The 2010 Urbanized Area list is out!  Areas marked are losses.

 

http://www.newgeography.com/content/002747-new-us-urban-area-data-released

 

So we lost 1/3 of 1% ?

 

The storm hammered NO @ nearly 11% loss in 10 years.

 

 

What does "Urbanized Area" mean? CLE plus Akron is about 2.8 million. the table above shows us at a weak 1.8 milllion.

Pugu it's the built up area's of at least 1000 people per square miles. Then The USA census or who ever said you can no longer merge urban area's unless you will lose urban status. There is the new urban agglomeration though shows those area's and Canton combined.

^It wouldn't include most of Medina County, Geauga County, etc.  There is probably some minimal population density an area has to achieve to be considered an 'urbanized area'....... however, given some of the above numbers, I would guess that 'urbanized area' and a more common notion of what is 'urban' are not one in the same. 

"Urbanized" doesn't mean dense central cities, it means not agricultural, more or less fully developed for urban uses like housing, retail, commercial, or industrial.  As a statistical proxy, they use 1,000 people per square mile as a minimum density to make the cutoff.  It's really the only way to do it with census numbers, and it's pretty good at catching most low density sprawl and leaving out actual rural environments, though not perfect.

So its a contiguous area of built up area's of at least 1000 people per square miles? So, Akron is out because there is a tiny area in between the two metro areas, when Akron is clearly part of the Cleveland CMSA? Are people challenging this term or at least its definition. As is, does it provide an accurate depiction for anything other than places with one central area of activity (like maybe Boise, ID)?

I know it's an "urban" thread, but the estimates for state populations have been released.  Good for Pennslyvania.

 

http://www.census.gov/popest/data/state/totals/2012/tables/NST-EST2012-02.csv

Wow, the Three C's added a lot of sprawl!

 

Interesting to see San Francisco and San Diego losing land but adding people. Ditto with Virginia Beach.

Houston and Atlanta added over 1 million people to their urbanized areas over the past decade.  Dallas-Fort-Worth added close to a million.  Miami- close to 600,000.  Charlotte and Austin- close to half a mil.  Columbus is up by 234,000 and Cincy is up by 121,000. What the FRACK is Cleveland doing wrong?  Why the continual decline? 

Here are the Ohio 2000 and 2010 figures.

 

I’ve always found MSA’s, and to some extent CSA’s to be far more indicative of a metropolitan areas population and trends, but these urbanized area stats are interesting to use in comparison, especially for discussions on sprawl.

You would probably agree that all of these different boundary types have good things and bad things about them.  One nice thing about Urban Areas is that they are not stuck with county boundaries.  So, for Dayton, this means that its Urban Area includes parts of Warren County, whereas all of Warren County is in the Cincinnati MSA.

Exactly and that is what I do not like about MSA/CSA. In some areas, counties are huge and others are smaller. Pittsburgh VS Cleveland is an example of that issue and urban area helps to make it a "more level" playing field.

It would be interesting to compare the population and land area changes between metro areas in Acetones chart, to maybe figure the velocity of sprawl or something....

 

 

So I'm guessing when your land area goes up that's a bad thing and indicates buildings and homes being torn down?

What do you all think Cleveland propers population # will be when the bleeding stops it has to stop sometime. In 2010 we had 396,000 people roughly and in 2011 we had around 393,000 people a drop of 0.8% so we would be at around 361,560 in 2020 if that stays consistent. I believe at around 350,000 the turnaround will occur.

If the westside mirrors the eastside's populations losses, I'm guessing the numbers will be significantly worse.

If the westside mirrors the eastside's populations losses, I'm guessing the numbers will be significantly worse.

 

Is there any reason to think that it would?  The east side lost 22.3% of its population between 2000 and 2010, and the west side lost 9.5% (only slightly higher than the county average.)  Not that an almost 10% loss isn't sobering, but I don't think the situation on the west side is really comparable, for a lot of reasons.

 

http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2011/03/clevelands_shifting_population.html