KCRag Forum

According to this migration/birth/death rate study KC metro hit 2.07M population last year. Domestic migration starting to increase again after some losses in 2011/12, although international growth mostly offset it. 0.8% annual net growth still not quite as good as 1990s/2000s, but raw growth of 16K over one year not too bad. International inmigration pretty consistent at around 3.2K-3.6K/yr.

KC Metro
http://recenter.tamu.edu/data/pop/popm/cbsa28140.asp

STL Metro still has significant domestic outmigration and international inmigration not offsetting it, but starting to improve. Is barely growing only because of birth rate.
http://recenter.tamu.edu/data/pop/popm/cbsa41180.asp

Minneapolis Metro surprisingly has domestic outmigration quite often but a lot of international inmigration to offset it with net growth of about 1%/yr...
http://recenter.tamu.edu/data/pop/popm/cbsa33460.asp

Chicago also has more domestic outmigration than international inmigration, showing only .1% net growth recently due to birthrate....
http://recenter.tamu.edu/data/pop/popm/cbsa16980.asp

And then there's Denver hitting on all cylinders...
http://recenter.tamu.edu/data/pop/popm/cbsa19740.asp

.

Wasn't there some criticism of these between-Census numbers last time? For instance, year to year estimates had the city of St. Louis gaining population 2000-2010 whereas the actual 2010 Census showed a population loss. Has there been any refinement of the modeling? (asking the room in general)

.

Census Bureau might still be overestimating a bit as they might be trying to estimate illegal immigration and those off the grid. TAMU says about 3700 net in-migration for KC metro in 2014, Census Bureau says 5295.

edit: Or it could depend on which counties TAMU includes vs Census Bureau - to define KC metro.

Does anybody know how to parse out the Jackson County portion of KC's population loss? I assume we are still losing, but I am curious by what percent.

The article shows by county as well further down... Jackson had a slight gain of 145 net migration.
http://www.bizjournals.com/kansascity/n ... anges.html

TAMU breaks it down and shows the same, JaCo gained 1006 international and lost 861, a net of 145 gained in 2014. Including birth/death rate, the growth was about 3100.
http://recenter.tamu.edu/data/pop/popc/cnty29095.asp

earthling wrote:The article shows by county as well further down... Jackson had a slight gain of 145 net migration.
http://www.bizjournals.com/kansascity/n ... anges.html

TAMU breaks it down and shows the same, JaCo gained 1006 international and lost 861, a net of 145 gained in 2014. Including birth/death rate, the growth was about 3100.
http://recenter.tamu.edu/data/pop/popc/cnty29095.asp

What I am unable to figure out is is that the County as a whole (with the rest of the growth being birth rate), which is how I read it, or is that KC south of the river? If the former, is there any way to find stats on KC south of the river's population loss?

.

since (I think) KC is the only city in Jackson County that spills over into other counties[/quote]
Lee's Summit, Oak Grove both do too.

flyingember wrote:since (I think) KC is the only city in Jackson County that spills over into other counties

Lee's Summit, Oak Grove both do too.[/quote]

Fractionally. Not in majority like KCMO.

shinatoo wrote:

flyingember wrote:

since (I think) KC is the only city in Jackson County that spills over into other counties

Lee's Summit, Oak Grove both do too.

Fractionally. Not in majority like KCMO.

outside Jackson isn't a majority of KC. It's a little under 2/3 of the city by population.

flyingmmber, I really appreciate the in-depth and studied contributions you make to this forum. I consider you a valuable member. But, I don't know if it's just your personalty, or a maturity issue, but the pedantic nitpicking is pretty grating at times.

The point is there is a significant enough portion of KC MO outside of Jackson county that warrants the effort to gather statistics on it. Not true of OG and LS.

shinatoo wrote:flyingmmber, I really appreciate the in-depth and studied contributions you make to this forum. I consider you a valuable member. But, I don't know if it's just your personalty, or a maturity issue, but the pedantic nitpicking is pretty grating at times.

The point is there is a significant enough portion of KC MO outside of Jackson county that warrants the effort to gather statistics on it. Not true of OG and LS.

pedantic? I'm arguing that your entire premise that you cross county lines for information about only one town is substantially flawed. That you have to ignore city and county boundaries and go more with areas centered on a population.

I bet a significant number of people that consider themselves to live "in" Lee's Summit or Oak Grove don't live inside the city limits. And that those populations cross the county line with ease because of their position. Oak Grove is a better example than the annexation mess that is Raymore-Lee's Summit, Greenwood and Lake Winnebago but I bet you can find plenty of people near Raintree Lane in the county associating with Lee's Summit if they work, go to church, go to youth sports and shop in Lee's Summit more than other towns nearby.

I might have used Napoleon as an example but figured those two were better examples of places people would move to these days. And Raymore seemed unlikely to be able to annex into Jackson while Lee's Summit could easier annex to the east of Greenwood and head south that way.

I missed Smithville as another good example of self-identification with that town for an area that straddles county lines. It's not hard to live a mile or two from downtown and be out of town and in a different county.

To a degree the state line does the same thing. There's reasons to live on one side of state line road vs the other, but from real world results does it matter for this purpose? If you built two apartment complexes at 47th and State Line road would it really matter which state each is in for info on migration from outside the area?

"I want to move to Kansas City" doesn't mean "Kansas City" anymore than "I want to move to Lee's Summit" means moving inside the city limits.

So it's great to split out people that live in suburban clay county, but don't be surprised if migration patterns don't follow city or county boundaries in any fashion for good data. Plenty of people live in Shoal Creek who move to "Liberty," especially with the unified school district.

I would bet if you actually looked by school district and ignored all the other boundaries you would get better data. Schools drive way more end point movement decisions than anything else in the city.

Just a little bit of fun information concerning the above and self-identification. My wife grew up in a Kansas City area between Swope Park and Raytown just west of 435. Her elementary school was in Raytown, she graduated from Raytown South, her mother worked in Raytown, her church was in Raytown, she shopped in Raytown, and so on and so on. In other words her identity was as a Raytown resident although she lived in KC. I would imagine this is how many feel who live in KC east of Raytown, or to the south Lees' Summit

One of the questions I have that I think would be interesting to find out about the change in demographics south of the to river is about change in income. I wonder if even though south of the river may be losing some population if they are being replace by people with a higher income level- or at least more disposable income?

Put simply, low income families moving out. DINKs moving in. Small net population loss possibly (though that seems to be reversing) but generally an increase in economic activity. I'm not sure this is accurate(or even overall a good thing), but just a thought.

^On paper you'd think that is the case but would be good to see actual zipcode economic analysis of lower population with singles/dinks with relatively more disposable income vs higher population via more families. Would think higher density household occupancy is more of a factor than population within same households.

...

There were at least 10,000 homes under construction just in the northland in the past few years
Downtown gained many thousands as well (2000-3000).

So that's 22,000 right there and we haven't even looked at other parts of the city.

Remember, the census tends to under counts since it's voluntary.

The city has the 1% tax data which gives a good idea on the number of working residents who live in KCMO and the schools have student data that I bet is shared for residency status determination.

I would bet that number is accurate or very close to it.