The US Census Bureau thread

[wwmiv]

In Dallas-Fort Worth Metro

6. Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington: 5,732,354 (5,121,892)
McKinney-Frisco 504,803 (170,030)
Denton-Lewisville 429,461 (366,174)


In Houston Metro

5. Houston: 5,853,575 (4,944,332)
Conroe-Woodlands 402,454 (239,938)
Galveston 191,863 (NEW)


In San Antonio Metro

24. San Antonio: 1,992,689 (1,758,210)
New Braunfels 100,736 (NEW)


In Other Metros

29. Austin: 1,809,888 (1,362,416)
El Paso 854,584 (803,086)
McAllen 779,553 (728,825)
Corpus Christi 339,066 (320,069)
Lubbock 272,280 (237,256)
Killeen 257,222 (217,630)
Laredo 251,462 (235,730)
Brownsville 216,444 (217,585)
Bryan-College Station 206,137 (171,345)
Amarillo 205,860 (196,651)

Waco 192,844 (172,378)
Odessa 154,818 (126,405)
Beaumont 146,649 (147,922)
Midland 141,997 (117,807)
Tyler 131,028 (130,247)
Harlingen 118,838 (135,663)
Abilene 118,138 (110,421)
Port Arthur 116,819 (153,150)
Temple 114,632 (90,390)
Longview 107,099 (98,884)
San Angelo 99,982 (92,984)

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by wwmiv

Rank (Previous). City. 2020 Criteria and UA Population (2010 Criteria and UA Population)

1. NYC: 19,426,449 (18,351,285)
2. LA: 12,237,376 (12,150,996)
3. Chicago: 8,671,746 (8,608,208)
4. Miami: 6,077,522 (5,502,379)
5 (7). Houston: 5,853,575 (4,944,332)
6. Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington: 5,732,354 (5,121,892)
7 (5). Philadelphia: 5,696,125 (5,441,567)
8. D.C.: 5,174,759 (4,586,770)
9. Atlanta: 4,999,259 (4,515,419)
10. Boston: 4,382,009 (4,181,019)

11 (12). Phoenix: 3,976,313 (3,629,114)
12 (11). Detroit: 3,776,890 (3,734,090)
13 (14). Seattle: 3,544,011 (3,059,393)
14 (13). San Francisco-Oakland: 3,269,385 (3,281,212)
15. San Diego: 3,070,300 (2,956,746)
16. Minneapolis-St. Paul: 2,914,866 (2,650,890)
17. Tampa-St. Pete: 2,783,045 (2,441,770)
18. Denver: 2,686,147 (2,374,203)
19 (22). Riverside-San Bernardino: 2,276,703 (1,932,666)
20 (19). Baltimore: 2,212,038 (2,203,663)

21 (23). Vegas: 2,196,623 (1,886,011)
22 (20). St. Louis: 2,156,323 (2,150,706)
23 (24). Portland: 2,104,238 (1,849,898)
24 (26). San Antonio: 1,992,689 (1,758,210)
25 (28). Sacramento: 1,946,618 (1,723,634)
26 (32). Orlando: 1,853,896 (1,510,516)
27 (21). San Juan: 1,844,410 (2,148,346)
28 (29). San Jose: 1,837,446 (1,664,496)
29 (37). Austin: 1,809,888 (1,362,416)
30 (27). Pittsburgh: 1,745,039 (1,733,853)

31 (25). Cleveland: 1,712,178 (1,780,673)
32 (33). Indianapolis: 1,699,881 (1,487,483)
33 (30). Cincinnati: 1,686,744 (1,624,827)
34 (31). KC: 1,674,218 (1,519,417)
35 (36). Columbus: 1,567,254 (1,368,035)
36 (34). Virginia Beach: 1,451,578 (1,439,666)
37 (38). Charlotte: 1,379,873 (1,362,442)
38 (35). Milwaukee: 1,306,795 (1,376,476)
39. Providence: 1,285,806 (1,190,956)
40. Jacksonville: 1,247,374 (1,065,219)
41 (42). SLC: 1,178,533 (1,021,243)

42 (44). Nashville: 1,158,642 (969,587)
43 (50). Raleigh: 1,106,646 (894,881)
44 (45). Richmond: 1,059,150 (953,556)
45 (41). Memphis: 1,056,190 (1,060,061)

So NY's urban area added the most population at roughly 1.1 million, followed by a strong showing from the Texas twins (800k for Houston, 600k for Dallas). What happened in San Francisco-Oakland? Both cities performed respectably in 2010-2020, so how or where did the population drain come from? Also shocking: Charlotte seems to have stalled out quite a bit.

[ChiSoxRox]

Looks like the new definition is a more cautious definition, with fringe areas tending to get shorn off.

San Francisco popped out with that drop despite the Bay Area's strong growth, and the area included in the urban area dropped by a quarter!

2010 urban area: 523.6 mi^2
2020 urban area: 428.7 mi^2

Likewise, Concord-Walnut Creek:

2010: 203.8 mi^2
2020: 175.8 mi^2

With that in mind, maybe be cautious about a direct 2010 to 2020 comparison.

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

^ thanks!

quickly perusing the data for major cities, I'm not seeing any significant changes with the CB's new methodology.

Unless I missed something.

Lots of big growth in the usual sunbelters.

Except the boomtowns, almost all the urban areas shrunk in land area. San Francisco lost ~100 sq. miles, out of the ~525 it had.

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by ChiSoxRox

Looks like the new definition is a more cautious definition, with fringe areas tending to get shorn off.

San Francisco popped out with that drop despite the Bay Area's strong growth, and the area included in the urban area dropped by a quarter!

2010 urban area: 523.6 mi^2
2020 urban area: 428.7 mi^2

Likewise, Concord-Walnut Creek:

2010: 203.8 mi^2
2020: 175.8 mi^2

With that in mind, maybe be cautious about a direct 2010 to 2020 comparison.

Everyone should read this. I added a note to the post above.

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

So NY's urban area added the most population at roughly 1.1 million, followed by a strong showing from the Texas twins (800k for Houston, 600k for Dallas). What happened in San Francisco-Oakland? Both cities performed respectably in 2010-2020, so how or where did the population drain come from? Also shocking: Charlotte seems to have stalled out quite a bit.

NYC: ~1.1 million
Houston: ~900k
DFW: ~600k
D.C. ~600k
Miami: ~575k
ATL: ~500k
Seattle: ~500k
Austin: ~450k

[wwmiv]

Non-Weighted Population Density

1. SF @ 7,626 ppsm
2. LA @ 7,476 ppsm
3. SJ @ 6,436 ppsm
4. NYC @ 5,981 ppsm
5. Vegas @ 5,046 ppsm

6. Miami @ 4,885
7. San Diego @ 4,550
8. Denver @ 4,168
9. Sacramento @ 4,163
10. Portland @ 4,052

11. D.C. @ 3,997
12. SLC @ 3,923
13. Riverside @ 3,741
14. Chicago @ 3,709
15. Seattle @ 3,607
16. Phoenix @ 3,581
17. Baltimore @ 3,377
18. Houston @ 3,340
19. DFW @ 3,281

20. SA @ 3,248
21. Columbus @ 3,026
22. VA Beach @ 3,014
23. Philadelphia @ 3,001
24. Detroit @ 2,940
25. Austin @ 2,921
26. Orlando @ 2,876
27. Twin Cities @ 2,872
28. Tampa Bay @ 2,872
29. Milwaukee @ 2,818

30. Boston @ 2,646
31. San Juan @ 2,415
32. Cleveland @ 2,399
33. St. Louis @ 2,369
34. Providence @ 2,363
35. Indianapolis @ 2,353
36. KC @ 2,345
37. Cincy @ 2,242
38. Jax @ 2,176
39. Memphis @ 2,150

40. Charlotte @ 2,098
41. Richmond @ 2,067
42. ATL @ 2,040
43. Raleigh @ 1,995
44. Nashville @ 1,981
45. Pittsburgh @ 1,925

Note: I have rounded all numbers to a whole digit—you cannot have less than a whole person per square mile (snark: you can have one person every other square mile) and due to the constant influx and outflux of residents and ingress and egress of non-residents alike it is meaningless to include any digits beyond a decimal place.

[ChiSoxRox]

Percentage of the MSA population within the urban area, for the 57 1M+ MSAs:

Miami...........99.01
Las Vegas...........96.96
New York...........96.45
Salt Lake City,...........93.69
San Diego...........93.08
Los Angeles...........92.70
San Jose...........91.85
Philadelphia...........91.21
Denver...........90.63
Chicago...........90.16
Boston...........88.68
San Juan...........88.62
Seattle...........88.19
Tampa...........87.65
Detroit...........85.99
Honolulu...........83.94
Tucso...........83.90
Portland...........83.74
Milwaukee...........82.99
Houston...........82.19
Atlanta...........82.09
Phoenix...........82.06
Cleveland...........81.99
Buffalo...........81.31
Sacramento...........81.20
Washington...........81.04
Virginia Beach...........80.66
Richmond...........80.58
Indianapolis...........80.52
Hartford...........80.52
Austin...........79.26
Minneapolis...........78.99
Memphis...........78.95
Raleigh...........78.26
San Antonio...........77.90
Baltimore...........77.77
Jacksonville...........77.68
Providence...........76.69
St. Louis...........76.46
Kansas City...........76.38
Louisville...........75.80
Dallas...........75.06
Cincinnati...........74.74
Pittsburgh...........73.60
Columbus...........73.27
New Orleans...........71.91
Tulsa...........71.19
Fresno...........71.14
Birmingham...........69.48
Orlando...........69.35
Oklahoma City...........68.90
San Francisco...........68.84
Rochester...........64.61
Nashville...........58.24
Grand Rapids...........55.69
Charlotte...........51.87
Riverside...........49.50

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by wwmiv

Except the boomtowns, almost all the urban areas shrunk in land area.

Yeah, I just noticed that chicago's UA lost about 100 sq. miles.

Kinda cool that it still managed to "grow" by about 64K despite losing territory.

[wwmiv]

It should be noted that the balance of the numbers above (e.g. for DFW 100-75=25) is not Rural, but rather it is the population outside of the primary Urban Area of that Metropolitan Area. DFW also includes the quite populated McKinney-Frisco and Denton-Lewisville Urban Areas as well as a smattering of other smaller Urban Areas.

[ChiSoxRox]

Originally Posted by wwmiv

It should be noted that the balance of the numbers above (e.g. for DFW 100-75=25) is not Rural, but rather it is the population outside of the primary Urban Area of that Metropolitan Area. DFW also includes the quite populated McKinney-Frisco and Denton-Lewisville Urban Areas as well as a smattering of other smaller Urban Areas.

Correct, the UA/MSA ratio shows how "sharp" the suburban edge of a metro is, i.e. Miami and Las Vegas going instantly to empty wilderness, or the very fuzzy sprawl of a Charlotte or Nashville with disconnected fringe areas.

2,646 urban areas in that report!

[dimondpark]

Originally Posted by ChiSoxRox

Looks like the new definition is a more cautious definition, with fringe areas tending to get shorn off.

San Francisco popped out with that drop despite the Bay Area's strong growth, and the area included in the urban area dropped by a quarter!

2010 urban area: 523.6 mi^2
2020 urban area: 428.7 mi^2

Likewise, Concord-Walnut Creek:

2010: 203.8 mi^2
2020: 175.8 mi^2

With that in mind, maybe be cautious about a direct 2010 to 2020 comparison.

In theory then, the SF Urban Area might not have actually lost population, the excluded areas were lopped off and so where the folks who live there.

[SIGSEGV]

Originally Posted by dimondpark

In theory then, the SF Urban Area might not have actually lost population, the excluded areas were lopped off and so where the folks who live there.

Yeah, I bet parts of Marin were taken off or something?

[homebucket]

Originally Posted by dimondpark

In theory then, the SF Urban Area might not have actually lost population, the excluded areas were lopped off and so where the folks who live there.

Is there a way to tell which areas were lopped off?

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by dimondpark

In theory then, the SF Urban Area might not have actually lost population, the excluded areas were lopped off and so where the folks who live there.

It almost certainly did not "lose" people.

If anything, what now constitutes the SF UA got denser/more populous.

Same is true for two of the other "losers", Cleveland and Milwaukee. Neither of them "lost" people, they simply had large areas of land lopped off of them.

The Cleveland UA lost 58 sq. miles, and the Milwaukee UA lost 82 sq. miles, so yeah, considering that neither of them were all that large to begin with, and they're both relatively stagnant growth-wise, of course their UA's went down in population.

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

It almost certainly did not "lose" people.

If anything, what now constitutes the SF UA got denser/more populous.

Same is true for two of the other "losers", Cleveland and Milwaukee. Neither of them "lost" people, they simply had large areas of land lopped off of them.

The Cleveland UA lost 58 sq. miles, and the Milwaukee UA lost 82 sq. miles, so yeah, considering that neither of them were all that large to begin with, and they're both relatively stagnant growth-wise, of course their UA's "lost" people.

San Juan is the only major Urban Area that likely actually lost population within the 2020 borders.

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by homebucket

Is there a way to tell which areas were lopped off?

The maps and downloadable shapefiles will be released sometime in January.

[tech12]

I always wondered if the census would ever change methodology in a way that more accurately reflected the size of SF/the Bay Area, by say, combining some of the five billion separate urban areas here. And finally they did change how they measure urban areas, but it's in a way that just chops up the Bay Area even more lol. So the Seattle urban area is more populous than SF's now? Yeah, if you chop off some suburbs from SF's already stunted urban area, I guess it is.

The hills/parkland/water really breaks the development up, and it's weird to see suburbs like Concord and Livermore listed as different urban areas from SF/Oakland (and from each other), as if they're totally separate entities.

Seriously, look at all these urban areas within the same metro area/region (2010 numbers):

urban areas within the 9-county Bay Area (SF MSA in bold):
San Francisco–Oakland, CA - 3,281,212
San Jose, CA - 1,664,496 (connected to the SF UA by unbroken development on both sides of the bay)
Concord, CA - 615,968 (separated from the SF UA by hills/parkland)
Santa Rosa, CA - 308,231
Antioch, CA - 277,634 (separated from the Concord UA only by an old navy base, at their closest point, and hills elsewhere)
Vallejo, CA - 165,074 (separated from the SF UA by the Carquinez straight)
Fairfield, CA - 133,683 (Separated from the Vallejo and Vacaville UAs by hills/parkland)
Gilroy–Morgan Hill, CA - 98,413
Vacaville, CA - 93,141
Napa, CA - 83,913
Livermore, CA - 81,624 (separated from the SF UA by some hills/parkland, connected to the Concord UA by unbroken development)
Petaluma, CA - 64,078

And then there are also the following UAs within the SJ-SF-Oakland CSA, but which are outside of the traditional Bay Area:

Stockton, CA - 370,583
Modesto, CA - 358,172
Santa Cruz, CA - 163,703
Merced, CA - 136,969
Turlock, CA - 99,904
Tracy, CA - 87,569
Manteca, CA - 83,578
Watsonville, CA - 73,534
Lodi, CA - 68,738

[Matthew]

Winston-Salem's downtown is actually impressive for its size. Winston-Salem is roughly the size of Huntsville or Pensacola and has a skyline roughly the size of Raleigh or Birmingham. Winston-Salem was North Carolina's largest city and was an unusually large percentage of the state's economy before WWII, with the tallest buildings in the state before the rise of Charlotte. So, it has the old architecture and character. You can also find blocks of structures from the 1700s and early-1800s, with the original downtown preserved and restored as one of the nation's first four historic districts. It was also a very wealthy city before WWII, so it has an unusually large collection of old mansions, designed by northeast architects. It's a misplaced eastern PA Moravian city, founded by artisans & craftsmen from Bethlehem, PA to fill North Carolina's need for artisans and craftsmen in the 1700s. They use history tourism, the arts (is home to one of the leading arts conservatories), their Carolina Wine Country metro area, Pilot Mountain, Hanging Rock State Park, and river sports to attract day-trip visitors from Charlotte and Raleigh, have them stay at historic boutique hotels (a 1929 Norman castle or a 23-storey Art Deco high-rise or maybe a hotel from 1815 or 1834) as their base to explore, and then watch as the northern transplants fall-in-love with the place and move there in a few months. Charlotte and Raleigh are the top places people move to Winston-Salem from and it's usually the neighborhoods and city character that attracts them. It reminds them of their home towns. Very smart. It's a city with it's own unique foods and even its own architectural style. It really stands-out from the everything-is-new neighbors. The core itself sees growth from Wake Forest University, two large medical centers (including a university research medical center), and being the world's leading center for Regenerative Medicine (creating human organs and tissues in a lab). The eastern third of downtown is largely land banked by life science developers.

[pip]

Urban areas are now measured by housing density instead of population density? What is the difference between urban area and MSA?