NewGeography.com blogs

The 2009 Census Bureau estimates indicated that Phoenix had become the nation's 12th largest metropolitan area, passing San Francisco and Riverside-San Bernardino since 2000. The census count for 2010 indicates that Phoenix remains the 14th largest metropolitan area and failed to pass either San Francisco or Riverside-San Bernardino during the decade.

Nonetheless, Phoenix grew rapidly, adding 28.9 percent to its population. The metropolitan area had 4,193,000 residents in 2010, up from 3,252,000 in 2000.

The historical core municipality of Phoenix also grew less than expected. The 2009 Census Bureau estimates placed the population at 1,570,000, having passed Philadelphia to become the nation's fifth largest municipality. The city of Phoenix has a near universal suburban form, with a land area 520 square miles, four times that of Philadelphia. The 2010 census count was far smaller than expected, at 1,446,000, up from 1,332,000 in 2000, but still well below Philadelphia's 1,526,000. The 124,000 gain was the smallest of any census period since 1940-1950, at the end of which the city had 107,000 residents. The population growth rate was 9.3 percent, the lowest percentage increase rate since the 1880-1890 census period. The city of Phoenix captured 13 percent of the metropolitan growth, down from 33 percent in the 1990-2000 census period.

Suburban population growth was much stronger, at 42.4 percent. Suburban Pima County doubled in size and its exurban municipalities experienced strong growth. The city of Maricopa grew by 4,000 percent, from 1,000 to 43,000. Casa Grande nearly doubled in size. Suburbs within the core county of Maricopa also grew quickly. Buckeye, the last urbanization for 100 miles west on Interstate 10 grew from 7,000 to 51,000. Other urban fringe or near-urban fringe municipalities also grew quickly, such as Gilbert (109,000 to 209,000), Surprise (31,000 to 117,000) and Goodyear (19,000 to 65,000). The suburbs captured 87 percent of the metropolitan area growth, up from 67 percent in the 1990s.

The Department of Commerce released trade balance numbers for January this morning, reporting that the monthly deficit jumped to $46.3 billion, up from $40.3 billion in December. Economists had been projecting a deficit of $41.5 billion. The larger than expected number may lead some economists to “lower their estimates for economic growth in the January-March quarter based on the wider deficit.”

However, buried within the dark clouds is a silver lining. U.S. exports actually hit an all time high of $167.7 billion during the month, potentially showing signs of a strengthening economic recovery. This is up from $125.4 billion in January, 2009 and $144.7 billion in January, 2010. American exporters appear to be on a roll, and gaining momentum.

Exports of services also continues to be a point of trade strength for the nation. While year over year increases were smaller than those in overall exports (47.2 billion, up from 44.2 billion in January, 2010) the nation actually had one month trade surplus of $13.4 billion in services. This is up from past years, and is not an anomaly- the nation has marked a trade surplus in the services sector throughout the past two years.

The increase in the size of the deficit can largely be attributed to issues in two areas; petroleum and consumer goods. As oil prices continue to rise, the cost of oil imports have surged as well. In January alone, the nation imported 34.9 billion in petroleum products, leading to a deficit of $26.7 billion. This represents an increase of 21.5% over last January, and up 4.7% over the previous month.

The rise in the consumer goods deficit may actually be good news, of a sort. While the deficit itself is disconcerting, the detailed numbers show that imports of apparel, textiles, appliances, and other household related products are up notably. While increased imports in these sectors serve to worsen our trade balance with China (up to $23.3 billion in January, from $20.7 billion in December), increased demand for such retail goods could be a sign that the American economy, largely centered around consumer spending, is starting to catch some momentum again. According to economist Joseph LaVorgna, interviewed by CNN, while the deficit is wider, “the numbers actually imply a very healthy economy… The gain in imports was in every category. Domestic demand is still very firm and producers are rebuilding their inventories.”

The Hartford metropolitan area grew 5.5 percent between 2000 and 2010, according to new census data that has just been released. In 2000, the metropolitan area had 1,149,000 residents, a figure that rose to 1,221,000 in 2010.

The city of Hartford, the historical core municipality, grew from 124,100 (the 2000 base) to 124,800 over the period, for a growth rate of 0.5 percent. This small growth was a turnaround for Hartford, which had a peak population of 177,000 in 1950. Then, Hartford was the largest municipality in Connecticut, but has since been passed by both Bridgeport and New Haven. The city accounted for one percent of the metropolitan area's growth.

The suburbs grew at a rate of 6.2 percent and captured 99 percent of the metropolitan area's growth. Tolland County grew 12.0 percent, nearly double or more the population growth rates in the other two counties. Middlesex County grew 6.8 percent. The core county, Hartford (which includes the city of Hartford), grew the slowest, at 4.3 percent.

Just released census data indicates that the Pittsburgh metropolitan area declined in population from 2,431,000 in 2000 to 2,356,000 in 2010, a loss of 3.1 percent. The loss reflects a continuing trend of regional declines. The present geographical area of the Pittsburgh metropolitan area has a population below that of 1930 and has lost 400,000 residents (at percent) since 1960. No other major metropolitan area has experienced a loss since 1960 (including Katrina ravaged New Orleans).

Both the historical core municipality, the city of Pittsburgh and the suburbs declined. The suburbs experienced a loss of 2.2 percent, but accounted for 61 percent of the metropolitan area loss. All six suburban counties except Butler (5.6 percent) and more distant Washington (2.4 percent) experienced losses. The core county of Allegheny (which includes the city of Pittsburgh) lost 4.6 percent of its population and nearly 80 percent of the metropolitan area's numeric population loss.

The city of Pittsburgh continued its long decline, falling to 306,000 in 2010 from 335,000 in 2000, a loss of 8.6 percent. The city accounted for 39 percent of the metropolitan area population loss. Pittsburgh's population peaked in 1950 at 677,000 and has fallen 55 percent since that time. Its 2010 population is lower than in any previous census since 1880 (based upon the combined population of Pittsburgh and Allegheny, which subsequently consolidated).

The Columbus (Ohio) metropolitan area increased in population from 1,613,000 in 2000 to 1,837,000 in 2010 (13.9 percent). This growth rate is likely to have been among the strongest in the Midwest and is greater than the growth rate of Seattle, which had grown more quickly in recent decades.

The historical core municipality, the city of Columbus, which is largely suburban in form, grew from 713,000 to 787,000, an increase of 10.4 percent. The city of Columbus captured 33 percent of the metropolitan area's growth.

The suburbs experienced a growth rate of 16.7 percent and captured 67 percent of the metropolitan area growth. Suburban Delaware County had a population increase of 58 percent, while more distant counties, Union (28 percent) and Fairfield (19 percent) also experienced strong growth. The core county of Franklin, which includes the city of Columbus, grew nine percent.