News:

The AARoads Wiki is live! Come check it out!

Main Menu

How much has your metro area grown?

Started by CapeCodder, February 11, 2023, 11:10:25 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Roadgeekteen

Quote from: Brandon on March 22, 2023, 03:49:41 PM
Quote from: golden eagle on February 21, 2023, 11:40:06 PM
Quote from: Road Hog on February 16, 2023, 11:27:10 PM
The DFW metro seems to be adding about 100,000 people a year. That would come out to a million every census. If there's a nationwide recession, the growth might actually increase because Texas has been recession-resistant since getting off the oil tit in the 1990s.

The 2021 population estimates show DFW gained over 122,000 people over its 2020 population. Houston gained nearly 85,000. Chicagoland lost over 100,000. I highly doubt Chicagoland will lose over 100,000 each year. In fact, I believe many larger metros that lost population in the estimates will regain their footing as the fallout from COVID continues to wane. However, it's possible that population losses could continue once rural broadband Internet becomes more widespread, especially for people who work from home and don't find it necessary to live in or near bigger cities in order to work.

Wanna bet?  Most areas in Chicagoland have been losing population recently.  The only growth areas are Will, Kendall, Kane, and Grundy (yes, Grundy) Counties.  Cook has been hardest hit, and Chicago seems to love shooting itself in the foot.
https://www.macrotrends.net/cities/22956/chicago/population#:~:text=The%20metro%20area%20population%20of,a%200.03%25%20increase%20from%202019.

Where are you guys getting your stats from? I'm seeing conflicting information on if Chicago is growing or shrinking.
God-emperor of Alanland, king of all the goats and goat-like creatures

Current Interstate map I am making:

https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/edit?hl=en&mid=1PEDVyNb1skhnkPkgXi8JMaaudM2zI-Y&ll=29.05778059819179%2C-82.48856825&z=5


webny99

If you want to see the change from 2010 to 2020 by county, see here and switch to the "Population Change" tab.

Brandon named the four counties that grew by more than 2% in that time period; the rest of the Chicago metro is fairly stagnant, while Illinois as a whole lost 18k (0.1%) in population.

golden eagle

Quote from: Road Hog on March 18, 2023, 02:57:10 AM
In 30 years or maybe less, Austin and San Antonio will be one ginormous counurbation with San Marcos as the focal point.

Maybe the whole I-35 corridor from DFW to San Antonio.

hotdogPi

Quote from: golden eagle on March 22, 2023, 09:35:05 PM
Quote from: Road Hog on March 18, 2023, 02:57:10 AM
In 30 years or maybe less, Austin and San Antonio will be one ginormous counurbation with San Marcos as the focal point.

Maybe the whole I-35 corridor from DFW to San Antonio.

I don't think so, at least with only 30 years. Tampa-Orlando still has some gaps.
Clinched, minus I-93 (I'm missing a few miles and my file is incorrect)

Traveled, plus US 13, 44, and 50, and several state routes

I will be in Burlington VT for the eclipse.

golden eagle

Quote from: Roadgeekteen on March 22, 2023, 04:53:32 PM
Quote from: Brandon on March 22, 2023, 03:49:41 PM
Quote from: golden eagle on February 21, 2023, 11:40:06 PM
Quote from: Road Hog on February 16, 2023, 11:27:10 PM
The DFW metro seems to be adding about 100,000 people a year. That would come out to a million every census. If there's a nationwide recession, the growth might actually increase because Texas has been recession-resistant since getting off the oil tit in the 1990s.

The 2021 population estimates show DFW gained over 122,000 people over its 2020 population. Houston gained nearly 85,000. Chicagoland lost over 100,000. I highly doubt Chicagoland will lose over 100,000 each year. In fact, I believe many larger metros that lost population in the estimates will regain their footing as the fallout from COVID continues to wane. However, it's possible that population losses could continue once rural broadband Internet becomes more widespread, especially for people who work from home and don't find it necessary to live in or near bigger cities in order to work.

Wanna bet?  Most areas in Chicagoland have been losing population recently.  The only growth areas are Will, Kendall, Kane, and Grundy (yes, Grundy) Counties.  Cook has been hardest hit, and Chicago seems to love shooting itself in the foot.
https://www.macrotrends.net/cities/22956/chicago/population#:~:text=The%20metro%20area%20population%20of,a%200.03%25%20increase%20from%202019.

Where are you guys getting your stats from? I'm seeing conflicting information on if Chicago is growing or shrinking.

US Census Bureau estimates.

triplemultiplex

My observation is that state capitals have done quite well in this century so far.  Look at all the capitals that have come up in this thread or are otherwise objectively growing in excess to their general area.
Austin
Nashville
Boise
Salt Lake City
Phoenix
Columbus
Atlanta
Madison
Oklahoma City
Sacramento
Denver

It's not every capital, but there are quite a few of them; especially out west.  Also interesting that the states these capitals are in span the political spectrum.  There's just something about a concentration of state resources that leads to growing a city, it seems.
"That's just like... your opinion, man."

jgb191

Quote from: 1 on March 22, 2023, 09:35:59 PM
Quote from: golden eagle on March 22, 2023, 09:35:05 PM
Quote from: Road Hog on March 18, 2023, 02:57:10 AM
In 30 years or maybe less, Austin and San Antonio will be one ginormous counurbation with San Marcos as the focal point.

Maybe the whole I-35 corridor from DFW to San Antonio.

I don't think so, at least with only 30 years. Tampa-Orlando still has some gaps.


I don't know how far apart Tampa/St. Petersburg is from Orlando, but San Antonio and Austin are less than eighty miles apart with two major towns New Braunfels and San Marcos, plus the largest outlet shopping in the state located between the two major metros.  It could conceivably be fully developed along I-35 in the next few decades.
We're so far south that we're not even considered "The South"

jgb191

Quote from: ZLoth on February 27, 2023, 02:31:59 PM
Let's see here... comparing the two metro areas I lived in during my adult life:
At least TxDOT is doing a better job of addressing the transportation issues in DFW than CalTrans is in Sacramento....

So the size of Sacramento metro now is nearly equivalent to that of the DFW metroplex in 1977??
We're so far south that we're not even considered "The South"

jlam

As Zachary Amaryllis has stated previously in this topic, my area has been increasing rapidly in population. Look at these numbers for the cities in my region in the past 20 years:

Fort Collins:


2000118,65235.2%
2010143,98621.4%
2020169,81017.9%

Greeley:


200076,93027.1%
201092,88920.7%
2020108,79517.1%

Loveland:


200050,60835.5%
201066,85932.1%
202076,37814.2%

Windsor:


20009,89695.5%
201018,64488.4%
202032,71675.5%

Severance:


2000597463.2%
20103,165430.2%
20207,683142.7%

Timnath:


200022317.4%
2010625180.3%
20206,487937.9%

Many cities between the Noco Triangle and Denver show similar trends as well.

Ted$8roadFan

Quote from: triplemultiplex on March 22, 2023, 11:52:53 PM
My observation is that state capitals have done quite well in this century so far.  Look at all the capitals that have come up in this thread or are otherwise objectively growing in excess to their general area.
Austin
Nashville
Boise
Salt Lake City
Phoenix
Columbus
Atlanta
Madison
Oklahoma City
Sacramento
Denver

It's not every capital, but there are quite a few of them; especially out west.  Also interesting that the states these capitals are in span the political spectrum.  There's just something about a concentration of state resources that leads to growing a city, it seems.

A built-in (mostly) stable employment base of line employees, lobbyists/law firms/influential people, and retail, restaurants, bars, cultural amenities etc. give many state capitals a leg up, especially those in the south and west with lower cost environments and/or better weather.

Scott5114

Quote from: Ted$8roadFan on March 23, 2023, 05:22:16 AM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on March 22, 2023, 11:52:53 PM
My observation is that state capitals have done quite well in this century so far.  Look at all the capitals that have come up in this thread or are otherwise objectively growing in excess to their general area.
Austin
Nashville
Boise
Salt Lake City
Phoenix
Columbus
Atlanta
Madison
Oklahoma City
Sacramento
Denver

It's not every capital, but there are quite a few of them; especially out west.  Also interesting that the states these capitals are in span the political spectrum.  There's just something about a concentration of state resources that leads to growing a city, it seems.

A built-in (mostly) stable employment base of line employees, lobbyists/law firms/influential people, and retail, restaurants, bars, cultural amenities etc. give many state capitals a leg up, especially those in the south and west with lower cost environments and/or better weather.

Many of the cited capitals are already the largest cities in their states, so it's not really that its status as a capital that's doing it for them. OKC in particular is growing despite the state government, rather than because of it; the governor seems hellbent on trying to get new companies to relocate to Pryor for some reason, rather than promoting OKC at all.
uncontrollable freak sardine salad chef

Rothman

Quote from: triplemultiplex on March 22, 2023, 11:52:53 PM
My observation is that state capitals have done quite well in this century so far.  Look at all the capitals that have come up in this thread or are otherwise objectively growing in excess to their general area.
Austin
Nashville
Boise
Salt Lake City
Phoenix
Columbus
Atlanta
Madison
Oklahoma City
Sacramento
Denver

It's not every capital, but there are quite a few of them; especially out west.  Also interesting that the states these capitals are in span the political spectrum.  There's just something about a concentration of state resources that leads to growing a city, it seems.
See also Albany, NY's MSA...
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position(s) of NYSDOT.

ZLoth

Quote from: Brandon on March 22, 2023, 03:49:41 PMWanna bet?  Most areas in Chicagoland have been losing population recently.  The only growth areas are Will, Kendall, Kane, and Grundy (yes, Grundy) Counties.  Cook has been hardest hit, and Chicago seems to love shooting itself in the foot.
When the Chicago Bears are committed to moving out of Chicagoland to the Arlington Heights suburb, that's saying something. Especially when the owner has stated that they have the full intention to dismiss the proposals the city made to renovate Soldier Field because of their agreement to purchase the land in Arlington Heights. (FYI: Soldier Field is 100% owned and operated by Chicago Park District, with the team having minimal control and receives no revenues)
I'm an Engineer. That means I solve problems. Not problems like "What is beauty?", because that would fall within the purview of your conundrums of philosophy. I solve practical problems and call them "paychecks".

JayhawkCO

Quote from: ZLoth on March 23, 2023, 07:56:25 AM
Quote from: Brandon on March 22, 2023, 03:49:41 PMWanna bet?  Most areas in Chicagoland have been losing population recently.  The only growth areas are Will, Kendall, Kane, and Grundy (yes, Grundy) Counties.  Cook has been hardest hit, and Chicago seems to love shooting itself in the foot.
When the Chicago Bears are committed to moving out of Chicagoland to the Arlington Heights suburb, that's saying something. Especially when the owner has stated that they have the full intention to dismiss the proposals the city made to renovate Soldier Field because of their agreement to purchase the land in Arlington Heights. (FYI: Soldier Field is 100% owned and operated by Chicago Park District, with the team having minimal control and receives no revenues)

Plenty of urban areas that are still growing have stadia located in suburbs.

ZLoth

Quote from: JayhawkCO on March 23, 2023, 03:37:34 PM
Quote from: ZLoth on March 23, 2023, 07:56:25 AM
Quote from: Brandon on March 22, 2023, 03:49:41 PMWanna bet?  Most areas in Chicagoland have been losing population recently.  The only growth areas are Will, Kendall, Kane, and Grundy (yes, Grundy) Counties.  Cook has been hardest hit, and Chicago seems to love shooting itself in the foot.
When the Chicago Bears are committed to moving out of Chicagoland to the Arlington Heights suburb, that's saying something. Especially when the owner has stated that they have the full intention to dismiss the proposals the city made to renovate Soldier Field because of their agreement to purchase the land in Arlington Heights. (FYI: Soldier Field is 100% owned and operated by Chicago Park District, with the team having minimal control and receives no revenues)

Plenty of urban areas that are still growing have stadia located in suburbs.

Like, the Arlington Dallas Cowboys, the Santa Clara San Francisco 49ers, the New Jersey New York Giants, the Paradise Las Vegas Raiders, or the East Rutherford New York Jets?

I found this YouTube video to be interesting even though I'm not a fan of DaBears. The Chicago leadership has not been exactly cooperative with the owners.

I'm an Engineer. That means I solve problems. Not problems like "What is beauty?", because that would fall within the purview of your conundrums of philosophy. I solve practical problems and call them "paychecks".

Scott5114

#65
Arlington Heights is still in Chicagoland, last I checked, much like Arlington TX is in the Dallas Metroplex. In any event, the move seems like it's mostly driven by the economics of there being a very large parcel of land the current owner very much wants to get rid of, the site of the newly-defunct Arlington Race Course. The Bears are in a position to buy it and make more money than they could with anything the city of Chicago can propose, so why would they entertain that?

I think it's a little weird to include the Raiders in the list that you did, because the Raiders stadium is right across the freeway from the highest-trafficked part of the Las Vegas metro. It's just that through a weird quirk of the way the Las Vegas Valley developed, that's not in city limits. Calling Paradise a "suburb" when it generates, by far, more revenue than any other individual location in Nevada, seems backward–if anything the City of Las Vegas is a suburb of unincorporated Paradise.

(Paradise/Las Vegas is a distinction without much of a difference anyway–even an observant roadgeek cannot easily tell where one ends and the other begins because their roads, signals, and signage are all utterly identical. Even the "Welcome to Las Vegas" sign is in Paradise.)
uncontrollable freak sardine salad chef

kphoger

The Wichita metro area has grown thusly:

1960—1980 – 2 decades – held pretty steady around 300,000 – ¼% avg. growth per year
1980—1990 – 1 decade – small increase – 1.1% avg. growth per year
1990—2000 – 1 decade – really ramping up – 2.4% avg. growth per year
  [my parents moved to Wichita in 2000]
2000—present – 2½ decades – back to normal, steady growth rate – 1.2% avg. growth per year
  [we moved to Wichita in 2006]
Keep right except to pass.  Yes.  You.
Visit scenic Orleans County, NY!
Male pronouns, please.

Quote from: Philip K. DickIf you can control the meaning of words, you can control the people who must use them.

ZLoth

Quote from: Scott5114 on March 23, 2023, 08:00:19 PMI think it's a little weird to include the Raiders in the list that you did, because the Raiders stadium is right across the freeway from the highest-trafficked part of the Las Vegas metro. It's just that through a weird quirk of the way the Las Vegas Valley developed, that's not in city limits. Calling Paradise a "suburb" when it generates, by far, more revenue than any other individual location in Nevada, seems backward–if anything the City of Las Vegas is a suburb of unincorporated Paradise.

(Paradise/Las Vegas is a distinction without much of a difference anyway–even an observant roadgeek cannot easily tell where one ends and the other begins because their roads, signals, and signage are all utterly identical. Even the "Welcome to Las Vegas" sign is in Paradise.)

The "old" Las Vegas where the old hotels are located is properly in the city Las Vegas. The "new" Las Vegas which has the bigger resorts and "the strip" is in Paradise which is run by Clark County and is an unincorporated township (also known as a "Census-Designated Place"). Yes, I know it's a technicality because, at the end of the day, you'll leave some of your hard-earned wages behind.

Some of these geographic technicalities get very very interesting.
I'm an Engineer. That means I solve problems. Not problems like "What is beauty?", because that would fall within the purview of your conundrums of philosophy. I solve practical problems and call them "paychecks".

Scott5114

Quite aware of that. And the Strip blows Fremont Street out of the water in terms of coin-in, visit count, and pretty much every metric a CMS will spit out.
uncontrollable freak sardine salad chef

kphoger

So, when my maternal grandparents got married and traveled through Las Vegas on their honeymoon, back in the late 1940s or very early 1950s, would that have been the 'old' or 'new' Las Vegas?
Keep right except to pass.  Yes.  You.
Visit scenic Orleans County, NY!
Male pronouns, please.

Quote from: Philip K. DickIf you can control the meaning of words, you can control the people who must use them.

triplemultiplex

Definitely 'old' Vegas. What we think of as The Strip today began in the 60's.
Lot of shenanigans going on with that unincorporated bullshit they've got in metro Vegas.  All of those areas should be forcibly annexed on to the City of Las Vegas.
"That's just like... your opinion, man."

Ted$8roadFan

Quote from: triplemultiplex on March 26, 2023, 01:05:02 PM
Definitely 'old' Vegas. What we think of as The Strip today began in the 60's.
Lot of shenanigans going on with that unincorporated bullshit they've got in metro Vegas.  All of those areas should be forcibly annexed on to the City of Las Vegas.

As someone unfamiliar with the region, why haven't some or all of the unincorporated areas (e.g. the strip) been annexed into the City of Las Vegas, or else incorporate as their own city?

Rothman

Quote from: Ted$8roadFan on March 26, 2023, 02:24:30 PM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on March 26, 2023, 01:05:02 PM
Definitely 'old' Vegas. What we think of as The Strip today began in the 60's.
Lot of shenanigans going on with that unincorporated bullshit they've got in metro Vegas.  All of those areas should be forcibly annexed on to the City of Las Vegas.

As someone unfamiliar with the region, why haven't some or all of the unincorporated areas (e.g. the strip) been annexed into the City of Las Vegas, or else incorporate as their own city?
I thought laws in the City were more stringent than the Strip prefers.
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position(s) of NYSDOT.

triplemultiplex

Zoning, taxes, local politics; same as ever other balkanized metro in this country.
"That's just like... your opinion, man."

pianocello

Quote from: jgb191 on March 23, 2023, 12:08:21 AM
I don't know how far apart Tampa/St. Petersburg is from Orlando, but San Antonio and Austin are less than eighty miles apart with two major towns New Braunfels and San Marcos, plus the largest outlet shopping in the state located between the two major metros.  It could conceivably be fully developed along I-35 in the next few decades.

They seem to be pretty similar situations, since it's 85 miles between downtown Tampa and downtown Orlando. The thing that might make Texas stand out in this case is that development in the Tampa and Orlando areas don't seem to be going towards each other--maybe there's something about Lakeland that people don't want to move to; maybe it's just an effect of having the world's largest vacation destination (citation needed, I admit) in the way.

Anyway, to answer the OP, Evansville hit its peak in 1960 and has gradually decreased in population since (140K to 120K), but Vanderburgh County has grown from 170K to 180K in that time, and nearby Warrick County has tripled (23K to 63K). Most (all?) of that growth is in the suburban areas close to the Vanderburgh border.
Davenport, IA -> Valparaiso, IN -> Ames, IA -> Orlando, FL -> Gainesville, FL -> Evansville, IN



Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.