The US Census Bureau thread

[LMich]

I'm sure some outfit in your local media will do a map showing the tracts that gained and lost population; it'll make it a bit more tangible. It seems in almost every major matured city what you've seen is large percentage increases in central tracts, but either very modest growth to huge empyting outs in outer neighborhoods.

[dave8721]

I wonder how its even possible to get an accurate count in some neighborhoods. In Miami's Little Havana neighborhood with its roughly 100% immigrant population you have people literally living in garages and sheds and carved out illegal rentals of all sorts. You might as well just close your eyes and pick a number.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by LMich

I'm sure some outfit in your local media will do a map showing the tracts that gained and lost population; it'll make it a bit more tangible. It seems in almost every major matured city what you've seen is large percentage increases in central tracts, but either very modest growth to huge empyting outs in outer neighborhoods.

In addition to huge population shifts of middle class and working class to exurban new build areas.

ETA: Or maybe I should have said "in complement to huge population shifts...".

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by LMich

It seems in almost every major matured city what you've seen is large percentage increases in central tracts, but either very modest growth to huge empyting outs in outer neighborhoods.

i really don't understand why this concept is so hard for some to understand. chicago built even more residential highrises downtown than atlanta did over the past 10 years, and chicago ended up LOSING roughly 200,000 people. it was one of the most impressive downtown building booms in chicago's entire history (or that of any american city not named "new york" for that matter), but overall chicago still ended up LOSING roughly 200,000 people.

downtown building booms do not guarantee overall city population growth.

[BG918]

Originally Posted by LMich

I'm sure some outfit in your local media will do a map showing the tracts that gained and lost population; it'll make it a bit more tangible. It seems in almost every major matured city what you've seen is large percentage increases in central tracts, but either very modest growth to huge empyting outs in outer neighborhoods.

I think we are seeing the next "cycle" that cities are going through. That is where the inner city areas around downtown are gaining people (after losing people from the 60's-90's) but the outer neighborhoods are losing people while from the 60's-90's they either had minimal gains or stagnated toward the end of that period. This is due to the housing stock, most of which was post WW-II, becoming less attractive and the presence of Section 8 apartment complexes built in these same areas in the 70's and 80's which are now, in many cases, high-crime slums.

Downtowns have new housing i.e. condo towers and converted lofts and surrounding pre WW-II neighborhoods have charm and proximity to downtown that lends itself to renovating the homes or, in the more rundown areas, build new infill housing. So that is why you have seen gains in the central cities of most major cities. BUT these gains are minimal as the type of people that are moving to inner cities are mostly singles or couples without kids. While the people moving OUT of the outer neighborhoods and ghetto areas are families with kids.

So you may be gaining 1 but losing 4, and multiply that by thousands and you have large decreases in cities where the city limits are smaller and no new construction i.e. sprawl can take place. Most cities that posted large gains have plenty of land to still develop like Austin, Oklahoma City, Kansas City, Nashville, etc. while cities like St. Louis, Chicago, Atlanta, Dallas, Cincinnati, Tulsa, Pittsburgh, etc. do not and that growth goes to their suburbs instead.

[urbanactivist]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

i really don't understand why this concept is so hard for some to understand. chicago built even more residential highrises downtown than atlanta did over the past 10 years, and chicago ended up LOSING roughly 200,000 people. it was one of the most impressive downtown building booms in chicago's entire history (or that of any american city not named "new york" for that matter), but overall chicago still ended up LOSING roughly 200,000 people.

downtown building booms do not guarantee overall city population growth.

As one Chicagoan, you can't help where other people choose to live... You can only make that choice for yourself and let others handle their own business. The growth and strength of the central city is something that we can all celebrate. And the fact that many other central cities (Oakland, Dallas , Philly) have done the same points to a wonderful with our country's thinking. I hope we can all stop focusing on the big scary loss numbers and instead try to focus on the positives here.

[Lakelander]

Here is a look at where growth and decline were in Jacksonville. Growth in greenfield areas and downtown but decline in many of the surrounding inner city neighborhoods and mid-20th century suburban areas. I assume most spread out cities across the US have similar results.

[DenverInfill]

One other factor to consider is the number of vacant housing units. For example, per the 2010 census results, the city of Atlanta had 39,431 vacant housing units out of a total of 224,573 housing units. That's about 18% vacancy rate.

[hudkina]

The funny thing with "downtown" condo towers is that most really only house about 100-200 people. So a few dozen towers isn't going to do all that much to budge the overall population. A few thousand people being added to one neighborhood can easily be counteracted by a 200,000 people leaving dozens of neighborhoods outside of downtown.

[Crawford]

Let's say we have a fancy new 400-unit downtown condo tower in an average American city. Big population win for the city, right? Not necessarily.

First, the building will likely be half-empty, with tons of unsold units.

Second, the occupied units will often be bought by investors and out-of-towners. It's possible most of these occupied units added no new residents.

Third, the household sizes of those who bought units are likely extremely small, with few children or extended family.

Fourth, many of the occupants (especially renters) will be young folks, and may not be counted as city residents. They may be college or grad students, and count their childhoold address as permanent residence.

Fifth, we have no idea if the occupants are net new city residents. If many of the occupants moved from other buildings in the same city, it's arguable that the new building actually hurt the city, by bleeding residents from existing neighborhoods.

[sabino86]

No! No! I CAN'T HANDLE ALL THIS FACTS AND REASON!!!!!

It's just a shame that with energy prices skyrocketing the way they are, the people choosing to live in exurbs today are gonna get slammed down the road for their failure to factor in transportation costs.

Personally, I would estimate Atlanta's population to be between 450-470K, given what I've seen living here over the past two decades.

[CassGilbert]

I don't see the appeal of living in rural or suburban areas. I've always lived in big cities, only in apartments, never in separate houses and don't really want to.

[dave8721]

Miami sort of bucked the national trend in that its central city saw its first population boom in decades and had its first double digit % increase since the 1960's. The City of Miami added more people in the 2000's than it had from 1970 to 2000 combined. During those years the metro around the City exploded with suburban development but the city remained stagnant. The 2000's reversed that trend.

Miami's population increases over the years
1910 to 1920: added 24,078 (440.1% increase)
1920 to 1930: added 81,088 (274.4% increase)
1930 to 1940: added 61,535 (55.6% increase)
1940 to 1950: added 71,104 (44.8% increase)
1950 to 1960: added 42,412 (17% increase)
1960 to 1970: added 43,171 (14.8% increase)
1970 to 1980: added 12,006 (3.6% increase)
1980 to 1990: added 11,683 (3.4% increase)
1990 to 2000: added 3,922 (1.1% increase)
2000 to 2010: added 36,987 people (10.2% increase)

Here is how the population in South Florida was increasing over that same time span. Notice how the growth slowed in the 2000's while the City of Miami's growth began to increase again:

1900 to 1910: +12,555
1910 to 1920: +49,032
1920 to 1930: +148,288
1930 to 1940: +172,692
1940 to 1950: +306,183
1950 to 1960: +803,394
1960 to 1970: +739,546
1970 to 1980: +984,199
1980 to 1990: +835,256
1990 to 2000: +951,464
2000 to 2010: +557,071

[Ch.G, Ch.G]

Originally Posted by urbanactivist

I hope we can all stop focusing on the big scary loss numbers and instead try to focus on the positives here.

Hopefully, cities will take the principles that have made downtown living so attractive this past decade and begin applying them to outer neighborhoods.

[brickell]

I assume that the MSAs, CSAs and UAs will all be shuffled around and redefined. Does anyone know when they plan on releasing that?

[BG918]

Originally Posted by CassGilbert

I don't see the appeal of living in rural or suburban areas. I've always lived in big cities, only in apartments, never in separate houses and don't really want to.

You may not but for millions of American it is appealing and the Census numbers reflect that. Often these are families with multiples kids so when ~3-5 people leave and then 1-2 people move into the condos/apartments of the inner city it equals a net loss. Single family homes are still very attractive for most Americans and that isn't changing.

[BG918]

Originally Posted by Ch.G, Ch.G

Hopefully, cities will take the principles that have made downtown living so attractive this past decade and begin applying them to outer neighborhoods.

I think that will be a great challenge for most cities. The reason being a lot of the outer areas now emptying were built in the post WW-II era, meaning they catered to the automobile. Most of these neighborhoods consist of single family homes, many of styles which are now seen as "ugly" the exception being Mid-Century Modern homes built in the 50's which are now in vogue. These neighborhoods also have, in many cases, rundown shopping centers and numerous apartment complexes that are no longer desirable.

The "outer neighborhoods" of cities with housing stock built from the 60's to 90's will be a lot more difficult to redevelop, IMO. You'll have the donut effect all over again except the hole (downtown/inner city) will be filled and the ring will be the problem with growth around the city in the newer suburban areas with less crime and better schools.

[KB0679]

Originally Posted by brickell

I assume that the MSAs, CSAs and UAs will all be shuffled around and redefined. Does anyone know when they plan on releasing that?

It last happened in 2003, so maybe around 2012, 2013.

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by KB0679

It last happened in 2003, so maybe around 2012, 2013.

Actually, I can't find the information on the census website (good luck if you try), but I read somewhere that they plan on having that out sometime this summer.

[mhays]

The Census website is designed specifically to infuriate the public. That's the only explanation.