The US Census Bureau thread

[ChiSoxRox]

Tomorrow we get...Nebraska. Omaha anyone?

(The Census lists only one state for tomorrow so far.)

[Thundertubs]

Originally Posted by Dralcoffin

Tomorrow we get...Nebraska. Omaha anyone?

(The Census lists only one state for tomorrow so far.)

Omaha did some annexing, has a lot of empty room for suburban grown on it's western edges, and has had a very strong economy and low cost of living. That's the recipe for population growth. It should be one of, if not possibly the strongest gains among Midwestern cities.The 2009 estimate was around 454k.

[Expat]

Originally Posted by Crawford

I would say this is a uniquely SSP way of looking at things.

There's really no way to spin it; this is bad news for urbanites. Yes, there are small positive nuggets, like core city population and income growth, but too many U.S. urban neighborhoods are rotting away.

Crawford, I agree with you 100%. However, I have been watching the population numbers decline in St. Louis for decades. I am 51 years old. I have never seen St. Louis City gain numbers in my adult years. The loss continues and isn't news for me. It is more of the same. Now St. Louis County is starting the downward trend as people move to even newer suburbs. However, in sifting through numbers, there is something new I haven't seen before. A substantial increase in certain core areas. It is unusual enough to be considered & discussed. It isn't meant to spin the ongoing failure of American cities.

[MNMike]

I was talking about the cities that have exploded with growth the last few decades when I said "newer"... Don't pretend you didn't know what I meant, I am sure you and everyone else did. Sheesh. Nitpicking.

[Thundertubs]

A smaller-yet-very-urban place whose impressive gain was lost in the shuffle:

Hoboken, NJ (1.3 sq. miles)
1990: 33,397
2000: 38,577
2010: 50,005

Population peaked in 1910 at 70,324 when Hoboken was a crowded blue-collar port city.
-------------------------------------------

Edit: more New Jersey cities.

Clifton
2000: 78,672
2010: 84,136 +6.9%

New Brunswick
2000: 48,573
2010: 55,181

[Centropolis]

Thanks for sharing that Thundertubs, that is insanely impressive. Is Hoboken pretty expensive now? Is the silly NJ stigma pretty much gone on the NY side among normal human beings? I've unfortunately been either so overtaken by NY when I'm there that I almost kill myself in the drink or walk myself until delirious with blistered, bleeding feet that I can hardly remember talking to anyone at the bar or on the street. Except I randomly ran into my boss, he was at my companies HQ in midtown...NY is seriously all kinds of dark and light magic (i'm not into dark/light magic, but i could be).

Too bad this entire country isn't some more progressive version of Kerouac's crowded, cramped urban and quiet, empty world.

[BillBanneker]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Surprisingly, the opposite is true.

Black income growth has been slower in booming Sunbelt metros than in the North. Places like Atlanta actually lag the nation in income growth, for blacks especially, but really for everyone.

If you look at black migration data, most of the folks moving to places like Atlanta are working class types priced out of high-cost metros, or very young or old folks with low incomes (though the income differential is probably based in part on life stage rather than economic potential).

Now it may be true that there's a perception of opportunity, which is probably reinforced by sheer numbers. There are now more African Americans in Atlanta than any other metro outside of NYC, so there are obviously a vast number of blacks in all walks of life.

Do you have any data to verify this?

[Chicago103]

Is Chicago the only major city so far to have gained population in the 2000 census but lost population in the 2010 census?

[Thundertubs]

Originally Posted by Centropolis

Thanks for sharing that Thundertubs, that is insanely impressive. Is Hoboken pretty expensive now? Is the silly NJ stigma pretty much gone on the NY side among normal human beings? I've unfortunately been either so overtaken by NY when I'm there that I almost kill myself in the drink or walk myself until delirious with blistered, bleeding feet that I can hardly remember talking to anyone at the bar or on the street. Except I randomly ran into my boss, he was at my companies HQ in midtown...NY is seriously all kinds of dark and light magic (i'm not into dark/light magic, but i could be).

Too bad this entire country isn't some more progressive version of Kerouac's crowded, cramped urban and quiet, empty world.

Hoboken has gotten pretty upscale and very expensive (direct subway access to the Village, Midtown, and Lower Manhattan), and has been so for a while, just more so nowadays. I think some people who move to NYC from elsewhere have a snobbish attitude towards NJ, but Hoboken is a very popular entry-level location for kids who grew up in suburban NJ. Although the urban built environment of Hoboken is unmatched by anywhere not named New York or Boston, the main drag of Washington Street can be a pretty lame scene. Think thumpy clubs and loud drunk fratty people in the streets at night. It's kind of like Wrigleyville, but less sports-oriented.

That said, it's a charming place in the daytime and certainly worth a visit.

Neighboring Jersey City is not quite as cohesive, but it is grittier in spots, less annoying, and relatively less expensive.

[Centropolis]

Originally Posted by Thundertubs

It's kind of like Wrigleyville, but less sports-oriented.

That's probably the worst thing you could of said. I was on board with everything you said before that.

I like quiet, gritty corners with serious options, Jersey City sounds nice. Places where peoples "front yards" are paved over and they put pictures of their kids in the military in the window. Quiet in the non-block captain sense.

[ChiPsy]

Originally Posted by urbanactivist

This is what I think. The same pattern is happening across the country, regardless of city type or location. The difference comes down to how the city limits are drawn...

Harris County
2000: 3,400,578
2010: 4,092,459

City of Houston
2000: 1,953,631
2010: 2,099,451

Houston's Inner Loop
2000: 456,630
2010: 469,051

So after a gain of nearly 700k for the County, and a gain of 145,820 for the city, the inner loop of Houston only gained 12,421 residents from 2000 to 2010. The area that we would consider to be the most "urban" and the traditional portion of the city didn't gain nearly as many residents as we had once thought. So eventhough the metro has grown at a staggerring rate, the growth is by and large still in the suburbs. Families that formerly lived within the city have either left by choice, or are being priced out by the market. The same pattern that we've seen (so far) in cities like Dallas, St. Louis or even Chicago.

Wow, that's a great data snapshot -- and a really good observation. I always wondered if someone could track the 1950-2010 population change (if any) of a static 1950 city-limit map of Houston to see how its "core city" population might be reported if it didn't constantly annex new land into its city boundaries. I suspect the trend of a relatively stable core-city population might predominate over that entire period (or at least since 1960 or 1970).

[Thundertubs]

Nebraska

Omaha
2000: 390,007
2010: 408,958*
*This seems low, as the 2009 estimate was 454k. It's what the census website gives me, though.

Omaha metro: 865,350

Lincoln
2000: 225,581
2010: 258,379

Grand Island
2000: 42,940
2010: 48,520

Omaha World-Herald article.

[ChiSoxRox]

Data for Nebraska show that the five most populous incorporated places and their 2010 Census counts are Omaha, 408,958; Lincoln, 258,379; Bellevue, 50,137; Grand Island, 48,520; and Kearney, 30,787. Omaha grew by 4.9 percent since the 2000 Census. Lincoln grew by 14.5 percent, Bellevue grew by 13.0 percent, Grand Island grew by 13.0 percent, and Kearney grew by 12.2 percent.

The largest county is Douglas, with a population of 517,110. Its population grew by 11.5 percent since 2000. The other counties in the top five include Lancaster, with a population of 285,407 (increase of 14.0 percent); Sarpy, 158,840 (increase of 29.6 percent); Hall, 58,607 (increase of 9.5 percent); and Buffalo, 46,102 (increase of 9.1 percent).

Tomorrow brings Delaware and North Carolina.

[Evergrey]

Originally Posted by Thundertubs

Nebraska

Omaha
2000: 390,007
2010: 408,958*
*This seems low, as the 2009 estimate was 454k. It's what the census website gives me, though.

Omaha metro: 865,350

Lincoln
2000: 225,581
2010: 258,379

Grand Island
2000: 42,940
2010: 48,520

Omaha World-Herald article.

Perhaps the estimates for Omaha were inflated by "challenges" like many other cities.

[Ch.G, Ch.G]

Originally Posted by Thundertubs

Omaha
2000: 390,007
2010: 408,958*
*This seems low, as the 2009 estimate was 454k. It's what the census website gives me, though.

It might seem low, but it's still in line with the over-counting seen in many other city estimates. It's also worth noting that, according to the article you linked to, over half of Omaha's growth came from annexation.

[BG918]

Originally Posted by Ch.G, Ch.G

It might seem low, but it's still in line with the over-counting seen in many other city estimates. It's also worth noting that, according to the article you linked to, over half of Omaha's growth came from annexation.

Omaha annexed Elkhorn gaining an estimated 10,000 people. Elkhorn is also located in the fast growing western portion of Omaha, where most of the other population growth occured. In 10 years the western limits of Omaha's built-up area will be at the Platte River floodplain.

[Clevelumbus]

Originally Posted by Ch.G, Ch.G

It might seem low, but it's still in line with the over-counting seen in many other city estimates. It's also worth noting that, according to the article you linked to, over half of Omaha's growth came from annexation.

Omaha is still in impressive urban center, all things considered.

[Ch.G, Ch.G]

^ I wasn't suggesting otherwise.

[BevoLJ]

Originally Posted by Thundertubs

Nebraska

Omaha
2000: 390,007
2010: 408,958*
*This seems low, as the 2009 estimate was 454k. It's what the census website gives me, though.

Omaha metro: 865,350

Wow, I for some reason or another was expecting like 20% growth out of Omaha, and only 5% really has me scratching my head. I have read many times over the past couple years about how many jobs had been created there and how healthy its economy has been that 5% just doesn't seem right to me.

[alex1]

Originally Posted by Chicago103

I seriously wonder if Rockford is one of the places that people displaced by CHA demolition went to. It sounds crazy I know but I heard rumors that people from Chicago are moving to the suburbs and downstate in order to get section 8 vouchers and the like. At first I thought it was just nuts but given the census figures I wonder. I mean why else in the world would somebody move to Rockford given the economy unless they don't work in the first place?

It definitely is. My company has done some market research and there are hundreds of people from CHA, which now live in RockVegas.

But the bigger reality regarding Rockford's population increase hasn't anything to do with your asinine remarks of "why move to Rockford unless you don't work". It's that Rockford has lower income averages to begin with, with super cheap prices on relatively large home. That makes it 1) harder for people to move out 2) cheaper to live in and 3) promotes larger household sizes in a down economy.