The US Census Bureau thread

[creamcityleo79]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

since 1970, the city of detroit only experienced one decade where the latino population increased "robustly": the '90s.


City of Detroit latino population by decade (growth over previous decade):

1970: 27,038
1980: 28,970 (+1,932)
1990: 28,473 (-497)
2000: 47,167 (+18,694)
2010: 48,679 (+1,512)
2020: 51,269 (+2,590)

source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_history_of_Detroit#Table



other than the '90s, those are some remarkably paltry raw latino growth figures for a big city like detroit.

in general, detroit's relative lack of latino immigration over the past half century has been one of the city's biggest demographic roadblocks.

imagine where the city of chicago would be right now, demographically, if it didn't receive those hundreds of thousands of latino immigrants over that same time frame?

in fact, outside of chicago, and to a lesser extent milwaukee, the lack of latino immgration is one of the main demographic stories across the major rust-belt cities.

I'd be interested to see suburban Detroit Hispanic growth post-1990. I wonder if the "paltry" growth is as a result of Hispanics moving out to the suburbs and that the numbers we're seeing are net positive in spite of that. Just a thought.

[Crawford]

I mean, yeah. The Mexicans who arrived in recent decades mostly moved to the Downriver suburbs. That's how gateway neighborhoods work. They're temporary waystations.

So when immigration gets cut off, the gateway neighborhood slowly dies. Italian neighborhoods in NYC really started declining around 1920, with the harsh new immigration policies. Was masked for a while, but after a few decades it became clear that there weren't a ton of newcomers. There was a revival in the postwar decades, but nothing like pre-1920.

The West Bronx, which was basically an Eastern European Jewish enclave, probably wouldn't have undergone epic decline in the 1960's, if Eastern European immigration hadn't been cut off decades prior.

[Crawford]

Recent article on Mexican Detroiters moving to Downriver suburbs, but paywalled:

Downriver cities see growth in Latino residents at Detroit's expense

https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/l...s-detroits-expense/7169592001/?gnt-cfr=1

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by creamcityleo79

I'd be interested to see suburban Detroit Hispanic growth post-1990. I wonder if the "paltry" growth is as a result of Hispanics moving out to the suburbs and that the numbers we're seeing are net positive in spite of that. Just a thought.

oh, there's no doubt that some city-to-burb movement of latinos is occurring, but the larger point is that detroit and its rustbelt cousins simply haven't gotten as many latino immigrants to begin with on a relative basis.


here are the 1M+ midwest/rustbelt MSAs ranked by percentage of latinos.


MSA latino population (census 2020):

chicago: 2,239,376 (23.3%)
milwaukee: 182,777 (11.6%)
kansas city: 229,233 (10.5%)
grand rapids: 110,671 (10.2%)
indianapolis: 177,787 (8.4%)
rochetser: 88,854 (8.1%)
minneapolis: 242,621 (6.8%)
cleveland: 133,862 (6.4%)
buffalo: 67,476 (5.8%)
columbus: 110,967 (5.2%)
detroit: 219,953 (5.0%)
cincinnati: 95,073 (4.2%)
st. louis: 106,269 (3.8%)
pittsburgh: 52,920 (2.2%)



nationally, latinos now make up 18.5% of the US population as of 2020. chicago is the only major MSA in the region that is more or less aligned with the national trend. what's more, chicagoland has more total latinos than those 13 other MSAs combined!

chicagoland: 2,239,376 (23.3%)
the others: 1,818,463 (6.3%)

had we seen a more even distribution of latino immigration across the area's major cities, metro detroit would likely have closer to 600,000 latinos, radically boosting that demographic both in and out of the city. imagine if there were 200,000 latinos living in detroit proper today instead of only 50,000.

[creamcityleo79]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

oh, there's no doubt that some city-to-burb movement of latinos is occurring, but the larger point is that detroit and its rustbelt cousins simply haven't gotten as many latino immigrants to begin with on a relative basis.


here are the 1M+ midwest/rustbelt MSAs ranked by percentage of latinos.


MSA latino population (census 2020):

chicago: 2,239,376 (23.3%)
milwaukee: 182,777 (11.6%)
kansas city: 229,233 (10.5%)
grand rapids: 110,671 (10.2%)
indianapolis: 177,787 (8.4%)
rochetser: 88,854 (8.1%)
minneapolis: 242,621 (6.8%)
cleveland: 133,862 (6.4%)
buffalo: 67,476 (5.8%)
columbus: 110,967 (5.2%)
detroit: 219,953 (5.0%)
cincinnati: 95,073 (4.2%)
st. louis: 106,269 (3.8%)
pittsburgh: 52,920 (2.2%)



nationally, latinos now make up 18.5% of the US population as of 2020. chicago is the only major MSA in the region that is more or less aligned with the national trend. what's more, chicagoland has more total latinos than those 13 other MSAs combined!

chicagoland: 2,239,376 (23.3%)
the others: 1,818,463 (6.3%)

had wee seen a more even distribution of latino immigration across the area's major cities, metro detroit would likely have closer to 600,000 latinos, radically boosting that demographic both in and out of the city. imagine if there were 200,000 latinos living in detroit proper today instead of only 50,000.

Interestingly, Wikipedia says Metro Detroit is at 8.1% for Hispanic population. I'm at work; so, I can't look up the numbers on the Census site easily.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_history_of_Detroit#Table

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by creamcityleo79

Interestingly, Wikipedia says Metro Detroit is at 8.1% for Hispanic population. I'm at work; so, I can't look up the numbers on the Census site easily.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_history_of_Detroit#Table

that table is for detroit city proper, which is 8.0% latino as of census 2020.


here's the MSA data, straight from the Census 2020 P2 file:

Detroit MSA: 4,392,041

Hispanic or Latino: 219,953

219,953 / 4,392,041 = 5.0%

source: https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?g=310XX00US19820&tid=DECENNIALPL2020.P2

[creamcityleo79]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

that table is for detroit city proper, which is 8.0% latino as of census 2020.


here's the MSA data, straight from the Census 2020 P2 file:

Detroit MSA: 4,392,041

Hispanic or Latino: 219,953

219,953 / 4,392,041 = 5.0%

source: https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?g=310XX00US19820&tid=DECENNIALPL2020.P2

I see that now lol. Clearly, Metro Detroit doesn't have only 600,000 people.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by creamcityleo79

I see that now lol. Clearly, Metro Detroit doesn't have only 600,000 people.

Well, if that 8% undercount the UofM study found really does apply city-wide, then the City of Detroit's real population is closer to 700K (~690K).

[ChiSoxRox]

With the 1950 Census data being released, I checked the top counties in 1950.

1950 is the last Census where Cook County, Illinois is the nation's top county before Los Angeles passes it. Cook had been the top county since 1920; before that it was New York County, New York which included both Manhattan and the Bronx until 1914. All four dense boroughs of NYC are still among the top 10 counties in 1950.

Both Baltimore and St. Louis cities are in the top 20, but neither Baltimore County nor St. Louis County make the top fifty.


The top 25 counties in 1950:

Cook, IL.......4,508,792
Los Angeles, CA.......4,151,687
Kings, NY.......2,738,175
Wayne, MI.......2,435,235
Philadelphia, PA.......2,071,605
New York, NY.......1,960,101
Queens, NY.......1,550,849
Allegheny, PA.......1,515,237
Bronx, NY.......1,451,277
Cuyahoga, OH.......1,389,532
Middlesex, MA.......1,064,569
Baltimore city, MD.......949,708
Essex, NJ.......905,949
Erie, NY.......899,238
Suffolk, MA.......896,615
Milwaukee, WI.......871,047
St. Louis city, MO.......856,796
Harris, TX.......806, 701
District of Columbia....802,178
San Francisco, CA.......775,357
Alameda, CA.......740,315
King, WA.......732,992
Hamilton, OH.......723,952
Hennepin, MN.......676,579
Nassau, NY.......672,765 (the highest truly suburban county, still less than half the Bronx)

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by ChiSoxRox

Nassau, NY.......672,765 (the highest truly suburban county, still less than half the Bronx)

Damn, Nassau was a suburban beast back in the day.

But I guess that's mostly just because the NYC area is so chopped up by counties. Cook had nearly 1M of suburban population back in the day, but it was all mashed-up with the city in the Cook mega-county.

It got me curious about chicago's collar counties back in 1950, and to my mild surprise, Lake County (IN) was by far the 2nd largest county in Chicagoland back then. Today it's only the 6th largest after Cook, Dupage, Lake (IL), Will, and Kane counties.


Chicagoland counties >100K in 1950:

Cook: 4,508,792
Lake (IN): 368,152
Lake (IL): 179,097
Dupage: 154,599
Kane: 150,388
Will: 134,336

[Crawford]

Much of Nassau County is pretty old and largely indistinguishable from outer parts of Queens. Not really urban, but urbanish, and very much traditionally oriented around rail.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by ChiSoxRox

With the 1950 Census data being released, I checked the top counties in 1950.

1950 is the last Census where Cook County, Illinois is the nation's top county before Los Angeles passes it. Cook had been the top county since 1920; before that it was New York County, New York which included both Manhattan and the Bronx until 1914. All four dense boroughs of NYC are still among the top 10 counties in 1950.

Both Baltimore and St. Louis cities are in the top 20, but neither Baltimore County nor St. Louis County make the top fifty.


The top 25 counties in 1950:

Cook, IL.......4,508,792
Los Angeles, CA.......4,151,687
Kings, NY.......2,738,175
Wayne, MI.......2,435,235
Philadelphia, PA.......2,071,605
New York, NY.......1,960,101
Queens, NY.......1,550,849
Allegheny, PA.......1,515,237
Bronx, NY.......1,451,277
Cuyahoga, OH.......1,389,532
Middlesex, MA.......1,064,569
Baltimore city, MD.......949,708
Essex, NJ.......905,949
Erie, NY.......899,238
Suffolk, MA.......896,615
Milwaukee, WI.......871,047
St. Louis city, MO.......856,796
Harris, TX.......806, 701
District of Columbia....802,178
San Francisco, CA.......775,357
Alameda, CA.......740,315
King, WA.......732,992
Hamilton, OH.......723,952
Hennepin, MN.......676,579
Nassau, NY.......672,765 (the highest truly suburban county, still less than half the Bronx)

This is the census where Detroit's population went into decline, but Wayne County would add another 200k after 1950 before starting to slide in the 1970s. I think Wayne held the number 3 spot from the 1960 - 1980. Harris County, TX would have then bumped it to 4 in 1980.

[RST500]

Largest African sources of immigrants in the US (2020 ACS):

1. Nigeria (367K)
2. Ethiopia (261K)
3. Egypt (202K)
4. Ghana (181K)
5. Kenya (145K)
6. South Africa (109K)
7. Somalia (97K)
8. Liberia (92K)
9. Morocco (84K)
10. Cameroon (71K)

[Yuri]

It's a slow Good Friday and as I was feeding my tables, I realized I had the US three largest cities covering the same area done (roughly 1,300 square miles):

---------------------- 2020 -------- 2010 -------- 2000 -------- 1990 --------- Area --------------- Growth % ---------- Density

NEW YORK ------ 15,041,390 -- 13,988,033 -- 13,706,935 -- 12,719,367 ---- 3,555 km² ---- 7.5% ---- 2.1% ---- 7.8% ---- 4,231.1 inh./km²

LOS ANGELES ---- 9,192,071 --- 9,049,010 --- 8,895,201 --- 8,376,089 ---- 3,221 km² ---- 1.6% ---- 1.7% ---- 6.2% ---- 2,853.8 inh./km²

CHICAGO --------- 6,208,418 --- 6,111,599 --- 6,280,902 --- 5,886,733 ---- 3,296 km² ---- 1.6% --- -2.7% ---- 6.7% ---- 1,883.6 inh./km²


- New York is New York City, Nassau, Westchester's 12 southernmost divisions, Bergen (minus 3 westernmost divisions), Essex, Hudson, Middlesex (minus 8 southernmost divisions), Passaic (minus 6 westernmost divisions) and Union;

- Los Angeles is roughly LA County south of San Gabriel mountains;

- Chicago is Cook and Du Page.


We see New York has been growing faster since 1990, jumping way ahead in the 2010-2020 period with impressive 7.5%, faster than the US as a whole (7.3%).

Even though it's weird to think of Los Angeles as a slow growth region, the numbers show precisely that: neck and neck with Chicago, a region that is demographically struggling for the past 20 years.

And another misconception about Los Angeles is density: even as early as 1990, it had 2/3 as much people as New York in this 1,300 sqmi area and was already way above Chicago. Lots of people there.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Yuri

Even though it's weird to think of Los Angeles as a slow growth region, the numbers show precisely that: neck and neck with Chicago, a region that is demographically struggling for the past 20 years.

I am surprised that NY grew faster than LA in the 1990s, but not during those other decades. I am also surprised that Chicago grew about the same as LA during 2 of those 3 decades.

[Yuri]

As I did the work with Downtowns, I decided to expand things a bit and to look to cities and their adjacent dense-ish suburbs (hence I found numbers for New York, Los Angeles and Chicago).

Detroit caught my attention as it still has a rather dense inner urban area and I was expecting prairies would push the numbers down. Here the numbers:

---------------------- 2020 -------- 2010 -------- 2000 -------- 1990 --------- Area --------------- Growth % ---------- Density

DETROIT --------- 1,597,626 --- 1,649,006 --- 1,932,080 --- 2,045,306 --- 887 km² --- -3.1% -- -14.7% --- -5.5% --- 1,802.2 inh./km²

Detroit ------------- 1,105,598 ---- 1,162,077 ---- 1,420,108 ---- 1,504,269 ---- 614 km² ---- -4.9% -- -18.2% --- -5.6% --- 1,800.9 inh./km²
St. Clair Shores ------ 155,705 ------ 154,049 ------ 160,704 ------ 168,884 ----- 80 km² ----- 1.1% --- -4.1% --- -4.8% --- 1,941.2 inh./km²
Warren --------------- 147,939 ------ 142,327 ------ 146,784 ------ 153,911 ----- 94 km² ----- 3.9% --- -3.0% --- -4.6% --- 1,580.9 inh./km²
Royal Oak ------------ 188,384 ------ 190,553 ------ 204,484 ------ 218,242 ----- 99 km² ---- -1.1% --- -6.8% --- -6.3% --- 1,907.1 inh./km²

Disclaimer: I profitted from the Michigan's square divisions. "Detroit" is Northeast Wayne County, everything east of Redford and Deaborn Heights (including both) and north of Wyandotte and Southgate (including both); "St. Clair Shores" is southeast square of Macomb and "Warren" is the southwest one; "Royal Oak" is the 10 subdivisions on the southeastern corner of Oakland County.

We have a 1,800 inh./km² or 4,700 inh./sq.mi. density, over a rather big area (887 km² or 342 sq.mi.). 1.6 million people living there with growth about to resume as Detroit proper will probably stop bleeding this decade.

[Crawford]

The population living in "urban prairie" portion of Metro Detroit is basically inconsequential to the overall metro population. Maybe 10% of the city proper, which is barely more than 10% of the CSA. So like 1-2% of the region lives in such conditions.

I don't agree Detroit proper will start growing this decade, however. Not enough immigrants, and the gentrified parts aren't that big.

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by Crawford

The population living in "urban prairie" portion of Metro Detroit is basically inconsequential to the overall metro population. Maybe 10% of the city proper, which is barely more than 10% of the CSA. So like 1-2% of the region lives in such conditions.

I don't agree Detroit proper will start growing this decade, however. Not enough immigrants, and the gentrified parts aren't that big.

What I meant was the region core is still quite dense, 2x-3x higher than the typical US suburban sprawl, without having a dense urban core in the centre due Detroit's problem.

About it growing again, at least marginally, it's not that hard. The selected area came from a 14% fall in the 2000's to mere 3% in the 2010's. Buffalo and Pittsburgh showed it's possible to reverse decades-straight decline when the US was growing at its slowest.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Yuri

What I meant was the region core is still quite dense, 2x-3x higher than the typical US suburban sprawl, without having a dense urban core in the centre due Detroit's problem.

I think this forum tends to overstate how many American cities are really that dense. Even with the city of Detroit being severely depopulated, the city is still on the denser side of American cities. No major Sun Belt city has a higher population density than Detroit (Miami and California excluded).

[SAN Man]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

I think this forum tends to overstate how many American cities are really that dense. Even with the city of Detroit being severely depopulated, the city is still on the denser side of American cities. No major Sun Belt city has a higher population density than Detroit (Miami and California excluded).

Has a list of US cities' 2020 weighted density (city propers) been calculated?

This map is pretty cool, first time I've seen it:


vivid maps.com