Downtowns are back

[the urban politician]

^ I wonder what the 2020 census says about downtown growth?

For 2010 the data showed that, within a 2 mile radius of city hall, downtown Chicago was by a huge margin the fastest growing downtown in the US. Not sure if that is still true for the 2020 census though

[Yuri]

As you guys mentioned Chicago, I decided to put its numbers together:

Downtown Chicago



---------------------- 2020 ------ 2010 ------ 2000 ------ 1990

Near North Side --- 105,481 ---- 80,484 ---- 72,811 ---- 62,842 ----- 31.1% ----- 10.5% ----- 15.9%

Loop ----------------- 42,298 ---- 29,283 ---- 16,388 ---- 11,954 ----- 44.4% ----- 78.7% ----- 37.1%

Near North Side has 6.8 km² for a density of 15,500 inh./km² and Loop 2.9 km² and 10,800 inh./km². 20 and 6 census tracts, respectively.

Loop, from a CBD, turned into a very dense residential area. Ditto for the southern tracts of Near North Side, which are the ones growing like crazy. The other areas are more stable as they've always been residential.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by yuriandrade

As you guys mentioned Chicago, I decided to put its numbers together:

Downtown Chicago



---------------------- 2020 ------ 2010 ------ 2000 ------ 1990

Near North Side --- 105,481 ---- 80,484 ---- 72,811 ---- 62,842 ----- 31.1% ----- 10.5% ----- 15.9%

Loop ----------------- 42,298 ---- 29,283 ---- 16,388 ---- 11,954 ----- 44.4% ----- 78.7% ----- 37.1%

Near North Side has 6.8 km² for a density of 15,500 inh./km² and Loop 2.9 km² and 10,800 inh./km². 20 and 6 census tracts, respectively.

Loop, from a CBD, turned into a very dense residential area. Ditto for the southern tracts of Near North Side, which are the ones growing like crazy. The other areas are more stable as they've always been residential.

Thanks for posting these. What this shows is that the near north side’s growth accelerated—big time—from 2010-2020. Wow.

However you are only getting half the picture here. We also need to see data from the near south and near west sides, as those are also considered a part of what is now described as Chicago’s “central area”

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

However you are only getting half the picture here. We also need to see data from the near south and near west sides, as those are also considered a part of what is now described as Chicago’s “central area”

Yes, most Chicagoans would probably now agree that "Downtown Chicago", at its most generous, has expanded west and south of the loop into the near west and near south community areas.

The problem with using community areas though is that they can be awfully large. The near west side, for example, stretches west all the way past western avenue! I don't think many urban observers here here would consider an intersection like Madison/Western to be "downtown". At most you can probably make an argument for going west to Ashland, but once you get out to the moonscape parking lots of the united center, "downtown" is definitely over.

It's an exercise probably better executed with census tracts, but that's tedious and time consuming to add up.

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

Thanks for posting these. What this shows is that the near north side’s growth accelerated—big time—from 2010-2020. Wow.

However you are only getting half the picture here. We also need to see data from the near south and near west sides, as those are also considered a part of what is now described as Chicago’s “central area”

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

Yes, most Chicagoans would probably now agree that "Downtown Chicago", at its most generous, has expanded west and south of the loop into the near west and near south community areas.

The problem with using community areas though is that they can be awfully large. The near west side, for example, stretches west all the way past western avenue! I don't think many urban observers here here would consider an intersection like Madison/Western to be "downtown". At most you can probably make an argument for going west to Ashland, but once you get out to the moonscape parking lots of the united center, "downtown" is definitely over.

It's an exercise probably better executed with census tracts, but that's tedious and time consuming to add up.

Here you are:

---------------------- 2020 ------ 2010 ------ 2000 ------ 1990

Near North Side ------ 105,481 ----- 80,484 ---- 72,811 ---- 62,842 ----- 31.1% ----- 10.5% ----- 15.9% ------ 6.8 km²

Loop -------------------- 42,298 ----- 29,283 ---- 16,388 ---- 11,954 ----- 44.4% ----- 78.7% ----- 37.1% ------ 3.9 km²

Near South Side ------- 28,795 ----- 21,390 ----- 9,509 ----- 6,828 ----- 34.6% ---- 124.9% ----- 39.3% ------ 4.6 km²

Near West Side -------- 48,719 ----- 36,789 ---- 21,689 ---- 17,978 ----- 32.4% ----- 69.6% ----- 20.6% ------ 7.4 km²

Central Chicago ---- 225,293 --- 167,946 --- 120,397 ---- 99,602 ----- 34.1% ----- 39.5% ----- 20.9% ------ 22.8 km²

Chicago MSA ----- 9,618,502 - 9,461,105 - 9,098,314 - 8,182,076 ------ 1.7% ------ 4.0% ----- 11.2% -- 18,634 km²


For Near West Side, as it's way too big, I considered only the eastern half of it, using 10 censos tracts.

As it happens in Near North Side, it's the census tracts near Loop the ones booming, in both NSS an NWS. In fact, the southernmost census tract in NSS, majority Black, is actually collapsing. In 1990, it made up 40% of NSS population. Today, it represents mere 4%.

Another thing: Chicago city proper minus Central Chicago declined by 7,000 people.

Originally Posted by Lobotomizer

Can someone please help me find the census tract data from the 2010 census? Thank you!

Go to City Population.

[LA21st]

Downtown LA's rental occupancy rate INCREASED during covid.
Wow.

And the apartments are only more expensive.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by yuriandrade

Here you are:

---------------------- 2020 ------ 2010 ------ 2000 ------ 1990

Near North Side ------ 105,481 ----- 80,484 ---- 72,811 ---- 62,842 ----- 31.1% ----- 10.5% ----- 15.9% ------ 6.8 km²

Loop -------------------- 42,298 ----- 29,283 ---- 16,388 ---- 11,954 ----- 44.4% ----- 78.7% ----- 37.1% ------ 3.9 km²

Near South Side ------- 28,795 ----- 21,390 ----- 9,509 ----- 6,828 ----- 34.6% ---- 124.9% ----- 39.3% ------ 4.6 km²

Near West Side -------- 48,719 ----- 36,789 ---- 21,689 ---- 17,978 ----- 32.4% ----- 69.6% ----- 20.6% ------ 7.4 km²

Central Chicago ---- 225,293 --- 167,946 --- 120,397 ---- 99,602 ----- 34.1% ----- 39.5% ----- 20.9% ------ 22.8 km²

Chicago MSA ----- 9,618,502 - 9,461,105 - 9,098,314 - 8,182,076 ------ 1.7% ------ 4.0% ----- 11.2% -- 18,634 km²


For Near West Side, as it's way too big, I considered only the eastern half of it, using 10 censos tracts.

As it happens in Near North Side, it's the census tracts near Loop the ones booming, in both NSS an NWS. In fact, the southernmost census tract in NSS, majority Black, is actually collapsing. In 1990, it made up 40% of NSS population. Today, it represents mere 4%.

Another thing: Chicago city proper minus Central Chicago declined by 7,000 people.

Thank you, Yuriandrade, for your work on this. This is very helpful info.

[SIGSEGV]

Originally Posted by yuriandrade

In fact, the southernmost census tract in NSS, majority Black, is actually collapsing. In 1990, it made up 40% of NSS population. Today, it represents mere 4%.

That's likely because https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_L._Ickes_Homes were demolished about 10 years ago (unless the souternmost census track you're considering is south of I-55?). The replacement project is just now getting built (https://www.mccafferyinc.com/portfolio/southbridge ), with 877 units.

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by yuriandrade

Here you are:

---------------------- 2020 ------ 2010 ------ 2000 ------ 1990

Near North Side ------ 105,481 ----- 80,484 ---- 72,811 ---- 62,842 ----- 31.1% ----- 10.5% ----- 15.9% ------ 6.8 km²

Loop -------------------- 42,298 ----- 29,283 ---- 16,388 ---- 11,954 ----- 44.4% ----- 78.7% ----- 37.1% ------ 3.9 km²

Near South Side ------- 28,795 ----- 21,390 ----- 9,509 ----- 6,828 ----- 34.6% ---- 124.9% ----- 39.3% ------ 4.6 km²

Near West Side -------- 48,719 ----- 36,789 ---- 21,689 ---- 17,978 ----- 32.4% ----- 69.6% ----- 20.6% ------ 7.4 km²

Central Chicago ---- 225,293 --- 167,946 --- 120,397 ---- 99,602 ----- 34.1% ----- 39.5% ----- 20.9% ------ 22.8 km²

Chicago MSA ----- 9,618,502 - 9,461,105 - 9,098,314 - 8,182,076 ------ 1.7% ------ 4.0% ----- 11.2% -- 18,634 km²


For Near West Side, as it's way too big, I considered only the eastern half of it, using 10 censos tracts.

As it happens in Near North Side, it's the census tracts near Loop the ones booming, in both NSS an NWS. In fact, the southernmost census tract in NSS, majority Black, is actually collapsing. In 1990, it made up 40% of NSS population. Today, it represents mere 4%.

Not to nitpick but if you are going to count some Near West Side then you should count all of it. The population in 2020 of NWS was 67,881. The Central Area which is Near West/South/North + The Loop grew by 58,417 people or 31.4%. Total population of those 4 areas today is 244,455.

Another thing: Chicago city proper minus Central Chicago declined by 7,000 people.

It is more nuanced than that and does not tell the complete story really. Besides the core (NNS, NWS, NSS, and The Loop) growing by a ton .

* The north lakefront (Lincoln Park, Lake View, North Center, Lincoln Square, Rogers Park, Edgewater, Uptown, West Ridge) grew by 25,718 people or a modest +5.48%.

* The south lakefront (Douglas, Oakland, Grand Boulevard, Washington Park, Hyde Park, Woodlawn, Kenwood, and South Shore) grew by 14,280 people or +8.06%.


Putting all of this together, the entire lakefront area from South Shore all the way north 20+ miles to the edge of the city in Rogers Park counting the greater downtown area including all of Near West Side gained 98,415 people compared to 2010. This is a growth rate of 11.82%.

To put that into further perspective, that area had a population of 832,772 in 2010 and 931,187 in 2020. That was larger than San Francisco and Boston both in 2010 and still is, and that area had a higher population growth than both of those cities from 2010 to 2020. To put it into further perspective, the city of Dallas outgained that area in the same time period by "only" 8000 people and some change.


Now for some more insights:
* The area of the city along I-55 going down to Midway (Armour Square, Garfield Ridge, Archer Heights, McKinley Park, Bridgeport, Brighton Park, West Elsdon, West Lawn, and Clearing) gained 5705 people or a modest +2.49%. Areas like Bridgeport, McKinley Park, and Brighton Park got a bit more Asian than 2010, and Archer Heights went from very little Asian population to an increasingly sizable one. The areas closest to Midway Airport like West Elsdon, West Lawn, Clearing, etc got more Hispanic and less white.


* The area of the far NW side of the city plus some others in the NW side kind of adjacent - Edison Park, Norwood Park, Forest Glen, Dunning, Montclare, and Jefferson Park gained 5661 people or a modest +3.84%. These areas gained 10,724 Hispanic people while losing 10,988 white people.

however...

* The area nearby in Portage Park, Irving Park, Belmont Cragin, Albany Park, Hermosa, and Avondale lost 10,249 people - some of this area is definitely gentrifying. Other areas of the city which lost population from 2000 to 2010 had some of the same activity happening so it'll be interesting to see if any of these areas actually turn around and gain population by 2030.


Where the city got slammed in population loss was really part of the south side and also west side:
The area of Englewood, West Englewood, Auburn Gresham, Washington Heights, Greater Grand Crossing, Roseland, West Pullman, and Pullman lost 28,486 people. That almost offsets the gains of the north lakefront and part of the NW side. Part of this area went through some big demographic shifts with areas like West Englewood going from only about 2% Hispanic in 2010 to nearly 20% Hispanic in 2020.



Then the area on the west side of Austin, North and South Lawndale, East and West Garfield Park, and Humboldt Park lost another 16,005 people. Yet again, some of these areas became a bit more Hispanic. Austin for example went from under 9% Hispanic in 2020 to nearly 20% Hispanic in 2020. We don't have the 2020 ACS data yet, but I can tell you that the loss in Austin was actually a few thousand people better than expected. My guess is in part due to an influx in Hispanic population.

In fact, Austin recorded the largest Hispanic population gain of any community area in the city with +9868 Hispanic people.
1. Austin: +9868 Hispanic people
2. Chicago Lawn: +7808
3. Garfield Ridge: +5573
4. West Englewood: +5058
5. Dunning: +5043
6. New City: +4066
7. Ashburn: +4025
8. Clearing: +3984
9. West Lawn: +2709
10. Near North Side: +2612


The city is becoming even more Hispanic, and more Asian now. The Hispanic population in the city is now greater than the Black population, and thus will be interesting to see the political battle play out. It will also be interesting to see if there can be some Asian representation now that the SW side is increasingly Asian. Bridgeport is now over 42% Asian and McKinley Park is approaching 30% now. Nearby in downtown, Near South Side and the Loop are both over 20% Asian now. Near West Side is almost 19% Asian now. Brighton Park is now nearly 11% Asian and Archer Heights went from 1% Asian in 2010 to 4.3% in 2020.

[Yuri]

Downtown San Francisco





------------------------------------- 2020 ------ 2010 ------ 2000 ------ 1990 ------ Growth ------ Density

Financial District/Embarcadero ---- 10,991 ------ 8,512 ------ 6,369 ----- 11,734 ---- 29.1% ---- 33.6% -- -45.7% ------- 2.2 km² --- 5,030.2 inh./km²

Downtown San Francisco --------- 134,974 ---- 110,719 ----- 97,737 ----- 88,944 ---- 21.9% ---- 13.3% ---- 9.9% ------- 8.0 km² -- 16,886.5 inh./km²

Downtown Oakland ---------------- 21,616 ----- 18,547 ----- 13,652 ----- 11,357 ---- 16.5% ---- 35.9% --- 20.2% ------- 3.6 km² --- 6,044.7 inh./km²

Downtown San Jose --------------- 14,589 ----- 10,656 ----- 10,145 ------ 9,249 ---- 36.9% ----- 5.0% ---- 9.7% ------- 5.7 km² --- 2,549.2 inh./km²

San Francisco --------------------- 873,965 ---- 805,235 ---- 776,733 ---- 723,959 ----- 8.5% ----- 3.7% ---- 7.3% ----- 121.5 km² --- 7,193.1 inh./km²

Oakland-Alam-Pied-Emer --------- 543,101 ---- 485,387 ---- 489,509 ---- 462,473 ---- 11.9% ---- -0.8% ---- 5.8% ----- 179.7 km² --- 3,022.3 inh./km²

San Francisco Metro Area ----- 8,036,501 -- 7,413,121 -- 7,039,362 -- 6,253,311 ----- 8.4% ----- 5.3% --- 12.6% -- 19,943 km²


As we've discussed the last few pages, here we have San Francisco. The strict definition, matches almost perfectly with the skyscrapers zone on the Pedestrian's post above. Density is relatively low because there are plenty of office towers in this area while the bulk of the growth is happening south of Market Street, around Salesforce Tower up to the docks.

Downtown San Francisco, the broader definition, also encompasses Chinatown, Nob Hill, Tenderloin, Civic Center, Rincon Hill/South Beach and South of Market. Very dense and populated area, comparable to Chicago's Loop + Near North Side, posted on Page 2.

And as a bonus, Downtowns of Oakland and San Jose. Their performance, compared to the boom everywhere and the very strong performance of the metro area, it's relatively underwhelming.

[TimCity2000]

is there an official definition of "downtown" that can be used to compare cities?

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by TimCity2000

is there an official definition of "downtown" that can be used to compare cities?

No. There are barely local definitions, depending on the place.

Originally Posted by LA21st

The Union Station might be the jail related lol.
I can't think of another reason why it would drop. There isn't much housing in that tract...yet.
I wonder if you counted the tracts west of downtown and around USC?

I used a 25 census-tract definition. I'd go with 20 at first, to respect freeway limits and Alameda St., but I'd left out areas that it's usually regarded as Downtown, like the Union Station and the west bank of Los Angeles River. So, nothing west or south the freeway loop. Just three ones north of the loop (because Union Station), but leaving Chinatown out.

And I'm using City Population as source, because it's much easier to navigate on it.

[LA21st]

Originally Posted by yuriandrade

No. There are barely local definitions, depending on the place.




I used a 25 census-tract definition. I'd go with 20 at first, to respect freeway limits and Alameda St., but I'd left out areas that it's usually regarded as Downtown, like the Union Station and the west bank of Los Angeles River. So, nothing west or south the freeway loop. Just three ones north of the loop (because Union Station), but leaving Chinatown out.

And I'm using City Population as source, because it's much easier to navigate on it.

That makes sense. But I think if you counted city west, it would be closer to 100k. It sounds like you left out the Arts District,
which is becoming a part of downtown for office and residential.
North of USC (south of the freeway) has probably added 5k, if not more.

Imo, USC is part of the greater downtown area, as it has the museum campus and several light rail stops.

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by LA21st

That makes sense. But I think if you counted city west, it would be closer to 100k. It sounds like you left out the Arts District,
which is becoming a part of downtown for office and residential.
North of USC (south of the freeway) has probably added 5k, if not more.

Imo, USC is part of the greater downtown area, as it has the museum campus and several light rail stops.

Arts District is in. Freeways bordering South and West, Los Angeles River at East and Chinatown/Alpine St. at North.

[edale]

Originally Posted by LA21st

Imo, USC is part of the greater downtown area, as it has the museum campus and several light rail stops.

No way. I went to USC, so I'm very familiar with the neighborhoods around campus, and the University Park area is absolutely not downtown. The residential neighborhoods around campus, especially to the north of campus toward Downtown, are leafy and quasi suburban. Figueroa is getting some substantial infill, but it is still dominated by strip malls and drive thru fast food by campus, and some car dealerships closer to the 10 freeway. Campus area feels like a different world than DTLA, in my opinion.

Btw I love to see all the development in that part of the city, and I can't wait for the Lucas Museum to open and Expo Park to get its much needed facelift.

[LA21st]

Originally Posted by edale

No way. I went to USC, so I'm very familiar with the neighborhoods around campus, and the University Park area is absolutely not downtown. The residential neighborhoods around campus, especially to the north of campus toward Downtown, are leafy and quasi suburban. Figueroa is getting some substantial infill, but it is still dominated by strip malls and drive thru fast food by campus, and some car dealerships closer to the 10 freeway. Campus area feels like a different world than DTLA, in my opinion.

Btw I love to see all the development in that part of the city, and I can't wait for the Lucas Museum to open and Expo Park to get its much needed facelift.

I said greater downtown.

[Xing]

Originally Posted by TimCity2000

is there an official definition of "downtown" that can be used to compare cities?

I don’t believe there is. So, we should probably take some of these numbers with a grain of salt.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by TimCity2000

is there an official definition of "downtown" that can be used to compare cities?

No, there is no official definition of a given city's "downtown", so this exercise is always open to lots of interpretation, and makes direct comparisons quite challenging, and usually meaningless.

The closest thing you can get to a somewhat direct apples-to-apples comparison is the census bureau's calculations of "x" number of people living withing "y" miles of a city's city hall, though that is also quite imperfect as most downtowns don't spread out from their city's city hall in perfect concentric rings. Water, topography, industrial zones/corridors, non-CBD city halls, and many other factors can greatly complicate that particular measure.

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

No, there is no official definition of a given city's "downtown", so this exercise is always open to lots of interpretation, and makes direct comparisons quite challenging, and usually meaningless.

The closest thing you can get to a somewhat direct apples-to-apples comparison is the census bureau's calculations of "x" number of people living withing "y" miles of a city's city hall, though that is also quite imperfect as most downtowns don't spread out from their city's city hall in perfect concentric rings. Water, topography, industrial zones/corridors, non-CBD city halls, and many other factors can greatly complicate that particular measure.

My purpose in this thread was to compare Downtown with the rest of the city/metro area than comparing Downtown X to Downtown Y, so the lack of an universal definition doesn't matter much.

What really stands out here is Downtowns, are booming pretty much everywhere. Some starting in the late 1990's, others in the late 2000's, but the trend is very clear.

[Yuri]

Downtown Miami




Downtown Miami growth is nothing short of spectacular:

---------------------- 2020 ------ 2010 ------ 2000 ------ 1990

Downtown Miami ------- 58,439 ---- 31,697 ----- 12,885 ----- 9,218 ----- 84,4% --- 146,0% ---- 39,8%

Miami-Miami Beach --- 525,131 --- 486,880 --- 449,743 --- 451,533 ------ 7,9% ----- 8,3% ---- -0,4%


Almost 2/3 of the absolute growth of Miami-Miami Beach in the past 20 years took place there. It has a 4.34 km² area for a 13,500 inh./km² density.