The US Census Bureau thread

[benp]

Originally Posted by Wigs

Can we talk about how both the core cities of Buffalo, NY and Cincinnati, OH both gained population for the first time in 70 years!

Buffalo:
1950 580,132
1960 532,759 −8.2%
1970 462,768 −13.1%
1980 357,870 −22.7%
1990 328,123 −8.3%
2000 292,648 −10.8%
2010 261,310 −10.7%
2020 278,349 +6.5%

Cincinnati:
1950 503,998
1960 502,550 −0.3%
1970 452,525 −10.0%
1980 385,460 −14.8%
1990 364,040 −5.6%
2000 331,285 −9.0%
2010 296,945 −10.4%
2020 309,317 +4.2%

I took a look at some of the detailed numbers and it is interesting how many areas of the city saw growth since 2010.

62 out of the 79 2010 Census tracts showed a population gain between 2010 and 2020. The areas of greatest increase were working class residential areas on the East Side, Riverside area (NW Buffalo), and parts of the West Side.

The greatest increase was in the Broadway-Fillmore area, formerly the heart of the old Polonia neighborhood, which saw its population density increase from 6937 to 11,952 persons per square mile, and is now a predominately Asian community. That's incredible as that area still contains many vacant lots among the homes and is continuing to infill. The population in these tracts is now greater than it was in the 2020 Census.

The most densely populated area of the city is the 5 Points section of the West Side, with a density of 18,425 persons per square mile, an increase of almost 2000 since 2010.

36 of the 91 2020 Census tracts (some 2010 tracts were split for 2020) in the city have a population density over 10,000 people per square mile.

Only 17 of the 79 2010 Census tracts showed a loss of population in 2020. The areas that showed the highest loss were adjacent to UB and Buff State, possibly impacted by student vacancies at the start of COVID.

[sopas ej]

Originally Posted by chris08876

Its a shame LA didn't breach the 4 million mark.

Why?

People add significance to things they don't have to add significance to...
3.8 million or 4 million? Who cares? No me importa.

I still enjoy living and working here, no matter what the population size.

[kittyhawk28]

Originally Posted by dimondpark

Why is it shocking though? Why are you shocked by the news that the nation's largest city grew more than a city half it's size?


No, the better part of 4 decades has dismissed LA as an auto-oriented, soulless, suburban strip mall. Right?

LA is undergoing an urban renaissance like many other places, and the results are palpable to anywhere who has gone to Downtown LA lately. At the same time, population in outer areas may have decreased not unlike Chicago which continued to develop it's inner core like crazy while folks in outer areas moved out.


I am still trying to understand how you can say that hitting a population milestone defines a city's overall success? Furthermore, LA's economic numbers look great for the decade so far.

2010-2019 Metro Area GDP Growth
New York-Newark-Jersey City......................+$576.963 Billion(+44.92%)
Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim ...............+$357.943 Billion(+48.98%)
San Francisco-Oakland-Berkeley................. +$273.647 Billion(+85.97%)
Chicago-Naperville-Elgin.............................+$192.645 Billion(+37.51%)
Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington.........................+$187.644 Billion(+55.81%)
Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue.............................+$185.366 Billion(+77.43%)
San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara...................+$170.914 Billion(+99.80%)
Houston-The Woodlands-Sugar Land............+$163.313 Billion(+46.80%)
Boston-Cambridge-Newton..........................+$155.976 Billion(+47.46%)
Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Alpharetta.................+$154.661 Billion(+57.81%)
Washington-Arlington-Alexandria..................+$139.264 Billion(+33.17%)
Miami-Fort Lauderdale-Pompano Beach.........+$130.348 Billion(+52.73%)
Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington..................+$114.176 Billion(+33.53%)
Phoenix-Mesa-Chandler.................................+$97.022 Billion(+55.41%)
Denver-Aurora-Lakewood..............................+$86.366 Billion(+61.23%)
San Diego Chula Vista-Carlsbad .....................+$85.430 Billion(+50.64%)
Minneapolis-St Paul-Bloomington....................+$83.606 Billion(+43.90%)
Detroit-Warren-Dearborn...............................+$79.264 Billion(+41.59%)
Riverside-San Bernardino-Riverside................+$76.190 Billion(+61.71%)
Charlotte-Concord-Gastonia...........................+$68.585 Billion(+62.44%)
Portland-Vancouver-Hillsboro.........................+$64.678 Billion(+58.66%)
Baltimore-Columbia-Towson..........................+$60.055 Billion(+38.63%)
Tampa-St Petersburg-Clearwater................... +$54.071 Billion(+46.59%)
Pittsburgh........................................ ...........+$45.782 Billion(+39.33%)
St Louis............................................. ..........+$35.166 Billion(+25.42%)

This is precisely the problem for LA. In the past decade, NYC built 1 new home for every 2 jobs gained. In LA, every 1 new home built corresponded with every 5 new jobs gained. The Bay Area is even worse, with the new jobs to new housing ratio being 8:1. It's clear the problem is not that LA's in an economic decline, but is rather lower-income folks being priced out by out of control housing costs. Potentially in the next decade things might shift if the state continues to crack down on local zoning restrictions.

[kittyhawk28]

Originally Posted by Camelback

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.

LA's home values are definitely lower than SF/Silicon Valley, but its median income is much, much lower. Silicon Valley has the benefit of having a plethora of 6-figure income jobs, something that LA doesn't have to the same degree, despite a growing tech presence. Most of LA is still employed in manufacturing, service, hospitality sectors which will generally pay around half of SV salaries, but the gap in housing costs between the two regions is not enough to make up for that imbalance.

[kittyhawk28]

Originally Posted by LA21st

They're not building out. That's the problem. They're hundreds of thousands of units short of where they're supposed to be. It's going to take a long time to catch up, even if they make a better dent in this decade. The city needs to speed up the development process and get rid of their dated zoning. There's no reason why Santa Monica and Sunset blvds in Hollywood shouldn't be wall to wall 10-20 story residential already, just to name a few streets.

The good news is they're tearing down a bunch of warehouses to build housing now. It's way over due, but it's starting.

The transit expansion isn't even complete, not sure what youre talking about. Purple Line hasn't even reached LaBrea yet.

LA's transit expansion will likely have a transformational impact on the city. They are doubling the size of the rail network, today just over 100 miles, to almost 200 miles by the end of this decade. Factoring in Transit-Oriented Communities initiatives, as well as the mandatory state zoning quota for more than 460,000 new homes in the next decade, it will be interesting to see how much LA can change in the coming years.

[LA21st]

Originally Posted by kittyhawk28

LA's transit expansion will likely have a transformational impact on the city. They are doubling the size of the rail network, today just over 100 miles, to almost 200 miles by the end of this decade. Factoring in Transit-Oriented Communities initiatives, as well as the mandatory state zoning quota for more than 460,000 new homes in the next decade, it will be itneresting to see how much LA can change in the coming years.

Sure, it is. Just look at the Expo line tods and proposals.
But obviously the big one is the Purple Line. Until that happens, you can't really judge the impact.

[LA21st]

Originally Posted by kittyhawk28

This is precisely the problem for LA. In the past decade, NYC built 1 new home for every 2 jobs gained. In LA, every 1 new home built corresponded with every 5 new jobs gained. The Bay Area is even worse, with the new housing to jobs ratio being 8:1. It's clear the problem is not that LA's in an economic decline, but is rather lower-income folks being priced out by out of control housing costs. Potentially in the next decade things might shift if the state continues to crack down on local zoning restrictions.

But a guy in Illinois said it's because of it being "woke". Anyone who lives in LA/California is well aware of the lack of housing screwing things up after the great depression. It wasn't this out of control in the 90s.

It wasn't that out of control when I moved here in 2013. Somewhere around 2015/2016 the costs skyrocketed for most people.

[Kngkyle]

Originally Posted by yuriandrade

The US growth has all but collapsed. Natural growth (births minus deaths) went from 1.9 million in 2007 to 200k in 2020 (700k in 2019, without Covid). Immigration is far from its all time high. By the end of this decade, the US might be registering more deaths than births.

16 million people in a country of 331 million people is not that much. The time of boomtowns will be a thing of the past.

This is not a problem unique to the United States. In fact, the US is in the best shape among the developed world. The US also has a virtually bottomless pool of people who would gladly immigrate here if only federal policy allowed them to. All of this is to say that boomtowns will definitely not be a thing of the past here, but that is somewhat accurate for much of the developed world and a significant chunk of the developing world (see China).

[urban_encounter]

Originally Posted by 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.

Well if I lived in Boise I wouldn’t be in too much of a hurry to get there. Boise is a beautiful city as is.

[ITB495]

Originally Posted by yuriandrade

The US growth has all but collapsed. Natural growth (births minus deaths) went from 1.9 million in 2007 to 200k in 2020 (700k in 2019, without Covid). Immigration is far from its all time high. By the end of this decade, the US might be registering more deaths than births.

16 million people in a country of 331 million people is not that much. The time of boomtowns will be a thing of the past.

Very well put. I agree.

Originally Posted by ITB495

People from all over the world are now traveling to Mexico and then making the trek northward. It's an unprecedented situation.

Hmm, I just came across the transcript of a speech given August 12, 2021 at the southern border by Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro N. Mayorkas. In it, he said:

We are encountering an unprecedented number of migrants in between the ports of entry at our  Southern border.

The entire speech can be accessed here.

[38 Geary]

Originally Posted by urban_encounter

Well if I lived in Boise I wouldn’t be in too much of a hurry to get there. Boise is a beautiful city as is.

I heard the people in Boise aren't happy with the growth too. A lot of "Go back to California!" being thrown around.

[subterranean]

Originally Posted by LA21st

Portland and Seattle are more "woke " than LA is.

Didn't they grow better?

And I've never heard anyone in real life use that term unless they were mocking the 🞵🞵🞵🞵 out of it. You live in a bubble.

It’s seriously got me and a lot of my friends considering leaving Portland, and we’re all liberal. Increasingly I feel like the enemy here and a burden just for being a white male. I felt more at home when I lived in Detroit.

[dimondpark]

Originally Posted by ITB495

Very well put. I agree.



Hmm, I just came across the transcript of a speech given August 12, 2021 at the southern border by Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro N. Mayorkas. In it, he said:



The entire speech can be accessed here.

Unprecedent my 🞵🞵🞵. The Secretary of Homeland Security is dead wrong and I just emailed this to his office along with a rebuke for the hyperbole.


We need to stop with the hysterionics on this issue. Was no one in this thread alive in the 1980s-1990s?

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by yuriandrade

US growing 10% might not surprise you, but certainly would surprise all demographers around and the US Census Bureau.

To reach such number, the US would have to bring in 3 million immigrants every single year (probably much more, because many return), something unimaginable with current political climate. In fact, it would be almost impossible numbers even with an extremely pro-immigration mood.

Not it's not only the US that's slowing down. In Latin America as a whole fertility rate is below replacement level. Brazil, the largest country, it's on 1.7 child/women and falling. Traditional sources of immigrants to the US would soon be lacking of youngsters to feed the flow to the US.

According to the 2016 Yearbook of Immigration Statistics, the United States admitted a total of 1.18 million legal immigrants (618k new arrivals, 565k status adjustments) in 2016. Of these, 48% were the immediate relatives of U.S. citizens, 20% were family-sponsored, 13% were refugees or asylum seekers, 12% were employment-based preferences, 4.2% were part of the Diversity Immigrant Visa program, 1.4% were victims of a crime (U1) or their family members were (U2 to U5), and 1.0% who were granted the Special Immigrant Visa (SIV) for Iraqis and Afghans employed by the U.S. Government. The remaining 0.4% included small numbers from several other categories, including 0.2% who were granted suspension of deportation as an immediate relative of a citizen (Z13); persons admitted under the Nicaraguan and Central American Relief Act; children born subsequent to the issuance of a parent's visa; and certain parolees from the former Soviet Union, Cambodia, Laos, and Vietnam who were denied refugee status.

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

There are an estimated half million illegal entries into the United States each year.

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

This half million seems to be the net illegal immigration since far more than TRY to enter and some who do enter end up getting deported.

Add visa overstays and you approach 2 million a year at least.

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by dimondpark

Unprecedent my 🞵🞵🞵. The Secretary of Homeland Security is dead wrong and I just emailed this to his office along with a rebuke for the hyperbole.

We need to stop with the hysterionics on this issue. Was no one in this thread alive in the 1980s-1990s?

One difference is that formerly many of the crossers were Mexicans who crossed for seasonal work and went home in the off-season so it was the same person crossing many times and not staying.

The Central Americans crossing now are coming to stay. And most of them aren't the working age men with waiting jobs of former times. They are impoverished families who will have to be supported, at least for a while (and their kids schooled).

[maru2501]

I always have to reorient my brain a little to see that metro detroit is still more populous than metro seattle

[Camelback]

Originally Posted by dimondpark

Unprecedent my 🞵🞵🞵. The Secretary of Homeland Security is dead wrong and I just emailed this to his office along with a rebuke for the hyperbole.


We need to stop with the hysterionics on this issue. Was no one in this thread alive in the 1980s-1990s?

What is the point of your graphic, 2018 was nearly 3 years ago. 2021 might break some of those numbers from the 1980s.

More than 1 million illegal crossings of the US-Mexico border will have been attempted over the first seven months of 2021, preliminary data indicates — defying expectations that the illegal immigration crisis would ease as temperatures climbed.

While US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) have yet to release the official number of border encounters that took place last month, The Washington Examiner reported that initial calculations put the total at 188,000, an increase of just over 4 percent from the 180,034 apprehended in May.

If confirmed, the number of southwestern border stops would be the most in any month of June for at least 21 years. It would also be an 80 percent increase over the number of apprehensions in June 2019 and a whopping 469 percent increase over the number of encounters in June 2020, when migration patterns were affected by the coronavirus pandemic.

https://nypost.com/2021/07/15/data-shows-illegal-us-border-crossings-on-pace-to-top-1m-this-month/

Originally Posted by Kngkyle

This is not a problem unique to the United States. In fact, the US is in the best shape among the developed world. The US also has a virtually bottomless pool of people who would gladly immigrate here if only federal policy allowed them to. All of this is to say that boomtowns will definitely not be a thing of the past here, but that is somewhat accurate for much of the developed world and a significant chunk of the developing world (see China).

I agree.

[Crawford]

A discussion of the border has nothing to do with a discussion of population trends.

Immigrants, legal and illegal, come via plane. There's no indication of a rise in immigration, to this point. If immigration rises, it will be due to immigration reform, not politicized nonsense along the Mexican border.

And immigration to the U.S., despite the hysteria among a certain cohort of brainwashed and bigoted Americans, is largely an Asian phenomenon in 2021, and most migrants are highly skilled, in industries with worker shortages, like medicine, engineering and CS.

[dimondpark]

Originally Posted by Camelback

What is the point of your graphic, 2018 was nearly 3 years ago. 2021 might break some of those numbers from the 1980s.


https://nypost.com/2021/07/15/data-shows-illegal-us-border-crossings-on-pace-to-top-1m-this-month/



I agree.

Nope, this is not "unprecedented", it was worse in the past when the US had 90 million less people then we do now. I guess Im too much of a student of history, but Im not impressed by the current media hysteria and grandstanding by politicians.

As a liberal leaning person, I can really appreciate the words of 2 real republican presidents on this subject.
• Video Link

[dimondpark]

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

One difference is that formerly many of the crossers were Mexicans who crossed for seasonal work and went home in the off-season so it was the same person crossing many times and not staying.

The Central Americans crossing now are coming to stay. And most of them aren't the working age men with waiting jobs of former times. They are impoverished families who will have to be supported, at least for a while (and their kids schooled).

I'm not saying let everyone in, Im just saying the volume of people we're seeing is not unprecedented and it's not.