very different from the 1990's;

--- Washington growing faster and faster, now on the same category of Dallas, Houston or Atlanta. To me, it's not healthy at all, as it indicates the country is getting more and more dependent of the State;

--- Boston, and especially San Francisco, way better than they were in the past decade;

--- Dallas heading to reach the 8 million milestone by 2018. One more megacity in North America?

--- It seems Philadelphia is no longer working as a proxy to New York as it did on the past decade;

--- Houston to reach the 7 million mark by 2017;

--- Atlanta, after being the number 1 in growth in the 1990's and early 2000's, ahead of its competitors Dallas and Houston, is slowing down in a very fast pace. We can no longer put Dallas, Houston and Atlanta on the same league;

--- Miami booming again, growing faster than Atlanta and might actually take over it by 2015;

--- Detroit losing population in an even faster pace and could fall under the 5,100,000 mark by 2020. Let's if they can reverse this trend along this decade.

Nevertheless, Los Angeles numbers are as encouraging, numerically it's csa grew more than any other in the US, at 204,563 is 76K more than NY and 48K more than the next highest Dallas.

[Manitopiaaa]

Originally Posted by -Corey-

Im in shock with this figures, I'm glad New York City is recovering . So what's the total population? 315 million?

As of right this second: 313,318,382
http://www.census.gov/main/www/popclock.html

[Yuri S Andrade]

The ones over 1 million:

Metropolitan Area --- Pop. 2011 --- Pop. 2010 --- Growth

1 - New York, NY-NJ-CT-PA --- 22,214,083 --- 22,085,649 --- 0.58% --- 128,434

2 - Los Angeles, CA --- 18,081,569 --- 17,877,006 --- 1.14% --- 204,563

3 - Chicago, IL --- 9,729,825 --- 9,686,021 --- 0.45% --- 43,804

4 - Washington-Baltimore, DC-MD-VA-WV --- 8,718,083 --- 8,572,971 --- 1.69% --- 145,112

5 - Boston, MA-RI-NH --- 7,601,061 --- 7,559,060 --- 0.56% --- 42,001

6 - San Francisco, CA --- 7,563,460 --- 7,468,390 --- 1.27% --- 95,070

7 - Dallas, TX --- 6,887,383 --- 6,731,317 --- 2.32% --- 156,066

8 - Philadelphia, PA-NJ-DE-MD --- 6,562,287 --- 6,533,683 --- 0.44% --- 28,604

9 - Houston, TX --- 6,191,434 --- 6,051,363 --- 2.31% --- 140,071

10 - Atlanta, GA-AL --- 5,712,148 --- 5,618,431 --- 1.67% --- 93,717

11 - Miami, FL --- 5,670,125 --- 5,564,635 --- 1.90% --- 105,490

12 - Detroit, MI --- 5,207,434 --- 5,218,852 --- -0.22% --- -11,418

13 - Seattle, WA --- 4,269,349 --- 4,199,312 --- 1.67% --- 70,037

14 - Phoenix, AZ --- 4,263,236 --- 4,192,887 --- 1.68% --- 70,349

15 - Minneapolis, MN-WI --- 3,655,558 --- 3,615,902 --- 1.10% --- 39,656

16 - Denver, CO --- 3,157,520 --- 3,090,874 --- 2.16% --- 66,646

17 - San Diego, CA --- 3,140,069 --- 3,095,313 --- 1.45% --- 44,756

18 - St. Louis, MO-IL --- 2,882,932 --- 2,878,255 --- 0.16% --- 4,677

19 - Cleveland, OH --- 2,871,084 --- 2,881,937 --- -0.38% --- -10,853

20 - Orlando, FL --- 2,861,296 --- 2,818,120 --- 1.53% --- 43,176

21 - Tampa, FL --- 2,824,724 --- 2,783,243 --- 1.49% --- 41,481

22 - Sacramento, CA-NV --- 2,489,230 --- 2,461,780 --- 1.12% --- 27,450

23 - Pittsburgh, PA --- 2,450,281 --- 2,447,393 --- 0.12% --- 2,888

24 - Charlotte, NC-SC --- 2,442,564 --- 2,402,623 --- 1.66% --- 39,941

25 - Portland, OR-WA --- 2,262,605 --- 2,226,009 --- 1.64% --- 36,596

26 - San Antonio, TX --- 2,194,927 --- 2,142,508 --- 2.45% --- 52,419

27 - Cincinnati, OH-KY-IN --- 2,179,965 --- 2,172,191 --- 0.36% --- 7,774

28 - Kansas City, MO-KS --- 2,122,908 --- 2,104,853 --- 0.86% --- 18,055

29 - Indianapolis, IN --- 2,103,574 --- 2,080,782 --- 1.10% --- 22,792

30 - Columbus, OH --- 2,093,185 --- 2,071,052 --- 1.07% --- 22,133

31 - Las Vegas, NV --- 2,013,326 --- 1,995,215 --- 0.91% --- 18,111

32 - Austin, TX --- 1,826,636 --- 1,759,039 --- 3.84% --- 67,597

33 - Raleigh, NC --- 1,795,750 --- 1,749,525 --- 2.64% --- 46,225

34 - Salt Lake City, UT --- 1,776,528 --- 1,744,886 --- 1.81% --- 31,642

35 - Milwaukee, WI --- 1,757,604 --- 1,751,316 --- 0.36% --- 6,288

36 - Nashville, TN --- 1,698,651 --- 1,670,890 --- 1.66% --- 27,761

37 - Norfolk, VA-NC --- 1,679,894 --- 1,671,683 --- 0.49% --- 8,211

38 - Greensboro, NC --- 1,602,693 --- 1,589,200 --- 0.85% --- 13,493

39 - Louisville, KY-IN --- 1,440,607 --- 1,427,483 --- 0.92% --- 13,124

40 - Jacksonville, FL --- 1,360,251 --- 1,345,596 --- 1.09% --- 14,655

41 - Oklahoma City, OK --- 1,348,333 --- 1,322,429 --- 1.96% --- 25,904

42 - Hartford, CT --- 1,331,406 --- 1,330,809 --- 0.04% --- 597

43 - Grand Rapids, MI --- 1,328,440 --- 1,321,557 --- 0.52% --- 6,883

44 - Memphis, TN-MS-AR --- 1,325,605 --- 1,316,100 --- 0.72% --- 9,505

45 - Greenville, SC --- 1,281,394 --- 1,266,995 --- 1.14% --- 14,399

46 - Richmond, VA --- 1,269,380 --- 1,258,251 --- 0.88% --- 11,129

47 - New Orleans, LA --- 1,238,228 --- 1,214,932 --- 1.92% --- 23,296

48 - Buffalo, NY --- 1,213,871 --- 1,215,826 --- -0.16% --- -1,955

49 - Birmingham, AL --- 1,212,800 --- 1,208,453 --- 0.36% --- 4,347

50 - Albany, NY --- 1,168,120 --- 1,168,485 --- -0.03% --- -365

51 - Rochester, NY --- 1,150,469 --- 1,149,653 --- 0.07% --- 816

52 - Fresno, CA --- 1,095,829 --- 1,081,315 --- 1.34% --- 14,514

53 - Dayton, OH --- 1,075,683 --- 1,072,891 --- 0.26% --- 2,792

54 - Knoxville, TN --- 1,063,354 --- 1,055,086 --- 0.78% --- 8,268



--- Raleigh with fastest growth in the US, behind Austin only. Charlotte slowed down but Raleigh keeps growing really fast;

--- Very slow Milwaukee. I was hoping to see a Chicago-Milwaukee CSA but in this pace, it will take long.

--- Tennessee's cities doing very good. It's now definitely on the fast-growing South. Nashville is now growing as fast as Atlanta;

--- Oklahoma City finally went Texan. Amazing growth! What's going on there?

--- Hartford, after a very strong decade, on the verge to post negative growth. Definitely not working as a proxy to New York anymore;

--- What Grand Rapids has that Michigan doesn't? This keeps going for decades!

--- New Orleans, quite complicated. I don't know whereas it's about people still coming back or a new trend. In any case, huge growth;

--- Buffalo, Buffalo... When will people stop to leave you?... At least, the exodus is slowing down (it was -0.29% yearly 2000-2010). I hope that's part of a trend, similar to Pittsburgh's. If the old patterns would have been kept, Buffalo could be a 3 million people CSA today. Quite extraoridnary to think of this urban network going all the way through Cleveland/Pittsburgh (a single CSA?) to a 12,000,000 people Detroit;

--- Birmingham with its traditional rust beltish growth. To think of in 1950, Birmingham and Atlanta metro areas were pretty much of the same size;

--- Albany, after gaining 50,000 people on the past decade, now is on negative. New York area's fault?

--- Anemic Rochester as usual. The good thing is they always manage to avoid negative growth;

--- Dayton surprisingly good, after losing 13,000 people on the past decade. What's going on in the area?

And a general observation: it's amazing how Americans move around. It's just crazy. I'm doing the same list for Brazil, and the growth is almost always between 0.8% up to 1.3% a year. In the US, it goes from negative to 2.5%. Brazilians (especially today's) don't leave their cities easily.

Originally Posted by CITYofDREAMS

Nevertheless, Los Angeles numbers are as encouraging, numerically it's csa grew more than any other in the US, at 204,563 is 76K more than NY and 48K more than the next highest Dallas.

Yes, I forgot to mention that. Indeed very strong numbers for Los Angeles. Way higher than the 2000-2010 average.

[chicagogeorge]

Thanks for taking the time and analyzing all the data for us number geeks.

Originally Posted by Yuri S Andrade

Yes, I forgot to mention that. Indeed very strong numbers for Los Angeles. Way higher than the 2000-2010 average.

If you recall, the first few years of the 2000's L.A's was growing gangbuster style (LA County as well as the IE). Then by 2005 L.A. County slowed dramatically. I wonder if they are benefiting from a migration slowdown as a result of the economic slowdown?


Here is a breakdown of L.A's growth during the 2000's

[CITYofDREAMS]

^ We will see much more growth in LA this decade... especially in the central and inner ring sector.

[chicagogeorge]

I put my money on the outer suburbs and the Inland Empire as seeing the largest growth in overall raw numbers. I think the exurbs growth (unless the Inland Empire is what they categorize as "exurbs") will not see nearly as much growth, but you are probably right, the recession and the housing bubble will keep more people in their place, so the inner suburbs will grow more this time around. Not a bad thing.

Btw, I just realized that the Los Angeles urbanized area in 2010, had a density level at 6,999 per square mile, which is a slight reduction from the 7,068 figure in 2000.

[Manitopiaaa]

@Yuri Andrade

Thanks for all the work!!
It's times like these that I hate that my city, Tulsa, is at 998,202 lol

[Somnifor]

Originally Posted by Yuri S Andrade

--- Minneapolis adding almost as much as people as Chicago;

Does anybody know when was the last time Chicago didn't lead Midwest metros in numerical growth? It would be kind of a big deal if we passed them in that.

[desertpunk]

Originally Posted by Somnifor

Does anybody know when was the last time Chicago didn't lead Midwest metros in numerical growth? It would be kind of a big deal if we passed them in that.

Either very recently or going back to the 1920s when Detroit was exploding.

[Xusein]

Originally Posted by Yuri S Andrade

--- Hartford, after a very strong decade, on the verge to post negative growth. Definitely not working as a proxy to New York anymore;

Dunno if I could consider 5% growth over a decade strong, but Hartford was never a "proxy" to NYC nor ever really attributed it's previous growth from it.

It is still totally unfeasible to realistically commute to the NYC metro from Hartford. Even commuting percentages between places like New Haven are still minimal.

I take all population estimates of Connecticut with a grain of salt since the official Census figures in 2010 ended up being over 50,000 people higher than previous estimates in the last decade. They seem to always underestimate the population growth here.

[Yuri S Andrade]

Originally Posted by chicagogeorge

Thanks for taking the time and analyzing all the data for us number geeks.

No problem! It reminds me of when I was a young kid in the late 1990's. I didn't have full access to the internet, but by that time I was analyzing the 1999 estimates and waiting anxious for the Census. I have two notebooks full of lists, with all the metro areas from 1900 to 2000. Magical times! Then the high school and later the college, get into the way, so no more time.

Originally Posted by Manitopiaaa

@Yuri Andrade

Thanks for all the work!!
It's times like these that I hate that my city, Tulsa, is at 998,202 lol

Don't hate. The ones over 800,000:

Metropolitan Area --- Pop. 2011 --- Pop. 2010 --- Growth

1 - New York, NY-NJ-CT-PA --- 22,214,083 --- 22,085,649 --- 0.58% --- 128,434

2 - Los Angeles, CA --- 18,081,569 --- 17,877,006 --- 1.14% --- 204,563

3 - Chicago, IL --- 9,729,825 --- 9,686,021 --- 0.45% --- 43,804

4 - Washington-Baltimore, DC-MD-VA-WV --- 8,718,083 --- 8,572,971 --- 1.69% --- 145,112

5 - Boston, MA-RI-NH --- 7,601,061 --- 7,559,060 --- 0.56% --- 42,001

6 - San Francisco, CA --- 7,563,460 --- 7,468,390 --- 1.27% --- 95,070

7 - Dallas, TX --- 6,887,383 --- 6,731,317 --- 2.32% --- 156,066

8 - Philadelphia, PA-NJ-DE-MD --- 6,562,287 --- 6,533,683 --- 0.44% --- 28,604

9 - Houston, TX --- 6,191,434 --- 6,051,363 --- 2.31% --- 140,071

10 - Atlanta, GA-AL --- 5,712,148 --- 5,618,431 --- 1.67% --- 93,717

11 - Miami, FL --- 5,670,125 --- 5,564,635 --- 1.90% --- 105,490

12 - Detroit, MI --- 5,207,434 --- 5,218,852 --- -0.22% --- -11,418

13 - Seattle, WA --- 4,269,349 --- 4,199,312 --- 1.67% --- 70,037

14 - Phoenix, AZ --- 4,263,236 --- 4,192,887 --- 1.68% --- 70,349

15 - Minneapolis, MN-WI --- 3,655,558 --- 3,615,902 --- 1.10% --- 39,656

16 - Denver, CO --- 3,157,520 --- 3,090,874 --- 2.16% --- 66,646

17 - San Diego, CA --- 3,140,069 --- 3,095,313 --- 1.45% --- 44,756

18 - St. Louis, MO-IL --- 2,882,932 --- 2,878,255 --- 0.16% --- 4,677

19 - Cleveland, OH --- 2,871,084 --- 2,881,937 --- -0.38% --- -10,853

20 - Orlando, FL --- 2,861,296 --- 2,818,120 --- 1.53% --- 43,176

21 - Tampa, FL --- 2,824,724 --- 2,783,243 --- 1.49% --- 41,481

22 - Sacramento, CA-NV --- 2,489,230 --- 2,461,780 --- 1.12% --- 27,450

23 - Pittsburgh, PA --- 2,450,281 --- 2,447,393 --- 0.12% --- 2,888

24 - Charlotte, NC-SC --- 2,442,564 --- 2,402,623 --- 1.66% --- 39,941

25 - Portland, OR-WA --- 2,262,605 --- 2,226,009 --- 1.64% --- 36,596

26 - San Antonio, TX --- 2,194,927 --- 2,142,508 --- 2.45% --- 52,419

27 - Cincinnati, OH-KY-IN --- 2,179,965 --- 2,172,191 --- 0.36% --- 7,774

28 - Kansas City, MO-KS --- 2,122,908 --- 2,104,853 --- 0.86% --- 18,055

29 - Indianapolis, IN --- 2,103,574 --- 2,080,782 --- 1.10% --- 22,792

30 - Columbus, OH --- 2,093,185 --- 2,071,052 --- 1.07% --- 22,133

31 - Las Vegas, NV --- 2,013,326 --- 1,995,215 --- 0.91% --- 18,111

32 - Austin, TX --- 1,826,636 --- 1,759,039 --- 3.84% --- 67,597

33 - Raleigh, NC --- 1,795,750 --- 1,749,525 --- 2.64% --- 46,225

34 - Salt Lake City, UT --- 1,776,528 --- 1,744,886 --- 1.81% --- 31,642

35 - Milwaukee, WI --- 1,757,604 --- 1,751,316 --- 0.36% --- 6,288

36 - Nashville, TN --- 1,698,651 --- 1,670,890 --- 1.66% --- 27,761

37 - Norfolk, VA-NC --- 1,679,894 --- 1,671,683 --- 0.49% --- 8,211

38 - Greensboro, NC --- 1,602,693 --- 1,589,200 --- 0.85% --- 13,493

39 - Louisville, KY-IN --- 1,440,607 --- 1,427,483 --- 0.92% --- 13,124

40 - Jacksonville, FL --- 1,360,251 --- 1,345,596 --- 1.09% --- 14,655

41 - Oklahoma City, OK --- 1,348,333 --- 1,322,429 --- 1.96% --- 25,904

42 - Hartford, CT --- 1,331,406 --- 1,330,809 --- 0.04% --- 597

43 - Grand Rapids, MI --- 1,328,440 --- 1,321,557 --- 0.52% --- 6,883

44 - Memphis, TN-MS-AR --- 1,325,605 --- 1,316,100 --- 0.72% --- 9,505

45 - Greenville, SC --- 1,281,394 --- 1,266,995 --- 1.14% --- 14,399

46 - Richmond, VA --- 1,269,380 --- 1,258,251 --- 0.88% --- 11,129

47 - New Orleans, LA --- 1,238,228 --- 1,214,932 --- 1.92% --- 23,296

48 - Buffalo, NY --- 1,213,871 --- 1,215,826 --- -0.16% --- -1,955

49 - Birmingham, AL --- 1,212,800 --- 1,208,453 --- 0.36% --- 4,347

50 - Albany, NY --- 1,168,120 --- 1,168,485 --- -0.03% --- -365

51 - Rochester, NY --- 1,150,469 --- 1,149,653 --- 0.07% --- 816

52 - Fresno, CA --- 1,095,829 --- 1,081,315 --- 1.34% --- 14,514

53 - Dayton, OH --- 1,075,683 --- 1,072,891 --- 0.26% --- 2,792

54 - Knoxville, TN --- 1,063,354 --- 1,055,086 --- 0.78% --- 8,268

55 - Tulsa, OK --- 998,438 --- 988,454 --- 1.01% --- 9,984

56 - Tucson, AZ --- 989,569 --- 980,263 --- 0.95% --- 9,306

57 - Honolulu, HI --- 963,607 --- 953,207 --- 1.09% --- 10,400

58 - Omaha, NE-IA --- 913,883 --- 902,041 --- 1.31% --- 11,842

59 - Albuquerque, NM --- 898,642 --- 887,077 --- 1.30% --- 11,565

60 - Little Rock, AR --- 886,992 --- 877,091 --- 1.13% --- 9,901

61 - Sarasota, FL --- 869,866 --- 862,259 --- 0.88% --- 7,607

62 - Bakersfield, CA --- 851,710 --- 839,631 --- 1.44% --- 12,079

63 - Baton Rouge, LA --- 831,395 --- 825,905 --- 0.66% --- 5,490

64 - Allentown, PA-NJ --- 824,916 --- 821,173 --- 0.46% --- 3,743

65 - Columbia, SC --- 814,837 --- 805,106 --- 1.21% --- 9,731

66 - El Paso, TX --- 820,790 --- 800,647 --- 2.52% --- 20,143



Tulsa doing as it always does. I wonder if the Oklahoma City growth is good for Tulsa;

Tucson growth collapsed as the other desert cities;

Honolulu quite well. I imagine with this growth the island will become very expensive;

I heard all the western states of Midwest are doing very well. Omaha figures seem to confirm this;

Sarasota, as all the smaller Florida's metro area posting very weak numbers compared to the big ones. It's usually the other way around;

It seems Allentown, as Philadelphia and Hartford, being harmed by the New York surge;

El Paso, with a very strong, finally becoming "Texan".

Originally Posted by Somnifor

Does anybody know when was the last time Chicago didn't lead Midwest metros in numerical growth? It would be kind of a big deal if we passed them in that.

Well, according to my old notebooks Detroit grew more than Chicago in the 1930's, the depression decade, where everybody grew nothing. Detroit gained 199,986 (871,545 in the previous decade) while Chicago only 149,650 (1,154,088). From 1900 to 1930, Detroit grew way more than Chicago, but only in relative terms. In the 1940's Detroit almost did it again: 638,868 vs 669,837 from Chicago. The definitions are the 1950's ones as it was the first time they were used.

Originally Posted by Xusein

Dunno if I could consider 5% growth over a decade strong, but Hartford was never a "proxy" to NYC nor ever really attributed it's previous growth from it.

It is still totally unfeasible to realistically commute to the NYC metro from Hartford. Even commuting percentages between places like New Haven are still minimal.

I take all population estimates of Connecticut with a grain of salt since the official Census figures in 2010 ended up being over 50,000 people higher than previous estimates in the last decade. They seem to always underestimate the population growth here.

I meant proxy for the exurban growth. It seems New York area is absorbing those extra people that apparently went to Hartford and Philadelphia on the last decade. But that's just a guessing.

P.S. Guys, the questions I made on my comments are not rhetorical. If you know the answer, please...

[desertpunk]

Originally Posted by Yuri S Andrade

Tulsa doing as it always does. I wonder if the Oklahoma City growth is good for Tulsa;

Tucson growth collapsed as the other desert cities;

El Paso, with a very strong, finally becoming "Texan".


P.S. Guys, the questions I made on my comments are not rhetorical. If you know the answer, please...

Some thoughts:

>Tulsa is a key oil and gas pipeline and services hub and has benefitted greatly from the explosion in oil and gas.

>Tucson has slowed considerably since the 1980s when it was almost on a parallel track with Phoenix. Water is the biggest issue there with many hurdles to development. The economy has not been very dynamic either.

>El Paso saw a huge expansion at Ft Bliss and there's been a flood of Juarez violence refugees (many of them wealthy businessmen). Add nearby Las Cruces and that metro would be 1,033,000. Albuquerque plus nearby Santa Fe would be 1,043,000. At some point the Census Bureau will finally combine these metros.

[chicagogeorge]

Originally Posted by Yuri S Andrade

No problem! It reminds me of when I was a young kid in the late 1990's. I didn't have full access to the internet, but by that time I was analyzing the 1999 estimates and waiting anxious for the Census. I have two notebooks full of lists, with all the metro areas from 1900 to 2000. Magical times! Then the high school and later the college, get into the way, so no more time.

I use to do the same thing, only back in the early 80's and get this, I had to rely on encyclopedias

Metropolitan Area --- Pop. 2011 --- Pop. 2010 --- Growth


3 - Chicago, IL --- 9,729,825 --- 9,686,021 --- 0.45% --- 43,804

Anemic growth, but it's only a one year estimate. Hopefully the situation will improve

Well, according to my old notebooks Detroit grew more than Chicago in the 1930's, the depression decade, where everybody grew nothing. Detroit gained 199,986 (871,545 in the previous decade) while Chicago only 149,650 (1,154,088). From 1900 to 1930, Detroit grew way more than Chicago, but only in relative terms. In the 1940's Detroit almost did it again: 638,868 vs 669,837 from Chicago. The definitions are the 1950's ones as it was the first time they were used.

Chicago's metro growth rate ( maybe on raw mumbers) was the lowest I believe during the 1970's

Edit:Actually 1980 to 1990 had a smaller numeric growth. Here is Chicago metro growth patterns by decade since 1950

[Sounder]

Great stuff Yuri!

One of the reasons Americans are so mobile is tradition. It was a mobile country from the start with people leaving their home countries and coming here. Also, with such large and diverse geography and with 50 states with diverse laws, resources, and human capital, it forces people and businesses with certain skills or specialties to locate to certain areas.

Originally Posted by chicagogeorge

I use to do the same thing, only back in the early 80's and get this, I had to rely on encyclopedias ]

I too did the same thing, but I was lucky to have a demographer dad with a home office. He had the entire sets of Census 1980 & 1990 plus foreign data. The bookshelves of atlases provided to be a bigger distraction however. The World Almanac was good for the largest city and metro estimates.

[Yuri S Andrade]

Originally Posted by desertpunk

>Tulsa is a key oil and gas pipeline and services hub and has benefitted greatly from the explosion in oil and gas.

Isn't it possible that unprecedent Oklahoma City's growth overshadows Tulsa? I've never been to the US, but the impression that I get from TV, films, etc., Tulsa is more well-known than its neighbour.

And talking about gas, when eastern Ohio will see its impact, especially concerning to population growth?

Originally Posted by chicagogeorge

Chicago's metro growth rate ( maybe on raw mumbers) was the lowest I believe during the 1970's

Edit:Actually 1980 to 1990 had a smaller numeric growth. Here is Chicago metro growth patterns by decade since 1950

(...)

Very good chart! I've been planing for years to organize a table with all metro areas, using current definitions all the way to 1850. Equally, another one, using the 1950's definitions, from 1850 to 2010. Never had the time though.

Originally Posted by Sounder

Great stuff Yuri!

One of the reasons Americans are so mobile is tradition. It was a mobile country from the start with people leaving their home countries and coming here. Also, with such large and diverse geography and with 50 states with diverse laws, resources, and human capital, it forces people and businesses with certain skills or specialties to locate to certain areas.

Thank you! I

keep comparing the US and Brazil, not only because I live here but also for they share many common features: continental area, big population (although low density), both were colonized by European powers, had slavery, took their share of European immigrants in the XIXth and early XXth centuries, etc. Brazil also had once an huge internal migration (1960's to 1980's), from Northeast to Southeast (especially to São Paulo), very similar to the US South-North migration on the first half of the XX century. Not to mention, the rural exodus, pushing tens of millions to the cities in just a couple of decades (in the 1960's ALL Brazilian top 20 urban areas grew over 50%!!!). Today, however, those big migration currents pretty much disappeared. And the current economic growth seems to slow down further the migration rates. In the US, on the contrary, people keep moving around. Americans seems to like to move around even inside the same metro area.

About legislation, in Brazil they are way more uniform over state-lines. There's no such thing as penal or state civil codes. It's all federal. But for one thing, the income and poverty rates amongst Brazilian states are way bigger than in the US. Santa Catarina and Maranhão states, for instance, are worlds apart.

Originally Posted by chicagogeorge

I use to do the same thing, only back in the early 80's and get this, I had to rely on encyclopedias

Originally Posted by Sounder

I too did the same thing, but I was lucky to have a demographer dad with a home office. He had the entire sets of Census 1980 & 1990 plus foreign data. The bookshelves of atlases provided to be a bigger distraction however. The World Almanac was good for the largest city and metro estimates.

Good to know I'm not alone!

[Somnifor]

I ran across some intersting maps.

I created maps of U.S. metro areas showing their change in location quotient. Location quotient (LQ) measures the concentration of something in a local area relative to its concentration nationally. This is commonly used for identifying economic clusters, such as by comparing the percentage of employment in a particular industry locally vs. its overall national percentage. In a location quotient, a value of 1.0 indicates a concentration exactly equal to the US average, a value greater than 1.0 indicates a concentration greater than the US average, and a value less than 1.0 indicates a concentration less than the US average.

While commonly used for economic analysis, the math works for many other things. It can be useful to measure how the concentration of particular values changes over time relative to the national average. In this case, we will examine the change in LQ for various ethnic groups between the 2000 and 2010 censuses for metro areas. Those metro areas with a positive change in LQ grew more concentrated in that ethnic group compared to the US average over the last decade. Those with a negative change in LQ grew less concentrated compared to the nation as a whole, even if they grew total population in that ethnic group.

To increase concentration level requires growing at a faster percentage than the US as a whole. This is obviously easier for places that start from a low base than those with a high base. In this light, places that have traditionally been ethnic hubs – such as west coast metros for Asians – can grow less concentrated relative to the nation as a whole even if they continue to add a particular ethnic group. Asian population, for example, can grow strongly in California, but at a slower rate than the rest of the country. This is indeed the case as groups like Hispanics and Asians have been de-concentrating from the west coast, and now are showing up in material numbers even in the Heartland.


http://www.newgeography.com/content/...bout+places%29

Black Population:



Hispanic Population:



Asian Population:



Children (under 18):

[shane453]

Originally Posted by Yuri S Andrade

--- Oklahoma City finally went Texan. Amazing growth! What's going on there?

Pretty much everything... Intense growth and relocations in the energy industry, about 1,500 Boeing engineering jobs relocated from Long Beach, Wichita, and Seattle, continued growth of bioscience/research, and all the associated growth (significant boom in retail/restaurants/construction) that comes along with those three rapidly growing high-pay industries.

All of the Boeing stuff and some other major relocations weren't announced until 2011 and didn't really start moving in until this year, so I'm guessing 2011-2012 growth will probably be well over 2%, things have seemed much more dramatic than 2010-2011. Looks like OKC could feasibly pass Jacksonville pretty easily.