Ross Bender wrote:
Through the magic of Google, I have just tossed together a little
spreadsheet which y'all can access at:
http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=pDuOwIW6e9RDj7O1-JyW4Eg
It shows the 2000 Census figures for "Metropolitan Statistical Areas",
in which the Philly MSA is indeed in fourth place. However, the growth
rate was only on the order of 5% over the last decade, whereas the rest
of the pack on its heels had growth rates of 25-30%.
The second part of the chart shows the Census ranking estimates for
cities (2005) which demonstrates vividly that Philly is going down. (Not
that that's a bad thing -- gives us a little more room here to move
around.)
At any rate, the CCD is obviously being disingenuous in calling Philly
"fourth largest" in its 2007 propaganda.
Ross Bender
http://rossbender.org/mandingue.html
Salutations, gentlefolk,
Couple of points I'd make here:
First - Much of Philadelphia's 'population decline' is result of
existing, and continuously occupied, homes, which now house fewer people
than they did 55 years ago. Did some research once on the place I lived
in back in '80, in Fairmount / Francisville / Brewerytown, which before
WWII was home to Mom and Dad, 5 children, Grandma, and maiden aunt, and
by 1980 had been split into three apartments housing two singles and a
couple.
So, same buildings, fewer people, more stuff, maybe 'a higher standard
of living' ...
Second - At some point in the future the SMSA's of Houston and Dallas,
or Phoenix and Tucson, may collide, ubt the Philly SMSA is already
contiguous with those of Baltimore, NY, and Lancaster/Harrisburg/York.
Third - Was the Weather Bureau 'disingenuous' for saying the noon
temperature Saturday was 69 Farenheit, when everyone knew it would be
significantly colder soon thereafter ?
Yours, John Desmond
----
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the
list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe or for archive information, see
<http://www.purple.com/list.html>.
