The US Census Bureau thread

[kittyhawk28]

Summing Up LA:
LA/North OC.....12,237,376
Riverside/San Bernardino.....2276703
South OC.....646843
Temecula.....528991
Ventura.....376117
Santa Clarita 278031
Hemet.....173194
Simi Valley.....127364
Camarillo.....76338
Contiguous Urban Area.....16,720,957 (89.68% of CSA)
Palmdale.....359,559
Victorville.....355,816
Coachella Valley.....361,075
Contiguous Urban Area + Exurbs.....17,797,407 (95.46% of CSA)


Really confused about the Census Bureau's separation of South OC and Riverside from LA... anyone who lives in Southland can tell you there is no gap in urbanity whatsoever anymore. As for these numbers, I think the Census underestimated LA's true size in 2020, given the worsening traffic, increasing density in the basin, and booming growth in the Inland Empire.

[Yuri]

The US Census should eliminate those endless contiguous UA, consolidating them. Posts above on Chicago and Los Angeles are telling.

French metro areas (aires urbaines) are akin to US’ UAs and they also have that same problem and in some cases even worse: they have aires urbaines that are enclaves (!!!).

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

they were pretty close in 2020.

newark: 307,220

jersey city: 292,449



NJ is the largest US state without a municipality over 500K.

well, technically, it's GA, but with atlanta registering 498K in 2020, i'm calling that "close enough".


i still think hudson county should consolidate to become NJ's de facto main city.

at 724K, it'd be the 19th largest municipality in the nation, and one of the densest large cities with only 47 sq. miles of land.

The city of Hudson County would be fairly similar to San Francisco stats wise. Similar population, similar land area, similar density.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by chris08876

It wouldn't shock me for that to occur. Jersey City is producing 1000's upon 1000's of units, with large scale projects in the works.

I think Newark development climate is heating up but its nowhere near Jersey City.

The Halo will suprise folks with Newark; having a new tallest, something that hasn't been done since 1931 for Newark. Downtown is seeing some projects.

CitiSquare Newark... now that is something that could really be the catalyst for Newark. 4200 residential units and 11 towers!

So the census estimated that Jersey City's population dropped pretty substantially in 2021, and by more than Newark's. I think their annual estimates are bullshit, but unless we're about to see some shocking spikes in 2022, I doubt they will show that JC has overtaken Newark.

[chris08876]

I think because of the pandemic, 2021's figures were all rubbish and not just for NJ cities but for others as well. Miami for example, its figures were total BS.

I'll await better figures for JC and Newark. Compared to 2020, the 2021 estimates or figures did not match reality for some places. Granted folks were wiped out due to Covid but many folks raised suspicion over the 2021 figures.

I do think Jersey City is on track to exceed Newark. The amount of development and buying patterns will eventually make this happen. Newark though I feel, once the market is right, will continue to grow (its a gold mine of a location). Developments like CitySquare will make this happen and all the spill over development once developments like The Halo show it can be done in Newark (along with all the other proxy developments).

Keep an eye out for Newark... its rise will happen. Only a matter of time.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Yuri

The US Census should eliminate those endless contiguous UA, consolidating them. Posts above on Chicago and Los Angeles are telling.

Well, looking at the list of UA's that chisoxrox compiled for Chicago, many of them are not contiguous with the city's UA, and thus they really shouldn't all be consolidated, IMO.

Originally Posted by ChiSoxRox

Summing up Chicago:

Chicago, IL—IN.....8,671,746
Round Lake Beach, IL.....261,835
Kenosha, WI.....125,865
DeKalb, IL....64,736
Valparaiso, IN....51,867
Woodstock, IL.....25,298
Morris, IL.....15,740
Coal City—Braidwood, IL....15,837
Lakes of the Four Seasons, IN....13,113
Twin Lakes, WI—IL.....12,603
Lowell, IN.....10,747
Harvard, IL....9,376
Manhattan, IL....7,826
Marengo, IL....7,509
Elburn, IL.....6,395
Wilmington, IL.....6,388
Wonder Lake, IL....5,758
Hampshire, IL.....5,699
Rensselaer, IN.....5,509
Genoa, IL.....5,484

Sum of 9,329,331 or 97.0% of the MSA.

Round Lake Beach—McHenry—Grayslake, IL—WI is definitely the oddest piece to be separate from the main Chicago UA.

The Round Lake UA is probably the best connected to the larger Chicago UA and it could certainly be argued that it should be consolidated.

Others might also argue for Kenosha too, but I like the clean line of the IL/WI border being the limit. Besides, there are too many packers fans up there for it to ever be fully "Chicagoland" anyway.

Dekalb is clearly not contiguous. Nor are Valpo and Woodstock. And most of the others are small little stand alone towns that have not been absorbed by the larger UA. I see no valid argument to consolidate them into the larger Chicago UA.

[DCReid]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

Well, looking at the list of UA's that chisoxrox compiled for Chicago, many of them are not contiguous with the city's UA, and thus they really shouldn't all be consolidated, IMO.





The Round Lake UA is probably the best connected to the larger Chicago UA and it could certainly be argued that it should be consolidated.

Others might also argue for Kenosha too, but I like the clean line of the IL/WI border being the limit. Besides, there are too many packers fans up there for it to ever be fully "Chicagoland" anyway.

Dekalb is clearly not contiguous. Nor are Valpo and Woodstock. And most of the others are small little stand alone towns that have not been absorbed by the larger UA. I see no valid argument to consolidate them into the larger Chicago UA.

Isn't Woodstock right past Harvard, IL? And doesn't the suburban rail service have a stop in Harvard IL (I think it is the last stop). Motorola even built a huge cell phone plant in Harvard but it did not stay open long.

[ChiSoxRox]

In contrast, here's what a "fuzzy" metro looks like (Charlotte, where barely half of the MSA is in the primary UA):

Charlotte, NC—SC......1,379,873
Concord, NC......278,612
Rock Hill, SC......218,443
Gastonia, NC......176,897
Statesville, NC......39,829
Lancaster, SC......22,709
Lincolnton, NC......22,657
Albemarle, NC......16,988
York, SC......8,631
Clover, SC......7,526
Cherryville, NC......6,747
Wadesboro, NC......4,903

Sum of 2,183,815, or 82.1% of the MSA. Missing 400k people makes me think I missed an UA, but I've cross checked both Carolinas' UAs against the MSA definitions, so perhaps there is just a level of suburban fuzziness that drops below the density threshold.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by DCReid

Isn't Woodstock right past Harvard, IL? And doesn't the suburban rail service have a stop in Harvard IL (I think it is the last stop).

You got 'em reversed.

Harvard is about 10 miles further out from Woodstock, and it's the end of the line stop for Metra's UP-NW service

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

Well, looking at the list of UA's that chisoxrox compiled for Chicago, many of them are not contiguous with the city's UA, and thus they really shouldn't all be consolidated, IMO.





The Round Lake UA is probably the best connected to the larger Chicago UA and it could certainly be argued that it should be consolidated.

Others might also argue for Kenosha too, but I like the clean line of the IL/WI border being the limit. Besides, there are too many packers fans up there for it to ever be fully "Chicagoland" anyway.

Dekalb is clearly not contiguous. Nor are Valpo and Woodstock. And most of the others are small little stand alone towns that have not been absorbed by the larger UA. I see no valid argument to consolidate them into the larger Chicago UA.

Either way, the criticism stands: they have no intention to consolidate anyone, including this Round Lake, almost as large as all the other put together. Or Los Angeles and San Bernardino, San Francisco and San Jose or New York and Bridgeport. There is also one in Detroit that whose name I forgot.

[bnk]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

You got 'em reversed.

Harvard is about 10 miles further out from Woodstock, and it's the end of the line stop for Metra's UP-NW service

McHenry and Kenosha have Metra rail service, though less limited.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Yuri

Either way, the criticism stands: they have no intention to consolidate anyone, including this Round Lake, almost as large as all the other put together. Or Los Angeles and San Bernardino, San Francisco and San Jose or New York and Bridgeport. There is also one in Detroit that whose name I forgot.

Well, in chicago's case, there isn't really a meaningful amount of other UA's to consolidate.

But yeah, the big cali metros do get all kinds of crazy chopped up.

[subterranean]

Originally Posted by wwmiv

Non-Weighted Population Density

1. SF @ 7,626 ppsm
2. LA @ 7,476 ppsm
3. SJ @ 6,436 ppsm
4. NYC @ 5,981 ppsm
5. Vegas @ 5,046 ppsm

6. Miami @ 4,885
7. San Diego @ 4,550
8. Denver @ 4,168
9. Sacramento @ 4,163
10. Portland @ 4,052

Impressed by this segment.

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by wwmiv

18. Houston @ 3,340
19. DFW @ 3,281
20. SA @ 3,248
25. Austin @ 2,921
[/I]

I am a bit surprised that Austin is below San Antonio, but iirc weighted density numbers are probably different.

I currently live in Denver, and I will definitely say it feels more uniformly dense than even Chicago or anywhere else I have lived. It just lacks the massive downtown core of Chicago (having only a handful of office towers). It’s nice.

[Steely Dan]

^ Generally speaking (and with some major exceptions like Miami), the further west you go in the US, the "harder" urban development edges tend to get.

It's a key reason why western metro areas usually come out on top of most metro-wide density measures. They typically don't have hundreds of square miles of very low density "country sprawl" surrounding them like most eastern metros do, which greatly changes the equation of simple calculations like average density.

[mhays]

Seattle is an exception to that. We're an odd mix of horse farms and sprawl on the edges, particularly in Pierce and Snohomish Counties. Growth limits were created in the 90s but the effect remains.

[pip]

Originally Posted by wwmiv

Urban Areas are a function of density and Metro Areas are a function of commuting patterns.

Oversimplified, but:

Previously, Urban Areas used population density at the census tract level and now use housing unit density at the census block level. Either is a good approximation of “urban” as both measures will reflect a heavily built environment rather than rural/pastoral environments.

Metropolitan Areas use commuter statistics between counties overlayed on Urban Areas. The counties which contain any part of an Urban Area are known as the “core” counties of that Metropolitan Areas and additional “outlying” counties are added IF 25% of the employed residents of that county commute into one of the “core” counties for work. So, Metropolitan Areas are a broader community that also includes those people who rely on the nearby Urban Area for employment and for services, etc.

Micropolitan Areas are smaller versions of Metropolitan Areas and some of the larger Metropolitan Areas are divided into Metropolitan Divisions (Fort Worth and Dallas, for instance).

Combined Statistical Areas use commuter statistics between Metropolitan and Micropolitan Areas. For some collections of these areas, there is enough commuter interchange between them that they function as a loose collection of related entities rather than being relatively disconnected. For instance, San Francisco and San Jose. Personal note: the Census Bureau should rename these Macropolitan Areas.

Great summation. Thanks!

[JDRCRASH]

Originally Posted by kittyhawk28

Really confused about the Census Bureau's separation of South OC and Riverside from LA... anyone who lives in Southland can tell you there is no gap in urbanity whatsoever anymore. As for these numbers, I think the Census underestimated LA's true size in 2020, given the worsening traffic, increasing density in the basin, and booming growth in the Inland Empire.

Whatever large gap in that part of the IE that may still partially exist (SE Chino/Ontario Ranch?) isn’t gonna be there for long, especially now that the rest of SR 71 through LA County is being widened. The sprawl construction out there is going bonkers.

[Yuri]

Does someone know when the US Census Bureau will make their long-term projections? The last one, 2017-2060, is already off by 5.4 million in 2023 only 6 years ahead.

2023 Projection: 339.6 million
2023 Estimate: 334.2 million

They have 355 million for 2030, 373 million for 2040, 389 million for 2050 and 404 million for 2060. Numbers that obviously won't be met. 2030, for instance, will most likely be just above 340 million.

[fleonzo]

Originally Posted by Yuri

Does someone know when the US Census Bureau will make their long-term projections? The last one, 2017-2060, is already off by 5.4 million in 2023 only 6 years ahead.

2023 Projection: 339.6 million
2023 Estimate: 334.2 million

They have 355 million for 2030, 373 million for 2040, 389 million for 2050 and 404 million for 2060. Numbers that obviously won't be met. 2030, for instance, will most likely be just above 340 million.

Hopefully we start slowing down as this would not be sustainable for a whole host of reasons.....