The US Census Bureau thread

[chris08876]

I think because of the pandemic, 2021's figures were all rubbish and not just for NJ cities but for others as well. Miami for example, its figures were total BS.

I'll await better figures for JC and Newark. Compared to 2020, the 2021 estimates or figures did not match reality for some places. Granted folks were wiped out due to Covid but many folks raised suspicion over the 2021 figures.

I do think Jersey City is on track to exceed Newark. The amount of development and buying patterns will eventually make this happen. Newark though I feel, once the market is right, will continue to grow (its a gold mine of a location). Developments like CitySquare will make this happen and all the spill over development once developments like The Halo show it can be done in Newark (along with all the other proxy developments).

Keep an eye out for Newark... its rise will happen. Only a matter of time.

[wwmiv]

Rank (Previous). City. 2020 Criteria and 2020 UA Population (2010 Criteria and 2010 UA Population)

Note: highlighted colors should not he used to infer growth alone—due to the change in methodology from population density to housing unit density, highlighted colors should be interpreted as a mixture of both growth rates and methodology changes affecting included/excluded territory. Therefore, green should be interpreted as simply larger in population, black should be interpreted as meaning similar population, and red should be interpreted as meaning a smaller population in 2020 using the 2020 methodology than in 2010 using the 2010 methodology. Use caution when attempting to speak about growth rates inferred from these numbers—those rates are only part of the story and I have left them off for these reasons.

1. NYC: 19,426,449 (18,351,285)
2. LA: 12,237,376 (12,150,996)
3. Chicago: 8,671,746 (8,608,208)
4. Miami: 6,077,522 (5,502,379)
5 (7). Houston: 5,853,575 (4,944,332)
6. Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington: 5,732,354 (5,121,892)
7 (5). Philadelphia: 5,696,125 (5,441,567)
8. D.C.: 5,174,759 (4,586,770)
9. Atlanta: 4,999,259 (4,515,419)
10. Boston: 4,382,009 (4,181,019)

11 (12). Phoenix: 3,976,313 (3,629,114)
12 (11). Detroit: 3,776,890 (3,734,090)
13 (14). Seattle: 3,544,011 (3,059,393)
14 (13). San Francisco-Oakland: 3,269,385 (3,281,212)
15. San Diego: 3,070,300 (2,956,746)
16. Minneapolis-St. Paul: 2,914,866 (2,650,890)
17. Tampa-St. Pete: 2,783,045 (2,441,770)
18. Denver: 2,686,147 (2,374,203)
19 (22). Riverside-San Bernardino: 2,276,703 (1,932,666)
20 (19). Baltimore: 2,212,038 (2,203,663)

21 (23). Vegas: 2,196,623 (1,886,011)
22 (20). St. Louis: 2,156,323 (2,150,706)
23 (24). Portland: 2,104,238 (1,849,898)
24 (26). San Antonio: 1,992,689 (1,758,210)
25 (28). Sacramento: 1,946,618 (1,723,634)
26 (32). Orlando: 1,853,896 (1,510,516)
27 (21). San Juan: 1,844,410 (2,148,346)
28 (29). San Jose: 1,837,446 (1,664,496)
29 (37). Austin: 1,809,888 (1,362,416)
30 (27). Pittsburgh: 1,745,039 (1,733,853)

31 (25). Cleveland: 1,712,178 (1,780,673)
32 (33). Indianapolis: 1,699,881 (1,487,483)
33 (30). Cincinnati: 1,686,744 (1,624,827)
34 (31). KC: 1,674,218 (1,519,417)
35 (36). Columbus: 1,567,254 (1,368,035)
36 (34). Virginia Beach: 1,451,578 (1,439,666)
37 (38). Charlotte: 1,379,873 (1,362,442)
38 (35). Milwaukee: 1,306,795 (1,376,476)
39. Providence: 1,285,806 (1,190,956)
40. Jacksonville: 1,247,374 (1,065,219)
41 (42). SLC: 1,178,533 (1,021,243)

42 (44). Nashville: 1,158,642 (969,587)
43 (50). Raleigh: 1,106,646 (894,881)
44 (45). Richmond: 1,059,150 (953,556)
45 (41). Memphis: 1,056,190 (1,060,061)

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by wwmiv

Rank (Previous). City. 2020 Criteria and UA Population (2010 Criteria and UA Population)

1. NYC: 19,426,449 (18,351,285)
2. LA: 12,237,376 (12,150,996)
3. Chicago: 8,671,746 (8,608,208)
4. Miami: 6,077,522 (5,502,379)
5 (7). Houston: 5,853,575 (4,944,332)
6. Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington: 5,732,354 (5,121,892)
7 (5). Philadelphia: 5,696,125 (5,441,567)
8. D.C.: 5,174,759 (4,586,770)
9. Atlanta: 4,999,259 (4,515,419)
10. Boston: 4,382,009 (4,181,019)

11 (12). Phoenix: 3,976,313 (3,629,114)
12 (11). Detroit: 3,776,890 (3,734,090)
13 (14). Seattle: 3,544,011 (3,059,393)
14 (13). San Francisco-Oakland: 3,269,385 (3,281,212)
15. San Diego: 3,070,300 (2,956,746)
16. Minneapolis-St. Paul: 2,914,866 (2,650,890)
17. Tampa-St. Pete: 2,783,045 (2,441,770)
18. Denver: 2,686,147 (2,374,203)
19 (22). Riverside-San Bernardino: 2,276,703 (1,932,666)
20 (19). Baltimore: 2,212,038 (2,203,663)

21 (23). Vegas: 2,196,623 (1,886,011)
22 (20). St. Louis: 2,156,323 (2,150,706)
23 (24). Portland: 2,104,238 (1,849,898)
24 (26). San Antonio: 1,992,689 (1,758,210)
25 (28). Sacramento: 1,946,618 (1,723,634)
26 (32). Orlando: 1,853,896 (1,510,516)
27 (21). San Juan: 1,844,410 (2,148,346)
28 (29). San Jose: 1,837,446 (1,664,496)
29 (37). Austin: 1,809,888 (1,362,416)
30 (27). Pittsburgh: 1,745,039 (1,733,853)

31 (25). Cleveland: 1,712,178 (1,780,673)
32 (33). Indianapolis: 1,699,881 (1,487,483)
33 (30). Cincinnati: 1,686,744 (1,624,827)
34 (31). KC: 1,674,218 (1,519,417)
35 (36). Columbus: 1,567,254 (1,368,035)
36 (34). Virginia Beach: 1,451,578 (1,439,666)
37 (38). Charlotte: 1,379,873 (1,362,442)
38 (35). Milwaukee: 1,306,795 (1,376,476)
39. Providence: 1,285,806 (1,190,956)
40. Jacksonville: 1,247,374 (1,065,219)
41 (42). SLC: 1,178,533 (1,021,243)

42 (44). Nashville: 1,158,642 (969,587)
43 (50). Raleigh: 1,106,646 (894,881)
44 (45). Richmond: 1,059,150 (953,556)
45 (41). Memphis: 1,056,190 (1,060,061)

So NY's urban area added the most population at roughly 1.1 million, followed by a strong showing from the Texas twins (800k for Houston, 600k for Dallas). What happened in San Francisco-Oakland? Both cities performed respectably in 2010-2020, so how or where did the population drain come from? Also shocking: Charlotte seems to have stalled out quite a bit.

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

So NY's urban area added the most population at roughly 1.1 million, followed by a strong showing from the Texas twins (800k for Houston, 600k for Dallas). What happened in San Francisco-Oakland? Both cities performed respectably in 2010-2020, so how or where did the population drain come from? Also shocking: Charlotte seems to have stalled out quite a bit.

NYC: ~1.1 million
Houston: ~900k
DFW: ~600k
D.C. ~600k
Miami: ~575k
ATL: ~500k
Seattle: ~500k
Austin: ~450k

[wwmiv]

In Dallas-Fort Worth Metro

6. Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington: 5,732,354 (5,121,892)
McKinney-Frisco 504,803 (170,030)
Denton-Lewisville 429,461 (366,174)


In Houston Metro

5. Houston: 5,853,575 (4,944,332)
Conroe-Woodlands 402,454 (239,938)
Galveston 191,863 (NEW)


In San Antonio Metro

24. San Antonio: 1,992,689 (1,758,210)
New Braunfels 100,736 (NEW)


In Other Metros

29. Austin: 1,809,888 (1,362,416)
El Paso 854,584 (803,086)
McAllen 779,553 (728,825)
Corpus Christi 339,066 (320,069)
Lubbock 272,280 (237,256)
Killeen 257,222 (217,630)
Laredo 251,462 (235,730)
Brownsville 216,444 (217,585)
Bryan-College Station 206,137 (171,345)
Amarillo 205,860 (196,651)

Waco 192,844 (172,378)
Odessa 154,818 (126,405)
Beaumont 146,649 (147,922)
Midland 141,997 (117,807)
Tyler 131,028 (130,247)
Harlingen 118,838 (135,663)
Abilene 118,138 (110,421)
Port Arthur 116,819 (153,150)
Temple 114,632 (90,390)
Longview 107,099 (98,884)
San Angelo 99,982 (92,984)

[ChiSoxRox]

Looks like the new definition is a more cautious definition, with fringe areas tending to get shorn off.

San Francisco popped out with that drop despite the Bay Area's strong growth, and the area included in the urban area dropped by a quarter!

2010 urban area: 523.6 mi^2
2020 urban area: 428.7 mi^2

Likewise, Concord-Walnut Creek:

2010: 203.8 mi^2
2020: 175.8 mi^2

With that in mind, maybe be cautious about a direct 2010 to 2020 comparison.

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by ChiSoxRox

Looks like the new definition is a more cautious definition, with fringe areas tending to get shorn off.

San Francisco popped out with that drop despite the Bay Area's strong growth, and the area included in the urban area dropped by a quarter!

2010 urban area: 523.6 mi^2
2020 urban area: 428.7 mi^2

Likewise, Concord-Walnut Creek:

2010: 203.8 mi^2
2020: 175.8 mi^2

With that in mind, maybe be cautious about a direct 2010 to 2020 comparison.

Everyone should read this. I added a note to the post above.

[dimondpark]

Originally Posted by ChiSoxRox

Looks like the new definition is a more cautious definition, with fringe areas tending to get shorn off.

San Francisco popped out with that drop despite the Bay Area's strong growth, and the area included in the urban area dropped by a quarter!

2010 urban area: 523.6 mi^2
2020 urban area: 428.7 mi^2

Likewise, Concord-Walnut Creek:

2010: 203.8 mi^2
2020: 175.8 mi^2

With that in mind, maybe be cautious about a direct 2010 to 2020 comparison.

In theory then, the SF Urban Area might not have actually lost population, the excluded areas were lopped off and so where the folks who live there.

[SIGSEGV]

Originally Posted by dimondpark

In theory then, the SF Urban Area might not have actually lost population, the excluded areas were lopped off and so where the folks who live there.

Yeah, I bet parts of Marin were taken off or something?

[homebucket]

Originally Posted by dimondpark

In theory then, the SF Urban Area might not have actually lost population, the excluded areas were lopped off and so where the folks who live there.

Is there a way to tell which areas were lopped off?

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by homebucket

Is there a way to tell which areas were lopped off?

The maps and downloadable shapefiles will be released sometime in January.

[tech12]

I always wondered if the census would ever change methodology in a way that more accurately reflected the size of SF/the Bay Area, by say, combining some of the five billion separate urban areas here. And finally they did change how they measure urban areas, but it's in a way that just chops up the Bay Area even more lol. So the Seattle urban area is more populous than SF's now? Yeah, if you chop off some suburbs from SF's already stunted urban area, I guess it is.

The hills/parkland/water really breaks the development up, and it's weird to see suburbs like Concord and Livermore listed as different urban areas from SF/Oakland (and from each other), as if they're totally separate entities.

Seriously, look at all these urban areas within the same metro area/region (2010 numbers):

urban areas within the 9-county Bay Area (SF MSA in bold):
San Francisco–Oakland, CA - 3,281,212
San Jose, CA - 1,664,496 (connected to the SF UA by unbroken development on both sides of the bay)
Concord, CA - 615,968 (separated from the SF UA by hills/parkland)
Santa Rosa, CA - 308,231
Antioch, CA - 277,634 (separated from the Concord UA only by an old navy base, at their closest point, and hills elsewhere)
Vallejo, CA - 165,074 (separated from the SF UA by the Carquinez straight)
Fairfield, CA - 133,683 (Separated from the Vallejo and Vacaville UAs by hills/parkland)
Gilroy–Morgan Hill, CA - 98,413
Vacaville, CA - 93,141
Napa, CA - 83,913
Livermore, CA - 81,624 (separated from the SF UA by some hills/parkland, connected to the Concord UA by unbroken development)
Petaluma, CA - 64,078

And then there are also the following UAs within the SJ-SF-Oakland CSA, but which are outside of the traditional Bay Area:

Stockton, CA - 370,583
Modesto, CA - 358,172
Santa Cruz, CA - 163,703
Merced, CA - 136,969
Turlock, CA - 99,904
Tracy, CA - 87,569
Manteca, CA - 83,578
Watsonville, CA - 73,534
Lodi, CA - 68,738

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by dimondpark

In theory then, the SF Urban Area might not have actually lost population, the excluded areas were lopped off and so where the folks who live there.

It almost certainly did not "lose" people.

If anything, what now constitutes the SF UA got denser/more populous.

Same is true for two of the other "losers", Cleveland and Milwaukee. Neither of them "lost" people, they simply had large areas of land lopped off of them.

The Cleveland UA lost 58 sq. miles, and the Milwaukee UA lost 82 sq. miles, so yeah, considering that neither of them were all that large to begin with, and they're both relatively stagnant growth-wise, of course their UA's went down in population.

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

It almost certainly did not "lose" people.

If anything, what now constitutes the SF UA got denser/more populous.

Same is true for two of the other "losers", Cleveland and Milwaukee. Neither of them "lost" people, they simply had large areas of land lopped off of them.

The Cleveland UA lost 58 sq. miles, and the Milwaukee UA lost 82 sq. miles, so yeah, considering that neither of them were all that large to begin with, and they're both relatively stagnant growth-wise, of course their UA's "lost" people.

San Juan is the only major Urban Area that likely actually lost population within the 2020 borders.

[wwmiv]

Non-Weighted Population Density

1. SF @ 7,626 ppsm
2. LA @ 7,476 ppsm
3. SJ @ 6,436 ppsm
4. NYC @ 5,981 ppsm
5. Vegas @ 5,046 ppsm

6. Miami @ 4,885
7. San Diego @ 4,550
8. Denver @ 4,168
9. Sacramento @ 4,163
10. Portland @ 4,052

11. D.C. @ 3,997
12. SLC @ 3,923
13. Riverside @ 3,741
14. Chicago @ 3,709
15. Seattle @ 3,607
16. Phoenix @ 3,581
17. Baltimore @ 3,377
18. Houston @ 3,340
19. DFW @ 3,281

20. SA @ 3,248
21. Columbus @ 3,026
22. VA Beach @ 3,014
23. Philadelphia @ 3,001
24. Detroit @ 2,940
25. Austin @ 2,921
26. Orlando @ 2,876
27. Twin Cities @ 2,872
28. Tampa Bay @ 2,872
29. Milwaukee @ 2,818

30. Boston @ 2,646
31. San Juan @ 2,415
32. Cleveland @ 2,399
33. St. Louis @ 2,369
34. Providence @ 2,363
35. Indianapolis @ 2,353
36. KC @ 2,345
37. Cincy @ 2,242
38. Jax @ 2,176
39. Memphis @ 2,150

40. Charlotte @ 2,098
41. Richmond @ 2,067
42. ATL @ 2,040
43. Raleigh @ 1,995
44. Nashville @ 1,981
45. Pittsburgh @ 1,925

Note: I have rounded all numbers to a whole digit—you cannot have less than a whole person per square mile (snark: you can have one person every other square mile) and due to the constant influx and outflux of residents and ingress and egress of non-residents alike it is meaningless to include any digits beyond a decimal place.

[subterranean]

Originally Posted by wwmiv

Non-Weighted Population Density

1. SF @ 7,626 ppsm
2. LA @ 7,476 ppsm
3. SJ @ 6,436 ppsm
4. NYC @ 5,981 ppsm
5. Vegas @ 5,046 ppsm

6. Miami @ 4,885
7. San Diego @ 4,550
8. Denver @ 4,168
9. Sacramento @ 4,163
10. Portland @ 4,052

Impressed by this segment.

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by wwmiv

18. Houston @ 3,340
19. DFW @ 3,281
20. SA @ 3,248
25. Austin @ 2,921
[/I]

I am a bit surprised that Austin is below San Antonio, but iirc weighted density numbers are probably different.

I currently live in Denver, and I will definitely say it feels more uniformly dense than even Chicago or anywhere else I have lived. It just lacks the massive downtown core of Chicago (having only a handful of office towers). It’s nice.

[Steely Dan]

^ Generally speaking (and with some major exceptions like Miami), the further west you go in the US, the "harder" urban development edges tend to get.

It's a key reason why western metro areas usually come out on top of most metro-wide density measures. They typically don't have hundreds of square miles of very low density "country sprawl" surrounding them like most eastern metros do, which greatly changes the equation of simple calculations like average density.

[ChiSoxRox]

Percentage of the MSA population within the urban area, for the 57 1M+ MSAs:

Miami...........99.01
Las Vegas...........96.96
New York...........96.45
Salt Lake City,...........93.69
San Diego...........93.08
Los Angeles...........92.70
San Jose...........91.85
Philadelphia...........91.21
Denver...........90.63
Chicago...........90.16
Boston...........88.68
San Juan...........88.62
Seattle...........88.19
Tampa...........87.65
Detroit...........85.99
Honolulu...........83.94
Tucso...........83.90
Portland...........83.74
Milwaukee...........82.99
Houston...........82.19
Atlanta...........82.09
Phoenix...........82.06
Cleveland...........81.99
Buffalo...........81.31
Sacramento...........81.20
Washington...........81.04
Virginia Beach...........80.66
Richmond...........80.58
Indianapolis...........80.52
Hartford...........80.52
Austin...........79.26
Minneapolis...........78.99
Memphis...........78.95
Raleigh...........78.26
San Antonio...........77.90
Baltimore...........77.77
Jacksonville...........77.68
Providence...........76.69
St. Louis...........76.46
Kansas City...........76.38
Louisville...........75.80
Dallas...........75.06
Cincinnati...........74.74
Pittsburgh...........73.60
Columbus...........73.27
New Orleans...........71.91
Tulsa...........71.19
Fresno...........71.14
Birmingham...........69.48
Orlando...........69.35
Oklahoma City...........68.90
San Francisco...........68.84
Rochester...........64.61
Nashville...........58.24
Grand Rapids...........55.69
Charlotte...........51.87
Riverside...........49.50

[wwmiv]

It should be noted that the balance of the numbers above (e.g. for DFW 100-75=25) is not Rural, but rather it is the population outside of the primary Urban Area of that Metropolitan Area. DFW also includes the quite populated McKinney-Frisco and Denton-Lewisville Urban Areas as well as a smattering of other smaller Urban Areas.