The US Census Bureau thread

[Chisouthside]

I know at least in the area between cottage grove and the metra electric line along 83rd theres alot of apartment buildings including courtyard buildings. and once you cross the metra electric line into avalon park theres alot more well, kept single family homes with an older population. might be that the younger kids are moving out especially as to me theres really no sign of physical deterioration with the housing stock. and im down there pretty often. it might also be that uncle johns bbq on 83rd anchors the neighborhood.

[ChiSoxRox]

I tried getting the weighted density for Miami's city limits. Turns out several tracts are bisected by Miami's city limits so multiple tracts I've simply counted half the population. I still get within 200 people of Miami itself, but take the Miami number with a touch of salt.

New York, NY…...65,299.0 ppsm
Jersey City, NJ…...36,846.2
San Francisco, CA…...33,572.5
Boston, MA…...27,437.4
Newark, NJ…...24,478.2
Miami, FL…...22,014.5
Philadelphia, PA…...21,935.1
Chicago, IL.......21,235.2
Washington, DC…...20,642.9
Los Angeles, CA…...17,294.3
Seattle, WA…...15,249.3

Unless there's any other city limit weighted densities that someone would like to know, the Miami mess is a good reason to call it quits on the city proper list.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by ChiSoxRox

the Miami mess is a good reason to call it quits on the city proper list.

Especially because comparing 15 square mile Jersey City and 36 square mile miami to 470 square mile LA is a bit silly, even with WPD.

[ChiSoxRox]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

Especially because comparing 15 square mile Jersey City and 36 square mile miami to 470 square mile LA is a bit silly, even with WPD.

Definitely agreed. As a grand finale, I'm reposting the list that IMO is the closest to a decent apples-to-apples comparison that we have, i.e. the list to focus on. The urban areas are the best delineation like you've mentioned, but it's far easier just to pull counties and plunk in Excel.

Weighted population density for MSAs over 1 million:

1. New York: 33,787.5
2. San Francisco....13,267.8
3. Honolulu....12,581.9
4. Los Angeles....12,169.4
5. San Jose....9,075.9
6. Chicago....9,011.9
7. Boston....8,987.9
8. Miami....8,489.2
9. Philadelphia....8,258.5
10. San Diego....7,381.9
11. Washington....7,296.1
12. Las Vegas....7,031.7
13. Seattle....6,146.3
14. Denver....5,418.0
15. Providence....5,204.6
16. Baltimore....5,144.7
17. Salt Lake City....5,070.9
18. Portland....5,058.8
19. Milwaukee....5,023.7
20. Sacramento....5,002.7
21. Phoenix....4,807.7
22. Riverside....4,636.9
23. Houston....4,606.4
24. New Orleans....4,577.0
25. Fresno....4,518.4
26. Buffalo....4,348.8
27. Dallas....4,274.7
28. Detroit....3,906.9
29. Minneapolis....3,784.4
30. Cleveland....3,676.9
31. Tampa Bay....3,616.6
32. Columbus....3,605.8
33. Virginia Beach....3,580.8
34. Austin....3,565.3
35. San Antonio....3,424.0
36. Tucson....3,285.2
37. Orlando....3,275.7
38. Hartford....3,195.3
39. Pittsburgh....2,970.0
40. Rochester....2,948.2
41. St. Louis....2,738.0
42. Atlanta....2,686.4
43. Louisville....2,686.3
44. Cincinnati....2,658.2
45. Oklahoma City....2,647.3
46. Richmond....2,590.4
47. Kansas City....2,561.4
48. Indianapolis....2,457.3
49. Jacksonville....2,431.3
50. Grand Rapids....2,413.3
51. Memphis....2,339.4
52. Tulsa....2,167.3
53. Raleigh....2,166.8
54. Charlotte....1,996.1
55. Nashville....1,943.3
56. Birmingham....1,402.6

You may close, Census query tab. You have served well, go and rest now.

[galleyfox]

Originally Posted by DCReid

Interesting that the far south side has the loss, as much of it is quite nice and sort of suburban. Some of those residents must have decided that they wanted to leave the city for the actual suburbs in IL and IN, perhaps for cheaper taxes. I wonder if this is also a trend on the north side.

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

but yes, the majority of the people who left the far southside ended up in the burbs. of course, there was also some black flight out of the metro area altogether with the reverse migration of some black people back down to the south.

not really for the lakefront northside.

going west from the lakefront on the northside, there are several community areas in the central zone that saw gentrification-induced population loss (logan square, avondale, irving park, albany park, portage park, etc.), but that's a very different dynamic than what's happening on the far southside.

Household sizes. Household sizes. Household sizes.

Looking at households and units, Englewood, West Englewood, and Roseland are still in decline. The rest are mostly stable or actually have increasing households. There’s just very little new construction to counter smaller household sizes.

Household Change/Household % Change/Unit Change

far southeast side

- chatham +1341 +9.8% +777
- avalon park +221 +5.6% +274
- south chicago. -47 -0.4% -318
- calumet heights +4 +0.1%. +107
- burnside. -41 -3.8% -55
- roseland -412 -2.7% -494
- pullman +55 +1.9% +116
- south deering +124 +2.4% +213
- east side +56 +0.8% +38
- hegewisch +140 +4.0% +192
- riverdale. +424 +20.2% +36
- west pullman +158 +1.7% -328

far southwest side

- englewood -651 -6.4% -1892
- west englewood -446 -4.3%. -964
- auburn gresham +468 +2.7%. +313
- ashburn +458 +3.7% +327
- washington heights+56 +0.6% +86
- beverly +145 +1.9% +209
- morgan park -12 -0.1% -93
- mount greenwood -140 -2.0% -76

[eixample]

This is a neat twitter thread with maps of all the 10K+ census tracts for various cities around the country. Good visualization for which parts of cities/regions are really urban.

https://twitter.com/mdasilva1563/status/1436045062777999360

For example, here is Philadelphia -



I'm wondering if there are maps out there where you can zoom in on each census tract to see the population change from the last census (not on a county-by-county level but broken down by census tract). I've seen linked here sites where you can see the population density and raw population numbers by census tract, but I'd love to see how each neighborhood evolved.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by galleyfox

Household sizes. Household sizes. Household sizes.

Looking at households and units, Englewood, West Englewood, and Roseland are still in decline. The rest are mostly stable or actually have increasing households. There’s just very little new construction to counter smaller household sizes.

Household Change/Household % Change/Unit Change

far southeast side

- chatham +1341 +9.8% +777
- avalon park +221 +5.6% +274
- south chicago. -47 -0.4% -318
- calumet heights +4 +0.1%. +107
- burnside. -41 -3.8% -55
- roseland -412 -2.7% -494
- pullman +55 +1.9% +116
- south deering +124 +2.4% +213
- east side +56 +0.8% +38
- hegewisch +140 +4.0% +192
- riverdale. +424 +20.2% +36
- west pullman +158 +1.7% -328

far southwest side

- englewood -651 -6.4% -1892
- west englewood -446 -4.3%. -964
- auburn gresham +468 +2.7%. +313
- ashburn +458 +3.7% +327
- washington heights+56 +0.6% +86
- beverly +145 +1.9% +209
- morgan park -12 -0.1% -93
- mount greenwood -140 -2.0% -76

I'm not fully understanding these numbers. What is the difference between household change and unit change?

[ChiSoxRox]

Originally Posted by eixample

This is a neat twitter thread with maps of all the 10K+ census tracts for various cities around the country. Good visualization for which parts of cities/regions are really urban.

https://twitter.com/mdasilva1563/status/1436045062777999360

I'm wondering if there are maps out there where you can zoom in on each census tract to see the population change from the last census (not on a county-by-county level but broken down by census tract). I've seen linked here sites where you can see the population density and raw population numbers by census tract, but I'd love to see how each neighborhood evolved.

Nice thread.

For the tract change maps, citypopulation.de does exactly this.

Here is Philadelphia.

The maps are accessible from the main US page, scroll down past the states to the metropolitan areas. On each map, it's the arrow tab.

[galleyfox]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

I'm not fully understanding these numbers. What is the difference between household change and unit change?

Households are the number of families/roommates who live in distinct units.
Units are the physical residences both occupied and vacant.

So the earlier list was:
Household absolute change
Household percent change
Unit absolute change

People will look at population in both Auburn Gresham and Englewood and react with dismay at the loss. But Auburn Gresham actually shows more families living in the neighborhood than in 2010; the families are just smaller. It also looks like some rehabs or conversions added a few more units.

Englewood on the other hand lost housing units, lost family households and lost population.

Auburn Gresham

2010 Population: 48,743
2020 Population: 44,878
Change: -3,865
Change %: -7.9%

2010 Households: 17,603
2020 Households: 18,071
Change: +468 Households
Change %: +2.7%

2010 HH Size: 2.76
2020 HH Size: 2.48
Change: -0.28

2010 Units: 20,351
2020 Units: 20,664
Change: +313
2010 Vacant Units: 2,748
2020 Vacant Units: 2,593
Change: -155

Englewood

2010 Population: 30,654
2020 Population: 24,369
Change: -6,285
Change %: -20.5%

2010 Households: 10,247
2020 Households: 9,597
Change: -651
Change %: -6.4%

2010 HH Size: 2.97
2020 HH Size: 2.52
Change: -0.45

2010 Units: 14,518
2020 Units: 12,626
Change: -1,892
2010 Vacant Units: 4,271
2020 Vacant Units: 3,029
Change: -1,242

Meanwhile Chatham as discussed earlier. 1. Already had small household sizes because of the many condo units. 2. Added 777 units and new 1,341 households. 3. Household total growth was not cancelled out by a decrease in household size. 4. Gets healthy Population growth.

Chatham

2010 Population: 31,028
2020 Population: 31,710
Change: +682
Change %:2.2%

2010 Households: 13,712
2020 Households: 15,053
Change: +1,341
Change %: 9.8%

2010 HH Size: 2.26
2020 HH Size: 2.11
Change: -0.15

2010 Units: 16,382
2020 Units: 17,159
Change: +777
2010 Vacant Units: 2,670
2020 Vacant Units: 2,106
Change: -564

[Steely Dan]

^ oh, thanks for the explanation. I'm honestly surprised to see that the # of households in Auburn Gresham actually increased! That certainly goes against the conventional narrative.

Any theories as to what might be driving the large household size decreases? Is it mostly just families with young children getting the hell outta dodge because violence? (Can't say that I blame them)

If love to see similar household and houseld size analysis for the biggest losers on the other sides of town: South Lawndale and Avondale.

[craigs]

Originally Posted by ChiSoxRox

Definitely agreed. As a grand finale, I'm reposting the list that IMO is the closest to a decent apples-to-apples comparison that we have, i.e. the list to focus on. The urban areas are the best delineation like you've mentioned, but it's far easier just to pull counties and plunk in Excel.

Weighted population density for MSAs over 1 million:

1. New York: 33,787.5
2. San Francisco....13,267.8
3. Honolulu....12,581.9
4. Los Angeles....12,169.4
5. San Jose....9,075.9
6. Chicago....9,011.9
7. Boston....8,987.9
8. Miami....8,489.2
9. Philadelphia....8,258.5
10. San Diego....7,381.9
11. Washington....7,296.1
12. Las Vegas....7,031.7
13. Seattle....6,146.3
14. Denver....5,418.0
15. Providence....5,204.6
16. Baltimore....5,144.7
17. Salt Lake City....5,070.9
18. Portland....5,058.8
19. Milwaukee....5,023.7
20. Sacramento....5,002.7
21. Phoenix....4,807.7
22. Riverside....4,636.9
23. Houston....4,606.4
24. New Orleans....4,577.0
25. Fresno....4,518.4
26. Buffalo....4,348.8
27. Dallas....4,274.7
28. Detroit....3,906.9
29. Minneapolis....3,784.4
30. Cleveland....3,676.9
31. Tampa Bay....3,616.6
32. Columbus....3,605.8
33. Virginia Beach....3,580.8
34. Austin....3,565.3
35. San Antonio....3,424.0
36. Tucson....3,285.2
37. Orlando....3,275.7
38. Hartford....3,195.3
39. Pittsburgh....2,970.0
40. Rochester....2,948.2
41. St. Louis....2,738.0
42. Atlanta....2,686.4
43. Louisville....2,686.3
44. Cincinnati....2,658.2
45. Oklahoma City....2,647.3
46. Richmond....2,590.4
47. Kansas City....2,561.4
48. Indianapolis....2,457.3
49. Jacksonville....2,431.3
50. Grand Rapids....2,413.3
51. Memphis....2,339.4
52. Tulsa....2,167.3
53. Raleigh....2,166.8
54. Charlotte....1,996.1
55. Nashville....1,943.3
56. Birmingham....1,402.6

You may close, Census query tab. You have served well, go and rest now.

My hat is off to you for all the number-crunching you've done. Ah, Census season . . . it comes but once a decade, and it's awesome. This stuff is the whole reason I am a forumer.

Kudos!

[subterranean]

How does Las Vegas have a PWD twice that if Cleveland? And higher than Seattle? #12 overall? I imagine it has something to do with water infrastructure? That 🞵🞵🞵🞵 is 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵 up my brain right now.

[Steely Dan]

^ Vegas has some of the most extremely hard edges of any major metro area in the country. and it packs it's subdivisions fairly tightly. You have suburban tracts of 7,000 ppsm that directly 🞵🞵🞵🞵 up against tracts of desert with virtually no one living in them.

https://www.google.com/maps/@36.2907827,-115.1468794,7083m/data=!3m1!1e3



Cleveland, on the other hand, being in the eastern half of the nation, has extremely fuzzy edges. It is surrounded by a whole universe of low density sprawl that keeps getting lower and lower in density until you're out in the cornfields.

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.5000759,-81.4359627,13818m/data=!3m1!1e3


All of that very low density sprawl and rural development drags down all metros in the east relative to cities out west, unless you're NYC and you have an utterly gigantic and hyper-dense core that more than cancels out the sprawl.

[galleyfox]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

^ oh, thanks for the explanation. I'm honestly surprised to see that the # of households in Auburn Gresham actually increased! That certainly goes against the conventional narrative.

Any theories as to what might be driving the large household size decreases? Is it mostly just families with young children getting the hell outta dodge because violence? (Can't say that I blame them)

If love to see similar household and houseld size analysis for the biggest losers on the other sides of town: South Lawndale and Avondale.

A lot of the household size decreases are part of a national trend. Black and Hispanic birth rates are falling in line with White birth rates which are relatively low. (Hispanic is still notably higher though) The big drop happened right after the Great Recession, and it’s never recovered.

Also wealthier families tend to have less children in general, while it rarely makes sense for a larger family to compete in an increasingly tight urban housing market. Even the far South side is seeing a notable increase in higher income households.

For the entire city, there’s been a 9.29% increase in households and 5.72% increase in housing units.

As for Avondale and South Lawndale, households are increasing almost twice as fast as new units even if the population figures don’t show it. South Lawndale household sizes are likely to fall further in the futur.

South Lawndale

2010 Population: 79,288
2020 Population: 71,399
Change: -7,889
Change %: -9.9%

2010 Households: 18,131
2020 Households: 20,069
Change: +1,938
Change %: +10.7%

2010 HH Size: 3.79
2020 HH Size: 3.30
Change: -0.49

2010 Units: 21,108
2020 Units: 22,065
Change: +957
2010 Vacant Units: 2,977
2020 Vacant Units: 1,996
Change: -981


North Lawndale

2010 Population: 35,912
2020 Population: 34,794
Change: -1,118
Change %: -3.1%

2010 Households: 11,484
2020 Households: 12,838
Change: 1,354
Change %: +11.8%

2010 HH Size: 3.05
2020 HH Size: 2.66
Change: -0.39

2010 Units: 14,702
2020 Units: 15,193
Change: +491
2010 Vacant Units: 3,218
2020 Vacant Units: 2,355
Change: -863

Avondale

2010 Population: 39,262
2020 Population: 36,257
Change: -3,005
Change %: -7.7%

2010 Households: 13,573
2020 Households: 14,578
Change: +1,005
Change %: +7.4%

2010 HH Size: 2.89
2020 HH Size: 2.48
Change: -0.41

2010 Units: 15,339
2020 Units: 15,937
Change: +598
2010 Vacant Units: 1,766
2020 Vacant Units: 1,359
Change: -407

[Steely Dan]

^ thanks for all of that!

Originally Posted by galleyfox

For the entire city, there’s been a 9.29% increase in households and 5.72% increase in housing units.

that's just wild to me. a 9.3% increase in households, but only a 1.9% increase in actual human bodies. i had no idea that household size was still dropping so dramatically in so many places around town.

i mean, because i'm a northsider and am familiar with them, i knew that's exactly what was happening in places like avondale and albany park, but i really didn't know that the same phenomenon was playing out, to a lesser extent, in neighborhoods like auburn gresham.

looking at household data, there are only 6 community areas (out of chicago's 77) that saw a statistically significant drop (>0.5%) in the number of households.

just from looking at CA population figures and maps, i would have guessed that there were A LOT more.



% drop in # of households 2010 - 2020:

1. englewood: -6.4%
2. fuller park: -4.7%*
3. west englewood: -4.3%
4. burnside: -3.8%*
5. roseland: -2.7%
6. mount greenwood: -2.0%


(*) burnside and fuller park are, by far, the two smallest CA's in the entire city (both ~2,500 people). numerically, their household drops were quite small (-41 & -56), but because they are so damn tiny, they penciled out to significant percentages.



so discounting those two fly-speck CA's, there are only 4 "regular-size" CA's that actually saw a drop in the # of households. that's pretty amazing and goes completely against the whole "OMG, the southside is imploding!!!!" narrative.

[galleyfox]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

so discounting those two fly-speck CA's, there are only 4 "regular-size" CA's that actually saw a drop in the # of households. that's pretty amazing and goes completely against the whole "OMG, the southside is imploding narrative!!!!"

The main challenge going forward is household incomes and new construction.

The South side is gaining households by drawing down its vacant housing supply and adding new units through rehabs, but some areas will be scraping the bottom of the barrel fairly soon.

But new construction can probably only be justified by the South lakeshore neighborhoods going forward, so I expect most South side neighborhoods to continue seeing population decline in the future until household size stabilizes.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

One thing that Hamtramck did deliberately that might have altered its fate is mobilize against the GM Poletown plant back in the 1980s. The plant was built partially in Hamtramck and Detroit, and it took out neighborhoods in both cities, but the opposition to the plant was much more fierce on the Hamtramck side so most of it was built in Detroit. I think historians would probably point to that as a key point in time. The Detroit neighborhoods that were destroyed were just extensions of Hamtramck. If that had not happened, they would probably flourished just like Hamtramck did in the 90s onwards.

To loop back on this, I found an article that dives into why GM Poletown was so bad. Next to Detroit's freeways, it's probably the single biggest urban planning blunder that Detroit ever made. Like freeways, this project destroyed thousands of homes and directly pushed thousands of people out of the city that would have otherwise stayed:

http://www.theneighborhoods.org/story/re...retty-terrible-idea-if-were-being-honest

Ironically, that appears to be a blog owned/hosted by the city of Detroit itself, lol.

This video from the article gives some context to what happened:

https://youtu.be/Faz7h_5JPN8?t=2569

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by galleyfox

I expect most South side neighborhoods to continue seeing population decline in the future until household size stabilizes.

i wonder when that will be?


looking city wide, i could only find 14 CA's where average household size actually increased:


lakeview
lincoln park
near north side
near south side
north center

clearing
dunning
edison park
forest glen
garfield ridge
hegewisch
norwood park
ohare
west ridge


so households are only increasing in average size in the well-to-do urban core, and then a smattering of bungalow belt nabes all around the fringe. the middle is still getting squeezed.

[galleyfox]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

i wonder when that will be?


looking city wide, i could only find 14 CA's where average household size actually increased:


lakeview
lincoln park
near north side
near south side
north center

clearing
dunning
edison park
forest glen
garfield ridge
hegewisch
norwood park
ohare
west ridge


so households are only increasing in average size in the well-to-do urban core, and then a smattering of bungalow belt nabes all around the fringe. the middle is still getting squeezed.

I think once a neighborhood reaches a household size of about 2.0-2.2, the household size decline can be countered.

Most units have about 2 bedrooms so I don’t expect household sizes to ever be like the Loop which has built lots of studios and 1 bedroom apartments.

[ChiSoxRox]

Originally Posted by craigs

My hat is off to you for all the number-crunching you've done. Ah, Census season . . . it comes but once a decade, and it's awesome. This stuff is the whole reason I am a forumer.

Kudos!

Thanks, I enjoy the insight these numbers give.

Did you see the CSA list a few pages back? Especially LA CSA edging ahead of SF CSA!