HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #3041  
Old Posted Aug 28, 2021, 9:12 PM
ChiSoxRox's Avatar
ChiSoxRox ChiSoxRox is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 2,512
Quote:
Originally Posted by wwmiv View Post
If you calculate states, you will already have the data to calculate nationally.
Ah, that is true. Take each state's sum of the population-density products (or, take the WPD and multiply out the state population to get the numerator back), sum the state products, then divide that sum by the national population.

When I work up the courage to wade through California, Texas, and company to compile the state WPDs, I'll include the national value as well.
__________________
Like the pre-war masonry skyscrapers? Then check out my list of the tallest buildings in 1950.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3042  
Old Posted Aug 28, 2021, 9:16 PM
Steely Dan's Avatar
Steely Dan Steely Dan is online now
devout Pizzatarian
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Lincoln Square, Chicago
Posts: 30,476
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChiSoxRox View Post
Weighted population density for MSAs ranked #2 to #10 in population

Los Angeles....12,169.4
Chicago....9,011.9
Boston....8,987.9
Miami....8,489.2
Philadelphia....8,258.5
Washington....7,296.1
Houston....4,606.4
Dallas....4,274.7
Atlanta....2,686.4

By % change from 2010:

Atlanta....+23.6% (+513.4 ppsm) !!!!
Miami...+14.8% (+1093.9)
Washington....+14.2% (+908.0)
Boston....+12.6% (+1007.8)
Houston....+12.1% (+496.8)
Dallas....+9.3% (+365.4)
Philadelphia....+6.2% (+485.3)
Chicago....+4.6% (+398.5)
Los Angeles....+0.5% (+55.5)

NYC is almost certainly positive as well, meaning the top ten metros all became more dense past decade. That is likely the first time in several decades that holds true. I might even wager that would be the first time since 1930, since the Depression caused several cities to dip and by the 1950 census the suburbs are in full bloom.

Especially outstanding densification in Atlanta! Los Angeles on the other hand was effectively flat; perhaps a balance between the core adding density versus household sizes in places like Santa Ana dropping?

The list over 6k, for the top 100 MSAs in population.
  1. New York: north of 30k
  2. San Francisco....13,267.8
  3. Honolulu....12,581.9
  4. Los Angeles....12,169.4
  5. San Jose....9,075.9
  6. Chicago....9,011.9
  7. Boston....8,987.9
  8. Miami....8,489.2
  9. Philadelphia....8,258.5
  10. San Diego....7,381.9
  11. Washington....7,296.1
  12. Las Vegas....7,031.7
  13. Seattle....6,146.3

Once I get NYC's number, I'll post the full top 100 list.

Outstanding work! Thank you so much for all of the number crunching. As so many others have said, you are SSP at its finest!


And I'm very glad to see Chicagoland's WPD actually increase for the first time since the days when all of my grandparents were young children growing up in the city.

Their and their children's generations fucked shit up for a good long while around here on that front, but hopefully we're finally at the tipping point where everyone and their brother doesn't just automatically stampede out to the furthest flung cornfield with 3,000 SF vinyl boxes and "good" schools as soon as they start procreating like folks did in the bad old days.
__________________
"Missing middle" housing can be a great middle ground for many middle class families.

Last edited by Steely Dan; Aug 28, 2021 at 9:56 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3043  
Old Posted Aug 28, 2021, 9:32 PM
ChiSoxRox's Avatar
ChiSoxRox ChiSoxRox is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 2,512
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Dan View Post
Outstanding work! Thank you so much for all of the number crunching. As so many others have said, you are SSP at its finest!


And I'm very glad to see Chicagoland's WPD actually increase for the first time since all of my grandparents were young children growing up in the city.
Thanks! This work is far more rewarding with an audience.

Seeing the top 10 all positive drives home how great the results for cities were from this Census. Detroit's positive change in WPD is likely thanks to the immigration-fueled surge in Hamtramck. There are 7 tracts over 15k in Wayne County. 5 are in Hamtramck, which posted 27% growth this Census!

So the largest metro to drop in WPD is Baltimore, once again the negative exception in BosWash.

(I am presuming NYC's WPD grew, but that seems pretty safe based on the SF/Boston/Philly pattern. Indeed, I am going to guess 34k for NYC's number, almost 10% growth from 2010.)
__________________
Like the pre-war masonry skyscrapers? Then check out my list of the tallest buildings in 1950.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3044  
Old Posted Aug 28, 2021, 9:40 PM
Quixote's Avatar
Quixote Quixote is online now
Inveterate Angeleno
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 7,568
Only read through about half of the posts since the Census numbers were released.

LA’s slowdown is absolutely due to the housing shortage — which has obviously increased the cost of living (duh), but also exacerbated the homelessness problem such that it’s now overtaken traffic as an issue. Traffic and air quality have been complaints for generations, the latter actually having improved over the course of high-growth decades. They might have been contributing factors, but certainly not the tipping points.

Someone said that LA metro’s housing costs are lower than that of the Bay Area be SD. That’s because LA (County) has large swaths of impoverished, undesirable neighborhoods that drag the median prices down. If we’re talking about buying in a safe neighborhood with good public schools, LA’s the least affordable when you also factor in stagnant wages. It speaks volumes when the cheapest single-family home in Highland Park (which only started gentrifying in the early 2010s) is $700K (with sale pending), and only because it’s a fixer-upper located on a busy street.

How about this quaint gem in Alhambra?

https://www.coldwellbankerhomes.com/.../pid_42952359/
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3045  
Old Posted Aug 28, 2021, 9:58 PM
Camelback Camelback is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Feb 2021
Posts: 1,231
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChiSoxRox View Post
The weighted population density for metros #11-25.

San Francisco....13,267.8
San Diego....7,381.9
Seattle....6,146.3
Denver....5,418.0
Baltimore....5,144.7
Portland....5,058.8
Phoenix....4,807.7
Riverside....4,636.9
Detroit....3,906.9
Minneapolis....3,784.4
Tampa Bay....3,616.6
San Antonio....3,424.0
Orlando....3,275.7
St. Louis....2,738.0
Charlotte....1,996.1
First off, thanks for crunching numbers all week!

I've been trying to keep up with all the posts and all of the information that you and others keep dishing out!

How did you find the weighted density for each city? Was that all by hand?

Also, Phoenix and most of the West's cities are showing large gains and solid weighted density positions!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3046  
Old Posted Aug 28, 2021, 10:46 PM
iheartthed iheartthed is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: New York
Posts: 10,414
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Dan View Post
Well that sure is an unexpected one.

Detroit city proper lost another 10% over the past decade, but the MSA got a little bit denser overall?

Milwaukee, Baltimore, Cleveland, and Pittsburgh all lost central city population as well, and got a little less dense at the MSA level, but somehow metro Detroit bucked that trend. Strange.
I think this might be a fluke of using census tracts to calculate the weighted density. I calculated the Detroit tri-county weighted density using municipal boundaries and it actually went down, but just slightly. While doing the calculation, I noticed that some of the densest tracts in the tri-county are just suburban apartment complexes.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3047  
Old Posted Aug 29, 2021, 1:17 AM
ChiSoxRox's Avatar
ChiSoxRox ChiSoxRox is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 2,512
Quote:
Originally Posted by Camelback View Post
First off, thanks for crunching numbers all week!

I've been trying to keep up with all the posts and all of the information that you and others keep dishing out!

How did you find the weighted density for each city? Was that all by hand?

Also, Phoenix and most of the West's cities are showing large gains and solid weighted density positions!
Using the most recent MSA definitions, I used the Census query tool to pull population and density for each census tract in a county or group of counties. To get the FIPS code, you can use a table. Searching on the map is more fun IMO. For example, this pulls the tracts in four New Jersey counties in the MSA. I dump the pull into Word, split the columns, strip off the labels, pop into Excel, and multiply the two columns together. (I check: does the population total equal the right number, checking with the map? If so, I've got the right pull.) Sum up the multiplication column. If an MSA is multiple pulls (Phoenix took three), I save the multiplication total to sum with the other pulls.

Once I have the final "density times population" sum, divide that cell by the population cell. Voila, weighted population density.
__________________
Like the pre-war masonry skyscrapers? Then check out my list of the tallest buildings in 1950.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3048  
Old Posted Aug 29, 2021, 1:30 AM
ChiSoxRox's Avatar
ChiSoxRox ChiSoxRox is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 2,512
Start spreading the news...

New York MSA: 33,787.5 people per square mile.

+8.1% (2,536.1 ppsm) from 2010. The goliath added Atlanta's average density in ten years.

New York City is so utterly out of scale that if you stripped the four dense boroughs away, i.e. just the suburbs and Staten Island, suburban New York is still at 9,556 ppsm, higher than Chicago or Boston.

Add in Queens alone of the dense boroughs, and New York is already #1 in weighted density without any of Manhattan, Brooklyn, or the Bronx.

The 6k club:
  1. New York: 33,787.5
  2. San Francisco....13,267.8
  3. Honolulu....12,581.9
  4. Los Angeles....12,169.4
  5. San Jose....9,075.9
  6. Chicago....9,011.9
  7. Boston....8,987.9
  8. Miami....8,489.2
  9. Philadelphia....8,258.5
  10. San Diego....7,381.9
  11. Washington....7,296.1
  12. Las Vegas....7,031.7
  13. Seattle....6,146.3

Oh, and NYC proper's weighted density? 65,299 ppsm!

San Francisco proper has a weighted density of 33,572 ppsm, meaning the entire New York metropolitan area has a higher weighted density than the city of San Francisco!

The full 1M+ list:

Weighted population density for MSAs over 1 million:
  1. New York: 33,787.5
  2. San Francisco....13,267.8
  3. Honolulu....12,581.9
  4. Los Angeles....12,169.4
  5. San Jose....9,075.9
  6. Chicago....9,011.9
  7. Boston....8,987.9
  8. Miami....8,489.2
  9. Philadelphia....8,258.5
  10. San Diego....7,381.9
  11. Washington....7,296.1
  12. Las Vegas....7,031.7
  13. Seattle....6,146.3
  14. Denver....5,418.0
  15. Providence....5,204.6
  16. Baltimore....5,144.7
  17. Salt Lake City....5,070.9
  18. Portland....5,058.8
  19. Milwaukee....5,023.7
  20. Sacramento....5,002.7
  21. Phoenix....4,807.7
  22. Riverside....4,636.9
  23. Houston....4,606.4
  24. New Orleans....4,577.0
  25. Fresno....4,518.4
  26. Buffalo....4,348.8
  27. Dallas....4,274.7
  28. Detroit....3,906.9
  29. Minneapolis....3,784.4
  30. Cleveland....3,676.9
  31. Tampa Bay....3,616.6
  32. Columbus....3,605.8
  33. Virginia Beach....3,580.8
  34. Austin....3,565.3
  35. San Antonio....3,424.0
  36. Tucson....3,285.2
  37. Orlando....3,275.7
  38. Hartford....3,195.3
  39. Pittsburgh....2,970.0
  40. Rochester....2,948.2
  41. St. Louis....2,738.0
  42. Atlanta....2,686.4
  43. Louisville....2,686.3
  44. Cincinnati....2,658.2
  45. Oklahoma City....2,647.3
  46. Richmond....2,590.4
  47. Kansas City....2,561.4
  48. Indianapolis....2,457.3
  49. Jacksonville....2,431.3
  50. Grand Rapids....2,413.3
  51. Memphis....2,339.4
  52. Tulsa....2,167.3
  53. Raleigh....2,166.8
  54. Charlotte....1,996.1
  55. Nashville....1,943.3
  56. Birmingham....1,402.6
__________________
Like the pre-war masonry skyscrapers? Then check out my list of the tallest buildings in 1950.

Last edited by ChiSoxRox; Aug 29, 2021 at 6:23 AM. Reason: Uncloak list
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3049  
Old Posted Aug 29, 2021, 2:34 AM
Steely Dan's Avatar
Steely Dan Steely Dan is online now
devout Pizzatarian
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Lincoln Square, Chicago
Posts: 30,476
^ it's official, you are now an SSP urban stat nerd God!

Thank you so much for your herculean effort to process all of that data so that the rest of us didn't have to.

Not that we really needed any more evidence to bolster NYC's unquestionable status of "utterly next level in every possible way" in the urban density game within the US, but it's always interesting to see its complete dominance in the category framed in new ways.



Also I missed it earlier, but seeing the whole 1M+ MSA list ordered by WPD for the first time now, the discrepancy between Providence and Hartford really stuck out to me. Because I'm not from bos-wash, I kinda mentally lump both of them into the same "totally overshadowed MSAs of bos-wash" box.

But there's a pretty consequential 2,000 ppsm difference between them. Providence is up near the top just ahead of Baltimore (and #7 in the nation if we disregard the "hard-edged" western MSAs), while Hartford is down at #38 with the likes of Orlando. I wouldn't have expected that.
__________________
"Missing middle" housing can be a great middle ground for many middle class families.

Last edited by Steely Dan; Aug 29, 2021 at 4:13 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3050  
Old Posted Aug 29, 2021, 2:48 AM
Steely Dan's Avatar
Steely Dan Steely Dan is online now
devout Pizzatarian
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Lincoln Square, Chicago
Posts: 30,476
One other thought/request:

Many Cali forumers often decry how the CB splits SF & SJ and LA & IE into separate MSAs. How does the WPD density picture change for those two areas if you combine those respective MSAs into single ones?

SF doesn't look like it would drop a ton because SJ already has a pretty damn high WPD by itself, but LA looks like it might be brought down a couple thousand if you glom the IE onto it.
__________________
"Missing middle" housing can be a great middle ground for many middle class families.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3051  
Old Posted Aug 29, 2021, 3:17 AM
ChiSoxRox's Avatar
ChiSoxRox ChiSoxRox is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 2,512
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Dan View Post
^ it's official, you are now an SSP urban stat nerd God!

Thank you so much for your herculean effort to process all of that data so that the rest of us didn't have to.

Not that we really needed any more evidence to bolster NYC's unquestionable status of "utterly next level" in the urban density game within the US, but it's always interesting to see its complete dominance in the category framed in new ways.



Also I missed it earlier, but seeing the whole 1M+ MSA list ordered by WPD for the first time now, the discrepancy between Providence and Hartford really stuck out to me. Because I'm not from bos-wash, I kinda mentally lump both of them into the same "totally overshadowed MSAs of bos-wash" box.

But there's a pretty consequential 2,000 ppsm difference between them. Providence is up near the top just ahead of Baltimore (and #7 in the nation if we disregard the "hard-edged" western MSAs), while Hartford is down at #38 with the likes of Orlando. I wouldn't have expected that.


Thanks for the kind words. I did really want to see how the big metros shook out, but this thread's interest helped with motivation.

Hartford is one of the more shrunken Northeast cities, and was iirc the second largest in BosWash to still shrink in 2020, after Baltimore. Hartford proper has several <5k tracts interspersed between the 15k+ needed to really pull up the WPD, while its suburbs quickly drop to 2k ppsm or less. New Britain and Storrs have one tract each over 10k, while whole suburban towns don't touch 5k. Hartford proper is also only 60% of Providence proper's size -- a smaller core in the first place.

Meanwhile, Providence's MSA also inclues Bristol County, MA -- New Bedford and Fall River, meaning Providence MSA has three dense cores to work with. Providence proper -- growing 7% -- is a quilt of 10k and 20k tracts with the edges staying above 5k, while New Bedford and Fall River also have impressive density in their cores. Then, just eyeballing the Census map, Rhode Island suburbia looks more compact with a quicker gradient to rural fields than Connecticut cul-de-sacs.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Dan View Post
One other thought/request:

Many Cali forumers often decry how the CB splits SF & SJ and LA & IE into separate MSAs. How does the WPD density picture change for those two areas if you combine those respective MSAs into single ones?

SF doesn't look like it would drop a ton because SJ already has a pretty damn high WPD by itself, but LA looks like it might be brought down a couple thousand if you glom the IE onto it.
SF + SJ: 12,025 ppsm
LA + IE: 10,255 ppsm

Combining MSAs isn't tricky: (WPD_1 * Pop_1 + WPD_2 * Pop_2)/(Pop_1 + Pop_2)

Finally: What bastion of urbanity is the biggest MSA to have a WPD that doesn't even clear 1,000? Turns out it's a place that likely sees a few New Yorkers:

Myrtle Beach, SC - 958.2 ppsm.
__________________
Like the pre-war masonry skyscrapers? Then check out my list of the tallest buildings in 1950.

Last edited by ChiSoxRox; Aug 29, 2021 at 3:31 AM. Reason: <1000 ppsm title
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3052  
Old Posted Aug 29, 2021, 4:09 AM
Steely Dan's Avatar
Steely Dan Steely Dan is online now
devout Pizzatarian
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Lincoln Square, Chicago
Posts: 30,476
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChiSoxRox View Post

SF + SJ: 12,025 ppsm
LA + IE: 10,255 ppsm
Thanks.

So it wouldn't really change a great deal rankings-wise. Honolulu would leapfrog a combined SF/SJ into the #2 spot, a combined LA/IE would remain at #4, and everyone else below LA would bounce up a spot with SJ merged into SF.
__________________
"Missing middle" housing can be a great middle ground for many middle class families.

Last edited by Steely Dan; Aug 29, 2021 at 4:22 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3053  
Old Posted Aug 29, 2021, 4:21 AM
craigs's Avatar
craigs craigs is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2019
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 8,045
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChiSoxRox View Post


Thanks for the kind words. I did really want to see how the big metros shook out, but this thread's interest helped with motivation.

Hartford is one of the more shrunken Northeast cities, and was iirc the second largest in BosWash to still shrink in 2020, after Baltimore. Hartford proper has several <5k tracts interspersed between the 15k+ needed to really pull up the WPD, while its suburbs quickly drop to 2k ppsm or less. New Britain and Storrs have one tract each over 10k, while whole suburban towns don't touch 5k. Hartford proper is also only 60% of Providence proper's size -- a smaller core in the first place.

Meanwhile, Providence's MSA also inclues Bristol County, MA -- New Bedford and Fall River, meaning Providence MSA has three dense cores to work with. Providence proper -- growing 7% -- is a quilt of 10k and 20k tracts with the edges staying above 5k, while New Bedford and Fall River also have impressive density in their cores. Then, just eyeballing the Census map, Rhode Island suburbia looks more compact with a quicker gradient to rural fields than Connecticut cul-de-sacs.



SF + SJ: 12,025 ppsm
LA + IE: 10,255 ppsm

Combining MSAs isn't tricky: (WPD_1 * Pop_1 + WPD_2 * Pop_2)/(Pop_1 + Pop_2)

Finally: What bastion of urbanity is the biggest MSA to have a WPD that doesn't even clear 1,000? Turns out it's a place that likely sees a few New Yorkers:

Myrtle Beach, SC - 958.2 ppsm.
Thanks for all your hard work. Do you think you might eventually get around to doing weighted density for CSAs?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3054  
Old Posted Aug 29, 2021, 4:56 AM
ChiSoxRox's Avatar
ChiSoxRox ChiSoxRox is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 2,512
Quote:
Originally Posted by craigs View Post
Thanks for all your hard work. Do you think you might eventually get around to doing weighted density for CSAs?
Certainly, especially since a CSA weighted density is quick to calculate from the component MSAs using the formula in my last post. So for say Atlanta's CSA I just have to calculate the small MSAs/muSAs along the edge, without needing to re-pull the 3947388 counties in Atlanta's MSA.
__________________
Like the pre-war masonry skyscrapers? Then check out my list of the tallest buildings in 1950.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3055  
Old Posted Aug 29, 2021, 2:57 PM
Crawford Crawford is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NYC/Polanco, DF
Posts: 32,057
Hartford is also significantly wealthier than Providence which may mean a larger share of large homes on large lots. Providence is very much a working class metro, Hartford very much a professional services metro.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3056  
Old Posted Aug 29, 2021, 4:05 PM
wwmiv wwmiv is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Austin -> San Antonio -> Columbia -> San Antonio -> Chicago -> Austin -> Denver -> Austin
Posts: 5,530
Urban Areas

https://www.federalregister.gov/docu...posed-criteria

Quote:
(3) Proposed Urban Area Criteria for the 2020 Census
The proposed criteria outlined herein apply to the United States,[3] Puerto Rico, and the Island Areas of American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, Guam, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. The Census Bureau proposes the following criteria and characteristics for use in identifying the areas that will qualify for designation as urban areas for use in tabulating data from the 2020 Census, the American Community Survey (ACS), the Puerto Rico Community Survey, and potentially other Census Bureau censuses and surveys.

A. 2020 Census Urban Area Definitions
For the 2020 Census, an urban area will comprise a densely developed core of census blocks [4] that meet minimum housing unit density requirements, along with adjacent territory containing non-residential urban land uses as well as other lower density territory included to link outlying densely settled territory with the densely settled core. To qualify as an urban area, the territory identified according to the proposed criteria must encompass at least 4,000 housing units or at least 10,000 persons. The term “rural” encompasses all population, housing, and territory not included within an urban area.

As a result of the urban area delineation process, an incorporated place or census designated place (CDP) may be partly inside and partly outside an urban area. Any census geographic areas, with the exception of census blocks, may be partly within and partly outside an urban area.

All proposed criteria based on land area, housing unit density, and population, reflect the information contained in the Census Bureau's Master Address File/Topologically Integrated Geographic Encoding and Referencing (MAF/TIGER) Database (MTDB) at the time of the initial delineation. All calculations of housing unit density include only land; the areas of water contained within census blocks are not used in density calculations. Housing unit, population, and worker flow data used in the urban area delineation process will be those published by the Census Bureau for all public and official uses.

B. Proposed Urban Area Delineation Criteria
The Census Bureau proposes to define urban areas primarily on the basis of housing unit density measured at the census block level of geography. The 385 housing units per square mile density threshold utilized in the delineation of urban areas is consistent with the 1,000 persons per square mile density used in the past, based on the 2019 ACS 1-year data average of an estimated 2.6 persons per household for the United States.

1. IDENTIFICATION OF INITIAL URBAN AREA CORES
The Census Bureau proposes to begin the delineation process by identifying and aggregating contiguous census blocks each having a housing unit density of at least 385 housing units per square mile. This aggregation of continuous census blocks would be known as the “initial urban area core.” The initial urban area core must encompass at least 385 housing units (consistent with the requirement for at least 1,000 people in the 2010 criteria).

After the initial urban area core is identified, additional census blocks would be included if it is adjacent to other qualifying territory and if it meets any of the following criteria:

a. It has a housing unit density of at least 385 housing units per square mile.

b. At least one-third of the census block consists of territory with a level of imperviousness of at least twenty percent,[5] and is compact in nature as defined by a shape index. A census block is considered compact when the shape index is at least 0.185 using the following formula: I = 4πA/P2 where I is the shape index, A is the area of the entity, and P is the perimeter of the entity.

c. At least one-third of the census block consists of territory with a level of imperviousness of at least twenty percent, and at least forty percent of its boundary is contiguous with qualifying territory.

The Census Bureau would apply proposed criteria 1.a, 1.b, and 1.c above until there are no blocks to add to the urban area. Any “holes” or remaining nonqualifying territory completely contained within an initial urban area core that is less than five square miles in area will qualify as urban via the criteria for inclusion of enclaves, as set forth below in the III. B. 5., subheading entitled, “5. Inclusion of Enclaves.”

2. INCLUSION OF GROUP QUARTERS
Census blocks containing institutional and non-institutional group quarters that are adjacent to census blocks qualifying based on the criteria outlined in step 1 above (“1. Identification of Initial Urban Area Cores”) will be included in the urban area. This criterion accounts for the fact that group quarters, such as college dormitories, are not considered housing units by the Start Printed Page 10241Census Bureau, but generally are part of the urban landscape.

3. INCLUSION OF NONCONTIGUOUS TERRITORY VIA HOPS AND JUMPS
Noncontiguous territory that meets the proposed housing density criteria specified in section B.1.a and b above, but is separated from an initial urban area core of 385 housing units or more, may be added via a hop along a road connection of no more than 0.5 miles. Multiple hops may be made along a single road connection, thus accounting for the nature of contemporary urban development, which often encompasses alternating patterns of residential and non-residential uses.

After adding territory to an initial urban area core via hop connections, the Census Bureau will identify all urban area cores that have a housing unit count of 577 or more (consistent with the requirement for at least 1,500 people in the 2010 criteria) and add other qualifying territory via a jump connection.[6] Jumps are used to connect densely settled noncontiguous territory separated from the urban area core by territory with low housing unit density measuring greater than 0.5 and no more than 1.5 road miles across. This process recognizes the existence of larger areas of non-residential uses or other territory with low housing unit density that do not provide a substantial barrier to interaction between outlying territory with high housing unit density and the urban area core. Because it is possible that any given densely developed area could qualify for inclusion in multiple cores via a jump connection, the identification of jumps in an automated process starts with the initial urban area core that has the largest total population and continues in descending order based on the total population of each initial urban area core. Only one jump is permitted along any given road connection. This limitation, which has been in place since the inception of the urban area delineation process for the 1950 Census, prevents the artificial extension of urban areas over large distances that result in the inclusion of communities that are not commonly perceived as connected to the particular initial urban area core. Exempted territory is not taken into account when measuring road distances across hop and jump corridors. In the case of both hops and jumps, the intervening, low density block or blocks are not included in the urban area.

4. INCLUSION OF NONCONTIGUOUS TERRITORY SEPARATED BY EXEMPTED TERRITORY
The Census Bureau proposes to identify and exempt territory in which residential development is substantially constrained or not possible due to either topographical or land use conditions.[7] Such exempted territory offsets urban development due to particular land use, land cover, or topographic conditions. For the 2020 Census, the Census Bureau proposes the following to be exempted territory:

Bodies of water; and
Wetlands (belonging to one of eight wetlands class definitions [8] )
Noncontiguous qualifying territory would be added to a core via a hop or jump when separated by exempted territory, provided that it meets the following criteria:

a. The road connection across the exempted territory (located on both sides of the road) is no greater than five miles, and

b. The total length of the road connection between the initial urban area core and the noncontiguous territory, including the exempt distance and non-exempt hop or jump distances, is also no greater than five miles.

The intervening, low density block or blocks of water or wetlands are not included in the urban area.

5. INCLUSION OF ENCLAVES
The Census Bureau will add enclaves (that is, nonqualifying area completely surrounded by area already qualified for inclusion as urban) within the urban area, provided that they are surrounded only by land area that qualified for inclusion in the urban area based on housing unit density criteria, and at least one of the following conditions is met:

a. The area of the enclave must be less than five square miles.

b. All area of the enclave is surrounded by territory that qualified for inclusion in the initial urban area core and is more than a straight-line distance of 1.5 miles from a land block that is not part of the urban area.

Additional enclaves will be identified and included within the urban area if:

a. The area of the enclave is less than five square miles,

b. The enclave is surrounded by both land that qualified for inclusion in the urban area and water, and

c. The length of the line of adjacency with the water is less than the length of the line of adjacency with the land.

6. INCLUSION OF AIRPORTS
After all territory has been added to the urban area core via hop and jump connections, and enclaves, the Census Bureau will then add whole census blocks that approximate the territory of airports, provided at least one of the blocks that represent the airport is within a distance of 0.5 miles of the edge of qualifying urban territory. An airport qualifies for inclusion if it is currently functional and one of the following criteria (per the Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA) Air Carrier Activity Information System [9] ) applies:

a. It is a qualified cargo airport.

b. It has an annual passenger enplanement of at least 2,500 in any year between 2011 and 2019.

7. ADDITIONAL NONRESIDENTIAL URBAN TERRITORY
The Census Bureau will identify additional nonresidential urban-related territory that is noncontiguous, yet near the urban area. The Census Bureau recognizes the existence of large commercial and/or industrial land uses that are separated from an urban area by a relatively thin “green buffer,” small amount of undeveloped territory, and/or a narrow census block required for tabulation (such as a water feature, offset boundary, road median, or area between a road and rail feature). The Census Bureau will review all groups of census blocks whose members qualify as urban via the impervious surface criteria set forth in Section 1.b, have a total area of at least 0.15 square miles,[10] and are within 0.25 miles of an urban area. A final review of these census blocks and surrounding territory [11] will Start Printed Page 10242determine whether to include this territory in an urban area.

8. SPLITTING LARGE AGGLOMERATIONS AND MERGING INDIVIDUAL URBAN AREAS
Population growth and redistribution coupled with the automated urban area delineation methodology that will be used for the 2020 Census may result in large agglomerations of continuously developed territory that may encompass territory defined as separate urban areas for the 2010 Census. If such results occur, the Census Bureau will apply split and merge criteria.

For the 2020 Census, the Census Bureau proposes using worker flow data (i.e., commuting flows) from the Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics (LEHD) Program to identify whether the agglomeration represents a single functionally integrated region or whether commuting patterns indicate the presence of distinct urban areas within the larger agglomeration. An agglomeration that encompasses two or more 2010 Census urban areas will be a candidate for splitting into smaller urban areas. This condition will trigger application of the following splitting criteria:

a. Each pair of 2010 Census urban areas will be analyzed to determine whether to split or to remain merged. The 2010 urban area with the smaller population will be analyzed in relation to the 2010 urban area with the larger population.

b. The 2010 Census urban area with the smaller population will remain in the agglomeration if at least 50 percent of its resident workers are employed within the larger 2010 Census urban area and at least 50 percent of the jobs in the smaller urban area are filled by workers residing within the larger 2010 Census urban area. If either of these conditions are not met, the smaller urban area will be split from the agglomeration and categorized based on the worker flow data.

c. The 2010 Census urban areas are organized into four categories:

1. Worker flows are 50 percent or more to or from another 2010 Census urban area, but not in both directions;

2. Worker flows are less than 50 percent internal, but also less than 50 percent with any other single 2010 Census urban area;

3. Adjacent 2010 Census urban areas that are in categories 1 or 2;

4. Worker flows are 50 percent or more internal to the 2010 Census urban area.

d. Community detection is performed on the LEHD worker flow data using the Leiden Algorithm to identify commuter-based communities. The resulting communities are used to adjust the 2010 Census urban area split boundaries based on thresholds set to each of the four categories. However, for all categories, at least 50 percent of the worker flow must be internal to all resulting urban areas. The boundary between two urban areas may also be modified to avoid splitting an incorporated place, CDP, or minor civil division (MCD) between two urban areas at the time of delineation.

e. Upon running the community detection algorithm, the resulting communities are used to adjust the 2010 Census urban area split boundaries, and to identify the potential boundary between the resulting 2020 urban areas, starting with urban areas in the first category (below) and progressing to the fourth category (below).

Category 1. For the smaller of each urban area pair, adjacent communities (identified by the Leiden Algorithm) are added from the larger urban area until the internal worker flow of the smaller urban area is greater than 50 percent. Communities can only be added to the smaller urban area until the total housing unit count increases by less than 50 percent.
Category 2. For the smaller of each urban area pair, adjacent communities (identified by the Leiden Algorithm) are added from the larger urban area until the internal worker flow is greater than 50 percent.
Category 3. If there is greater than 10 percent worker flow between adjacent urban areas in categories 1 and 2, then they will be combined as one urban area and the criteria of the lowest category will be applied.
Category 4. Split boundaries will be adjusted to their nearest community boundary.
9. ASSIGNING URBAN AREA TITLES
A clear, unambiguous title based on commonly recognized place names helps provide context for data users and ensures that the general location and setting of the urban area can be clearly identified and understood. The title of an urban area identifies the place(s) that is (are) the most populated within the urban area. All population requirements for places and MCDs apply to the portion of the entity's population that is within the specific urban area being named. The Census Bureau proposes the following criteria to determine the title of an urban area:

a. The most populous incorporated place within the urban area that has a population of 10,000 or more will be listed first in the urban area title.

b. If there is no incorporated place with a population of 10,000 or more, the urban area title will include the name of the most populous incorporated place or CDP within the urban area that has at least 2,500 people.

c. Up to two additional places, in descending order of population size, may be included in the title of an urban area, provided that the place meets one of the following criteria:

a. The place has 250,000 or more people.

b. The place has at least 2,500 people, and that population is at least two-thirds of the urban area population of the most populous place in the urban area.

If the urban area does not contain a place of at least 2,500 people, the Census Bureau will consider the name of the incorporated place, CDP, or MCD with the largest total population in the urban area, or a local name recognized for the area by the United States Geological Survey's (USGS) Geographic Names Information System (GNIS), with preference given to names also recognized by the United States Postal Service (USPS). The urban area title will include the USPS abbreviation of the name of each state or statistically equivalent entity in which the urban area is located or extends. The order of the state abbreviations is the same as the order of the related place names in the urban area title.[12]

If a single place or MCD qualifies as the title of more than one urban area, the largest urban area will use the name of the place or MCD. The smaller urban area will have a title consisting of the place or MCD name and the direction (North, South, East, or West) of the smaller urban area as it relates geographically to the larger urban area with the same place or MCD name.

If any title of an urban area duplicates the title of another urban area within the same state, or uses the name of an incorporated place, CDP, or MCD that is duplicated within a state, the name of the county that has most of the population of the largest place or MCD is appended, in parentheses, after the duplicate place or MCD name for each urban area. If there is no incorporated place, CDP, or MCD name in the urban area title, the name of the county having the largest total population residing in the urban area will be appended to the title.
Extensive quoting here breaks no forum rules, as there is not copyright as stake (it is the Federal Register -- they don't care).

See some examples of the new method applied here.

--------

Metropolitan Areas:

https://www.federalregister.gov/docu...tistical-areas

Quote:
E. 2020 Standards for Delineating Core Based Statistical Areas, and Key Terms
A Core Based Statistical Area (CBSA) is a geographic entity associated with at least one core of 10,000 or more population, plus adjacent territory that has a high degree of social and economic integration with the core as measured by commuting ties. The standards delineate two categories of CBSAs: Metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs) and micropolitan statistical areas (µSAs). CBSAs consist of counties and equivalent entities throughout the United States and Puerto Rico. Throughout these standards, the term “county” is used to refer to counties and county-equivalents.

The purpose of the CBSA standards is to provide nationally consistent delineations for collecting, tabulating, and publishing Federal statistics for a set of geographic areas. The Office of Management and Budget establishes and maintains these areas solely for statistical purposes as part of their statutory responsibilities to coordinate and ensure the efficiency and effectiveness of the Federal statistical system.

CBSAs are not designed as a geographic framework for nonstatistical activities or for use in program funding formulas. The CBSA classification is not an urban-rural classification; MSAs, µSAs, and many counties outside CBSAs contain both urban and rural populations.

The following criteria apply to all CBSAs nationwide. Commuting and employment estimates are derived from the Census Bureau's American Community Survey. Whenever American Community Survey commuting and employment data are referred to below, the criteria use point estimates and do not incorporate a measure of sampling variability of the estimates.

Section 1. Population Size Requirements for Qualification of Core Based Statistical Areas
Each CBSA must have a Census Bureau-delineated Urban Area of at least 10,000 population.

Section 2. Central Counties
The central county or counties of a CBSA are those counties that:

(a) Have at least 50 percent of their population in Urban Areas of at least 10,000 population; or

(b) Have within their boundaries a population of at least 5,000 located in a single Urban Area of at least 10,000 population.

A central county is associated with the Urban Area that accounts for the largest portion of the county's population. The central counties associated with a particular Urban Area are grouped to form a single cluster of central counties for purposes of measuring commuting to and from potentially qualifying outlying counties.

Section 3. Outlying Counties
A county qualifies as an outlying county of a CBSA if it meets the following commuting requirements:

(a) At least 25 percent of the workers living in the county work in the central county or counties of the CBSA; or

(b) At least 25 percent of the employment in the county is accounted for by workers who reside in the central county or counties of the CBSA.

A county may be included in only one CBSA. If a county qualifies as a central county of one CBSA and as outlying in another, it falls within the CBSA in which it is a central county. A county that qualifies as outlying to multiple CBSAs falls within the CBSA with which it has the strongest commuting tie, as measured by either 3(a) or 3(b) above. The counties included in a CBSA must be contiguous; if a county is not contiguous with other counties in the CBSA, it will not fall within the CBSA.

Section 4. Merging of Adjacent Core Based Statistical Areas
Two adjacent CBSAs will merge to form one CBSA if the central county or counties (as a group) of one CBSA qualify as outlying to the central county or counties (as a group) of the other CBSA using the measures and thresholds stated in 3(a) and 3(b) above.

Section 5. Identification of Principal Cities
The principal city (or cities) of a CBSA will include:

(a) The largest incorporated place with a 2020 Census population of at least 10,000 in the CBSA or, if no incorporated place of at least 10,000 population is present in the CBSA, the largest incorporated place or census designated place in the CBSA; and

(b) Any additional incorporated place or census designated place with a 2020 Census population of at least 250,000 or in which 100,000 or more persons work; and

(c) Any additional incorporated place or census designated place with a 2020 Census population of at least 50,000, but less than 250,000, and in which the number of workers working in the place meets or exceeds the number of workers living in the place; and

(d) Any additional incorporated place or census designated place with a 2020 Census population of at least 10,000, but less than 50,000, and at least one-third the population size of the largest place, and in which the number of workers working in the place meets or exceeds the number of workers living in the place.

Section 6. Categories and Terminology
A CBSA is categorized based on the population of the largest Urban Area within the CBSA. Categories of CBSAs are: Metropolitan statistical areas, based on Urban Areas of 50,000 or more population, and micropolitan statistical areas, based on Urban Areas of at least 10,000 population but less than 50,000 population. Counties that do not fall within CBSAs will represent “outside core based statistical areas.”

Section 7. Divisions of Metropolitan Statistical Areas
An MSA containing a single Urban Area with a population of at least 2.5 million may be subdivided to form smaller groupings of counties referred to as metropolitan divisions. A county qualifies as a “main county” of a metropolitan division if 65 percent or more of workers living in the county also work within the county and the ratio of the number of workers working in the county to the number of workers living in the county is at least 0.75. A county qualifies as a “secondary county” if 50 percent or more, but less than 65 percent, of workers living in the county also work within the county and the ratio of the number of workers working in the county to the number of workers living in the county is at least 0.75.

A main county automatically serves as the basis for a metropolitan division. For a secondary county to qualify as the basis for forming a metropolitan division, it must join with either a contiguous secondary county or a contiguous main county with which it has the highest employment interchange Start Printed Page 37777measure of 15 or more (where the employment interchange measure is the sum of the percentage of workers living in the smaller entity who work in the larger entity and the percentage of employment in the smaller entity that is accounted for by workers who reside in the larger entity). After all main counties and secondary counties are identified and grouped (if appropriate), each additional county that already has qualified for inclusion in the MSA falls within the metropolitan division associated with the main/secondary county or counties with which the county at issue has the highest employment interchange measure. Counties in a metropolitan division must be contiguous.

Section 8. Combining Adjacent Core Based Statistical Areas
(a) Any two adjacent CBSAs will form a combined statistical area if the employment interchange measure between the two areas is at least 15.

(b) The CBSAs thus combined will also continue to be recognized as individual CBSAs within the combined statistical area.

Section 9. Titles of Core Based Statistical Areas, Metropolitan Divisions, and Combined Statistical Areas
(a) The title of a CBSA will include the name of its principal city with the largest 2020 Census population. If there are multiple principle cities, the names of the second-largest and (if present) third-largest principle cities will appear in the title in order of descending population size. If the principal city with the largest 2020 Census population is a census designated place, the name of the largest incorporated place of at least 10,000 population that also is a principal city will appear first in the title followed by the name of the census designated place. If the principal city with the largest 2020 Census population is a census designated place, and there is no incorporated place of at least 10,000 population that also is a principal city, the name of that census designated place principal city will appear first in the title.

(b) The title of a metropolitan division will include the name of the principal city with the largest 2020 Census population located in the metropolitan division. If there are multiple principle cities, the names of the second-largest and (if present) third-largest principle cities will appear in the title in order of descending population size. If there are no principle cities located in the metropolitan division, the title of the metropolitan division will use the names of up to three counties in order of descending 2020 Census population size.

(c) The title of a combined statistical area will include the names of the two largest principle cities in the combination and the name of the third-largest principal city, if present. If the combined statistical area title duplicates that of one of its component CBSAs, the name of the third-most-populous principal city will be dropped from the title of the Combined Statistical Area.

(d) Titles also will include the names of any State in which the area is located.

Section 10. Updating Schedule
(a) The Office of Management and Budget will delineate CBSAs in 2023 based on 2020 Census data and 2016-2020 American Community Survey five-year estimates. Release of these delineations will take place during June 2023.

(b) In the 2023 delineations and in subsequent years, the Office of Management and Budget will designate a new µSA if:

(1) A city that is outside any existing CBSA has a Census Bureau special census count of 10,000 to 49,999 population, or a population estimate of 10,000 to 49,999 for two consecutive years from the Census Bureau's Population Estimates Program, or

(2) A Census Bureau special census results in the delineation of an Urban Area of 10,000 to 49,999 population that is outside of any existing CBSA.

(c) Also in the 2023 delineations and in subsequent years, the Office of Management and Budget will designate a new MSA if:

(1) A city that is outside any existing MSA has a Census Bureau special census count of 50,000 or more population, or a population estimate of 50,000 or more for two consecutive years from the Census Bureau's Population Estimates Program, or

(2) A Census Bureau special census results in the delineation of an Urban Area of 50,000 or more population that is outside of any existing MSA.

(d) Outlying counties of CBSAs that qualify in this section will qualify according to the criteria in Section 3 above, on the basis of American Community Survey five-year commuting estimates.

(e) OMB will review the delineations of all existing CBSAs and related statistical areas in 2028 using 2021-2025 five-year commuting and employment estimates from the Census Bureau's American Community Survey. The Urban Areas used in these delineations will be those based on 2020 Census data or subsequent special censuses for which Urban Areas are created. The central counties of CBSAs identified on the basis of a 2020 Census population count, or on the basis of population estimates from the Census Bureau's Population Estimates Program or a special census count in the case of postcensally delineated areas, will constitute the central counties for purposes of these area delineations. New CBSAs will be designated in 2028 on the basis of Census Bureau special census counts or population estimates as described above in Sections 10(b) and 10(c); outlying county qualification will be based on five-year commuting estimates from the American Community Survey.

(f) Other aspects of the CBSA delineations are not subject to change between decennial censuses.

(g) OMB will issue delineation updates (one per year in those years when there is an update) in years other than 2023 during December.

(h) OMB will maintain a publicly available release schedule for these updates on its statistical programs and standards web page (https://www.whitehouse.gov/​omb/​inf...-standards/​). Any delays will be announced on the website as soon as possible, along with an updated release date.
__________________
Houston: 2314k (+0%) + MSA suburbs: 5196k (+7%) + CSA exurbs: 196k (+3%)
Dallas: 1303k (-0%) + MSA div. suburbs: 4160k (9%) + adj. CSA exurbs: 457k (+6%)
Ft. Worth: 978k (+6%) + MSA div. suburbs: 1659k (+4%) + adj. CSA exurbs: 98k (+8%)
San Antonio: 1495k (+4%) + MSA suburbs: 1209k (+8%) + CSA exurbs: 82k (+3%)
Austin: 980k (+2%) + MSA suburbs: 1493k (+13%)

Last edited by wwmiv; Aug 30, 2021 at 1:34 AM. Reason: Accidentally quoted wrong cycle’s
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3057  
Old Posted Aug 29, 2021, 9:43 PM
dktshb's Avatar
dktshb dktshb is offline
Environmental Sabotage
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: San Francisco/ Los Angeles/ Tahoe
Posts: 5,087
delete
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3058  
Old Posted Aug 30, 2021, 5:38 AM
ChiSoxRox's Avatar
ChiSoxRox ChiSoxRox is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 2,512
I have started the state WPD calculations. Going alphabetically, ended at Kansas this weekend. This coming week I need to catch up on a paper I am writing, but will have the state list ready by at the latest, next weekend.

I have the Excel sheet set up to crunch the national WPD as I go. Alabama to Arkansas had the national number somewhere in the 3k range, California popped it up to mid 6k, and through Kansas, it's eroded back to 5.1k.

I am saving New York for last, to see how much of the national number is solely New York (State).
__________________
Like the pre-war masonry skyscrapers? Then check out my list of the tallest buildings in 1950.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3059  
Old Posted Aug 30, 2021, 12:55 PM
Camelback Camelback is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Feb 2021
Posts: 1,231
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChiSoxRox View Post
Using the most recent MSA definitions, I used the Census query tool to pull population and density for each census tract in a county or group of counties. To get the FIPS code, you can use a table. Searching on the map is more fun IMO. For example, this pulls the tracts in four New Jersey counties in the MSA. I dump the pull into Word, split the columns, strip off the labels, pop into Excel, and multiply the two columns together. (I check: does the population total equal the right number, checking with the map? If so, I've got the right pull.) Sum up the multiplication column. If an MSA is multiple pulls (Phoenix took three), I save the multiplication total to sum with the other pulls.

Once I have the final "density times population" sum, divide that cell by the population cell. Voila, weighted population density.
Thank you, good sir!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3060  
Old Posted Aug 30, 2021, 4:31 PM
iheartthed iheartthed is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: New York
Posts: 10,414
Two neighboring enclaves of Detroit that are currently on very different paths:

Quote:
2 cities within Detroit had very different population changes
Hamtramck and Highland Park saw stark population shifts in the last decade

Angela Lugo-Thomas grew up in Detroit and never imagined living in Highland Park. She'd heard stories about crime and drugs in the city.

But 21 years ago, she and her husband bought a home there. It's where they've been ever since, raising their daughters and watching the city go through tumultuous times, as properties emptied and street lights dimmed.

Still, in her eyes, Highland Park is a "gem."

Nearby, Rezaul Chowdhury,50, moved to Hamtramck six years ago from Virginia because the 2-square-mile city spelled opportunity. He emigrated to the U.S. from Bangladesh in 2000. He came to Michigan because his family lived nearby in metro Detroit and houses in Hamtramck were affordable. It's a place where new immigrants find a "landing port," he said.

Lugo-Thomas and Chowdhury live in two island cities within Detroit that saw stark population change during the last decade, the latest census data shows. Majority Black Highland Park's population shrank by 24%, or roughly 2,800 residents, while Hamtramck — where many residents are immigrants hailing from Bangladesh and Yemen — grew by 27%, or about 6,000 residents.

...

In many ways, Highland Park is the story of what happens to a city after a booming industry — and its tax base — leaves.

In the early 1900s, Henry Ford built Model T's and offered a then-unheard-of $5-a-day wage. By the 1970s, Ford left. A couple decades later, Chrysler Corp. moved its corporate base from Highland Park to Auburn Hills.

In 2000, Highland Park had 16,746 residents. Ten years later, that dropped to 11,776.

...

"Hamtramck has not been stripped of its culture and allows its culture to grow. And I will say that cities like Highland Park have been totally stripped of their value and culture from a governmental basis and void of the things that make them grow," said Mark Hackshaw, president of the Highland Park Business Association.

Still, Hackshaw said he believes there has been an undercount of Highland Park residents in the 2020 census. In fact, people and businesses are coming to the city, he said.

...

"(Hamtramck) represents a new beginning in a way, because if you look around, a lot of families in Hamtramck are either refugees, immigrants, and this is usually the city that you're able to kind of set your roots and start your life," said Ferizovic, who lived in the city for 22 years before moving to the suburbs four years ago.

Hamtramck’s population grew by 27%, or about 6,000 residents, the latest census figures show. The city has a population of 28,433 people.

"It's gratifying to see this enormous increase, but it's nothing that folks in Hamtramck didn't already realize and that we haven't already been seeing for 20 years," said Karen Majewski, who has been mayor of Hamtramck for 16 years. She's up for reelection in November.

The city gained a small percentage of housing units (2.5%), but saw occupancy rates increase by 10 percentage points to 91% in 2020.

Conant Avenue — a commercial corridor lined with clothing stores and restaurants — cuts through Detroit and Hamtramck. Nearby, Joseph Campau is home to a host of businesses from Al-Haramain International Food to Dos Locos Tacos. In residential streets, bungalows sit close to one another.

"Everything is kind of right there in a 2-mile radius," Ferizovic.

https://www.freep.com/story/news/loc...on/8181137002/
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions
Forum Jump



Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 8:49 PM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.