Parse, parse, parse - new municipal population numbers
Note update appended at bottom.
So the data dump of the day is for new population estimates for 2011 for municipalities across the nation. Before anyone gets into it too much, it is one of those cases where you really want to understand the methodology before overinterpreting what the data seems to be saying.
The methodology for these sub-county population estimates has changed and that is important here. In the past what happened was that the population estimates produced by the Census folks were then allocated to the smaller municipalities within each county based on the latest data on building permits which are reported monthly. This year that methodology has changed and the methodology (in previous link) is pretty honest in saying they are re-evaluating how to do this particular estimation at the municipal level. It still must start with the change in population estimated for the county, but the question is how to allocate that change to municipalites and other incorporated places within each county. To skip and simplify the wonkish details, the numbers here are in a limited sense an extrapolation of what they think was happening between July 2009 and April 2010. So really there is no information in this data about what anyone knows about what is going on between 2010 and 2011. One of those circumstance where you really need to understand your data before interpreting it too far. Especially anytime you have to deal with a change in methodology you have to be very careful about looking at a timeseries and interpreting any changes in trend. Might all reflect the change in methodology as much as any other reality.
So in this case it was really important to lay out the disclaimers first. Nonetheless, this may be the headline.
City of Pittsburgh
April 1, 2010 (i.e. what the 2010 Census recorded): 305,704
Estimate for July 1, 2010: 306,956
Estimate for July 1, 2010: 307,484
So yes, growth for the city is something I am sure will be picked up on. Whatever the story is with the data it starts with the change at the county level. We talked about how there was estimated population growth in Allegheny County in 2011 for the first time in a long time. That growth is remarkable when you consider 1) we still are a place that is experiencing natural population decline, so any population gain has to be coming from positive net migration at a rate high enough to offset that and 2) Allegheny County in my look back has not had sustained positive net migration since possibly the 1920's. So for the first time in a long time there is net population gain to be allocated to the municipalities by whatever model. In this data the county went up +2,233 between July 2010 and July 2011.
So it looks like the Census gnomes have allocated a population gain of 528 to the City of Pittsburgh.. or just under 24% of the gain for the county. Works out pretty coincidentially to the ratio of the city's population to that in the county. They also are giving some growth to every municipality within the county, something which I doubt is true in reality. So take it all with a grain of salt. In fact the same data is saying that Braddock grew by 3 people between 2010 and 2011 (you think they could provide us with the 3 names maybe?) I have not idea what has happened in Braddock over that year, but I am pretty sure nobody has data to confirm or deny whether a gain of 3 is the right number. It is a precision we don't have, but an artifact of the methodology the census folks are obliged to apply consistently across the nation.
So the gains for any one municipality may be a lot more or less than what this particular data dump is telling us. For the city in particular there is not a lot of information being added here. Given that I still think a large part, if not most or even all of the gains in the younger population in the city is coming from increased college enrollment... the shifting trends for the city are going to be coming from trends in that population which is more controlled by the institutions themselves than other factors.
and to parse the parsing even. Look closely at the data for the city I put there. Note the reason there is data for April and July of 2010 is that the decennial census references an April 1 date every decade. The annual population estimates produced reference a July 1 date every year. So you need to bridge those dates in the data. Now go look at what they are saying happened over just 4 months between April and July 2010. Nominally it says there was a fast growth rate for the city over those 4 months and then a much slower growth rate over the subsequent 12 months. Probably not what happened at all, so again don't overinterpret.
So it is all more conflicted than in may seem. So if you read the methodology link I put up there they explain this about their methodology.
To produce subcounty housing unit estimates, we distributed the extrapolated county estimates down to each subcounty area within a county based on 2010 Census proportions.
update 2: I think I have it. If you look at Allegheny County's estimated population change from 4/1/2010 to 7/1/2011 the "Group Quarters population" went from 35,054 to 36,233 which is a change of 1,179. If you make the assumption that almost all of that would have happened within the city of Pittsburgh and net it out of the estimates data out today.. then it works out that the City of Pittsburgh's estimated growth is nearly identical to what is being reported for each of the other municipalities within Allegheny County. What are group quarters... college students in dorms... prisoners.. military in barracks and a few other categories, but for us college students and prisoners would be the big ones.