The US Census Bureau thread

[Chase Unperson]

Originally Posted by Thundertubs

No city on that list has ever seen a 35+% drop like you are assuming in STL's case, not even in the brutal decade of the 1970's. I can't imagine how casually suggesting historically rapid acceleration of decline would lead to productive discussion. Silly post. Moving on.

Also, this [?] is a question mark, it goes at the end of sentences that are questions.

I don't mean by 2020.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Ch.G, Ch.G

Some metros in Illinois and Wisconsin:

Madison, WI 568,593 (+66,819)
Peoria, IL 379,186 (+12,287)
Rockford, IL 349,431 (+29,227)
Springfield, IL 210,170 (+8,733)

would you mind compiling metro milwaukee too?

i'm very heartened to see milwaukee city proper stabilize. after the news coming out of other rust belt cities, including milwukee's big brother to the south, to see a statistically insignificant drop of only 0.4% in brew city is truly a surprise. it looks like milwaukee's explosive growth in latinos helped stabilize its population, just as an explosive growth in latinos powered growth in chicago back in the 90s.

[CentralGrad258]

Originally Posted by BevoLJ

Did you varify this through the census tracts? I would love to see the numbers from the areas that did a lot of gentrification. From what I have read and everyone has been saying in every other city it has shown that those area have had a huge decrease in population due to smaller household sizes and the higher cost pushing people out to the burbs that used to live in those areas. I am not denying what you say is true, but if some how Phily was able to do what no one else has then it would be interesting to see how they managed it.

Yup, here's a nifty map of population changes by neighborhood. The biggest percentage increases were in Center City and Northern Liberties, two of most gentrified neighborhoods in the city. A lot of that is due to new construction, so no families are being pushed out.

http://www.philly.com/philly/hot_topics/117455888.html?appSession=072206455496444

That's great and all, but I'm strictly going by U.S. Census numbers. The Census shows that Philly metro attracts relatively few immigrants compared to the other three Northeast metros.

By proportion, Philly and Detroit attract almost the exact same number of foreign-born residents.

Philly MSA- 8.8% foreign-born

Detroit MSA- 8.6% foreign-born

You can actually look up Philadelphia's numbers and it's 11% foreign born. The data is from the ACS survey (which uses the last census as its base) and it undercounts our population by about 100,000 compared to the actual Census count. Again, just about every local expert believes the growth is coming from the influx of Hispanic and Asian immigrants. The Census number bare that out (although the new foreign born numbers aren't available yet).

[Chicago103]

Originally Posted by Chase Unperson

For Chicago, I think the next census will be 2500000 and it won't go lower.

I think Chicago hit bottom in this census of 2010. The 2000 census proved that the city can increase in population and in 2010 there was a unique set of circumstances that won't be moving forward. The question is will there be stability or outright significant growth moving forward in Chicago.

[MayorOfChicago]

Originally Posted by Chicago103

I think Chicago hit bottom in this census of 2010. The 2000 census proved that the city can increase in population and in 2010 there was a unique set of circumstances that won't be moving forward. The question is will there be stability or outright significant growth moving forward in Chicago.

That and the fact there were probably a LOT of people missed. I mean many south and west side tracts covering many square miles when added together suddenly lost 25% of their population in the past 10 years - yet if you look the school enrollment and households receiving mail in those areas was stable throughout the period. North side areas along the lakeshore from Irving Park through Howard lost 30,000 people, yet the area was very stable with a lot of new construction. Sure household sizes are shrinking, but those areas weren't packed with families before, and with all the new condos and things going on in areas like Edgewater - it's surprising they'd be losing tens of thousands of people.

The estimates were based off things like people registering, people receiving mail, enrollments, etc. Suddenly they do a headcount and over 150,000 people just disappear from the estimates.

[Chicago103]

Originally Posted by MayorOfChicago

That and the fact there were probably a LOT of people missed. I mean many south and west side tracts covering many square miles when added together suddenly lost 25% of their population in the past 10 years - yet if you look the school enrollment and households receiving mail in those areas was stable throughout the period. North side areas along the lakeshore from Irving Park through Howard lost 30,000 people, yet the area was very stable with a lot of new construction. Sure household sizes are shrinking, but those areas weren't packed with families before, and with all the new condos and things going on in areas like Edgewater - it's surprising they'd be losing tens of thousands of people.

The estimates were based off things like people registering, people receiving mail, enrollments, etc. Suddenly they do a headcount and over 150,000 people just disappear from the estimates.

With that in mind it is possible that if the 2020 census is done much better Chicago might actually see a rather significant increase in population and not just from legitimate growth over the next ten years but also counting populations that were missed in 2010.

On a side note I wonder if Chicago should seriously challenge the census results. I just read yesterday in a book from the early 1980's that initial 1980 census results showed that Chicago had slightly fewer people than Los Angeles and had under 3 million people. The city challenged the results and the census readjusted the figure to 3.005 million people and put it slightly ahead of Los Angeles to retain its spot as the second largest city for a few more years. If you look at books from the 1980's some of them will actually show different census figures for Chicago in 1980 from the official ones we see today.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by CentralGrad258

You can actually look up Philadelphia's numbers and it's 11% foreign born.

Philly is 8.8% foreign-born, not 11% foreign-born.

But even using your 11%, the proportion of foreign-born is far below that of NYC, DC, and Boston, which was my original point (and hence the surprise at the population growth, given that immigration is the primary driver of U.S. urban growth).

Originally Posted by CentralGrad258

The data is from the ACS survey (which uses the last census as its base) and it undercounts our population by about 100,000 compared to the actual Census count.

It sounds like mere speculation on your part that the Census is undercounting Philly foreign-born, but if your claim is true, then it would also be true for all U.S. metros.

Therefore, if the Census undercounts, it would make no difference in Philly's proportional foreign-born relative to other metros.

[edluva]

Originally Posted by Chicago103

With that in mind it is possible that if the 2020 census is done much better Chicago might actually see a rather significant increase in population and not just from legitimate growth over the next ten years but also counting populations that were missed in 2010.

On a side note I wonder if Chicago should seriously challenge the census results. I just read yesterday in a book from the early 1980's that initial 1980 census results showed that Chicago had slightly fewer people than Los Angeles and had under 3 million people. The city challenged the results and the census readjusted the figure to 3.005 million people and put it slightly ahead of Los Angeles to retain its spot as the second largest city for a few more years. If you look at books from the 1980's some of them will actually show different census figures for Chicago in 1980 from the official ones we see today.

what would be the point? besides garnering a little more funding?

[ChiSoxRox]

Originally Posted by edluva

what would be the point? besides garnering a little more funding?

Civic pride; I'd be thrilled if Chicago challenged and the actual figure wound up being closer to 2.8 million.

[Antares41]

With all of the positive population growth in NJ, PA and CT (with the exception of Essex county, NJ) I am anxious to see what the numbers are for the NYC metro area. I was anticipating ~ 2.0% over 2000 Census numbers. I'm now thinking that probably a safe bet.

[alex1]

Originally Posted by edluva

what would be the point? besides garnering a little more funding?

the whole point is funding. Especially during these times, when most cities are running huge deficits and property taxes are on the downswing.

[CentralGrad258]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Philly is 8.8% foreign-born, not 11% foreign-born.

But even using your 11%, the proportion of foreign-born is far below that of NYC, DC, and Boston, which was my original point (and hence the surprise at the population growth, given that immigration is the primary driver of U.S. urban growth).

Use your own link. Philadelphia is also a county so it's plenty easy to get data for the city proper. It's 11 percent.

Originally Posted by Crawford

It sounds like mere speculation on your part that the Census is undercounting Philly foreign-born, but if your claim is true, then it would also be true for all U.S. metros.

Therefore, if the Census undercounts, it would make no difference in Philly's proportional foreign-born relative to other metros.

It's not speculation, it's the reality of the situation. Your link goes to the ACS, which is an estimate with the 2000 Census as its base for population projections. It indeed undercounts the Hispanic population 168,922 (ACS) vs. 187,611 (2010 census) and the Asian population 84,048 (ACS) vs 95,521 (Census). Now those 30,000 people may not seem like a big deal, but in a city where the population has only changed by less than 10,000 in 10 years, that means something. Now you could argue that the additional people from those ethnic groups are not necessarily foreign born, and I don't see foreign born data in the new Census, but all the local experts believe that the growth is due to increase in immigration. But hey, what do they and the people who actually live here know.

[hudkina]

But the point remains that Metro Philadelphia is closer to Metro Detroit than it is Metro New York/Boston/Washington when it comes to foreign-born population.

[CentralGrad258]

Originally Posted by hudkina

But the point remains that Metro Philadelphia is closer to Metro Detroit than it is Metro New York/Boston/Washington when it comes to foreign-born population.

Leaving that pissing match aside. I found this table to be very interesting:
http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2011/tables/11s0039.pdf

Again, I'm a little dubious of the numbers, because the ACS survey is dated now that the 2010 Census has been conducted. But Detroit city proper is only 4.9 percent foreign born. Philly is 10.5. New York is a ridiculous 36.4, but DC city proper is just 13.2. However, when you look at percent of foreign born who came in after 2000, Philly is actually higher than NYC (33.9 vs 25.8). So New York's immigrant population is overall less recent than Philadelphia's. Just goes to show that the top-line number doesn't always tell the full story. Does anyone know when the foreign-born numbers for the 2010 Census will be released?

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by CentralGrad258

However, when you look at percent of foreign born who came in after 2000, Philly is actually higher than NYC (33.9 vs 25.8). So New York's immigrant population is overall less recent than Philadelphia's.

No, it shows the complete opposite - it shows that Philly is drawing far fewer recent immigrants than the other Northeastern cities.

Using your numbers,

Roughly 9.5% of NYC residents are immigrants who arrived after 2000; and

Roughly 3.5% of Philly residents are immigrants who arrived after 2000.

So, once again, immigration does not appear to be the primary driver for Philly's population growth, since the rate of immigration is significantly lower than other cities in the Northeast.

[CentralGrad258]

Originally Posted by Crawford

No, it shows the complete opposite - it shows that Philly is drawing far fewer recent immigrants than the other Northeastern cities.

Using your numbers,

Roughly 9.5% of NYC residents are immigrants who arrived after 2000; and

Roughly 3.5% of Philly residents are immigrants who arrived after 2000.

So, once again, immigration does not appear to be the primary driver for Philly's population growth, since the rate of immigration is significantly lower than other cities in the Northeast.

Nobody is comparing overall foreign born population of Philly to New York other than you, give it a rest already. You're clueless about the city, have terrible reading comprehension, confuse MSAs and cities proper, all of that on top of a serious New York bias. But other than that you've got a firm grasp on things.

[hudkina]

Philadelphia's White population dropped by 57,000 (and that includes hispanics who listed White as their race), while Asians and Pacific Islanders jumped by 29,000 and people of another race (mostly Hispanics who don't identify with any of the listed races) and people of two or more races jumped by 28,000. So essentially the loss of Whites was made up for by the gain of Asians and Hispanics. What put Philadelphia over the "hump" was the fact that the Black population added 6,000. The American Native population jumped by 3,000 as well.

BTW, is this the first decade that Philadelphia's Black population is now larger than the White population?

The city is now 43% Black, 41% White, 6% Asian, and 10% Other.

[Chicago103]

Is Chicago the only major city in the country that experienced a population increase in 2000 and a population loss in 2010?

In regards to "mature" cities I am sure this is the case, it seems that either they have seen population gains for several decades straight (NYC), experienced a first post 1950 gain in 2010 (Washington D.C., Philadelphia) or have never seen a post 1950 gain (Saint Louis, Cleveland, Pittsburgh, etc.). Chicago seems to be in a unique situation here.

[KevinFromTexas]

Give it a rest, guys. And when posts start disappearing you should take a hint to ease up.

[Ch.G, Ch.G]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

would you mind compiling metro milwaukee too?

i'm very heartened to see milwaukee city proper stabilize. after the news coming out of other rust belt cities, including milwukee's big brother to the south, to see a statistically insignificant drop of only 0.4% in brew city is truly a surprise. it looks like milwaukee's explosive growth in latinos helped stabilize its population, just as an explosive growth in latinos powered growth in chicago back in the 90s.

Just compiled the Milwaukee data.

Milwaukee-Waukesha-West Allis, WI MSA 1,555,908 (+55,167 or 3.7%)
Milwaukee-Racine-Waukesha, WI CSA 1,751,316 (+61,744, also 3.7%)

EDIT:

Just for fun, combining the Milwaukee and Chicago CSAs yields 11,437,337 (+435,510 or 4.0%). Also, Lake County (IL), Kenosha County (WI) and Racine County (WI) added 82,532 residents for a combined total of 1,065,296.