The US Census Bureau thread - Page 154

Yuri · #**3061** Posted **Aug 30, 2021, 5:00 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Two neighboring enclaves of Detroit that are currently on very different paths:

I'm working on data for the British metro areas as well and they also suffered severe declines on metropolitan levels (Liverpool, Glasgow), performing worse than Detroit metro, as population was pretty much stable during this period. However, since the 2000's, not only they're back growing but at a rather healthy pace.

And the secret is immigration, lots of it. And as soon immigrants arrive they help to estabilize population, to make the economy more dynamic and as consequence negative domestic migration tends to disappear.

Hamtramck seems to have done that, but not Rust Belt metro areas.

subterranean · #**3062** Posted **Aug 30, 2021, 9:41 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by yuriandrade

I'm working on data for the British metro areas as well and they also suffered severe declines on metropolitan levels (Liverpool, Glasgow), performing worse than Detroit metro, as population was pretty much stable during this period. However, since the 2000's, not only they're back growing but at a rather healthy pace.

And the secret is immigration, lots of it. And as soon immigrants arrive they help to estabilize population, to make the economy more dynamic and as consequence negative domestic migration tends to disappear.

Hamtramck seems to have done that, but not Rust Belt metro areas.

Super fascinating take, one that seems obvious on the surface, but one that seemingly isn't taken full advantage of in many places -- and perhaps nationally with the federal quota system. Something shamefully I know very little about yet I have a lot of interest.

Yuri · #**3063** Posted **Aug 30, 2021, 10:22 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by subterranean

Super fascinating take, one that seems obvious on the surface, but one that seemingly isn't taken full advantage of in many places -- and perhaps nationally with the federal quota system. Something shamefully I know very little about yet I have a lot of interest.

Well, let's post some numbers to illustrate it. Unfortunately I don't have the numbers from 1971, but I imagine decline in the 1970's was even worse, as the UK grew by only 400k in the 1970's as opposed to 1.1 million in the 1980's. Economy was much worse in the 1970's too:

------------------------------ 2020 ------- 2011 ------- 2001 ------- 1991 ------- 1981 --------- Growth

Birmingham --------------- 2,939,927 -- 2,739,733 -- 2,568,000 -- 2,618,800 -- 2,682,800 ---- 7.3% ----- 6.7% ---- -1.9% ---- -2.4%

Manchester --------------- 2,848,286 -- 2,685,386 -- 2,516,100 -- 2,553,600 -- 2,618,200 ---- 6.1% ----- 6.7% ---- -1.5% ---- -2.4%

Glasgow ------------------ 1,847,200 -- 1,787,020 -- 1,750,210 -- 1,818,920 -- 1,946,011 ---- 3.4% ----- 2.1% ---- -3.8% --- -10.1%

Liverpool ---------------- 1,434,256 -- 1,380,770 -- 1,367,800 -- 1,438,000 -- 1,522,000 ---- 3.9% ----- 0.9% ---- -4.9% ---- -5.5%

Sheffield ---------------- 1,415,054 -- 1,343,805 -- 1,266,500 -- 1,288,700 -- 1,317,600 ---- 5.3% ----- 6.1% ---- -1.7% ---- -2.2%

Note those are metropolitan numbers, on fix borders. Detroit, Cleveland or Pittsburgh got no near to decline 10% as Glasgow did or even the -5% of Liverpool.

All those face a fierce competition from London, southern England and Edinburgh, and they're still growing good. Birmingham and Manchester ignored their Rust Belt credentials and this decade are actually growing slightly above the national average.

A good and stable flow of immigrants would operate miracles in the US Rust Belt, specially now as they're finally stopping emigration. If Liverpool, aside all domestic competition is also eclipsed by Manchester and still can do it, why not Cleveland or Pittsburgh with much bigger and complex economies can't?

ChiSoxRox · #**3064** Posted **Aug 30, 2021, 10:57 PM**

I went ahead and finished the states.

2020 State weighted population densities

New York.....30,854.3
(District of Columbia.....20,642.9)
Hawaii.....9,251.8
New Jersey.....9,013.3
California.....8,545.5
Massachusetts.....7,436.3
Illinois.....7,053.0
Nevada.....5,920.6
Rhode Island.....5,508.5
Pennsylvania.....5,224.1
Maryland.....4,696.1
Washington.....4,246.9
Florida.....4,224.5
Arizona.....3,962.9
Colorado.....3,962.4
Connecticut.....3,769.0
Utah.....3,699.5
Oregon.....3,663.1
Virginia.....3,587.8
Texas.....3,458.9
Minnesota.....2,769.3
Wisconsin.....2,712.5
Michigan.....2,613.6
Delaware.....2,590.7
Ohio.....2,486.2
Nebraska.....2,442.7
New Mexico.....2,218.1
Louisiana.....2,069.4
Idaho.....2,021.8
Missouri.....1,986.4
Georgia.....1,918.5
Kansas.....1,885.9
Indiana.....1,841.2
Alaska.....1,798.8
Oklahoma.....1,748.2
North Dakota.....1,683.3
Iowa.....1,622.3
Kentucky.....1,572.0
New Hampshire.....1,458.8
Tennessee.....1,430.5
North Carolina.....1,415.8
Montana.....1,189.9
South Dakota.....1,181.4
South Carolina.....1,161.4
Wyoming.....1,034.2
Maine.....1,007.6
Alabama.....991.2
Vermont.....957.7
Arkansas.....942.5
West Virginia.....856.1
Mississippi.....750.8

National weighted density: 5,792.1 ppsm

WPD minus New York state: 4,164.7 ppsm

In other words, New York state is 32.5% of the national population-density product! California is another 17.6%. Texas is the third most significant state, but only 5.2%.

Here are 2010 numbers for comparison (based on 2010 census tracts). New Jersey surpassed California for the third highest weighted density and Massachusetts surpassed Illinois for fifth place, reflecting the strength of BosWash urban growth.

wwmiv · #**3065** Posted **Aug 30, 2021, 11:37 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChiSoxRox

National weighted density: 5,792.1 ppsm

The average American lives in a census tract having this density. That means that only 13 metropolitan statistical areas have an average resident living in a more densely populated tract than the tract the average American lives in:

New York, San Fran, Honolulu, Los Angeles, San Jose, Chicago, Boston, Miami, Philadelphia, San Diego, D.C., Vegas, and Seattle.

Steely Dan · #**3066** Posted **Aug 31, 2021, 2:22 AM**

^ goes to show just how ridiculously top-heavy US density really is, with the mighty NYC WAAAAAAAAAY out in front of the pack.

wwmiv · #**3067** Posted **Aug 31, 2021, 2:54 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

^ goes to show just how ridiculously top-heavy US density really is, with the mighty NYC WAAAAAAAAAY out in front of the pack.

Would love to see a list of each metro area by % living above the national weighted average.

craigs · #**3068** Posted **Aug 31, 2021, 3:52 AM**

Census reports declining population on L.A.’s Eastside, fueling undercount fears

David Zahniser
Los Angeles Times
Aug. 30, 2021

Over the last two years, politicians, civic leaders and community activists across Los Angeles worried that Latinos would not be properly counted as part of the U.S. Census Bureau’s once-in-a-decade population survey.

Amid the COVID-19 pandemic, city and county officials sent volunteers to knock on doors, staged “pop-up” sites to help people with their forms and provided goody bags to those who successfully turned in their information.

L.A.’s neighborhood numbers have finally come out, as part of the city’s process for redrawing the boundaries of its 15 City Council districts. And some at City Hall are disappointed with the results.

Highland Park, a neighborhood on the city’s northeast end, recorded a decline in population of more than 3,900 people between 2010 and 2020, according to census figures released by the city’s Redistricting Commission. The Eastside neighborhood of Boyle Heights fell by 3,300. And Cypress Park showed a decrease of about 1,250, or 13% — the largest of any L.A. neighborhood.

In the west San Fernando Valley, the opposite phenomenon played out, with Northridge adding 3,400 people and Chatsworth taking on 6,000. Woodland Hills recorded an additional 8,200 people — a 13% increase, according to the Redistricting Commission.

“Our worst fears have been realized, in a sense, with a poor-quality count primarily in Latino-majority areas in the Eastside of the city,” said David Ely, a demographic consultant with the Redistricting Commission.

That disparity — declining population numbers on the Eastside and major increases in the West Valley — will present challenges for the redistricting panel, which will devote the next two months to creating new maps for the City Council’s 15 districts. Each district must have roughly the same number of people, which means some will need to add population, and others will need to shed.
. . . .

Meanwhile, the Los Angeles Times compiled detailed neighborhood Census results for the City of Los Angeles. The whole chart is worth a look, but here are some highlights and lowlights:

LA City neighborhoods with the greatest gains in the 2020 Census:

Neighborhood - 2010 - 2020 - Percent increase
Playa Vista - 7,957 - 15,149 - 90%
Downtown - 42,499 - 66,555 - 57%
Century City - 5,752 - 7,050 - 23%
Chatsworth - 39,606 - 45,661 - 15%
Woodland Hills - 63,654 - 71,854 - 13%

And the worst losses:

Neighborhood - 2010 - 2020 - Percent decrease
Cypress Park - 9,631 - 8,373 - −13%
Elysian Valley - 6,897 - 6,123 - −11%
East Hollywood - 68,197 - 61,439 - −10%
Chinatown/
Solano Canyon - 19,398 - 17,640 - −9%
Highland Park - 54,813 - 50,903 - −7%

ChiSoxRox · #**3069** Posted **Aug 31, 2021, 4:57 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by wwmiv

Would love to see a list of each metro area by % living above the national weighted average.

Here are the 13 that average above the national value.

Los Angeles: 78.1%
San Jose: 75.0%
New York: 68.9%
San Francisco: 66.3%
Honolulu: 62.7%
Las Vegas: 62.0%
Miami: 57.4%
San Diego: 51.1%
Philadelphia: 46.8%
Chicago: 42.0%
Boston: 39.7%
Washington, DC: 38.8%
Seattle: 33.5%

5,792 ppsm gets pretty much the entire LA Basin. San Jose above San Francisco is a bit surprising, but the San Francisco side of the MSA includes the Alameda/Contra Costa sprawl of Walnut Creek, Antioch, etc. that drops below the bar.

As for New York, 5,792 ppsm still drops most of the outer suburbs, and masks just how much higher its central density plateau is compared to the others.

The raw numbers:

New York: 13,873,234
Los Angeles: 10,309,908
Chicago: 4,044,247
Miami: 3,522,429
San Francisco: 3,148,739
Philadelphia: 2,922,154
Washington, DC: 2,478,877
Boston: 1,961,537
San Diego: 1,684,842
San Jose: 1,501,349
Las Vegas: 1,404,887
Seattle: 1,348,074
Honolulu: 637,582

wwmiv · #**3070** Posted **Aug 31, 2021, 5:05 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChiSoxRox

Los Angeles: 78.1%
San Jose: 75.0%
New York: 68.9%
San Francisco: 66.3%
Honolulu: 62.7%
Las Vegas: 62.0%
Miami: 57.4%
San Diego: 51.1%
Philadelphia: 46.8%
Chicago: 42.0%
Boston: 39.7%
Washington, DC: 38.8%
Seattle: 33.5%

5,792 ppsm gets pretty much the entire LA Basin. San Jose above San Francisco is a bit surprising, but the San Francisco side of the MSA includes the Alameda/Contra Costa sprawl of Walnut Creek, Antioch, etc. that drops below the bar.

As for New York, 5,792 ppsm still drops most of the outer suburbs, and masks just how much higher its central density plateau is compared to the others.

The raw numbers:

New York: 13,873,234
Los Angeles: 10,309,908
Chicago: 4,044,247
Miami: 3,522,429
San Francisco: 3,148,739
Philadelphia: 2,922,154
Washington, DC: 2,478,877
Boston: 1,961,537
San Diego: 1,684,842
San Jose: 1,501,349
Las Vegas: 1,404,887
Seattle: 1,348,074
Honolulu: 637,582

Are there any other metros over 10%? Where is Austin?

ChiSoxRox · #**3071** Posted **Aug 31, 2021, 5:10 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by wwmiv

Are there any other metros over 10%? Where is Austin?

This is just the metros that came in over the national average. I'd say metros like Baltimore or Providence are still in the 20% to 30% range. Small metros like Salinas or Trenton that have WPDs above 6k may be over 50%.

I'll run Austin and the other 1M+ Texas metros in the morning.

benp · #**3072** Posted **Aug 31, 2021, 2:19 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChiSoxRox

This is just the metros that came in over the national average. I'd say metros like Baltimore or Providence are still in the 20% to 30% range. Small metros like Salinas or Trenton that have WPDs above 6k may be over 50%.

I'll run Austin and the other 1M+ Texas metros in the morning.

Good call on the 20-30% range.

A quick run through of the Buffalo Metro showed 328,076 (28.1%) over the national average of 5792 ppsm.

iheartthed · #**3073** Posted **Aug 31, 2021, 2:33 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by yuriandrade

I'm working on data for the British metro areas as well and they also suffered severe declines on metropolitan levels (Liverpool, Glasgow), performing worse than Detroit metro, as population was pretty much stable during this period. However, since the 2000's, not only they're back growing but at a rather healthy pace.

And the secret is immigration, lots of it. And as soon immigrants arrive they help to estabilize population, to make the economy more dynamic and as consequence negative domestic migration tends to disappear.

Hamtramck seems to have done that, but not Rust Belt metro areas.

While looking at local municipalities around Detroit I noticed some other places besides Hamtramck that showed unexpected growth. Inkster is a suburb of Detroit that has very similar top line stats to Detroit (similar racial distribution, similar incomes, etc.), and a very similar trajectory of decline. Inkster has been declining in population since the 1960s but posted unexpected growth in the 2020 census. Seeing that Inkster grew does support the argument that Detroit and Highland Park were undercounted, since I would've expected Detroit to be the first of them to post growth.

subterranean · #**3074** Posted **Aug 31, 2021, 5:12 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by iheartthed

While looking at local municipalities around Detroit I noticed some other places besides Hamtramck that showed unexpected growth. Inkster is a suburb of Detroit that has very similar top line stats to Detroit (similar racial distribution, similar incomes, etc.), and a very similar trajectory of decline. Inkster has been declining in population since the 1960s but posted unexpected growth in the 2020 census. Seeing that Inkster grew does support the argument that Detroit and Highland Park were undercounted, since I would've expected Detroit to be the first of them to post growth.

Sort of off topic, but at this point I don't understand why Highland Park even continues to try and be its own thing. Makes very little sense. Now I can see why Hamtramck would want to stay its own thing. You can literally see the outline of Hamtramck from space.

Edit: I'm just reading that Hamtramck had a 2019 estimated population of 21,559. It posted 28,443 in the 2020 census. A 26.8% gain over 2010! Unreal.

iheartthed · #**3075** Posted **Aug 31, 2021, 5:20 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by subterranean

Sort of off topic, but at this point I don't understand why Highland Park even continues to try and be its own thing. Makes very little sense. Now I can see why Hamtramck would want to stay its own thing. You can literally see the outline of Hamtramck from space.

There are a lot of layers, but the biggest hurdle is probably convincing Detroit to absorb Highland Park. This is a great example of the inefficient way that cities in Michigan are administered. There are very few places in the world where Highland Park or Hamtramck would still be independent cities.

Steely Dan · #**3076** Posted **Aug 31, 2021, 5:47 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by iheartthed

This is a great example of the inefficient way that cities in Michigan are administered. There are very few places in the world where Highland Park or Hamtramck would still be independent cities.

Illinois would be another one.

The City of Chicago has two independent suburban municipalities fully enclaved within city limits: Norridge and Harwood Heights on the far NW side.

However, they're a bit different than Hamtramck and Highland Park in Detroit because they're much further out from the core and as such, they're both predominately post-war, essentially being entirely built out in the '50s/'60s, with their populations remaining fairly stable over the ensuing decades. They've never gone through any serious decline like Hamtramck and Highland Park have experienced.

Norridge & Harwood Heights 1970: 26,173 (peak population after full build-out)

Norridge & Harwood Heights 2020: 24,574 (and all 5 tracts increased modestly over the past decade, 4 - 6% growth)

I wonder how many other major cities have 100% fully enclaved independent municipalities within them?

ChiSoxRox · #**3077** Posted **Aug 31, 2021, 5:51 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

I wonder how many other cities have 100% fully enclaved independent municipalities within them?

Pittsburgh has Mount Oliver.

Denver has Glendale.

Oakland has Piedmont.

Then there's the elephant head shape of LA city limits and several cities enclosed.

eschaton · #**3078** Posted **Aug 31, 2021, 5:56 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

I wonder how many other cities have 100% fully enclaved independent municipalities within them?

Pittburgh has the borough of Mt. Oliver, which is completely surrounded by city neighborhoods. At the time Pittsburgh was annexing to its south it was a richer municipality, and held out while neighbors like Knoxville and Carrick were gobbled up. It does however share a school district with the city.

My understanding is it held up okay as a working-class white area up until the 1990s or so. It began having trouble - like many of the surrounding areas - when the nearby projects were downsized or closed entirely. It's not had wholesale white flight (around evenly split), but it's had big issues with crime and particularly opiates. Has a nice little downtown if it ever stabilizes.

subterranean · #**3079** Posted **Aug 31, 2021, 6:08 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

I wonder how many other cities have 100% fully enclaved independent municipalities within them?

LA: Beverly Hills, San Fernando, Santa Monica (essentially - with a water border), Culver City, Marina Del Ray is unincorporated. There could be others depending on how you define (Englwood and points south).

wwmiv · #**3080** Posted **Aug 31, 2021, 6:09 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

Illinois would be another one.

The City of Chicago has two independent suburban municipalities fully enclaved within city limits: Norridge and Harwood Heights on the far NW side.

However, they're a bit different than Hamtramck and Highland Park in Detroit because they're further out and they're both predominately post-war, essentially being fully built out in the '50s/60s, with their populations remaining mostly stable over the ensuing decades.

I wonder how many other cities have 100% fully enclaved independent municipalities within them?

This is quite common in Texas.

Austin: West Lake Hills, Barton Creek, Lost Creek, and Sunset Valley
San Antonio: Alamo Heights, Terrell Hills, Olmos Park, Castle Hills, Shavano Park, Leon Valley, Balcones Heights, Hollywood Park, Hill Country Village
Houston: Bellaire, West University Place, The Memorial Villages (Piney Point, Spring Valley, Bunker Hill, Hedwig, Hunters Creek), Aldine
Dallas: Cockrill Hill, Highland Park, University Park
Fort Worth: Edgecliff Village, Westover Hills, Saginaw, River Oaks, Westworth Village, White Settlement, Lake Worth, Sansom Park
Arlington: Pantego, Dalworthington Gardens
Brownsville: Cameron Park