The US Census Bureau thread

[dktshb]

Sad thing really is how all those cities with explosive growth are growing... Most likely sprawling low density neighborhoods using up much more land and natural resources in the process. This type of growth is also more expensive to maintain and is happening in parts of the country that are so tax adverse. I would be happier if I knew the growth was more urban focused like it should be here in the 21st century.

[ChiPsy]

Enlightening analysis of the paradoxical population loss associated with the revitalization of many of St. Louis City's neighborhoods (same thing happening with Chicago, more than likely:

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/metro/article_3d5a2fcf-1f88-5df1-92ef-de9c360645ca.html

[Expat]

^Interesting article. Perhaps the census has exposed a new trend in certain types of cities, shrinking to perfection. These cities are looking better than ever to the casual observer. Everyone is shocked to learn that folks in the everyday neighborhoods are leaving.

Not to dismiss the serious issues regarding the huge number of people slipping out the back door, but, could this be pain associated with old industrial cities reinventing themselves? Instead of massive cities of workers, they are becoming smaller boutique cities where workers have moved to the outer ring. And of course, moving to other regions where the working class sees opportunity for a better life - the Great Migration in reverse.

[Evergrey]

What is "perfection"? Apparently St. Louis and Chicago aren't "becoming perfect" for the many people who have left in the past decade.

[Expat]

I guess you miss my point. Or don't agree.

[ChiSoxRox]

Originally Posted by Expat

^Interesting article. Perhaps the census has exposed a new trend in certain types of cities, shrinking to perfection. These cities are looking better than ever to the casual observer. Everyone is shocked to learn that folks in the everyday neighborhoods are leaving.

Not to dismiss the serious issues regarding the huge number of people slipping out the back door, but, could this be pain associated with old industrial cities reinventing themselves? Instead of massive cities of workers, they are becoming smaller boutique cities where workers have moved to the outer ring. And of course, moving to other regions where the working class sees opportunity for a better life - the Great Migration in reverse.

Look at Pittsburgh over the past few decades. It has seen a revival of tourism, it has become a clean, "hip" city, and a center for technology and education, much different than the old smoky steel days. Yet its population has consistently fell. I believe we're seeing similar population trends in our older industrial cities.

Chicago right now to me seems to be at a demographic turning point. The vast poor areas on the West and South Sides are emptying out, driving that disappointing population drop. But I doubt we'll see another severe drop in 2020. I expect Chicago to stabilize in the 2.7-2.8 million range for the next few decades (I'd like to be one of those 2.7-2.8 million come 2020).

The three states I'm most eager to see are the other big Great Lakes states: Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, to see if the inner city population decline continues for the likes of Cleveland and Philadelphia.

[Xing]

Originally Posted by ChiPsy

Enlightening analysis of the paradoxical population loss associated with the revitalization of many of St. Louis City's neighborhoods (same thing happening with Chicago, more than likely:

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/metro/article_3d5a2fcf-1f88-5df1-92ef-de9c360645ca.html

Better to post some of the article :

Rehabs belie St. Louis' drop in census

Amid the reams of census data released Thursday showing an unexpected population loss in St. Louis, perhaps no detail was more striking than this:

In a belt of neighborhoods across the near south side, places around Tower Grove Park and Benton Park that have seen countless homes rehabbed and new businesses open in the last decade, the number of actual residents declined by at least 10 percent.

In Tower Grove East and Shaw, Fox Park and McKinley Heights, population fell faster than the city as a whole. The south side contributed almost as much to St. Louis' 8 percent population drop as did the continuing exodus up north.

The difference is that while people have flowed out of north St. Louis for decades, many of these south city neighborhoods have in recent years seemed to rebound, acquiring the trappings of urban revitalization, from coffee shops to kickball leagues to parents pushing strollers.

It's a reminder that progress and population growth don't always move as one and also that the challenges facing a city still struggling to grow again — schools in particular — won't be solved by redevelopment alone.

City leaders were roundly shocked by the numbers released Thursday. Yes, everyone expected some parts of the city would shrink as they have for decades. But not 24 of St. Louis' 28 wards. Not every ward south of Interstate 44. Staffers at City Hall spent Friday scrambling to make sense of it, to find errors in the count and, more than anything, to figure out where all the people went.

It made no sense to Steve Conway, the veteran alderman who represents Shaw. He has watched over the last decade as his blocks of old Victorians have been restored and young families have moved in, filling the neighborhood Montessori school to the brim and stacking the waiting list at the local Catholic school. Dog-walkers abound. There's a wine bar.

"We've become one of the most desirable neighborhoods in the city," he said.

Yet the census says Shaw's population is down 1,400 people, or 17 percent, and to Conway it just doesn't add up. He said he has approved 145 gut rehabs since 2000, and in what used to be a parking lot on Grand Boulevard, there's a 27-unit condo building. Out of nearly 2,000 homes in the neighborhood, he counts just 47 as vacant.

"I have no clue," Conway said, "why the numbers are what they are."

[BG918]

A big reason is while inner city neighborhoods have improved in the past decade, and new condo towers and lofts have been built in downtowns across the country, it doesn't make up for losing families of 4/5/6 that used to live in these areas. Now they are made up largely of older couples or widows/widowers, and more recently, young singles or young couples without children. People are still overwhelmingly leaving the inner city once they have kids. That is what is driving the population decreases even though on the outside it appears the neighborhoods have gotten better, and in many ways they have. That explains population losses in cities like Chicago and St. Louis, and minimal gains in cities like Dallas and Denver, to name a few.

[BG918]

Originally Posted by rds70

Colorado data:

Metro area populations:

Denver-Boulder-Greeley CSA: 3,090,874
Colo. Springs MSA: 645,613
Ft. Collins-Loveland MSA: 299,630
Pueblo MSA: 159,063
Grand Jct MSA: 146,723

Change from 2000:

Denver-Boulder-Greeley: 460,894
Colo. Springs: 108,129
Ft. Collins-Loveland: 48,136
Pueblo: 17,591
Grand Jct: 30,468

Have they released the census tract data for Denver yet? I'd like to see where the population increases were in the city, and see how much an effect the Stapleton development had which was largely developed and populated this past decade. Not many cities (Denver and Austin are the only one I can think of) have airports in their city limits that were moved and the city was able to redevelop the land into new neighborhoods. I am curious if Denver saw the same issues most large cities did where there was a lot of urban development and infill but minimal increases or even decreases in inner city population.

[urbanactivist]

Originally Posted by BG918

A big reason is while inner city neighborhoods have improved in the past decade, and new condo towers and lofts have been built in downtowns across the country, it doesn't make up for losing families of 4/5/6 that used to live in these areas. Now they are made up largely of older couples or widows/widowers, and more recently, young singles or young couples without children. People are still overwhelmingly leaving the inner city once they have kids. That is what is driving the population decreases even though on the outside it appears the neighborhoods have gotten better, and in many ways they have. That explains population losses in cities like Chicago and St. Louis, and minimal gains in cities like Dallas and Denver, to name a few.

This is what I think. The same pattern is happening across the country, regardless of city type or location. The difference comes down to how the city limits are drawn...

Harris County
2000: 3,400,578
2010: 4,092,459

City of Houston
2000: 1,953,631
2010: 2,099,451

Houston's Inner Loop
2000: 456,630
2010: 469,051

So after a gain of nearly 700k for the County, and a gain of 145,820 for the city, the inner loop of Houston only gained 12,421 residents from 2000 to 2010. The area that we would consider to be the most "urban" and the traditional portion of the city didn't gain nearly as many residents as we had once thought. So eventhough the metro has grown at a staggerring rate, the growth is by and large still in the suburbs. Families that formerly lived within the city have either left by choice, or are being priced out by the market. The same pattern that we've seen (so far) in cities like Dallas, St. Louis or even Chicago.

[BG918]

Originally Posted by urbanactivist

This is what I think. The same pattern is happening across the country, regardless of city type or location. The difference comes down to how the city limits are drawn...

Harris County
2000: 3,400,578
2010: 4,092,459

City of Houston
2000: 1,953,631
2010: 2,099,451

Houston's Inner Loop
2000: 456,630
2010: 469,051

So after a gain of nearly 700k for the County, and a gain of 145,820 for the city, the inner loop of Houston only gained 12,421 residents from 2000 to 2010. The area that we would consider to be the most "urban" and the traditional portion of the city didn't gain nearly as many residents as we had once thought. So eventhough the metro has grown at a staggerring rate, the growth is by and large still in the suburbs. Families that formerly lived within the city have either left by choice, or are being priced out by the market. The same pattern that we've seen (so far) in cities like Dallas, St. Louis or even Chicago.

Here in Tulsa people have been discussing how certain inner city neighborhoods that had a lot of new investment and infill actually lost population over the decade and they couldn't explain it. I think it's pretty easy to explain actually. You have an aging population in most inner city neighborhoods mixed in with young singles and young couples. Families are still either moving to suburbs or, like you said, priced out of the more expensive inner city where you get less SF for more $$. The key this decade and the next will be building on the renaissance inner cities started to see in the 90's and 00's with young professionals and getting more families back in the city. The Census should make everyone aware of this.

[MNMike]

Estimates were off for a lot of central cities this year, I think foreclosures and vacant properties are really contributing more than were accounted for.

Kind of strange...I don't know about other places, but estimates by the census bureau leading up to the 1990 and 2000 census were off by tens of thousands saying the city lost population when it actually didn't, I think their 1999 estimate for Minneapolis was close to 30,000 less than the 2000 count if I remember correctly, close to that anyway. This time around the bureau estimates growth in central Minneapolis, but I won't be surprised if we see a big drop too. Sure there has been a ton of new development, but those foreclosures in the last 5 years will hurt us I think. We will see. They will probably release the MN numbers last. GRRR. Anyway, even with drops, it doesn't mean these cities are getting that much worse(most are still improving)...just need to recover from the housing bubble. I wish Minneapolis had more square mileage so it could claim hundreds of thousands more people for its tax base that are in all the burbs that surround its measly 54 square miles.

So many of these "newer" cities really benefit from their huge footprints. Having undeveloped land within the city limits really allows them to grow their tax base. They can claim both new dense urban developments(and many do have great new dense devlelopments in their inner city), and redevelopments in the inner city, but also have that dependable growth in the suburban type areas(still within their city limits) as a cushion.

[TarHeelJ]

Originally Posted by MNMike

Estimates were off for a lot of central cities this year, I think foreclosures and vacant properties are really contributing more than were accounted for.

Kind of strange...I don't know about other places, but estimates by the census bureau leading up to the 1990 and 2000 census were off by tens of thousands saying the city lost population when it actually didn't, I think their 1999 estimate for Minneapolis was close to 30,000 less than the 2000 count if I remember correctly, close to that anyway. This time around the bureau estimates growth in central Minneapolis, but I won't be surprised if we see a big drop too. Sure there has been a ton of new development, but those foreclosures in the last 5 years will hurt us I think. We will see. They will probably release the MN numbers last. GRRR. Anyway, even with drops, it doesn't mean these cities are getting that much worse(most are still improving)...just need to recover from the housing bubble. I wish Minneapolis had more square mileage so it could claim hundreds of thousands more people for its tax base that are in all the burbs that surround its measly 54 square miles.

So many of these "newer" cities really benefit from their huge footprints. Having undeveloped land within the city limits really allows them to grow their tax base. They can claim both new dense urban developments(and many do have great new dense devlelopments in their inner city), and redevelopments in the inner city, but also have that dependable growth in the suburban type areas(still within their city limits) as a cushion.

This idea certainly isn't limited to "newer" (i.e. southern/western) cities...and many "newer" cities aren't swimming in land (i.e. Atlanta, Miami, etc) and are very limited as to future annexation. Some cities are lucky (if you want to call it that) in that they have lots of expansion room and very little holding their boundaries in place. I say more power to them if that's the type of city they are looking to create.

[MNMike]

Yes, I didn't mean it was a bad thing. I wish Minneapolis could annex all the first ring suburbs to grow the tax base. And yes there are "newer" cities that are locked in as well, I never said all, or even most

[TarHeelJ]

Originally Posted by MNMike

Yes, I didn't mean it was a bad thing. I wish Minneapolis could annex all the first ring suburbs to grow the tax base. And yes there are "newer" cities that are locked in as well, I never said all, or even most

I guess you were even including Minneapolis in the newer city category anyway, as it isn't all that old.

[Centropolis]

Originally Posted by TarHeelJ

I guess you were even including Minneapolis in the newer city category anyway, as it isn't all that old.

Minneapolis was over 500,000 at the 1950 census, St. Paul over 300,000.

[Thundertubs]

Originally Posted by TarHeelJ

I guess you were even including Minneapolis in the newer city category anyway, as it isn't all that old.

MPLS was the 18th largest city in the US in 1890, and was completely filled out in the pre-war era. It's no New Haven, Albany, or Newark, but it's not a newer city.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by ardecila

Now that alternatives exist - in places like Atlanta or DC - where a black middle class is growing, that's a very attractive alternative.

Surprisingly, the opposite is true.

Black income growth has been slower in booming Sunbelt metros than in the North. Places like Atlanta actually lag the nation in income growth, for blacks especially, but really for everyone.

If you look at black migration data, most of the folks moving to places like Atlanta are working class types priced out of high-cost metros, or very young or old folks with low incomes (though the income differential is probably based in part on life stage rather than economic potential).

Now it may be true that there's a perception of opportunity, which is probably reinforced by sheer numbers. There are now more African Americans in Atlanta than any other metro outside of NYC, so there are obviously a vast number of blacks in all walks of life.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Expat

^Interesting article. Perhaps the census has exposed a new trend in certain types of cities, shrinking to perfection. These cities are looking better than ever to the casual observer. Everyone is shocked to learn that folks in the everyday neighborhoods are leaving.

I would say this is a uniquely SSP way of looking at things.

There's really no way to spin it; this is bad news for urbanites. Yes, there are small positive nuggets, like core city population and income growth, but too many U.S. urban neighborhoods are rotting away.

[TarHeelJ]

Originally Posted by Thundertubs

MPLS was the 18th largest city in the US in 1890, and was completely filled out in the pre-war era. It's no New Haven, Albany, or Newark, but it's not a newer city.

COMPARATIVELY it's a newer city...jeeze. If people are considering Houston, Atlanta, etal as newer then so is Minneapolis. Anyway...