The US Census Bureau thread

[LMich]

Originally Posted by hudkina

Just multiply the number by 3.8610215855*10^-7. I'm such a nerd I know that number by heart.

Ha! I wasn't speaking so much the conversion as much as having to labor through looking them all up and transposing it on the forum, here.

BTW, anyone know if the new American FactFinder has maps showing redefined census tracts? So far, all I can find is numbers, and you can't tell whether simply from them which tracts have been merged and which haven't.

[dave8721]

Here are the top 10 largest cities with their 2010 sizes and densities:
City Pop2010 Area Density
New York: 8175133 302.6 27016.30205
Los Angeles: 3792621 468.7 8091.787924
Chicago: 2695598 227.6 11843.57645
Houston: 2099451 599.6 3501.41928
Philadelphia: 1526006 134.1 11379.61223
Phoenix: 1445632 516.7 2797.816915
San Antonio: 1327407 460.9 2880.032545
San Diego: 1307402 325.2 4020.301353
Dallas: 1197816 340.5 3517.814978
San Jose: 945942 176.5 5359.444759

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by wwmiv

12. Detroit 4 296 250 -
22. Pittsburgh 2 356 285 -
28. Cleveland 2 077 240 -
46. New Orleans 1 167 764 -
47. Buffalo 1 135 479 -

so we only have 5 major metro areas that lost people over the last 10 years. new orleans was partially detroyed, and there must be something funny in the water of lake erie. so what's pittsburgh's excuse?

[Ch.G, Ch.G]

Originally Posted by dave8721

Here are the top 10 largest cities with their 2010 sizes and densities:
City Pop2010 Area Density
New York: 8175133 302.6 27016.30205
Los Angeles: 3792621 468.7 8091.787924
Chicago: 2695598 227.6 11843.57645
Houston: 2099451 599.6 3501.41928
Philadelphia: 1526006 134.1 11379.61223
Phoenix: 1445632 516.7 2797.816915
San Antonio: 1327407 460.9 2880.032545
San Diego: 1307402 325.2 4020.301353
Dallas: 1197816 340.5 3517.814978
San Jose: 945942 176.5 5359.444759

Wow. There's such a huge divide between New York, LA, Chicago and Philadelphia and the rest.

[Ch.G, Ch.G]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

so we only have 5 major metro areas that lost people over the last 10 years. new orleans was partially detroyed, and there must be something funny in the water of lake erie. so what's pittsburgh's excuse?

Aside from New Orleans, all the metros that declined comprise the major cities of the eastern half the Great Lakes/Rust Belt region. Weird.

And, to revisit a point that Crawford has made many times before, how is it that Pittsburgh, despite numbers that would doom any other metro to the "dying" label in the media, has been able to parlay its population decrease into a success story?

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Ch.G, Ch.G

Wow. There's such a huge divide between New York, LA, Chicago and Philadelphia and the rest.

that's because those 4 are the only cities remaining amongst america's most populous cities that are both big and urban (well, NYC is actually on a totally different level all its own). the others merely exist within fortuitous political climates that have allowed them to annex vast, VAST swaths of their suburban hinterlands into the municipal boundaries of the central city. it's a big reason why using city limits defined city populations as a comparative tool between different cities is pretty meaningless.

if you took 10 europeans who knew absolutely nothing about the relative sizes of american cities or metros and had them spend a weekend in boston and a weekend in phoenix, and then asked them which was the "bigger" city, all 10 of them would say boston without hesitation.

[JBoston]

Yay! Boston broke the 600,000 mark! I'm so pleased.

[urbanactivist]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

that's because those 4 are the only cities remaining amongst america's most populous cities that are both big and urban. the others merely exist within fortuitous political climates that have allowed them to annex vast, VAST swaths of their suburban hinterlands into the municipal boundaries of the central city. it's a big reason why using city limits defined city populations as a comparative tool between different cities is pretty meaningless.

if you took 10 europeans who knew absolutely nothing about the relative sizes of american cities or metros and had them spend a weekend in boston and a weekend in phoenix, and then asked them which was the "bigger" city, all 10 of them would say boston without hesitation.

Of course it's important to note that those "other" cities have increased their densities by pretty significant amounts through urban infill and large investments in infrastructure and transportation. They (at least the inner cores) haven't just sat idle and allowed the suburbs to control all of the political climate for the region. Billions and billions of dollars of investment have gone into these once-forgotten downtowns and close-in neighborhoods, and it's paying off with renewed interest and commericial/residential investment.

But from your post you act as if none of that matters.

[Steely Dan]

^ no, no, no, you're completely reading more into my post than was there.

i was merely explaining why there's a drop-off in density between NYC, LA, chicago, & philly and the others on the list.

i absolutely encourage and applaud the efforts of urbanization taking place in every american city. but we have to be honest, a place like phoenix would not be seen anywhere on the list of america's most populous cities if it didn't exist within a political environment that has allowed it to annex huge swaths of its suburbs. if phoenix were constrained to just 48 sq. miles like boston, it would be a city of a several hundred thousand at most, not one of america's "10 largest cities".

[mhays]

I'm sure we're all genuinely impressed with the increased infill in Houston etc. That has little to do with the point that Houston is "big" mostly because the city limits are broad.

Of course with Houston's/Phoenix's/etc. booster organizations touting the "#4" concept and similar statements, they're bound to get some pushback from the nerdisphere.

[brickell]

Originally Posted by LMich

BTW, anyone know if the new American FactFinder has maps showing redefined census tracts? So far, all I can find is numbers, and you can't tell whether simply from them which tracts have been merged and which haven't.

You can get the maps here. Drill down to the county and then it's just clicking till you find it.
http://www.census.gov/geo/www/maps/p...ite/tract.html


Unless someone has a better way...

[Thundertubs]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

so we only have 5 major metro areas that lost people over the last 10 years. new orleans was partially detroyed, and there must be something funny in the water of lake erie. so what's pittsburgh's excuse?

Originally Posted by Ch.G, Ch.G

And, to revisit a point that Crawford has made many times before, how is it that Pittsburgh, despite numbers that would doom any other metro to the "dying" label in the media, has been able to parlay its population decrease into a success story?

The Pittsburgh metro area includes the Mon Valley, which would be a strong contender for the most blighted/depopulated sub-region in the US. That's got to drag the metro numbers down.

[jcchii]

this is totally the Nerdisphere.
that couldn't be more right, and proudly so

[antinimby]

The question is...did the Nerdisphere population here increased, decreased or remained the same since 2000?

[urbanactivist]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

^ no, no, no, you're completely reading more into my post than was there.

i was merely explaining why there's a drop-off in density between NYC, LA, chicago, & philly and the others on the list.

i absolutely encourage and applaud the efforts of urbanization taking place in every american city. but we have to be honest, a place like phoenix would not be seen anywhere on the list of america's most populous cities if it didn't exist within a political environment that has allowed it to annex huge swaths of its suburbs. if phoenix were constrained to just 48 sq. miles like boston, it would be a city of a several hundred thousand at most, not one of america's "10 largest cities".

And those decisions are made by local and state government officials. Not the general citizenry of the city/metro in question. My one little vote isn't going to decide the political boundaries of Chicago, Memphis or anywhere else.

So taking that fact into account (as we have several hundred times on this site already) is there further need to continually mention it?

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by urbanactivist

So taking that fact into account (as we have several hundred times on this site already) is there further need to continually mention it?

Obviously it's a necessary part of explaining city population.

Unless folks really think Fort Worth and Louisville are bigger than Boston and DC, these rankings need to be contextualized.

[Evergrey]

Originally Posted by Ch.G, Ch.G

Aside from New Orleans, all the metros that declined comprise the major cities of the eastern half the Great Lakes/Rust Belt region. Weird.

And, to revisit a point that Crawford has made many times before, how is it that Pittsburgh, despite numbers that would doom any other metro to the "dying" label in the media, has been able to parlay its population decrease into a success story?

Crawford has made the point time and time again... but always ignores further analysis of the region's unique demographics.

Quite simply, population change is a lagging indicator of economic performance. Metro Pittsburgh's economic catastrophe of yesteryear was so dramatic that the resulting demographic distortions have taken decades to overcome.

You'll find the components of population change for the Pittsburgh region to be significantly different from that of Cleveland, Detroit... or any other major region in the country for that matter. The Pittsburgh region is literally dying... meaning it is the only major region in the US experiencing "natural decrease"... more deaths than births... a legacy of severe economic distress and outmigration during the 1970s and 1980s. While a region like Cleveland is not a fertility hotspot (Southeast Michigan, however, has a surprisingly high birth rate)... these declining regions have the benefit of a "natural increase cushion" to somewhat blunt the population decrease caused by high rates of net outmigration.

Pittsburgh has also failed to benefit much from international migrants. The region is just far enough away from the immigration gateways of the East Coast to not get the spillover satellites like Reading and Allentown enjoy. Additionally, its distance from Mexico (No. 1 source of immigrants) and its economic armageddon 30 years ago (a time when many present immigrant groups from Asia and Latin America were establishing communities in US cities) have kept the region off the map for immigrants. Pittsburgh has been making strides to shed its parochialism and embrace immigration... but the regional labor demand for immigrants remains largely confined to skilled professionals.

Natural decrease is no cause for celebration in Pittsburgh... but the overall population decline numbers of the past decade caused by this phenomenon mask the positive economic and demographic trajectory of the region. Despite natural decrease and an almost non-existent bump from international migrants... Metro Pittsburgh has posted overall population growth for the past two years... a much celebrated reversal of fortune for a region plagued by population shrinkage for at least 40 years.

Census estimates have shown Metro Pittsburgh to have been on the positive side of domestic migration for the past half-decade. The overall gains are now large enough to overcome the region's unique curse of natural decrease (a reality that may come soon for the likes of Cleveland, Buffalo and others). Especially encouraging is that the metro's core urban county (Allegheny) has led the region's population growth.

Beyond the obsession of counting bodies in a certain space... the Pittsburgh region is rightly lauded for its economic transformation... to have come from the brink of disaster 30 years ago... to now be a resilient and diversified economy... is an inspirational model for many. This economic transformation has supported dramatic gains in income, educational attainment, labor force growth, office market demand, and many other socio-economic indicators and measures.

[mhays]

Yes, this context needs to be provided often, because people misunderstand it often.

[mhays]

Whatever Pittsburgh is doing, it's making it look good.

[M II A II R II K]

Mapping the 2010 U.S. Census


http://projects.nytimes.com/census/2010/map?hp