KC grows in census challenge

[kcjak]

Good news - the US Census Bureau accepted KC's challenge and increased the official population from 450,375 to 475,830.  That moves us up from 39th largest to 35th in the 2007 estimates!

http://www.kansascity.com/news/breaking ... 20877.html

34 Albuquerque city New Mexico 518,271
35 Fresno city California 470,508
36 Long Beach city California 466,520
37 Sacramento city California 460,242
38 Mesa city Arizona 452,933
39 Kansas City city Missouri 450,375
40 Cleveland city Ohio 438,042

[KCMax]

EAT IT SACRAMENTO!!!!

[dangerboy]

As discussed here last year, some people think it's closer to 530,000...

http://www.kcuma.org/

[bbqboy]

who decides if Lawrence and or St Joe get added to to the metro area in the 2010 Census?

[kcmetro]

who decides if Lawrence and or St Joe get added to to the metro area in the 2010 Census?

Lawrence and St. Joe

[GRID]

Lawrence has been asked to join the KC MSA and they have always turned it down.  So I guess we have to wait till the stats make it mandatory for them to do so, which may never happen.  The biggest reason Lawrence is not part of the KC MSA is because they are their own MSA and they don’t want to give that up.

Even so, Douglas County is more a part of KC than half the other counties in the 10-15 county area.

KC should be Jackson, Clay, Platte, Cass, Wyandotte, Johnson, Leavenworth and Douglas.

That would give us an MSA of just over 2 million and cut our physical MSA size in half.  I hate how people think that the only reason KC reaches 2 million is due to having 15 counties, when 98% of the population is in six counties.

All the rural counties, St Joe and Warrensburg are not part of our MSA.  I think Douglas should be though.

They are part of our region though.  That’s why I say that the region is over 2.6 million which includes Warrensburg, St Joe and Topeka.

This is good for KCMO though.  Sounds like the census was easy to please and this gives me hope that KCMO could easily exceed 500k in the 2010 official census.

[kcjak]

Lawrence has been asked to join the KC MSA and they have always turned it down.  So I guess we have to wait till the stats make it mandatory for them to do so, which may never happen.  The biggest reason Lawrence is not part of the KC MSA is because they are their own MSA and they don’t want to give that up.

Another reason Lawrence turned down being in the KC MSA is because they would be required to adhere to stricter clean air standards that KC proper has had to address in the past few years.  And considering Lawrence tends to value their independence so highly, I can see St Joe being included in the metro before Lawrence.

[Highlander]

Lawrence has been asked to join the KC MSA and they have always turned it down.  So I guess we have to wait till the stats make it mandatory for them to do so, which may never happen.  The biggest reason Lawrence is not part of the KC MSA is because they are their own MSA and they don’t want to give that up.

Even so, Douglas County is more a part of KC than half the other counties in the 10-15 county area.

KC should be Jackson, Clay, Platte, Cass, Wyandotte, Johnson, Leavenworth and Douglas.

That would give us an MSA of just over 2 million and cut our physical MSA size in half.  I hate how people think that the only reason KC reaches 2 million is due to having 15 counties, when 98% of the population is in six counties.

All the rural counties, St Joe and Warrensburg are not part of our MSA.  I think Douglas should be though.

They are part of our region though.  That’s why I say that the region is over 2.5 million.

MSA's need to be set up from the standpoint of geography (which would include proximity, economic interaction, cultural identity, etc...) and not by the whims of the communities involved.  Otherwise, the data they provide are no better than subjective.  Obviously, there is no perfect way to group communities into MSA's but given the criteria used in setting up other MSA's around the country, Lawrence should absolutely be part of the Kansas City MSA.  

[KCPowercat]

I agree, they won't join until they have to do so based on commuters.

[dangerboy]

Funny how a great piece of news about KC's population turns in Thread #97 about Lawrence and the KC MSA. 

[chrizow]

Funny how a great piece of news about KC's population turns in Thread #97 about Lawrence and the KC MSA. 

is it that "great" though? 

"great" news would be that the urban core of KC is adding thousands of people, but i bet it's probably still losing people.  adding folks at i-29 and N 64th isn't "progress" to me.

[aknowledgeableperson]

Good news - the US Census Bureau accepted KC's challenge and increased the official population from 450,375 to 475,830.  That moves us up from 39th largest to 35th in the 2007 estimates!

http://www.kansascity.com/news/breaking ... 20877.html

34 Albuquerque city New Mexico 518,271
35 Fresno city California 470,508
36 Long Beach city California 466,520
37 Sacramento city California 460,242
38 Mesa city Arizona 452,933
39 Kansas City city Missouri 450,375
40 Cleveland city Ohio 438,042

Now, what happens when the cities that were bypassed challenge their numbers and have them increased?

[GRID]

is it that "great" though? 

"great" news would be that the urban core of KC is adding thousands of people, but i bet it's probably still losing people.  adding folks at i-29 and N 64th isn't "progress" to me.

Better than I-35 and 151st.  Much better.

[GRID]

Obviously, there is no perfect way to group communities into MSA's but given the criteria used in setting up other MSA's around the country, Lawrence should absolutely be part of the Kansas City MSA.  

That's always been my point.  L should be part of KC just so KC compares in a fair way to most other MSA stats.  But again, half the rural counties with 20k people not be a part of the MSA.  Franklin in KS is part of the KC MSA and Douglas is not.  That is assinine.

[chrizow]

Better than I-35 and 151st.  Much better.

i dont think so.  new taxpayers in KCMO proper is great and all, but i imagine it's a wash when you consider the fact that city dollars have to maintain the inefiicient suburban developments up there.  it's only "much better" from a "let's stick it to joco b/c i hate KS!" type of mindset.  fight sprawl with sprawl?  f that.  adding sprawl to the metro area is bad news to me, regardless of what municipality it's in.  but yeah, maybe this discussion should be in another thread as well.

[GRID]

chrizow, you will never get it and I will never quite get your JoCo bias.

It's better for a lot of reasons that I won't go into here. Just like West County sprawl is better for metro StL than metro east or st charles sprawl.

Cities have suburbs, 90% of the regional population will be in a suburban setting, not only here, but in nearly every city in America.

Time to come back down to earth.  Having those people in KCMO, MO, etc is far better for the future of KC as a whole than having them in Kansas.  Same deal with LS, BS etc, only to a much lesser extent.  KC needs to fill up that land up there, suburban or not and KCMO, as well as MO needs more of the area’s residents, especially the wealthy or middle class residents.  Not sure why that is so hard to comprehend.

[Highlander]

is it that "great" though? 

"great" news would be that the urban core of KC is adding thousands of people, but i bet it's probably still losing people.  adding folks at i-29 and N 64th isn't "progress" to me.

Do you know the reason for the challenge?  Because I don't.  Speculating, however, it seems it would be tougher to count poor people in the urban core than middle class people in the northen burbs.  Perhaps those additions are actually in the core?

[dangerboy]

Do you know the reason for the challenge?  Because I don't.  Speculating, however, it seems it would be tougher to count poor people in the urban core than middle class people in the northen burbs.  Perhaps those additions are actually in the core?

yes, most of the under count was in the 3rd and 5th districts (The East Side).  Last year a bunch of non-profits did an in-depth analysis of several data sources and came up with an estimate of 530,000 - thus the city's challenge.

[GRID]

yes, most of the under count was in the 3rd and 5th districts (The East Side).  Last year a bunch of non-profits did an in-depth analysis of several data sources and came up with an estimate of 530,000 - thus the city's challenge.

Yea, but I think the 575k number is just from the northland housing stats.  The 530k is more from the undercounted urban core.

[Highlander]

That's always been my point.  L should be part of KC just so KC compares in a fair way to most other MSA stats.  But again, half the rural counties with 20k people not be a part of the MSA.  Franklin in KS is part of the KC MSA and Douglas is not.  That is assinine.

Then again, if Lawrence was part of the KC MSA, our canine sodomy rate would have just risen dramatically.

http://www.kansascity.com/news/breaking ... 20981.html