The US Census Bureau thread

[The North One]

You don't seem to understand any of the "realities" of nuance and you definitely don't understand anything happening in Detroit. You're just screaming numbers that everybody already knows, everybody knows the south and west sides are hollowing out that doesn't change the fact central Chicago is experiencing all the major growth, not the suburbs. Suburb growth at the expensive of the city is not some exclusive to "old" cities either it's happened in cities all over the country and most of it continues.

[Obadno]

Originally Posted by The North One

You don't seem to understand any of the "realities" of nuance and you definitely don't understand anything happening in Detroit. You're just screaming numbers that everybody already knows, everybody knows the south and west sides are hollowing out that doesn't change the fact central Chicago is experiencing all the major growth, not the suburbs. Suburb growth at the expensive of the city is not some exclusive to "old" cities either it's happened in cities all over the country and most of it continues.

I don’t know if you’ve been following the conversation but Crawford and the urban politician have been arguing that the suburbs have not grown and the majority of the growth is in the core.

They were saying this to complain about Dallas having all suburban growth, somebody pointed out that Chicago wasn’t any different in that regard, and he is right:

Chicago land has grown by 90k people in 7 years in the same town the city of Chicago has only grown by 9k

The downtown is part of the city of Chicago, the vast majority of growth that has occurred in the metro Chicago area has occurred outside the city. Which is for some reason very hard for these guys to come to terms with.

This doesn’t mean that Chicago isn’t haveing good urban development (it is) as are most downtowns in our current time which is a major change from previous development trends.

Now if Crawford or you or urban politician want to actually provide some numerical proof that disproves what I have shown I’d be happy to entertain it but telling me “trust me, the numbers are wrong” is asinine

[ozone]

Originally Posted by CaliNative

If current rates of migration continue, the U.S. could easily attain a 1 billion population by the end of the century or early in the next century, and California could reach or exceed 100 million. Some of our grandchildren will see it. Can we keep a good lifestyle with a billion or more? Will traffic be managable? Will housing and medical care be affordable? Will the environment be preserved? Will there be more homeless? I lean pro-immigration, and lean against "the wall", but aren't there limits to population growth? Are there any benefits to tripling our population besides higher profits for corporations? Posing this question for comments. Convince me that we should keep intact our current high immigration levels (we take in far more immigrants than any other nation), or that we should cut back the levels. I am still undecided. Will the benefits of a billion or more people in the U.S. outweigh the costs?

There is a lot of unfactual things in your statement starting with the claim that immigration rates are increasing, when in fact they are falling. But when it comes population growth a lot people do not understand or take into consideration exponential growth. Most of California’s population growth today is from births not immigration. In fact, there is more out-migration and in-migration. Over population is a people having too many babies problem. And our policies (especially Federal) have encouraged rather than discouraged this.

As for whether or not a state like California can sustain a larger population we only have to look to countries with similar size but larger populations - like England or dramatically more like Japan. What’s really clear is that old car dependent suburban model is or should be dead here. It’s also clear that we can no longer depend solely on private and or public-private partnerships (tax breaks) to build housing that the majority of the citizens can reasonably afford and still have a good life. We need a lot more housing and that’s going to have to take some Singapore-China-type socioeconomic engineering.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by Obadno

You don’t know anything about me I’m from Chicago, I’m sorry you have some bizarre personal obsession with pretending that Chicago is growing when it is factually not growing and new high rises downtown don’t outweigh suburban growth which the basic population numbers I posted show

That doesn’t mean Chicago suck, it doesn’t mean Chicago is going to die, it doesn’t mean that I’m happy this is happening it just is, get your head out of your ass.

For the past 3 years metro Chicago has shrunk. Every county but Kendall County has lost population. That’s what we all mean when we say the burbs aren’t growing.

Yet the greater downtown region of Chicago is growing in population, and has been for some time. That’s what we mean when we say it is the source of growth for the region. Because it is the only sub-region that is experiencing significant growth.

[mhays]

The conditions that allow Dallas-type low densities, mcmansions, etc. are temporary. Much of it's related to the US' abundance of arable land (making it less mission-critical) as well as subsidized freeways, cheap oil, and other factors. All of that can change.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by Obadno

We aren’t talking about the entire region we are talking about he cities shrinking which they are and by the actual numbers he suburbs are taking on the lions share of growth which is why the regions make up for the cities shrinking

I don’t lnow what You guys are smoking because that’s what the numbers show, I’m sorry that it makes you feel bad or whatever your issues are the older cities like Detroit and chicago have shrunk or been mostly stagnant while the suburbs have grown

It’s a denial of reality to say otherwise

Why would I be “denying reality?” I already acknowledged the obvious fact that the City of Chicago has been seeing a population decline. That isn’t being debated here.

I think our differences lie in time frame. You are looking at 2005-present. I am looking at just the past 3 years. For the past 3 years metro Chicago has shrunk, thus even the burbs aren’t holding up the region any longer. But white hot growth in the downtown area continues unabated. Just look at construction permit data.

If you go back to 2005 and look at the time frame of 2005-present, then yes, I will grant you that suburban growth continued to drive things. But in more recent years that appears to have dried up.

[skyscraperpage17]

Originally Posted by mhays

The conditions that allow Dallas-type low densities, mcmansions, etc. are temporary. Much of it's related to the US' abundance of arable land (making it less mission-critical) as well as subsidized freeways, cheap oil, and other factors. All of that can change.

Those factors may not be around forever, but there's also no sign that they're going away any time soon (or even in our lifetimes) either. As I mentioned earlier, beside urban cores, the fastest growing areas in most major cities are exurbs.

There have been several articles in the local newspapers recently (I'm in an outer suburban / exurban area) about all of the projects in the pipeline and growth returning to levels that were experienced during the real estate bubble, from a mixtures of seniors who desire a more pastoral setting and young professionals who can't find affordable housing in the city proper.

[mhays]

Sure, in a city that's still building and widening freeways, and allows outward growth apparently at will.

My city doesn't do those things, and the core city has been growing faster than the metro.

[skyscraperpage17]

Originally Posted by mhays

Sure, in a city that's still building and widening freeways, and allows outward growth apparently at will.

Where is this purple unicorn (in the US) where "outward growth" ISN'T happening "at will?"

Even in the darling city of San Francisco, there's quite a bit of suburban/exurban growth occurring.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by mhays

Sure, in a city that's still building and widening freeways, and allows outward growth apparently at will.

My city doesn't do those things, and the core city has been growing faster than the metro.

I think there is a disconnect here between those of us in more urban metros, and those in the Sunbelt. I seem to be having this issue with Obadno as well.

I actually think that people in those Sunbelt areas cannot believe the possibility that significant growth is going on anywhere but in your typical suburban environment where tracts of SFH are getting built out in the distant fields. Because after all, that is what they are seeing with their own eyes in their own metros.

I can tell you that suburban home construction in Chicagoland has been FAR below historic norms ever since the 2009 recession. The burbs just aren't growing like they used to.

Meanwhile, in the downtown area and environs of Chicago things are booming like nothing happened. Downtown employment is the highest its ever been, companies are moving or opening major offices downtown. There is definitely a substantial shift towards centralization that we haven't seen in a very, very long time. This is not business as usual, and I don't think this pattern is prevailing in most of the country. But I sure like it.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by skyscraperpage17

Where is this purple unicorn (in the US) where "outward growth" ISN'T happening "at will?"

Even in the darling city of San Francisco, there's quite a bit of suburban/exurban growth occurring.

San Francisco is a bad example. One of the huge job engines in that region is out in the burbs (San Jose/Silicon Valley).

A better example is Chicago. Its even a better example than New York because unlike New York, Chicago's suburbs are actually stagnant right now, even while the urban core is seeing growth. It's a really cool phenomenon, we have no idea how long it will last, but it's like seeing a complete Solar Eclipse. Thank Pizza God for allowing us to witness this rare event!

[SteveD]

Metro Atlanta is comprised of 28 counties. Georgia's counties are small and Georgia has more counties than any state except Texas.

Between 2010 and 2017, 62% of metro Atlanta's growth occurred in the core four counties of Fulton, DeKalb, Cobb and Gwinnett. Closer-in growth is fueling the growth of metro Atlanta in more recent years, not the exurbs. Fulton County now exceeds 1 million people and Gwinnett soon will too.

[mhays]

Originally Posted by skyscraperpage17

Where is this purple unicorn (in the US) where "outward growth" ISN'T happening "at will?"

Even in the darling city of San Francisco, there's quite a bit of suburban/exurban growth occurring.

All West Coast cities. We all have lines on maps outside of which growth is heavily curtailed.

[skyscraperpage17]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

A better example is Chicago.

Oh really?

http://www.newgeography.com/content/...politan-growth



BTW, as the chart shows, even NYC continues to see outward growth.

[skyscraperpage17]

Originally Posted by SteveD

Metro Atlanta is comprised of 28 counties. Georgia's counties are small and Georgia has more counties than any state except Texas.

Between 2010 and 2017, 62% of metro Atlanta's growth occurred in the core four counties of Fulton, DeKalb, Cobb and Gwinnett. Closer-in growth is fueling the growth of metro Atlanta in more recent years, not the exurbs. Fulton County now exceeds 1 million people and Gwinnett soon will too.

https://www.wsbtv.com/news/local/atl...ople/249220307

"Forsyth County is projected to be the epicenter of the growth, doubling its population to about 430,000.


“I think it’s great. It attracts families and young adults and professionals to the areas and all the growth, especially what we’re seeing over here, is pretty amazing,” one Forsyth County resident said.

“That’s a lot more people coming and you know, I think the city needs to expand a bit more for that to happen,” another resident said."

[Mister F]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

It's really quite simple. If Toronto were in the US, it would demographically be in the same boat as other northern US cities.

People in Toronto don't have a Phoenix or Dallas to "flee" to.

That's assuming that A) populations automatically move towards warmer climates when borders don't get in the way and B) that the conditions that made northern US cities the way they are would necessarily be present across the border in a hypothetical Canada with a sunbelt. A) sure isn't the case in the EU, where the most populated and wealthy areas are in the temperate north instead of the warmer south. That's true in the continent as a whole as well as in individual countries like France and Italy. In the US, northern cities being stagnant or in decline isn't even consistent across the country, let alone across borders. Climate is pretty low on the list of why some cities do well and others don't. In other words, Toronto would be just fine.

Originally Posted by The North One

Toronto has always had tons of favoritism in Canadian government policy; kind of like how the south has had a damn near Marshall plan with federal government subsidies and handouts and you're now seeing the effects. It's not that hard for Canadians to immigrate to the US, if they really wanted Pheonix they would have gone there by now.

What specific favouritism has government policy shown Toronto? What subsidies and handouts have been given to Toronto that haven't been given to other cities?

Toronto was one of the fastest growing cities well before Confederation and Ontario/Upper Canada became the most populated province before a federal government even existed. Toronto passed Montreal mostly for reasons completely outside the federal government's control. Toronto getting government favouritism is a myth that seems pretty popular in Canada, but it's not true.

[SteveD]

Originally Posted by skyscraperpage17

https://www.wsbtv.com/news/local/atl...ople/249220307

What you posted and what I posted are not incompatible. Your post is a projection out to 2040. I have no trouble believing that a county with a smaller population base can double over that distant time frame. It's not incompatible with the census facts I published about raw numerical growth over the past 7 years.

[skyscraperpage17]

Originally Posted by SteveD

What you posted and what I posted are not incompatible. Your post is a projection out to 2040. I have no trouble believing that a county with a smaller population base can double over that distant time frame. It's not incompatible with the census facts I published about raw numerical growth over the past 7 years.

At least in my posts, I was referring to the rate of growth, not raw population numbers.

Forsyth County has consistently been the fastest growing metro county in term of percentage of total population. This is followed by Cherokee, Henry, Paulding and Coweta counties (all outer suburban / exurban counties) and will remain so according to future projections.

To be clear, none of what I'm saying is meant to imply impressive growth isn't happening in urban cores. But I also think it's important to not dismiss the concurrently impressive outer suburban / exurban growth is also still occurring (it's not like that just suddenly dried up). Even in the aforementioned core counties you mentioned, the lion's share of that growth in the past 7 years has been in the suburban portions of them (not the urban core of Atlanta).

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by skyscraperpage17

Oh really?

http://www.newgeography.com/content/...politan-growth



BTW, as the chart shows, even NYC continues to see outward growth.

This is city growth versus suburban growth. In this table, “urban core” means the entire city of Chicago, which we already know is not growing.

That’s not the same as, for example, the greater downtown area of Chicago, which is a better reflection of growth in a strictly dense, urban environment.

[SteveD]

Originally Posted by skyscraperpage17

At least in my posts, I was referring to the rate of growth, not raw population numbers.

Forsyth County has consistently been the fastest growing metro county in term of percentage of total population. This is followed by Cherokee, Henry, Paulding and Coweta counties (all outer suburban / exurban counties) and will remain so according to future projections.

To be clear, none of what I'm saying implies impressive growth isn't happening in urban cores. But I also think it's important to not dismiss the concurrently impressive outer suburban / exurban growth is also still occurring (it's not like that just suddenly dried up). Even in the aforementioned core counties you mentioned, the lion's share of that growth in the past 7 years has been in the suburban portions of them (not the urban core of Atlanta).

True. Apples to oranges comparing growth rates and raw numbers. As I'm sure you know, the City of Atlanta was suffering population declines in past decades but that reversed over the last 20 or so years so that it's now got a healthy growth rate. Interestingly, my census tract close to downtown lost population between 2000 and 2010 due to declines in average household size.