The US Census Bureau thread

[sopas ej]

Originally Posted by homebucket

I wonder what's causing the slower growth rates in LA relative to the Bay Area.

I'm thinking the inclusion of more and more counties to the "Bay Area" over the years?

I would never think of Modesto/Stanislaus County to be part of the Bay area before, for example (I still don't). Modesto to SF is like what, 90 miles? But I guess more and more people have been moving to places like Modesto and super-commuting it to the core Bay Area?

I guess if more and more people from say, Santa Barbara/Goleta, started super-commuting it to LA, then Santa Barbara County would be added to "Greater LA" (which has been the same 5 counties for decades)?

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by sopas ej

I would never think of Modesto/Stanislaus County to be part of the Bay area before, for example (I still don't). Modesto to SF is like what, 90 miles? But I guess more and more people have been moving to places like Modesto and super-commuting it to the core Bay Area?

one question that's been on the back of my kind during covid is:how is the CB going to deal all of the new WFH and hybrid models of remote work in terms of commuter percentages and their imapcts on MSAs/CSAs?

if remote work is here to stay at scale in some capacity (and it appears that it will, it's really only degree that is open to speculation), might we see some MSAs and CSAs actually start sloughing-off some of those extremely far-flung, tenuously-connected counties?

[homebucket]

Originally Posted by sopas ej

I'm thinking the inclusion of more and more counties to the "Bay Area" over the years?

I would never think of Modesto/Stanislaus County to be part of the Bay area before, for example (I still don't). Modesto to SF is like what, 90 miles? But I guess more and more people have been moving to places like Modesto and super-commuting it to the core Bay Area?

I guess if more and more people from say, Santa Barbara/Goleta, started super-commuting it to LA, then Santa Barbara County would be added to "Greater LA" (which has been the same 5 counties for decades)?

I agree, I don't consider those Central Valley areas a part of the core Bay Area. When I think of the Bay Area I think of these following counties:

County...........................2020....2010.....% Change

Santa Clara County.............1,936...1,781...+8.7%
Alameda County.................1,682...1,510...+11.3%
Contra Costa County...........1,165....1,049...+11.0%
San Francisco County..........873......805.......+8.4%
San Mateo County...............764......718......+6.4%
Sonoma County...................488......483......+1.0%
Solano County.....................453......413.....+9.6%
Santa Cruz County................270......262......+3.0%
Marin County.......................262......252.....+3.9%
Napa County........................138......136.....+1.4%
Bay Area .................8,031.....7,409...+8.4%

So a change of 622,000.

By the percentages it's still about double that of LA.

[homebucket]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

one question that's been on the back of my kind during covid is:how is the CB going to deal all of the new WFH and hybrid models of remote work in terms of commuter percentages and their imapcts on MSAs/CSAs?

if remote work is here to stay at scale in some capacity (and it appears that it will, it's really only degree that is open to speculation), might we see some MSAs and CSAs actually start sloughing-off some of those extremely far-flung, tenuously-connected counties?

I think it's possible, although we probably will see more shifts from inner Bay Area places to outer Bay Area places, like Contra Costa, Napa/Sonoma, or Santa Cruz counties, or even Monterey County rather than places like San Joaquin or Merced which are... less desirable, IMO. Those inland areas are just way too hot for my supple coastal fogkissed skin!

[Steely Dan]

one of the interesting aspects about metro chicago's meager growth this past 10 years has been the radical slowdown of the great cornfield-eating sprawl machine.

i think things have sprawled out so far from the city in most directions, that distances have now finally gotten "too damn far".

Just look at the MASSIVE slowdowns in Lake, Mchenry, Kane, and Will Counties. Dupage was slow too, but it was fully built-out by the previous census.

Even Kendall County, while growing much faster than the MSA overall, still saw a big % drop relative to previous decades.

and its higher percentage is more a function of its low base, in raw numbers it only added ~17,000 people. in the '00s it added nearly 60,000 people, more than doubling it!


it still boggles my mind that the city of chicago actually grew a little bit faster than suburban cook, lake, mchenry, dupage and kane counties. and it wasn't all that far behind former cornfield-gobbler will county.

and in raw numbers, more than half of the MSA's growth was in the core county of Cook. take that, you stupid fucking sprawl!




City of Chicago:

1950: 3,620,962 | 6.6%
1960: 3,550,404 | −1.9%
1970: 3,366,957 | −5.2%
1980: 3,005,072 | −10.7%
1990: 2,783,726 | −7.4%
2000: 2,896,016 | 4.0%
2010: 2,695,598 | −6.9%
2020; 2,746,388 | 1.9%




Cook County (including the city):

1950: 4,508,792 | 11.0%
1960: 5,129,725 | 13.8%
1970: 5,492,369 | 7.1%
1980: 5,253,655 | −4.3%
1990: 5,105,067 | −2.8%
2000: 5,376,741 | 5.3%
2010: 5,194,675 | −3.4%
2020: 5,275,541 | 1.6%



Lake County:

1950: 179,097 | 47.9%
1960: 293,656 | 64.0%
1970: 382,638 | 30.3%
1980: 440,372 | 15.1%
1990: 516,418 | 17.3%
2000: 644,356 | 24.8%
2010: 703,462 | 9.2%
2020: 714,342 | 1.5%



Mchenry County:

1950: 50,656 | 35.8%
1960: 84,210 | 66.2%
1970: 111,555 | 32.5%
1980: 147,897 | 32.6%
1990: 183,241 | 23.9%
2000: 260,075 | 18.7%
2010: 308,760 | 18.7%
2020: 310,229 | 0.5%



Dupage County:

1950: 154,599 | 49.4%
1960: 313,459 | 102.8%
1970: 491,882 | 56.9%
1980: 658,835 | 33.9%
1990: 781,666 | 18.6%
2000: 904,161 | 15.7%
2010: 916,924 | 1.4%
2020: 932,877 | 1.7%



Kane County:

1950: 150,388 | 15.5%
1960: 208,246 | 38.5%
1970: 251,005 | 20.5%
1980: 278,405 | 10.9%
1990: 317,471 | 14.0%
2000: 404,119 | 27.3%
2010: 515,269 | 27.5%
2020: 516,522 | 0.2%



Will County:

1950: 134,336 | 17.6%
1960: 191,617 | 42.6%
1970: 249,498 | 30.2%
1980: 324,460 | 30.0%
1990: 357,313 | 10.1%
2000: 502,266 | 40.6%
2010: 677,560 | 34.9%
2020: 696,355 | 2.8%



Kendall County:

1950: 12,115 | 9.1%
1960: 17,540 | 44.8%
1970: 26,374 | 50.4%
1980: 37,202 | 41.1%
1990: 39,413 | 5.9%
2000: 54,544 | 38.4%
2010: 114,736 | 110.4%
2020: 131,869 | 14.9%

[ChiSoxRox]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

WTF!?!?

a roughly 9% drop for Aurora after 6 decades in a row of double digit sprawl-burban growth?

that is a very serious head-scratcher.

I mean, I could easily see a leveling off, but an outright free-fall drop after posting 38% growth in the previous decade???????


That one isn't passing the sniff test.

This page has a good map of Chicagoland census tracts, and the arrow tab will color by change. For some reason, the central core of Aurora saw Detroit-level drops.

[KDD]

Who cares about NYC v London when we can discuss mid sized Pennslyvania towns ?!?!

20 years ago the mayors of Allentown and Erie had a bet on which city would be third. Allentown edged Erie. Allentown is now at least 25k bigger. Even worse than that for Erie, its now 4th behind Reading. Secret to success? Locate yourself near an expensive big cheap and watch people poor into your slum lord owned rowhomes!

As an Allentown native I like to say Allentown is basically Reading plus about 25,000 middle class folks. That was true growing up and is still true today.

[kittyhawk28]

Originally Posted by sopas ej

I'm thinking the inclusion of more and more counties to the "Bay Area" over the years?

I would never think of Modesto/Stanislaus County to be part of the Bay area before, for example (I still don't). Modesto to SF is like what, 90 miles? But I guess more and more people have been moving to places like Modesto and super-commuting it to the core Bay Area?

I guess if more and more people from say, Santa Barbara/Goleta, started super-commuting it to LA, then Santa Barbara County would be added to "Greater LA" (which has been the same 5 counties for decades)?

Overall, this is why I'm not so hot on CSA's as the best way to measure the size of US metro's. For most regions, they exaggerate the size of metros too much; for example, with New York, I find it difficult to believe that places like Allentown, Poughkeepsie, and Litchfield County, which are quite a ways seperated from the urbanized regions of New York City by farmland and nature, to be part of NY's metro under CSA definitions. Similarly, for the Bay Area, the inclusion of places like Stockton, Tracy, or Modesto in its metro really doesn't sit right with me, even though I understand CSA's are based off primarily on a lower commuter threshold number.

The only place where I can understand the use of CSA definitions is greater LA; by no reasonable stretch should Riverside and San Bernardino be considered "seperate" metro's, when the area between the LA Basin and the Inland Empire is not only very closely-integrated economically, but is completely urbanized in between, often moreso than between much of New York's outlying suburbs and exurbs. A similar case for DC-Baltimore can be made as well. If the Bay Area CSA subtracted places like Modesto or Stockton, it would also be a better accurate representation of the entire Bay Area.

IIRC, some think tank paper found that in the 2020 census MSA/CSA redefinitions, that the 5-county region encompassing Greater LA qualified for becoming reclassified as a single MSA, with the Inland Empire MSA no longer existing (rightfully so IMO).

[ChiSoxRox]

Another surprising mid-city shift: the top 10 in New York State all grew! Buffalo, Rochester, Albany, all positive. But with NYC's boom, Yonkers has become the 3rd biggest city in NYS, shaking up the BRS order since the 50s.

[KDD]

Originally Posted by ChiSoxRox

Another surprising mid-city shift: the top 10 in New York State all grew! Buffalo, Rochester, Albany, all positive. But with NYC's boom, Yonkers has become the 3rd biggest city in NYS, shaking up the BRS order since the 50s.

I would say this Census fulfilled NYS' fantasies, but probably bad timing on that wisecrack.

Do we know where Utica ended up? I know the estimates had it gaining a few thousand people. If true, that I think would be the most astounding.

[ChiSoxRox]

Originally Posted by KDD

Do we know where Utica ended up? I know the estimates had it gaining a few thousand people. If true, that I think would be the most astounding.

Utica: 65,283

This site has done a nice job of scraping the data.

[chris08876]

Hudson Countys gains were impressive. Its like having a somewhat San Francisco sized city on the Hudson.

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by sopas ej

I'm thinking the inclusion of more and more counties to the "Bay Area" over the years?

I would never think of Modesto/Stanislaus County to be part of the Bay area before, for example (I still don't). Modesto to SF is like what, 90 miles? But I guess more and more people have been moving to places like Modesto and super-commuting it to the core Bay Area?

I guess if more and more people from say, Santa Barbara/Goleta, started super-commuting it to LA, then Santa Barbara County would be added to "Greater LA" (which has been the same 5 counties for decades)?

If I'm not mistaken, between 2010-2000, San Francisco CSA minus Central Valley counties grew faster than aforementioned counties.

Central Valley is no longer a growth machine.

Originally Posted by kittyhawk28

Overall, this is why I'm not so hot on CSA's as the best way to measure the size of US metro's. For most regions, they exaggerate the size of metros too much; for example, with New York, I find it difficult to believe that places like Allentown, Poughkeepsie, and Litchfield County, which are quite a ways seperated from the urbanized regions of New York City by farmland and nature, to be part of NY's metro under CSA definitions. Similarly, for the Bay Area, the inclusion of places like Stockton, Tracy, or Modesto in its metro really doesn't sit right with me, even though I understand CSA's are based off primarily on a lower commuter threshold number.

The only place where I can understand the use of CSA definitions is greater LA; by no reasonable stretch should Riverside and San Bernardino be considered "seperate" metro's, when the area between the LA Basin and the Inland Empire is not only very closely-integrated economically, but is completely urbanized in between, often moreso than between much of New York's outlying suburbs and exurbs. A similar case for DC-Baltimore can be made as well. If the Bay Area CSA subtracted places like Modesto or Stockton, it would also be a better accurate representation of the entire Bay Area.

IIRC, some think tank paper found that in the 2020 census MSA/CSA redefinitions, that the 5-county region encompassing Greater LA qualified for becoming reclassified as a single MSA, with the Inland Empire MSA no longer existing (rightfully so IMO).

Allentown MSA is no longer inside New York CSA. New York CSA is more accurate than New York MSA, which does not include Fairfield County, which is de facto New York metro area for the past 60 years or so.

In fact, in the places that matter, CSAs are more accurate than MSAs (New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Detroit, Cleveland, etc.). And in places they are oversized (Chicago, Dallas, Atlanta), they just add few unimportant counties that change nothing in the end of the day.

[LAsam]

Delete

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by LAsam

Unless my math is off, LA MSA increased by 1,050,002, or 8.6%... which seems to line up with the 8.4% growth of the Bay Area you have above. You can parse the data so many ways... city pop, county pop, MSA pop, CSA pop.

LA MSA grew by only 372k or 2.9%.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by ChiSoxRox

Utica: 65,283

This site has done a nice job of scraping the data.

This is the second census in a row where Utica has gained population. And not just a handful but a significant %

It went up from around ~62k in 2010.

[LAsam]

Originally Posted by yuriandrade

LA MSA grew by only 372k or 2.9%.

Yeah, I double checked and realized I had some incorrect numbers!

[dimondpark]

Originally Posted by yuriandrade

If I'm not mistaken, between 2010-2000, San Francisco CSA minus Central Valley counties grew faster than aforementioned counties.

Central Valley is no longer a growth machine.

Correct. San Joaquin is the only county out there growing faster than the inner Bay Area, and it's close to being combined into the San Francisco Metro(MSA).

Otherwise, people arent moving to Modesto or Merced as much as people might think.

Allentown MSA is no longer inside New York CSA. New York CSA is more accurate than New York MSA, which does not include Fairfield County, which is de facto New York metro area for the past 60 years or so.

In fact, in the places that matter, CSAs are more accurate than MSAs (New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Detroit, Cleveland, etc.). And in places they are oversized (Chicago, Dallas, Atlanta), they just add few unimportant counties that change nothing in the end of the day.

Yup, MSAs are not a very accurate arbiter of an areas true size in every case.

[Randomguy34]

With Kenosha and Racine being the only growing cities in Southeastern Wisconsin, we still might see the Chicago and Milwaukee MSA finally merging by the 2030 census.

[DCReid]

Originally Posted by homebucket

I agree, I don't consider those Central Valley areas a part of the core Bay Area. When I think of the Bay Area I think of these following counties:

County...........................2020....2010.....% Change

Santa Clara County.............1,936...1,781...+8.7%
Alameda County.................1,682...1,510...+11.3%
Contra Costa County...........1,165....1,049...+11.0%
San Francisco County..........873......805.......+8.4%
San Mateo County...............764......718......+6.4%
Sonoma County...................488......483......+1.0%
Solano County.....................453......413.....+9.6%
Santa Cruz County................270......262......+3.0%
Marin County.......................262......252.....+3.9%
Napa County........................138......136.....+1.4%
Bay Area .................8,031.....7,409...+8.4%

So a change of 622,000.

By the percentages it's still about double that of LA.

I would guess it has to do with the Bay area economy being the center of the tech boom, and attracting people from all over the world. Even with high housing prices, the Bay area is attractive to professionals because those companies pay so well, or the professionals (and perhaps even non-professionals) dream of being part of a start-up and getting mega-rich overnite. I would also guess that the Bay areas counties would reach further out for those in search of cheaper housing and more land. Exurbs of most expensive metros like DC started growing again a few years after the 2005-6 real estate bust.