The US Census Bureau thread

[bilbao58]

Originally Posted by JManc

Yeah, especially as established desirable areas continue to get more expensive, other areas will start to gentrify and densify. Sharpstown is ripe for development for example. Westchase too eventually.

You know, it occurred to me after someone from NYC on this board insisted that gentrification does not lead to increased density, that what we call "gentrification" in Houston is a whole different animal than what people in older, established cities think of. It's not gentrification of existing housing stock, it is, in many instances, an almost complete replacement of whole neighborhoods with much denser housing development.

[Camelback]

Originally Posted by chris08876

You have a lot of Californians going to Texas or Arizona. If Cali wasn't so expensive or if the state didn't — at retaining residents, we would of seen them stay. I mean after living in Cali with nice weather, why the hell would someone want to go to Arizona aka surface of Mars? Cost and affordability is why.

Affordability, safer neighborhoods, easier with kids, larger homes, newer homes, less congestion, easier commutes, less natural disasters, cheaper utilities, lower taxes, cheaper gas, more take home money to have fun with, overall less of a grind, more laid back lifestyle.

but yeah nobody can beat the weather of Southern California.

[Yuri]

More metro areas (see posts #2461 and #2463):

------------------------ 2020 --------- 2010 --------- 2000 --------- 1990

New York ----------- 22.692.839 --- 21.358.372 --- 20.675.403 --- 19.083.415 ----- 6,25% ----- 3,30% ----- 8,34%

Los Angeles -------- 18.644.680 --- 17.877.006 --- 16.373.645 --- 14.531.529 ----- 4,29% ----- 9,18% ---- 12,68%

Chicago ------------- 9.618.502 ---- 9.461.105 ---- 9.098.314 ---- 8.182.076 ----- 1,66% ----- 3,99% ---- 11,20%

San Francisco ------- 8.036.501 ---- 7.413.121 ---- 7.039.362 ---- 6.253.311 ----- 8,41% ----- 5,31% ---- 12,57%

Dallas -------------- 7.320.577 ---- 6.104.359 ---- 4.942.333 ---- 3.820.630 ---- 19,92% ---- 23,51% ---- 29,36%

Houston ------------- 7.122.240 ---- 5.920.416 ---- 4.693.161 ---- 3.750.883 ---- 20,30% ---- 26,15% ---- 25,12%

Philadelphia -------- 6.245.051 ---- 5.965.353 ---- 5.687.147 ---- 5.435.468 ----- 4,69% ----- 4,89% ----- 4,63%

Miami --------------- 6.138.333 ---- 5.564.635 ---- 5.007.564 ---- 4.056.100 ---- 10,31% ---- 11,12% ---- 23,46%

Boston -------------- 6.095.791 ---- 5.628.532 ---- 5.410.915 ---- 5.075.440 ----- 8,30% ----- 4,02% ----- 6,61%

Atlanta ------------- 6.089.815 ---- 5.286.728 ---- 4.263.438 ---- 3.082.308 ---- 15,19% ---- 24,00% ---- 38,32%

Washington ---------- 5.937.417 ---- 5.241.643 ---- 4.525.520 ---- 3.920.943 ---- 13,27% ---- 15,82% ---- 15,42%

Detroit ------------- 5.325.319 ---- 5.218.852 ---- 5.357.538 ---- 5.095.695 ----- 2,04% ---- -2,59% ----- 5,14%

Seattle ------------- 4.871.272 ---- 4.199.312 ---- 3.707.144 ---- 3.088.224 ---- 16,00% ---- 13,28% ---- 20,04%

Phoenix ------------- 4.845.832 ---- 4.192.887 ---- 3.251.876 ---- 2.238.480 ---- 15,57% ---- 28,94% ---- 45,27%

Minneapolis --------- 3.635.128 ---- 3.279.833 ---- 2.968.806 ---- 2.538.834 ---- 10,83% ---- 10,48% ---- 16,94%

Denver -------------- 3.623.560 ---- 3.090.874 ---- 2.610.343 ---- 2.008.684 ---- 17,23% ---- 18,41% ---- 29,95%

San Diego ----------- 3.298.634 ---- 3.095.313 ---- 2.813.833 ---- 2.498.016 ----- 6,57% ---- 10,00% ---- 12,64%

Tampa --------------- 3.175.275 ---- 2.783.243 ---- 2.395.998 ---- 2.067.959 ---- 14,09% ---- 16,16% ---- 15,86%

Baltimore ----------- 2.794.636 ---- 2.662.691 ---- 2.512.431 ---- 2.348.221 ----- 4,96% ----- 5,98% ----- 6,99%

Cleveland ----------- 2.790.470 ---- 2.780.440 ---- 2.843.103 ---- 2.759.823 ----- 0,36% ---- -2,20% ----- 3,02%

St. Louis ----------- 2.754.124 ---- 2.717.079 ---- 2.648.607 ---- 2.492.525 ----- 1,36% ----- 2,59% ----- 6,26%


--------------------------------------------------------


--- Seattle as the other highly educated SF and Boston, growing faster than the past decade. It's not far from Detroit and it will intrude in the big metro areas club;

--- Phoenix still growing fast, but in a much slower place than the previous decades, which is a nice thing due its geographical challenges;

--- Minneapolis and Denver doing very nice, and at this pace will cross the 4 million barrier soon;

--- San Diego, as its northern neighbour, going much slower. And nothing special about Tampa and Baltimore, keeping their pace.

--- Cleveland, better than estimates, and once again on positive terrain. St. Louis, unfortunately, it's about to decline.

--------------------------------------------------------

Originally Posted by pacarlson

Very nice and interesting summary yuriandrade.

Thank you

[Camelback]

Originally Posted by yuriandrade

--- Phoenix still growing fast, but in a much slower place than the previous decades, which is a nice thing due its geographical challenges;


Thank you

Thanks for the long post, I just have one comment regarding the above, Phoenix was hit very hard with the real estate collapse in the Great Recession.

It didn't begin to recover until well 2012. Since the dark days of the early part of the decade, the last 5 years has been like a rocket ship to Mars!

[dimondpark]

Originally Posted by yuriandrade

More metro areas (see posts #2461 and #2463):

------------------------ 2020 --------- 2010 --------- 2000 --------- 1990

New York ----------- 22.692.839 --- 21.358.372 --- 20.675.403 --- 19.083.415 ----- 6,25% ----- 3,30% ----- 8,34%

Los Angeles -------- 18.644.680 --- 17.877.006 --- 16.373.645 --- 14.531.529 ----- 4,29% ----- 9,18% ---- 12,68%

Chicago ------------- 9.618.502 ---- 9.461.105 ---- 9.098.314 ---- 8.182.076 ----- 1,66% ----- 3,99% ---- 11,20%

San Francisco ------- 8.036.501 ---- 7.413.121 ---- 7.039.362 ---- 6.253.311 ----- 8,41% ----- 5,31% ---- 12,57%

Dallas -------------- 7.320.577 ---- 6.104.359 ---- 4.942.333 ---- 3.820.630 ---- 19,92% ---- 23,51% ---- 29,36%

Houston ------------- 7.122.240 ---- 5.920.416 ---- 4.693.161 ---- 3.750.883 ---- 20,30% ---- 26,15% ---- 25,12%

Philadelphia -------- 6.245.051 ---- 5.965.353 ---- 5.687.147 ---- 5.435.468 ----- 4,69% ----- 4,89% ----- 4,63%

Miami --------------- 6.138.333 ---- 5.564.635 ---- 5.007.564 ---- 4.056.100 ---- 10,31% ---- 11,12% ---- 23,46%

Boston -------------- 6.095.791 ---- 5.628.532 ---- 5.410.915 ---- 5.075.440 ----- 8,30% ----- 4,02% ----- 6,61%

Atlanta ------------- 6.089.815 ---- 5.286.728 ---- 4.263.438 ---- 3.082.308 ---- 15,19% ---- 24,00% ---- 38,32%

Washington ---------- 5.937.417 ---- 5.241.643 ---- 4.525.520 ---- 3.920.943 ---- 13,27% ---- 15,82% ---- 15,42%

Detroit ------------- 5.325.319 ---- 5.218.852 ---- 5.357.538 ---- 5.095.695 ----- 2,04% ---- -2,59% ----- 5,14%

Seattle ------------- 4.871.272 ---- 4.199.312 ---- 3.707.144 ---- 3.088.224 ---- 16,00% ---- 13,28% ---- 20,04%

Phoenix ------------- 4.845.832 ---- 4.192.887 ---- 3.251.876 ---- 2.238.480 ---- 15,57% ---- 28,94% ---- 45,27%

Minneapolis --------- 3.635.128 ---- 3.279.833 ---- 2.968.806 ---- 2.538.834 ---- 10,83% ---- 10,48% ---- 16,94%

Denver -------------- 3.623.560 ---- 3.090.874 ---- 2.610.343 ---- 2.008.684 ---- 17,23% ---- 18,41% ---- 29,95%

San Diego ----------- 3.298.634 ---- 3.095.313 ---- 2.813.833 ---- 2.498.016 ----- 6,57% ---- 10,00% ---- 12,64%

Tampa --------------- 3.175.275 ---- 2.783.243 ---- 2.395.998 ---- 2.067.959 ---- 14,09% ---- 16,16% ---- 15,86%

Baltimore ----------- 2.794.636 ---- 2.662.691 ---- 2.512.431 ---- 2.348.221 ----- 4,96% ----- 5,98% ----- 6,99%

Cleveland ----------- 2.790.470 ---- 2.780.440 ---- 2.843.103 ---- 2.759.823 ----- 0,36% ---- -2,20% ----- 3,02%

St. Louis ----------- 2.754.124 ---- 2.717.079 ---- 2.648.607 ---- 2.492.525 ----- 1,36% ----- 2,59% ----- 6,26%


--------------------------------------------------------


--- Seattle as the other highly educated SF and Boston, growing faster than the past decade. It's not far from Detroit and it will intrude in the big metro areas club;

--- Phoenix still growing fast, but in a much slower place than the previous decades, which is a nice thing due its geographical challenges;

--- Minneapolis and Denver doing very nice, and at this pace will cross the 4 million barrier soon;

--- San Diego, as its northern neighbour, going much slower. And nothing special about Tampa and Baltimore, keeping their pace.

--- Cleveland, better than estimates, and once again on positive terrain. St. Louis, unfortunately, it's about to decline.

--------------------------------------------------------




Thank you

Im extremely interested in metro areas that increased their growth rate from 2000-2010 to 2010-2020. There arent many.

NY, SF, Boston and Seattle are the standouts. That has to do with the movement of tech workers, Im thinking.

[Boisebro]

the Boise metro continues its steady climb:

1970……… 191,090
1980……… 280,035
1990……… 319,596
2000……… 464,840
2010……… 616,561
2020……… 764,718

given the unprecedented growth in the last 15 months, it wouldn't surprise me if the MSA tops 800k soon, and if the growth continues, reach the million mark by the next census.

[Emprise du Lion]

Originally Posted by yuriandrade

St. Louis ----------- 2.754.124 ---- 2.717.079 ---- 2.648.607 ---- 2.492.525 ----- 1,36% ----- 2,59% ----- 6,26%

--- Cleveland, better than estimates, and once again on positive terrain. St. Louis, unfortunately, it's about to decline.

Where are you getting these numbers for St. Louis' CSA? Because they're not correct. St. Louis' MSA is currently sitting at 2,820,253. There's no way that its CSA is smaller than its MSA.

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by Emprise du Lion

Where are you getting these numbers for St. Louis' CSA? Because they're not correct. St. Louis' MSA is currently sitting at 2,820,253. There's no way that its CSA is smaller than its MSA.

I mentioned that in the first post:

Originally Posted by yuriandrade

As we're always discussing CSA vs MSA, I made a list with definitions trying to pick the best of them and also using last longing historical definitions.

It's just for entertainment, not intending to start long discussions about it. But if someone is interested on the definition used in a specific metro area, just ask.

(...)

For St. Louis, I went with:

IL
Clinton
Jersey
Madison
Monroe
St. Clair

MO
Franklin
Jefferson
Lincoln
St. Charles
St. Louis
St. Louis
Warren

Illinois side went terrible, all of them but one, with big negative growth. In the previous decade, all of them were confortably positive, doing slightly better than Missouri's side.

Originally Posted by dimondpark

Im extremely interested in metro areas that increased their growth rate from 2000-2010 to 2010-2020. There arent many.

NY, SF, Boston and Seattle are the standouts. That has to do with the movement of tech workers, Im thinking.

Yes, specially as the US is doing much slower. Even the ones that repeated the performance are interesting cases.

Originally Posted by Camelback

Thanks for the long post, I just have one comment regarding the above, Phoenix was hit very hard with the real estate collapse in the Great Recession.

It didn't begin to recover until well 2012. Since the dark days of the early part of the decade, the last 5 years has been like a rocket ship to Mars!

But on the other hand, they had the SoCal exodus to push its numbers up. I don't think they go nowhere near the 28% they had between 2000-2010.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by yuriandrade

Illinois side went terrible, all of them but one, with big negative growth. In the previous decade, all of them were confortably positive, doing slightly better than Missouri's side.

Outside of a couple university town bright(er) spots (Champaign/Urbana & Bloomington/Normal), downstate Illinois was largely a trainwreck across the board, losing some 162K people overall! The IL portion of Chicagoland's modest gain of 144K was not enough to offset it.

[Emprise du Lion]

Originally Posted by yuriandrade

For St. Louis, I went with:

IL
Clinton
Jersey
Madison
Monroe
St. Clair

MO
Franklin
Jefferson
Lincoln
St. Charles
St. Louis
St. Louis
Warren

Illinois side went terrible, all of them but one, with big negative growth. In the previous decade, all of them were confortably positive, doing slightly better than Missouri's side.

Just for clarification, Macoupin, Bond, and Calhoun Counties in Illinois are also in the MSA. That's why the MSA figure is higher. They are all small (population wise) and predominantly rural though.

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

Outside of a couple university town bright(er) spots (Champaign/Urbana & Bloomington/Normal), downstate Illinois was largely a trainwreck across the board, losing some 162K people overall! The IL portion of Chicagoland's modest gain of 144K was not enough to offset it.

Indeed. I honestly wonder if the losses that Metro East had were people leaving the area entirely or just moving to Missouri.

[LA21st]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

Cost isn’t the only factor, not by a mile.

I don’t think cost is why LA is experiencing a slowdown. I think it’s competition from other Sunbelt cities. Yes they are cheaper, but they also have a increasingly attractive quality of life, and we have to accept that California’s leaders’ constant need to pass “woke” progressive laws aren’t exactly helping. It’s a turn off for lots of regular working people who aren’t exactly Hollywood screenwriters.

It's the biggest factor by far.
You're kidding yourself if you think it isn't. You think if LA and Vegas or Phoenix had the same housing costs it would have the same growth patterns? Lol.

You're not aware how much the housing costs increased after the great depression.

And San Diego didn't do much better, for the same reasons.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by LA21st

It's the biggest factor by far.
You're kidding yourself if you think it isn't. You think if LA and Vegas or Phoenix had the same housing costs it would have the same growth patterns? Lol.

You're not aware how much the housing costs increased after the great depression.

And San Diego didn't do much better, for the same reasons.

That didn’t seem to impact SF or other high cost locales

It’s obviously much more than cost. It’s the things I mentioned. Sorry, you’re just in denial

[LA21st]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

That didn’t seem to impact SF or other high cost locales

It’s obviously much more than cost. It’s the things I mentioned. Sorry, you’re just in denial

Silicon valley makes sf different.
And I just told you San Diego isn't much better than LA. What other high cost locales? Outside of Sf and Honolulu, nothing is higher than LA or sd.

You're in denial you think it's not a cost issue.
Honestly, you're just clueless about it

[proghousehead]

The fact that LA hasn’t passed 4MM, despite surpassing this threshold being anticipated prior to the 2010 census, is telling. Whatever the reason for this, it’s got to be one of the biggest shocks of the 2020 census results.

[Camelback]

Originally Posted by LA21st

Silicon valley makes sf different.
And I just told you San Diego isn't much better than LA. What other high cost locales? Outside of Sf and Honolulu, nothing is higher than LA or sd.

You're in denial you think it's not a cost issue.
Honestly, you're just clueless about it

Wait, doesn't that prove their point?

In terms of median home value of the large CA metros: SF/bay is the most expensive metro in California, followed by San Diego, followed by LA. Both SF and SD had higher rates of growth compared to LA.

Out of those 3, LA has the lowest home value and has the slowest growth.

I'm going off memory from one of Diamondpark's threads from a month or two ago.

[LA21st]

Originally Posted by Camelback

Wait, doesn't that prove their point?

In terms of median home value of the large CA metros: SF/bay is the most expensive metro in California, followed by San Diego, followed by LA. Both SF and SD had higher rates of growth compared to LA.

Out of those 3, LA has the lowest home value and has the slowest growth.

I'm going off memory from one of Diamondpark's threads from a month or two ago.

Again, sf has the sv factor. San Diego barely did better than the LA csa.

But Urbans argument is Phoenix, Vegas etc. The cost of living is night and day.

[Camelback]

Originally Posted by LA21st

Again, sf has the sv factor. San Diego barely did better than the LA csa.

LA CSA includes high growth Riverside MSA. Does San Diego even have a CSA?

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

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

Outside of a couple university town bright(er) spots (Champaign/Urbana & Bloomington/Normal), downstate Illinois was largely a trainwreck across the board, losing some 162K people overall! The IL portion of Chicagoland's modest gain of 144K was not enough to offset it.

And on the last decade, the Illinois side of St. Louis went well, a solid 5.53% growth. Now a horrible -2.59%:

2000: 599,845
2010: 633,042 --- 5.53%
2020: 616,632 -- -2.59%

Originally Posted by Emprise du Lion

Just for clarification, Macoupin, Bond, and Calhoun Counties in Illinois are also in the MSA. That's why the MSA figure is higher. They are all small (population wise) and predominantly rural though.

Yes, I know. As they're very rural, distant and shrinking, so I didn't include them. However, by the oficial MSA, St. Louis would be at 2.82 million, but its growth would be even more disappointing: 1.16%.

[LA21st]

Originally Posted by Camelback

LA CSA includes high growth Riverside MSA. Does San Diego even have a CSA?

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

Yup. Do you know why it's high growth in Riverside?
Lower cost of living..

Urbans argument about wokeness is hilarious. Maybe 1 percent of people care about that —.

[Camelback]

Originally Posted by LA21st

Yup. Do you know why it's high growth in Riverside?
Lower cost of living..

I understand that, but we're talking about LA MSA. They have the lowest home values out of the 3, yet they have the slowest growth out of those 3.