A few months ago, several news outlets reported that new census data showed that the cities were growing faster than the suburbs. This brought comfort to those urban planners who believe that inner cities are better than suburbs and that most people would prefer to live in them if only they understood all the benefits.
It turns out that, as a writer for NewGeography discovered, the reports are pure bunkum. A Census Bureau document specifies that city-suburb population estimates were based solely on “the extrapolated county estimates down to each subcounty area within a county based on 2010 Census proportions.” In other words, if a central city held 40 percent of the people in a county in 2010, the Census Bureau presumed that 40 percent of the region’s growth would be in the city.
The spectrum of anxiety disorders includes panic attacks, agoraphobia, generalized and social anxiety too cialis online no prescription as post-traumatic anxiety disorder. Unlike cults, religious groups support the family structure and can be credited with attempting to emphasize its cialis no prescription cheap importance in the face of the collapse of the nuclear family. So, for this you need to overcome the anxiety first to overcome the impotence. viagra sales online And the functions which restrict working are normally the functions, which are not essential sildenafil no prescription for survival.
Maybe next year the Census Bureau can just turn over the counts to urban planners who will assign population growth to politically correct areas such as Portland and record population declines in politically incorrect areas such as Houston. After all, why bother doing a census if the numbers are simply going to be extrapolated from the previous census?
The Census is done every 10 years. Every report between those Censuses (Censusi? Censussesii?) is done with projections. And has been since time immemorial. This is why th’ plaaaannurz take mid-decade reports with several grains of salt.
I appreciate the wish for everyone to have a tidy home with white picket fence containing the family-friendly dog, but having a conniption over standard practice isn’t the way to make your wish come true, Randal.
DS
“I appreciate the wish for everyone to have a tidy home with white picket fence containing the family-friendly dog, but having a conniption over standard practice isn’t the way to make your wish come true, Randal.”
You must be reading under the influence again, Dan, because there is nothing in Randall’s post that leads one to infer that he has made a “wish for everyone” to live in a suburban SFH. You know. Like your suburban SFH.
Of course planners don’t have a “wish for everyone” to live in high rise buildings, but that’s never stopped Antiplanners from making such assertions.
Those assertions unfortunately undermine, but it’s understandable given the urban elitism and animosity toward suburbia shared by the more vociferous advocates of government planning. It looks like some are hypocritical, essentially choosing the opposite of what they so vociferously advocate. I suppose that statement applies to both sides.
Of course planners don’t have a “wish for everyone†to live in high rise buildings, but that’s never stopped Antiplanners from making such assertions.
Don’t forget that usually these assertions are accompanied by the word “force”, revealing fear that their homes are going to be bulldozed by people wearing UN-blue helmets and orange vests with ‘Agenda 21’ lettering emblazoned on them, said homes replaced by Soviet-style concrete apartment blocks.
DS
Ah stupidboy is here again. Let’s provide quotes that show what planners like him REALLY think:
New Urbanist James Kunstler refers to the auto-centered world as “the evil empire.” Metro advocates such as Portland City Commissioner Charles Hales often talk of people having a “love affair with” or being “addicted to” their cars, as if use of the auto was somehow irrational. Planners just cannot believe that people use cars because for many purposes they are more efficient and more convenient than any other form of transportation.
One planner told Washington Post writer Joel Garreau that he would “fix” the suburbs by increasing “dramatically the real residential population. . . . I’d raise the gasoline tax by 300 percent. I’d raise the price of automobiles enormously. . . . I’d limit movement completely. . . . And then I would put enormous costs on parking.” In short, comments Garreau, this planner would “force Americans to live in a world that few now seem to value.” But it sounds very similar to what Metro wants to do to Portland.
Portland City Commissioner Charles Hales refers to the suburbs as “trash. . . godawful subdivisions.” Hales’ complaint is that many of Portland’s suburbs are low density which, in his opinion, wastes land. So Metro wants to zone the suburbs out of existance by forcing them to accept higher densities. “Suburbs are passé,” says Michael Burton, Metro’s director.
there is nothing in Randall’s post that leads one to infer that he has made a “wish for everyone†to live in a suburban SFH.
This specific post doesn’t have to contain that passage or implication for my assertion to be valid.
DS
This specific post doesn’t have to contain that passage or implication for my assertion to be
validstupid.metrosucks; James Kunstler refers to the auto-centered world as “the evil empire.†Metro advocates such as Portland City Commissioner Charles Hales often talk of people having a “love affair with†or being “addicted to†their cars, as if use of the auto was somehow irrational.
THWM: It’s more like a love/hate thing, just look at a cul-de-sac.
Though suburbs don’t have to be hostile places either, they can be walkable and transit friendly too.
“…the extrapolated county estimates down to each subcounty area within a county based on 2010 Census proportions…”
The alternative is to use old static data. So my snarkey response to Mr. O’Toole’s snarky statement, “Maybe next year the Census Bureau can just turn over the counts to urban planners …” is maybe we should just do nothing and wait for some mythical invisible hand to solve all our problems. Why collect any data if we can’t insure 100% accuracy?
Now that I know Mr. O’Toole’s standard for planners is perfection, it will be fun to use the same standard on his reporting (it’s going to get much harder to convince me that zoning is responsible for housing bubbles).
How would you calculate growth Mr. O’Toole?
If the Census Bureau is going to extrapolate something to generate an estimate, why not just extrapolate the growth rates for cities from 2000 to 2010, converted to an annual basis? Is there any reason to believe that central city growth rates are systematically related to the growth rates of the counties they are located in?
When I do the projections I do it at the blockgroup level (Using the 2000-2010 method you describe). It’s still far from perfect.
why not just extrapolate the growth rates for cities from 2000 to 2010, converted to an annual basis?
That was already done. This was a report for a different time period.
Is there any reason to believe that central city growth rates are systematically related to the growth rates of the counties they are located in?
Probably for many areas yes.
One must wonder: since what they did in this instance is what is done all the time, where was all the complaining about suburban growth rates in the past being skewed?
DS
I have been reading this blog for quite a few years and love the Dan/DS/highwayman axis of evil, and more importantly the fact that the AP does not ban these offensive fools.
Why?
Surely it’s obvious. They make his case.
Fred,
The general philosophy of this blog is that people are free to state their opinion, however foolish it may make them look. I tend to agree with this. Unless someone is spamming the site with advertisements (which has remarkably not been much of a problem — probably due to the login requirement), I don’t see any particular reason to ban any of the frequent posters. Trolls are trolls. The best way to handle them is to ignore them and not give them the attention they crave.
If I’m a troll, then I’m a troll against bullshit.
O’Toole’s case is purely political, not economic.
Roads don’t have to make money. So why should railroads have to make money?
So, let me get this straight. Highwayman, you like to take shots at Randal and (what you perceive to be) his evil Cato handlers.
In your apparent view, Cato exists solely to carry out the ominous cha cha cha of Ayn Rand while remaining willfully oblivious to any and all social and cultural problems because the only thing that matters in LIFE AND ESPECIALLY AT CATO is profit yielded from the crushed spines of the poor, women, children and elderly.
These economic mercenaries of CATO and their demon SOULS have decided to feast on the carrion of anyone who (gasp) believes government isn’t a benevolent French Kiss of joy, pleasure and titillation.
Highwayman, did a road touch you inappropriately at some point in your formative years? Put down the shy, emasculated male teen novels for f#ck’s sake.
“Cato exists solely to carry out the ominous cha cha cha of Ayn Rand while remaining willfully oblivious to any and all social and cultural problems …”
Pretty much. I’d sugarcoat it a little more though.
How is government a benevolent French Kiss of joy, pleasure and titillation?
I’m a conservative, not a libertarian.
These economic mercenaries of CATO and their demon SOULS have decided to feast on the carrion of anyone who (gasp) believes government isn’t a benevolent French Kiss of joy, pleasure and titillation.
Apologies for this part making no sense. It was late, and I was riffing incoherently.