The US Census Bureau thread

[craigs]

Originally Posted by pip

Boston: 727,666

I'm not sure I follow this census track density. Boston where I am at for the summer is for 2020 almost 15,000 people a square mile at just under 700,000 people. Throw in Sommerville at around 80,000 people with just under 20,000 people a square mile and Cambridge with roughly the same numbers. I'm not seeing how you get 727,666 people at over 20,000 people a square mile.

Every populated place in the US is broken down by the Census Bureau into constituent tracts, which are discrete units with varying populations and densities. That 727,666 figure is the total combined population contained in metro Boston's Census tracts with population densities of 20,000+ persons per square mile, if they covered an entire square mile at the recorded density. At 20K+, they are almost never a full square mile, however.

[ChiSoxRox]

Originally Posted by pip

Boston: 727,666

I'm not sure I follow this census track density. Boston where I am at for the summer is for 2020 almost 15,000 people a square mile at just under 700,000 people. Throw in Sommerville at around 80,000 people with just under 20,000 people a square mile and Cambridge with roughly the same numbers. I'm not seeing how you get 727,666 people at over 20,000 people a square mile.

The county by county breakdown:

Essex 70,758
Middlesex 201,899
Norfolk 30,861
Suffolk 424,148

The Suffolk number is the northern two-thirds of Boston - the Hyde Park end really drags down the density -- while Middlesex County has Cambridge, Somerville -- and tracts in the cores of several other cities that accumulate.

[badrunner]

Originally Posted by streetscaper

Superb work so far, guys!

what does the 20K/sqmi threshold look like on the ground?

20k: https://www.google.com/maps/@34.0792...7i16384!8i8192

40k: https://www.google.com/maps/@34.0646...7i16384!8i8192

100k: https://www.google.com/maps/@34.0458...7i16384!8i8192

[ChiSoxRox]

One more data dump tonight: going to 30k, NYC becomes more dominant.

Of the 10,656,582 people in the US over 30k, the NYC metro accounts for 65% of them. Hudson County, NJ alone surpasses the San Francisco MSA in >30k density. All four dense boroughs still more than double up Los Angeles' sum each.

New York: 6,919,220
Los Angeles: 599,822
Chicago: 470,391
San Francisco: 439,958
Philadelphia: 334,754
Boston: 311,585
Washington: 241,319
Miami: 156,904
Honolulu: 110,206
Seattle: 96,014
San Diego: 34,839
Houston: 32,092
Madison: 20,845

Honorable mention: Champaign-Urbana still at 15,719! That is comparable to San Jose at 17,145, and twice Baltimore at 8,223.

Baltimore has 3 tracts at 30k ppsm. Tract 1201 in NE downtown and then tracts 601 and 602 in Patterson Park.

The list stayed remarkably consistent order jumping from 20k to 30k. Tomorrow I might crunch NYC's numbers for higher levels, to see that national percentage climb even higher.

[mhays]

That's awesome.

What does 20k look like on the ground? Varies! It can be townhouses with back yards. Or bungalows coupled with multifamily on key arterials. Or a mishmash of parking lots, office buildings, and residential towers.

I find some 40k neighborhoods won't really feel complete until they hit 80k or whatever.

[craigs]

Originally Posted by ChiSoxRox

One more data dump tonight: going to 30k, NYC becomes more dominant.

Of the 10,656,582 people in the US over 30k, the NYC metro accounts for 65% of them. Hudson County, NJ alone surpasses the San Francisco MSA in >30k density. All four dense boroughs still more than double up Los Angeles' sum each.

New York: 6,919,220
Los Angeles: 599,822
Chicago: 470,391
San Francisco: 439,958
Philadelphia: 334,754
Boston: 311,585
Washington: 241,319
Miami: 156,904
Honolulu: 110,206
Seattle: 96,014
San Diego: 34,839
Houston: 32,092
Madison: 20,845

Honorable mention: Champaign-Urbana still at 15,719! That is comparable to San Jose at 17,145, and twice Baltimore at 8,223.

Baltimore has 3 tracts at 30k ppsm. Tract 1201 in NE downtown and then tracts 601 and 602 in Patterson Park.

The list stayed remarkably consistent order jumping from 20k to 30k. Tomorrow I might crunch NYC's numbers for higher levels, to see that national percentage climb even higher.

Yeah, NYC is the undisputed density champion of North America, truly head and shoulders above all others.

Would you be willing to query results for 10,000+ ppsm, at least for the top 10 maybe? I can't seem to get the thing to work for me.

[ChiSoxRox]

Originally Posted by craigs

Yeah, NYC is the undisputed density champion of North America, truly head and shoulders above all others.

Would you be willing to query results for 10,000+ ppsm, at least for the top 10 maybe? I can't seem to get the thing to work for me.

Certainly, although I won't have the time until this weekend.

For the query, here is a chart of FIPS codes. The first two digits are the state ID, and the last three are the county ID. Leading zeroes have to be included and the form breaks if you miss a closing quotation mark on each value.

[craigs]

Originally Posted by ChiSoxRox

Certainly, although I won't have the time until this weekend.

For the query, here is a chart of FIPS codes. The first two digits are the state ID, and the last three are the county ID. Leading zeroes have to be included and the form breaks if you miss a closing quotation mark on each value.

Thanks!

[wwmiv]

Weighted population densities for Austin and San Antonio MSAs (I.E. the density at which the average person lives in Austin and San Antonio).

Austin: 4,569 ppsm
San Antonio: 5,210 ppsm

Despite Austin having an "actual" urban core (as discussed above) and San Antonio lacking one, the average citizen in San Antonio lives at slightly higher density levels than the average person in Austin. This is probably ENTIRELY due to household size differences in the two metropolitan areas.

This is a big change from 2010 and a big shift in the trendline as well. San Antonio MSA was at 3,475 ppsm and Austin MSA was at 3,132 ppsm, both of which were actually decreases between 2000 and 2010. These are HUGE increases in density and are akin to the weighted densities of Seattle, Denver, and Baltimore in 2010, and also denser than were El Paso, Houston, or DFW at that time.

https://www.austincontrarian.com/aus...d-density.html

[streetscaper]

Originally Posted by ChiSoxRox

Uptown, Chicago away from the lake is a good example, with tracts on either side of 20k. This is a typical street, with multistory apartment buildings but still separation from the street and each other.

Compare to 10k, like intact parts of the bungalow belt with their single-family detached-but-still-close homes.

Going the other way, 30k is going to be a Lakeview street where you're starting to directly abut the sidewalk and each adjacent building.

Originally Posted by badrunner

20k: https://www.google.com/maps/@34.0792...7i16384!8i8192

40k: https://www.google.com/maps/@34.0646...7i16384!8i8192

100k: https://www.google.com/maps/@34.0458...7i16384!8i8192

Great thanks!

[streetscaper]

Originally Posted by ChiSoxRox

One more data dump tonight: going to 30k, NYC becomes more dominant.

Of the 10,656,582 people in the US over 30k, the NYC metro accounts for 65% of them.
New York: 6,919,220

Originally Posted by SIGSEGV

Total US population in census tracts above 10k density: 39,049,224
Total US population in census tracts above 20k density: 17,317,678
Total US population in census tracts above 30k density: 10,656,582
Total US population in census tracts above 40k density: 7,709,739
Total US population in census tracts above 50k density: 6,128,182
Total US population in census tracts above 60k density: 4,861,268
Total US population in census tracts above 70k density: 3,829,651
Total US population in census tracts above 80k density: 2,959,145
Total US population in census tracts above 90k density: 2,346,202
Total US population in census tracts above 100k density: 1,738,146
Total US population in census tracts above 110k density: 1,326,501
Total US population in census tracts above 120k density: 889,149
Total US population in census tracts above 130k density: 672,056
Total US population in census tracts above 140k density: 473,606
Total US population in census tracts above 150k density: 358,938
Total US population in census tracts above 160k density: 261,368
Total US population in census tracts above 170k density: 191,494
Total US population in census tracts above 180k density: 140,687
Total US population in census tracts above 190k density: 67,924
Total US population in census tracts above 200k density: 62,356

It seems even at 20k/sqmi, NYC still has 53% of US residents living at this density or higher

[Jawnadelphia]

It's probably already been mentioned on this thread but Philadelphia going back over the 1.6 million mark, and having its highest population in 40 years (the 1980 census) is in many ways a miracle. I grew up with so many people in the Philly area telling me Philly is Detroit, a dying/dead city--and nothing would ever change that. And in the mid-90's, it really did look that way (read Buzz Bissinger's, A Prayer for the City - for a glimpse into 1990s Philly). Don't get me wrong, Philadelphia still has a lot of problems, it's the poorest big city in America, but the renaissance of Center City and the surrounding neighborhoods over the last 20 years has been remarkable.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Jawnadelphia

It's probably already been mentioned on this thread but Philadelphia going back over the 1.6 million mark, and having its highest population in 40 years (the 1980 census) is in many ways a miracle. I grew up with so many people in the Philly area telling me Philly is Detroit, a dying/dead city--and nothing would ever change that. And in the mid-90's, it really did look that way (read Buzz Bissinger's, A Prayer for the City - for a glimpse into 1990s Philly). Don't get me wrong, Philadelphia still has a lot of problems, it's the poorest big city in America, but the renaissance of Center City and the surrounding neighborhoods over the last 20 years has been remarkable.

Philadelphia and Detroit were/are fairly alike. Similar demographics, similar peak populations, similar densities, both socked by longterm post-industrial declines, both dealing with racial strife, both undermined by heavy flight/suburbanization. I guess you could say if Detroit had pneumonia, Philly had the flu.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by subterranean

I guess this is a game Michigan can’t play. Ingham County (Lansing/East Lansing) surprisingly has the most above 20k ppsm, home of MSU. It’s a suburban campus and bested Washtenaw (U-M Ann Arbor - an urban campus).

East Lansing's 20k tracts are on MSU's campus.

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Philadelphia and Detroit were/are fairly alike. Similar demographics, similar peak populations, similar densities, both socked by longterm post-industrial declines, both dealing with racial strife, both undermined by heavy flight/suburbanization. I guess you could say if Detroit had pneumonia, Philly had the flu.

Does St. Louis have coronavirus?

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by wwmiv

Does St. Louis have coronavirus?

I think Detroit and St. Louis have the same pneumonia... lol

[summersm343]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Philadelphia and Detroit were/are fairly alike. Similar demographics, similar peak populations, similar densities, both socked by longterm post-industrial declines, both dealing with racial strife, both undermined by heavy flight/suburbanization. I guess you could say if Detroit had pneumonia, Philly had the flu.

Philadelphia fared far better though. It's preserved much more of it's building stock and is recovering quicker. Part of this is to do with location (Philadelphia being the cheapest major metro area in the Bos-Wash Corridor), and part of it I think is Detroit was basically a one industry city (automobile), so it fell harder. Philadelphia was more diversified, so while post industrialization and suburbanization hit the city hard, it wasn't totally screwed and was able to cling to life by it's other industries.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by summersm343

Philadelphia fared far better though. It's preserved much more of it's building stock and is recovering quicker. Part of this is to do with location (Philadelphia being the cheapest major metro area in the Bos-Wash Corridor), and part of it I think is Detroit was basically a one industry city (automobile), so it fell harder. Philadelphia was more diversified, so while post industrialization and suburbanization hit the city hard, it wasn't totally screwed and was able to cling to life by it's other industries.

Yes, Philadelphia has absolutely fared much better. Especially post-2000. The analogy was much more relevant pre-2000, but I'm old enough to remember when the comparison made a lot of sense.

[ChiSoxRox]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Yes, Philadelphia has absolutely fared much better. Especially post-2000. The analogy was much more relevant pre-2000, but I'm old enough to remember when the comparison made a lot of sense.

Yeah, seems like Baltimore is the NE city with the flu now. Its population drop even accelerated from last decade and the density calcs made clear that it's hollowed out so much more than the other BosWash nodes.

Philly does, indeed, still have a shitload of problems not so different from those of Detroit, Baltimore, and St. Louis. but Philly also has the advantage of being able to draw people priced out of the more expensive cities in both the dense BalWash and NE corridors. I don't know what Baltimore's excuse is, but St. Louis and Detroit don't have that.