The US Census Bureau thread

[Camelback]

Originally Posted by JManc

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.

Utica-Rome MSA lost quite a bit though.
2020: 288,291
2010: 299,397
−3.71%

[proghousehead]

Did Brooklyn overtake Chicago? Or close the gap? Similarly, I remember in 2010 some folk here were predicting LA to overtake NYC CSA or come very close. Amazingly, NY CSA grew by larger number than LA which I cannot fathom at all.

[Crawford]

Brooklyn closed the gap, but Chicago is still a bit ahead. Brooklyn is still the 4th largest "city".

[Camelback]

Mississippi, Illinois and West Virginia were the only states to have a population decline since 2010.

MS: –6,018
IL: –18,124
WV: –59,278
PR: –439,915 (hurricane and economic damage leading to an exodus of the island, holy cow)

Texas, Florida, California, Georgia all gained at least 1 million!
TX: 3,999,944
FL: 2,736,877
CA: 2,284,267
GA: 1,024,255
WA: 980,741 (close!)

[Pedestrian]

^^I just wish Buckeye would stop growing because I don;'t want to have to fight traffic there bypassing Phoenix between Tucson and CA.

[Camelback]

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

^^I just wish Buckeye would stop growing because I don;'t want to have to fight traffic there bypassing Phoenix between Tucson and CA.

Buckeye is the future home to at least 1 million people and they have proven ground water supply under the Hassayampa River which flows underground, dry at the surface.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hassayampa_River

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Bu...837766!5m1!1e4

[TWAK]

CA cities would be higher if it wasn't so difficult to annex, just look at how many steps a city would have to take.

[Wigs]

Can we talk about how both the core cities of Buffalo, NY and Cincinnati, OH both gained population for the first time in 70 years!

Buffalo:
1950 580,132
1960 532,759 −8.2%
1970 462,768 −13.1%
1980 357,870 −22.7%
1990 328,123 −8.3%
2000 292,648 −10.8%
2010 261,310 −10.7%
2020 278,349 +6.5%

Cincinnati:
1950 503,998
1960 502,550 −0.3%
1970 452,525 −10.0%
1980 385,460 −14.8%
1990 364,040 −5.6%
2000 331,285 −9.0%
2010 296,945 −10.4%
2020 309,317 +4.2%

[LA21st]

Originally Posted by homebucket

I did notice that DTLA has only built one office tower (Wilshire Grand which is mixed use so it only has 677,000 SF) in the last ~30 years. Everything else has been residential. Last one before that was Two California Plaza.

Is Class A office space still in pretty low demand in DTLA, or are most employers leasing elsewhere in the LA metro?

Elsewhere, mostly. Hollywood, Culver City, West LA etc. Creative/entertainment office space seems to be at an all time high. I believe LA's office market in 2020 was one of the best in the nation.

In downtown, the arts district is the new area for office space. I think you'll see a good amount of 10-20 story offices there in the next decade, similar to Fulton Market in Chicago.

[urban_encounter]

Originally Posted by TWAK

CA cities would be higher if it wasn't so difficult to annex, just look at how many steps a city would have to take.

Sacramento County is the perfect example along with large swaths of L.A. County.

[chris08876]

Its a shame LA didn't breach the 4 million mark.

Either I have deja vu or my time perception is off, but I thought LA was suppose to hit 4 million like 10 years ago?

Feels like its been stuck at 3.9 million for ages.

[ChiSoxRox]

States with new first place cities since 2010;
Alabama - Huntsville (was Birmingham)
South Carolina - Charleston (was Columbia)
Tennessee - Nashville (was Memphis)

New second place cities:
Arkansas - Fayetteville (was Fort Smith)
Connecticut - Stamford (was New Haven)
Georgia - Columbus (was Augusta)
Idaho - Meridian (was Nampa)
Rhode Island - Cranston (was Warwick)
Virginia - Chesapeake (was Norfolk)

New third place cities:
Illinois - Joliet (was Rockford)
New York - Yonkers (was Rochester)
Utah - West Jordan (was Provo)
West Virginia - Morgantown (was Parkersburg)

[subterranean]

Austin-Round Rock MSA literally smoking meth to get to 33% growth. Every third person wasn’t there 10 years ago.

[subterranean]

New members of the 1 million + MSA club:

52 Grand Rapids-Kentwood, MI MSA 1,087,592 from 993,670 +9.45%
53 Tucson, AZ MSA 1,043,433 from 980,263 +6.44%
54 Urban Honolulu, HI MSA 1,016,508 from 953,207 +6.64%
55 Tulsa, OK MSA 1,015,331 from 937,478 +8.30%
56 Fresno, CA MSA 1,008,654 from 930,450 +8.40%

[Chef]

Originally Posted by pacarlson

For me, the biggest surprises regarding the 2020 Census city populations are:
1. The phenomenal increase in NYC's population.
2. The 6.5% turn-around gain by Buffalo.
3. The unprecedented 31.6% population shrinkage experienced by East St. Louis; the largest % drop in its history.
4. St. Paul's 9.3% growth putting its 2020 population less than 2,000 people away from its all-time peak population.
5. Kansas City, MO hitting an all-time peak population.

Disappointing is the persistent population decline of the big, old powerhouse cities of Detroit, Baltimore, Milwaukee, Cleveland, Pittsburgh (although slower decline), and St. Louis.

St Paul will continue to grow. They are currently building an entire new dense-ish, urban neighborhood on a 125 acre site that used to be a Ford factory. There should be several thousand new housing units there by 2030

The Central Corridor light rail line has also been a catalyst for growth in St Paul, and there are still a ton of quality redevelopment sites along the line. I would expect urbanization along University Ave to continue for at least another decade. There is also a streetcar line from Downtown St Paul to the airport in the works that is penciled in for the second half of this decade. That would lead to growth along that corridor as well.

I would be shocked if St Paul doesn't blow past its previous peak population within a few years.

[Shawn]

Originally Posted by Camelback

Phoenix MSA jumped Detroit, Riverside and San Francisco and came up short with Boston, just by about 95k difference in the two.

Phoenix and Boston will enter the 5 million MSA club soon.

Two MSAs which notoriously under represent their metros' sizes are the San Francisco MSA and the Boston MSA.

In no reality are Palo Alto and Stamford detached from San Fran, and in no reality are Worcester or Easton (11 miles south of the city limits) detached from Boston. Yet they are for each city's respective MSA.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by chris08876

Its a shame LA didn't breach the 4 million mark.

Either I have deja vu or my time perception is off, but I thought LA was suppose to hit 4 million like 10 years ago?

Feels like its been stuck at 3.9 million for ages.

LA is having its “Chicago” moment. Ok, maybe a bit better than that, but same concept: It’s a maturing city that’s no longer in its rapid growth phase, demographic shifts are happening, economic engines are evolving, and aging infrastructure as well as entrenched interests leading to tax increases threaten future growth.

But at least it has warm weather!

[Camelback]

Originally Posted by Shawn

Two MSAs which notoriously under represent their metros' sizes are the San Francisco MSA and the Boston MSA.

In no reality are Palo Alto and Stamford detached from San Fran, and in no reality are Worcester or Easton (11 miles south of the city limits) detached from Boston. Yet they are for each city's respective MSA.

^True. SF and LA got the shaft with the CB's definition of their MSA.

The jump in rankings does show the impressive growth of greater Phoenix.

If you go back to 1980, metro Phoenix only had 1.6 million, Boston had almost 4 million.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by DCReid

Chicago's inland location is not a disadvantage to immigrants; many inland cities attract immigrants, such as Minneapolis with Somalis and Chicago with Mexicans and South Asians in past decades. It will be interesting what the next decade brings - I would not be surprised if NYC and DC see a big slowdown in growth as those areas are also quite expensive for average working people.

I agree with this. That was a silly comment by Kittyhawk you had responded to, actually. There is no reason why having a coastal location today has any bearing on whether you attract more immigrants. Most people are not arriving by boats or by foot, but by airplane. Toronto’s inland location pretty much dispels that notion.

Also, prior to the last decade or two, Chicago was a huge immigration magnet for about 140 years. It’s midwestern location obviously didn’t hinder that. The recent slowdown almost certainly has to do with a decline in work opportunities for new immigrants.

[urban_encounter]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

LA is having its “Chicago” moment. Ok, maybe a bit better than that, but same concept: It’s a maturing city that’s no longer in its rapid growth phase, demographic shifts are happening, economic engines are evolving, and aging infrastructure as well as entrenched interests leading to tax increases threaten future growth.

But at least it has warm weather!

I think people might trade a few degrees for more reasonable costs of housing.