Fargo (city pop.) may have already reached 100,000

[TheBisonator]

According to my calculations, the city of Fargo's population on February 1, 2005 should be 100,357.

(This is the statistics freak in me talking now, BTW, so you don't have to read this if you don't want)

I figured this out by using the daily growth rate over a 10-year period (3,652 days) from 1990 to 2000 for the city (It grew by 16,488 people from 4/1/90 to 4/1/2000). I figured in that same growth rate from 4/1/00 to 4/1/10, and came up with a number of 110,755 (growth of 20,156) at the next census. Then I calculated 20,156 divided by 3,652, then multiplied by the number of days from 4/1/2000 to 2/1/2005 (1,768), and I came up with today's population of 100,357. I also figured out that the city reached 100,000 people on November 28 of last year.

Although this is working with a fixed model. There are also variables involved (decrease/increase in housing units or average number per household), but I think those actually tip the number in favor of it being higher than lower. In other words, 100,357 might be a pretty conservative estimate.

Sorry I had to bother you, I'm just excited that Fargo may have passed a huge milestone. In case you didn't notice, I have a huge interest in city planning and statistics.

[IowaBison]

I think you're probably a couple of years off.

I've done a little demography work myself, which I too think is quite interesting.

The most recent Census estimate (2003) has the city at between 91,000 and 92,000. These numbers are often quite off, but I think your values are somewhat optimistic. IMO, Cass County has grown at most by 12,000 in the last 4 years, with nearly half in the Non-Fargo Metro.

If you're really interested you should check out "The Methods and Materials of Demography". It's a thick book, but not very technically demanding.

[TheBisonator]

Just for the record, the 2004 population estimate for Fargo (city) from the city government (not the Census Bureau) was 97,807.

[greenandgold01]

Just for the record, the 2004 population estimate for Fargo (city) from the city government (not the Census Bureau) was 97,807.

But the census numbers are the ones that count as far as funding goes.

The MSA popilation (Cass + Clay counties) is the important one.

[TheBisonator]

Which is 179,121 at last count, BTW. I agree that MSA numbers are the most important.

I was just talking about the city though. I know that figure isn't an important one, but it's good for morale and the city's psyche (and the state's) that a North Dakota city finally has over 100,000 people.

[greenandgold01]

Which is 179,121 at last count, BTW. I agree that MSA numbers are the most important.

I was just talking about the city though. I know that figure isn't an important one, but it's good for morale and the city's psyche (and the state's) that a North Dakota city finally has over 100,000 people.

We have 3 markets over 100k: Bismark, GF, and Fargo.

[TheBisonator]

Yeah, but I'm talking about just the city (inside city limits).

Fargo has over 100,000, Bismarck probably has about 61,000 and Grand Forks has around 51,000.

I do agree that metro numbers matter the most.

[IowaBison]

Just for the record, the 2004 population estimate for Fargo (city) from the city government (not the Census Bureau) was 97,807.

where did you find that number?

[Bisonguy]

The only number that I've seen is Fargo estimated at 94k in 2002.

[TheBisonator]

where did you find that number?

The city conducts a tally of residents (seperated by neighbourhoods) every year. In 2004, the populations of all the Fargo neighbourhoods added up to 97,807.

Not many people know this, but that's how the city does its annual population estimates.