2013 Metropolitan Area Census Estimates Released
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/photos/1394614925_HVzXCwK-M.jpg)
The latest U.S. Census metropolitan area population estimates for the U.S. and Puerto Rico as of July 2013 have been released. Find out where Jacksonville ranks.
Read More: http://www.metrojacksonville.com/article/2014-apr-2013-metropolitan-area-census-estimates-released
Pretty much as expected for Jax. Not growing very slowly, not very quickly -- faster than 12 of its 20 closest in rank and slower than 8.
I think the biggest surprise for me is it's the first time I've really wrapped my head around South Florida being on the heels of 6 million.
I'm also surprised at the breadth of growth rates for the smaller metro areas -- much higher for Fort Myers and Sarasota than Daytona and Melbourne. And I hate how these 4 MSAs all begin with the names of generic suburbs (Cape Coral, North Port, Deltona, Palm Bay.) I refuse to call them by these names!
I'll quote myself to consolidate findings:
Quote from: simms3 on March 27, 2014, 03:42:23 PM
Duval - 885,855 (up from 879,736 in 2012, 0.7% growth)
St. Johns - 209,647 (up from 202,328, 3.6% growth)
Clay - 196,399 (up from 194,215, 1.1% growth)
Nassau - 75,710 (up from 74,701, 1.4% growth)
Baker - 27,013 (down from 27,060, -0.1% growth)
Total - 1,394,624 (up from 1,378,040 in 2012, 1.2% growth)
2010 Census the metro was at 1,345,596 people, so in a little over 3 years has grown by 49,028 people, or around 1.2% per year (~12% per annum) since then. Growth in the metro and particularly in formerly fast-growing counties has dramatically slowed. Similar story in Atlanta, as well.
I suppose due to commuting patterns, they have added to Charlotte's MSA. Here are the cities that we used to compare ourselves to in early to mid 2000s:
Charlotte: 2,335,358 (5.34% growth)
Austin: 1,883,051 (9.72% growth)
Nashville: 1,757,912 (5.21% growth)
Jacksonville: 1,394,624 (3.64% growth)
We are definitely more comparable to Memphis, Oklahoma City, Birmingham, Hartford, Richmond, and Louisville at this stage. Of those cities, Oklahoma City is not far behind and is growing 5.34% since 2010 Census.
Slow growth is fine if you are Atlanta and need to reinvent yourself completely. Jax is small and is consolidated with the county. I think it benefits from faster growth, though I think simultaneously needs to reinvent itself. Sadly, growth has slowed dramatically from most of the prior 20th century decades and the city has yet to reinvent itself (both in terms of how it grows and in terms of its economy/city being). :(
Austin's entire metro is growing as fast as Saint Johns County. That's crazy!
One thing that's really eye-popping are the size of some of these cities' suburbs. One of Jax's larger cities in the metro is St Augustine, and it's a little town (population-wise) compared to some of these super-suburban cities with around 100K people or more like Round Rock(Austin), Columbia MD(Baltimore), and Vancouver WA(Portland). Not to mention bonifided cities that aren't even suburbs like Ft Lauderdale, Tacoma, St Paul, and Ft Worth. You could fit like 7 or 8 St Augustines' into Round Rock. The growth is MULTIPLIED that much more when you're nearby other metro(s) or large suburban city(ies).
When you include cities like Jacksonville that doesn't have these super suburban areas, and clustered metros, things get pretty down to Earth, and Jax looks like about what it should. Look at the cities that are higher populated than Jax, that has ONE city listed & (Metropolitan Statistical Area) and not like three additional cities added.
St Louis- Head barely above the water, even with Illinois added
Pittsburgh- Head barely above the water
Cincinnati- Down to Earth, even with Kentucky and Indiana added
Kansas City- Down to Earth, even with Kansas City, Kansas added
Columbus, OH- Growing a tad slower than Jax
IMO the two cities that's nipping on Jax's heels (without major help from super-suburbs) and growing significantly faster right now are Oklahoma City and Raleigh.
A couple of stats for comparison to Jacksonville's +3.64%:
The national rate of change during this period was +2.39%.
The average rate of change of the most populous 50 metro areas was +3.23%. (Note: this is the average of the 50 rates of change, not the rate of change of their combined populations.)
What has always peeved me about the yearly Census metro area population report was how they define some of these MSAs. For some reason the Durham metro area is not included with Raleigh which it should on this list while for whatever reason the Census pairs up all of Palm Beach County w/Miami-Ft. Lauderdale like some twisted Bejeweled game. Quick rule of thumb: If where you are is large enough and far away enough to merit having your own set of TV stations then for the sake of this survey you're on your own, Big Boy!
And while I'm at it, can someone tell me what happened to Flagler County's stupendous growth? I no longer around there but when I was out was like the hottest county in the world and the masses were pushing and shoving to get in. Whatevers ailing it, I'm glad St. John's county isn't catching it.
Quote from: JaxJersey-licious on April 07, 2014, 09:23:16 AM
What has always peeved me about the yearly Census metro area population report was how they define some of these MSAs. For some reason the Durham metro area is not included with Raleigh which it should on this list while for whatever reason the Census pairs up all of Palm Beach County w/Miami-Ft. Lauderdale like some twisted Bejeweled game. Quick rule of thumb: If where you are is large enough and far away enough to merit having your own set of TV stations then for the sake of this survey you're on your own, Big Boy!
And while I'm at it, can someone tell me what happened to Flagler County's stupendous growth? I no longer around there but when I was out was like the hottest county in the world and the masses were pushing and shoving to get in. Whatevers ailing it, I'm glad St. John's county isn't catching it.
Yeah, a lot of the MSAs seem pretty arbitrary, and some of them are clearly influenced by what some regional interests want to be included rather than reality. As for Palm Coast, much or most of its growth was tied to bedroom communities serving people who worked in Jacksonville or Daytona. Since the recession it's been less feasible for people to live so far away from work; that's probably contributing to the decline in growth. St. Johns is also continuing to grow due to bedroom developments for people who work in Jacksonville. It will catch up to them eventually.
MSAs are primarily defined by population density and commuting patterns.
It would appear that Palm Coast is now part of Daytona's MSA, and therefore Orlando's CSA.
Regarding I-10 East's comment about Raleigh nipping at Jacksonville's heels, Raleigh should really be Raleigh + Durham, and has had a larger population than Jax for a couple decades now. In some respects, Jax does feel larger, though, because as low density as Jax is, Raleigh is even lower. Pine forests up until the edge of downtown.
San Jose should really be a part of San Francisco-Oakland (a slight majority of Silicon Valley cities are in Santa Clara County, SJ MSA, as opposed to San Mateo County, SF MSA, leading to commuting patterns that split the two cities into 2 metros). Greensboro/High Point should really be a part of Winston Salem. Salt Lake City should really be combined with Provo and maybe even Orem.
All of these used to be part of 1 MSA until definitions were revised. We've gone slightly more European with the MSA model, which actually I like. However, even in Europe one doesn't think of just Dusseldorf as a standalone city of a few hundred thousand people, or the "Dusseldorf MSA", which is impossible there. It's part of a greater conglomerate of cities over 3,000 square miles (smaller than the size of Jax metro area) that includes Cologne, Essen, Dortmund, and others (around 11,000,000 people).
I'm confused by all these "shoulds." CSAs exist. Why should MSAs be the same? Why "should" we not have both classifications?
Because some particular cases are always up for serious debate by statisticians, planners, and companies that rely on research and data (lots of companies) to make decisions.
When the definition of MSAs and CSAs changed a few years back, it was after very robust debate at both the national Census level and at the local level. And it's still up for debate.
What's nice is that not everyone always has to accept what some people hand down to them as bible and we can debate these things. ;)
Your "because" didn't exactly answer the questions or clear up the confusion. You listed a few MSAs that you say should be combined, but they already are, as CSAs. Why pick on MSAs for not being CSAs when CSAs already exist and seem to be what you're calling for?
Part of the reason is because nobody looks at CSAs. When a retailer comes into DC, they aren't looking at DC + Baltimore for statistical information or shopping habits. They are looking at DC MSA.
Anyway, why are you so concerned I've questioned why some CSAs, which were previously MSAs, are now split up MSAs and considered CSAs when combined? Lots of people share my thoughts and feelings, which is why definitions for these things change and are up for constant debate.
I question why you just take everything handed to you without questioning the data itself or the reasoning behind the data or definition.
CSAs are the loosest form of definition for metropolitan areas. Many would say lots of CSAs make sense as CSAs, and others would question other CSAs and why they include what they include. Boston's includes half of New Hampshire down to Providence over to Western Mass. Yet, like San Francisco's, its MSA is quite small by geographical standards. Many would argue that both Boston's and SF's CSAs are a little too large while their MSAs are simply too small, based on fairly concrete concepts and statistics. Often times an MSA is overly large. Atlanta's includes nearly 30 counties...all because the farthest outlying county has a certain percentage of residents commuting one county closer to Atlanta, even though the next county in is still 1-2-3 counties outside of the core Atlanta area. The CSA is half of the state of GA.
Palm Coast goes to Orlando's CSA because of commuting patterns to Daytona Beach/Volusia County. Would you say Palm Coast is far and away moreso a part of Orlando and Central FL than NE FL? Philadelphia has this fight with NYC all the time about central NJ counties.
Long story short, I don't need to answer your question "clearly" because there is nothing clear and concrete about MSA and CSA statistics.
Looking at the list and thinking about my thoughts in 2000, I figured Atlanta would have caught and passed Miami's MSA by now. I'm surprised to see that despite being pretty much built out, Miami's MSA has a higher growth percentage than Atlanta's.
It's also interesting to see how quick Charlotte, Nashville and Austin have packed on people. It seems like it wasn't that long ago, that they were well below Virginia Beach/Norfolk and closer to Jax's range. Two smaller southern metros to keep an eye out on are Charleston and Fort Myers. Both continue to grow at pretty healthy rates.
I think Charlotte's MSA added a couple counties. It really is the baby Atlanta, haha. Goes back to why people question MSAs and CSAs, the numbers are always up for debate, as are the definitions and how those definitions get applied differently for different areas.
Quote from: simms3 on April 07, 2014, 08:22:21 PM
Part of the reason is because nobody looks at CSAs. When a retailer comes into DC, they aren't looking at DC + Baltimore for statistical information or shopping habits. They are looking at DC MSA.
maybe if they are locating in DC or NoVa....but what if they are locating in Columbia...in that case they care about Baltimore and Washington
Lakelander - Miami got "bigger" this time, as at one time West Palm Beach was its own area. I noticed this also. They combined WPB and Miami, but having relatives and friends in the WPB/Lake Worth/ Bocca Raton area they do not consider themselves part of Miami. Atlanta, where I have lived, is actually more of a single Metro area. WPB is to Miami what Brunswick and Savannah are to JAX.
Quote from: simms3 on April 07, 2014, 08:22:21 PM
Part of the reason is because nobody looks at CSAs. When a retailer comes into DC, they aren't looking at DC + Baltimore for statistical information or shopping habits. They are looking at DC MSA.
Anyway, why are you so concerned I've questioned why some CSAs, which were previously MSAs, are now split up MSAs and considered CSAs when combined? Lots of people share my thoughts and feelings, which is why definitions for these things change and are up for constant debate.
I question why you just take everything handed to you without questioning the data itself or the reasoning behind the data or definition.
CSAs are the loosest form of definition for metropolitan areas. Many would say lots of CSAs make sense as CSAs, and others would question other CSAs and why they include what they include. Boston's includes half of New Hampshire down to Providence over to Western Mass. Yet, like San Francisco's, its MSA is quite small by geographical standards. Many would argue that both Boston's and SF's CSAs are a little too large while their MSAs are simply too small, based on fairly concrete concepts and statistics. Often times an MSA is overly large. Atlanta's includes nearly 30 counties...all because the farthest outlying county has a certain percentage of residents commuting one county closer to Atlanta, even though the next county in is still 1-2-3 counties outside of the core Atlanta area. The CSA is half of the state of GA.
Palm Coast goes to Orlando's CSA because of commuting patterns to Daytona Beach/Volusia County. Would you say Palm Coast is far and away moreso a part of Orlando and Central FL than NE FL? Philadelphia has this fight with NYC all the time about central NJ counties.
Long story short, I don't need to answer your question "clearly" because there is nothing clear and concrete about MSA and CSA statistics.
I apologize if my questions seemed emotionally charged. I asked them to clear up genuine confusion about your argument, not to express disagreement or some sort of counterargument. You've read stuff between the lines that isn't there.
You answered in your first 3 sentences above, with the "part of the reason is [...]," and I thank you for that. I do wonder what the other part is, but I won't push it.
I wish I could stop here, but I have to address the wild assumptions that followed that I don't think I deserve. At no point have I indicated that I "take everything handed to [me] without questioning the data itself or the reasoning behind the data or definition," and nothing could be further from the truth. Where did
that come from? For a start, I am fully aware of the reasoning behind and controversy over Census Bureau classification. I've been analyzing Census data since the '90s, and it's quite a large part of my interests and field of study. If you have to make assumptions, perhaps it's wiser to assume there is more than one expert in the room than the alternative, yes?
Anyway, I'll answer your questions since you indulged mine, even though yours may be rhetorical.
1) I wouldn't call it concern, just confusion, as I said. 2) No, I don't consider Palm Coast part of Orlando or Central Florida. Odd groupings abound in MSA or CSA classification, in part from the large-scale, arbitrary geographies (counties.) Personally I'm an advocate of expanding the popularity and application of urbanized area classification or similar alternatives using smaller-scale geographies. But even setting aside the popularilty of MSAs and CSAs, they're still very useful for tracking changes over time, like in this article. They're less useful for determining where one city's suburbs end and another's begin, but that's the reality of our sprawled nation, and it wouldn't be solved by going back to the classification of previous decades. The criteria as-is is still a legacy from times when metro areas fit more neatly within the geographies used (counties) with more elbow room between. There is no perfect criteria for this sort of thing -- counties are used out of convenience, so that will have its downsides. I think the Census Bureau does about as good as we can expect, but I do not treat is as a bible.
Quote from: thelakelander on April 07, 2014, 08:34:46 PM
Two smaller southern metros to keep an eye out on are Charleston and Fort Myers. Both continue to grow at pretty healthy rates.
Healthy rates, but in unhealthy ways! :P
Quote from: jaxjags on April 07, 2014, 09:59:26 PM
Lakelander - Miami got "bigger" this time, as at one time West Palm Beach was its own area. I noticed this also. They combined WPB and Miami, but having relatives and friends in the WPB/Lake Worth/ Bocca Raton area they do not consider themselves part of Miami. Atlanta, where I have lived, is actually more of a single Metro area. WPB is to Miami what Brunswick and Savannah are to JAX.
WPB and Miami have been considered the same MSA for a while now. The tie between WPB and Miami is most likely Broward County. For example, my brother lives in DT Fort Lauderdale but works in Boca Raton (roughly 15 miles or so away) which is in Palm County. His house is about 15 miles from Aventura, which is in Miami-Dade County. Furthermore, DT Fort Lauderdale is roughly the same distance from DT Miami as Sandy Springs is from Hartfield Airport. When one thinks about commuting patterns in that metro, it's not such a stretch that they are considered to be a single MSA.
Quote from: Scrub Palmetto on April 07, 2014, 10:10:02 PM
Personally I'm an advocate of expanding the popularity and application of urbanized area classification or similar alternatives using smaller-scale geographies. But even setting aside the popularilty of MSAs and CSAs, they're still very useful for tracking changes over time, like in this article. They're less useful for determining where one city's suburbs end and another's begin, but that's the reality of our sprawled nation, and it wouldn't be solved by going back to the classification of previous decades.
Compared to MSAs and CSAs, the urbanized area classification is about as apples to apples as it gets.
I just love looking at these demo figures because of Richard Florida's book The Rise Of The Creative Class basically saying the new economy would thrive in locales that were tech-savvy, gay-friendly, racially diverse, encourages the arts, well-educated, and "bohemian". I was always curious to see if his theories on cities and states attracting those kinds of people would work out. Well some 12 years and one big recession later, I was now able too pull up numbers for the top 100 fastest growing counties from 2010-2013 to get an idea where people were flocking to and why.
Most of the growth areas can be divided into three primary categories: 1) Suburban sprawl-opolises with affordable and plentiful land (with lower taxes and less regulation) serving major workplace centers - like St Johns County which, by the way, ranks 23rd in growth this decade in the nation 2) High-density urban cores and infill neighborhoods with numerous entertainment/lifestyle options that are also centers for tech, finance, communications, and government 3) Places that have tons of oil, natural gas, and mining resources and/or companies that service those sectors. Given that Mr. Florida's book did not foresee our current energy grab-fest and the fact that a lot of jobs and people have been going to states which are safe to say not so enlightened, many have said that his theories were a bust. But that oversimplifies things. Places like Nashville, Raleigh-Durham, Austin, and Charleston benefit from their state's low taxes, de-regulation mantra, weakened-unions, cheaper labor, and old-timey over-protective mindset. These same places also have incredible music/arts/nightlife scenes, diverse populations, a very educated and technical workforce with the institutions to prepare them, and a passion for improving and preserving their historic older neighborhoods.
We can debate aspects of Mr. Florida's economic and social vision but ultimately we need to ask what direction Jacksonville will be taking now and in the future. We've been firmly entrenched in sprawl path #1 to growth but I'm sure most MJ fans have other ideas in mind and agree that even if it doesn't directly or indirectly lead to more prosperity, it would benefit Jacksonville as a whole. That said, we need to ask ourselves one of two questions: Are we doing enough as a city to invest in education, encourage innovation, foster and strengthen our communities, cultivate cultural heritage and modernity, embrace and partake in other cultures, guarantee and protect equal rights for all so that we will ultimately attract like-minded people to visit, live, and invest in Jacksonville?
Or is there a secret shit-load of oil shale and molybdenum floating around the city's aquifers waiting for Halliburton to get a crack at extracting 'em? The choice is yours, Jax!
Quote from: simms3 on April 07, 2014, 11:05:40 AMRegarding I-10 East's comment about Raleigh nipping at Jacksonville's heels, Raleigh should really be Raleigh + Durham, and has had a larger population than Jax for a couple decades now. In some respects, Jax does feel larger, though, because as low density as Jax is, Raleigh is even lower. Pine forests up until the edge of downtown...Greensboro/High Point should really be a part of Winston Salem.
I can agree with Raleigh and Durham being one MSA; I think an oddity of geography is somewhat to blame for that, namely the orientation of RTP (the singular point that binds both areas) to Durham County and Wake County and how that affects commuting patterns. But I think Greensboro/High Point and Winston-Salem being two MSAs and one CSA is somewhat justified. Each city is pretty independent but just happen to be located close to each other. They don't share one large central employment center a la RTP and commuting rates between the two are significant but not really that strong. Also, I think it's to Winston-Salem's benefit that it has its own MSA. It's actually the oldest and wealthiest city in the area, and also has the largest urbanized population. The current designation doesn't make it seem like it plays second-fiddle to Greensboro when in many cases, the opposite is true.