The US Census Bureau thread

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by pesto

Santa Ana surprises me a bit. Is the density from having no large parks, airports, etc.? I know it is denser than most of the OC but I didn't think it was that much denser. Long Beach has some high-rises and areas of high density, so it's not as surprising.

Santa Ana is overwhelmingly Mexican and working class, so I would assume higher density has almost nothing to do with built form.

It's just that you have big household sizes, either from big families or folks doubling and tripling-up, especially because this part of OC doesn't have lots of cheap housing.

[urbanactivist]

The 20 Largest Counties in the US by population...

1) Los Angeles Co., CA 9,818,605(2010) 9,519,338(2000) +299,267
2) Cook Co., IL [Chicago] 5,194,675(2010) 5,376,741(2000) -182,066
3) Harris Co., TX [Houston] 4,092,459(2010) 3,400,578(2000) +691,881
4) Maricopa Co., AZ [Phoenix] 3,817,117(2010) 3,072,149(2000) +744,968
5) San Diego Co. CA 3,095,313(2010) 2,813,133(2000) +281,480
6) Orange County, CA [LA Metro] 3,010,232(2010) 2,846,289(2000) +163,943
7) Kings County, NY [NYC] 2,504,700(2010) 2,465,326(2000) +39,374
8) Miami-Dade Co, FL 2,496,435(2010) 2,253,362(2000) +243,073
9) Dallas Co., TX 2,368,139(2010) 2,218,899(2000) +149,240
10) Queens Co., NY [NYC] 2,230,722(2010) 2,229,379(2000) +1,343
11) Riverside Co. CA 2,189,641(2010) 1,545,387(2000) +644,254
12) San Bernadino Co., CA 2,035,210(2010) 1,709,434(2000) +325,776
13) Clark Co., NV [Las Vegas] 1,951,269(2010) 1,375,765(2000) +575,504
14) King Co., WA [Seattle] 1,931,249(2010) 1,737,034(2000) +325,776
15) Wayne Co., MI [Detroit] 1,820,584(2010) 2,061,162(2000) -240,562
16) Tarrant Co., TX [Ft. Worth] 1,809,034(2010) 1,446,219(2000) +362,815
17) Santa Clara Co., CA [San Jose] 1,781,642(2010) 1,682,585(2000) +99,057
18) Broward Co., FL [Ft. Lauderdale] 1,748,066(2010) 1,623,018(2000) +125,048
19) Bexar Co., TX [San Antonio] 1,714,778(2010) 1,392,931(2000) +321,842
20) New York Co., NY 1,585,873(2010) 1,537,195(2000) +48,678


http://2010.census.gov/2010census/data/

Another way to measure metro growth rates, and the size increase of county governments and influence

[pesto]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Santa Ana is overwhelmingly Mexican and working class, so I would assume higher density has almost nothing to do with built form.

It's just that you have big household sizes, either from big families or folks doubling and tripling-up, especially because this part of OC doesn't have lots of cheap housing.

True, and this is probably the explanation. Many other LA cities fit that demographic as well but they are probably too small to be on the list.

This may also account for LA's being denser than it looks. The street scene looks low-rise and with substantial yards; but the reality is lots of people in the house, not just an old couple.

[pacarlson]

Originally Posted by urbanactivist

The 20 Largest Counties in the US by population...

1) Los Angeles Co., CA 9,818,605(2010) 9,519,338(2000) +299,267
2) Cook Co., IL [Chicago] 5,194,675(2010) 5,376,741(2000) -182,066
3) Harris Co., TX [Houston] 4,092,459(2010) 3,400,578(2000) +691,881
4) Maricopa Co., AZ [Phoenix] 3,817,117(2010) 3,072,149(2000) +744,968
5) San Diego Co. CA 3,095,313(2010) 2,813,133(2000) +281,480
6) Orange County, CA [LA Metro] 3,010,232(2010) 2,846,289(2000) +163,943
7) Kings County, NY [NYC] 2,504,700(2010) 2,465,326(2000) +39,374
8) Miami-Dade Co, FL 2,496,435(2010) 2,253,362(2000) +243,073
9) Dallas Co., TX 2,368,139(2010) 2,218,899(2000) +149,240
10) Queens Co., NY [NYC] 2,230,722(2010) 2,229,379(2000) +1,343
11) Riverside Co. CA 2,189,641(2010) 1,545,387(2000) +644,254
12) San Bernadino Co., CA 2,035,210(2010) 1,709,434(2000) +325,776
13) Clark Co., NV [Las Vegas] 1,951,269(2010) 1,375,765(2000) +575,504
14) King Co., WA [Seattle] 1,931,249(2010) 1,737,034(2000) +325,776
15) Wayne Co., MI [Detroit] 1,820,584(2010) 2,061,162(2000) -240,562
16) Tarrant Co., TX [Ft. Worth] 1,809,034(2010) 1,446,219(2000) +362,815
17) Santa Clara Co., CA [San Jose] 1,781,642(2010) 1,682,585(2000) +99,057
18) Broward Co., FL [Ft. Lauderdale] 1,748,066(2010) 1,623,018(2000) +125,048
19) Bexar Co., TX [San Antonio] 1,714,778(2010) 1,392,931(2000) +321,842
20) New York Co., NY 1,585,873(2010) 1,537,195(2000) +48,678


http://2010.census.gov/2010census/data/

Another way to measure metro growth rates, and the size increase of county governments and influence

I guess because the economic down turn hit Phoenix a little harder than Houston, Harris county just barely made it out of the decade a little bigger than Maricopa county. I look for Harris and Maricopa counties to swap spots by the 2020 census.

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by pacarlson

I guess because the economic down turn hit Phoenix a little harder than Houston, Harris county just barely made it out of the decade a little bigger than Maricopa county. I look for Harris and Maricopa counties to swap spots by the 2020 census.

I disagree. Houston's economic situation is much better than Phoenix's. They've both been growing fast, but Phoenix's growth will probably slow down because of the housing bust.

[pacarlson]

Originally Posted by hudkina

Los Angeles is one of the densest cities in the nation, particularly if you only include the 60 or so sq. mi. in the core.

I find Los Angeles to be interesting. In 1910, the city was 99.2 sq. miles. It made some big land grabs before the 1920 census at which time the city had 576,673 people in 365.7 sq miles giving it a density of only 1,577 ppl/sq mile. Then the 1930 census showed that the city had 1,238,048 people in 440.3 sq miles for a density of 2,812 ppl/sq mile (very similar to Houston in 1970). Since then, LA has grown to only 469.1 sq miles with a 2010 population of 3,792,621, giving it the 8,085 ppl/sq mile density it has today and at least some modest respect on this forum. It looks to me like Los Angeles was smart to annex all that land before it was fully developed instead of remaining a 99.2 sq. mile city of maybe only 1.2 million people or less. For those of you on this forum who don't consider low density cities to even be cities, do you consider LA to be a city now, and if so, at what density did it become a city in your opinion?

[sofresh808]

Originally Posted by urbanactivist

The 20 Largest Counties in the US by population...

1) Los Angeles Co., CA 9,818,605(2010) 9,519,338(2000) +299,267
2) Cook Co., IL [Chicago] 5,194,675(2010) 5,376,741(2000) -182,066
3) Harris Co., TX [Houston] 4,092,459(2010) 3,400,578(2000) +691,881
4) Maricopa Co., AZ [Phoenix] 3,817,117(2010) 3,072,149(2000) +744,968
5) San Diego Co. CA 3,095,313(2010) 2,813,133(2000) +281,480
6) Orange County, CA [LA Metro] 3,010,232(2010) 2,846,289(2000) +163,943
7) Kings County, NY [NYC] 2,504,700(2010) 2,465,326(2000) +39,374
8) Miami-Dade Co, FL 2,496,435(2010) 2,253,362(2000) +243,073
9) Dallas Co., TX 2,368,139(2010) 2,218,899(2000) +149,240
10) Queens Co., NY [NYC] 2,230,722(2010) 2,229,379(2000) +1,343
11) Riverside Co. CA 2,189,641(2010) 1,545,387(2000) +644,254
12) San Bernadino Co., CA 2,035,210(2010) 1,709,434(2000) +325,776
13) Clark Co., NV [Las Vegas] 1,951,269(2010) 1,375,765(2000) +575,504
14) King Co., WA [Seattle] 1,931,249(2010) 1,737,034(2000) +325,776
15) Wayne Co., MI [Detroit] 1,820,584(2010) 2,061,162(2000) -240,562
16) Tarrant Co., TX [Ft. Worth] 1,809,034(2010) 1,446,219(2000) +362,815
17) Santa Clara Co., CA [San Jose] 1,781,642(2010) 1,682,585(2000) +99,057
18) Broward Co., FL [Ft. Lauderdale] 1,748,066(2010) 1,623,018(2000) +125,048
19) Bexar Co., TX [San Antonio] 1,714,778(2010) 1,392,931(2000) +321,842
20) New York Co., NY 1,585,873(2010) 1,537,195(2000) +48,678


http://2010.census.gov/2010census/data/

Another way to measure metro growth rates, and the size increase of county governments and influence

I looked up the top 20 from 1990, just for comparison:

1 Los Angeles County, CA 8,863,164
2 Cook County, IL 5,105,067
3 Harris County, TX 2,818,199
4 San Diego County, CA 2,498,016
5 Orange County, CA 2,410,556
6 Kings County, NY 2,300,664
7 Maricopa County, AZ 2,122,101
8 Wayne County, MI 2,111,687
9 Queens County, NY 1,951,598
10 Miami-Dade County, FL 1,937,094
11 Dallas County, TX 1,852,810
12 Philadelphia County, PA 1,585,577
13 King County, WA 1,507,319
14 New York County, NY 1,504,481
15 Santa Clara County, CA 1,497,577
16 San Bernardino County, CA 1,418,380
17 Cuyahoga County, OH 1,412,140
18 Middlesex County, MA 1,398,468
19 Suffolk County, NY 1,321,864
20 Alameda County, CA 1,279,182

[Evergrey]

http://www.minnpost.com/steveberg/20..._trouble_ahead

Census: MSP grows, but only on the edge; experts see trouble ahead



By Steve Berg | Wednesday, March 30, 2011

At first glance, the 2010 Census results seem satisfying and unremarkable. Only upon further review do they reveal unbalanced patterns of growth and wealth that spell trouble for Minneapolis-St. Paul as the metro economy tries to regain momentum.

The official count placed MSP's 13-county metro population at 3,278,833, up 10.4 percent from a decade ago. That was enough for the Twin Cities to retain its rank as the nation's 16th largest metro market. While the region grew 40 percent slower than during the go-go '90s, it still outpaced the 9.7 percent national rate, and it grew faster than all other Midwestern and Northeastern metros in the top 20.

That's the good news; now the bad. How the region grew should deeply trouble Minnesota's political, business and civic leaders. Virtually all growth was on the suburban edge, while the central cities and most inner suburbs lost both population and relative wealth. Not only did the cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul fail to gain population, they are now fully 30 percent poorer than the metro region as a whole.

That's not a healthy trend. Unless a more balanced growth pattern emerges, one that also includes the metro area's inner districts, and unless prosperity is shared more broadly, the MSP region will lag behind in competing for the young talent and high-quality jobs needed to keep pace as the economy recovers.

...

[dktshb]

Originally Posted by Ch.G, Ch.G

^ It's a good list to show people who still think LA isn't dense. It is, in fact, the tenth densest of the fifty largest US cities.

People fail to realize that LA is just as dense or more dense than most of those cities on the list above it at their respective square milages other than NY. It is just a very large city. It could be 2 or 3 on that list. We also have about 100 square miles of the city falling within the Verdugo, Santa Monica and San Gabriel mountain ranges.

[plinko]

Originally Posted by pacarlson

I find Los Angeles to be interesting. In 1910, the city was 99.2 sq. miles. It made some big land grabs before the 1920 census at which time the city had 576,673 people in 365.7 sq miles giving it a density of only 1,577 ppl/sq mile. Then the 1930 census showed that the city had 1,238,048 people in 440.3 sq miles for a density of 2,812 ppl/sq mile (very similar to Houston in 1970). Since then, LA has grown to only 469.1 sq miles with a 2010 population of 3,792,621, giving it the 8,085 ppl/sq mile density it has today and at least some modest respect on this forum. It looks to me like Los Angeles was smart to annex all that land before it was fully developed instead of remaining a 99.2 sq. mile city of maybe only 1.2 million people or less. For those of you on this forum who don't consider low density cities to even be cities, do you consider LA to be a city now, and if so, at what density did it become a city in your opinion?

It's not just that the city was 'smart' or trying to ensure that it would remain the largest city in the region (Read: Phoenix), it's that the city had two major economic and stability related needs that it met with an aggressive (and in some circles legally questionable) annexation policy: a deep water seaport (San Pedro) and a continuous water supply (San Fernando Valley hooking into the Owens Valley Canal). The city executed both of those things and basically hasn't grown in area much at all in the last 70 years (less than 5%), only densified (nearly 300%).

It's a city, of that there is no question or doubt. A highly disparate one in terms of regional people movement, but a city in every sense.

[ChiSoxRox]

I'm working on a list of 200,000+ counties for each state, and a list of all counties over half a million people. I'm to Michigan so far, and should finish by the weekend.

[Ch.G, Ch.G]

Originally Posted by dktshb

People fail to realize that LA is just as dense or more dense than most of those cities on the list above it at their respective square milages other than NY. It is just a very large city. It could be 2 or 3 on that list. We also have about 100 square miles of the city falling within the Verdugo, Santa Monica and San Gabriel mountain ranges.

I'm not sure I understand the point you're trying to make. Are you saying that when you consider only the habitable parts of LA, the density is higher? If so, well, duh. The same can be said about a lot of cities, including others on that list.

[Shawn]

^--- True, but not many other cities on this list have a mountain over 5,000 feet within their municipal borders, or an entire range averaging over 3,000 feet in height (Santa Monica Mountains).

[naterboy8796]

This is just what the economy of Texas needs, another skyscraper boom. More places to move in, more income, more $$$. It's a win-win, but up north, people are leaving and coming to the sun belt, texas triangle, and florida lol

[dktshb]

Originally Posted by Ch.G, Ch.G

I'm not sure I understand the point you're trying to make. Are you saying that when you consider only the habitable parts of LA, the density is higher? If so, well, duh. The same can be said about a lot of cities, including others on that list.

No I am saying that Los Angeles is denser than most all those other cities even if it is 10th on that list and that going by city boundaries is not an accurate way to compare city densities when Miami is 35 square miles and Los Angeles is 469. Oh and yes all cities have areas that are uninhabited (airports, dumps, park land, etc.) but there is no denying LA is on a different level there. That's all.

[ChiSoxRox]

Has anyone calculated what the density of Chicago would be if you took out the vast Calumet industrial zone? I'd imagine the density without South Deering (and maybe Hegewisch) would be a close model...

[urbanactivist]

Originally Posted by Dralcoffin

Has anyone calculated what the density of Chicago would be if you took out the vast Calumet industrial zone? I'd imagine the density without South Deering (and maybe Hegewisch) would be a close model...

OOH NICE I hope someone does it!! I'm working a "Living Density" thread for here, but don't want to post it until I've figured out Houston's inner loop minus the Ship Channel.

[MNMike]

That Minnpost article is so irritating and misleading in so many ways. Steve berg is an alarmist, and has been posting this type of thing forever. I am not going into it with as huge a post as I could citing all my critiques of this guy, it is too frustrating. I will go into it with a somewhat long post though Basically he is trying to make it sound much worse than it is...that is pretty much his thing, otherwise he has nothing to write about. He is one of those types that seems to need to put a very negative spin on anything, kind of like an annoying local news story. There are some trends that need to be looked at, for sure...and no, census 2010 certainly wasn't all great news...aside from taking that from the article, basically ignore that guy. The picture he paints in peoples minds of Minneapolis in that article isn't even close to reality.

A couple points...if he is going to make comparisons to places that are growing their core cities, he needs to make sure he is listing fully developed cities, where the population growth is indeed all in the core...the 45,000 people added to Denver were not nearly all from urban style development in the core city. Much of that was infill at the old airport site, and in huge new housing tracts along the way to the airport. Denver is doing great things, yes, but just looking at aerial maps of the city limits from the past decade confirms that huge amounts of the growth were not actually in the core. Apples to Oranges. In Portland and Seattle I think a most of that growth was in the core though, those are better comparisons...Though Portland did see some of the growth through annexation. Also, look at his chart showing this supposed huge disparity in wealth distribution in the metros...Seattle's numbers are very close to equal, but the other two comparisons are not even really significantly different than MSP. As for the statements about Minneapolis not moving toward more urban pedestrian friendly environments, well that is just wrong. I won't even start to detail all of the things that have been done or are being discussed to bring people back to the sidewalks. No urban infill development? There are 4 6-10 storey infill developments being built right now within 8 blocks of where I type this. I can find "experts" to say anything...I don't think the ones he has quoted are really familiar enough with all of the factors at work in this area and how they are effecting these numbers to comment accurately, at least it doesn't seem so to me.

Also of note...Minneapolis gained 14k in census 2000, and hasn't lost any significant population since the 70s. Interesting trends, not really following any typical pattern.

One more thing...the picture there that it would appear is supposed to represent decay and decline in Minneapolis is taken in an area near downtown that has seen thousands of new housing units built in the past decade. Just behind where the photographer is, you can find half million dollar condos, and up 2 blocks and to the left is the new Twins Stadium. That pretty much sets the tone for the rest of the article...misleading.

See, not too huge a post. Anyway, carry on

PS, one thing I do agree with from the article is the Hiawatha LRT wasted opportunity....it was not placed well to attract development. Even so, there is been noticeable development around it...hopefully we will see more with the central line, which is entirely routed through a very urban area. Kudos to Denver on their rail progress...and shame on Seattle for being even slower than us to get a line open!

[lawfin]

I used FreeDemographics to come up with these Chi / LA compares. These are base on 1, 3 and 5 mile concentric rings. I some sense this tool is not fair to Chicago because due to LA geography I was able to center the rings near among it densest corridors....and they are land locked....versus generally chicago's densest runs near the lake...so I centered it north and west of Humbolt Park so as to try and avoid as much as possible having the lake cover a significant chunk of the rings...as it was it still did.

Pretty comparable at the 1 mile radius level...note this is some of LA densest territiry. LA is modestly higher at 3 mile radius..again covers much of LA densest and alternatively some of Chicago's least dense...Chicago had significantly more people at the 5 mile radius level even with the Lake, yes I know one might argue that the mountains park equals lake loss...but it appeared from Map that between the two the lake covered more of the ring at the 5 mile level.

Anyhow for what is worth. I did a ring at some more dense areas in chicago and at the 1 and 3 miles ring level chicago was fairly significantly more dense than LA at those distances.


Chicago

US Census 2000 Variables 1 Mile: (41.903066, -87.71066) 3 Miles: (41.903066, -87.71066) 5 Miles: (41.903066, -87.71066)
Population 71,397 512,728 1,397,598
Households 20,034 165,795 521,083
% Female 51.2% 51.0% 50.1%
% Male 48.8% 49.1% 49.9%
Median Age 25.9 28.6 30.2
Household Average Income $35,824 $47,207 $62,376


LA

US Census 2000 Variables 1 Mile: LA2 3 Miles: LA2 5 Miles: LA2
Population 71,143 541,895 1,180,628
Households 22,157 184,574 385,723
% Female 49.3% 47.7% 48.9%
% Male 50.7% 52.3% 51.1%
Median Age 30.0 31.1 30.2
Household Average Income $38,185 $36,064 $40,436

[Crawford]

Why is LA majority male? Higher proportion of Latin migrant workers?