NewGeography.com blogs

The 2009 Census Bureau estimates indicated that Phoenix had become the nation's 12th largest metropolitan area, passing San Francisco and Riverside-San Bernardino since 2000. The census count for 2010 indicates that Phoenix remains the 14th largest metropolitan area and failed to pass either San Francisco or Riverside-San Bernardino during the decade.

Nonetheless, Phoenix grew rapidly, adding 28.9 percent to its population. The metropolitan area had 4,193,000 residents in 2010, up from 3,252,000 in 2000.

The historical core municipality of Phoenix also grew less than expected. The 2009 Census Bureau estimates placed the population at 1,570,000, having passed Philadelphia to become the nation's fifth largest municipality. The city of Phoenix has a near universal suburban form, with a land area 520 square miles, four times that of Philadelphia. The 2010 census count was far smaller than expected, at 1,446,000, up from 1,332,000 in 2000, but still well below Philadelphia's 1,526,000. The 124,000 gain was the smallest of any census period since 1940-1950, at the end of which the city had 107,000 residents. The population growth rate was 9.3 percent, the lowest percentage increase rate since the 1880-1890 census period. The city of Phoenix captured 13 percent of the metropolitan growth, down from 33 percent in the 1990-2000 census period.

Suburban population growth was much stronger, at 42.4 percent. Suburban Pima County doubled in size and its exurban municipalities experienced strong growth. The city of Maricopa grew by 4,000 percent, from 1,000 to 43,000. Casa Grande nearly doubled in size. Suburbs within the core county of Maricopa also grew quickly. Buckeye, the last urbanization for 100 miles west on Interstate 10 grew from 7,000 to 51,000. Other urban fringe or near-urban fringe municipalities also grew quickly, such as Gilbert (109,000 to 209,000), Surprise (31,000 to 117,000) and Goodyear (19,000 to 65,000). The suburbs captured 87 percent of the metropolitan area growth, up from 67 percent in the 1990s.

The Department of Commerce released trade balance numbers for January this morning, reporting that the monthly deficit jumped to $46.3 billion, up from $40.3 billion in December. Economists had been projecting a deficit of $41.5 billion. The larger than expected number may lead some economists to “lower their estimates for economic growth in the January-March quarter based on the wider deficit.”

However, buried within the dark clouds is a silver lining. U.S. exports actually hit an all time high of $167.7 billion during the month, potentially showing signs of a strengthening economic recovery. This is up from $125.4 billion in January, 2009 and $144.7 billion in January, 2010. American exporters appear to be on a roll, and gaining momentum.

Exports of services also continues to be a point of trade strength for the nation. While year over year increases were smaller than those in overall exports (47.2 billion, up from 44.2 billion in January, 2010) the nation actually had one month trade surplus of $13.4 billion in services. This is up from past years, and is not an anomaly- the nation has marked a trade surplus in the services sector throughout the past two years.

The increase in the size of the deficit can largely be attributed to issues in two areas; petroleum and consumer goods. As oil prices continue to rise, the cost of oil imports have surged as well. In January alone, the nation imported 34.9 billion in petroleum products, leading to a deficit of $26.7 billion. This represents an increase of 21.5% over last January, and up 4.7% over the previous month.

The rise in the consumer goods deficit may actually be good news, of a sort. While the deficit itself is disconcerting, the detailed numbers show that imports of apparel, textiles, appliances, and other household related products are up notably. While increased imports in these sectors serve to worsen our trade balance with China (up to $23.3 billion in January, from $20.7 billion in December), increased demand for such retail goods could be a sign that the American economy, largely centered around consumer spending, is starting to catch some momentum again. According to economist Joseph LaVorgna, interviewed by CNN, while the deficit is wider, “the numbers actually imply a very healthy economy… The gain in imports was in every category. Domestic demand is still very firm and producers are rebuilding their inventories.”

The Hartford metropolitan area grew 5.5 percent between 2000 and 2010, according to new census data that has just been released. In 2000, the metropolitan area had 1,149,000 residents, a figure that rose to 1,221,000 in 2010.

The city of Hartford, the historical core municipality, grew from 124,100 (the 2000 base) to 124,800 over the period, for a growth rate of 0.5 percent. This small growth was a turnaround for Hartford, which had a peak population of 177,000 in 1950. Then, Hartford was the largest municipality in Connecticut, but has since been passed by both Bridgeport and New Haven. The city accounted for one percent of the metropolitan area's growth.

The suburbs grew at a rate of 6.2 percent and captured 99 percent of the metropolitan area's growth. Tolland County grew 12.0 percent, nearly double or more the population growth rates in the other two counties. Middlesex County grew 6.8 percent. The core county, Hartford (which includes the city of Hartford), grew the slowest, at 4.3 percent.

Just released census data indicates that the Pittsburgh metropolitan area declined in population from 2,431,000 in 2000 to 2,356,000 in 2010, a loss of 3.1 percent. The loss reflects a continuing trend of regional declines. The present geographical area of the Pittsburgh metropolitan area has a population below that of 1930 and has lost 400,000 residents (at percent) since 1960. No other major metropolitan area has experienced a loss since 1960 (including Katrina ravaged New Orleans).

Both the historical core municipality, the city of Pittsburgh and the suburbs declined. The suburbs experienced a loss of 2.2 percent, but accounted for 61 percent of the metropolitan area loss. All six suburban counties except Butler (5.6 percent) and more distant Washington (2.4 percent) experienced losses. The core county of Allegheny (which includes the city of Pittsburgh) lost 4.6 percent of its population and nearly 80 percent of the metropolitan area's numeric population loss.

The city of Pittsburgh continued its long decline, falling to 306,000 in 2010 from 335,000 in 2000, a loss of 8.6 percent. The city accounted for 39 percent of the metropolitan area population loss. Pittsburgh's population peaked in 1950 at 677,000 and has fallen 55 percent since that time. Its 2010 population is lower than in any previous census since 1880 (based upon the combined population of Pittsburgh and Allegheny, which subsequently consolidated).

The Columbus (Ohio) metropolitan area increased in population from 1,613,000 in 2000 to 1,837,000 in 2010 (13.9 percent). This growth rate is likely to have been among the strongest in the Midwest and is greater than the growth rate of Seattle, which had grown more quickly in recent decades.

The historical core municipality, the city of Columbus, which is largely suburban in form, grew from 713,000 to 787,000, an increase of 10.4 percent. The city of Columbus captured 33 percent of the metropolitan area's growth.

The suburbs experienced a growth rate of 16.7 percent and captured 67 percent of the metropolitan area growth. Suburban Delaware County had a population increase of 58 percent, while more distant counties, Union (28 percent) and Fairfield (19 percent) also experienced strong growth. The core county of Franklin, which includes the city of Columbus, grew nine percent.

The Cleveland metropolitan area population fell from 2,148,000 in 2000 to 2.077,000 in 2010, according to the just released 2010 census figures. All of the loss was attributable to the city of Cleveland. However, population growth in the suburbs was small.

The 2010 census data indicates that the city of Cleveland lost 16.9 percent of its population between 2000 and 2010, the largest loss yet reported by a historical core municipality (excluding Hurricane Katrina ravaged New Orleans). Cleveland dropped from 477,000 in 2000 to 397,000 in 2010. The city of Cleveland reached its population peak of 914,000 in 1950 and has since fallen 57 percent.

The suburbs added 10,000 residents, for a growth rate of 0.6 percent. This small gain was insufficient to offset the loss of 80,000 residents in the city of Cleveland and the metropolitan area suffered a population loss of 3.3 percent.

The core county of Cuyahoga (which includes the city of Cleveland) declined 114,000 residents, for a loss of 8.2 percent. All of the four suburban counties gained, with by far the largest gain (14 percent) in Medina County.

For the first time since the 1950 census, the city of Philadelphia has registered a gain in population. In 2010, the city had 1,526,000 residents, up 8,000 from the 1,518,000 in 2000. The city had reached its population peak of 2,071,000 in 1950 and even with the increase since 2000 remains below its population as recorded in the 1910 census. The city (the historical core municipality) accounted for three percent of the metropolitan area growth.

Overall, the Philadelphia (Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Delaware and Maryland) metropolitan area grew 4.9 percent, from 5,687,000 t o 5,946,000 residents. While this is modest growth relative to the national rate of 10 percent, the Philadelphia metropolitan area grew faster than the Los Angeles metropolitan area (3.7 percent), which had outgrown Philadelphia in every census period during the 20th century.

The suburbs added 6.5 percent to their population and captured 97 percent of the population growth. Outer suburban Cecil County, Maryland grew the fastest, at 18 percent, while outer suburban Chester County added the most new residents (65,000) and grew 15 percent. Gloucester County, New Jersey also grew quickly, at 13 percent.

Just released 2010 Census data indicates that the city of Los Angeles and Los Angeles County experienced their smallest numeric population growth since the 1890 to 1900 census period.

The city of Los Angeles had been expected to top 4,000,000 population by 2010 and the California State Department of Finance had placed the population at nearly 4,100,000 as of January 1, 2010. In fact, however the census count for April 1, 2000 was 3,793,000, up 98,000 from 3,695,000 in 2000. This means that the State Department of Finance estimated four new residents for every one actual new resident between 2000 and 2010 (We had previously questioned the aggressive population projections released by the State Department of Finance in an Orange County Register op-ed,  60 Million Californians: Don't Bet on It). The lowest number of people added in a previous census period to the population of the city of Los Angeles was 52,000, between 1890 and 1900, with growth from 50,000 to 102,000.

Los Angeles County, by far the largest in the nation, was expected to top 10,000,000 residents by 2010, and the State Department of Finance had estimated a population of 10,441,000. In fact, the census count for Los Angeles County was 9,819,000, up 300,000 from 2000. According to Bureau of the Census estimates, Los Angeles County grew much more strongly early in the decade, achieving more than three-quarters of its decadal growth by 2003. After that, the population dropped at did not recover to above the 2003 level until 2008. The population growth rate came to a near halt as housing prices escalated during the housing bubble. The State Department of Finance population estimate placed the population increase between 2000 and 2010 at more than double that counted by the Census Bureau. The lowest number of people added in a previous census period to the population of Los Angeles County was 69,000, between 1890 and 1900, with growth from 101,000 to 170,000.

The other county in the Los Angeles metropolitan area, Orange, also experienced record low growth. Orange County grew from 2,846,000 to 3,010,000 residents, adding just 164,000 to its population. Not since the 1940 to 1950 period was growth so slow, when the population rose 75,000, from 131,000 to 216,000.

Overall, the Los Angeles metropolitan area grew a lethargic 3.7 percent from 2000 to 2010. This is the slowest growth rate among the 26 metropolitan areas for which data has been reported (with the exception of New Orleans, which lost population due to Hurricane Katina). By comparison, Los Angeles metropolitan area growth between 1990 and 2000 was 9.7 percent. Both slow growing St. Louis (4.2 percent) and Chicago (3.9 percent) grew faster than Los Angeles.

The historic core municipality of Los Angeles attracted 21 percent of the metropolitan area growth, while the suburbs attracted 79 percent of the growth. The suburbs grew 6.2 percent, while the city of Los Angeles grew 2.6 percent.

Population growth continued the strongest in the suburban areas of Riverside-San Bernardino, San Diego and Sacramento, while unusually strong growth occurred in the historical core municipalities, all of which are dominated by a suburban urban form.

Riverside-San Bernardino: Riverside-San Bernardino experienced by far the fastest growth of any metropolitan area in California, at 30 percent from 2000 to 2010. This growth rate placed the metropolitan area otherwise known locally as the "Inland Empire" fourth in growth rate among the 26 reporting major metropolitan areas, behind Raleigh, Las Vegas and Austin. The Riverside-San Bernardino metropolitan area grew from a population of 3,255,000 in 2000 to 4,225,000 in 2010. At the growth rates of the past decade, Riverside-San Bernardino would pass San Francisco, to become the state's second largest metropolitan area by 2012.

Riverside-San Bernardino is virtually an all suburban metropolitan area. The historical core municipality of San Bernardino grew 11.4 percent, from 188,000 in 2000 to 210,000 in 2010, capturing two percent of the metropolitan area growth. Suburban areas accounted for 98 percent of the growth.

San Diego: The San Diego metropolitan area grew 10 percent from 2000 to 2010, rising from 2,814,000 to 3,095,000. This growth rate was nearly double or more than that of the other major coastal metropolitan areas in California (Los Angeles, San Francisco and San Jose). Even so, the actual population count was approximately 130,000 below the California State Department of Finance estimate. We had previously questioned the aggressive population projections released by the State Department of Finance in an Orange County Register op-ed, 60 Million Californians: Don't Bet on It).

The historical core municipality grew 6.9 percent from 1,223,000 to 1,307,000 and, as in 2000 is the nation's eighth largest municipality (having been passed by San Antonio and having passed Dallas). The city of San Diego, with a largely suburban urban form, attracted 30 percent of the metropolitan area population growth. The California State Department of Finance estimate for the city was much higher, at 1,376,000, indicating an estimate of two new residents for every actual resident counted.

Sacramento: The Sacramento metropolitan area grew strongly between 2000 and 2010, at 19.6 percent. The population rose from 1,797,000 to 2,149,000, adding more new residents than the much larger combined metropolitan areas of San Francisco and San Jose.

The historical core municipality of Sacramento grew from 407,000 to 466,000 (a gain of 14.6 percent) and accounted for 17 percent of the metropolitan population growth. Suburban areas grew 21.1 percent and accounted for 83 percent of the metropolitan area growth.

New 2010 Census data indicates that the two major metropolitan areas in the San Francisco Bay Area, San Francisco and San Jose, have settled into a pattern of slow growth.

San Francisco: The San Francisco metropolitan area grew 5.1 percent between 2000 and 2010, a more than one-half drop from the 1990 to 2000 rate of 11.9 percent, from 4,124,000 to 4,335,000, for a gain of 211,000. Only in one decade (1970 to 1980) have the five counties of the metropolitan area gained at such a slow percentage rate.

The historical core municipalities of San Francisco and Oakland gained 20,000 residents, from 1,176,000 to 1,196,000. San Francisco reached a population of 805,000, up from 777,000 in 2000. As in the case of both the city of Los Angeles and Los Angeles County, the State Department of Finance estimate (857,000) was well above the Census Bureau population count (We had previously questioned the aggressive population projections released by the State Department of Finance in an Orange County Register op-ed,  60 Million Californians: Don't Bet on It). Even with this increase, however, the city of San Francisco remains below its population peak of 827,000, recorded in a 1945 special census, according to the Census Bureau.

The city of Oakland declined in population from 399,000 to 391,000. The historical core municipalities grew 1.7 percent, compared to the 6.5 percent growth rate of the suburbs. The historical core municipalities captured nine percent of the metropolitan area growth, with 91 percent of the growth going to the suburbs. The State Department of Finance estimate, at 430,000, was more than 10 percent above the actual Census Bureau count. The city of Oakland also reached its population peak of 401,000 in a 1945 special census.

While San Francisco remains the second largest metropolitan area in the state (after Los Angeles), this distinction could soon be lost. Riverside-San Bernardino registered a population of 4,225,000 and at growth rates of the last decade, would pass San Francisco by 2012.

San Jose: The San Jose metropolitan area grew 5.8 percent between 2000 and 2010, from 1,736,000 to 1,837,000. The historical core municipality of San Jose rose 5.0 percent, from 901,000 in 2000 to 946,000 in 2010. San Jose captured 44 percent of the metropolitan area growth, the highest figure among the reporting metropolitan areas except for the largely suburban historic municipality of Oklahoma City (47 percent). The State Department of Finance had estimated the city of San Jose population at 1,023,000 in 2010, indicating that its growth estimate for the decade was more than 2.5 times the increase indicated in the census count.

The suburbs of the San Jose metropolitan area grew 6.7 percent and accounted for 56 percent of the population growth.