The US Census Bureau thread

[dimondpark]

Originally Posted by Crawford

A discussion of the border has nothing to do with a discussion of population trends.

Immigrants, legal and illegal, come via plane. There's no indication of a rise in immigration, to this point. If immigration rises, it will be due to immigration reform, not politicized nonsense along the Mexican border.

And immigration to the U.S., despite the hysteria among a certain cohort of brainwashed and bigoted Americans, is largely an Asian phenomenon in 2021, and most migrants are highly skilled, in industries with worker shortages, like medicine, engineering and CS.

True, this argument is not a hill worth dying on so I will stop talking about it because it's an unrelated tangent.

[MolsonExport]

PP sounding the faux nooz alarm. Like a fly on shit.

[subterranean]

Originally Posted by maru2501

I always have to reorient my brain a little to see that metro detroit is still more populous than metro seattle

Detroit rocks and I miss it a lot.

[sopas ej]

Originally Posted by Kngkyle

In fact, the US is in the best shape among the developed world.

In the words of Soto Zen monk Shunryu Suzuki, "Each of you is perfect the way you are... and you can use a little improvement."

[Yuri]

Keeping on with my series of posts (previous ones on pages 124 and 125) on US metropolitan areas:

------------------------ 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%

Seattle ------------- 4.871.272 ---- 4.199.312 ---- 3.707.144 ---- 3.088.224 ---- 16,00% ---- 13,28% ---- 20,04%

Phoenix ------------- 4.845.832 ---- 4.192.887 ---- 3.251.876 ---- 2.238.480 ---- 15,57% ---- 28,94% ---- 45,27%

Minneapolis --------- 3.635.128 ---- 3.279.833 ---- 2.968.806 ---- 2.538.834 ---- 10,83% ---- 10,48% ---- 16,94%

Denver -------------- 3.623.560 ---- 3.090.874 ---- 2.610.343 ---- 2.008.684 ---- 17,23% ---- 18,41% ---- 29,95%

San Diego ----------- 3.298.634 ---- 3.095.313 ---- 2.813.833 ---- 2.498.016 ----- 6,57% ---- 10,00% ---- 12,64%

Tampa --------------- 3.175.275 ---- 2.783.243 ---- 2.395.998 ---- 2.067.959 ---- 14,09% ---- 16,16% ---- 15,86%

Baltimore ----------- 2.794.636 ---- 2.662.691 ---- 2.512.431 ---- 2.348.221 ----- 4,96% ----- 5,98% ----- 6,99%

Cleveland ----------- 2.790.470 ---- 2.780.440 ---- 2.843.103 ---- 2.759.823 ----- 0,36% ---- -2,20% ----- 3,02%

St. Louis ----------- 2.754.124 ---- 2.717.079 ---- 2.648.607 ---- 2.492.525 ----- 1,36% ----- 2,59% ----- 6,26%

Salt Lake City ------ 2.701.129 ---- 2.271.696 ---- 1.846.252 ---- 1.435.855 ---- 18,90% ---- 23,04% ---- 28,58%

Sacramento ---------- 2.680.831 ---- 2.415.183 ---- 2.028.039 ---- 1.682.215 ---- 11,00% ---- 19,09% ---- 20,56%

Orlando ------------- 2.673.376 ---- 2.134.411 ---- 1.644.561 ---- 1.224.852 ---- 25,25% ---- 29,79% ---- 34,27%

Charlotte ----------- 2.638.274 ---- 2.217.030 ---- 1.717.372 ---- 1.341.710 ---- 19,00% ---- 29,09% ---- 28,00%

San Antonio --------- 2.558.143 ---- 2.142.508 ---- 1.711.703 ---- 1.407.745 ---- 19,40% ---- 25,17% ---- 21,59%

Portland ------------ 2.512.859 ---- 2.226.009 ---- 1.927.881 ---- 1.523.741 ---- 12,89% ---- 15,46% ---- 26,52%

Pittsburgh ---------- 2.370.930 ---- 2.356.285 ---- 2.431.088 ---- 2.468.289 ----- 0,62% ---- -3,08% ---- -1,51%

Austin -------------- 2.283.371 ---- 1.716.309 ---- 1.249.763 ------ 846.227 ---- 33,04% ---- 37,33% ---- 47,69%

Las Vegas ----------- 2.265.461 ---- 1.951.269 ---- 1.375.765 ------ 741.459 ---- 16,10% ---- 41,83% ---- 85,55%

Cincinnati ---------- 2.241.397 ---- 2.121.683 ---- 2.001.353 ---- 1.837.151 ----- 5,64% ----- 6,01% ----- 8,94%

Kansas City --------- 2.136.403 ---- 1.952.470 ---- 1.757.083 ---- 1.568.274 ----- 9,42% ---- 11,12% ---- 12,04%

Raleigh ------------- 2.063.885 ---- 1.692.385 ---- 1.272.062 ------ 924.070 ---- 21,95% ---- 33,04% ---- 37,66%

Indianapolis -------- 2.058.839 ---- 1.834.672 ---- 1.607.486 ---- 1.380.491 ---- 12,22% ---- 14,13% ---- 16,44%

Columbus ------------ 2.040.518 ---- 1.801.709 ---- 1.581.066 ---- 1.377.419 ---- 13,25% ---- 13,96% ---- 14,78%



--- Salt Lake City (a.k.a. Utah) is becoming a big metro area. Fast and consistent growth;

--- Sacramento, as California, coming with a much slower pace, but still a double-digit growth. And it's very well positioned to capture spillovers from San Francisco region in the future. It's weird to think, but it will cross the 3 million barrier quite soon;

--- For Orlando I used a more strict and traditional definition (with the four core counties) and it's still pushing the 3 million barrier. 25% growth with almost no slowdown compared to the previous decade. Basically a massive and fast growing suburb;

--- Charlotte coming much slower than the previous decade, but still posting an impressive 19% growth rate. Ditto for Raleigh: much slower, but still a 21%. It seems Texas metro areas are managing to hold on to their fast growth rates than the metro areas from the South Atlantic region;

--- San Antonio, even with the fierce competition from Austin, Houston and Dallas, keeps growing fast. And Austin, insane. It's unstoppable;

--- Portland is becoming more proeminent on the national stage, more mature, and its growth more modest. Slower than Seattle now;

--- Pittsburgh is the big news here: first positive growth since the 1950-1960. Detroit and Cleveland, for example, had decades positive and the first decline came only in the 1970's, when most of Northeast and Midwest metro areas declined as well. It's even more impressive as Pittsburgh population is much older than the national average, they already have more deaths than births and they still managed to be on positive territory. Great news for one the most more interesting metro areas around;

--- Las Vegas following Phoenix path: good growth, but now one of the slowest in the Sun Belt;

--- Cincinnati, good growth, not far from the national average, and well above the estimates;

--- Kansas City also above the estimates and very stable in the past 30 years. And as bonus, breaking the 2 million barrier. Definitely a big city;

--- Indianapolis and Columbus, those are the real twin cities: state capitals, outliers in the Midwest, same size, same growth for decades. And they're impressive, growing twice as fast as the national average. Real powerhouses.

[sopas ej]

Originally Posted by LA21st

Yup. Do you know why it's high growth in Riverside?
Lower cost of living...

Yes. Much more affordable real estate. In fact, of all California counties, Riverside County gained the most people---it added 228,544 people from the last census. And I'm sure many of those people work in the other counties of Greater LA. Anecdotally, my now former boss who retired a few years ago, sold her Arcadia (SGV) home and moved to Menifee in Riverside County. In fact I think some decades ago, Riverside County was considered an area for retirees; golf courses in the Palm Springs area and Lake Elsinore seemed to attract retirees back in the 80s and 90s. And apparently, Riverside County is still an attractive area for retirees because of the lower cost of housing. My parents have friends who retired and moved to Temecula in Riverside County back in the two-thousand aughts. So I don't doubt that many people from LA County moved to Riverside County because of the cheaper real estate.

After learning that Riverside County grew the most numerically from the last Census, it made me look up how the other counties of Greater LA did:

Los Angeles County ^ 195,404
Orange County ^ 176,757
San Bernardino County ^ 146,444
Ventura County ^ 20,525
Riverside County ^ 228,544

...which made me wonder how the nine-county SF Bay Area did:

San Francisco County ^ 68,730
Marin County ^ 9,912
San Mateo County ^ 45,991
Alameda County ^ 172,082
Contra Costa County ^ 116,902
Santa Clara County ^ 154,617
Solano County ^ 40,147
Napa County ^ 1,535
Sonoma County ^ 4,985

Add all those up, and Greater LA still added more people than the nine-county Bay Area did, but not by too much:

Greater LA ^ 767,674 people

Bay Area ^ 614,901 people

[Emprise du Lion]

Originally Posted by galleyfox

Problem is that even from the Illinois side, there is very little that Springfield can do for Metro East short of moving the state capital. They’ve got a military base, airport, major university campus, and casinos.

But it’s mostly an area of heavy industry and unremarkable company towns. Distribution centers for St. Louis are the only major businesses with real interest.

There’s zero incentive for Illinois to negotiate high-end manufacturing for Metro East when Chicago and Central Illinois guarantee that most new taxpayers will not live across the state line.

The parts with said major university and air force base are the parts that are growing. Even with the population decline, the Metro East is continuing to sprawl eastward.

The areas with heavy industry and distribution centers are contained by the river, and that's the part that's dying the fastest. No one wants to live in a contaminated area, that also has high crime, and that's in or at least adjacent to a flood plain.

This was all true in the 00s when the Metro East was growing though. Parts remain attractive, but my guess is that the larger negatives that are associated with Illinois (outside of Chicago) as a whole are scaring potential people away.

I'm also saying this is someone originally from the Metro East. It has the benefits of closer proximity to the city than a lot of the sprawl burbs in Missouri, which is important for the huge number of people commuting to work to St. Louis each day, but at some point in the last 10 years the perception of the area flipped.

[galleyfox]

Originally Posted by Emprise du Lion

This was all true in the 00s when the Metro East was growing though. Parts remain attractive, but my guess is that the larger negatives that are associated with Illinois (outside of Chicago) as a whole are scaring potential people away.

I'm also saying this is someone originally from the Metro East. It has the benefits of closer proximity to the city than a lot of the sprawl burbs in Missouri, which is important for the huge number of people commuting to work to St. Louis each day, but at some point in the last 10 years the perception of the area flipped.

I think the region was coasting on natural increase in previous decades but doing poorly on domestic migration aside from the surrounding Illinois rural counties

Now that the Baby Boom generation is getting old and the Millennial bump has passed, any illusions of growth are over. It’s not perception, there’s a very real demographic cliff coming up in Metro East that no government policy can reverse, and St. Louis city is a much wiser investment.

St. Clair

Births 2011: 3552
Deaths 2011: 2443
Balance: +1109


Births 2020: 2985
Deaths 2020: 2926
Balance: +59

Madison

Births 2011: 3230
Deaths 2011: 2644
Balance: +586

Births 2020: 2754
Deaths 2020: 3027
Balance: -273

[LA21st]

A poster on City data said something interesting. They said LA's behind on building permits, and it didn't start rushing them out until 2013, and it takes a couple of years to get built from there. So half the decade was bogged down.

So that's kinda what I figured. Once the city does a better job of getting these things built, you'll probably see the change you expected for this census. There are a gazillon things approved/proposed out there.

One thing I've noticed about Chicago is there far less red tape and construction starts more rapidly, for anything. NYC is probably like this as well.

[C.]

Jersey City really killing it with the intensification.




Caption: "Overall, among the 100-most-populous US cities, Jersey City added the most density, adding 3000 people for every square mile of its land area. Other smaller standouts were Irvine, Newark, Boston, Miami, Santa Clarita, Oakland & Minneapolis.

From https://twitter.com/yfreemark/status...075333/photo/1

[Camelback]

^It's so weird to see Gilbert and Chandler there.

Chandler population 276,000
Area 65 square miles
Population density: 4,245 people per square mile

That's a healthy population density for a large outer suburb city, post ww2, post 1990 really.

Chandler is more dense than Cincinnati, Atlanta, Riverside, Henderson, Tampa, Raleigh, Nashville, Louisville, Memphis.

[Camelback]

Originally Posted by dimondpark

Nope, this is not "unprecedented", it was worse in the past when the US had 90 million less people then we do now. I guess Im too much of a student of history, but Im not impressed by the current media hysteria and grandstanding by politicians.

I'm not either, but to think we aren't approaching 1980s 1990s level of apprehensions at the border is incorrect and that's what I was pointing out. With 5 more months to go, if things continue as they did during the first 7 months, we'll probably exceed the highest years from back then.

[llamaorama]

Wouldn't illegal immigration over the southern border be a function of how bad things are down south as much as how good they are here?

The Mexican peso crisis occurred in 1994, and there was general instability occurring elsewhere while at the same time the US economy was on an upward swing. Could that have contributed to the rise in border crossings in the 90s and early 2000s? The in the late 2000s we had our recession while most third world countries were experiencing GDP growth and had become a lot more stable.

I have a feeling COVID related economic trauma in Central America is going to be understood as the factor in a momentary spike in illegal immigration, and its not something elected officials in Washington can do a whole lot about. I guess beyond that it depends on whether we signal we are going to hand out asylum to all comers or signal that it would be a waste of time to try to come here.

[JDRCRASH]

Originally Posted by yuriandrade

And even without the crazy housing prices that are out of control everywhere in the world, this slowdown would happen soon or later. Los Angeles is about to reach 20 million people, with big geographic constraints, so it would have to stop.

Interesting point. Pretty much all large empty swaths of land within 50 or so driving miles of DTLA to Westside that could be developed, HAS indeed been developed, save for spots like Chino/Eastvale and Valencia/Santa Clarita. To a certain degree, even Orange County is fairly built out, with most of the growth over the last decade happening in the Eastern (Yorba Linda) and SE (Irvine) areas.

Beyond that, when you start to reach places like Victorville, Hemet, Murrieta, Palmdale, Camarillo, etc, you have to start weighing the long 2 hour drive against buying house that’s half or, AT MOST, a third, of the price of the equivalent you might find within 25 driving miles of DTLA or Irvine Business Complex.

If LA city planners had prepared for this point about 20 years ago through earlier changes in zoning and earlier investments in mass transit, maybe the slowdown manifest in the CB numbers wouldn’t have been so drastic?

[LA21st]

Originally Posted by JDRCRASH

Interesting point. Pretty much all large empty swaths of land within 50 or so driving miles of DTLA to Westside that could be developed, HAS indeed been developed, save for spots like Chino/Eastvale and Valencia/Santa Clarita. To a certain degree, even Orange County is fairly built out, with most of the growth over the last decade happening in the Eastern (Yorba Linda) and SE (Irvine) areas.

Beyond that, when you start to reach places like Victorville, Hemet, Murrieta, Palmdale, Camarillo, etc, you have to start weighing the long 2 hour drive against buying house that’s half or, AT MOST, a third, of the price of the equivalent you might find within 25 driving miles of DTLA or Irvine Business Complex.

If LA city planners had prepared for this point about 20 years ago through earlier changes in zoning and earlier investments in mass transit, maybe the slowdown manifest in the CB numbers wouldn’t have been so drastic?

Yea, they really dropped the ball with the zoning. It's not a demand thing, it's the stupid zoning which has never made any sense for the second biggest city.
I think I read in the 1980s, the city downzoned much of the city for some reason?

That said, it sounds like more housing will be built faster and some industrial zoning is going bye bye so we'll see what 2030 looks like.

[nito]

Much of this has been discussed elsewhere, and probably ought to go in a more relevant thread, but I’ll be concise with the following.

Originally Posted by 10023

London is going to shrink due to Brexit.

The referendum was held over half a decade ago, but the latest statistics (ONS, YE March 2020) showed net migration at its joint-third highest on record. EU net migration fell following the referendum, but remained positive every year, and in the past six years non-EU net migration trebled. London like most cities tends to be the primary destination for migrants into the UK, but the far more pressing issue to the prosperity of London (and probably most western cities including New York) is the delivery of sufficient volumes of affordable housing.

Originally Posted by Crawford

NYC city proper is actually about 300 sq. miles. So Greater London is slightly more than twice the physical size.

London covers a larger area, but that incorporates a portion of the Green Belt equivalent in size to Queens and the Bronx, which is undevelopable, akin to including the water area of New York in these comparisons to prove a point. In a theoretical exercise, trimming the Green Belt plus another 100 square miles off the periphery would likely have limited impact on the population but a material impact on the population density.

Originally Posted by Crawford

Anyways, the two aren't apples-apples comparable. Greater London isn't a municipality, it's a region, and a huge chunk of Greater London's geography is suburban, and more like the Home Counties. If Bronxville or Montclair or Great Neck were in the UK, they'd probably be in Greater London.

London is both a municipality and a region; there’s a mayor, a city hall, a city assembly, and the usual city-wide organisations (police, fire, transport) associated with a municipality. The urban morphology of London and that of New York diverged quite substantially so there would be pros and cons for the argument of one neighbourhood fitting in one city and then the other.

Originally Posted by Crawford

And it's really metro areas that define city size. "NY" has been more populous than "London" since probably the 1920's-1930's or thereabouts.

Metro areas aren’t a measure of city size, they’re a measure of urban sprawl, which in the context of London was curtailed after WWII. What defines a city size beyond its borders is the level of Interaction and connectivity.

[sopas ej]

Originally Posted by LA21st

Yea, they really dropped the ball with the zoning. It's not a demand thing, it's the stupid zoning which has never made any sense for the second biggest city.
I think I read in the 1980s, the city downzoned much of the city for some reason?

That said, it sounds like more housing will be built faster and some industrial zoning is going bye bye so we'll see what 2030 looks like.

Having grown up here in the LA area, I remember on the news in the 1980s all this talk about "slow growth" and "slow-growth initiatives." I think some people (most likely conservatives and NIMBYs) were afraid of what LA could possibly become/was becoming, and wanted to maintain the status quo of low density and single family housing. When high-rises started to proliferate in Westwood in the 1970s-80s, there was a group called "NYNY," which stood for "Not Yet New York." Their argument was that the taller the building, the more traffic it would create. But DUH, this was such a shortsighted way of looking at things, as if they never thought of public rail transit coming into play.

[chris08876]

Originally Posted by C.

Jersey City really killing it with the intensification.

Hopefully Newark continues to grow. There is a ton of potential for Newark given its location. I hope it sees Jersey City levels.

[subterranean]

Originally Posted by sopas ej

Having grown up here in the LA area, I remember on the news in the 1980s all this talk about "slow growth" and "slow-growth initiatives." I think some people (most likely conservatives and NIMBYs) were afraid of what LA could possibly become/was becoming, and wanted to maintain the status quo of low density and single family housing. When high-rises started to proliferate in Westwood in the 1970s-80s, there was a group called "NYNY," which stood for "Not Yet New York." Their argument was that the taller the building, the more traffic it would create. But DUH, this was such a shortsighted way of looking at things, as if they never thought of public rail transit coming into play.

Thanks for these personal insights…makes sense.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by nito

London covers a larger area, but that incorporates a portion of the Green Belt equivalent in size to Queens and the Bronx, which is undevelopable, akin to including the water area of New York in these comparisons to prove a point. In a theoretical exercise, trimming the Green Belt plus another 100 square miles off the periphery would likely have limited impact on the population but a material impact on the population density.

Removing the Green Belt area, London's density would be roughly 19,000 ppsm, which is similar to San Francisco. New York's density is 29,000 ppsm, which includes low density Staten Island. NYC without Staten Island, which is only 6% of the city's population, has a density of 34k ppsm. Nearly twice London.

Put another way, London's population would need to be 13.6 million in the current boundaries in order to match the density of NYC, and 16 million to match NYC sans Staten Island.