The US Census Bureau thread

[CassGilbert]

Originally Posted by BG918

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.

Yes, I know. Just seems like an odd way to live.

[KB0679]

Originally Posted by wwmiv

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.

That would be great if it were to be that soon.

[BevoLJ]

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.

I can understand the appeal pretty easy. Just looking at Austin and London at least I can see it. The west part of Austin in both what you could call the suburbs and the rural towns just west of the city it is amazingly beautiful. With the Texas Hill Country's spectacular views and the beautiful lakes west of the city it is very hard to imagine not wanting to live out there. In London there are many amazing fascinating and very beautiful towns and areas around London.

Originally Posted by CassGilbert

Yes, I know. Just seems like an odd way to live.

I'm sure that many people that live in the rural areas think the same way about the more fast paced cities. I know this may be a horrible thing to say on here and few on this website could comprehend such a thing, but cities are not for everyone. Some people just enjoy a slower quieter paced life. You can't deny that, here in the city that is much harder to come by. I enjoy all the great things that the city has to offer and would rather drive out to the Hill Country when I want to experience that, but I don't for a second think of it as 'odd' that someone would enjoy living out there. It is very beautiful, and I do often envy that. Luckily the Hill Country comes right up to and even kind of into Downtown Austin so not much need to go to far for it.

Originally Posted by Crawford

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.

This is something I have herd a bit of the past couple days here in Austin with SXSW. That some very wealthy and even famous people are buying some of the new condos that have been built in Downtown Austin to come "have fun" in Austin, but live in LA, Silicon Vally, or NYC. So just because the Austinonian has 360 units, or the W has (insert however many) amount of new units, doesn't really mean that, that many new people are living downtown. Although according to the census the Downtown population did grow a lot, so they are still really good in the long run. Just isn't as simple as 1 unit = 1 resident as you have to take the investors and people who just come to town a lot to have fun into account.

[CassGilbert]

Originally Posted by BevoLJ

I can understand the appeal pretty easy. Just looking at Austin and London at least I can see it. The west part of Austin in both what you could call the suburbs and the rural towns just west of the city it is amazingly beautiful. With the Texas Hill Country's spectacular views and the beautiful lakes west of the city it is very hard to imagine not wanting to live out there. In London there are many amazing fascinating and very beautiful towns and areas around London.

I'm sure that many people that live in the rural areas think the same way about the more fast paced cities. I know this may be a horrible thing to say on here and few on this website could comprehend such a thing, but cities are not for everyone. Some people just enjoy a slower quieter paced life. You can't deny that, here in the city that is much harder to come by. I enjoy all the great things that the city has to offer and would rather drive out to the Hill Country when I want to experience that, but I don't for a second think of it as 'odd' that someone would enjoy living out there. It is very beautiful, and I do often envy that. Luckily the Hill Country comes right up to and even kind of into Downtown Austin so not much need to go to far for it.

I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with living in rural/suburban settings, not at all. To each his own. It just seems like something that many would want to experience once in awhile, like a vacation, but to always live in it doesn't seem to offer anything, other than, perhaps, more square footage.

[DenverInfill]

Originally Posted by KB0679

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

I ran across the answer to this on the census website not too long ago (it was hard to find then and after a quick search just now, I couldn't find it) but apparently it is the Office of Management and Budget that defines CSAs, MSAs, etc., not the census bureau. If I recall correctly they are scheduled to do it again in 2013 (every ten years on the 3's... don't ask me why).

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by DenverInfill

I ran across the answer to this on the census website not too long ago (it was hard to find then and after a quick search just now, I couldn't find it) but apparently it is the Office of Management and Budget that defines CSAs, MSAs, etc., not the census bureau. If I recall correctly they are scheduled to do it again in 2013 (every ten years on the 3's... don't ask me why).

Yes... and no. The Census Bureau will release its estimates according to the definitions that are given by the OMB (which the Census is under). The official counts for metros and the estimates for 2010 will be given sometime this summer supposedly.

[LMich]

Yes, but the Census only gives numbers for metros as defined by by the OMB (like you said), so since they haven't been redefined (they do it on the '3 of every decade), the numbers will be for metros as they were defined in 2003. It won't be until 2013 that we get numbers for the redefined metro areas.

[SlidellWx]

The OMB is also changing some of the rules for defining a CSA. If I'm reading the rules correctly, MSA definitions remain the same with a 25% commuter interchange rate needed for inclusion. Currently for a CSA, a neighborhing MSA is added if commuter interchange rate is 15% or higher and if local opinion (usually involving county officials) agrees to be added. The OMB has decided to get rid of the local opinion rule, and only use the commuter percentages. They will be using 5 year ACS data to calculate the commuter percentages.

For example,

Here are the commuter interchange rates for MSA's surrounding the New Orleans MSA using the most recent ACS 5 year estimates...I'm sure other CSA's will also be adjusted given the new rules.

Bogalusa MSA = 38.5% live in Bogalusa and commute to New Orleans
9.8% live in New Orleans MSA and commute to Bogalusa

48.3% commuter interchange rate. This MSA is already in our CSA.

Hammond MSA = 23.7% live in Hammond and commute to New Orleans
14.8% live in New Orleans and commute to Hammond

Commuter interchange rate of 38.5%. If the numbers don't change with the new estimates in 2012 this should be added to the NOLA CSA in 2013.

Picayune MSA = 19.0% live in Picayune and commute to New Orleans
5.2% live in New Orleans and commute to Picayune

This gives a commuter interchange rate of 24.2%. However...Gulfport MSA has a commuter interchange rate of 25.5%. This means that the Picayune MSA should be added to the Gulfport CSA if commuting trends hold up through 2012.

Houma/Thibodaux MSA = 12.3% live in Houma/Thibodaux commute to NOLA
9.4% live in NOLA commute to Houma

Commuter interchange rate of 21.7%. The Houma MSA would be added to the New Orleans CSA if commuting trends stay the same into 2013.

Baton Rouge MSA = 8.2% live in Baton Rouge and commute to New Orleans
7.0% live in New Orleans and commute to BTR

Commuter interchange rate of 15.2%. This is just enough to combine the Baton Rouge MSA into the New Orleans CSA...which would create a New Orleans/Baton Rouge CSA in 2013 if commuting trends remain the same.

Gulfport/Biloxi MSA = 3.0% live in Gulfport/Biloxi and commute to New Orleans
2.0% live in New Orleans and commute to Gulfport/Biloxi.

A low commuter interchange rate of only 5.0% between Gulfport and New Orleans. This will not be added to the New Orleans CSA in 2013.

[M II A II R II K]

Metro/County Census Results So Far (Plus a Brief Look at Jobs)


March 17th, 2011

Tables Data: http://www.urbanophile.com/2011/03/1...-look-at-jobs/

The state redistricting files continue to roll-out, and we’re getting a better picture on total population and some of the racial characteristics of states and localities. Since I generally focus on large metros (greater than one million in population), I wanted to share the Census results so far for large metro areas.

.....

Also, here’s updated US county map showing positive growth in blue, negative growth in red:






Here’s a different view, showing counties growing faster than the US average (blue) vs. those declining (red). Note that this is on a percentage change basis. Interesting to see the concentration of growth.

[ChiSoxRox]

Massachusetts, Michigan, and New Hampshire

[LMich]

Michigan is going to be brutal. The Census last estimates showed 63 of the state's 83 counties posting some type of decline. Most minimal, but some rather extreme, particularly in the north-central and northeast.

[Shawn]

I just hope Boston is somewhere close to that 645,169 Census 2009 estimate. That would be a 9.5% growth rate over the 2000 official number of 589,141.

There's a chance that Quincy and Lynn will both top 100,000 too.

[iheartthed]

If the number I just heard is correct then Detroit's number is far worse than I thought... And will probably warrant it's own thread for discussion.

[DenverInfill]

The Detroit Free Press is reporting the city of Detroit at 713k.

[bobcat]

It's also being reported that Boston is down 15K.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by bobcat

It's also being reported that Boston is down 15K.

fuck.

Originally Posted by DenverInfill

The Detroit Free Press is reporting the city of Detroit at 713k.

double fuck!

[urbanactivist]

Detroit Free Press article gives all of the official county numbers..

http://www.freep.com/article/2011032...est-since-1910


Here's 3 counties of Metro Detroit

Oakland County: 1,194,156 (c.2000) 1,202,362 (c.2010) +8,206
Macomb County: 788,149 (c.2000) 840,978 (c.2010) +52,829
Wayne County: 2,061,162 (c.2000) 1,820,584 (c.2010) -240,578


Genessee County (Flint): 436,141 (c.2000) 425,790 (c.2010) -10,351

[dimondpark]

Detroit.

Quote:
Detroit’s population plunged 25% in the past decade to 713,777, the lowest level since 1910, four years before Henry Ford offered $5 a day to autoworkers, sparking a boom that quadrupled Detroit’s size in the first half of the 20th Century.

Census figures released to the Free Press -- by a government source who asked not be identified because the data has not been released publicly -- show the city lost 238,270 — on average, one resident every 22 minutes between 2001 and 2010.

http://www.freep.com/article/2011032...est-since-1910

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by bobcat

It's also being reported that Boston is down 15K.

That was an error. Boston gained population:

Contrary to figures originally released by Secretary of State William Galvin’s office this morning, the City of Boston actually gained population in the most recent U.S. Census count.

Boston went from 589,141 residents in the 2000 Census to 617,594.

Galvin’s office confirmed the error today and suspended the release of any further numbers until a 2 p.m. press conference. “I very much regret the confusion this has caused,” Galvin said.

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/reg...osition=recent

[SD_Phil]

^That is a big loss but, for the moment, how small should Detroit be given the # of jobs available in the region? Does anyone know or have any idea where people resettle to after the exodus from Detroit?