South Carolina's Cities (Healthy cities vs not So Healthy)

[krazeeboi]

Well, look at ol' Rock Hill, trying to make a little bit of noise.

[monsoon]

Rock Hill is now the 4th largest city in the State, so it's not doing bad at all.

[Spartan]

^ You're exactly right, though the only sub-county employee population geographic body that I can use is zip code based. That has been difficult to use when combining with a census based geography.

But I have been - as a side project - been calculating the percentage of population based on 1 through 5 miles for the major cities. I still need to find an older cd that includes 1990 census figures, in order to calculate a comparison - what direction they are going.

But if anyone is curious enough - I have found some surprising numbers, regarding central city populations: Rock Hill has the second largest 1-mile perimeter population in the state.

Sorry - haven't included Florence, Anderson or Sumter yet, though I doubt they would compare significantly.

Columbia, 8509

Charleston, 11613

Greenville, 5602

Spartanburg, 5314

Rock Hill, 8539

Myrtle Beach, 3412

It's difficult to judge - based on different sized cities, what should be the norm. Smaller cities will 'cap out' at a closer distance than larger cities of course - such as Spartanburg, Rock Hill & Myrtle Beach. Otherwise the population expands beyond - with so far one notable difference, Charleston's population continues to expand beyond 4 to 5 miles, in comparison to Greenville & Columbia's 'cap out' at 3 to 4 miles. But as noted, Charleston contains significantly more people within it's city center than other cities, not to mention the geographic challenges of development placement that exists.

Anyways - it's a work in progress.

That is intersting. When you say "perimeter," what do you mean exactly?

[GvilleSC]

Those numbers are interesting:

Here's what I found on 2 and 3 miles ranges for Greenville:

In 2004:

Within 2 miles of downtown: 34,868

Within 3 miles of downtown: 71,052

For Fun:

Within a 10 minute drive of downtown: 98,793

Within a 15 minute drive of downtown: 165,665

[monsoon]

Source?

[distortedlogic]

I think that all these numbers are very interesting, but they really don't tell much of the story for any of these cities. Spartan, and others, have argued that municipality numbers don't really mean much, escpecially in SC, and i agree with this totally. It is kinda like buying many containers of ice-cream and comparing how many calories are in each serving. One may have 500 (a), another may have 1000(b). On the surface you may think the one with 1000 calories has the most. But you have to delve a little deeper to get more of the picture. In reality, box (b) may have a serving size four times as large as box (a), and you would then discover that box (a) actually has twice as many calories per equal serving size. And someone trying to loose weight could be in for a big surprise if they automatically choose box (a). Basically, numbers only give a small part of the picture. Municipality numbers mean about as much to the "size" of a city, as calories per serving mean to a whole box of ice-cream!

So, to say that a city is or isn't healthy based just on population gain (or loss) is crazy. In addition, to say that because Greenville has lost thousands of manufacturing jobs it is unhealthy is silly. You also have to look at all the other thousands of jobs it has gained in other (and more stable) areas. To say that because Columbia has so many government jobs means it is not healthy, or that because Charleston and Myrtle Beach rely so much on tourism then they are not healthy; all of this is nonsense. It is largely BECAUSE of all these factors that each place IS healthy. The fact that Greenville can take a hit in manufacturing and recover with jobs in other areas is evidence of that health. The fact that Cola is reinvinting it's downtown, that Chas. continues to lure new business and experience such growth, and that MB continues to develop into a major national tourist destination; are all examples of their own health. As has been pointed out before, each of these areas are healthy and great for different reasons. I think these differences are what allow each to continue to grow and flourish in a small and often overlooked state.

Don't get too caught up in all the numbers (even though it is fun to watch them). If you look at area, Cola is the largest (yes including ft. jackson); if you looked at city pop., Chas is the largest (or will be very soon). If you look at density (as the lines are drawn), or county population then Greenville is. If you go strictly by the numbers, with the growth in places like Goose creek, Summerville, Hilton Head, and MB, then it is not a stretch to say that by 2030 or 2040, Greenville may not be in the top 10 in pop. But I do not doubt that it would still have the largest county population (probably by a long shot). Even with Horry's amazing growth since 2000, it has only outgrown Gville county by 3000. And even if Gville fell out of the top 10 in population, it will not lose any of its importance in the state or region, nor will it become less healthy.

Our big 3 may become a big 4 or 5 or whatever, but I think it is safe to say that the Original Big 3 will not be going anywhere. Traveler's Rest is an example of a town that is small, but healthy. It takes advantage of factors like quality of life, natural beauty, a community atmosphere, and nearness to a major metropolitan area. Don't ever confuse size or numbers with healthiness, look at the ingredients in the box of ice-cream.

[monsoon]

I enjoyed reading your post distortedlogic and you are absolutely correct.

[krazeeboi]

Now that was anything but "distorted logic"; great post!

[waccamatt]

Yeah, Columbia is bigger now than it has ever been.

That's right, the '06 estimates are at 121,000+.

If you look at area, Cola is the largest (yes including ft. jackson); if you looked at city pop., Chas is the largest (or will be very soon).

I'm not sure where you get that; Columbia has almost 20,000 more people than Charleston and is growing steadily.

[teshadoh]

That is intersting. When you say "perimeter," what do you mean exactly?

Sorry - just a buffer / spatial querry based on distance from a central point.

[krazeeboi]

That's right, the '06 estimates are at 121,000+.

If you look at area, Cola is the largest (yes including ft. jackson); if you looked at city pop., Chas is the largest (or will be very soon).

I'm not sure where you get that; Columbia has almost 20,000 more people than Charleston and is growing steadily.

Although Columbia is still the largest (and growing steadily), Charleston has narrowed its lead to around 6,000 or so, according to the city's 2005 population estimate of ~115,000.

[sonofaque86]

Although Columbia is still the largest (and growing steadily), Charleston has narrowed its lead to around 6,000 or so, according to the city's 2005 population estimate of ~115,000.

Where is that estimate? I havent' seen it on the census website...I've seen 2004 estimates of 104,000...Did they grow 11,000 people in 1 year alone or something?

[sonofaque86]

I think by 2015 or 2020 we'll see Lexington in that top 15 list

[monsoon]

That's right, the '06 estimates are at 121,000+.

How can there be estimates for 2006 when 2006 are not over with? At best you can have a "projection".

Unfortunately, at the moment, the trend in Columbia is down and the population there has not changed since the last census over 6 years ago.

Columbia Population

• 2004 - 116,331

• 2003 - 116,940

• 2002 - 116,647

• 2001 - 116,450

• 2000 - 115,936

• Census - 116,278

Seems a bit of a stretch that Columbia all of a sudden has jumped by 5000 residents when it hasn't changed at all for more than 1/2 decade. Is there some specific reason for the difference?

[sonofaque86]

How can there be estimates for 2006 when 2006 are not over with? At best you can have a "projection".

Unfortunately, at the moment, the trend in Columbia is down and the population there has not changed since the last census over 6 years ago.

Columbia Population

• 2004 - 116,331

• 2003 - 116,940

• 2002 - 116,647

• 2001 - 116,450

• 2000 - 115,936

• Census - 116,278

Seems a bit of a stretch that Columbia all of a sudden has jumped by 5000 residents when it hasn't changed at all for more than 1/2 decade. Is there some specific reason for the difference?

Here are the numbers showing Columbia's 2005 estimates.....Columbia's 2005 estimate is 121,395 thats why he is saying 2006 estimates are higher than 121k for 2006...With a projected population of around 126,000 by 2010...The census burea not too long ago said 2002 was 117k for columbia, they change numbers constantly so I'll go with the Central SC Alliance...Even TheState newspaper constantly reports Columbia being above 121,000

http://www.centralsc.org/profiles/?nid=125

[teshadoh]

Those numbers are interesting:

Here's what I found on 2 and 3 miles ranges for Greenville:

In 2004:

Within 2 miles of downtown: 34,868

Within 3 miles of downtown: 71,052

For Fun:

Within a 10 minute drive of downtown: 98,793

Within a 15 minute drive of downtown: 165,665

Interesting, & since I'm not sure I provided a source - I would be interested in your source. My source was 2000 census blocks, the smallest census geography area, which were spatially querried based on an established central point for the city (downtown).

For 2000, my figures are the following:

2 Miles: 28348

3 Miles: 58999

4 Miles: 97187

5 Miles: 124177

FYI, it depends on your data source - how accurate your population figures, larger boundary areas like tract or zip code aren't that accurate at that scale.

I keep forgetting to grab the cd that has 1990 census block population, as most online sources only provide the boundary file with no attributes.

[monsoon]

Here are the numbers showing Columbia's 2005 estimates.....Columbia's 2005 estimate is 121,395 thats why he is saying 2006 estimates are higher than 121k for 2006...With a projected population of around 126,000 by 2010...The census burea not too long ago said 2002 was 117k for columbia, they change numbers constantly so I'll go with the Central SC Alliance...Even TheState newspaper constantly reports Columbia being above 121,000

http://www.centralsc.org/profiles/?nid=125

Ahh, those numbers do not come from the US Census. They are from DemographicsNow.com. It seems like a badly written report to use the US Census for 2000 then compare that to DemographicsNow.com for 2005. Of course demographicsnow is in the business of making money so you have to pay them to find out the details of what they are talking about.

The last estimate from the US Census for Columbia was for 2004 which is listed above.

[sonofaque86]

well if you live in Columbia you'll see its growing faster than they are reporting with all the developments and subdivisions being built in the city limits...we'll see in 2010 wont wee. lol

[goodbye]

well if you live in Columbia you'll see its growing faster than they are reporting with all the developments and subdivisions being built in the city limits...we'll see in 2010 wont wee. lol

That's what all we residents of Greenville are saying as well!

[GvilleSC]

Interesting, & since I'm not sure I provided a source - I would be interested in your source. My source was 2000 census blocks, the smallest census geography area, which were spatially querried based on an established central point for the city (downtown).

For 2000, my figures are the following:

2 Miles: 28348

3 Miles: 58999

4 Miles: 97187

5 Miles: 124177

FYI, it depends on your data source - how accurate your population figures, larger boundary areas like tract or zip code aren't that accurate at that scale.

I keep forgetting to grab the cd that has 1990 census block population, as most online sources only provide the boundary file with no attributes.

My source for the Greenville data was www.greatergreenville.com (the City of Greenville)

[The_sandlapper]

Ahh, those numbers do not come from the US Census. They are from DemographicsNow.com. It seems like a badly written report to use the US Census for 2000 then compare that to DemographicsNow.com for 2005. Of course demographicsnow is in the business of making money so you have to pay them to find out the details of what they are talking about.

The last estimate from the US Census for Columbia was for 2004 which is listed above.

Actually the source for the projections was demographics now via the census not sure how they developed its projection population numbers but I'm not goona cry if 9,000 people don't get added into the city's census by 2010 which by the way isn't that hard to believe. The "2010 census" will tell if it is or not 125K which I think will still be a pretty low number. Still is it really that hard to believe that Columbia is growing???

[krazeeboi]

Where is that estimate? I havent' seen it on the census website...I've seen 2004 estimates of 104,000...Did they grow 11,000 people in 1 year alone or something?

That is the figure Mayor Riley gave in the State of the City address earlier this year.

[distortedlogic]

That's right, the '06 estimates are at 121,000+.

If you look at area, Cola is the largest (yes including ft. jackson); if you looked at city pop., Chas is the largest (or will be very soon).

I'm not sure where you get that; Columbia has almost 20,000 more people than Charleston and is growing steadily.

I get that from looking at the trends in the population estimates from the past several years, and also in looking at how aggressive Charleston has become in it's annexation campaign.

[sonofaque86]

Well Columbia isn't annexing like Charleston, but it is doing a good bit of it though....

[Spartan]

It is important that y;all understand that population estimates are just that: estimates. I have had to calculate population estimates before and there are at least a dozen different ways to do it. You can get numbers that are high and numbers that are low. You have to know the area for which you are doing calculations. The only reason the Census numbers are used is because we know that they will use a standardized method of calculation so that the numbers are not too far off. Don't discount another sources numbers just because they aren't a mainstream source. They could have reached their conclusions in a perfectly valid way. I am actually inclined to believe a city's estimates before the census only because they are more knowledgable about their area, and they aren't calculating thousands of estimates a day.