Washington State: Population Stats & Figures - Page 4

Sounder · December 22nd, 2010, 01:30 AM

- You are talking about including Yakima County, so it becomes more than a Columbia River centric district.

- There are more connections between King County & Kittitas County than there are between Clark & Yakima. The Snoqualmie Pass 8th District makes geographical sense unlike your suggestion. The link between East & West along Snoqualmie Pass is going to increase with time as Suncadia and other developments attract westsiders.

- It is NOT a blatant R gerrymander. A Democrat has never won the 8th District.

bgwah · December 22nd, 2010, 02:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sounder

- You are talking about including Yakima County, so it becomes more than a Columbia River centric district.

- There are more connections between King County & Kittitas County than there are between Clark & Yakima. The Snoqualmie Pass 8th District makes geographical sense unlike your suggestion. The link between East & West along Snoqualmie Pass is going to increase with time as Suncadia and other developments attract westsiders.

As someone from East King County... No, it doesn't make make sense.

Let's look at the 15th legislative district---the only LD that includes both East and West:

Looks like Clark to Yakima to me.

I don't have a map on hand, but the 4th CD extended into Clark County in the 1980s.

Quote:

- It is NOT a blatant R gerrymander. A Democrat has never won the 8th District.

Irrelevant.

Sounder · December 22nd, 2010, 02:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bgwah

As someone from East King County... No, it doesn't make make sense.

I don't understand. There is an interstate freeway linking the two. There are people who actually commute from Kittitas County into King County. Suncadia and much of the development east of the pass is spill over from King County. This trend is going to continue.

As a resident of the 3rd Congressional District, your proposal makes less sense. You suggest splitting the Yakima Valley into 3 segments (linking the middle portion with suburban Portland

), splitting Longview, and splitting Walla Walla. Not only does it not make geographical sense, it isn't clean. The bipartisan redistricting committee has a habit of not screwing incumbents and drawing clean lines.

SW WA should be a district, the Yakima Valley should be a district, and the Central Cascades might as well be a district too.

Sounder · December 22nd, 2010, 02:34 AM

http://nationaljournal.com/member/po...inner-20101217

But if the state gains a seat, Herrera could get an even better deal. Both GOP-held eastern Washington districts would need to shrink considerably, allowing Herrera, and potentially the 8th Congressional District's Republican representative, Dave Reichert, to take in some Republican territory east of the Cascades. Then, in exchange for protecting Herrera and Reichert, the commission could draw a new Democratic-leaning 10th Congressional District anchored by Bellevue in the Seattle suburbs, which might take in some Democratic-leaning areas of the current 7th, 8th, and 9th districts in King County.

Once I get Silverlight running, I'll post a map of my suggestion. It is different than the one from Cook Political Report.

bgwah · December 22nd, 2010, 02:39 AM

Clean? What the heck is clean about the 6th district right now? Or the 9th? Districts aren't always clean.

The number of people commuting from Suncadia is insignificant for districts that will have 675,000 people.

Unfortunately, counties and cities have to be split sometimes. And FTR, you're in the 10th district in my map.

As for screwing incumbents... Dave Reichert's district has been trending D for a long time. In the 1994 R wave, Dunn won with some ridiculous 3-to-1 margin. But this year's R wave? Reichert only got 52%. You can't just completely change the district to some ridiculous gerrymander to save Reichert. The Democrats on the commission won't allow it.

pwalker · December 22nd, 2010, 04:46 AM

The congressional districting is interesting, but not likely to cause much change, as the democrats are still in control of WA, both in congress, and in the governership.

Bottom line, WA is well above the national average in population increase. That, to me, is a good sign. New residents usually equal new jobs. And unlike Nevada and Arizona, our growth is steady, not stilted by early decade growth and then loss.

bgwah · December 22nd, 2010, 05:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pwalker

The congressional districting is interesting, but not likely to cause much change, as the democrats are still in control of WA, both in congress, and in the governership.

Bottom line, WA is well above the national average in population increase. That, to me, is a good sign. New residents usually equal new jobs. And unlike Nevada and Arizona, our growth is steady, not stilted by early decade growth and then loss.

Washington's redistricting is bipartisan, so it doesn't really matter which party is in control of the legislature/governorship.

Sounder · December 22nd, 2010, 07:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bgwah

But this year's R wave? Reichert only got 52%. You can't just completely change the district to some ridiculous gerrymander to save Reichert. The Democrats on the commission won't allow it.

First off all, it isn't a GOP gerrymander. If it was, Reichert would be dead meat. He'd lose in the primary. HTH.

Sounder · December 22nd, 2010, 08:51 AM

This is kind of what I had in mind. It is not entirely accurate as I do not have the 2010 data.

[IMG]http://oi55.************/2cqjh1g.jpg[/IMG]

Close-up of Western Washington:

[IMG]http://oi55.************/6ynk91.jpg[/IMG]

Changes:

1st: becomes an entirely east sound district. Trades Shoreline, Bainbridge, and North Kitsap, for Bellevue and Everett.

2nd: The state's NW district needs to shrink due to strong growth. It loses South Everett and Skykomish.

3rd: The state's SW district sheds Olympia and gains Klickitat County and the Westport Peninsula.

4th: Due to strong growth, the district sheds Chelan, Kittitas, Klickitat, and western Adams County. Adds Walla Walla and Columbia.

5th: Sheds Walla Walla and Columbia. Gains Adams panhandle.

6th: Unites the entire Olympic Peninsula by adding North Kitsap, Bainbridge, and Olympia. Sheds Lakewood, western Tacoma, and Westport.

7th: Trades Vashon Island and Lake Forest Park for Shoreline.

8th: Loses downtown Bellevue, Points Cities, and portions of Pierce and South King. Adds Woodinville, more Renton, Kittitas, and Chelan.

9th: Loses Olympia, Lacey, Yelm, and Spanaway. Adds Vashon Island and portion of the old 8th in Pierce and South King County.

10th: the new district includes Tacoma, Lakewood, Lacey, Yelm, and rural Pierce County.

Comments:

- As bgwah notes, Inslee lives on Bainbridge and would have to move under the above scenario (or retire to run for Governor)

- Not sure exactly where in Auburn Dave Reichert lives, so I may have chopped him out. It would be easy to get him back in by trading away another piece to the 9th.

- Not sure where in Everett Larsen lives, so he may have been chopped too.

- All others are secure in their district.

- A possibilityto represent the new 10th would be former Congressman and current Insurance Commissioner Mike Kriedler. I don't see the GOP with a shot there.

- The 7th, 9th, and 10th districts are pretty safe to ultra safe Democrat districts. The 4th and 5th are safe GOP districts. The 3rd and 8th lean Republican while the 1st and 6th lean Democrat. The 2nd is pretty close to a swing district.

Sounder · December 22nd, 2010, 09:32 AM

More detail:

[IMG]http://oi53.************/vmwydz.jpg[/IMG]

Ginkgo · December 22nd, 2010, 05:58 PM

Interesting is the mix of Eastern and Western Washington on some of the maps. But somehow I can't picture Chelan and King counties in the same district. Chelan and Douglas counties are almost joined at the hip and I don't see those two being split up.

When I moved to Ballard in the late 80's it was still in the [then] very competitive 1st. Now in the 7th, I don't even usually vote for US representative. Someone please come up with a map which will get me back into the 1st!

Sounder · December 22nd, 2010, 08:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ginkgo

Interesting is the mix of Eastern and Western Washington on some of the maps. But somehow I can't picture Chelan and King counties in the same district. Chelan and Douglas counties are almost joined at the hip and I don't see those two being split up.

Because of Eastern Washington's strong growth, it is too big for just two congressional districts, but not large enough for three. Chelan and Kittitas make sense in the 8th because of the growing ties between the areas as Eastsiders with money retire, move, or buy vacation property around Lake Chelan, Orondo, Leavenworth, and the upper Kittitas Valley. The area also receives Seattle area TV stations. Under my scenario, about 4,000 people from Douglas County would also need to be placed in the 8th.

USAPatriot · February 24th, 2011, 08:24 AM

http://2010.census.gov/2010census/data/index.php

WASHINGTON

The 2010 census data is in. Our state grew in every county except for poor Garfield and Pacific Counties. Both suffered a minimal loss. Even Okanogan, Pend Oreille, Stevens, and Ferry saw increases.

Franklin County with the city of Pasco saw some of the biggest increases in the state as well as the eastern counties of Benton (Kennewick), Grant (Moses Lake, Ephrata), Douglas (East Wenatchee), and Kittitas (Ellensburg). Yakima County grew, but not nearly as much as expected.

Out west, Clark County (Vancouver) saw the biggest growth. Snohomish County outgrew King and Pierce. Whatcom County grew in large numbers and Bellingham's city population swelled. It will be in the 100,000s within 20 years most likely. Surprisingly, Mason (Shelton) and Jefferson (Port Townsend) saw very big growth rates for such rural counties. Thurston County (Olympia) also grew.

OREGON

And for those who are interested in our neighbors to the south, Oregon saw the biggest growth rates away from Multnomah County (Portland). Biggest growth came from Washington County (Hillsboro, Beaverton) which is to the west of Portland. The other highest growth rates came far south in Grants Pass and out in central, eastern Oregon at Bend in Deschutes County.

Nearly every eastern Oregon county lost population, something Washington did not do. Most of our rural counties grew, which is a good sign. Let's keep it that way. There is economic depression in a lot of eastern Oregon counties, and all their "big" towns are declining sadly. The only eastern Oregon counties that grew were Umatilla, Union, and Marrow, all of which draw from the prosperity of the Tri-Cities. The hub towns in that tri-county area is Pendleton and Hermiston.

Eugene and Salem, as well as their counties, did not grow as fast as some would though. Most growth occurred outside of Portland on the west side. These areas are more rural. All of Oregon's coastal counties grew, surprisingly, but some just marginally.

Sounder · February 24th, 2011, 07:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by USAPatriot

Surprisingly, Mason (Shelton) and Jefferson (Port Townsend) saw very big growth rates for such rural counties.

Not sure why this is a surprise as Mason County gets spillover growth from Olympia, Bremerton, Gig Harbor, and beyond. Jefferson gets some spillover too, but also attracts a lot of retirees.

CrazyAboutCities · June 24th, 2011, 10:38 PM

Seattle metro area gaining on Detroit in population

Seattle remains the nation’s 15th-largest metro area with 3,492,028 people.

That’s the same rank the Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue area held last year, when 3,460,300 people were estimated to live here.

In a few years, if the Seattle area’s population keeps growing and the Detroit area’s keeps declining, Seattle should pass the Michigan city in population. According to estimates, the Seattle area will have 3.5 million people on or about Sept. 8. The Detroit metro area currently has 4,265,640 people and that’s expected to fall to 4,260,000 on Sept. 23.

New York City, with an estimated population of 18.97 million as of July 1, remains the most populous metropolitan area in America. It’s followed by Los Angeles (12.89 million), Chicago (9.51 million), Dallas-Fort Worth (6.53 million) and Houston (6.12 million).

Sister publication Buffalo, N. Y. Business First has developed a computer program that projects the populations of metros and micros, based on its analysis of demographic trends over the past decade.

Here’s a link to the estimated populations of 942 U.S. metropolitan areas, as of July 1, 2011.

http://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/n...n-detroit.html

USAPatriot · February 10th, 2012, 07:45 PM

Should We Be Concerned About Seattle's Importance on the West Coast?

image hosted on flickr

For years we have watched Portland and Seattle duke it out for the top position in population. In the last half century about, Seattle has always been on top, but recently, Portland's growth rate has been on the rise, and is growing faster then Seattle. But now a new threat that could lead to Seattle being a smaller dot on the map to it's northern neighbor. Vancouver BC is knocking on the door and about to surpass Seattle for the largest population in the Pacific Northwest. Should we be worried about this? How will it hurt Seattle, the 12th largest media market in the U.S.? What negatives will this have on Seattle, and can Seattle get back on track to maintain it's dominance in population and power?

In Washington, many of the cities have seen good, strong growth. Spokane Valley continues to grow, as well as many of Spokane's suburbs such as Liberty Lake. We also saw good growth in the Tri-Cities, Yakima, and in Bellingham. Vancouver, WA has for the past decade been one of the fastest growing cities in the state, but has recently stagnated due to a hard hit from the economy. Bellevue has grown in buildings, but not so much in population size. As for Washington's large cities, Everett, Tacoma, and Spokane have all remained at the same population for nearly two decades with very little growth, but luckily no decline. Why are they stagnant?

Portland has been growing and catching up to Seattle's population. It is only a matter of time before the Portland city proper pop passes Seattle's proper. Portland's 2010 population is 583,776. The city's growth rate is faster then Seattle's. No other city in Oregon comes close to competing for a top position.

British Columbia just got their new 2011 census stats and with it, some stunning news. Vancouver BC's population is just about to pass Seattle's, and sits waiting at 603,502. Even more shocking is the growth of BC's suburbs, such as Burnaby and Surrey. Burnaby now has a population of 223,218. Surrey is now at 468,251 people, and is expected to surpass Vancouver by 2020 and 2030 in population making it the largest city in BC. Richmond sits at 190,000 and threatens Spokane, Tacoma, and Boise for their position on highest populated cities. Many of BC's cities have now overtaken Washington and Oregon counterparts in population such as Vancouver WA, Eugene, and Salem.

CA 2011 Census Info

So assuming that Vancouver will surpass Seattle, and Surrey will surpass Seattle, that will mean Seattle could fall to third most populace city in the northwest. How will this hurt the premier northwest city? What can be done to stop this, or what are you're other fears?

mhays · February 10th, 2012, 09:18 PM

Why would municipal population be relevant? Seattle will always be the largest city in the NW in size, prominence, etc.

As for the city of Portland, they have way more land. Might not be able to hold that one off, if it matters. In Vancouver's case we've apparently been growing faster, and our infill trend is apparently keeping pace at least, aided by our larger land area.

Matt the Engineer · February 10th, 2012, 09:20 PM

I'm not too worried. Seattle has the largest metropolitin population by far (3.4M, vs. 2.3M each for port and van), and our city population is growing faster than Vancouver. Yes, Portland is growing faster than us, but they have a way to go before I'm too worried.

What bugs me more is that Seattle is growing so slowly compared to our suburbs and our state's exurbs. That's our real problem. Time to upzone and let more people in.

mhays · February 10th, 2012, 09:29 PM

I think it's more of a "was" vs. "is."

Further, if inner suburbs densify, as many have been doing, that's good.

flotown · February 10th, 2012, 10:05 PM

2012 and 2013 will shatter the records for multifamily units delivered in seattle; 3,000 was the previous peak and as it looks at present 5,000 will be passed in each year. True, there have been less townhouses built than say in 2006-2007, but that considered I think that both years will be set records for total units delivered in-city.

The Growth Management challenge is that the vast majority of these units are are very small. Exurban growth meets the needs of people will to drive to affordable 3-4 BD houses. Even if we effectively passed regulation to duplex the city (which is politically impossible), the economics of redevelopment to create units that might, just might be attractive as an alternative to exurban growth would be challenged economically (ie even the best, efficient 3 BDs that could be created would be too expensive). Seattle's limited land size, relative to the region, and economics make the capture of growth that would otherwise be exurban very difficult. Now if EVERY city in the region changes their regs, that could affect change in exurban development demand.

December 22nd, 2010, 08:51 AM	#69
Sounder Registered User Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 1,116 Likes (Received): 0	This is kind of what I had in mind. It is not entirely accurate as I do not have the 2010 data. [IMG]http://oi55.**********/2cqjh1g.jpg[/IMG] Close-up of Western Washington: [IMG]http://oi55.*********/6ynk91.jpg[/IMG] Changes: 1st: becomes an entirely east sound district. Trades Shoreline, Bainbridge, and North Kitsap, for Bellevue and Everett. 2nd: The state's NW district needs to shrink due to strong growth. It loses South Everett and Skykomish. 3rd: The state's SW district sheds Olympia and gains Klickitat County and the Westport Peninsula. 4th: Due to strong growth, the district sheds Chelan, Kittitas, Klickitat, and western Adams County. Adds Walla Walla and Columbia. 5th: Sheds Walla Walla and Columbia. Gains Adams panhandle. 6th: Unites the entire Olympic Peninsula by adding North Kitsap, Bainbridge, and Olympia. Sheds Lakewood, western Tacoma, and Westport. 7th: Trades Vashon Island and Lake Forest Park for Shoreline. 8th: Loses downtown Bellevue, Points Cities, and portions of Pierce and South King. Adds Woodinville, more Renton, Kittitas, and Chelan. 9th: Loses Olympia, Lacey, Yelm, and Spanaway. Adds Vashon Island and portion of the old 8th in Pierce and South King County. 10th: the new district includes Tacoma, Lakewood, Lacey, Yelm, and rural Pierce County. Comments: - As bgwah notes, Inslee lives on Bainbridge and would have to move under the above scenario (or retire to run for Governor) - Not sure exactly where in Auburn Dave Reichert lives, so I may have chopped him out. It would be easy to get him back in by trading away another piece to the 9th. - Not sure where in Everett Larsen lives, so he may have been chopped too. - All others are secure in their district. - A possibilityto represent the new 10th would be former Congressman and current Insurance Commissioner Mike Kriedler. I don't see the GOP with a shot there. - The 7th, 9th, and 10th districts are pretty safe to ultra safe Democrat districts. The 4th and 5th are safe GOP districts. The 3rd and 8th lean Republican while the 1st and 6th lean Democrat. The 2nd is pretty close to a swing district. Last edited by Sounder; December 22nd, 2010 at 09:04 AM.*

December 22nd, 2010, 05:58 PM	#71
Ginkgo Registered User Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 396 Likes (Received): 71	Interesting is the mix of Eastern and Western Washington on some of the maps. But somehow I can't picture Chelan and King counties in the same district. Chelan and Douglas counties are almost joined at the hip and I don't see those two being split up. When I moved to Ballard in the late 80's it was still in the [then] very competitive 1st. Now in the 7th, I don't even usually vote for US representative. Someone please come up with a map which will get me back into the 1st! __________________ Big Green Chauvanist

February 24th, 2011, 08:24 AM	#73
USAPatriot Northwest Photo King Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 2,245 Likes (Received): 3	http://2010.census.gov/2010census/data/index.php WASHINGTON The 2010 census data is in. Our state grew in every county except for poor Garfield and Pacific Counties. Both suffered a minimal loss. Even Okanogan, Pend Oreille, Stevens, and Ferry saw increases. Franklin County with the city of Pasco saw some of the biggest increases in the state as well as the eastern counties of Benton (Kennewick), Grant (Moses Lake, Ephrata), Douglas (East Wenatchee), and Kittitas (Ellensburg). Yakima County grew, but not nearly as much as expected. Out west, Clark County (Vancouver) saw the biggest growth. Snohomish County outgrew King and Pierce. Whatcom County grew in large numbers and Bellingham's city population swelled. It will be in the 100,000s within 20 years most likely. Surprisingly, Mason (Shelton) and Jefferson (Port Townsend) saw very big growth rates for such rural counties. Thurston County (Olympia) also grew. OREGON And for those who are interested in our neighbors to the south, Oregon saw the biggest growth rates away from Multnomah County (Portland). Biggest growth came from Washington County (Hillsboro, Beaverton) which is to the west of Portland. The other highest growth rates came far south in Grants Pass and out in central, eastern Oregon at Bend in Deschutes County. Nearly every eastern Oregon county lost population, something Washington did not do. Most of our rural counties grew, which is a good sign. Let's keep it that way. There is economic depression in a lot of eastern Oregon counties, and all their "big" towns are declining sadly. The only eastern Oregon counties that grew were Umatilla, Union, and Marrow, all of which draw from the prosperity of the Tri-Cities. The hub towns in that tri-county area is Pendleton and Hermiston. Eugene and Salem, as well as their counties, did not grow as fast as some would though. Most growth occurred outside of Portland on the west side. These areas are more rural. All of Oregon's coastal counties grew, surprisingly, but some just marginally. __________________ Washington State Forum Visit today!

February 10th, 2012, 07:45 PM	#76
USAPatriot Northwest Photo King Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 2,245 Likes (Received): 3	Should We Be Concerned About Seattle's Importance on the West Coast? image hosted on flickr For years we have watched Portland and Seattle duke it out for the top position in population. In the last half century about, Seattle has always been on top, but recently, Portland's growth rate has been on the rise, and is growing faster then Seattle. But now a new threat that could lead to Seattle being a smaller dot on the map to it's northern neighbor. Vancouver BC is knocking on the door and about to surpass Seattle for the largest population in the Pacific Northwest. Should we be worried about this? How will it hurt Seattle, the 12th largest media market in the U.S.? What negatives will this have on Seattle, and can Seattle get back on track to maintain it's dominance in population and power? In Washington, many of the cities have seen good, strong growth. Spokane Valley continues to grow, as well as many of Spokane's suburbs such as Liberty Lake. We also saw good growth in the Tri-Cities, Yakima, and in Bellingham. Vancouver, WA has for the past decade been one of the fastest growing cities in the state, but has recently stagnated due to a hard hit from the economy. Bellevue has grown in buildings, but not so much in population size. As for Washington's large cities, Everett, Tacoma, and Spokane have all remained at the same population for nearly two decades with very little growth, but luckily no decline. Why are they stagnant? Portland has been growing and catching up to Seattle's population. It is only a matter of time before the Portland city proper pop passes Seattle's proper. Portland's 2010 population is 583,776. The city's growth rate is faster then Seattle's. No other city in Oregon comes close to competing for a top position. British Columbia just got their new 2011 census stats and with it, some stunning news. Vancouver BC's population is just about to pass Seattle's, and sits waiting at 603,502. Even more shocking is the growth of BC's suburbs, such as Burnaby and Surrey. Burnaby now has a population of 223,218. Surrey is now at 468,251 people, and is expected to surpass Vancouver by 2020 and 2030 in population making it the largest city in BC. Richmond sits at 190,000 and threatens Spokane, Tacoma, and Boise for their position on highest populated cities. Many of BC's cities have now overtaken Washington and Oregon counterparts in population such as Vancouver WA, Eugene, and Salem. CA 2011 Census Info So assuming that Vancouver will surpass Seattle, and Surrey will surpass Seattle, that will mean Seattle could fall to third most populace city in the northwest. How will this hurt the premier northwest city? What can be done to stop this, or what are you're other fears? __________________ Washington State Forum Visit today!

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

December 22nd, 2010, 01:30 AM	#61
Sounder Registered User Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 1,116 Likes (Received): 0	- You are talking about including Yakima County, so it becomes more than a Columbia River centric district. - There are more connections between King County & Kittitas County than there are between Clark & Yakima. The Snoqualmie Pass 8th District makes geographical sense unlike your suggestion. The link between East & West along Snoqualmie Pass is going to increase with time as Suncadia and other developments attract westsiders. - It is NOT a blatant R gerrymander. A Democrat has never won the 8th District.

December 22nd, 2010, 02:34 AM	#64
Sounder Registered User Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 1,116 Likes (Received): 0	http://nationaljournal.com/member/po...inner-20101217 But if the state gains a seat, Herrera could get an even better deal. Both GOP-held eastern Washington districts would need to shrink considerably, allowing Herrera, and potentially the 8th Congressional District's Republican representative, Dave Reichert, to take in some Republican territory east of the Cascades. Then, in exchange for protecting Herrera and Reichert, the commission could draw a new Democratic-leaning 10th Congressional District anchored by Bellevue in the Seattle suburbs, which might take in some Democratic-leaning areas of the current 7th, 8th, and 9th districts in King County. Once I get Silverlight running, I'll post a map of my suggestion. It is different than the one from Cook Political Report.

December 22nd, 2010, 02:39 AM	#65
bgwah honk!!! Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Kirkland, WA Posts: 1,778 Likes (Received): 81	Clean? What the heck is clean about the 6th district right now? Or the 9th? Districts aren't always clean. The number of people commuting from Suncadia is insignificant for districts that will have 675,000 people. Unfortunately, counties and cities have to be split sometimes. And FTR, you're in the 10th district in my map. As for screwing incumbents... Dave Reichert's district has been trending D for a long time. In the 1994 R wave, Dunn won with some ridiculous 3-to-1 margin. But this year's R wave? Reichert only got 52%. You can't just completely change the district to some ridiculous gerrymander to save Reichert. The Democrats on the commission won't allow it.

December 22nd, 2010, 04:46 AM	#66
pwalker Registered User Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Native Seattleite Posts: 1,259 Likes (Received): 3	The congressional districting is interesting, but not likely to cause much change, as the democrats are still in control of WA, both in congress, and in the governership. Bottom line, WA is well above the national average in population increase. That, to me, is a good sign. New residents usually equal new jobs. And unlike Nevada and Arizona, our growth is steady, not stilted by early decade growth and then loss.

December 22nd, 2010, 09:32 AM	#70
Sounder Registered User Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 1,116 Likes (Received): 0	More detail: [IMG]http://oi53.************/vmwydz.jpg[/IMG]

June 24th, 2011, 10:38 PM	#75
CrazyAboutCities Registered User Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Seattle, Washington Posts: 8,348 Likes (Received): 25	Seattle metro area gaining on Detroit in population Seattle remains the nation’s 15th-largest metro area with 3,492,028 people. That’s the same rank the Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue area held last year, when 3,460,300 people were estimated to live here. In a few years, if the Seattle area’s population keeps growing and the Detroit area’s keeps declining, Seattle should pass the Michigan city in population. According to estimates, the Seattle area will have 3.5 million people on or about Sept. 8. The Detroit metro area currently has 4,265,640 people and that’s expected to fall to 4,260,000 on Sept. 23. New York City, with an estimated population of 18.97 million as of July 1, remains the most populous metropolitan area in America. It’s followed by Los Angeles (12.89 million), Chicago (9.51 million), Dallas-Fort Worth (6.53 million) and Houston (6.12 million). Sister publication Buffalo, N. Y. Business First has developed a computer program that projects the populations of metros and micros, based on its analysis of demographic trends over the past decade. Here’s a link to the estimated populations of 942 U.S. metropolitan areas, as of July 1, 2011. http://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/n...n-detroit.html

February 10th, 2012, 09:18 PM	#77
mhays Journeyman Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Seattle Posts: 8,462 Likes (Received): 125	Why would municipal population be relevant? Seattle will always be the largest city in the NW in size, prominence, etc. As for the city of Portland, they have way more land. Might not be able to hold that one off, if it matters. In Vancouver's case we've apparently been growing faster, and our infill trend is apparently keeping pace at least, aided by our larger land area.

February 10th, 2012, 09:20 PM	#78
Matt the Engineer Registered User Join Date: Dec 2011 Posts: 1,167 Likes (Received): 109	I'm not too worried. Seattle has the largest metropolitin population by far (3.4M, vs. 2.3M each for port and van), and our city population is growing faster than Vancouver. Yes, Portland is growing faster than us, but they have a way to go before I'm too worried. What bugs me more is that Seattle is growing so slowly compared to our suburbs and our state's exurbs. That's our real problem. Time to upzone and let more people in.

February 10th, 2012, 09:29 PM	#79
mhays Journeyman Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Seattle Posts: 8,462 Likes (Received): 125	I think it's more of a "was" vs. "is." Further, if inner suburbs densify, as many have been doing, that's good.

February 10th, 2012, 10:05 PM	#80
flotown Registered User Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 288 Likes (Received): 0	2012 and 2013 will shatter the records for multifamily units delivered in seattle; 3,000 was the previous peak and as it looks at present 5,000 will be passed in each year. True, there have been less townhouses built than say in 2006-2007, but that considered I think that both years will be set records for total units delivered in-city. The Growth Management challenge is that the vast majority of these units are are very small. Exurban growth meets the needs of people will to drive to affordable 3-4 BD houses. Even if we effectively passed regulation to duplex the city (which is politically impossible), the economics of redevelopment to create units that might, just might be attractive as an alternative to exurban growth would be challenged economically (ie even the best, efficient 3 BDs that could be created would be too expensive). Seattle's limited land size, relative to the region, and economics make the capture of growth that would otherwise be exurban very difficult. Now if EVERY city in the region changes their regs, that could affect change in exurban development demand.