HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
     
     
  #1  
Old Posted Aug 29, 2021, 2:34 AM
Steely Dan's Avatar
Steely Dan Steely Dan is offline
devout Pizzatarian
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Lincoln Square, Chicago
Posts: 29,965
^ it's official, you are now an SSP urban stat nerd God!

Thank you so much for your herculean effort to process all of that data so that the rest of us didn't have to.

Not that we really needed any more evidence to bolster NYC's unquestionable status of "utterly next level in every possible way" in the urban density game within the US, but it's always interesting to see its complete dominance in the category framed in new ways.



Also I missed it earlier, but seeing the whole 1M+ MSA list ordered by WPD for the first time now, the discrepancy between Providence and Hartford really stuck out to me. Because I'm not from bos-wash, I kinda mentally lump both of them into the same "totally overshadowed MSAs of bos-wash" box.

But there's a pretty consequential 2,000 ppsm difference between them. Providence is up near the top just ahead of Baltimore (and #7 in the nation if we disregard the "hard-edged" western MSAs), while Hartford is down at #38 with the likes of Orlando. I wouldn't have expected that.
__________________
"Missing middle" housing can be a marvelous middle ground for many middle class families.

Last edited by Steely Dan; Aug 29, 2021 at 4:13 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2  
Old Posted Aug 29, 2021, 2:48 AM
Steely Dan's Avatar
Steely Dan Steely Dan is offline
devout Pizzatarian
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Lincoln Square, Chicago
Posts: 29,965
One other thought/request:

Many Cali forumers often decry how the CB splits SF & SJ and LA & IE into separate MSAs. How does the WPD density picture change for those two areas if you combine those respective MSAs into single ones?

SF doesn't look like it would drop a ton because SJ already has a pretty damn high WPD by itself, but LA looks like it might be brought down a couple thousand if you glom the IE onto it.
__________________
"Missing middle" housing can be a marvelous middle ground for many middle class families.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3  
Old Posted Aug 29, 2021, 9:43 PM
dktshb's Avatar
dktshb dktshb is offline
Environmental Sabotage
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: San Francisco/ Los Angeles/ Tahoe
Posts: 5,136
delete
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4  
Old Posted Aug 29, 2021, 3:17 AM
ChiSoxRox's Avatar
ChiSoxRox ChiSoxRox is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 2,509
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Dan View Post
^ it's official, you are now an SSP urban stat nerd God!

Thank you so much for your herculean effort to process all of that data so that the rest of us didn't have to.

Not that we really needed any more evidence to bolster NYC's unquestionable status of "utterly next level" in the urban density game within the US, but it's always interesting to see its complete dominance in the category framed in new ways.



Also I missed it earlier, but seeing the whole 1M+ MSA list ordered by WPD for the first time now, the discrepancy between Providence and Hartford really stuck out to me. Because I'm not from bos-wash, I kinda mentally lump both of them into the same "totally overshadowed MSAs of bos-wash" box.

But there's a pretty consequential 2,000 ppsm difference between them. Providence is up near the top just ahead of Baltimore (and #7 in the nation if we disregard the "hard-edged" western MSAs), while Hartford is down at #38 with the likes of Orlando. I wouldn't have expected that.


Thanks for the kind words. I did really want to see how the big metros shook out, but this thread's interest helped with motivation.

Hartford is one of the more shrunken Northeast cities, and was iirc the second largest in BosWash to still shrink in 2020, after Baltimore. Hartford proper has several <5k tracts interspersed between the 15k+ needed to really pull up the WPD, while its suburbs quickly drop to 2k ppsm or less. New Britain and Storrs have one tract each over 10k, while whole suburban towns don't touch 5k. Hartford proper is also only 60% of Providence proper's size -- a smaller core in the first place.

Meanwhile, Providence's MSA also inclues Bristol County, MA -- New Bedford and Fall River, meaning Providence MSA has three dense cores to work with. Providence proper -- growing 7% -- is a quilt of 10k and 20k tracts with the edges staying above 5k, while New Bedford and Fall River also have impressive density in their cores. Then, just eyeballing the Census map, Rhode Island suburbia looks more compact with a quicker gradient to rural fields than Connecticut cul-de-sacs.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Dan View Post
One other thought/request:

Many Cali forumers often decry how the CB splits SF & SJ and LA & IE into separate MSAs. How does the WPD density picture change for those two areas if you combine those respective MSAs into single ones?

SF doesn't look like it would drop a ton because SJ already has a pretty damn high WPD by itself, but LA looks like it might be brought down a couple thousand if you glom the IE onto it.
SF + SJ: 12,025 ppsm
LA + IE: 10,255 ppsm

Combining MSAs isn't tricky: (WPD_1 * Pop_1 + WPD_2 * Pop_2)/(Pop_1 + Pop_2)

Finally: What bastion of urbanity is the biggest MSA to have a WPD that doesn't even clear 1,000? Turns out it's a place that likely sees a few New Yorkers:

Myrtle Beach, SC - 958.2 ppsm.
__________________
Like the pre-war masonry skyscrapers? Then check out my list of the tallest buildings in 1950.

Last edited by ChiSoxRox; Aug 29, 2021 at 3:31 AM. Reason: <1000 ppsm title
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5  
Old Posted Aug 29, 2021, 4:09 AM
Steely Dan's Avatar
Steely Dan Steely Dan is offline
devout Pizzatarian
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Lincoln Square, Chicago
Posts: 29,965
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChiSoxRox View Post

SF + SJ: 12,025 ppsm
LA + IE: 10,255 ppsm
Thanks.

So it wouldn't really change a great deal rankings-wise. Honolulu would leapfrog a combined SF/SJ into the #2 spot, a combined LA/IE would remain at #4, and everyone else below LA would bounce up a spot with SJ merged into SF.
__________________
"Missing middle" housing can be a marvelous middle ground for many middle class families.

Last edited by Steely Dan; Aug 29, 2021 at 4:22 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6  
Old Posted Aug 29, 2021, 4:21 AM
craigs's Avatar
craigs craigs is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2019
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 10,376
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChiSoxRox View Post


Thanks for the kind words. I did really want to see how the big metros shook out, but this thread's interest helped with motivation.

Hartford is one of the more shrunken Northeast cities, and was iirc the second largest in BosWash to still shrink in 2020, after Baltimore. Hartford proper has several <5k tracts interspersed between the 15k+ needed to really pull up the WPD, while its suburbs quickly drop to 2k ppsm or less. New Britain and Storrs have one tract each over 10k, while whole suburban towns don't touch 5k. Hartford proper is also only 60% of Providence proper's size -- a smaller core in the first place.

Meanwhile, Providence's MSA also inclues Bristol County, MA -- New Bedford and Fall River, meaning Providence MSA has three dense cores to work with. Providence proper -- growing 7% -- is a quilt of 10k and 20k tracts with the edges staying above 5k, while New Bedford and Fall River also have impressive density in their cores. Then, just eyeballing the Census map, Rhode Island suburbia looks more compact with a quicker gradient to rural fields than Connecticut cul-de-sacs.



SF + SJ: 12,025 ppsm
LA + IE: 10,255 ppsm

Combining MSAs isn't tricky: (WPD_1 * Pop_1 + WPD_2 * Pop_2)/(Pop_1 + Pop_2)

Finally: What bastion of urbanity is the biggest MSA to have a WPD that doesn't even clear 1,000? Turns out it's a place that likely sees a few New Yorkers:

Myrtle Beach, SC - 958.2 ppsm.
Thanks for all your hard work. Do you think you might eventually get around to doing weighted density for CSAs?
__________________
Chaos upon my enemies, chaos upon my enemies, chaos upon my enemies.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7  
Old Posted Aug 29, 2021, 4:56 AM
ChiSoxRox's Avatar
ChiSoxRox ChiSoxRox is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 2,509
Quote:
Originally Posted by craigs View Post
Thanks for all your hard work. Do you think you might eventually get around to doing weighted density for CSAs?
Certainly, especially since a CSA weighted density is quick to calculate from the component MSAs using the formula in my last post. So for say Atlanta's CSA I just have to calculate the small MSAs/muSAs along the edge, without needing to re-pull the 3947388 counties in Atlanta's MSA.
__________________
Like the pre-war masonry skyscrapers? Then check out my list of the tallest buildings in 1950.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8  
Old Posted Aug 29, 2021, 2:57 PM
Crawford Crawford is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NYC/Polanco, DF
Posts: 34,403
Hartford is also significantly wealthier than Providence which may mean a larger share of large homes on large lots. Providence is very much a working class metro, Hartford very much a professional services metro.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9  
Old Posted Aug 29, 2021, 4:05 PM
wwmiv wwmiv is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Austin -> San Antonio -> Columbia -> San Antonio -> Chicago -> Austin -> Denver -> Austin
Posts: 5,710
Urban Areas

https://www.federalregister.gov/docu...posed-criteria

Quote:
(3) Proposed Urban Area Criteria for the 2020 Census
The proposed criteria outlined herein apply to the United States,[3] Puerto Rico, and the Island Areas of American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, Guam, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. The Census Bureau proposes the following criteria and characteristics for use in identifying the areas that will qualify for designation as urban areas for use in tabulating data from the 2020 Census, the American Community Survey (ACS), the Puerto Rico Community Survey, and potentially other Census Bureau censuses and surveys.

A. 2020 Census Urban Area Definitions
For the 2020 Census, an urban area will comprise a densely developed core of census blocks [4] that meet minimum housing unit density requirements, along with adjacent territory containing non-residential urban land uses as well as other lower density territory included to link outlying densely settled territory with the densely settled core. To qualify as an urban area, the territory identified according to the proposed criteria must encompass at least 4,000 housing units or at least 10,000 persons. The term “rural” encompasses all population, housing, and territory not included within an urban area.

As a result of the urban area delineation process, an incorporated place or census designated place (CDP) may be partly inside and partly outside an urban area. Any census geographic areas, with the exception of census blocks, may be partly within and partly outside an urban area.

All proposed criteria based on land area, housing unit density, and population, reflect the information contained in the Census Bureau's Master Address File/Topologically Integrated Geographic Encoding and Referencing (MAF/TIGER) Database (MTDB) at the time of the initial delineation. All calculations of housing unit density include only land; the areas of water contained within census blocks are not used in density calculations. Housing unit, population, and worker flow data used in the urban area delineation process will be those published by the Census Bureau for all public and official uses.

B. Proposed Urban Area Delineation Criteria
The Census Bureau proposes to define urban areas primarily on the basis of housing unit density measured at the census block level of geography. The 385 housing units per square mile density threshold utilized in the delineation of urban areas is consistent with the 1,000 persons per square mile density used in the past, based on the 2019 ACS 1-year data average of an estimated 2.6 persons per household for the United States.

1. IDENTIFICATION OF INITIAL URBAN AREA CORES
The Census Bureau proposes to begin the delineation process by identifying and aggregating contiguous census blocks each having a housing unit density of at least 385 housing units per square mile. This aggregation of continuous census blocks would be known as the “initial urban area core.” The initial urban area core must encompass at least 385 housing units (consistent with the requirement for at least 1,000 people in the 2010 criteria).

After the initial urban area core is identified, additional census blocks would be included if it is adjacent to other qualifying territory and if it meets any of the following criteria:

a. It has a housing unit density of at least 385 housing units per square mile.

b. At least one-third of the census block consists of territory with a level of imperviousness of at least twenty percent,[5] and is compact in nature as defined by a shape index. A census block is considered compact when the shape index is at least 0.185 using the following formula: I = 4πA/P2 where I is the shape index, A is the area of the entity, and P is the perimeter of the entity.

c. At least one-third of the census block consists of territory with a level of imperviousness of at least twenty percent, and at least forty percent of its boundary is contiguous with qualifying territory.

The Census Bureau would apply proposed criteria 1.a, 1.b, and 1.c above until there are no blocks to add to the urban area. Any “holes” or remaining nonqualifying territory completely contained within an initial urban area core that is less than five square miles in area will qualify as urban via the criteria for inclusion of enclaves, as set forth below in the III. B. 5., subheading entitled, “5. Inclusion of Enclaves.”

2. INCLUSION OF GROUP QUARTERS
Census blocks containing institutional and non-institutional group quarters that are adjacent to census blocks qualifying based on the criteria outlined in step 1 above (“1. Identification of Initial Urban Area Cores”) will be included in the urban area. This criterion accounts for the fact that group quarters, such as college dormitories, are not considered housing units by the Start Printed Page 10241Census Bureau, but generally are part of the urban landscape.

3. INCLUSION OF NONCONTIGUOUS TERRITORY VIA HOPS AND JUMPS
Noncontiguous territory that meets the proposed housing density criteria specified in section B.1.a and b above, but is separated from an initial urban area core of 385 housing units or more, may be added via a hop along a road connection of no more than 0.5 miles. Multiple hops may be made along a single road connection, thus accounting for the nature of contemporary urban development, which often encompasses alternating patterns of residential and non-residential uses.

After adding territory to an initial urban area core via hop connections, the Census Bureau will identify all urban area cores that have a housing unit count of 577 or more (consistent with the requirement for at least 1,500 people in the 2010 criteria) and add other qualifying territory via a jump connection.[6] Jumps are used to connect densely settled noncontiguous territory separated from the urban area core by territory with low housing unit density measuring greater than 0.5 and no more than 1.5 road miles across. This process recognizes the existence of larger areas of non-residential uses or other territory with low housing unit density that do not provide a substantial barrier to interaction between outlying territory with high housing unit density and the urban area core. Because it is possible that any given densely developed area could qualify for inclusion in multiple cores via a jump connection, the identification of jumps in an automated process starts with the initial urban area core that has the largest total population and continues in descending order based on the total population of each initial urban area core. Only one jump is permitted along any given road connection. This limitation, which has been in place since the inception of the urban area delineation process for the 1950 Census, prevents the artificial extension of urban areas over large distances that result in the inclusion of communities that are not commonly perceived as connected to the particular initial urban area core. Exempted territory is not taken into account when measuring road distances across hop and jump corridors. In the case of both hops and jumps, the intervening, low density block or blocks are not included in the urban area.

4. INCLUSION OF NONCONTIGUOUS TERRITORY SEPARATED BY EXEMPTED TERRITORY
The Census Bureau proposes to identify and exempt territory in which residential development is substantially constrained or not possible due to either topographical or land use conditions.[7] Such exempted territory offsets urban development due to particular land use, land cover, or topographic conditions. For the 2020 Census, the Census Bureau proposes the following to be exempted territory:

Bodies of water; and
Wetlands (belonging to one of eight wetlands class definitions [8] )
Noncontiguous qualifying territory would be added to a core via a hop or jump when separated by exempted territory, provided that it meets the following criteria:

a. The road connection across the exempted territory (located on both sides of the road) is no greater than five miles, and

b. The total length of the road connection between the initial urban area core and the noncontiguous territory, including the exempt distance and non-exempt hop or jump distances, is also no greater than five miles.

The intervening, low density block or blocks of water or wetlands are not included in the urban area.

5. INCLUSION OF ENCLAVES
The Census Bureau will add enclaves (that is, nonqualifying area completely surrounded by area already qualified for inclusion as urban) within the urban area, provided that they are surrounded only by land area that qualified for inclusion in the urban area based on housing unit density criteria, and at least one of the following conditions is met:

a. The area of the enclave must be less than five square miles.

b. All area of the enclave is surrounded by territory that qualified for inclusion in the initial urban area core and is more than a straight-line distance of 1.5 miles from a land block that is not part of the urban area.

Additional enclaves will be identified and included within the urban area if:

a. The area of the enclave is less than five square miles,

b. The enclave is surrounded by both land that qualified for inclusion in the urban area and water, and

c. The length of the line of adjacency with the water is less than the length of the line of adjacency with the land.

6. INCLUSION OF AIRPORTS
After all territory has been added to the urban area core via hop and jump connections, and enclaves, the Census Bureau will then add whole census blocks that approximate the territory of airports, provided at least one of the blocks that represent the airport is within a distance of 0.5 miles of the edge of qualifying urban territory. An airport qualifies for inclusion if it is currently functional and one of the following criteria (per the Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA) Air Carrier Activity Information System [9] ) applies:

a. It is a qualified cargo airport.

b. It has an annual passenger enplanement of at least 2,500 in any year between 2011 and 2019.

7. ADDITIONAL NONRESIDENTIAL URBAN TERRITORY
The Census Bureau will identify additional nonresidential urban-related territory that is noncontiguous, yet near the urban area. The Census Bureau recognizes the existence of large commercial and/or industrial land uses that are separated from an urban area by a relatively thin “green buffer,” small amount of undeveloped territory, and/or a narrow census block required for tabulation (such as a water feature, offset boundary, road median, or area between a road and rail feature). The Census Bureau will review all groups of census blocks whose members qualify as urban via the impervious surface criteria set forth in Section 1.b, have a total area of at least 0.15 square miles,[10] and are within 0.25 miles of an urban area. A final review of these census blocks and surrounding territory [11] will Start Printed Page 10242determine whether to include this territory in an urban area.

8. SPLITTING LARGE AGGLOMERATIONS AND MERGING INDIVIDUAL URBAN AREAS
Population growth and redistribution coupled with the automated urban area delineation methodology that will be used for the 2020 Census may result in large agglomerations of continuously developed territory that may encompass territory defined as separate urban areas for the 2010 Census. If such results occur, the Census Bureau will apply split and merge criteria.

For the 2020 Census, the Census Bureau proposes using worker flow data (i.e., commuting flows) from the Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics (LEHD) Program to identify whether the agglomeration represents a single functionally integrated region or whether commuting patterns indicate the presence of distinct urban areas within the larger agglomeration. An agglomeration that encompasses two or more 2010 Census urban areas will be a candidate for splitting into smaller urban areas. This condition will trigger application of the following splitting criteria:

a. Each pair of 2010 Census urban areas will be analyzed to determine whether to split or to remain merged. The 2010 urban area with the smaller population will be analyzed in relation to the 2010 urban area with the larger population.

b. The 2010 Census urban area with the smaller population will remain in the agglomeration if at least 50 percent of its resident workers are employed within the larger 2010 Census urban area and at least 50 percent of the jobs in the smaller urban area are filled by workers residing within the larger 2010 Census urban area. If either of these conditions are not met, the smaller urban area will be split from the agglomeration and categorized based on the worker flow data.

c. The 2010 Census urban areas are organized into four categories:

1. Worker flows are 50 percent or more to or from another 2010 Census urban area, but not in both directions;

2. Worker flows are less than 50 percent internal, but also less than 50 percent with any other single 2010 Census urban area;

3. Adjacent 2010 Census urban areas that are in categories 1 or 2;

4. Worker flows are 50 percent or more internal to the 2010 Census urban area.

d. Community detection is performed on the LEHD worker flow data using the Leiden Algorithm to identify commuter-based communities. The resulting communities are used to adjust the 2010 Census urban area split boundaries based on thresholds set to each of the four categories. However, for all categories, at least 50 percent of the worker flow must be internal to all resulting urban areas. The boundary between two urban areas may also be modified to avoid splitting an incorporated place, CDP, or minor civil division (MCD) between two urban areas at the time of delineation.

e. Upon running the community detection algorithm, the resulting communities are used to adjust the 2010 Census urban area split boundaries, and to identify the potential boundary between the resulting 2020 urban areas, starting with urban areas in the first category (below) and progressing to the fourth category (below).

Category 1. For the smaller of each urban area pair, adjacent communities (identified by the Leiden Algorithm) are added from the larger urban area until the internal worker flow of the smaller urban area is greater than 50 percent. Communities can only be added to the smaller urban area until the total housing unit count increases by less than 50 percent.
Category 2. For the smaller of each urban area pair, adjacent communities (identified by the Leiden Algorithm) are added from the larger urban area until the internal worker flow is greater than 50 percent.
Category 3. If there is greater than 10 percent worker flow between adjacent urban areas in categories 1 and 2, then they will be combined as one urban area and the criteria of the lowest category will be applied.
Category 4. Split boundaries will be adjusted to their nearest community boundary.
9. ASSIGNING URBAN AREA TITLES
A clear, unambiguous title based on commonly recognized place names helps provide context for data users and ensures that the general location and setting of the urban area can be clearly identified and understood. The title of an urban area identifies the place(s) that is (are) the most populated within the urban area. All population requirements for places and MCDs apply to the portion of the entity's population that is within the specific urban area being named. The Census Bureau proposes the following criteria to determine the title of an urban area:

a. The most populous incorporated place within the urban area that has a population of 10,000 or more will be listed first in the urban area title.

b. If there is no incorporated place with a population of 10,000 or more, the urban area title will include the name of the most populous incorporated place or CDP within the urban area that has at least 2,500 people.

c. Up to two additional places, in descending order of population size, may be included in the title of an urban area, provided that the place meets one of the following criteria:

a. The place has 250,000 or more people.

b. The place has at least 2,500 people, and that population is at least two-thirds of the urban area population of the most populous place in the urban area.

If the urban area does not contain a place of at least 2,500 people, the Census Bureau will consider the name of the incorporated place, CDP, or MCD with the largest total population in the urban area, or a local name recognized for the area by the United States Geological Survey's (USGS) Geographic Names Information System (GNIS), with preference given to names also recognized by the United States Postal Service (USPS). The urban area title will include the USPS abbreviation of the name of each state or statistically equivalent entity in which the urban area is located or extends. The order of the state abbreviations is the same as the order of the related place names in the urban area title.[12]

If a single place or MCD qualifies as the title of more than one urban area, the largest urban area will use the name of the place or MCD. The smaller urban area will have a title consisting of the place or MCD name and the direction (North, South, East, or West) of the smaller urban area as it relates geographically to the larger urban area with the same place or MCD name.

If any title of an urban area duplicates the title of another urban area within the same state, or uses the name of an incorporated place, CDP, or MCD that is duplicated within a state, the name of the county that has most of the population of the largest place or MCD is appended, in parentheses, after the duplicate place or MCD name for each urban area. If there is no incorporated place, CDP, or MCD name in the urban area title, the name of the county having the largest total population residing in the urban area will be appended to the title.
Extensive quoting here breaks no forum rules, as there is not copyright as stake (it is the Federal Register -- they don't care).

See some examples of the new method applied here.

--------

Metropolitan Areas:

https://www.federalregister.gov/docu...tistical-areas

Quote:
E. 2020 Standards for Delineating Core Based Statistical Areas, and Key Terms
A Core Based Statistical Area (CBSA) is a geographic entity associated with at least one core of 10,000 or more population, plus adjacent territory that has a high degree of social and economic integration with the core as measured by commuting ties. The standards delineate two categories of CBSAs: Metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs) and micropolitan statistical areas (µSAs). CBSAs consist of counties and equivalent entities throughout the United States and Puerto Rico. Throughout these standards, the term “county” is used to refer to counties and county-equivalents.

The purpose of the CBSA standards is to provide nationally consistent delineations for collecting, tabulating, and publishing Federal statistics for a set of geographic areas. The Office of Management and Budget establishes and maintains these areas solely for statistical purposes as part of their statutory responsibilities to coordinate and ensure the efficiency and effectiveness of the Federal statistical system.

CBSAs are not designed as a geographic framework for nonstatistical activities or for use in program funding formulas. The CBSA classification is not an urban-rural classification; MSAs, µSAs, and many counties outside CBSAs contain both urban and rural populations.

The following criteria apply to all CBSAs nationwide. Commuting and employment estimates are derived from the Census Bureau's American Community Survey. Whenever American Community Survey commuting and employment data are referred to below, the criteria use point estimates and do not incorporate a measure of sampling variability of the estimates.

Section 1. Population Size Requirements for Qualification of Core Based Statistical Areas
Each CBSA must have a Census Bureau-delineated Urban Area of at least 10,000 population.

Section 2. Central Counties
The central county or counties of a CBSA are those counties that:

(a) Have at least 50 percent of their population in Urban Areas of at least 10,000 population; or

(b) Have within their boundaries a population of at least 5,000 located in a single Urban Area of at least 10,000 population.

A central county is associated with the Urban Area that accounts for the largest portion of the county's population. The central counties associated with a particular Urban Area are grouped to form a single cluster of central counties for purposes of measuring commuting to and from potentially qualifying outlying counties.

Section 3. Outlying Counties
A county qualifies as an outlying county of a CBSA if it meets the following commuting requirements:

(a) At least 25 percent of the workers living in the county work in the central county or counties of the CBSA; or

(b) At least 25 percent of the employment in the county is accounted for by workers who reside in the central county or counties of the CBSA.

A county may be included in only one CBSA. If a county qualifies as a central county of one CBSA and as outlying in another, it falls within the CBSA in which it is a central county. A county that qualifies as outlying to multiple CBSAs falls within the CBSA with which it has the strongest commuting tie, as measured by either 3(a) or 3(b) above. The counties included in a CBSA must be contiguous; if a county is not contiguous with other counties in the CBSA, it will not fall within the CBSA.

Section 4. Merging of Adjacent Core Based Statistical Areas
Two adjacent CBSAs will merge to form one CBSA if the central county or counties (as a group) of one CBSA qualify as outlying to the central county or counties (as a group) of the other CBSA using the measures and thresholds stated in 3(a) and 3(b) above.

Section 5. Identification of Principal Cities
The principal city (or cities) of a CBSA will include:

(a) The largest incorporated place with a 2020 Census population of at least 10,000 in the CBSA or, if no incorporated place of at least 10,000 population is present in the CBSA, the largest incorporated place or census designated place in the CBSA; and

(b) Any additional incorporated place or census designated place with a 2020 Census population of at least 250,000 or in which 100,000 or more persons work; and

(c) Any additional incorporated place or census designated place with a 2020 Census population of at least 50,000, but less than 250,000, and in which the number of workers working in the place meets or exceeds the number of workers living in the place; and

(d) Any additional incorporated place or census designated place with a 2020 Census population of at least 10,000, but less than 50,000, and at least one-third the population size of the largest place, and in which the number of workers working in the place meets or exceeds the number of workers living in the place.

Section 6. Categories and Terminology
A CBSA is categorized based on the population of the largest Urban Area within the CBSA. Categories of CBSAs are: Metropolitan statistical areas, based on Urban Areas of 50,000 or more population, and micropolitan statistical areas, based on Urban Areas of at least 10,000 population but less than 50,000 population. Counties that do not fall within CBSAs will represent “outside core based statistical areas.”

Section 7. Divisions of Metropolitan Statistical Areas
An MSA containing a single Urban Area with a population of at least 2.5 million may be subdivided to form smaller groupings of counties referred to as metropolitan divisions. A county qualifies as a “main county” of a metropolitan division if 65 percent or more of workers living in the county also work within the county and the ratio of the number of workers working in the county to the number of workers living in the county is at least 0.75. A county qualifies as a “secondary county” if 50 percent or more, but less than 65 percent, of workers living in the county also work within the county and the ratio of the number of workers working in the county to the number of workers living in the county is at least 0.75.

A main county automatically serves as the basis for a metropolitan division. For a secondary county to qualify as the basis for forming a metropolitan division, it must join with either a contiguous secondary county or a contiguous main county with which it has the highest employment interchange Start Printed Page 37777measure of 15 or more (where the employment interchange measure is the sum of the percentage of workers living in the smaller entity who work in the larger entity and the percentage of employment in the smaller entity that is accounted for by workers who reside in the larger entity). After all main counties and secondary counties are identified and grouped (if appropriate), each additional county that already has qualified for inclusion in the MSA falls within the metropolitan division associated with the main/secondary county or counties with which the county at issue has the highest employment interchange measure. Counties in a metropolitan division must be contiguous.

Section 8. Combining Adjacent Core Based Statistical Areas
(a) Any two adjacent CBSAs will form a combined statistical area if the employment interchange measure between the two areas is at least 15.

(b) The CBSAs thus combined will also continue to be recognized as individual CBSAs within the combined statistical area.

Section 9. Titles of Core Based Statistical Areas, Metropolitan Divisions, and Combined Statistical Areas
(a) The title of a CBSA will include the name of its principal city with the largest 2020 Census population. If there are multiple principle cities, the names of the second-largest and (if present) third-largest principle cities will appear in the title in order of descending population size. If the principal city with the largest 2020 Census population is a census designated place, the name of the largest incorporated place of at least 10,000 population that also is a principal city will appear first in the title followed by the name of the census designated place. If the principal city with the largest 2020 Census population is a census designated place, and there is no incorporated place of at least 10,000 population that also is a principal city, the name of that census designated place principal city will appear first in the title.

(b) The title of a metropolitan division will include the name of the principal city with the largest 2020 Census population located in the metropolitan division. If there are multiple principle cities, the names of the second-largest and (if present) third-largest principle cities will appear in the title in order of descending population size. If there are no principle cities located in the metropolitan division, the title of the metropolitan division will use the names of up to three counties in order of descending 2020 Census population size.

(c) The title of a combined statistical area will include the names of the two largest principle cities in the combination and the name of the third-largest principal city, if present. If the combined statistical area title duplicates that of one of its component CBSAs, the name of the third-most-populous principal city will be dropped from the title of the Combined Statistical Area.

(d) Titles also will include the names of any State in which the area is located.

Section 10. Updating Schedule
(a) The Office of Management and Budget will delineate CBSAs in 2023 based on 2020 Census data and 2016-2020 American Community Survey five-year estimates. Release of these delineations will take place during June 2023.

(b) In the 2023 delineations and in subsequent years, the Office of Management and Budget will designate a new µSA if:

(1) A city that is outside any existing CBSA has a Census Bureau special census count of 10,000 to 49,999 population, or a population estimate of 10,000 to 49,999 for two consecutive years from the Census Bureau's Population Estimates Program, or

(2) A Census Bureau special census results in the delineation of an Urban Area of 10,000 to 49,999 population that is outside of any existing CBSA.

(c) Also in the 2023 delineations and in subsequent years, the Office of Management and Budget will designate a new MSA if:

(1) A city that is outside any existing MSA has a Census Bureau special census count of 50,000 or more population, or a population estimate of 50,000 or more for two consecutive years from the Census Bureau's Population Estimates Program, or

(2) A Census Bureau special census results in the delineation of an Urban Area of 50,000 or more population that is outside of any existing MSA.

(d) Outlying counties of CBSAs that qualify in this section will qualify according to the criteria in Section 3 above, on the basis of American Community Survey five-year commuting estimates.

(e) OMB will review the delineations of all existing CBSAs and related statistical areas in 2028 using 2021-2025 five-year commuting and employment estimates from the Census Bureau's American Community Survey. The Urban Areas used in these delineations will be those based on 2020 Census data or subsequent special censuses for which Urban Areas are created. The central counties of CBSAs identified on the basis of a 2020 Census population count, or on the basis of population estimates from the Census Bureau's Population Estimates Program or a special census count in the case of postcensally delineated areas, will constitute the central counties for purposes of these area delineations. New CBSAs will be designated in 2028 on the basis of Census Bureau special census counts or population estimates as described above in Sections 10(b) and 10(c); outlying county qualification will be based on five-year commuting estimates from the American Community Survey.

(f) Other aspects of the CBSA delineations are not subject to change between decennial censuses.

(g) OMB will issue delineation updates (one per year in those years when there is an update) in years other than 2023 during December.

(h) OMB will maintain a publicly available release schedule for these updates on its statistical programs and standards web page (https://www.whitehouse.gov/​omb/​inf...-standards/​). Any delays will be announced on the website as soon as possible, along with an updated release date.
__________________
Houston: 2.4m (+3.9%) + MSA suburbs: 5.4m (+12%) + CSA exurbs: 200k (+5%)
Dallas: 1.3m (+2%) / FtW: 1.0m (+10%) + suburbs: 6.4m (9%) + exurbs: 566k (+9%)
San Antonio: 1.5m (+6%) + MSA suburbs: 1.2m (+10%) + CSA exurbs: 82k (+3%)
Austin: 994k (+3%) + MSA suburbs: 1.6m (+18%)
Texas (whole): 31.29m (+7%) / Texas (balance): 8.6m (+3%)

Last edited by wwmiv; Aug 30, 2021 at 1:34 AM. Reason: Accidentally quoted wrong cycle’s
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10  
Old Posted Aug 30, 2021, 5:38 AM
ChiSoxRox's Avatar
ChiSoxRox ChiSoxRox is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 2,509
I have started the state WPD calculations. Going alphabetically, ended at Kansas this weekend. This coming week I need to catch up on a paper I am writing, but will have the state list ready by at the latest, next weekend.

I have the Excel sheet set up to crunch the national WPD as I go. Alabama to Arkansas had the national number somewhere in the 3k range, California popped it up to mid 6k, and through Kansas, it's eroded back to 5.1k.

I am saving New York for last, to see how much of the national number is solely New York (State).
__________________
Like the pre-war masonry skyscrapers? Then check out my list of the tallest buildings in 1950.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #11  
Old Posted Aug 30, 2021, 10:57 PM
ChiSoxRox's Avatar
ChiSoxRox ChiSoxRox is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 2,509
I went ahead and finished the states.

2020 State weighted population densities
  1. New York.....30,854.3
    (District of Columbia.....20,642.9)
  2. Hawaii.....9,251.8
  3. New Jersey.....9,013.3
  4. California.....8,545.5
  5. Massachusetts.....7,436.3
  6. Illinois.....7,053.0
  7. Nevada.....5,920.6
  8. Rhode Island.....5,508.5
  9. Pennsylvania.....5,224.1
  10. Maryland.....4,696.1
  11. Washington.....4,246.9
  12. Florida.....4,224.5
  13. Arizona.....3,962.9
  14. Colorado.....3,962.4
  15. Connecticut.....3,769.0
  16. Utah.....3,699.5
  17. Oregon.....3,663.1
  18. Virginia.....3,587.8
  19. Texas.....3,458.9
  20. Minnesota.....2,769.3
  21. Wisconsin.....2,712.5
  22. Michigan.....2,613.6
  23. Delaware.....2,590.7
  24. Ohio.....2,486.2
  25. Nebraska.....2,442.7
  26. New Mexico.....2,218.1
  27. Louisiana.....2,069.4
  28. Idaho.....2,021.8
  29. Missouri.....1,986.4
  30. Georgia.....1,918.5
  31. Kansas.....1,885.9
  32. Indiana.....1,841.2
  33. Alaska.....1,798.8
  34. Oklahoma.....1,748.2
  35. North Dakota.....1,683.3
  36. Iowa.....1,622.3
  37. Kentucky.....1,572.0
  38. New Hampshire.....1,458.8
  39. Tennessee.....1,430.5
  40. North Carolina.....1,415.8
  41. Montana.....1,189.9
  42. South Dakota.....1,181.4
  43. South Carolina.....1,161.4
  44. Wyoming.....1,034.2
  45. Maine.....1,007.6
  46. Alabama.....991.2
  47. Vermont.....957.7
  48. Arkansas.....942.5
  49. West Virginia.....856.1
  50. Mississippi.....750.8

National weighted density: 5,792.1 ppsm

WPD minus New York state: 4,164.7 ppsm

In other words, New York state is 32.5% of the national population-density product! California is another 17.6%. Texas is the third most significant state, but only 5.2%.

Here are 2010 numbers for comparison (based on 2010 census tracts). New Jersey surpassed California for the third highest weighted density and Massachusetts surpassed Illinois for fifth place, reflecting the strength of BosWash urban growth.
__________________
Like the pre-war masonry skyscrapers? Then check out my list of the tallest buildings in 1950.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #12  
Old Posted Aug 30, 2021, 11:37 PM
wwmiv wwmiv is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Austin -> San Antonio -> Columbia -> San Antonio -> Chicago -> Austin -> Denver -> Austin
Posts: 5,710
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChiSoxRox View Post
National weighted density: 5,792.1 ppsm
The average American lives in a census tract having this density. That means that only 13 metropolitan statistical areas have an average resident living in a more densely populated tract than the tract the average American lives in:

New York, San Fran, Honolulu, Los Angeles, San Jose, Chicago, Boston, Miami, Philadelphia, San Diego, D.C., Vegas, and Seattle.
__________________
Houston: 2.4m (+3.9%) + MSA suburbs: 5.4m (+12%) + CSA exurbs: 200k (+5%)
Dallas: 1.3m (+2%) / FtW: 1.0m (+10%) + suburbs: 6.4m (9%) + exurbs: 566k (+9%)
San Antonio: 1.5m (+6%) + MSA suburbs: 1.2m (+10%) + CSA exurbs: 82k (+3%)
Austin: 994k (+3%) + MSA suburbs: 1.6m (+18%)
Texas (whole): 31.29m (+7%) / Texas (balance): 8.6m (+3%)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #13  
Old Posted Aug 31, 2021, 2:22 AM
Steely Dan's Avatar
Steely Dan Steely Dan is offline
devout Pizzatarian
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Lincoln Square, Chicago
Posts: 29,965
^ goes to show just how ridiculously top-heavy US density really is, with the mighty NYC WAAAAAAAAAY out in front of the pack.
__________________
"Missing middle" housing can be a marvelous middle ground for many middle class families.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #14  
Old Posted Aug 31, 2021, 2:54 AM
wwmiv wwmiv is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Austin -> San Antonio -> Columbia -> San Antonio -> Chicago -> Austin -> Denver -> Austin
Posts: 5,710
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Dan View Post
^ goes to show just how ridiculously top-heavy US density really is, with the mighty NYC WAAAAAAAAAY out in front of the pack.
Would love to see a list of each metro area by % living above the national weighted average.
__________________
Houston: 2.4m (+3.9%) + MSA suburbs: 5.4m (+12%) + CSA exurbs: 200k (+5%)
Dallas: 1.3m (+2%) / FtW: 1.0m (+10%) + suburbs: 6.4m (9%) + exurbs: 566k (+9%)
San Antonio: 1.5m (+6%) + MSA suburbs: 1.2m (+10%) + CSA exurbs: 82k (+3%)
Austin: 994k (+3%) + MSA suburbs: 1.6m (+18%)
Texas (whole): 31.29m (+7%) / Texas (balance): 8.6m (+3%)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #15  
Old Posted Aug 31, 2021, 4:57 AM
ChiSoxRox's Avatar
ChiSoxRox ChiSoxRox is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 2,509
Quote:
Originally Posted by wwmiv View Post
Would love to see a list of each metro area by % living above the national weighted average.
Here are the 13 that average above the national value.

Los Angeles: 78.1%
San Jose: 75.0%
New York: 68.9%
San Francisco: 66.3%
Honolulu: 62.7%
Las Vegas: 62.0%
Miami: 57.4%
San Diego: 51.1%
Philadelphia: 46.8%
Chicago: 42.0%
Boston: 39.7%
Washington, DC: 38.8%
Seattle: 33.5%

5,792 ppsm gets pretty much the entire LA Basin. San Jose above San Francisco is a bit surprising, but the San Francisco side of the MSA includes the Alameda/Contra Costa sprawl of Walnut Creek, Antioch, etc. that drops below the bar.

As for New York, 5,792 ppsm still drops most of the outer suburbs, and masks just how much higher its central density plateau is compared to the others.

The raw numbers:

New York: 13,873,234
Los Angeles: 10,309,908
Chicago: 4,044,247
Miami: 3,522,429
San Francisco: 3,148,739
Philadelphia: 2,922,154
Washington, DC: 2,478,877
Boston: 1,961,537
San Diego: 1,684,842
San Jose: 1,501,349
Las Vegas: 1,404,887
Seattle: 1,348,074
Honolulu: 637,582
__________________
Like the pre-war masonry skyscrapers? Then check out my list of the tallest buildings in 1950.

Last edited by ChiSoxRox; Aug 31, 2021 at 5:26 AM. Reason: Clarify scope
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #16  
Old Posted Aug 31, 2021, 3:52 AM
craigs's Avatar
craigs craigs is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2019
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 10,376
Census reports declining population on L.A.’s Eastside, fueling undercount fears

David Zahniser
Los Angeles Times
Aug. 30, 2021

Over the last two years, politicians, civic leaders and community activists across Los Angeles worried that Latinos would not be properly counted as part of the U.S. Census Bureau’s once-in-a-decade population survey.

Amid the COVID-19 pandemic, city and county officials sent volunteers to knock on doors, staged “pop-up” sites to help people with their forms and provided goody bags to those who successfully turned in their information.

L.A.’s neighborhood numbers have finally come out, as part of the city’s process for redrawing the boundaries of its 15 City Council districts. And some at City Hall are disappointed with the results.

Highland Park, a neighborhood on the city’s northeast end, recorded a decline in population of more than 3,900 people between 2010 and 2020, according to census figures released by the city’s Redistricting Commission. The Eastside neighborhood of Boyle Heights fell by 3,300. And Cypress Park showed a decrease of about 1,250, or 13% — the largest of any L.A. neighborhood.

In the west San Fernando Valley, the opposite phenomenon played out, with Northridge adding 3,400 people and Chatsworth taking on 6,000. Woodland Hills recorded an additional 8,200 people — a 13% increase, according to the Redistricting Commission.

“Our worst fears have been realized, in a sense, with a poor-quality count primarily in Latino-majority areas in the Eastside of the city,” said David Ely, a demographic consultant with the Redistricting Commission.

That disparity — declining population numbers on the Eastside and major increases in the West Valley — will present challenges for the redistricting panel, which will devote the next two months to creating new maps for the City Council’s 15 districts. Each district must have roughly the same number of people, which means some will need to add population, and others will need to shed.
. . . .


Meanwhile, the Los Angeles Times compiled detailed neighborhood Census results for the City of Los Angeles. The whole chart is worth a look, but here are some highlights and lowlights:

LA City neighborhoods with the greatest gains in the 2020 Census:

Neighborhood - 2010 - 2020 - Percent increase
Playa Vista - 7,957 - 15,149 - 90%
Downtown - 42,499 - 66,555 - 57%
Century City - 5,752 - 7,050 - 23%
Chatsworth - 39,606 - 45,661 - 15%
Woodland Hills - 63,654 - 71,854 - 13%

And the worst losses:

Neighborhood - 2010 - 2020 - Percent decrease
Cypress Park - 9,631 - 8,373 - −13%
Elysian Valley - 6,897 - 6,123 - −11%
East Hollywood - 68,197 - 61,439 - −10%
Chinatown/
Solano Canyon - 19,398 - 17,640 - −9%
Highland Park - 54,813 - 50,903 - −7%
__________________
Chaos upon my enemies, chaos upon my enemies, chaos upon my enemies.

Last edited by craigs; Aug 31, 2021 at 4:05 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #17  
Old Posted Sep 1, 2021, 8:52 PM
RST500 RST500 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 757
Quote:
Originally Posted by craigs View Post
Census reports declining population on L.A.’s Eastside, fueling undercount fears

David Zahniser
Los Angeles Times
Aug. 30, 2021

Over the last two years, politicians, civic leaders and community activists across Los Angeles worried that Latinos would not be properly counted as part of the U.S. Census Bureau’s once-in-a-decade population survey.

Amid the COVID-19 pandemic, city and county officials sent volunteers to knock on doors, staged “pop-up” sites to help people with their forms and provided goody bags to those who successfully turned in their information.

L.A.’s neighborhood numbers have finally come out, as part of the city’s process for redrawing the boundaries of its 15 City Council districts. And some at City Hall are disappointed with the results.

Highland Park, a neighborhood on the city’s northeast end, recorded a decline in population of more than 3,900 people between 2010 and 2020, according to census figures released by the city’s Redistricting Commission. The Eastside neighborhood of Boyle Heights fell by 3,300. And Cypress Park showed a decrease of about 1,250, or 13% — the largest of any L.A. neighborhood.

In the west San Fernando Valley, the opposite phenomenon played out, with Northridge adding 3,400 people and Chatsworth taking on 6,000. Woodland Hills recorded an additional 8,200 people — a 13% increase, according to the Redistricting Commission.

“Our worst fears have been realized, in a sense, with a poor-quality count primarily in Latino-majority areas in the Eastside of the city,” said David Ely, a demographic consultant with the Redistricting Commission.

That disparity — declining population numbers on the Eastside and major increases in the West Valley — will present challenges for the redistricting panel, which will devote the next two months to creating new maps for the City Council’s 15 districts. Each district must have roughly the same number of people, which means some will need to add population, and others will need to shed.
. . . .


Meanwhile, the Los Angeles Times compiled detailed neighborhood Census results for the City of Los Angeles. The whole chart is worth a look, but here are some highlights and lowlights:

LA City neighborhoods with the greatest gains in the 2020 Census:

Neighborhood - 2010 - 2020 - Percent increase
Playa Vista - 7,957 - 15,149 - 90%
Downtown - 42,499 - 66,555 - 57%
Century City - 5,752 - 7,050 - 23%
Chatsworth - 39,606 - 45,661 - 15%
Woodland Hills - 63,654 - 71,854 - 13%

And the worst losses:

Neighborhood - 2010 - 2020 - Percent decrease
Cypress Park - 9,631 - 8,373 - −13%
Elysian Valley - 6,897 - 6,123 - −11%
East Hollywood - 68,197 - 61,439 - −10%
Chinatown/
Solano Canyon - 19,398 - 17,640 - −9%
Highland Park - 54,813 - 50,903 - −7%
https://laccrc2021.org/wp-content/up...s-and-Maps.pdf

This site for LA's census data does not have a category to rank White growth.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #18  
Old Posted Sep 1, 2021, 11:17 PM
RST500 RST500 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 757
Quote:
Originally Posted by RST500 View Post
https://laccrc2021.org/wp-content/up...s-and-Maps.pdf

This site for LA's census data does not have a category to rank White growth.
The LA Times map of data just put Whites into the category of other without even a way to check the White growth.

https://laccrc2021.org/wp-content/up...s-and-Maps.pdf
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #19  
Old Posted Aug 31, 2021, 6:14 PM
edale edale is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 2,802
Cincinnati is only 77 square miles, and it has 3 island communities within it:

City of St. Bernard
Village of Elmwood Place (right next to St. Bernard, with shared school district)
City of Norwood



Old hold overs from when the industrial landscape was much different. St. Bernard/Elmwood place is right next to the massive Ivorydale Procter and Gamble complex, where Ivory Soap was first made. https://www.google.com/maps/@39.1718...7i16384!8i8192

Norwood had a huge GM(?) factory, as well as the HQ and factory for the US Playing Card Co. Both have closed and are in various phases of being redeveloped as retail complexes. Without the big industry, these cities probably would have been part of the City of Cincinnati. All three are whiter and more conservative than the neighboring city neighborhoods, though all are working class. In Norwood's case, it's considerably less wealthy than the city neighborhoods it borders (Hyde Park, Oakley). Quite a strange dynamic.

Last edited by edale; Aug 31, 2021 at 10:02 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #20  
Old Posted Aug 31, 2021, 6:40 PM
Buckeye Native 001 Buckeye Native 001 is offline
E pluribus unum
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Arizona
Posts: 31,367
Quote:
Originally Posted by edale View Post
Old hold overs from when the industrial landscape was much different. St. Bernard/Elmwood place is right next to the massive Ivorydale Procter and Gamble complex, where Ivory Soap was first made. Norwood had a huge GM(?) factory, as well as the HQ and factory for the US Playing Card Co. Both have closed and are in various phases of being redeveloped as retail complexes. Without the big industry, these cities probably would have been part of the City of Cincinnati. All three are whiter and more conservative than the neighboring city neighborhoods, though all are working class. In Norwood's case, it's considerably less wealthy than the city neighborhoods it borders (Hyde Park, Oakley). Quite a strange dynamic.
Norwood's also been losing population for decades but is apparently still the second-largest municipality in Hamilton County after Cincinnati. I'm a little surprised serious proposals haven't been brought forward to merge it with Cincinnati, but then again that's probably a logistical nightmare for both cities to absorb the required services?

I grew up in Cincinnati in the late 1980s/early 1990s. It was always way more obvious than it should've been when you left Hyde Park/Oakley and entered Norwood (I'm one to talk, living in Newtown), but it was still dealing with the fallout from the GM Plant closing in 1987. Not exactly akin to "Black Monday" in Youngstown, but lots of subsequent hardship.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions
Forum Jump



Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:35 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.