Trae Posted March 20, 2008 Share Posted March 20, 2008 Houston MSA 2000: 4,715,407 / 2006: 5,539,949 / 2007: 5,660,245Between 2006-2007, Houston's MSA grew by 120,296 people.And by counties: Harris County: 59,949 Austin County: 489 Brazoria County: 9,990 Chambers County: 431 Fort Bend County: 24,340 Galveston County: 4,390 Montgomery County: 19,405 Liberty County: 661 San Jacinto County: 448 Waller County: 841 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GovernorAggie Posted March 20, 2008 Share Posted March 20, 2008 Also, Harris County is estimated to be right at 4,000,000 people! (3,935,855 to be exact). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Great Hizzy! Posted March 20, 2008 Share Posted March 20, 2008 Census Bureau estimates can (not always but sometimes) be understated for urban areas that are experiencing significant growth. Just take their estimates for the COH the last 20 or so years, for example. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trae Posted March 20, 2008 Author Share Posted March 20, 2008 Harris County has enough to hold like 8 million people. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dalparadise Posted March 20, 2008 Share Posted March 20, 2008 (edited) Harris County has enough to hold like 8 million people.Then, Brazoria County probably "has enough" to hold 10-12 million. Edited March 20, 2008 by dalparadise Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheNiche Posted March 21, 2008 Share Posted March 21, 2008 Census Bureau estimates can (not always but sometimes) be understated for urban areas that are experiencing significant growth. Just take their estimates for the COH the last 20 or so years, for example.I believe that this has been the case.One would think that the July 2006-2007 rate of population growth (2.17%) would approximate the rate of job growth (4.60%) wouldn't have quite a spread, especially when the net change in unemployed persons only accounted for a 0.75% of employed persons. What it comes down to is that we've had to import labor...and although I'd buy that a disproportionate number of that workforce are going to have a lower household size, and although I'd buy that some amount of that can be explained by people coming out of retirement, I don't buy the huge difference between employment growth and population growth. Intuitively, it just doesn't seem right.I'm looking very much forward to the 2010 Census. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Houston19514 Posted March 21, 2008 Share Posted March 21, 2008 I believe that this has been the case.One would think that the July 2006-2007 rate of population growth (2.17%) would approximate the rate of job growth (4.60%) wouldn't have quite a spread, especially when the net change in unemployed persons only accounted for a 0.75% of employed persons. What it comes down to is that we've had to import labor...and although I'd buy that a disproportionate number of that workforce are going to have a lower household size, and although I'd buy that some amount of that can be explained by people coming out of retirement, I don't buy the huge difference between employment growth and population growth. Intuitively, it just doesn't seem right.I'm looking very much forward to the 2010 Census.Part of that is perhaps due to the departure of many of the Katrina refugees. We might get a more accurate sense of the population growth by looking at 2005-2007 cumulative population growth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JasonDFW Posted March 21, 2008 Share Posted March 21, 2008 (edited) That's weird, the census bureau released all this info last year and has since (in the just released data) lowered it's estimates for many (all?) of the Houston metro counties for last year. I wonder if that sort of updating is normal... as you usually hear places only fighting the census for updates only when the figures are believed to be too low. If you took last year's figures the growth would have only been in the 90k range, which seems too low of course.Hmm, I just looked and they did the same thing for DFW. Very weird. They now say 162k growth this last year but if you take last years 2006 estimates the growth would be only 140k.Anybody know why/how they do this? Should we expect this year's population figures to all be lowered next year?Here's a sample of the type of change, which seems universal among all counties not just Harris:2008 estimate of July 1st 2006 population of Harris County = 3,876,3062007 estimate of July 1st 2006 population of Harris County = 3,886,207JasonEdit - Added bold for clarity Edited March 21, 2008 by JasonDFW Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ricco67 Posted March 21, 2008 Share Posted March 21, 2008 What does this say about the population growths in Chicago, Phoenix, Atlanta, and Miami? Are we gaining ground on Chicago and is anyone catching up to us? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trae Posted March 21, 2008 Author Share Posted March 21, 2008 (edited) Miami's metro lost population this year, and Atlanta's only grew by 40,000 apparently. Houston will pass up Philly though.And JasonDFW, your Harris County numbers seem to be wrong. Census' own Excel has it had 3.9+ million. Edited March 21, 2008 by Trae Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JasonDFW Posted March 21, 2008 Share Posted March 21, 2008 (edited) And JasonDFW, your Harris County numbers seem to be wrong. Census' own PDF has it had 3.9+ million.My data came from the Census. I haven't seen their PDF, but from their Excel spreadsheet I'm going to go out on a limb that you missed the fact that I was referring to the 2006 estimates. If that is true, the unfortunate part is to make that error you'd have to miss the whole point of the post which was that all the 2006 estimates seemed to have change between this year and last year (which couldn't happen to the estimate that didn't exist until this week).Jason Edited March 21, 2008 by JasonDFW Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trae Posted March 21, 2008 Author Share Posted March 21, 2008 I see. I misread your post. I also meant Excel Spreadsheet, not PDF. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JasonDFW Posted March 21, 2008 Share Posted March 21, 2008 (edited) Miami's metro lost population this year, and Atlanta's only grew by 40,000 apparently. Houston did pass up Philly though.Atlanta grew by 151k. Of course, they seem to have the same effect as the Texas counties had, which was that the population estimates were lowered. So, that growth was only 140k over last year if you use last years estimates.Are you just repeating the Philly stuff off your site or did you look it up? Philly had been performing very well, for Houston to pass them up would have been insane growth in Houston or a real mess in Philly. EDIT Edit, I wasn't as mixed up as I thought. Philly is about 200k ahead of Houston but Houston is growing far faster.Jason Edited March 21, 2008 by JasonDFW Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trae Posted March 21, 2008 Author Share Posted March 21, 2008 I got the 40K from someone at SSP (an Atlanta poster). I guess they didn't add up all of the counties. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NewMND Posted March 21, 2008 Share Posted March 21, 2008 So are we the 5th largest metro now? And could we reach 6 million by the 2010 census? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JasonDFW Posted March 21, 2008 Share Posted March 21, 2008 So are we the 5th largest metro now? And could we reach 6 million by the 2010 census?Houston is about 200k behind Philly, but could catch them before the 2010 census and possibly break 6million just a bit after that.Jason Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trae Posted March 21, 2008 Author Share Posted March 21, 2008 Philly lost a county to NYC's metro, so Philly will go down some. Houston will pass up Philly by this time next year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Houston19514 Posted March 21, 2008 Share Posted March 21, 2008 That's weird, the census bureau released all this info last year and has since (in the just released data) lowered it's estimates for many (all?) of the Houston metro counties for last year. I wonder if that sort of updating is normal... as you usually hear places only fighting the census for updates only when the figures are believed to be too low. If you took last year's figures the growth would have only been in the 90k range, which seems too low of course.Hmm, I just looked and they did the same thing for DFW. Very weird. They now say 162k growth this last year but if you take last years 2006 estimates the growth would be only 140k.Anybody know why/how they do this? Should we expect this year's population figures to all be lowered next year?Here's a sample of the type of change, which seems universal among all counties not just Harris:2008 estimate of July 1st 2006 population of Harris County = 3,876,3062007 estimate of July 1st 2006 population of Harris County = 3,886,207JasonEdit - Added bold for clarityI noticed that too. I have no explanation. I wasn't aware that they would revise estimates. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Houston19514 Posted March 21, 2008 Share Posted March 21, 2008 Philly lost a county to NYC's metro, so Philly will go down some. Houston will pass up Philly by this time next year.Interesting. When did that happen? Can you give us a link? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trae Posted March 21, 2008 Author Share Posted March 21, 2008 It was Mercer County which has 120,000 people in it. I'll have to go find where I read it at. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tierwestah Posted March 21, 2008 Share Posted March 21, 2008 Philly isn't going to be its own metro for much longer anyway. They say Philly and NYCs metro is supposed to merge to one by 2010. So Houston is already reserved at the #5 spot in metro. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Houston19514 Posted March 21, 2008 Share Posted March 21, 2008 Philly isn't going to be its own metro for much longer anyway. They say Philly and NYCs metro is supposed to merge to one by 2010. So Houston is already reserved at the #5 spot in metro.I am confident Philly will still be its own metro, at least under current definitions. They may be combined into NYC's Combined Area, but that's a whole other topic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Houston19514 Posted March 21, 2008 Share Posted March 21, 2008 It was Mercer County which has 120,000 people in it. I'll have to go find where I read it at.In looking at the Census Bureau website, I find no Mercer County in either the Philadelphia or the NYC metropolitan statistical area. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Houston19514 Posted March 21, 2008 Share Posted March 21, 2008 (edited) Houston is about 200k behind Philly, but could catch them before the 2010 census and possibly break 6million just a bit after that.JasonIt actually looks like Houston should overtake Philly pretty easily in the 2009 estimates and will probably break 6 million in time for the 2010 census. To get an accurate picture of Houston's current growth, you have to look at 2005-2006 and 2006-2007 growth cumulatively, because of the Katrina refugees inflating the 2005-2006 growth and reducing the the 2006-2007 growth. Those estimates may even be conservative... if anything Houston's growth has probably accelerated. 94,000 new jobs last year; that should like lead to at a population growth more like 200,000. Edited March 21, 2008 by Houston19514 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trae Posted March 21, 2008 Author Share Posted March 21, 2008 In looking at the Census Bureau website, I find no Mercer County in either the Philadelphia or the NYC metropolitan statistical area.It's there. I may have it confused with CSA. I'm on a roll in this thread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Houston19514 Posted March 21, 2008 Share Posted March 21, 2008 (edited) It's there. I may have it confused with CSA. I'm on a roll in this thread.I imagine Mercer County is in there somewhere, but it's not in either of those metro areas (Philly or NYC). Presuming you aretalking about Mercer County, NJ, it is actually its own metro area - the Trenton Ewing metro area,with a 2007 estimated population of 367,605. It is party of the NYC-Newark-Bridgeport CSA.As far as I can tell, it was part of NYC's CMSA (as they were called then) in the 2000 census already. Edited March 21, 2008 by Houston19514 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wxman Posted March 27, 2008 Share Posted March 27, 2008 (edited) I was reading in the Chronicle today that Houston ranked fourth for population growth, surpassed by the usual suspects such as Atlanta, Phoenix and...Dallas? Dallas actually ranked No. 1. I think that's sad. With the title "Energy Capital of the World," I would have thought Houston would rank above Dallas. They gained ~160,000 and we gained ~120,000 to the entire metro area from July of 06' to July of 07'. Edited March 27, 2008 by wxman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trae Posted March 27, 2008 Author Share Posted March 27, 2008 (edited) DFW and Houston switch out every year in growth. Last year, it was Houston. Year before that, DFW. The two years before that, Houston, etc. http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/5651927.html The Houston metropolitan area ranked fourth in the nation for overall population growth between 2006 and 2007, according to new census data — an increase demographers attributed largely to the region's economy.The Houston-Sugar Land-Baytown area attracted slightly more than 120,500 new residents from July 2006 through July 2007, according to U.S. Census Bureau estimates released today for geographic regions known as metropolitan statistical areas. The Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington area ranked No. 1 in the nation in terms of raw population growth, and Austin-Round Rock and San Antonio also made the top 10. Karl Eschbach, director of the Texas State Data Center in San Antonio, said the job market and economy are driving the state's population growth. "It's the combination of international and domestic migration that's pushing Texas cities to the top," Eschbach said. New Orleans showed the first signs of recovery in the population estimates, though Eschbach warned that does not necessarily herald a "rapid recovery." After reporting record-setting population losses after Hurricane Katrina in 2005, the New Orleans metropolitan area had an estimated population increase of about 39,885 from summer 2006 through 2007, making it the eighth-fastest-growing in the nation. Edited March 27, 2008 by Trae Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
banking214 Posted March 27, 2008 Share Posted March 27, 2008 I am confused. Dallas Fort-Worth is saying that they have moved ahead of Philly.http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dw...sus.aac025.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Houston19514 Posted March 27, 2008 Share Posted March 27, 2008 I am confused. Dallas Fort-Worth is saying that they have moved ahead of Philly.http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dw...sus.aac025.htmlWhat is confusing about that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.