US Census Bureau data for Austin and other cities - Page 2

wwmiv · #21 Posted **Mar 31, 2014, 1:52 PM**

Austin MSA's year to year growth rate plummeted over the last three years according to the census bureau. The last year was 2.61%. The year before that was 2.99%, and the year before that was 3.13%. That's not a good trend line for us.

San Antonio's increased from 1.83, to 1.91, to 1.93 over those three years. Not the best trend should Austin still want to outgrow S.A. MSA.

Novacek · #22 Posted **Mar 31, 2014, 2:09 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by wwmiv

Austin MSA's year to year growth rate plummeted over the last three years according to the census bureau. The last year was 2.61%. The year before that was 2.99%, and the year before that was 3.13%. That's not a good trend line for us.

San Antonio's increased from 1.83, to 1.91, to 1.93 over those three years. Not the best trend should Austin still want to outgrow S.A. MSA.

I'm not really sure these estimates are accurate to two decimal places. Anytime the census displays the numbers (http://www.census.gov/newsroom/relea..._top_metro.pdf, factfinder, etc.) they only go out to a single decimal.

wwmiv · #23 Posted **Mar 31, 2014, 3:17 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Novacek

I'm not really sure these estimates are accurate to two decimal places. Anytime the census displays the numbers (http://www.census.gov/newsroom/relea..._top_metro.pdf, factfinder, etc.) they only go out to a single decimal.

True enough.

JGFrisco · #24 Posted **Mar 31, 2014, 3:17 PM**

I actually wasn't talking Austin/SA as a potential CMSA. I was referring to the Rio Grande Valley.

As a person who travels extensively, it's hard t explain but there is just a "feel" to a metro area. Example...Dallas and Fort Worth clearly "feel" like one big metroplex. But Washington and Baltimore do not, even though they are the same distance apart.

Part is media market type. dFW is one media market. DC and Baltimore are separate, with separate tv and radio stations.

The Valley "feels" like a single metro area. People think they are from the Valley, not one city or the other. TV and radio cover the whole area as their base market as well.

By this measure Austin and SA are really not one contiguous metro area.

wwmiv · #25 Posted **Mar 31, 2014, 3:45 PM**

People may "feel" like they are part of one big metro in the Valley, but their actions speak louder than their feelings.

JGFrisco · #26 Posted **Apr 3, 2014, 4:56 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by wwmiv

People may "feel" like they are part of one big metro in the Valley, but their actions speak louder than their feelings.

What are their "actions"? The MSA concept of using work patterns has its limits. If you have an area with a bunch of smaller cities and no "central" city, it doesn't really fly. In the Valley, there is no "central" city, but it is a community, a metro area just like Austin is.

JGFrisco · #27 Posted **Apr 3, 2014, 5:07 PM**

By the way, I missed a few things, including leaving out a few smaller counties. The official list from the census...

DFW 6,810,913
Houston 6,313,158
SA 2,277,550
Austin 1,883,051

Growth since 2010

DFW +384,699
Houston +392,742
SA +135,042
Austin +166,762

However, if you break it down to 2012-2013, SA added 43,056 residents while Austin added 47,941.

Jdawgboy · #28 Posted **Apr 3, 2014, 7:03 PM**

Look for Austin to have a rapid increase in growth once the 2014 numbers come in next year. We need to remember that what we are experiencing right now is not included with the latest statistics.

Another interesting indicator is number of jobs. Take a look at this graphic from the census.

Despite the difference in population Austin and San Antonio are pretty equal when it comes to jobs. Not only that but Austin is clearly adding more jobs and by the rate of growth, we may pass San Antonio by the end of the year.

The ATX · #29 Posted **Apr 3, 2014, 7:14 PM**

If San Antonio were in another state it would be a media darling as a boom town and a great city. But since it's in Texas it doesn't get its fair share of credit or mentioned as much as the other three members of the Big Four.

pscajunguy · #30 Posted **May 2, 2015, 4:13 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by GoldenBoot

I respectfully disagree. Houston or Dallas will get these types of designs before Austin. Remember: higher design = higher average cost per SF for the buyer. As much as I would like to see it here, I do not think Austin can support this type of design we are describing in this thread...at this time.

I truly hope I am wrong.

2014 City population estimates are planned to be released on 5/20. I estimate Austin will be 912,000; what's yours?
BTW, I just heard on Public Radio that LA didn't quite reach 4,000,000 for the 1914 estimates. Have they already been released, and I couldn't find them?

wwmiv · #31 Posted **May 2, 2015, 4:27 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by pscajunguy

BTW, I just heard on Public Radio that LA didn't quite reach 4,000,000 for the 1914 estimates. Have they already been released, and I couldn't find them?

The 1914 estimate?

pscajunguy · #32 Posted **May 2, 2015, 4:33 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by wwmiv

The 1914 estimate?

Yes, That's what they said. They also said that LA was 3,880,000, or something like, that in 2013, which they were! I checked!

wwmiv · #33 Posted **May 2, 2015, 4:35 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by pscajunguy

Yes, That's what they said. They also said that LA was 3,880,000, or something like, that in 2013, which they were! I checked!

They literally accidentally said 1914 rather than 2014 on NPR?

pscajunguy · #34 Posted **May 2, 2015, 4:37 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by wwmiv

The 1914 estimate?

LOL. I'm sorry. The 2014 estimates. My age is finally showing!

wwmiv · #35 Posted **May 2, 2015, 4:38 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by pscajunguy

LOL. I'm sorry. The 2014 estimates. My age is finally showing!

lol! nah, don't be sorry. I got a good chuckle out of it.

GoldenBoot · #36 Posted **May 2, 2015, 3:52 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by pscajunguy

2014 City population estimates are planned to be released on 5/20. I estimate Austin will be 912,000; what's yours?

One metric I use says ~907,000. The other says ~911,000. So, anywhere in the neighborhood of ~910,000 would be a solid guess.

San Antonio, in case anyone cares, should be in the neighborhood of ~1.435 million (as of July 1, 2014).

LoneStarMike · #37 Posted **May 2, 2015, 7:07 PM**

My estimated population guess is 905,500, but I have a question.

Austin (city) Texas Quick Facts

It shows the 2010 population as 790,390. That's obviously based on the official census taken that year. It shows the Population, 2010 (April 1) estimates base as 810,759. Why are these numbers so different? I clicked on those little "i" icons over on the left hand side and read what it said and I didn't understand any of it.

It also states "Population percent change, 2010 to 2013, is derived by dividing the difference between the 2013 population estimate and the April 1, 2010 estimates base by the April 1, 2010 estimates base."

If you do that, the Population percent change 2010-to 2013 is 9.2%.

In Goldenboot's signature, he shows a population increase 2010-2013 as 12.02% most likely because he's comparing the actual 2010 census to the estimated 2013 population. To get a more accurate idea of our growth rate shouldn't we be comparing 2010 estimate to 2013 estimate?

Having said all that . . . . K-e-v-i-n! Can you please move all these off-topic population posts (including mine) to a more appropriate thread - either the off topic thread or else the 2013 Census data for Austin and other cities thread? (You could just drop "2013" from the thread title.) Thanks!

Hey - someone's got to keep us focused. Right Goldenboot?

wwmiv · #38 Posted **May 2, 2015, 8:21 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by LoneStarMike

My estimated population guess is 905,500, but I have a question.

Austin (city) Texas Quick Facts

It shows the 2010 population as 790,390. That's obviously based on the official census taken that year. It shows the Population, 2010 (April 1) estimates base as 810,759. Why are these numbers so different? I clicked on those little "i" icons over on the left hand side and read what it said and I didn't understand any of it.

It also states "Population percent change, 2010 to 2013, is derived by dividing the difference between the 2013 population estimate and the April 1, 2010 estimates base by the April 1, 2010 estimates base."

If you do that, the Population percent change 2010-to 2013 is 9.2%.

In Goldenboot's signature, he shows a population increase 2010-2013 as 12.02% most likely because he's comparing the actual 2010 census to the estimated 2013 population. To get a more accurate idea of our growth rate shouldn't we be comparing 2010 estimate to 2013 estimate?

Having said all that . . . . K-e-v-i-n! Can you please move all these off-topic population posts (including mine) to a more appropriate thread - either the off topic thread or else the 2013 Census data for Austin and other cities thread? (You could just drop "2013" from the thread title.) Thanks!

Hey - someone's got to keep us focused. Right Goldenboot?

Because one of them is an estimate and the other is a count that suffers from significant problems re: undercounting in areas with higher transient populations. Austin has a high transient immigrant population, thus suffers more greatly from undercounting than other areas.

Re: new thread. I'm pretty sure there's an austin sub-forum thread on the census estimates already there, but if not I support a new one as well since that is a hot topic occasionally.

LoneStarMike · #39 Posted **May 2, 2015, 11:30 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by wwmiv

Because one of them is an estimate and the other is a count that suffers from significant problems re: undercounting in areas with higher transient populations. Austin has a high transient immigrant population, thus suffers more greatly from undercounting than other areas.

Well thank you - that answers part of my question, but not the other part. If the 2010 "estimate" is more accurate than the problematic 2010 "official" count, shouldn't we be comparing the 2010 "estimate" to the 2013 "estimate" to get a truer sense of the city's growth rate? Another way to put it is: In your opinion, which figure more accurately represents our rate of growth between 2010 and 2013? 12.02% or 9.2%?

Quote:

Re: new thread. I'm pretty sure there's an austin sub-forum thread on the census estimates already there...

I'm pretty sure you're right considering I provided a direct link to it in the response above yours.

wwmiv · #40 Posted **May 3, 2015, 12:00 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by LoneStarMike

Well thank you - that answers part of my question, but not the other part. If the 2010 "estimate" is more accurate than the problematic 2010 "official" count, shouldn't we be comparing the 2010 "estimate" to the 2013 "estimate" to get a truer sense of the city's growth rate? Another way to put it is: In your opinion, which figure more accurately represents our rate of growth between 2010 and 2013? 12.02% or 9.2%?

9.2%. That's the way the census bureau does it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LoneStarMike

I'm pretty sure you're right considering I provided a direct link to it in the response above yours.

I didn't even notice that... That's what I get for skimming.