The US Census Bureau thread

[wwmiv]

See update in later post.

[dimondpark]

Originally Posted by ChiSoxRox

I do.

New York: 6,919,220
Los Angeles: 599,822
Chicago: 470,391
San Francisco: 439,958
Philadelphia: 334,754
Boston: 311,585
Washington: 241,319
Miami: 156,904
Honolulu: 110,206
Seattle: 96,014
San Diego: 34,839
Houston: 32,092
Reading: 21,612
Madison: 20,845
Atlanta: 18,484
San Jose: 17,145
Trenton: 16,741
Champaign: 15,719
Provo: 13,203
Columbus: 12,131
Santa Barbara: 11,547
Denver: 10,563
Bridgeport: 10,318
Austin: 10,298
Dallas: 9,948
Minneapolis: 8,634
Phoenix: 8,527
Lansing: 8,481
Baltimore: 8,223
Portland: 7,337
Milwaukee: 7,112
Salinas: 6,194
Boulder: 5,042

(I will continue the weighted population list tomorrow.)

This is just the 1M+ MSAs

MSAs by % of Population at 30,000+ density per sq mile
34.35% New York: 6,919,220
9.94% Honolulu: 110,206
9.24% San Francisco: 439,958
6.29% Boston: 311,585
5.34% Philadelphia: 334,754
4.88% Chicago: 470,391
4.53% Los Angeles: 599,822
3.77% Washington: 241,319
2.54% Miami: 156,904
2.38% Seattle: 96,014
1.03% San Diego: 34,839
0.8% San Jose: 17,145
0.5% Columbus: 12,131
0.4% Austin: 10,298
0.4% Houston: 32,092
0.4% Milwaukee: 7,112
0.3% Denver: 10,563
0.2% Atlanta: 18,484
0.2% Baltimore: 8,223
0.2% Minneapolis: 8,634
0.2% Portland: 7,337
0.1% Dallas: 9,948
0.1% Phoenix: 8,527

[streetscaper]

20k/sqmi (7,700/km2)





30k/sqmi (11,600/km2)

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by wwmiv

For anyone who wants to calculate UAs (Urban Areas), MSAs, and CSAs, on their own while we wait for the census bureau, the map we have all been relying on (and that ChiSoxRox has been really churning out data from) is enough data to build them (or, in some cases, a very close approximation of them).

https://mtgis-portal.geo.census.gov/...ed2b2fd7ff6eb7

My reading of the standards the census bureau will be using in the upcoming revisions, which will use the 2020 Census count and the 2015 ACS survey:

1. Sum all adjacent precincts over 1000 people per square mile (ppsm). Does this sum to over 10000? If yes, continue to 2.

2. Sum step 1 with the sum of all adjacent and contiguous precincts over 500 ppsm.

3. Sum step 2 with the sum of all precincts beneath 500 ppsm which are entirely surrounded by the contiguous precincts summed in steps 1 and 2.

Special circumstance: If two formerly separate urban areas are now connected, they must be connected by a minimum of five miles wide of precincts to be combined into a single urban area.

4. Complete steps 1-3 and consider the special circumstance and you have the Urban Area population (UA).

5. Does this number exceed 100,000? Congratulations, this UA is eligible to anchor a Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA). If this number is between 10,000 and 100,000, this UA is eligible to anchor a Micropolitan Statistical Area (mSA). Continue to step 6.

6. Any counties where at least 10,000 people live in precincts within the UA are "Core Counties" of MSA/mSA.

7. Any counties where at least 25% of the residential workforce of the county commute into the "Core Counties" of the MSA/mSA are "Outlying Counties" of the MSA/mSA.

8. Sum the total population of these counties for the total preliminary population of the MSA/mSA.

9. Are there adjacent MSAs/mSAs? If the "Core Counties" in that separate MSA/mSA - collectively / as a whole - have 25% of their residential workforce commute into the "Core Counties" (collectively) of the first MSA/mSA (or vice versa), combine them into a single MSA/mSA for a final total population of the MSA with new “Outlying Counties” included on the basis of all the previous “Core Counties”.

10. Are there other adjacent MSAs/mSAs that survived step 9? If so, select the largest of them. With each of the surrounding smaller MSAs/mSAs, individually add their entire residential workforce (both "Core Counties" and "Outlying Counties") to the entire residential workforce of the larger MSA (call this number A). Then sum the total number of residential workers who commute from any county in one MSA/mSA to any county in the other MSA/mSA (call this number B). If, as a share of B, A is 15% or higher, include the smaller MSA/mSA in the Combined Statistical Area (CSA) of the larger MSA/mSAs. Repeat this process iteratively until all combinations are exhausted, while always taking care to prioritize the largest MSA/mSA, and excluding any MSA/mSA that has already been included in another CSA.

Great summary, wwmiv! Does anyone risk to start working on it?

The special circumstance, would that make New York-Bridgeport, Los Angeles-San Bernardino, San Francisco-San Jose, Detroit-Ann Arbor, Cleveland-Akron finally unite?

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by yuriandrade

Great summary, wwmiv! Does anyone risk to start working on it?

The special circumstance, would that make New York-Bridgeport, Los Angeles-San Bernardino, San Francisco-San Jose, Detroit-Ann Arbor, Cleveland-Akron finally unite?

This time around there may be a large number of combinations, including some of the above. I would also suggest Raleigh, Salt Lake City, Denver, Tampa, and Seattle as metros which will greatly expand.

[DCReid]

Originally Posted by wwmiv

This time around there may be a large number of combinations, including some of the above. I would also suggest Raleigh, Salt Lake City, Denver, Tampa, and Seattle as metros which will greatly expand.

Weren't some of those metros, like Raleigh-Durham and SF-San Jose, combined in the past, and then broken up as recently as 2000? It seemed that they took opposite ends of those metros and then broke them in two, sort of what they do now for DC and Baltimore. There is no undeveloped space between those two metros if you drive on the BWI parkway, so why are they separate?

[dimondpark]

Originally Posted by DCReid

Weren't some of those metros, like Raleigh-Durham and SF-San Jose, combined in the past, and then broken up as recently as 2000? It seemed that they took opposite ends of those metros and then broke them in two, sort of what they do now for DC and Baltimore. There is no undeveloped space between those two metros if you drive on the BWI parkway, so why are they separate?

San Francisco and San Jose have never been a single MSA. In fact, in the 1980s, Oakland and SF were separate PMSAs, as were NY and Newark, Dallas and Ft Worth, LA and Orange County, all separate as independent Primary Metropolitan Statistical Areas, but combined into a CMSA.

CMSA= Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical Area

Then in 2000, the M was removed because M coulfd mean Metro or newly created Micro Area---and "Consolidated" became "Combined".

Something as mundane as removing the letter "M" from an Acronym is what created the massive debate about the validity of a type of statistical area that existed before without nary a peep from now adamant opponents of CSAs.

Oy vey.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by dimondpark

Something as mundane as removing the letter "M" from an Acronym is what created the massive debate about the validity of a type of statistical area that existed before without nary a peep from now adamant opponents of CSAs.

My issue with MSAs and CSAs has never had anything to do with the presence of the letter "M", but rather it's the fact that they're based on counties that makes them kind of stupid in my eyes.

Using the incredibly smaller base geographical unit of census tracts, I find the Urban Area definition to be infinitely more useful in describing the actual population and land area of a given "city", disregarding the city limits of incorporated municipalities.

Counties are an absurdly gigantic and inconsistently sized geographical unit to use, IMO, but I understand that they makes things "simple", which is why we end up with them as the grossly imperfect kludge that they are.



TL;DR - anyone who has ever spent any time in Kentland, IN (like me) knows that it has fuck all to do with Chicagoland.

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by DCReid

Weren't some of those metros, like Raleigh-Durham and SF-San Jose, combined in the past, and then broken up as recently as 2000? It seemed that they took opposite ends of those metros and then broke them in two, sort of what they do now for DC and Baltimore. There is no undeveloped space between those two metros if you drive on the BWI parkway, so why are they separate?

Baltimore and D.C. are separate because there was still not the residential population density required between them to be combined in 2010 (built form does not matter in the US in the calculation of UAs, as it does in most of Europe, so what you see between the cities isn’t as important as you think). There MAY be now, but this is probably one example where the census bureau will ignore their own guidelines.

As for previous break ups, they changed the underlying methodology in addition to what is mentioned above.

As for the bay area, San Francisco and San Jose did not share a single urban area in the 2010 census data because the density connections between them were smaller than being consistently at least five miles wide. So they remained separate UAs and separate MSAs. In fact, the census bureau briefly considered adding an additional criteria regarding suitability of land to development (e.g. mountains), but gave up because any single rule is too difficult to apply consistently nationally and have the resultant output be objectively and substantively meaningful precisely because the underlying reality in the bay area suggests a truly single urban area and truly single metropolitan area as well.

As for them merging now, even with the growth in the east bay, I think the UAs are still too narrowly connected to be merged into a single entity now.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

TL;DR - anyone who has ever spent any time in Kentland, IN (like me) knows that it has fuck all to do with Chicagoland.

I just noticed that a lot of Indiana counties seem to be shaped like Indiana, which is a little creepy.

[MPLS_Const_Watch]

Originally Posted by ChiSoxRox

I do.

New York: 6,919,220
Los Angeles: 599,822
Chicago: 470,391
San Francisco: 439,958
Philadelphia: 334,754
Boston: 311,585
Washington: 241,319
Miami: 156,904
Honolulu: 110,206
Seattle: 96,014
San Diego: 34,839
Houston: 32,092
Reading: 21,612
Madison: 20,845
Atlanta: 18,484
San Jose: 17,145
Trenton: 16,741
Champaign: 15,719
Provo: 13,203
Columbus: 12,131
Santa Barbara: 11,547
Denver: 10,563
Bridgeport: 10,318
Austin: 10,298
Dallas: 9,948
Minneapolis: 8,634
Phoenix: 8,527
Lansing: 8,481
Baltimore: 8,223
Portland: 7,337
Milwaukee: 7,112
Salinas: 6,194
Boulder: 5,042

(I will continue the weighted population list tomorrow.)

Thank you so much! I greatly appreciate all of the time you're putting into going through this data!

[Yuri]

I just realized Wayne County, Michigan missed for a few thousands to be on positive terrain and that would be the first time since the 1960-1970 period. In any case, it's its best performance since then:

------------ 2020 ------- 2010 ------- 2000 ------- 1990 ------- 1980 ------- 1970 ------- 1960 ------- 1950 ------- Growth
Wayne -- 1,793,561 -- 1,820,584 -- 2,061,162 -- 2,111,687 -- 2,337,843 -- 2,666,751 -- 2,666,297 -- 2,435,235 -1.48% -11.67% -2.39% -9.67% -12.33% +0.02% +9.49%


That's very meaningful, specially as Detroit Metro Area had its positives and negatives all over this period. Wayne County was all negative, dragged down by the city of Detroit.

Giving the trend there is upwards, the worst being in the early 2010's, there's a good chance of having it growing this decade.

[ChiSoxRox]

Originally Posted by MPLS_Const_Watch

Thank you so much! I greatly appreciate all of the time you're putting into going through this data!

You're welcome. For the x people over some density figures, I have an Excel sheet with all metros over 20k people at 10k ppsm, with populations stepping up to 150k ppsm so those lists are quick to regenerate.

Here are the weighted population densities for MSAs ranked #26-56, i.e. the less populous half or so of the 1M+ metros.

Honolulu....12,581.9
San Jose....9,075.9
Las Vegas....7,031.7
Providence....5,204.6
Salt Lake City....5,070.9
Milwaukee....5,023.7
Sacramento....5,002.7
New Orleans....4,577.0
Fresno....4,518.4
Buffalo....4,348.8
Cleveland....3,676.9
Columbus....3,605.8
Virginia Beach....3,580.8
Austin....3,565.3
Tucson....3,285.2
Hartford....3,195.3
Pittsburgh....2,970.0
Rochester....2,948.2
Louisville....2,686.3
Cincinnati....2,658.2
Oklahoma City....2,647.3
Richmond....2,590.4
Kansas City....2,561.4
Indianapolis....2,457.3
Jacksonville....2,431.3
Grand Rapids....2,413.3
Memphis....2,339.4
Tulsa....2,167.3
Raleigh....2,166.8
Nashville....1,943.3
Birmingham....1,402.6

[ChiSoxRox]

The weighted population density for metros #11-25.

San Francisco....13,267.8
San Diego....7,381.9
Seattle....6,146.3
Denver....5,418.0
Baltimore....5,144.7
Portland....5,058.8
Phoenix....4,807.7
Riverside....4,636.9
Detroit....3,906.9
Minneapolis....3,784.4
Tampa Bay....3,616.6
San Antonio....3,424.0
Orlando....3,275.7
St. Louis....2,738.0
Charlotte....1,996.1

Cumulative list over 5k, for MSAs ranked #11 - 100 in population

San Francisco....13,267.8
Honolulu....12,581.9
San Jose....9,075.9
San Diego....7,381.9
Las Vegas....7,031.7
Seattle....6,146.3
Oxnard....5,693.2
Bridgeport....5,620.4
Stockton....5,462.7
Denver....5,418.0
Providence....5,204.6
Baltimore....5,144.7
Salt Lake City....5,070.9
Portland....5,058.8
Milwaukee....5,023.7
Sacramento....5,002.7

Tomorrow will be the top 10. Will anyone be able to catch San Francisco for second? What multiple of San Francisco will New York City land at?

[Steely Dan]

^ the general disparity between "hard-edged" western metros and "loose-edged" eastern metros is on full display here.

[subterranean]

I think it would be cool to see the % change in density, like a list of most improved.

[wwmiv]

San Francisco....13,267.8—12,144.9
San Diego....7,381.9—6,920.5
Seattle....6,146.3—4,721.6 (!!!)
Denver....5,418.0—4,803.7
Baltimore....5,144.7—5,435.7
Portland....5,058.8—4,327.6
Phoenix....4,807.7—4,394.9
Riverside....4,636.9—4,299.6
Detroit....3,906.9—3,800.4 (!!!)
Minneapolis....3,784.4—3,383.4
Tampa Bay....3,616.6—3,323.0
San Antonio....3,424.0—3,475 (???)
Orlando....3,275.7
St. Louis....2,738.0
Charlotte....1,996.1

———————

San Jose....9,075.9—8,417.7
Las Vegas....7,031.7—6,527.2
Providence....5,204.6—4,763.7 (!!!)
Salt Lake City....5,070.9—4,563.5
Milwaukee....5,023.7—5,257.6
Sacramento....5,002.7—4,538.5
New Orleans....4,577.0—4,370.2
Buffalo....4,348.8—4,129.4 (!!!)
Cleveland....3,676.9—3,808.4
Columbus....3,605.8—3,186.0
Virginia Beach....3,580.8—4,084.1
Austin....3,565.3—3,131.5
Hartford....3,195.3—3,250.9
Pittsburgh....2,970.0—2,990.8
Louisville....2,686.3
Cincinnati....2,658.2
Oklahoma City....2,647.3
Richmond....2,590.4
Kansas City....2,561.4
Indianapolis....2,457.3
Jacksonville....2,431.3
Memphis....2,339.4
Tulsa....2,167.3
Raleigh....2,166.8
Nashville....1,943.3
Birmingham....1,402.6

———————

Honolulu.....12,581.9—11,548.2
Oxnard.....5,693.2—5,542.2
Bridgeport.....5,620.4—5,122.4
Stockton.....5,462.7—4,889.1
Madison.....4,833.8—3,502.2 (!!!)
Fresno.....4,518.4—4,216.1
Bakersfield.....4,438.8—3,711.5
New Haven.....4,208.3—4,007.4
Provo.....4,201.0—4,270.3
Allentown.....4,087.5—3,889.3
El Paso.....3,967.0—4,318.3
Albuquerque.....3,635.2—3,518.6
Colorado Springs.....3,345.5—3,092.5
Tucson.....3,285.2—3,213.0
Omaha.....3,275.4—3,138.1
Springfield, MA.....3,271.4
Worcester.....3,150.8
Ogden.....3,111.8
Scranton.....3,087.4
Albany.....3,031.8
Boise.....2,972.9
Rochester.....2,948.2
Spokane.....2,825.8
Syracuse.....2,822.3
Poughkeepsie.....2,808.6
Toledo.....2,655.7
Sarasota.....2,596.3
Harrisburg.....2,561.3
McAllen.....2,543.6
Palm Bay.....2,413.7
Grand Rapids.....2,413.3
Des Moines.....2,357.2
Akron.....2,346.7
Dayton.....2,326.5
Cape Coral.....2,270.5
Wichita.....2,260.7
Tulsa.....2,167.3
Charleston, SC.....1,986.1
Daytona Beach.....1,930.0
Durham.....1,905.6
Lakeland.....1,730.0
Greensboro.....1,700.1
Baton Rouge.....1,653.6
Columbia, SC.....1,521.5
Little Rock.....1,455.1
Knoxville.....1,373.2
Greenville.....1,289.5
Augusta, GA.....1,162.3
Winston-Salem.....1,146.7
Jackson, MS.....1,083.5

Data for 50 densest areas in 2010 only.

[streetscaper]

Ooooh!! Some juicy data all around! Especially that last tidbit showing change from 2010 to 2020.

[ChiSoxRox]

@wwmiv, Thanks for assembling that!

Even though Pittsburgh and Cleveland reversed the MSA population losses, tough to see the drops in the cores result in a negative change for the weighted density. Likewise, Baltimore continues to have a rough number for the East Coast; I expect the other BosWash nodes to all be significantly positive.

On the other hand, amazing result for Seattle. Denver too; I was in Denver a few months ago and was impressed by the scale of downtown residential construction. Nice to see metros like Phoenix and the Inland Empire densifying nicely as well.

I double checked the San Antonio number, and got the same result as before. Here is the % change map for San Antonio, with noticeable drops (blue tones) south and west of downtown, which I am guessing drove the drop in WPD.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by wwmiv

Detroit....3,906.9—3,800.4 (!!!)

Well that sure is an unexpected one.

Detroit city proper lost another 10% over the past decade, but the MSA got a little bit denser overall?

Milwaukee, Baltimore, Cleveland, and Pittsburgh all lost central city population as well, and got a little less dense at the MSA level, but somehow metro Detroit bucked that trend. Strange.