It's that time of year again! The U.S. Census Bureau released their annual population estimates for US cities (individual state results here) (http://www.census.gov/popest/data/cities/totals/2012/SUB-EST2012-3.html). Eight of the fastest growing cities in the country are in Texas (http://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/population/cb13-94.html), as well as four of the top 11.
One thing I like to track are the top cities in each state to see if any of them are in danger over losing their status as their state's largest city. There are several states where this could possibly happen. In Tennessee, Nashville is about 30K people behind Memphis. Both are growing, but Nashville is at a faster pace. In Alabama, Montgomery is about 7K people behind Birmingham, but fourth-ranked Huntsville is 22K behind the capital city and 11K behind third-place Mobile. It's possible Montgomery could be the state's largest city, but I look for Huntsville to eventually take over, eventually.
South Carolina: Columbia has just over a 6K-person gap over Charleston, with Charleston having added over 5K people since 2010, while Columbia adding over 2,400. But North Charleston is also putting itself in the mix, with their population at almost 102K. While NC has to get past Columbia first, could we be seeing a suburb getting larger than its mother city?
The same could be happening in Utah, where Salt Lake City is just 57K people ahead of suburban West Valley City. Both cities are increasing at about the same rate, so nothing may change soon.
West Virginia: Charleston is ahead of Huntington, but only by about 2K. Charleston is slipping a bit, while Huntington is rather steady, though with an ever-so-slight rise. One would think Huntington being a college town could over Charleston. We'll see.
Wyoming: Casper is slowly eating away at Cheyenne, separated by 3,700. Since 2010, Casper added 2500 people, while Cheyenne added 2100.
Looks like New Britain, CT (a bit over 73,000) is no larger than the 8th largest city in the state. I see that Stamford has now passed over Hartford for third largest.
For a time, Baton Rouge was Louisiana's largest based on these estimates, due to Katrina evacuees from New Orleans. The Big Easy got back on top, though, before the next decennial census.
Baton Rouge was only going to be the largest Louisiana city for a temporary time. But I do wonder how long it will be before the next major hurricane strikes another blow to New Orleans and cause residents who evacuated and came back to not come back the next time.
Iowa observations:
Davenport is back over 100,000. It did top that mark in the 1980 census, but lost population when the local agricultural/industrial economy went south during the 1980s.
Iowa City has topped 70,000 and passed Waterloo to become Iowa's fifth-largest city -- at least when college is in session at the University of Iowa. Similarly, Ames, home of Iowa State University, has topped 60,000 for the first time.
Ankeny should pass the 50,000 mark by this time next year. While it's already part of a MSA, it's possible that the MSA name will become Des Moines-West Des Moines-Ankeny in a few years.
Waverly, home of Wartburg College and part of the Waterloo-Cedar Falls MSA, has topped 10,000 for the first time.
Out of the 50 largest cities in Iowa, 13 of them -- Des Moines (1st), West Des Moines (9th), Ankeny (11th), Urbandale (12th), Johnston (24th), Clive (25th), Waukee (26th), Altoona (27th), Indianola (29th), Norwalk (42nd), Grimes (44th), Pleasant Hill (45th), and Perry (49th) -- are part of the Des Moines MSA. Those cities plus Ames (8th), Newton (28th), and Boone (31st) are part of the Des Moines-Ames CSA.
College towns are doing very well, so Ames and Iowa City doesn't surprise me.
I was looking at Florida's numbers...Lakeland has an estimated population of 99,999! You mean they couldn't find one more person there?
San Angelo, up to 95,800, they're expecting up to 30,000 more over the years from the oil boom.
What was impressive was Williston, ND; 14,716 in 2010, and 18,532 this year! That is a huge boomtown from the oilfield.
BigMatt
Holy shit. Bay Lake is now at 49, up from 48 in 2011 and 47 in 2010.
I just saw the North Dakota numbers...the oil boom is really having an effect. There's a similar boom predicted for SW Mississippi if the Tuscaloosa shale materializes.
The census actually undercounts the population boom in North Dakota. Many workers have their permanent place of residence elsewhere, and "commute" to Williston, perhaps spending a few weeks in Williston before returning to their actual home and family for a week. If the "commuters" are counted, Williston may have a population closer to 30,000.
http://oilpatchdispatch.areavoices.com/2012/12/13/study-says-williston-could-have-44000-by-2017/
Nice to see Funkley MN is holding steady at 5.
Quote from: Zmapper on May 30, 2013, 12:47:31 AM
The census actually undercounts the population boom in North Dakota. Many workers have their permanent place of residence elsewhere, and "commute" to Williston, perhaps spending a few weeks in Williston before returning to their actual home and family for a week. If the "commuters" are counted, Williston may have a population closer to 30,000.
http://oilpatchdispatch.areavoices.com/2012/12/13/study-says-williston-could-have-44000-by-2017/
Damn! That fast?!? Williston may end up being one of the fastest-growing cities in the country that's not a suburb.
New Jersey only shows Boroughs, Cities and Towns... The Census Bureau treats the Townships as unincorprated
One of the things I watch for in Arkansas is the combined populations of the Fort Smith and Fayetteville MSAs vs. the Little Rock MSA. The Northwest Arkansas areas have already passed Central Arkansas, 762K to 720K.
It's hard to combine Fort Smith and Fayetteville into a single MSA because of the mountains in between, but they're already considered one media market.
Quote from: NE2 on May 29, 2013, 09:37:59 PM
Holy shit. Bay Lake is now at 49, up from 48 in 2011 and 47 in 2010.
They're forced to watch those educational Disney filmstrips in the town meetings.
When I look at U.S. populations, 50,000 seems to be the arbitrary level at which I'm likely to be cognizant of a city's existence. And yet it never ceases to amaze me how many 50k+ places there are in Florida that I have just never even heard of. Like, there is a place called Pembroke Pines that apparently 160,000 people live in? Or, say, Lauderhill, chugging along with its homely 69,000.
California is pretty bad in this regard, too, but for some reason my personal geographic lexicon must just be more up to speed with L.A.'s exurbs than with Florida's.
Quote from: golden eagle on May 29, 2013, 12:32:30 AM
College towns are doing very well, so Ames and Iowa City doesn't surprise me.
I was looking at Florida's numbers...Lakeland has an estimated population of 99,999! You mean they couldn't find one more person there?
similarly, I note that Oklahoma City went from 579,999 (2010 census) to 599,199.
Quote from: wphiii on June 12, 2013, 10:55:22 AM
And yet it never ceases to amaze me how many 50k+ places there are in Florida that I have just never even heard of. Like, there is a place called Pembroke Pines that apparently 160,000 people live in? Or, say, Lauderhill, chugging along with its homely 69,000.
Who cares? They're suburbs.
indeed. I had no idea I'd ever been to Pembroke Pines. but I've clinched I-75 so I must have...
Largest MSA you may have never heard of (unless you pay attention to the baggers): The Villages, FL.
Portland, Maine has 66,214 people (largest city in Maine). New Britain, Connecticut (where I am) has 73,206. However, Portland feels far bigger, since they're the center of Maine's population base, while we're "only" the largest city within a 20-mile radius of downtown Hartford (population of 124,775).
Quote from: NE2 on June 12, 2013, 11:40:41 AM
Quote from: wphiii on June 12, 2013, 10:55:22 AM
And yet it never ceases to amaze me how many 50k+ places there are in Florida that I have just never even heard of. Like, there is a place called Pembroke Pines that apparently 160,000 people live in? Or, say, Lauderhill, chugging along with its homely 69,000.
Who cares? They're suburbs.
I find it kind of jarring that so many people live in places like that, that's all.
Quote from: golden eagle on May 26, 2013, 08:55:14 PM
It's that time of year again! The U.S. Census Bureau released their annual population estimates for US cities (individual state results here) (http://www.census.gov/popest/data/cities/totals/2012/SUB-EST2012-3.html). Eight of the fastest growing cities in the country are in Texas (http://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/population/cb13-94.html), as well as four of the top 11.
One thing I like to track are the top cities in each state to see if any of them are in danger over losing their status as their state's largest city. There are several states where this could possibly happen. In Tennessee, Nashville is about 30K people behind Memphis. Both are growing, but Nashville is at a faster pace. In Alabama, Montgomery is about 7K people behind Birmingham, but fourth-ranked Huntsville is 22K behind the capital city and 11K behind third-place Mobile. It's possible Montgomery could be the state's largest city, but I look for Huntsville to eventually take over, eventually.
South Carolina: Columbia has just over a 6K-person gap over Charleston, with Charleston having added over 5K people since 2010, while Columbia adding over 2,400. But North Charleston is also putting itself in the mix, with their population at almost 102K. While NC has to get past Columbia first, could we be seeing a suburb getting larger than its mother city?
The same could be happening in Utah, where Salt Lake City is just 57K people ahead of suburban West Valley City. Both cities are increasing at about the same rate, so nothing may change soon.
West Virginia: Charleston is ahead of Huntington, but only by about 2K. Charleston is slipping a bit, while Huntington is rather steady, though with an ever-so-slight rise. One would think Huntington being a college town could over Charleston. We'll see.
Wyoming: Casper is slowly eating away at Cheyenne, separated by 3,700. Since 2010, Casper added 2500 people, while Cheyenne added 2100.
Suburbs aren't cities. Part of the same MSA.
Quote from: wphiii on June 12, 2013, 02:54:58 PM
Quote from: NE2 on June 12, 2013, 11:40:41 AM
Quote from: wphiii on June 12, 2013, 10:55:22 AM
And yet it never ceases to amaze me how many 50k+ places there are in Florida that I have just never even heard of. Like, there is a place called Pembroke Pines that apparently 160,000 people live in? Or, say, Lauderhill, chugging along with its homely 69,000.
Who cares? They're suburbs.
I find it kind of jarring that so many people live in places like that, that's all.
I live in that area, and there's essentially nothing distinguishing one city in Palm Beach/Broward/Miami-Dade County from another, because there's no visibly defined political limits other than signage, few clues as to the geographical limits (unless you know precisely where they are), nor "empty space" between the towns/cities. Except for the visibly larger skylines of the major cities, it's just one big agglomeration of over 5 million people and their stuff.
Which really makes it not unlike a many other large metropolitan areas. It's just that if Lauderhill or Pembroke Pines makes the news outside of the local affiliates or media, it happened in "Miami" or "Florida", in the public's eye. If they really screw up (http://www.snopes.com/photos/signs/mlkplaque.asp), then there's some distance!
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on June 12, 2013, 12:42:19 PM
Portland, Maine has 66,214 people (largest city in Maine). New Britain, Connecticut (where I am) has 73,206. However, Portland feels far bigger, since they're the center of Maine's population base, while we're "only" the largest city within a 20-mile radius of downtown Hartford (population of 124,775).
Wilmington, DE has something like 70,000, but it has the look and feel of a city of a quarter million or so (or at least its downtown does).
I saw the numbers for Frisco, TX, and I'm startled at how fast they have grown! They had around 3k in 1980, 7k in 1990, 33k in 2000 and almost 130k today!
The numbers for Missoula, MT sit at over 60,000. Missoula Metro Area (which accounts for suburb areas such as Orchard Homes, West Side, North Side, South Hills, Wye, and East Missoula) as of July 2012 sits at 110,977. Missoula proper as of July 2012 is at 68,394, which makes it the fourth largest city in Montana and we're as large as Fort Collins, CO's 2000 population. I'm not sure what Frenchtown, which is 15 miles west of Missoula, sits at for 2012 estimated population. It was 1,825 from the 2010 Census compared to 880 in 2000. My hypothetical guess based on the 2012 Missoula estimate is that Frenchtown would sit within the 1,900-2,100 range. Frenchtown may end up reaching 2,000+ within the next couple of years, if not break well past it by the 2020 Census.
Quote from: empirestate on June 12, 2013, 11:26:01 PM
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on June 12, 2013, 12:42:19 PM
Portland, Maine has 66,214 people (largest city in Maine). New Britain, Connecticut (where I am) has 73,206. However, Portland feels far bigger, since they're the center of Maine's population base, while we're "only" the largest city within a 20-mile radius of downtown Hartford (population of 124,775).
Wilmington, DE has something like 70,000, but it has the look and feel of a city of a quarter million or so (or at least its downtown does).
Wilmington and Raleigh, NC have the same overall feel to me. Raleigh's city limits go much farther out (especially to the north and east).
Quote from: golden eagle on June 18, 2013, 11:15:10 PM
I saw the numbers for Frisco, TX, and I'm startled at how fast they have grown! They had around 3k in 1980, 7k in 1990, 33k in 2000 and almost 130k today!
bleh. it went from being a town of its own character, to being a suburb.
Having read the city population estimates for the Inland Empire region of Southern Cal., there's still some growth in most of them. In the town I reside in (La Quinta, Cal.) the new population estimate is 38,783, up from 37,467 in the 2010 census. Many communities are running out of room to build new houses, although there's a level of open space...and the housing bubble burst in 2008 followed by the Great Recession slowed down population growth in hard-hit areas like Southern Cal.
Population growth in the Dakotas is seen as a good thing, after previous decades of population loss in most of the states of North and South Dakota. The area's oil boom along with increased fracking activity should indicate America's push for exploration of new sources of oil within its boundaries. The oil boom generates job growth and entices new residents in moving to the Dakotas, but be in mind winters are sub-zero brutal, then where I live has triple-digit temps. in the summer months.
While poking around Google Maps semi-randomly (looking at 1920's continuations of NJ routes into other states), I ended up at Kiryas Joel. Check out the population growth there. It could eclipse Middletown by 2020.
Juneau eclipsed Fairbanks for the title of Alaska's second largest city. Still nowhere near Anchorage, (298k v. 32k) though.
Also, Goss, MO was counted in the Census despite having a population of 0.
Quote from: golden eagle on June 18, 2013, 11:15:10 PM
I saw the numbers for Frisco, TX, and I'm startled at how fast they have grown! They had around 3k in 1980, 7k in 1990, 33k in 2000 and almost 130k today!
Yes, it's incredible. I remember when they built the mall at 121 and Preston and it was in the middle of absolutely nowhere at the time. That was just a little over a decade ago.
The next town up from Frisco is Prosper, which is sitting right now about where Frisco was in the mid-1990s. The Dallas North Tollway ends at US 380, and Prosper is starting to go crazy too. Prosper was a little 1A school for forever and it's 4A now.