Title.
My example would be St. Louis (I spent 1996-2012 there.) When I was a kid, I always thought St. Louis "ended" at the 64/40/61 interchange in the west. Now the subdivisions/developments are filling in the gaps between Wentzville and Warrenton. As late as 2010 Foristell was considered the sticks.
Quote from: CapeCodder on February 11, 2023, 11:10:25 PM
Title.
My example would be St. Louis (I spent 1996-2012 there.) When I was a kid, I always thought St. Louis "ended" at the 64/40/61 interchange in the west. Now the subdivisions/developments are filling in the gaps between Wentzville and Warrenton. As late as 2010 Foristell was considered the sticks.
Interesting how the Saint Louis MSA has increased by 800,000 since 1950 while the City itself has lost 500,000.
Quote from: Rothman on February 11, 2023, 11:15:57 PM
Quote from: CapeCodder on February 11, 2023, 11:10:25 PM
Title.
My example would be St. Louis (I spent 1996-2012 there.) When I was a kid, I always thought St. Louis "ended" at the 64/40/61 interchange in the west. Now the subdivisions/developments are filling in the gaps between Wentzville and Warrenton. As late as 2010 Foristell was considered the sticks.
Interesting how the Saint Louis MSA has increased by 800,000 since 1950 while the City itself has lost 500,000.
St. Charles and Franklin Counties are sucking up that population. Warren is too, but not like the area from Washington to St. Clair; it's known as the "Southwest Plex"
I was born in Detroit during 1982. Metro Detroit has stayed at about the same population in the forty years I've been alive. The city of Detroit on the other hand has lost about half it's population.
I was born in Flint but live in Saginaw now. Flint consists of Genesee County which had a peak population of 450,449 in 1980, in 2020 it had a population of 406,211. Flint city proper had a peak population of 196,940 in 1960, when I was born the following year was 1980 which had a population of 159,611. Flint was still somewhat in it's prime when I was born, there were 80,000 General Motors employees in the city of Flint in 1978, the year before I was born today that number is down to 5,000 or under. Flint's population in the 2020 census was 81,252 which means Flint has lost 115,000 people over the past 60 years, almost 2,000 people per year.
Saginaw isn't much different than Flint other than it's smaller. Saginaw is part of the Tri-Cities area though which includes Midland and Bay City. Saginaw city proper had a peak population of 98,265 in 1960, it was 77,508 in 1980 and 44,202 in 2020. Saginaw County had a peak population of 228,059 in 1980 and 190,124 in 2020.
All of Michigan's major cities except for Grand Rapids and Ann Arbor have lost population.
Washington started enforcing urban growth boundaries in the early 1990s, but that hasn't prevented sprawl from spilling over.
(https://www.commerce.wa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/PS_Housing_NewUnits2001to2017_HDII_Layout-1.jpg)
From 1980 to 2020, the tri-county metro population for Seattle grew from 2.10 million to 4.02 million. My county alone grew 245% (338K to 828K) in that period.
The Triangle has exploded in population since I first worked here on the railroad back in the mid-1980s. Raleigh-Durham was once an MSA, but was split into two separate MSAs at least by 2010. Back in the 1980 United States Census, the Raleigh-Durham MSA was comprised of only 3 counties (Wake, Durham and Orange) had a population of 635,008. In the most recent United States Census, the Raleigh-Cary MSA had a population of 1,413,982 and the Durham-Chapel Hill MSA had a population of 649,903. The Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill CMSA has grown to include 9 counties (adding Johnston, Franklin, Vance and Lee to the Raleigh MSA; adding Chatham, Person and Granville to the Durham MSA), for a combined total of 2,106,463 (includes the Henderson μSA, ergo Vance County). That is a 224% increase since 1980.
Jumping up to July, 2022: Raleigh-Cary comes in at 1,489,947 and Durham-Chapel Hill 670,863. Adding in Vance County (42,051), we get a derived total for the Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill CMSA of 2,202,861. That's a 4.5% increase in just a little over 2 years and 247% increase since 1980.
Quote from: Flint1979 on February 12, 2023, 08:03:24 AM
I was born in Flint but live in Saginaw now. Flint consists of Genesee County which had a peak population of 450,449 in 1980, in 2020 it had a population of 406,211. Flint city proper had a peak population of 196,940 in 1960, when I was born the following year was 1980 which had a population of 159,611. Flint was still somewhat in it's prime when I was born, there were 80,000 General Motors employees in the city of Flint in 1978, the year before I was born today that number is down to 5,000 or under. Flint's population in the 2020 census was 81,252 which means Flint has lost 115,000 people over the past 60 years, almost 2,000 people per year.
Saginaw isn't much different than Flint other than it's smaller. Saginaw is part of the Tri-Cities area though which includes Midland and Bay City. Saginaw city proper had a peak population of 98,265 in 1960, it was 77,508 in 1980 and 44,202 in 2020. Saginaw County had a peak population of 228,059 in 1980 and 190,124 in 2020.
All of Michigan's major cities except for Grand Rapids and Ann Arbor have lost population.
Secondary cities in the midwest built on a single industry - largely steel and automobiles - suffered mightily since the 1970s.
Youngstown MSA peak: 1980, 434K; 2020, 352K
Gary city peak: 1960, 168K; 2020; 68K
Flint MSA peak: 2000, 365K; 2020: 244K - Flint seems to have dropped less, perhaps because its southern reaches are on the growing side of Metro Detroit.
The Richmond metro area has slowly but steadily grown. In the past 30 years it went from 732,000 to 1,140,000.
Quote from: westerninterloper on February 12, 2023, 08:49:11 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on February 12, 2023, 08:03:24 AM
I was born in Flint but live in Saginaw now. Flint consists of Genesee County which had a peak population of 450,449 in 1980, in 2020 it had a population of 406,211. Flint city proper had a peak population of 196,940 in 1960, when I was born the following year was 1980 which had a population of 159,611. Flint was still somewhat in it's prime when I was born, there were 80,000 General Motors employees in the city of Flint in 1978, the year before I was born today that number is down to 5,000 or under. Flint's population in the 2020 census was 81,252 which means Flint has lost 115,000 people over the past 60 years, almost 2,000 people per year.
Saginaw isn't much different than Flint other than it's smaller. Saginaw is part of the Tri-Cities area though which includes Midland and Bay City. Saginaw city proper had a peak population of 98,265 in 1960, it was 77,508 in 1980 and 44,202 in 2020. Saginaw County had a peak population of 228,059 in 1980 and 190,124 in 2020.
All of Michigan's major cities except for Grand Rapids and Ann Arbor have lost population.
Secondary cities in the midwest built on a single industry - largely steel and automobiles - suffered mightily since the 1970s.
Youngstown MSA peak: 1980, 434K; 2020, 352K
Gary city peak: 1960, 168K; 2020; 68K
Flint MSA peak: 2000, 365K; 2020: 244K - Flint seems to have dropped less, perhaps because its southern reaches are on the growing side of Metro Detroit.
The growing side of Metro Detroit is really northern Macomb County which is more east from Flint. There's about a 15 mile gap before you start getting into Metro Detroit.
moto g power (2022)
Denver, from a size perspective, has gained 4 counties in its MSA over the past 20 years - Elbert, Clear Creek, Park, and Gilpin.
Realistically, the whole area from Denver to Fort Collins to the north, to Colorado Springs to the south, and to Boulder to the northwest have more or less filled in. Colorado Springs to Pueblo will probably fill in in the next 10-15 years too.
What's strange about the Fresno Metro area is that it basically includes almost every incorporated city in Fresno County and Madera County. While I don't agree with that definition given some cities like Mendota are clearly way outside of the Fresno city sphere of influence (see Coalinga and Mendota) most have roughly doubled in population since 1980. The Fresno metro area was at a population of 1,171,617 on the 2020 census.
Quote from: JayhawkCO on February 13, 2023, 10:42:01 AM
Denver, from a size perspective, has gained 4 counties in its MSA over the past 20 years - Elbert, Clear Creek, Park, and Gilpin.
It's odd to see these counties added. Except Elbert, each is geographically separated from the main front range counties by the front range foothills and have little-to-no urbanization whatsoever. It's also telling what's not included in the MSA-Boulder County and Weld County, the latter of which especially is contributing to suburban sprawl and growth up north.
QuoteRealistically, the whole area from Denver to Fort Collins to the north, to Colorado Springs to the south, and to Boulder to the northwest have more or less filled in. Colorado Springs to Pueblo will probably fill in in the next 10-15 years too.
There's still a lot of property north of town that's not yet developed between Denver and Fort Collins. I'd say 20-30 years before that suburbanization fills in, water-permitting of course.
I doubt we're 10-15 years from the Springs and Pueblo filling in. I can see Pueblo growing as it is affordable compared to Denver and even the Springs, but there's about 20 miles of essentially desert between Pueblo and Fountain. That's a whole lot of nothing through which to install water infrastructure to service this potential urban corridor, and the $2 billion dollar question is where is the water supply to service this area?
Quote from: zzcarp on February 13, 2023, 01:02:02 PM
Quote from: JayhawkCO on February 13, 2023, 10:42:01 AM
Denver, from a size perspective, has gained 4 counties in its MSA over the past 20 years - Elbert, Clear Creek, Park, and Gilpin.
It's odd to see these counties added. Except Elbert, each is geographically separated from the main front range counties by the front range foothills and have little-to-no urbanization whatsoever. It's also telling what's not included in the MSA-Boulder County and Weld County, the latter of which especially is contributing to suburban sprawl and growth up north.
I think there are plenty of commuters from those four new counties, in both directions in some case.
Park is probably included since people commute from Bailey.
Gilpin has people driving from Denver to work at the casinos.
Clear Creek has people commuting from Idaho Springs.
Elbert has people commuting from Elizabeth.
Quote from: zzcarp on February 13, 2023, 01:02:02 PM
QuoteRealistically, the whole area from Denver to Fort Collins to the north, to Colorado Springs to the south, and to Boulder to the northwest have more or less filled in. Colorado Springs to Pueblo will probably fill in in the next 10-15 years too.
There's still a lot of property north of town that's not yet developed between Denver and Fort Collins. I'd say 20-30 years before that suburbanization fills in, water-permitting of course.
I doubt we're 10-15 years from the Springs and Pueblo filling in. I can see Pueblo growing as it is affordable compared to Denver and even the Springs, but there's about 20 miles of essentially desert between Pueblo and Fountain. That's a whole lot of nothing through which to install water infrastructure to service this potential urban corridor, and the $2 billion dollar question is where is the water supply to service this area?
There's a lot of property not filled in, for sure. But at least along I-25, it's certainly not just all farmland all the way to Loveland like it used to be.
Metro Boston had grown very slowly over the years
The Greater Poudre Canyon Metro Area pretty much has the same number it always has.
Fort Collins, on the other hand, has exploded. The 'triangle' comprising Foco, Loveland, and Greeley, with Windsor in the middle is nuts.
The Twin Cities MSA has grown by about 300,000 per decade the last 30 years.
Quote from: Flint1979 on February 13, 2023, 10:36:58 AM
Quote from: westerninterloper on February 12, 2023, 08:49:11 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on February 12, 2023, 08:03:24 AM
I was born in Flint but live in Saginaw now. Flint consists of Genesee County which had a peak population of 450,449 in 1980, in 2020 it had a population of 406,211. Flint city proper had a peak population of 196,940 in 1960, when I was born the following year was 1980 which had a population of 159,611. Flint was still somewhat in it's prime when I was born, there were 80,000 General Motors employees in the city of Flint in 1978, the year before I was born today that number is down to 5,000 or under. Flint's population in the 2020 census was 81,252 which means Flint has lost 115,000 people over the past 60 years, almost 2,000 people per year.
Saginaw isn't much different than Flint other than it's smaller. Saginaw is part of the Tri-Cities area though which includes Midland and Bay City. Saginaw city proper had a peak population of 98,265 in 1960, it was 77,508 in 1980 and 44,202 in 2020. Saginaw County had a peak population of 228,059 in 1980 and 190,124 in 2020.
All of Michigan's major cities except for Grand Rapids and Ann Arbor have lost population.
Secondary cities in the midwest built on a single industry - largely steel and automobiles - suffered mightily since the 1970s.
Youngstown MSA peak: 1980, 434K; 2020, 352K
Gary city peak: 1960, 168K; 2020; 68K
Flint MSA peak: 2000, 365K; 2020: 244K - Flint seems to have dropped less, perhaps because its southern reaches are on the growing side of Metro Detroit.
The growing side of Metro Detroit is really northern Macomb County which is more east from Flint. There's about a 15 mile gap before you start getting into Metro Detroit.
moto g power (2022)
I think it'll be a long time before the Columbia and westernmost STL suburbs merge. When I was a kid it seemed that:
-By the time you hit Wentzville, I-70 was down to four lanes and it was quite rural.
-Anything past MO 141 on I-44 was out in the sticks (I remember camping out at the scout reservation and it was DARK at night, very little light pollution, despite the very well developed Meramec Valley literally being four miles down the road.)
-Jefferson County took a long time to become built up. Up until the late 90s/early aughts, 55 was relatively bereft of service road development. The US 67 corridor from Festus-Farmington also seemed insulated from suburban sprawl of St. Louis.
The Indy metro (especially the ones in the northern suburbs) has grown rapidly in the past 20-30 years...
Houston has grown so much that it's estimated we will overtake Chicago and become the third largest city in the US by 2030. I really thought we'd get there by 2020 but we didn't. We are close. I also don't totally trust the 2020 census numbers between the pandemic and the trump admin adding that citizenship question. We have alot of undocumented residents and I know several people who didn't trust answering the census survey. I'd estimate at least 100,000 people weren't counted.
Past performance is a shaky foundation upon which to predict future results.
I'm in the Myrtle Beach metro area - enough said. We've been growing at about 3-4% annually for the last 50ish years. I love living here due to the growth - there are so many road projects in the works
Quote from: achilles765 on February 14, 2023, 12:44:56 AM
Houston has grown so much that it's estimated we will overtake Chicago and become the third largest city in the US by 2030. I really thought we'd get there by 2020 but we didn't. We are close. I also don't totally trust the 2020 census numbers between the pandemic and the trump admin adding that citizenship question. We have alot of undocumented residents and I know several people who didn't trust answering the census survey. I'd estimate at least 100,000 people weren't counted.
Houston might pass Chicago in city limits in it isn't even about Dallas in terms of metro area population.
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.
Metro Jackson was at 362038 when 1980 when it was a three-county metro. Today, it's five counties with a population of 548235. Even if you took out Copiah and Simpson (the two recent additions), the population would be 493918. This is despite the city of Jackson's population falling from 202895 in 1980 to 153701 in 2020.
The Baltimore metro area grew just under five percent from 2010 to 2020, then in 2021 it was estimated to have decreased by .022 percent. As mentioned for St. Louis, the population of Baltimore itself has been decreasing, while the suburbs have grown. Queen Anne's County, which is on the opposite side of the Chesapeake Bay, was the fastest-growing county in the area between 2010 and 2020.
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.
Any 2021 estimates are going to undo the corrections from the 2019 estimate to the 2020 actual census, as for some reason the post-2020 estimates aren't taking into account the mistakes that the pre-2020 estimates made.
I have numbers, but I can share my personally witnessed example of how much growth is happening in DFW.
My hometown high school was just Class 2A as recently as 2005 but will likely be 5A in the 2024 realignment or the following one in 2026, then be bumped to 6A after that. Prosper spent six years as a 5A before going to be 6A. This will be faster.
During my lifetime:
Corpus Christi area has grown from 339K to 527K
Laredo area has grown from 99K to 268K
McAllen area has grown from 312K to almost a million.
My "Metro" area has really grown over the past 30 years. Not really a metro area at all, but a small town. The population was 823 in 1990, 871 in 2000, 986 in 2010, and now the sign at the village limits says 989. I was really hoping we'd hit the big time at the 2020 census and crack 1,000. But hey, at leastm we're growing, however little, which can't be said about many small rural towns.
But add in the surrounding township, which had a populatin of 767 in the 2010 census, which I suppose you could consider to the be "suburbs", we do indeed crack 1,000 as a metro.
Austin, fast growing city in America!
Let's see here... comparing the two metro areas I lived in during my adult life:
- For Sacramento, it has grown from 748,000 in 1977, to 1,004,000 in 1987, to 2,011,000 in 2017, to 2,215,000 in 2023 (https://www.macrotrends.net/cities/23121/sacramento/population).
- For Dallas-Fort Worth, it has grown from 2,232,000 in 1977, to 3,053,000 in 1988, to 4,065,000 in 1999, to 5,041,000 in 2009, to 6,099,000 in 2018, to 6,574,000 in 2023 (https://www.macrotrends.net/cities/22966/dallas-fort-worth/population).
At least TxDOT is doing a better job of addressing the transportation issues in DFW than CalTrans is in Sacramento....
Quote from: texaskdog on February 26, 2023, 10:41:55 PM
Austin, fast growing city in America!
Also Austin has a running stereotype that former San Francisco and San Jose residents are moving there.
https://www.macrotrends.net/cities/23130/san-francisco/population (https://www.macrotrends.net/cities/23130/san-francisco/population) Current estimated growth rate for San Francisco is at .30%.
https://www.macrotrends.net/cities/23131/san-jose/population (https://www.macrotrends.net/cities/23131/san-jose/population) current estimated growth rate is at .66 % for San Jose.
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/elon-musk-readies-unveil-tesla-170100264.html
Some of the stereotypes of Ex Californians moving to Austin is tied to Elon Musk.
I haven't lived here long enough to see much growth though the speed at which development happens in the Coachella Valley rivals what I remember anywhere when I was a kid. What I find really amazing is how much my original hometown of Green Bay has grown. Yes, it's still a small market for a football team. But the city was about 70K when it annexed Preble in the 1960s. It's now 107K and I don't think it's annexed any other townships. Even more impressive is the metro area which has gone from just over 200K in 1970 (when I started HS) to over 320K today. The Appleton-Oshkosh metro has grown even more substantially. Both metros may technically be Rust Belt, but their economies have continued to grow as much as many Sun Belt communities.
^^ The paper industry is more recession proof, but shortages with covid.
NWA
Since 1993 when I moved up here to attend and finish an engineering degree at the U of A, it has more than doubled in population. Only 8 MSAs over 500K population growing faster to this day.
Quote from: bing101 on February 28, 2023, 09:46:25 AM
Some of the stereotypes of Ex Californians moving to Austin is tied to Elon Musk.
Although I see our boy Elon is moving Tesla's engineering headquarters BACK to Silicon Valley. No, really, I couldn't make this up.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/musk-moves-tesla-headquarters-back-to-california-after-stint-in-texas/ar-AA17OA1e?ocid=UP97DHP&li=BBnb7Kz
Austin's growth astonishes me. The modest skyline of 1990 has been transformed into something akin to Miami.
Would you believe that Austin and Baton Rouge were about the same size in 1950?
Travis County 1950 (2020) population: 160,980 (1,290,188)
East Baton Rouge Parish 1950 (2020) population: 158,236 (456,781)
This is the biggest indictment of Louisiana's third world leadership imaginable.
I live near Austin. It has doubled in size since I moved here in 2006. now I live 18 miles south in Kyle but same MSA
Quote from: kkt on February 28, 2023, 10:45:32 PM
Quote from: bing101 on February 28, 2023, 09:46:25 AM
Some of the stereotypes of Ex Californians moving to Austin is tied to Elon Musk.
Although I see our boy Elon is moving Tesla's engineering headquarters BACK to Silicon Valley. No, really, I couldn't make this up.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/musk-moves-tesla-headquarters-back-to-california-after-stint-in-texas/ar-AA17OA1e?ocid=UP97DHP&li=BBnb7Kz
They just built an enormous building here. It will be full.
Quote from: texaskdog on March 11, 2023, 11:51:33 AM
Quote from: kkt on February 28, 2023, 10:45:32 PM
Quote from: bing101 on February 28, 2023, 09:46:25 AM
Some of the stereotypes of Ex Californians moving to Austin is tied to Elon Musk.
Although I see our boy Elon is moving Tesla's engineering headquarters BACK to Silicon Valley. No, really, I couldn't make this up.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/musk-moves-tesla-headquarters-back-to-california-after-stint-in-texas/ar-AA17OA1e?ocid=UP97DHP&li=BBnb7Kz
They just built an enormous building here. It will be full.
Who says it will be full?
Boston Metro Area population:
1973: 3,214,000
2023: 4,344,000
Source: Macrotrends.com
Quote from: Rothman on March 11, 2023, 12:42:45 PM
Who says it will be full?
Elon owns it, so it will be full of
something. :D
Québec City's metro area has grown to a million people in the last year or so, but reports made it seem as though Québec City itself had a million people, which is simply not true.
When I look at the population of the Austin, Tx area (https://www.macrotrends.net/cities/22926/austin/population), it has grown from a tiny city of 344,000 in 1977 to 1,031,000 in 2003 to 2,053,000 in 2020 to 2,215,000 in 2023. That's more than the entire state of New Mexico, The NIMBYs and urbanists need to grow up, bite the bullet, and put more support behind the highway expansion projects to keep traffic moving.
In 1960, Austin's city limit population was 88% of that of its own metro area. Six decades later, its suburban landscape has grown tremendously to where Austin now anchors only 43% of its metro area, which has been the case of most of the Texas metro areas. San Antonio now takes up about 55% of its currents metro area, while in 1960 it took up 85% of its metro.
I say most and not all MSAs in Texas. Laredo is one of the few glaring exceptions where it city limits actually went up in percentage: in 1960, the city limits took up 89 percent of Webb County, while in 2020, that percentage has climbed to almost 98 percent. It is virtually devoid of suburban landscape. There is an abrupt cut-off when you exit the city limits....the nearest town of any size is more than 40 miles away in any direction.
In 30 years or maybe less, Austin and San Antonio will be one ginormous counurbation with San Marcos as the focal point.
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.
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.
If you want to see the change from 2010 to 2020 by county, see here (https://mtgis-portal.geo.census.gov/arcgis/apps/MapSeries/index.html?appid=2566121a73de463995ed2b2fd7ff6eb7) 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
- For Sacramento, it has grown from 748,000 in 1977, to 1,004,000 in 1987, to 2,011,000 in 2017, to 2,215,000 in 2023 (https://www.macrotrends.net/cities/23121/sacramento/population).
- For Dallas-Fort Worth, it has grown from 2,232,000 in 1977, to 3,053,000 in 1988, to 4,065,000 in 1999, to 5,041,000 in 2009, to 6,099,000 in 2018, to 6,574,000 in 2023 (https://www.macrotrends.net/cities/22966/dallas-fort-worth/population).
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??
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:
| 2000 | 118,652 | 35.2% |
| 2010 | 143,986 | 21.4% |
| 2020 | 169,810 | 17.9% |
Greeley:
| 2000 | 76,930 | 27.1% |
| 2010 | 92,889 | 20.7% |
| 2020 | 108,795 | 17.1% |
Loveland:
| 2000 | 50,608 | 35.5% |
| 2010 | 66,859 | 32.1% |
| 2020 | 76,378 | 14.2% |
Windsor:
| 2000 | 9,896 | 95.5% |
| 2010 | 18,644 | 88.4% |
| 2020 | 32,716 | 75.5% |
Severance:
| 2000 | 597 | 463.2% |
| 2010 | 3,165 | 430.2% |
| 2020 | 7,683 | 142.7% |
Timnath:
| 2000 | 223 | 17.4% |
| 2010 | 625 | 180.3% |
| 2020 | 6,487 | 937.9% |
Many cities between the Noco Triangle and Denver show similar trends as well.
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.
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.
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...
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)
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.
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.
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.)
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]
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.
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
Zoning, taxes, local politics; same as ever other balkanized metro in this country.
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.
The Milwaukee metro has grown from 1.43 mil in 1990 to 1.57 mil in 2020. So only a small increase which is what I would have expected.
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:
- For Sacramento, it has grown from 748,000 in 1977, to 1,004,000 in 1987, to 2,011,000 in 2017, to 2,215,000 in 2023 (https://www.macrotrends.net/cities/23121/sacramento/population).
- For Dallas-Fort Worth, it has grown from 2,232,000 in 1977, to 3,053,000 in 1988, to 4,065,000 in 1999, to 5,041,000 in 2009, to 6,099,000 in 2018, to 6,574,000 in 2023 (https://www.macrotrends.net/cities/22966/dallas-fort-worth/population).
At least TxDOT is doing a better job of addressing the transportation issues in DFW than CalTrans is in Sacramento....
Same here in my Life I seen this one with Sacramento MSA it gets some of its growth with Yolo, El Dorado, Placer, Yuba, Yuba, Sutter counties. However there is one county that is involved in merging both the Sacramento MSA and San Francisco Bay Area MSA's census areas together. Solano County is a case where suburban sprawl from two different census areas are merging together.
https://www.visitcalifornia.com/experience/best-kept-secret-solano-county/ (https://www.visitcalifornia.com/experience/best-kept-secret-solano-county/)
https://www.dailyrepublic.com/all-dr-news/solano-news/solano-county/fairfield-suisun-sits-between-bay-valley/ (https://www.dailyrepublic.com/all-dr-news/solano-news/solano-county/fairfield-suisun-sits-between-bay-valley/)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_Pittsburgh
Here's another one Greater Pittsburgh MSA is tied with Greater Sacramento for metro size.