The US Census Bureau thread

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by min-chi-cbus

I didn't see the methodology either, and am SUPER confused by the data! I mean, cities with major unemployment problems and economic issues are exploding according to this list.

That's not impossible... 160,000 people moved here in the last 18 months, and we sure as heck haven't added that many jobs.

Re: Texas foreclosures... I doubt it had much to do with Texas lending/foreclosure rules being any different. I think it just had more to do with housing prices never getting as high/inflated there. If you don't need to take out a loan worth 8 times your annual salary to buy a house, you don't need a crappy subprime loan. Also, jobs - any jobs - help.

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

That's not impossible... 160,000 people moved here in the last 18 months, and we sure as heck haven't added that many jobs.

Re: Texas foreclosures... I doubt it had much to do with Texas lending/foreclosure rules being any different. I think it just had more to do with housing prices never getting as high/inflated there. If you don't need to take out a loan worth 8 times your annual salary to buy a house, you don't need a crappy subprime loan. Also, jobs - any jobs - help.

Again, the reason that housing prices did not inflate were those rules and regulations.

[M II A II R II K]

America's Poorest People Running Out Of Places To Live: Study


02/16/2012

By Alexander Eichler

Read More: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...l?ref=business

PDF Report: http://www.nlihc.org/doc/HousingSpotlight2-1.pdf

.....

The findings highlight the increasingly desperate situation of people who work but don't earn much, and who are finding themselves priced out of the rental market as more and more Americans look for alternatives to traditional homeownership. For every 100 households that earn less than one-third of the median income for their region, according to the report, there are only 30 affordable and available rental units -- meaning, places to live that aren't dilapidated, prohibitively expensive, too far from public transportation, or already occupied by someone earning a higher salary.

- Meanwhile, nearly five years of slumping prices has led many financially stable people to rent temporary accommodations instead of buying a home that might only keep declining in value. In a sign of the swelling demand for rental property, apartment vacancies had fallen to their lowest level in a decade by late 2011. That's bad news for cash-strapped Americans who have traditionally depended on the rental market to keep a roof over their heads. In the absence of affordable rental units, a growing number of people are doubling up with friends and family, and analysts say the national homelessness rate is poised to begin climbing soon as federal funding for housing programs dries up.

.....

[mhays]

Doubling up isn't that bad. Even while I support low-income housing, doubling up is a great "bootstrap" way to house yourself. My family did this twice when I was growing up, once in an apartment and once in a pretty nice house we'd never have afforded otherwise. Later I had roommates. I don't get why this isn't more common.

[ChiSoxRox]

Emanuel mounting challenge to census showing dip of 200K Chicago residents

Mayor Rahm Emanuel is mounting a challenge to 2010 U.S. Census estimates that Chicago lost about 200,000 residents.

Among the areas where the administration believes census workers missed the most Chicagoans are the North Side’s 32nd Ward, which stretches from the Ukrainian Village north to Roscoe Village. Also the 6th and 8th wards, which border each other on the South Side and include parts of the Chatham, Burnside, Calumet Heights and Park Manor neighborhoods.

The administration estimates the census missed as many as 2,350 Chicagoans, who, if counted, would bring in an extra $2.8 million per year in federal funding.

An extra $2.8 million for 2350 people? Is there some critical benchmark at 2.697 million people, or did the Trib just lose a decimal place?

[Xing]

I worked the census in that tract too. :? ^

[bnk]

Originally Posted by Dralcoffin

Emanuel mounting challenge to census showing dip of 200K Chicago residents





An extra $2.8 million for 2350 people? Is there some critical benchmark at 2.697 million people, or did the Trib just lose a decimal place?

Well good, they should have done this many months ago already. Most of the other midwest city challenges seem to win way more than lose and earn their multi million dollar federal funds that each city is deserved.

Why it has taken so long?

, well let's just say, yes the city proper lost population, but to not challenge it is a fools choice that only comes around every decade. Do it now and count everyone, even the dead people if you have to.

[Chicago103]

Originally Posted by Dralcoffin

Emanuel mounting challenge to census showing dip of 200K Chicago residents





An extra $2.8 million for 2350 people? Is there some critical benchmark at 2.697 million people, or did the Trib just lose a decimal place?

According to a book I have the original 1980 census results showed Chicago's population had fallen slightly below that of Los Angeles' and a successful challenge of the results gave Chicago a slight edge over LA and thus it remained the second largest city in the 1980 final results, that of course was short lived since it was inevitable LA would surpass us but it gave us a few extra years of bragging rights and also put us slightly ahead of the 3 million mark.

[ChiSoxRox]

Originally Posted by Chicago103

According to a book I have the original 1980 census results showed Chicago's population had fallen slightly below that of Los Angeles' and a successful challenge of the results gave Chicago a slight edge over LA and thus it remained the second largest city in the 1980 final results, that of course was short lived since it was inevitable LA would surpass us but it gave us a few extra years of bragging rights and also put us slightly ahead of the 3 million mark.

Yeah, I've noticed how close they were in 1980. Still, while I will not complain at all about an increase, a mere 2350 people is not going to raise Chicago past any nice round number, so I'm a bit puzzled by the spike in funding.

[SpawnOfVulcan]

Do we know when the results of the challenges come out? I know it can't be too soon since it's obviously going to take time to recount everyone.

[mhays]

They don't recount everyone. They look at evidence that the first count was wrong, such as buildings that were clearly had residents but had "zero" counts. Apparently the bar is pretty high.

[Zapatan]

the US has 313.5 million according to just about every source on google with 11-12 million illiegal immigrants.

[Zapatan]

Originally Posted by M II A II R II K

America's Poorest People Running Out Of Places To Live: Study


02/16/2012

By Alexander Eichler

Read More: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...l?ref=business

PDF Report: http://www.nlihc.org/doc/HousingSpotlight2-1.pdf

I think a building boom is needed

[LMich]

Originally Posted by tredici

Do we know when the results of the challenges come out? I know it can't be too soon since it's obviously going to take time to recount everyone.

Cities have until June 1, 2013 to submit challenges, and submissions to the bureau were opened June 1 of last year. They give jurisdictions a full two years to mount a formal challenge. Challenges are judged as the Census gets them, instead of them all being released on a certain date, meaning that some challenges have already been judged.

BTW, here are the jurisdictions challenging their counts as of Feburary 9:

2010 Census Count Question Resolution

I believe they update the list every month, at least. Challenges are very difficult. Most are done concerning housing units in on jurisdiction counted in another, and that usually yields marginal gains for the jurisdiction offering the challenge. The next most common challenge is finding people missed, which is usually more difficult. Most (or maybe many) challenges don't yield any changes in populations at all.

Looks like here in Michigan, Detroit has finally submitted their challenge, the only major city in the state to do so, thus far.

[SpawnOfVulcan]

Thanx LMich! Birmingham is supposed to be submitting a challenge, but it doesn't look like the Census has received anything yet. I noticed Mobile is challenging, which I wasn't aware of; good idea though.

Anyways, thanx again for all the info!

[M II A II R II K]

Dream Home for the New Era: Compact, connected & mortgage-free?


February 27, 2012

By Ben Brown

Read More: http://placeshakers.wordpress.com/20...r-the-new-era/

The future is here. And it’s for lease. Even before the Great Recession, real estate market analysts Todd Zimmerman, Laurie Volk and Chris Nelson were patiently explaining the demography-is-destiny argument for an inevitable shift in American housing. It’s all about the numbers. Between them, two monster generational cohorts, Boomers (born 1946-1964) and Millennials (born 1981-2000), account for more than 150 million people. There’s broad diversity within members of the generations when it comes to attitudes and capacities for acting on them, of course. But there are so just so darn many people in the two age groups that even small slivers of the total number will have multiplier effects on housing supply and demand. The difference-making population slivers may not be all that small, it turns out. These age groups both trend away from family norms of the past. Many more of them at both ends of the age clusters live alone or have no children.

- What’s more, many in both generations seem more interested in compact, mixed-use neighborhoods than in car-centric, single-use suburban housing. The National Association of Realtors’ 2011 Community Preference Survey is among the latest of the attitudinal checks. In that report, 58% of respondents indicated a preference for “a neighborhood with a mix of houses and stores and other businesses within an easy walk.” Since the pre-recession housing boom was producing nothing like a 60/40 mix of mixed-use, walkable neighborhoods compared to drive-to ‘burbs, we can assume a pent-up demand for the Smart Growth stuff. And that was before the housing bust and rising gas prices began forcing Americans to rethink what, exactly, constitutes an affordable version of how and where they want to live.

- For many folks in those two generations, the combination of economic realities and quality of life desires are pushing them towards rentals. “The country is on the cusp of fundamental changes in our housing dynamics,” said Doug Bibby, president of the National Multi-Housing Council in a January online story for Multifamily Executive. “Preferences are driving more people away from the typical suburban house and toward the type of lifestyle that rental housing offers.” Housing industry trend watchers have been all over this story for the better part of a year. Now, everybody else is picking up on it. The Birmingham News made note last week of the against-the-grain growth of downtown residences in a down market for home sales.

- In the decade between 2000 and 2010, downtown Birmingham residents increased by 32 percent and the number of occupied rental units by 18 percent. The New York Times weighed in with a story on how demand for rental housing is outstripping supply and driving up rents. And the debate is heating up among developers and builders on how much to invest in this new direction. Is the rental explosion a temporary trend that will revert to old home-ownership patterns when the economy picks up? Or are we, as Bibby and the demographic analysts suggest, into a whole new housing era? I’ve been convinced by Zimmerman/Volk, Nelson and others that the shift to a higher proportion of rental housing is at least long-term, if not permanent. And I was on a panel at the International Building Show in Orlando earlier this month with multifamily experts whose numbers were even more compelling.

.....

[Urbanguy]

Here are some updates from Census 2010 using data from Summary File 2 & Summary File 1:

Top 25 ethnic, racial, tribal, etc groups released so far. The Census has yet to release data for people of European, Arab/Middle Eastern, Sub-Saharan African and West Indian origins.

Color Codes:
Native American
Pacific Islander
Asian
Black or African American
Hispanic or Latino
N.E.C. = Not elsewhere classified

Arkansas
1 Black or African American alone: 449,895
2 Mexican: 138,194
3 Salvadoran: 14,980
4 Hispanic or Latino (n.e.c. or generic responses): 11,396
5 Cherokee (Tsalagi) alone: 8,659
6 Asian Indian or East Indian alone: 7,973
7 American Indian or Alaska Native tribes (not specified): 5,581
8 Vietnamese alone: 5,515
9 Chinese (except Taiwanese) alone: 4,849
10 Puerto Rican: 4,789
11 Guatemalan: 4,533
12 Marshallese alone: 4,121
13 Filipino alone: 3,937
14 Laotian alone: 3,903
15 Spaniard or Spanish: 3,677
16 Choctaw alone: 2,702
17 Korean alone: 2,269
18 Honduran: 2,076
19 Hmong (Mong) alone: 2,063
20 Cuban: 1,493
21 Asian (not specified): 1,176
22 Japanese alone: 1,111
23 Colombian: 888
24 American Indian tribes (n.e.c.): 766
25 Pakistani alone: 715
Total Population: 2,915,918

Connecticut
1 Black or African American alone: 362,296
2 Puerto Rican: 252,972
3 Mexican: 50,658
4 Asian Indian or East Indian alone: 46,415
5 Chinese (except Taiwanese) alone: 30,348
6 Dominican (Dominican Republic): 26,093
7 Hispanic or Latino (n.e.c. or generic responses): 25,039
8 Ecuadorian: 23,677
9 Colombian: 20,048
10 Guatemalan: 16,715
11 Peruvian: 16,424
12 Filipino alone: 11,998
13 Korean alone: 9,619
14 Cuban: 9,490
15 Vietnamese alone: 9,341
16 Spaniard or Spanish: 9,234
17 Honduran: 6,242
18 Salvadoran: 6,223
19 Pakistani alone: 5,866
20 American Indian or Alaska Native tribes (not specified): 5,231
21 Argentinean: 3,609
22 Japanese alone: 3,574
23 Laotian alone: 3,328
24 Cambodian (Khmer) alone: 2,772
25 Costa Rican: 2,767
Total Population: 3,574,097

Florida
1 Black or African American alone: 2,999,862
2 Cuban: 1,213,438
3 Puerto Rican: 847,550
4 Mexican: 629,718
5 Colombian: 300,414
6 Hispanic or Latino (n.e.c. or generic responses): 187,604
7 Dominican (Dominican Republic): 172,451
8 Nicaraguan: 135,143
9 Asian Indian or East Indian alone: 128,735
10 Honduran: 107,302
11 Venezuelan: 102,116
12 Peruvian: 100,965
13 Filipino alone: 90,223
14 Guatemalan: 83,882
15 Spaniard or Spanish: 70,492
16 Chinese (except Taiwanese) alone: 68,680
17 Ecuadorian: 60,574
18 Vietnamese alone: 58,470
19 Argentinean: 56,260
20 Salvadoran: 55,144
21 American Indian or Alaska Native tribes (not specified) 29,460
22 Panamanian: 28,741
23 Korean alone: 26,205
24 Chilean: 23,549
25 Costa Rican: 20,761
Total Population: 18,801,310


Hawaii - recently included Okinawan & Chuukese (both of which are much larger than the numbers indicate). Most people of Chuukese, Kosraean, Pohnpeian and Yapese origins generally choose the term Micronesian (country name is Federated States of Micronesia) & a large share of the Japanese population in Hawaii are Okinawan.
1 Filipino alone: 197,497
2 Japanese alone: 185,502
3 Native Hawaiian (Kānaka Maoli) alone: 80,337
4 Chinese (except Taiwanese) alone: 53,963
5 Puerto Rican: 44,116
6 Mexican: 35,415
7 Korean alone: 24,203
8 Spaniard or Spanish: 23,660
9 Black or African American alone: 21,424
10 Samoan alone: 18,287
11 Micronesian (n.e.c.): 11,429
12 Vietnamese alone: 9,779
13 Hispanic or Latino (n.e.c. or generic responses): 9,111
14 Marshallese alone: 6,316
15 Tongan alone: 4,830
16 Guamanian or Chamorro (Chamoru) alone: 2,700
17 Asian Indian or East Indian alone: 2,201
18 Thai alone: 2,006
19 Okinawan alone: 1,886
20 Laotian alone: 1,844
21 Pacific Islander (not specified): 1,707
22 Chuukese alone: 1,683
23 American Indian or Alaska Native tribes (not specified): 1,557
24 Cuban: 1,544
25 Asian (not specified): 1,189
Total Population: 1,360,301

Hawaii - Hawaii - Bonus data mainly because Hawaii has such a large mixed population. Here are the top 29 (so far) for various ethnic, racial, tribal, etc groups alone & in combination (mixed/multiple responses):
1 Filipino: 342,095
2 Japanese: 312,292
3 Native Hawaiian: 289,970
4 Hispanic or Latino (multiple responses): 209,485
5 Chinese (except Taiwanese): 198,711
6 Korean: 48,699
7 Black or African American (alone or mixed): 38,820
8 Samoan: 37,463
9 American Indian or Alaska Native tribes (not specified): 15,721
10 Vietnamese: 13,266
11 Micronesian (n.e.c.): 11,876
12 Tongan: 8,085
13 Cherokee: 8,024
14 Marshallese: 7,412
15 Guamanian or Chamorro: 6,647
16 Okinawan: 6,642
17 Pacific Islander (not specified): 5,398
18 Asian Indian: 4,737
19 Asian (not specified): 3,757
20 Thai: 3,701
21 Laotian: 2,620
22 Chuukese: 2,563
23 Tahitian: 2,513
24 American Indian tribes (n.e.c.): 1,598
25 Polynesian (n.e.c.): 1,451
26 Blackfeet: 1,309
27 Palauan: 1,216
28 Taiwanese: 1,161
29 Apache: 1,068
Total races tallied: 1,807,596

Iowa
1 Mexican: 117,090
2 Black or African American alone: 89,148
3 Asian Indian or East Indian alone: 11,081
4 Chinese (except Taiwanese) alone: 9,309
5 Vietnamese alone: 8,347
6 Hispanic or Latino (n.e.c. or generic responses): 8,337
7 Salvadoran: 5,601
8 Korean alone: 5,537
9 Guatemalan: 4,917
10 Puerto Rican: 4,885
11 Laotian alone: 4,687
12 Filipino alone: 3,558
13 American Indian or Alaska Native tribes (not specified): 3,540
14 American Indian tribes (n.e.c.): 2,898
15 Spaniard or Spanish: 2,668
16 Honduran: 1,539
17 Asian (not specified): 1,529
18 Thai alone: 1,432
19 Sioux alone: 1,417
20 Japanese alone: 1,332
21 Cuban: 1,226
22 Burmese alone: 1,165
23 Colombian: 1,026
24 Pakistani alone: 815
25 Ecuadorian: 795
Total Population: 3,046,355

Maryland
1 Black or African American alone: 1,700,298
2 Salvadoran: 123,789
3 Mexican: 88,004
4 Asian Indian or East Indian alone: 79,051
5 Chinese (except Taiwanese) alone: 64,487
6 Korean alone: 48,592
7 Hispanic or Latino (n.e.c. or generic responses): 45,146
8 Filipino alone: 43,923
9 Puerto Rican: 42,572
10 Guatemalan: 34,491
11 Vietnamese alone: 23,635
12 Honduran: 20,576
13 Peruvian: 18,229
14 Dominican (Dominican Republic): 14,873
15 Spaniard or Spanish: 14,128
16 Pakistani alone: 14,046
17 Colombian: 12,990
18 Cuban: 10,366
19 American Indian or Alaska Native tribes (not specified): 10,328
20 Nicaraguan: 8,196
21 Bolivian: 7,496
22 Ecuadorian: 7,076
23 Japanese alone: 6,749
24 Asian (not specified): 5,645
25 Panamanian: 5,341
Total Population: 5,773,552

Massachusetts
1 Black or African American alone: 434,398
2 Puerto Rican: 266,125
3 Chinese (except Taiwanese) alone: 118,164
4 Dominican (Dominican Republic): 103,292
5 Asian Indian or East Indian alone: 77,177
6 Hispanic or Latino (n.e.c. or generic responses): 45,221
7 Salvadoran: 43,400
8 Vietnamese alone: 42,915
9 Mexican: 38,379
10 Guatemalan: 32,812
11 Cambodian (Khmer) alone: 25,387
12 Korean alone: 24,110
13 Colombian: 23,843
14 Spaniard or Spanish: 13,535
15 Honduran: 12,533
16 Filipino alone: 12,309
17 Cuban: 11,306
18 American Indian or Alaska Native tribes (not specified): 9,419
19 Japanese alone: 9,224
20 Ecuadorian: 7,592
21 Peruvian: 7,360
22 Pakistani alone: 6,205
23 Asian (not specified): 5,729
24 Taiwanese alone: 4,502
25 Argentinean: 4,022
Total Population: 6,547,629

Mississippi
1 Black or African American alone: 1,098,385
2 Mexican: 52,459
3 Choctaw alone: 7,539
4 Vietnamese alone: 7,025
5 Hispanic or Latino (n.e.c. or generic responses): 6,834
6 Puerto Rican: 5,888
7 Asian Indian or East Indian alone: 5,494
8 Chinese (except Taiwanese) alone: 4,317
9 American Indian or Alaska Native tribes (not specified): 4,222
10 Filipino alone: 3,562
11 Guatemalan: 2,978
12 Honduran: 2,448
13 Spaniard or Spanish: 2,414
14 Cuban: 2,063
15 Korean alone: 1,537
16 Salvadoran: 1,174
17 Colombian: 1,025
18 Cherokee (Tsalagi) alone: 947
19 Japanese alone: 807
20 Dominican (Dominican Republic): 733
21 Nicaraguan: 700
22 Panamanian: 670
23 Asian (not specified): 596
24 Guamanian or Chamorro (Chamoru) alone: 560
25 Peruvian: 473
Total Population: 2,967,297

Nevada
1 Mexican: 540,978
2 Black or African American alone: 218,626
3 Filipino alone: 98,351
4 Hispanic or Latino (n.e.c. or generic responses): 37,133
5 Salvadoran: 30,043
6 Chinese (except Taiwanese) alone: 27,673
7 Cuban: 21,459
8 Puerto Rican: 20,664
9 Spaniard or Spanish: 19,527
10 Korean alone: 13,896
11 Guatemalan: 13,407
12 Asian Indian or East Indian alone: 11,671
13 Japanese alone: 10,873
14 Vietnamese alone: 9,892
15 American Indian or Alaska Native tribes (not specified): 9,405
16 Native Hawaiian (Kānaka Maoli) alone: 6,459
17 American Indian tribes (n.e.c.): 6,256
18 Thai alone: 5,515
19 Colombian: 5,230
20 Peruvian: 4,581
21 Honduran: 4,481
22 Nicaraguan: 4,475
23 Paiute alone: 4,027
24 Guamanian or Chamorro (Chamoru) alone: 3,513
25 Argentinean: 3,419
Total Population: 2,700,551

New Mexico
1 Mexican: 590,890
2 Hispanic or Latino (n.e.c. or generic responses): 205,851
3 Spaniard or Spanish: 132,567
4 Navajo alone: 108,306
5 Black or African American alone: 42,550
6 Pueblo alone: 38,321
7 American Indian or Alaska Native tribes (not specified): 24,224
8 Puerto Rican: 7,964
9 Apache alone: 7,778
10 Chinese (except Taiwanese) alone: 5,418
11 Filipino alone: 4,963
12 Vietnamese alone: 4,726
13 Asian Indian or East Indian alone: 4,550
14 Cuban: 4,298
15 Korean alone: 2,423
16 Guatemalan: 2,386
17 Japanese alone: 2,208
18 Salvadoran: 2,051
19 American Indian tribes (n.e.c.): 1,485
20 Colombian: 1,347
21 Cherokee (Tsalagi) alone: 1,221
22 Kiowa alone: 1,202
23 Mexican American Indian alone: 1,160
24 Sioux alone: 1,136
25 Peruvian: 913
Total Population: 2,059,179

North Dakota - recently added: Assiniboine Sioux
1 Chippewa alone: 14,977
2 Sioux alone: 10,149
3 Mexican: 9,223
4 Black or African American alone: 7,960
5 American Indian or Alaska Native tribes (not specified): 7,583
6 American Indian tribes (n.e.c.): 2,646
7 Asian Indian or East Indian alone: 1,543
8 Chinese (except Taiwanese) alone: 1,455
9 Hispanic or Latino (n.e.c. or generic responses): 1,320
10 Puerto Rican: 987
11 Filipino alone: 924
12 Vietnamese alone: 640
13 Korean alone: 609
14 Spaniard or Spanish: 602
15 Japanese alone: 276
16 Bhutanese alone: 264
17 Cuban: 260
18 Colombian: 244
19 Nepalese alone: 222
20 Assiniboine Sioux alone: 214
21 Thai alone: 135
22 Guatemalan: 134
23 Asian (not specified): 134
24 Sri Lankan alone: 120
25 Cherokee (Tsalagi) alone: 103
Total Population: 672,591

Oklahoma - recently added Shawnee
1 Black or African American alone: 277,644
2 Mexican: 267,016
3 Cherokee (Tsalagi) alone: 114,533
4 Choctaw alone: 51,431
5 American Indian or Alaska Native tribes (not specified): 33,951
6 Creek alone: 28,364
7 American Indian tribes (n.e.c.): 19,727
8 Hispanic or Latino (n.e.c. or generic responses): 17,652
9 Chickasaw alone: 16,826
10 Vietnamese alone: 16,258
11 Puerto Rican: 12,223
12 Asian Indian or East Indian alone: 11,906
13 Spaniard or Spanish: 9,116
14 Chinese (except Taiwanese) alone: 8,616
15 Guatemalan: 7,960
16 Seminole alone: 7,429
17 Comanche alone: 6,413
18 Korean alone: 5,949
19 Filipino alone: 5,901
20 Kiowa alone: 5,724
21 Potawatomi alone: 5,428
22 Osage alone: 4,746
23 Hmong (Mong) alone: 3,180
24 Shawnee alone: 3,139
25 Salvadoran: 2,788
Total Population: 3,751,351

Oregon
1 Mexican: 369,817
2 Black or African American alone: 69,206
3 Chinese (except Taiwanese) alone: 29,313
4 Vietnamese alone: 26,195
5 Hispanic or Latino (n.e.c. or generic responses): 24,076
6 American Indian tribes (n.e.c.): 17,126
7 Asian Indian or East Indian alone: 16,740
8 Filipino alone: 15,861
9 Korean alone: 15,212
10 Spaniard or Spanish: 14,310
11 American Indian or Alaska Native tribes (not specified): 13,156
12 Japanese alone: 12,085
13 Puerto Rican: 8,845
14 Guatemalan: 7,703
15 Salvadoran: 5,906
16 Cuban: 4,923
17 Laotian alone: 4,692
18 Cherokee (Tsalagi) alone: 4,027
19 Cambodian (Khmer) alone: 3,093
20 Mexican American Indian alone: 3,090
21 Native Hawaiian (Kānaka Maoli) alone: 3,060
22 Hmong (Mong) alone: 2,722
23 Peruvian: 2,650
24 Asian (not specified): 2,638
25 Thai alone: 2,519
Total Population: 3,831,074

Rhode Island
1 Black or African American alone: 60,189
2 Dominican (Dominican Republic): 35,008
3 Puerto Rican: 34,979
4 Guatemalan: 18,852
5 Hispanic or Latino (n.e.c. or generic responses): 10,093
6 Mexican: 9,090
7 Colombian: 8,283
8 Chinese (except Taiwanese) alone: 6,574
9 Cambodian (Khmer) alone: 5,176
10 Asian Indian or East Indian alone: 4,653
11 Laotian alone: 2,875
12 Salvadoran: 2,715
13 American Indian or Alaska Native tribes (not specified): 2,623
14 Filipino alone: 2,621
15 Spaniard or Spanish: 2,214
16 Korean alone: 2,138
17 American Indian tribes (n.e.c.): 2,011
18 Bolivian: 1,912
19 Cuban: 1,640
20 Vietnamese alone: 1,326
21 Honduran: 1,250
22 Ecuadorian: 1,128
23 Peruvian: 1,067
24 Hmong (Mong) alone: 909
25 Asian (not specified): 882
Total Population: 1,052,567

Tennessee
1 Black or African American alone: 1,057,315
2 Mexican: 186,615
3 Asian Indian or East Indian alone: 23,900
4 Puerto Rican: 21,060
5 Hispanic or Latino (n.e.c. or generic responses): 18,727
6 Chinese (except Taiwanese) alone: 14,605
7 Guatemalan: 14,323
8 Vietnamese alone: 10,033
9 Korean alone: 9,818
10 Honduran: 9,455
11 Filipino alone: 9,247
12 Salvadoran: 8,570
13 Cuban: 7,773
14 American Indian or Alaska Native tribes (not specified): 7,417
15 Laotian alone: 6,336
16 Spaniard or Spanish: 6,218
17 Cherokee (Tsalagi) alone: 5,327
18 Japanese alone: 3,962
19 Colombian: 3,695
20 Asian (not specified): 2,556
21 Dominican (Dominican Republic): 2,113
22 Pakistani alone: 1,934
23 Peruvian: 1,918
24 Panamanian: 1,915
25 Venezuelan: 1,667
Total Population: 6,346,105

Texas
1 Mexican: 7,951,193
2 Black or African American alone: 2,979,598
3 Hispanic or Latino (n.e.c. or generic responses): 657,001
4 Asian Indian or East Indian alone: 245,981
5 Salvadoran: 222,599
6 Vietnamese alone: 210,913
7 Chinese (except Taiwanese) alone: 141,823
8 Puerto Rican: 130,576
9 Spaniard or Spanish: 111,507
10 Filipino alone: 103,074
11 Honduran: 88,389
12 American Indian or Alaska Native tribes (not specified): 84,762
13 Korean alone: 67,750
14 Guatemalan: 66,244
15 Pakistani alone: 53,901
16 Colombian: 50,810
17 Cuban: 46,541
18 Peruvian: 22,605
19 Venezuelan: 20,162
20 Nicaraguan: 19,817
21 Japanese alone: 18,360
22 Asian (not specified): 17,796
23 Cherokee (Tsalagi) alone: 17,084
24 Mexican American Indian alone: 14,435
25 Taiwanese alone: 14,175
Total Population: 25,145,561

Washington
1 Mexican: 601,768
2 Black or African American alone: 240,042
3 Filipino alone: 91,367
4 Chinese (except Taiwanese) alone: 86,977
5 Vietnamese alone: 66,575
6 Korean alone: 62,374
7 Asian Indian or East Indian alone: 61,124
8 Hispanic or Latino (n.e.c. or generic responses): 38,693
9 Japanese alone: 35,008
10 Spaniard or Spanish: 27,079
11 Puerto Rican: 25,838
12 American Indian or Alaska Native tribes (not specified): 22,474
13 American Indian tribes (n.e.c.): 20,745
14 Cambodian (Khmer) alone: 19,101
15 Samoan alone: 13,110
16 Salvadoran: 12,637
17 Puget Sound Salish alone: 12,422
18 Guamanian or Chamorro (Chamoru) alone: 9,746
19 Guatemalan: 9,520
20 Laotian alone: 9,333
21 Yakama alone: 7,325
22 Colville alone: 6,954
23 Taiwanese alone: 6,832
24 Cuban: 6,744
25 Asian (not specified): 6,357
Total Population: 6,724,540

More updates to come as more data is released.

[zilfondel]

Originally Posted by mhays

Doubling up isn't that bad. Even while I support low-income housing, doubling up is a great "bootstrap" way to house yourself. My family did this twice when I was growing up, once in an apartment and once in a pretty nice house we'd never have afforded otherwise. Later I had roommates. I don't get why this isn't more common.

Interesting. I have some family in Switzerland that recently built a new house and, according to local zoning laws over there, it is flat-out illegal for fewer than 3 unrelated families to live in one house (Swiss chalet actually).

So they have to rent out 2 separate floors to 2 separate families. The houses are rather large, of course.

[M II A II R II K]

New Census Geographies Tell an Ambiguous Urban Story


March 26, 2012

Read More: http://discoveringurbanism.blogspot....ous-urban.html

The U.S. Census Bureau announced today that the U.S. population is more urbanized than ever before. In 2000, 79.0% of the population lived in an Urban Area, as defined by the Census Bureau, and in 2010 that number grew to 80.7% of all Americans. While this finding might suggest that Americans are moving into the kinds of urban places featured on this blog – walkable neighborhoods with a diversity of uses in close proximity - the full story is much more nuanced. "Urban" can mean many things. While the urbanized population grew between 2000 and 2010, the area of land considered urbanized grew by even more.

- Before looking at some results, I'd like to note that the minimum density threshold to qualify an area as urban is not all that high. An area must have core Census Tracts with at least 1,000 people per square mile, and the urbanized area can spread out indefinitely as long as there are contiguous areas with 500 people per square mile. It can even "jump" and "hop" over sparsely populated land to continue along a corridor. As a point of reference, a neighborhood of single-family houses on two acres lots would qualify as "urban" under this definition, even considering roadways and other leftover spaces. Urbanized Areas (the cities, not the towns) increased in population by 13.3% between 2000 and 2010, but they also increased in land area by 18.5%.

.....

After several decades of rapid expansion, the Phoenix-Mesa urbanized area increased by another 43% between 2000 and and 2010. Atlanta had much more growth (+683 square miles) and Charlotte had a much higher growth rate (70%), but Phoenix held it's own on both measures, perhaps adding more ammunition to those who consider this desert oasis to be the world's least sustainable city.






San Diego, on the other hand, showed very little outward expansion over the decade, while absorbing an additional 282 thousand people.

[M II A II R II K]

America's Growing Urban Footprint


Mar 28, 2012

By Nate Berg

Read More: http://www.theatlanticcities.com/nei...ootprint/1615/

.....

According to new figures from the U.S. Census Bureau, more than 80 percent of the U.S. population lives in urban areas – areas that range wildly in population and density, as we recently reported. And with this latest count of urban dwellers, the Census Bureau has also released revised measurements of just how big the country's urban areas are geographically. With the rise in urban population, there has also been a rise in the sheer size of many cities and urban areas.

- Atlanta saw the largest absolute increase in its urban area between 2000 and 2010, growing from 1,962 square miles to 2,645, an increase of nearly 683 square miles. "The suburbs are just growing outward," says Kevin Hawley, a geographer at the Census Bureau. "That seems to be the case in most of the larger areas." These growing urban areas aren't just cities extending their borders, according to Hawley, but rather clusters of urban development on the fringes of cities that are growing towards each other. As two areas spread out and get closer together, the space in between "gets sort of swallowed as growth between the two areas happens," Hawley says.

- Four of the top ten growing cities, it's worth underlining, are in Texas. This is a state that experienced a 20 percent population growth rate between 2000 and 2010, and will be gaining an additional four congressional representatives through reapportionment. The largest increase in urban land for a Texas city was in Dallas, which grew by about 372 square miles. Rosanne Ortega, executive director of the Greater Dallas Planning Council, says the state's relatively resilient economy is behind the population growth that's been fueling this urban expansion. "North Texas especially hasn’t experienced quite the dramatic downturn that any of the other major metropolitan areas like Chicago or Detroit have experienced. So a lot of our jobs, even in construction, have been maintained," Ortega says.

.....