CNN.com – The fastest growing U.S. cities – Piggington's Econo-Almanac

This topic has 16 replies, 8 voices, and was last updated 17 years, 4 months ago by Anonymous.

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 17 total)

1 2 →

Author

Posts
June 28, 2007 at 8:42 AM #9409

Drew
Participant

And SD is listed at #179 as having a net loss.

Article:

http://money.cnn.com/2007/06/27/real_estate/fastest_growing_cities/index.htm?postversion=2007062805

Top 200 list:

http://money.cnn.com/2007/06/27/real_estate/258_fastest_growing_cities/index.htm

June 28, 2007 at 8:45 AM #62687

Drew
Participant

My mistake, the list is the #258 cities…

June 28, 2007 at 8:45 AM #62736

Drew
Participant

My mistake, the list is the #258 cities…

June 28, 2007 at 9:48 AM #62707

PerryChase
Participant

I didn’t realize that San Antonio and Phoenix were bigger than San Diego. Now I know.

June 28, 2007 at 9:48 AM #62756

PerryChase
Participant

I didn’t realize that San Antonio and Phoenix were bigger than San Diego. Now I know.

June 28, 2007 at 9:55 AM #62715

surveyor
Participant

SanA/Phx

They made a big deal about San Antonio being bigger than San Diego about a year and a half ago in the UT.

June 28, 2007 at 9:55 AM #62764

surveyor
Participant

SanA/Phx

They made a big deal about San Antonio being bigger than San Diego about a year and a half ago in the UT.

June 28, 2007 at 10:48 AM #62731

Artifact
Participant

It is a good thing all those people moving to San Diego will keep driving demand for housing…

I think my math is good enough to figure out that a net loss in population is in fact less than the number of new homes built in the last year. I am sure someone can spin that story though.

T

June 28, 2007 at 10:48 AM #62780

Artifact
Participant

It is a good thing all those people moving to San Diego will keep driving demand for housing…

I think my math is good enough to figure out that a net loss in population is in fact less than the number of new homes built in the last year. I am sure someone can spin that story though.

T

June 28, 2007 at 12:39 PM #62768

CAwireman
Participant

So, SD lost 377 people. Would consider that to
mean that population was flat. No appreciable gain or
loss….

HiggyBaby

June 28, 2007 at 12:39 PM #62816

CAwireman
Participant

So, SD lost 377 people. Would consider that to
mean that population was flat. No appreciable gain or
loss….

HiggyBaby

June 28, 2007 at 1:10 PM #62771

Duck
Participant

San Marcos and Carlsbad had population growth of more than 5,000 for the same period. The housing mix (more homes for families in North County vs. more condos for singles and retirees in San Diego) must influence those numbers.

June 28, 2007 at 1:10 PM #62820

Duck
Participant

San Marcos and Carlsbad had population growth of more than 5,000 for the same period. The housing mix (more homes for families in North County vs. more condos for singles and retirees in San Diego) must influence those numbers.

June 28, 2007 at 5:07 PM #62803

cr
Participant

The title is misleading. Fastest growing, implies increases in numbers as opposed to slowest growing or shrinking.

Don’t let the housing market bulls read this though, might scare ’em.

Maybe the title is designed to make them feel better.

June 28, 2007 at 5:07 PM #62852

cr
Participant

The title is misleading. Fastest growing, implies increases in numbers as opposed to slowest growing or shrinking.

Don’t let the housing market bulls read this though, might scare ’em.

Maybe the title is designed to make them feel better.
Author

Posts