The US Census Bureau thread

[skyscraperpage17]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

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.

Do you have numbers to back up the claim that "the greater downtown area of Chicago" is seeing more growth than suburban / exurban Chicago?

Even just focusing on the Chicago loop, since 2000, the population has only grown by 17,198 per the latest estimaes (while "metro" Chicago has increased by 90,000, as someone stated before).

[chris08876]

Is it safe to say that while Chitown is losing people, as a whole, its becoming a tad bit wealthier? Seems like its low income folks leaving. If anything, maybe a byproduct of some healthy gentrification?

Or it could also be places like the South Side just seeing leakage due to the crime in that area, and folks migrating elsewhere?

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by skyscraperpage17

Do you have numbers to back up the claim that "the greater downtown area of Chicago" is seeing more growth than suburban / exurban Chicago?

Even just focusing on the Chicago loop, since 2000, the population has only grown by 17,198 per the latest estimaes (while "metro" Chicago has increased by 90,000, as someone stated before).

The Loop is not the entire Central Area of Chicago (in fact it is the least residential), what you are pointing out is population change of the Loop, which is a defined area of the Central Area of Chicago, which encompasses a much larger area.

I also have to point out that if you go back to 2000 or even 2005 I agree with you. What I am arguing is that suburban/exurban growth has really gone stagnant since 2009 while the Central Area keeps growing.

Also, I find that New Geography graph highly suspect. They are calling the Metro core of NY having 10.7 million people. Where did they get their numbers?

You asked me for some data—a fair request, of course. It’s hard to do this when one forums on a smartphone! But let me work on pulling something in.

[skyscraperpage17]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

You asked me for some data—a fair request, of course. It’s hard to do this when one forums on a smartphone! But let me work on pulling something in.

Ok, I'll wait for you to provide that data.

[Yuri]

Guys, do we have population and growth numbers for the CSAs/MSAs?

[SteveD]

Table 6 here lists the 2017 top ten MSAs

https://www.census.gov/newsroom/pres...ro-county.html

I always have trouble finding CSA info at the census website but here's a list from wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combined_statistical_area

[mhays]

They might have the least usable website on earth.

[SteveD]

Originally Posted by mhays

They might have the least usable website on earth.

Good lord...you are so correct. It's horrible.

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by SteveD

Table 6 here lists the 2017 top ten MSAs

https://www.census.gov/newsroom/pres...ro-county.html

I always have trouble finding CSA info at the census website but here's a list from wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combined_statistical_area

Yes, but they are not updating it. I liked this one as it brought CSA and MSA on the same list, but it's not updated since 2014: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o..._United_States

[Yuri]

Got it: http://citypopulation.de/php/usa-combmetro.php

citypopulation.de is the best!

[skyscraperpage17]

Originally Posted by yuriandrade

Yes, but they are not updating it. I liked this one as it brought CSA and MSA on the same list, but it's not updated since 2014: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o..._United_States

I think below is what you're looking for:

MSA

https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/...prodType=table

CSA

https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/...prodType=table

[chris08876]

^^^^

Took some snapshots for easier viewing. For MSA's.

[skyscraperpage17]

Originally Posted by skyscraperpage17

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.

This article does a good job of driving home what I'm getting at.

http://statchatva.org/2014/09/26/a-f...any-us-cities/

[Yuri]

The Big 12:

----------------------------- 2017 ----- 2016 ----- 2015

NEW YORK --------------- 23,876,155 -- 23,689,255 -- 23,656,157

LOS ANGELES ------------ 18,788,800 -- 18,688,022 -- 18,591,984

CHICAGO ----------------- 9,901,711 --- 9,882,634 --- 9,904,537

WASHINGTON-BALTIMORE ---- 9,764,315 --- 9,665,892 --- 9,602,214

SAN FRANCISCO ----------- 8,837,789 --- 8,751,807 --- 8,685,577

BOSTON ------------------ 8,233,270 --- 8,176,376 --- 8,142,719

DALLAS ------------------ 7,846,293 --- 7,673,305 --- 7,524,892

PHILADELPHIA ------------ 7,206,807 --- 7,179,357 --- 7,173,590

HOUSTON ----------------- 7,093,190 --- 6,972,374 --- 6,845,764

MIAMI ------------------- 6,828,241 --- 6,723,472 --- 6,643,029

ATLANTA ----------------- 6,555,956 --- 6,451,262 --- 6,351,934

DETROIT ----------------- 5,336,286 --- 5,318,653 --- 5,316,710

It's nice to see Chicago and Detroit back to growing. Chicago might dream of to finally becoming a megacity by 2020. Symbolic for a city which used to be one of the most populated metro areas in the world.

[LosAngelesSportsFan]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

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.

I really don't get what's so hard to understand about this. A neighborhood can be growing while the city is losing population

[LosAngelesSportsFan]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

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.

Same in Los Angeles. Almost everything being built is infill and has been since the recession. We simply don't have much more land available to build out (that's within a reasonable or even semi reasonable commute)

[chris08876]

Originally Posted by LosAngelesSportsFan

Same in Los Angeles. Almost everything being built is infill and has been since the recession. We simply don't have much more land available to build out (that's within a reasonable or even semi reasonable commute)

I see it as a good thing. Only way is up. The Valley will as a whole continue to get more dense as the years go by. Land restrictions and lack of availability will force municipalities to alter their zoning code, in hopes of growing in the future.

Some metros still have plenty of land to plop terrible cookie-cutter developments, but there are some that will be forced to build upwards.

Places like S.Florida (Miami-Dade). The Everglades being the biggest restriction. The land is pretty much build out to the max and now, what we are seeing are nice mid rises popping up.

[Obadno]

Originally Posted by LosAngelesSportsFan

I really don't get what's so hard to understand about this. A neighborhood can be growing while the city is losing population

Nobody is debating that, but look at the actual numbers, any growth central Chicago is getting is dwarfed by the other cities in the MSA as a whole witch is the debate.

I and Skyscraper have provided numbered evidence of this however Urban Politican and others just claim we are wrong, when we are infact not wrong, your subjective opinion and observations dont match with the reality.

As for a huge influx of infill and urban development since 2008/2009 this is evident everywhere not just in Chicago and not just in LA but even in Phoenix and Dallas(the city that cause this whole debate)

But even with the much better and growing influx of urban development the majority of growth is still occurring in suburban areas (which are becoming more urban as well)

More density and new high rises dont mean the area overall is growing, Chicago is a perfect example of this, places like Dallas and Houston are rapidly catching up and will surpass Chicago in populations.

Weather you want to take "we are more urban" as a consultation prize is irrelevant to the conversation on population, where the cities in the south and west are growing hand over fist and the ones in the north and east are shrinking or stagnant.

[C.]

Originally Posted by yuriandrade

It's nice to see Chicago and Detroit back to growing. Chicago might dream of to finally becoming a megacity by 2020. Symbolic for a city which used to be one of the most populated metro areas in the world.

Growth in the metro area is not a positive for me, especially if the city proper is still in decline. Especially thinking of Detroit. It just becomes a doughnut hole of disinvestment.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by skyscraperpage17

Ok, I'll wait for you to provide that data.

The city center now is growing faster than ever, having gained an estimated 42,423 people from 2010-15. But the population of the non-lakefront South Side is dropping even quicker, falling about 50,000 in the same period. The number of non-Hispanic whites, Asians and people of Hispanic descent is growing, but the number of non-Hispanic blacks is dropping.
The new data come from the 2015 American Community Survey, which is conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau and was released last week.

The annual ACS data traditionally are not as accurate as the decennial census but have gained status in recent years. For instance, ACS and census findings for the city's overall population differed by only about 1 percentage point.

According to Ed Zotti, a consultant for the Chicago Central Area Committee who crunched the data for me and has provided tract-by-tract details of his figures, the numbers for the city overall show some good news.

Total city population, per the ACS, has risen about 14,000 to 2,717,534.

Leading that is the central area, defined as neighborhoods generally within 2 miles of City Hall.

http://www.chicagobusiness.com/artic...sides-plummets

RELEASE: THURSDAY, SEPT. 27, 2012

Populations Increasing in Many Downtowns, Census Bureau Reports

A U.S. Census Bureau report released today shows that in many of the largest cities of the most-populous metro areas, downtown is becoming a place not only to work but also to live. Between the 2000 and 2010 censuses, metro areas with 5 million or more people experienced double-digit population growth rates within their downtown areas (within a two-mile radius of their largest city's city hall), more than double the rate of these areas overall.

Chicago experienced the largest numeric gain in its downtown area, with a net increase of 48,000 residents over 10 years. New York, Philadelphia, Salt Lake City and Washington also posted large population increases close to city hall.

https://www.census.gov/2010census/ne.../cb12-181.html