The US Census Bureau thread

[SteveD]

The Census has published their new MSA and CSA population estimates, as of July 1, 2023. Metro Atlanta squeezed by metro Philly and DC to become 6th largest in the US. 10th largest with the larger and broader CSA estimate.

1. New York-Newark-Jersey City, NY-NJ Metro Area: 19,498,249
2. Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim, CA Metro Area: 12,799,100
3. Chicago-Naperville-Elgin, IL-IN Metro Area: 9,262,825
4. Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, TX Metro Area: 8,100,037
5. Houston-Pasadena-The Woodlands, TX Metro Area: 7,510,253
6. Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Roswell, GA Metro Area: 6,307,261
7. Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV Metro Area: 6,304,975
8. Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington, PA-NJ-DE-MD Metro Area: 6,246,160
9. Miami-Fort Lauderdale-West Palm Beach, FL Metro Area: 6,183,199
10. Phoenix-Mesa-Chandler, AZ Metro Area: 5,070,110

The Census larger "Combined Statistical Area" Top 10:

1. New York-Newark, NY-NJ-CT-PA CSA: 21,859,598
2. Los Angeles-Long Beach, CA CSA: 18,316,743
3. Washington-Baltimore-Arlington, DC-MD-VA-WV-PA CSA: 10,069,592
4. Chicago-Naperville, IL-IN-WI CSA: 9,794,558
5. San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland, CA CSA: 9,001,024
6. Dallas-Fort Worth, TX-OK CSA: 8,654,750
7. Boston-Worcester-Providence, MA-RI-NH CSA: 8,345,067
8. Houston-Pasadena, TX CSA: 7,706,626
9. Philadelphia-Reading-Camden, PA-NJ-DE-MD CSA: 7,390,919
10. Atlanta-Athens-Clarke County-Sandy Springs, GA-AL CSA: 7,221,137

[C.]

Texas and Florida metro growing fast. And Phoenix. I wonder what the water situation will look like for Phoenix in a decade or two with this rapid population growth and dwindling water reservoirs.

[Crawford]

The Census estimates have NYC shrinking faster than the 1970's, when there was mass abandonment, budget collapse, mass shrinkage of employment and school population and you could get a home on Central Park for almost nothing.

Now NYC has the lowest vacancy rate in recorded history, and about 100k more employed residents than in 2000, when (if you take Census at its word) it had nearly 600k more people.

Can someone explain how any of this makes sense? How can the city have more employed residents with a supposedly cratering population? There would have to be a mass, near-total exodus of non-working people, but unemployment rate is stable, school enrollment has risen and share of elderly has risen.

Also, there were roughly 175k migrants during that period. The Census is supposed to include them in estimates. If they are, the claimed exodus would have to be something out of a disaster movie.

Either the decennial counts are massively off, the annual estimates are massively off, or some combination of the two. The numbers, at face-value, are absurd. The city has its worst housing crisis in modern history. Bridge and tunnel crossings are at record highs. The public schools are one of the few urban districts with growing student counts.

[C.]

Hudson County, NJ gained population

Population estimates - 2023: 705,472
Population estimates - 2022: 702,381
+3,091

Essex County, NJ Population Estimates

Population estimates 2023: 851,117
Population estimates 2022: 849,724
+1,393


Jersey City is coming for your #2 spot, Newark.

[C.]

Originally Posted by Crawford

The Census estimates have NYC shrinking faster than the 1970's, when there was mass abandonment, budget collapse, and you could get a home on Central Park for almost nothing.

Now NYC has the lowest vacancy rate in recorded history, and about 100k more employed residents than in 2000, when (if you take Census at its word) it had nearly 600k more people.

Can someone explain how any of this makes sense? How can the city have more employed residents with a supposedly cratering population? There would have to be a mass, near-total exodus of non-working people, but unemployment rate is stable, school enrollment has risen and share of elderly has risen.

Also, there were roughly 175k migrants during that period. The Census is supposed to include them in estimates. If they are, the claimed exodus would have to be something out of a disaster movie.

Watch when the decennial count happens in 2030, NYC has over 9,000,000 due to this tomfoolery with the estimates.

[3rd&Brown]

Originally Posted by Crawford

The Census estimates have NYC shrinking faster than the 1970's, when there was mass abandonment, budget collapse, and you could get a home on Central Park for almost nothing.

Now NYC has the lowest vacancy rate in recorded history, and about 100k more employed residents than in 2000, when (if you take Census at its word) it had nearly 600k more people.

Can someone explain how any of this makes sense? How can the city have more employed residents with a supposedly cratering population? There would have to be a mass, near-total exodus of non-working people, but unemployment rate is stable, school enrollment has risen and share of elderly has risen.

Also, there were roughly 175k migrants during that period. The Census is supposed to include them in estimates. If they are, the claimed exodus would have to be something out of a disaster movie.

Either the decennial counts are massively off, the annual estimates are massively off, or some combination of the two. The numbers, at face-value, are absurd.

It's the same for Philly. Says we lost another 16K residents last year even though there is new residential construction in every nook and cranny of the city, including places people couldn't have imagined new construction 3 years ago let alone a generation ago. Something like 20K+ units under construction or in the pipeline. I live in a new complex with 1,000+ units planned (700 for sale, 300 rentals). To date, half the units are sold and occupied and the balance of the pipeline shows no slowing down.

The data is wrong.

[Yuri]

Yeah, I'd expect positive growth on California and northern metro areas compared to 2022. Maybe they're having some trouble to measure those areas. As they seem to be better measuring the Sun Belt, I guess you can do some speculation on it.

Dallas is on the verge to become a megacity and might be there before Chicago. If we add Sherman MSA, Dallas metro area is at 8.25 million inh. At this pace they'll be around 9.2 million-9.3 million by the 2030 Census. Same for Houston: at this pace they'll be at 8.5 million in 2030.

Atlanta didn't manage to compete with the Texan ones on this century, but adding Gainesville to it, will be at 7.1 million in 2030. Enough to put it clearly ahead Washington, Philadelphia, Miami and Boston-Worcester to become the 7th largest metro area in the country.

[Tuckerman]

Originally Posted by 3rd&Brown

It's the same for Philly. Something like 20K+ units under construction or in the pipeline.

The data is wrong.

This is apples and oranges; while housing construction does have a correlation with population, it is not necessarily with population growth. It may be also be correlated with a redistribution of type of occupancy in the housing as well as the closing of other housing possibilities.

In any case the new census estimates are the best we have and provide s pretty good picture of urban growth and decline in the country. As any statistician knows estimates are full of error possibilities from multiple causes -that is why they are estimates. At best they are general guides to what is happening in a designated area, but they are not hard data and nor is the 10 year census. But these estimates provide reasonable guidelines on urban change (+ & -) over time in the U.S.

[UrbanRevival]

Originally Posted by Tuckerman

This is apples and oranges; while housing construction does have a correlation with population, it is not necessarily with population growth. It may be also be correlated with a redistribution of type of occupancy in the housing as well as the closing of other housing possibilities.

In any case the new census estimates are the best we have and provide s pretty good picture of urban growth and decline in the country. As any statistician knows estimates are full of error possibilities from multiple causes -that is why they are estimates. At best they are general guides to what is happening in a designated area, but they are not hard data and nor is the 10 year census. But these estimates provide reasonable guidelines on urban change (+ & -) over time in the U.S.

It's not just housing data, though. You also can corroborate other federal data like employment numbers (also based on surveys like the Census). Philly, for example, has ~30,000 more jobs than 4 years ago according to BLS, yet the Census is showing an estimated decline of ~50,000 people over the same period?

I believe cities like NYC, LA and Chicago are showing the same type of divergence.

I get that a rise in employment is not mutually exclusive with population decline, but it underscores the point of a very strong divergence in different data points that, at some level, defy historical logic.

I don't know precisely what's going into the estimate models, but it's hard to surmise that they are considering employment/housing permit numbers as they probably should.

And the Census wasn't exactly winning awards for its accuracy in the 2010s estimates when considering the 2020 final numbers. So a very healthy dose of skepticism is not only warranted but necessary, especially regarding historic undercounts in big cities.

Unfortunately, I think we'll all have to wait until 2030 to have the next meaningful government-recognized count of population at the local level.

[jtown,man]

Originally Posted by 3rd&Brown

It's the same for Philly. Says we lost another 16K residents last year even though there is new residential construction in every nook and cranny of the city, including places people couldn't have imagined new construction 3 years ago let alone a generation ago. Something like 20K+ units under construction or in the pipeline. I live in a new complex with 1,000+ units planned (700 for sale, 300 rentals). To date, half the units are sold and occupied and the balance of the pipeline shows no slowing down.

The data is wrong.

I work in a stagnant metro but we still have tons of new construction.

There will always be a market for new builds, even for new offices.

[Steely Dan]

CB estimates for the big messy urban legacy cities are hot garbage.

And they have been for decades.

Only a fool would put stock in them.

[Tuckerman]

Originally Posted by UrbanRevival

It's not just housing data, though. You also can corroborate other federal data like employment numbers (also based on surveys like the Census). Philly, for example, has ~30,000 more jobs than 4 years ago according to BLS, yet the Census is showing an estimated decline of ~50,000 people over the same period?

Unfortunately, I think we'll all have to wait until 2030 to have the next meaningful government-recognized count of population at the local level.

I agree with the points that you make, but I would add that estimates or approximations are purely based on statistical manipulation of many relevant factors. However, those factors that adjust for errors are applied universally to all the population areas under consideration so that, in general, the biases apply whether one is analyzing the Dallas Metro or the NYC metro. Obviously each metro area has a unique population dynamic based on factors such as in and out migration, jobs lost and added, housing dynamics, demographic changes, e.g birth and death rates, to name just a few of the factors that need to be assessed.
One assumes that the many statisticians working at Census are well aware of what needs to go into any estimating procedure and that sufficient funding from Congress has given census that capability.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by subterranean

Maybe I’m a conspiracy theorist, but I think raising interest rates was a political decision to force even more liberals to the south. The trend was already there of course, but these rates have acted like an accelerant. Likewise, banning abortion feels like a Hail Mary to keep liberals away from Texas et al. This next election should be interesting.

Here's an old Atlantic article from 2019 that discussed ongoing issues Democrats have with winning the popular vote but losing elections.

I don't think there are a ton of solid blue voters rushing to Florida from New York. I can think of five households I know that have moved from NY metro to Florida since 2020 (all of them moved before 2022). All of them moved to be closer to family during the pandemic chaos.

Today I think the people most likely moving from NY metro to Florida are either conservatives and/or people from immigrant families that have large established communities in Florida. To me it seems that native-born liberal voters are much less likely to consider moving to Florida than they were a decade ago precisely because of the perceived political extremism happening there.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Tuckerman

in general, the biases apply whether one is analyzing the Dallas Metro or the NYC metro.

They don't apply equally. That's the issue. If you look at the 2020 Census count, the Census estimates were absolutely awful for older urban jurisdictions, and fine for newer areas.

For example, Census uses car registrations as a proxy for annual population shifts. But if one metro has a huge share of out-of-state registrations, the numbers will diverge.

If you go to, say, the Bronx, every other vehicle has out-of-state plates. I'm pretty sure those aren't visitors, but residents using relatives' addresses to save money on vehicle registration & insurance (NY has expensive and burdensome vehicle registration).

Either that, or tons of Florida, North Carolina and Pennsylvania residents are apparently vacationing in the South Bronx.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Crawford

They don't apply equally. That's the issue. If you look at the 2020 Census count, the Census estimates were absolutely awful for older urban jurisdictions, and fine for newer areas.

For example, Census uses car registrations as a proxy for annual population shifts. But if one metro has a huge share of out-of-state registrations, the numbers will diverge.

If you go to, say, the Bronx, every other vehicle has out-of-state plates. I'm pretty sure those aren't visitors, but residents using relatives' addresses to save money on vehicle registration (NY has expensive and burdensome vehicle registration).

Either that, or tons of Florida, North Carolina and Pennsylvania residents are apparently vacationing in the South Bronx.

Yeah, every borough except maybe Staten Island has a substantial number of cars parked with out-of-state plates. Not to mention that most people who move to NYC don't even bring cars to the city.

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by jtown,man

I work in a stagnant metro but we still have tons of new construction.

There will always be a market for new builds, even for new offices.

São Paulo (municipality) grew by only 250k people between 2010 and 2022 and delivered 80,000 residential units last year and it will do it 150,000 more for 2024.

Construction can get very divorced from population growth, specially on big cities where people tend to be younger and live alone.

[Crawford]

Even the decennial official count has issues. By law, they have to count every person, but not all people have similar response rates. For example, illegal immigrants have horrible response rates. Blacks and Hispanics, college students, formerly incarcerated, renters and a whole host of groups have bad response rates. The best response rates are among homeowners, seniors and "traditional" nuclear families.

So you can say "it's the same rules for everyone" but if, say, one jurisdiction has few undocumented residents and another has many, you can see that an equal application of the rules doesn't result in equally accurate data.

[3rd&Brown]

Originally Posted by Tuckerman

I agree with the points that you make, but I would add that estimates or approximations are purely based on statistical manipulation of many relevant factors. However, those factors that adjust for errors are applied universally to all the population areas under consideration so that, in general, the biases apply whether one is analyzing the Dallas Metro or the NYC metro. Obviously each metro area has a unique population dynamic based on factors such as in and out migration, jobs lost and added, housing dynamics, demographic changes, e.g birth and death rates, to name just a few of the factors that need to be assessed.
One assumes that the many statisticians working at Census are well aware of what needs to go into any estimating procedure and that sufficient funding from Congress has given census that capability.

You're new here.

[3rd&Brown]

Originally Posted by Tuckerman

However, those factors that adjust for errors are applied universally to all the population areas under consideration so that, in general, the biases apply whether one is analyzing the Dallas Metro or the NYC metro.

When the decennial census comes out and we learn that the Census Bureau previously undercounted many big urban cities (in its estimates) by a large margin, what did they do to correct their methodology?

Given that this has been going on for decades, I'd say they've done nothing.

So, in fact, the biases do not equally apply. I hope you're not a statistician because this much is obvious from the adjustments that happen every ten years in the same places.

[3rd&Brown]

Originally Posted by jtown,man

I work in a stagnant metro but we still have tons of new construction.

There will always be a market for new builds, even for new offices.

Yeah but Philly is a lot smaller than Chicago (geographically) and there are neighborhoods that are being completely repopulated that were left for dead only 10 years ago. The math ain't mathin. I'm talking about fallow brownfields for blocks on end that had a handful of structures on them a decade ago and now are full of hundreds of homes and apartments.

I'm not talking about a random apartment house here or there. It's literally everywhere.