The US Census Bureau thread

[Centropolis]

If we all go back and read everything, I don't see what is controversial about what The Urban Politician said in post 1185.

I remember being a kid and visiting relatives in the mid south, coming from my very mainstream suburban culdesac, and being very aware of the sort of individualistic flair and character that everyone had down south, and the sort of laid back way people lived - gravel driveways and tireswings - and i liked it. It was very different from the sort of cold, mechanical quality of the way everything moved around me in the outer ring suburban midwest where people mowed their yards diagonally - all TUP said is that this same process of people living in massive outer ring expressway dominated suburban worlds has now taken root in the south at a sort of cultural critical mass and domination the same way it did on the fringes of midwestern cities a generation ago. This seems to be less a commentary on the south than it is a commentary on the sickness of mainstream american culture - i guess if that's offensive to anyone or you are in denial about the deep, deep problems inherent to explosive hyper auto dominated growth - i can't help you, but his argument at it's heart doesn't seem to me to be anything about bashing the south.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by urbanactivist

Ok so why is it that SSP always has to make this a VS thing between North and South? These cities are not against each other. They may be different in many ways, but people in Austin are doing the very same thing as people in Chicago... living their lives the best way they know how. And that compendium of know-how is growing/expanding in the urban cores of the Sunbelt. Where is the VS with that?? Is it not a good thing for all of our cities to grow stronger???

^ I'm not making it into a versus thing. No need to confuse Lawfin's polarizing tomfoolery in that other thread with what I was trying to say.

My original post was in response to somebody who said that "the South is rising again". My point is that the "South" as we know it really isn't rising again. When the statement "the South shall rise again" was made long, long ago it almost certainly was meant to imply that the Confederate South, with its culture and values at the time, would rise up and dominate America in its own image.

Reality is, the South is (variably) doing great right now from a demographic and economic standpoint but it is doing so in a form that much more resembles mainstream America than that of the Confederate flag waving Victorian Age South that comes to mind. I lived in one of the South's booming towns (Nashville) for 4 years and most of the booming areas reminded me much more of anywhere America with the subdivisions, chain stores, malls, Starbucks, etc etc that you see all over the country, North and South, than anything that made me think "hey, this is a distinctly 'southern' place that seems to be proliferating".

[BevoLJ]

Gota agree with Urban Politician. While I think of Texas more as "western" than "southern" many think of it the other way around and it was a part of the Confederate South. Austin has pretty much been overrun by Californians. People in Austin (especially North Austin where most of the growth has been) have been bitching about it turning into an extension of California for 20 years now. Yet even with all that bitching the explosive growth in North Austin continues and it more and more resembles what I recognize from when I lived in Caly than the Austin I grew up in. With the exception of New Orleans I really haven't spent much of any real time anywhere else in the south so can't speak for anywhere else. New Orleans however has maintained a lot of its traditional southern qualities. It to me fights to preserve those qualities much to its own detriment, in my opinion. Although I am glad it does so. Makes it such a special place.

[Centropolis]

Originally Posted by BevoLJ

Gota agree with Urban Politician. While I think of Texas more as "western" than "southern" many think of it the other way around and it was a part of the Confederate South. Austin has pretty much been overrun by Californians. People in Austin (especially North Austin where most of the growth has been) have been bitching about it turning into an extension of California for 20 years now. Yet even with all that bitching the explosive growth in North Austin continues and it more and more resembles what I recognize from when I lived in Caly than the Austin I grew up in. With the exception of New Orleans I really haven't spent much of any real time anywhere else in the south so can't speak for anywhere else. New Orleans however has maintained a lot of its traditional southern qualities. It to me fights to preserve those qualities much to its own detriment, in my opinion. Although I am glad it does so. Makes it such a special place.

I've always thought of Texas as being within it's own unique individual contexts, perhaps being a sort of post-old southern place, perhaps at one time embodied in the civil war veteran southerner trying to put his past behind him further west and that sort of thing trickling down. Thats a little different than Dixie and a little more fraught with baggage and sort of the root of the respect I have for the historical "cowboy."

[Ch.G, Ch.G]

IMO, if there's one story the 2010 told about the entire country, it's that sprawl is still the dominant form of 'spatial organization.' I think almost every metropolitan area that grew saw most of that growth in the suburban/exurban parts. This holds whether the city lost population (e.g,. Chicago, Milwaukee, the Twin Cities, Baltimore) or gained (e.g., Atlanta, Dallas, Houston).

[DenverInfill]

Sprawl and suburban development are not the same thing.

[LMich]

Originally Posted by DenverInfill

Sprawl and suburban development are not the same thing.

Except that, say, 90% of the time in this country, it still is.

Check out the New York Times Interactive 2010 Census map, and you'll see, whether it is Rustbelt or Sunbelt, that most cities grew in their immediate downtowns anr/or at their fringes, that's if they even grew at all.

[Trae]

Originally Posted by BevoLJ

Gota agree with Urban Politician. While I think of Texas more as "western" than "southern" many think of it the other way around and it was a part of the Confederate South. Austin has pretty much been overrun by Californians. People in Austin (especially North Austin where most of the growth has been) have been bitching about it turning into an extension of California for 20 years now. Yet even with all that bitching the explosive growth in North Austin continues and it more and more resembles what I recognize from when I lived in Caly than the Austin I grew up in. With the exception of New Orleans I really haven't spent much of any real time anywhere else in the south so can't speak for anywhere else. New Orleans however has maintained a lot of its traditional southern qualities. It to me fights to preserve those qualities much to its own detriment, in my opinion. Although I am glad it does so. Makes it such a special place.

Originally Posted by Centropolis

I've always thought of Texas as being within it's own unique individual contexts, perhaps being a sort of post-old southern place, perhaps at one time embodied in the civil war veteran southerner trying to put his past behind him further west and that sort of thing trickling down. Thats a little different than Dixie and a little more fraught with baggage and sort of the root of the respect I have for the historical "cowboy."

It really depends on what part of Texas you're in. For example, you could drop East Texas (Tyler, Longview, Jasper, Lufkin, Beaumont) almost anywhere in the Deep South. Places like Beaumont look like they belong in Louisiana, and Houston has a Southern vibe to it. DFW feels more like the Great Plains/Midwest. Almost everything West of I-35 feels "Western".

[BG918]

Originally Posted by LMich

Except that, say, 90% of the time in this country, it still is.

Check out the New York Times Interactive 2010 Census map, and you'll see, whether it is Rustbelt or Sunbelt, that most cities grew in their immediate downtowns anr/or at their fringes, that's if they even grew at all.

I've been looking at that map and noticed the same trend for most cities. Downtowns and urban neighborhoods immediately adjacent to downtown had growth. The downtowns themselves had moderate to high growth because most downtowns started with very little housing in 2000. The nearby urban neighborhoods had low to moderate growth where once single family houses or townhouses became populated by singles and young couples. And then you have the rest of the inner city declining with the highest rates of depopulation in the most rundown areas or areas where public housing was torn down. You don't see growth again until you get to the newer fringes, and in the case of smaller, older cities, until you get into the actual suburbs.

Reversing the trend of decline in the outer inner city neighborhoods away from downtown will be the next challenge for American cities. This area is much larger than downtown so it will be even more difficult to reverse. In a lot of cities this includes the "old money" neighborhoods which once were home to families and now, due to school districts, crime concerns and older demographics, have been declining in population while still being desirable areas. The only way to change that is to increase the density or somehow encourage more families to move back in..

[BevoLJ]

I was looking at that map and noticing how many of the inner city neighborhoods that even have good schools, parks and such still lost population. One thing that I have seen happen is some of them is residential being replaced by lots of commercial, offices or retail, and often times mixed use. Most of those mixed use projects that are replacing homes in the inner city areas the residential parts of it are pretty much apartments or town homes and are filled by college kids and younger singles or such. So even as the housing stock and occupancy rates in those areas that have good schools and parks in the city are not dropping and often even going up, that housing is all much more attractive to singles or young couples, not families. So the overall population is going down due to less occupants per housing unit as the families with kids move away and are replaced by those mixed use projects. Another factor might be that as these commercial and mixed use projects causes the property values, and taxes to go up further making the much cheaper suburbs more attractive.

It is strange to think that housing numbers and occupancy rates go up, while population continues to go down in those neighborhoods with the good schools and parks in the inner city that used to be (and to be fair still are, but it is shifting) so popular for families.

This might make it hard to maintain some of the quality schools that are in the city if it keeps going in that direction.

[DenverInfill]

Originally Posted by LMich

Except that, say, 90% of the time in this country, it still is.

Check out the New York Times Interactive 2010 Census map, and you'll see, whether it is Rustbelt or Sunbelt, that most cities grew in their immediate downtowns anr/or at their fringes, that's if they even grew at all.

That may be, but.... The frequency of a condition, however, shouldn't necessarily determine its definition. There seems to be two camps on what "sprawl" means. One view (which I do not generally subscribe to) is that suburban development in and of itself, is the definition of "sprawl." The other view, which I do generally subscribe to, is that sprawl is more defined as leapfrog, discontiguous, large-lot/very low-density development, as opposed to new developments in suburban communities that are immediately adjacent to their outer edges and represent their next ring of planned expansion with a relatively decent (for suburban) compactness and integration to the existing built environment. The distinction may be subtle at times, but worthy of being made, IMO.

Having said that, let it be clear that I am absolutely an urbanist and favor all infill development first before suburban expansion of any kind.

[M II A II R II K]

The State Story: Growth Without Growth


Apr 4 2011

By Richard Florida

Read More: http://www.theatlantic.com/business/arch...e-story-growth-without-growth/73367/#bio

.....

Yes, the Sunbelt is growing, and the Frostbelt declining. That decades-old meme was confirmed by the earliest releases of the new 2010 Census. "The quest for mild winters remains the great constant of American demographics," wrote Walter Shapiro in a piece headlined "The Census Ratifies the Sunbelt's Supremacy and Buoys the GOP." "For the first time in history, more than half of the nation's population (308,745,538) resides either in the South or in the warm-weather states of California, Arizona, and New Mexico." But are those states that are adding people also growing economically? Not so much, actually.

State population growth does not necessarily translate into higher incomes, notes Harvard economist Edward Glaeser, who points out that median family incomes were $56,200, $60,800, and $56,600 in fast-growing Georgia, Nevada, and Texas, significantly lower than the $83,000, $81,000, and $66,900 found in slow-growing Connecticut, Massachusetts, and New York. If there is one thing that economists of all persuasions agree on, it's that it is productivity growth -- fueled by invention and innovation, increased skills and human capital -- that is the main driver of economic growth and greater prosperity. Higher productivity translates into higher wages and income and improved living standards.

.....

[MNMike]

Random note...

Has everyone seen the graphics here?:

http://projects.nytimes.com/census/2010/map?ref=nyregion

I apologize if this has already been posted, I bet it has?

Anyway, Great visuals of cities and the nation by census tract. These maps should help with a lot of the other discussions in this thread.

For Minneapolis, just as I expected, pretty much the only areas to lose people were on the north side(some up to -20%+!)...which was really hard hit with foreclosures, among other issues. The core of the city, uptown and NE Mpls areas grew by over 20%. The most central downtown tracts(which are all encompassed within about 3/4 of a mile of a point at the center of downtown)grew by 183%, 53%, and 40% making for a total population of 11k. Adding the 3 other small tracts in the south end of downtown(which were more established as residential already, so they only grew between 3 and 10%) makes for a population of around 20k within a 10-15 minute walk to the center of downtown Minneapolis. Not bad. Really there are 3 other small tracts all within a 15 minute walk (1 mile or less from the center of downtown) that most people here would consider "downtown"...counting those you have 30k, but I know people on here like to define "downtown" as small So there are 3 options. If not for the unfortunate happenings on the north side...the city probably would have grown quite significantly this census. Same story as a lot of places this decade. The north side seems to be stabilizing a bit now, so that is good. Anyway, not sure if this was posted already, but thought it was a really neat visual.

PS, its kind of funny when you read that article earlier in this thread comparing Minneapolis, Seattle, Portland and Denver that was all doom and gloom for Minneapolis...if you look at the census tract maps for all 3 cities, Denver's core is acting a lot more like the core of Minneapolis than it is either of the other 2. Lots of growth downtown, large decreases in a few other areas, and increasing diversity. Also, just like I thought, most of Denver's numerical increase this census came from the Stapleton site and newly developed areas on the way to the airport, not in the old core part of the city. Nothing against Denver at all, just sayin'...I have seen several articles lately basically making it sound like Denver added 40k to the core of the city because of all of the new urban development...that really isn't the case. The Denver metro seems to be acting more like MSP than the others as well...with decreases in the inner burbs, and big increases on the outer edge.

PS, The Denver area is growing much faster than MSP and will continue to...not trying to argue that at all! Also, I think Denver is great...so not bashing at all either. I just hate misleading articles and stats.

[dave8721]

Miami is going to challenge its census results, claiming they are off by more than 25%

http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/04/06/2154462/miami-will-fight-census-figures.html

Miami will fight Census figures, believes population over 500,000. Miami has contacted a nonprofit to help it fight Census figures that show the city’s population at under 400,0000. A higher count would mean for revenue for the city.

By CHARLES RABIN
[email protected]

Miami, suffering the same budget constraints as many other major U.S. cities, has begun a challenge to the 2010 Census count that put the city’s population at just under 400,000 – a move that if successful could eventually net the city tens of millions of dollars.

City leaders and experts on the Census believe the actual number of Miami residents is above 500,000, and blame the low count on chronically under-reporting undocumented immigrants, and on a couple of new problems unique to Miami: the inability of Census takers to get past security guards at many of the new condo towers that line Brickell, downtown Miami and even Midtown Miami, and a flood of new families that left Haiti after the January 2010 earthquake.

Getting Census takers into Brickell condo towers, meanwhile, has “always been a problem,’’ said Miami Commissioner Marc Sarnoff, whose district includes most of the city’s skyscrapers. The problem has only been compounded by the new residential towers in Brickell and downtown, making it difficult for the Census to accurately reflect the area’s recent population boom.

“I got them into about five of them [buildings],’’ he said, adding: “They’ve always underreported Brickell.’’

A study recently commissioned by the U.S. Conference of Mayors estimated that an undercount could mean more than a $1 billion of lost revenue over the next decade for Miami.

To challenge the Census headcount, the city is looking to Social Compact, a Washington D.C.-based nonprofit that helps encourage private investment in inner cities. The last time Social Compact worked with Miami, in 2008, it successfully challenged annual population estimates issued by the U.S. Census Bureau separately from the decennial count. The Bureau bumped up the city’s estimated population by more than 80,000 residents, bringing Miami’s population to 424,000 residents.

But the 2010 Census count, though substantially lower than the estimate, now becomes the official baseline for the city, even though most demographers consider the estimates to be more reliable than the headcount, which is notorious for missing minorities and the poor.

\

[dave8721]

The estimates put Miami's population at 504,000 while the census came in at 399,000.

[brickell]

If it's as big a deal as all these cities say it is, you would think that cities would be more proactive with this stuff. Why not hire a bunch of census liaisons who can figure out the logistics of all this beforehand and facilitate getting into condos and security and such. Does anyone out there actually do this?

Maybe suing after that fact is cheaper?

Originally Posted by dave8721

The estimates put Miami's population at 504,000 while the census came in at 399,000.

I'm also wondering if Miami's trying to game the system a little. The condo's are filling up more and more by the month. Any recount or verification would have more people now than it did a year ago. It wouldn't be 100K more, but maybe a significant number. Not really sure what the process is though.

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by brickell

If it's as big a deal as all these cities say it is, you would think that cities would be more proactive with this stuff. Why not hire a bunch of census liaisons who can figure out the logistics of all this beforehand and facilitate getting into condos and security and such. Does anyone out there actually do this?

Maybe suing after that fact is cheaper?





I'm also wondering if Miami's trying to game the system a little. The condo's are filling up more and more by the month. Any recount or verification would have more people now than it did a year ago. It wouldn't be 100K more, but maybe a significant number. Not really sure what the process is though.

No. The people would still have had to have lived there on April 1, 2010. If they moved in later they wouldn't be counted as residents there.

[M II A II R II K]

Census Workers Unable to Access 'Housing Underworld,' Some Say


http://www.wnyc.org/articles/wnyc-news/2011/apr/05/census-undercount-or-stark-demographic-reality/

As the city plans to challenge what it says are low census numbers by showing that many of the thousands of vacancies – namely in Brooklyn and Queens – were in fact occupied homes, some residents in those areas spoke of an impenetrable "housing underworld" that census workers could not reach.

Officials appeared blind sided last month when Census 2010 figures placed the city’s population at 8.175 million rather than the 8.4 million count consistent with earlier estimates, which puts millions of dollars in federal funding for New York City at risk. Senator Chuck Schumer called the figure "baffling" and Mayor Michael Bloomberg said it "doesn't make sense at all."

Through the bureau's Count Question Resolution process, Bloomberg plans to challenge the census data, and a number of housing advocates and community groups -- some of which stand to lose funding from a low census count -- seem to think workers were unable to reach some residents.

.....

[brickell]

from http://twitter.com/uscensusbureau:

14 of 15 most pop cities in 2000 lost pop or grew more slowly. Philly lone exception #2010Census @USATODAY http://tiny.cc/e334b

[plinko]

The issue that I have with challenging the census is that if Miami or New York or Houston or urban center was undercounted, likely they ALL were.

So how do you fix it if every urban area is undercounted (even the ones that grew)? You can't.

The reality is that if the undercount is a national issue (which it is), then the federal funding is still being distributed roughly as it would if all these cities suddenly were at the estimate levels.

But then again I'm not a lawyer or politician crowing about how my city didn't grow as much as I thought it had.