The US Census Bureau thread

[Yuri]

As we're always discussing CSA vs MSA, I made a list with definitions trying to pick the best of them and also using last longing historical definitions.

It's just for entertainment, not intending to start long discussions about it. But if someone is interested on the definition used in a specific metro area, just ask. Starting with the traditional "Big 12":



--------------------- 2020 -------- 2010 -------- 2000 -------- 1990

New York -------- 22.692.839 -- 21.358.372 -- 20.675.403 -- 19.083.415 ---- 6,25% ---- 3,30% ---- 8,34%

Los Angeles ----- 18.644.680 -- 17.877.006 -- 16.373.645 -- 14.531.529 ---- 4,29% ---- 9,18% --- 12,68%

Chicago ---------- 9.618.502 --- 9.461.105 --- 9.098.314 --- 8.182.076 ---- 1,66% ---- 3,99% --- 11,20%

San Francisco ---- 8.036.501 --- 7.413.121 --- 7.039.362 --- 6.253.311 ---- 8,41% ---- 5,31% --- 12,57%

Dallas ----------- 7.320.577 --- 6.104.359 --- 4.942.333 --- 3.820.630 --- 19,92% --- 23,51% --- 29,36%

Houston ---------- 7.122.240 --- 5.920.416 --- 4.693.161 --- 3.750.883 --- 20,30% --- 26,15% --- 25,12%

Philadelphia ----- 6.245.051 --- 5.965.353 --- 5.687.147 --- 5.435.468 ---- 4,69% ---- 4,89% ---- 4,63%

Miami ------------ 6.138.333 --- 5.564.635 --- 5.007.564 --- 4.056.100 --- 10,31% --- 11,12% --- 23,46%

Boston ----------- 6.095.791 --- 5.628.532 --- 5.410.915 --- 5.075.440 ---- 8,30% ---- 4,02% ---- 6,61%

Atlanta ---------- 6.089.815 --- 5.286.728 --- 4.263.438 --- 3.082.308 --- 15,19% --- 24,00% --- 38,32%

Washington ------- 5.937.417 --- 5.241.643 --- 4.525.520 --- 3.920.943 --- 13,27% --- 15,82% --- 15,42%

Detroit ---------- 5.325.319 --- 5.218.852 --- 5.357.538 --- 5.095.695 ---- 2,04% --- -2,59% ---- 5,14%



I also worked with past and more strict definitions, which showed be metro areas are growing faster in their core counties.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by urban_encounter

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

Well, what hurts LA is that the American South and Southwest are actually becoming truly cosmopolitan places, and aren’t the cactus desert backwaters that they were in the past.

So if you demanded warm weather and global amenities 30 years ago, you had few options but to live in a place like LA.

But increasingly Atlanta, Dallas, Houston, Austin, Miami, and other places aren’t just high growth cities but they also have more of the amenities of a global city (and flights everywhere) and can pretty much satisfy the needs of most well-heeled professionals, while still being way cheaper.

My brother lives in Cary, NC (near Raleigh) and even though it is not even remotely as awesome as Chicago, it’s got good weather and South Asians are pouring there from northern locales in droves. Finding ethnic cuisine there is a breeze. Again, these places weren’t options for many people 30 years ago because they were the “boonies”.

[Yuri]

- I guess we've discussed several subjects, such as New York growing faster than Los Angeles for the first time, which is very symbolic as LA becoming the most populated metro area in the US is something that have been discussed since the 1970's or earlier. New York growth itself is very impressive, almost matching the "perfect 1990-2000" and went against all way more modest estimates.

- Chicago, as New York, better than expected and actually grew. If the pull a New York on the next few years, they can finally become a megacity, which is quite symbolic as Chicago was once one of the largest cities in the world and the 2nd/3rd wealthiest. Side note: it's crazy to think Chicago had grown at double digit rates mere 20 years ago. I remember the reports of the booming counties in Chicago area in the early 2000's.

- Although expected, San Francisco is something out of this world: GDP growing at Chinese rates, growing faster than the past decade while the US as whole grew considerably slower, high prices and constrict geography should be playing against it, and still we have those 8% growth to reach 8 million inhabitants.

- Dallas and Houston, what to say? One thing it's when are below 4 million people (1990) to grow at 20%/decade. But they're about to reach 8 million and show no signs of slowing down.

- Five metro areas neck to neck at 6 million: Philadelphia, Miami, Boston, Atlanta and Washington.

- Philadelphia, with very constant and rather good growth in the past 30 years. That, coupled with its location just outside New York, urban regeneration and one of the best urban fabrics in the country, suggest a bright future ahead.

- Boston, like San Francisco: although expected, post amazing growth, even faster than the 1990-2000. Wealthy and fast growing, a powerful combo.

- Washington, pushed by the ever growing US government, solid and constant and big growth for the past 30 years. As Trump and Biden wanted/wants to pull back the US military, it might become a more normal metro area. I hope so at least.

- Atlanta slowing down census after censos, but still post impressive growth. And for the first time, the least denser urban area in the US might densify. Mine smaller definitions for Atlanta metro shows faster growth.

- Miami, for a long time, doesn't post Sun Belt kinda growth. After a very good 2000's for Latin America, 2010's were challenging, which is always good for Miami.

- And closing the "12", Detroit has recovered. Estimates were suggesting that and the Census confirmed. The expected/hoped end in Detroit (city) declined didn't happen despite all the activity in their Downtown/Midtown.

I'll post more metro areas later.

[kittyhawk28]

Originally Posted by yuriandrade

- I guess we've discussed several subjects, such as New York growing faster than Los Angeles for the first time, which is very symbolic as LA becoming the most populated metro area in the US is something that have been discussed since the 1970's or earlier. New York growth itself is very impressive, almost matching the "perfect 1990-2000" and went against all way more modest estimates.

- Chicago, as New York, better than expected and actually grew. If the pull a New York on the next few years, they can finally become a megacity, which is quite symbolic as Chicago was once one of the largest cities in the world and the 2nd/3rd wealthiest. Side note: it's crazy to think Chicago had grown at double digit rates mere 20 years ago. I remember the reports of the booming counties in Chicago area in the early 2000's.

- Although expected, San Francisco is something out of this world: GDP growing at Chinese rates, growing faster than the past decade while the US as whole grew considerably slower, high prices and constrict geography should be playing against it, and still we have those 8% growth to reach 8 million inhabitants.

- Dallas and Houston, what to say? One thing it's when are below 4 million people (1990) to grow at 20%/decade. But they're about to reach 8 million and show no signs of slowing down.

- Five metro areas neck to neck at 6 million: Philadelphia, Miami, Boston, Atlanta and Washington.

- Philadelphia, with very constant and rather good growth in the past 30 years. That, coupled with its location just outside New York, urban regeneration and one of the best urban fabrics in the country, suggest a bright future ahead.

- Boston, like San Francisco: although expected, post amazing growth, even faster than the 1990-2000. Wealthy and fast growing, a powerful combo.

- Washington, pushed by the ever growing US government, solid and constant and big growth for the past 30 years. As Trump and Biden wanted/wants to pull back the US military, it might become a more normal metro area. I hope so at least.

- Atlanta slowing down census after censos, but still post impressive growth. And for the first time, the least denser urban area in the US might densify. Mine smaller definitions for Atlanta metro shows faster growth.

- Miami, for a long time, doesn't post Sun Belt kinda growth. After a very good 2000's for Latin America, 2010's were challenging, which is always good for Miami.

- And closing the "12", Detroit has recovered. Estimates were suggesting that and the Census confirmed. The expected/hoped end in Detroit (city) declined didn't happen despite all the activity in their Downtown/Midtown.

I'll post more metro areas later.

With regards to NY vs LA, if we wanted to be cheeky, we could say that NY CSA's population actually decreased between 2010 and 2020, by about half a million residents, due to the removal of Allentown MSA from the NY CSA during the OMB's 2018 CSA redefinitions.

The thing about NY's growth that fascinates me is how the majority of it was concentrated in the inner core areas. When calculating the NY CSA population for 2020, I noticed that the outlying CSA counties not part of the main New York MSA experienced much slower growth, growing less than a hundred thousand between 2010-2020. And even within the MSA, over half of the growth of 1.2 million residents can be directly attributed to growth in just NYC proper. I wonder if there's detailed breakdown of NYC growth statistics into seperate boroughs. From the looks of it though, the apartment/condo construction boom in Manhattan, Brooklyn, and Queens during the 2010's seems to have had at least some influence in the inner-city population boom. Either that, or New York in 2010 also happened to be undercounted.

[LA21st]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

Well, what hurts LA is that the American South and Southwest are actually becoming truly cosmopolitan places, and aren’t the cactus desert backwaters that they were in the past.

So if you demanded warm weather and global amenities 30 years ago, you had few options but to live in a place like LA.

But increasingly Atlanta, Dallas, Houston, Austin, Miami, and other places aren’t just high growth cities but they also have more of the amenities of a global city (and flights everywhere) and can pretty much satisfy the needs of most well-heeled professionals, while still being way cheaper.

My brother lives in Cary, NC (near Raleigh) and even though it is not even remotely as awesome as Chicago, it’s got good weather and South Asians are pouring there from northern locales in droves. Finding ethnic cuisine there is a breeze. Again, these places weren’t options for many people 30 years ago because they were the “boonies”.

It's more about affordability. Phoenix and Vegas and such are much cheaper than LA. What hurts LA is the cost. Nobody's talking about it here, but LA rent and housing skyrocketed after 2010. That is the biggest problem with it's growth in the last decade.

SF did better, but as others have said, it has a unique situation with SV and the crazy salaries.

[iheartthed]

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.

L.A. was expected to cross the 4 million mark by 2010, but missed by quite a bit. 2000-2010 was L.A.'s slowest growing decade on record. 2010-2020 is L.A.'s second slowest growing decade on record.

[chris08876]

Originally Posted by LA21st

It's more about affordability. Phoenix and Vegas and such are much cheaper than LA. What hurts LA is the cost. Nobody's talking about it here, but LA rent and housing skyrocketed after 2010. That is the biggest problem with it's growth in the last decade.

SF did better, but as others have said, it has a unique situation with SV and the crazy salaries.

I've been talking about it for years but than I get shrugged off like I'm some fella on Skidrow asking for change to feed my speed addiction (which LA has tons of folks, probally well over 4 million if they are counted).

Affordability is massive!

Even with places like SF, I bet... I bet... if affordability was more accessible, we'd see figures over 900k. NYC would be much larger and many of our cities, like Seattle.

Believe it or not (speaking in general), for some folks... cost matters! Hence why they flee to the suburbs or the sunbelt.

You have a lot of Californians going to Texas or Arizona. If Cali wasn't so expensive or if the state didn't suck at retaining residents, we would of seen them stay. I mean after living in Cali with nice weather, why the hell would someone want to go to Arizona aka surface of Mars? Cost and affordability is why.

EVENTUALLY, lack of affordability will stifle or limit the growth potential. "What it could be" is limited or lagged.

And it sucks for the state because of brain drain, talent or business relocated. Might not seem like a big deal if say a few businesses or residents move, but add that over the years, and what it could of been like starts to become apparent.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by chris08876

I've been talking about it for years but than I get shrugged off like I'm some fella on Skidrow asking for change to feed my speed addiction (which LA has tons of folks, probally well over 4 million if they are counted).

Affordability is massive!

Even with places like SF, I bet... I bet... if affordability was more accessible, we'd see figures over 900k. NYC would be much larger and many of our cities, like Seattle.

Believe it or not (speaking in general), for some folks... cost matters! Hence why they flee to the suburbs or the sunbelt.

You have a lot of Californians going to Texas or Arizona. If Cali wasn't so expensive or if the state didn't suck at retaining residents, we would of seen them stay. I mean after living in Cali with nice weather, why the hell would someone want to go to Arizona aka surface of Mars? Cost and affordability is why.

EVENTUALLY, lack of affordability will stifle or limit the growth potential. "What it could be" is limited or lagged.

And it sucks for the state because of brain drain, talent or business relocated. Might not seem like a big deal if say a few businesses or residents move, but add that over the years, and what it could of been like starts to become apparent.

L.A. and S.F. are never going to be cheaper than Phoenix or Las Vegas.

[chris08876]

^^^

Of course but really the point is that affordability or lack of will dictate migration patterns. It's why the state (and others) need to try their best to push programs and goals to retain folks. Housing is the number one issue.

While we are in theory a united nation, on the state level, a drain of residents and talent will hamper the true potential of what growth could of been. Ideally, states would love if the population continues to grow and with it, an expansion of businesses and economic output.

I guess it depends if one wants 1% growth or say 3% growth.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by chris08876

^^^

Of course but really the point is that affordability or lack of will dictate migration patterns. It's why the state (and others) need to try their best to push programs and goals to retain folks. Housing is the number one issue.

I'm skeptical that cost alone is really the motivating factor. Seattle grew faster than both Las Vegas and Phoenix. All of the big metros on the east coast grew faster than relatively cheap Chicago.

[the urban politician]

Cost isn’t the only factor, not by a mile.

I don’t think cost is why LA is experiencing a slowdown. I think it’s competition from other Sunbelt cities. Yes they are cheaper, but they also have a increasingly attractive quality of life, and we have to accept that California’s leaders’ constant need to pass “woke” progressive laws aren’t exactly helping. It’s a turn off for lots of regular working people who aren’t exactly Hollywood screenwriters.

[the urban politician]

Btw, I’m so glad that we are increasingly back to talking more about cities and growth than about goddamn Covid, my fellas.

[mhays]

A million factors go into location decisions. Typically even an individual considers more than one factor. Then factor that by millions of households. It's never simple!

Cost will always be a factor, of course. But so will jobs, weather, family connections, recreation, air connections, and many other things.

[bilbao58]

Originally Posted by ChiSoxRox

Towns are a different page.

...unless Houston goes annexing and filling in its city limit tentacles, might we see a plateau for 2030?

Don't count on it. There are seemingly endless low-density areas within the city that are ripe for higher-density redevelopment and that is exactly what the City has in mind. Don't forget that the area of Houston proper is more than twice that of Chicago. Plenty of space for more people.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by kittyhawk28

The thing about NY's growth that fascinates me is how the majority of it was concentrated in the inner core areas. When calculating the NY CSA population for 2020, I noticed that the outlying CSA counties not part of the main New York MSA experienced much slower growth, growing less than a hundred thousand between 2010-2020. And even within the MSA, over half of the growth of 1.2 million residents can be directly attributed to growth in just NYC proper. I wonder if there's detailed breakdown of NYC growth statistics into seperate boroughs. From the looks of it though, the apartment/condo construction boom in Manhattan, Brooklyn, and Queens during the 2010's seems to have had at least some influence in the inner-city population boom. Either that, or New York in 2010 also happened to be undercounted.

There's pretty much no new sprawl in the NY metro. No new McMansions, no new big box retail, nothing. This is the main difference between NY and most other U.S. metros. Post-1990 or so, there's basically nothing built on the urban area fringe. In fact most of the urban fringe has declining population, as household sizes drop, and development has almost entirely stopped.

Three main reasons -

1. Area is ultra-NIMBY and the fringe suburbs worship at the altar of "rural living" (even if they demand metropolitan amenities), refusing water/sewer hookups and demanding multiacre minimum zoning;

2. Massive portions of the fringe are now permanently protected woodlands (basically the entire NW fringe was taken off limits to development due to actions by NY/NJ to permanently protect the hilly landscapes near the Appalachians; nearly the entire eastern third of LI now has low density "rural" zoning, meaning nothing but wineries/vineyards and a few second homes get built);

3. There's been a reentering of wealth and jobs near older regional transit hubs, so no one with professional opportunities can afford to not live near existing development. Even if you aren't working in Manhattan, you better be close to Stamford, or Morristown, or White Plains.

[pacarlson]

Originally Posted by yuriandrade

- I guess we've discussed several subjects, such as New York growing faster than Los Angeles for the first time, which is very symbolic as LA becoming the most populated metro area in the US is something that have been discussed since the 1970's or earlier. New York growth itself is very impressive, almost matching the "perfect 1990-2000" and went against all way more modest estimates.

- Chicago, as New York, better than expected and actually grew. If the pull a New York on the next few years, they can finally become a megacity, which is quite symbolic as Chicago was once one of the largest cities in the world and the 2nd/3rd wealthiest. Side note: it's crazy to think Chicago had grown at double digit rates mere 20 years ago. I remember the reports of the booming counties in Chicago area in the early 2000's.

- Although expected, San Francisco is something out of this world: GDP growing at Chinese rates, growing faster than the past decade while the US as whole grew considerably slower, high prices and constrict geography should be playing against it, and still we have those 8% growth to reach 8 million inhabitants.

- Dallas and Houston, what to say? One thing it's when are below 4 million people (1990) to grow at 20%/decade. But they're about to reach 8 million and show no signs of slowing down.

- Five metro areas neck to neck at 6 million: Philadelphia, Miami, Boston, Atlanta and Washington.

- Philadelphia, with very constant and rather good growth in the past 30 years. That, coupled with its location just outside New York, urban regeneration and one of the best urban fabrics in the country, suggest a bright future ahead.

- Boston, like San Francisco: although expected, post amazing growth, even faster than the 1990-2000. Wealthy and fast growing, a powerful combo.

- Washington, pushed by the ever growing US government, solid and constant and big growth for the past 30 years. As Trump and Biden wanted/wants to pull back the US military, it might become a more normal metro area. I hope so at least.

- Atlanta slowing down census after censos, but still post impressive growth. And for the first time, the least denser urban area in the US might densify. Mine smaller definitions for Atlanta metro shows faster growth.

- Miami, for a long time, doesn't post Sun Belt kinda growth. After a very good 2000's for Latin America, 2010's were challenging, which is always good for Miami.

- And closing the "12", Detroit has recovered. Estimates were suggesting that and the Census confirmed. The expected/hoped end in Detroit (city) declined didn't happen despite all the activity in their Downtown/Midtown.

I'll post more metro areas later.

Very nice and interesting summary yuriandrade.

[TWAK]

Originally Posted by urban_encounter

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

At least some of it is in the SOI, which can eventually be annexed. Arden Arcade though, 2nd most populated unincorporated area in the state, is not and you may remember their incorporation effort.
https://www.cityofsacramento.org/Com...and-Annexation

[dimondpark]

So I thought it was 1910-1920, but I was wrong. The last time the San Francisco Metro outgrew Los Angeles in numerical population was between 1890-1900. 120 years ago.

I'm sure this is a one-time fluke, and by next census things will be back to what we've been accustomed to for, well, a century, but this is a very interesting footnote those old Northern snobs who are now largely dead, would probably would have relished to see in person.

1890-1900
San Francisco-Oakland-Berkeley MSA: +90,535
Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim MSA: +71,951

2010-2020
San Francisco-Oakland-Berkeley MSA: +413,617
Los Angeles-Long Beach Anaheim MSA: +372,161

[urban_encounter]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

Cost isn’t the only factor, not by a mile.

I don’t think cost is why LA is experiencing a slowdown. I think it’s competition from other Sunbelt cities. Yes they are cheaper, but they also have a increasingly attractive quality of life, and we have to accept that California’s leaders’ constant need to pass “woke” progressive laws aren’t exactly helping. It’s a turn off for lots of regular working people who aren’t exactly Hollywood screenwriters.

Nailed it. Cost isn’t the only factor. Depending on a person’s career path, a person may be drawn towards certain regions of the country such as tech, banking, media. On the other hand those of us who work in healthcare can work in nearly every major and midsized markets where it’s easier to consider housing costs, civic amenities, weather, taxes, local and State politics….

I’m old enough now to have lived in a few different cities. While I’m not a fan of humidity, I think it’s something I could live with as a trade off for other civic opportunities or maybe in the case of where I live now; a place not completely overrun with the homeless.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by bilbao58

Don't count on it. There are seemingly endless low-density areas within the city that are ripe for higher-density redevelopment and that is exactly what the City has in mind. Don't forget that the area of Houston proper is more than twice that of Chicago. Plenty of space for more people.

Yeah, especially as established desirable areas continue to get more expensive, other areas will start to gentrify and densify. Sharpstown is ripe for development for example. Westchase too eventually.