The US Census Bureau thread

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by north 42

Doughnut hole of disinvestment? The city of Detroit is seeing more investment and construction than it has seen in many decades! There’s even a new “Tallest” going up DT, along with multiple other developments. Population loss in the city proper has slowed to a trickle and should show actual growth soon, possibly even the next census!

I would believe this.

I think Detroit may be where Chicago was 30 years ago. The only problem being, it destroyed much more of its built environment, plus Chicago’s downtown never really declined that much in the mid-late twentieth century.

[JManc]

Should we rename this thread: Chicago Population?

[C.]

Originally Posted by Crawford

People in public housing are human beings. It isn't "more impressive" if you remove public housing residents and the land gets developed.

The Near North Side is most desirable part of Chicago and has the most housing development. It would obviously be expected to show significant growth. I doubt there's any core in the U.S. that doesn't show growth.

I agree with you Crawford. It's kinda sad what's been touted on this thread. A successful resurgence should be one in which all residents of a city are benefiting. Being proud that the poor are getting kicked out and replacing with higher earning transplants is the absolutely worst kind of gentrification. This is why some in the community fear new development for fear it will eventually lead to them intentionally being pushed out of the neighborhood.

I'm not arguing against the redevelopment of public housing. I believe the construction of 100% subsidized housing was a mistake that lead to concentrations of poverty and other societal ills. But as new developments are being built, there should be some mixed-income housing nearby.

[The North One]

Originally Posted by CIA

Growth in the metro area is not a positive for me, especially if the city proper is still in decline. Especially thinking of Detroit. It just becomes a doughnut hole of disinvestment.

More nonsense, regional growth will always be important because that's how US cities and economies operate, regional decline is much more alarming because it suggests there is something wrong with a city in it's true form and not arbitrary city limits. You're also ignoring the trend of population in Wayne County having ever-slowing losses, I wonder why that is?

Disinvestment... did this comment come out of 1994? There is an absurd amount of investment and development all around Detroit city proper you can go google that and look it up yourself (god forbid your opinions to be informed at all). Every US city destroyed a significant amount of their cores including Chicago, that doesn't stop good future urban development (which is also what Chicago did).

[C.]

Originally Posted by The North One

More nonsense, regional growth will always be important because that's how US cities and economies operate, regional decline is much more alarming because it suggests there is something wrong with a city in it's true form and not arbitrary city limits. You're also ignoring the trend of population in Wayne County having ever-slowing losses, I wonder why that is?

Disinvestment... did this comment come out of 1994? There is an absurd amount of investment and development all around Detroit city proper you can go google that and look it up yourself (god forbid your opinions to be informed at all). Every US city destroyed a significant amount of their cores including Chicago, that doesn't stop good future urban development (which is also what Chicago did).

City of Detroit population
2000 - 951,270
2010 - 713,777
2016 - 672,795

But hey, at least the metro area is growing and we have a new tallest downtown!

[the urban politician]

^ Population decline can still happen even with a great deal of investment.

There is always a deeper story than just sheer total population numbers. Just saying...

[skyscraperpage17]

Originally Posted by CIA

City of Detroit population
2000 - 951,270
2010 - 713,777
2016 - 672,795

But hey, at least the metro area is growing and we have a new tallest downtown!

It should be noted, the Census did a very poor job of estimating Detroit's population before the 2010 census. There was a revision in 2008 that estimated Detroit still had over 900,000 people.

So the latest estimates could still be way off.

There was a massive outflow of people from the neighborhoods during the 2011 - 2014 financial crisis that weren't accounted for in the official numbers (number of vacant homes surged from roughly 33,000 in 2010 to nearly 80,000 by the middle of the decade).

Plus, because of the situation with Detroit's ridiculous auto insurance rates and the city income tax, there are a lot of people who may be living in downtown/midtown but are reporting a suburban residence.

[jd3189]

Originally Posted by CIA

I agree with you Crawford. It's kinda sad what's been touted on this thread. A successful resurgence should be one in which all residents of a city are benefiting. Being proud that the poor are getting kicked out and replacing with higher earning transplants is the absolutely worst kind of gentrification. This is why some in the community fear new development for fear it will eventually lead to them intentionally being pushed out of the neighborhood.

I'm not arguing against the redevelopment of public housing. I believe the construction of 100% subsidized housing was a mistake that lead to concentrations of poverty and other societal ills. But as new developments are being built, there should be some mixed-income housing nearby.

Exactly. Cities should be growing to also have sizeable middle classes. Without that, gentrification will only leaf to huge gatef communities with poverty in the streets.

[The North One]

Originally Posted by CIA

City of Detroit population
2000 - 951,270
2010 - 713,777
2016 - 672,795

But hey, at least the metro area is growing and we have a new tallest downtown!

*yawn*

Nice derail of everything I said, aren't you tired yet? Don't you have a hobby or something? A life perhaps?

[CaliNative]

Originally Posted by skyscraperpage17

Ok.

Even by that measure, it doesn't change the fact that *metro* Chicago still added 90,000 people during that time (double the growth of your definition of "the greater downtown area of Chicago").

That's impressive growth no doubt, but it's not enough evidence to suggest that outer suburban / exurban growth has completely dried up and outer suburban / exurban growth isn't just as (if not more) impressive, which is what you seemed to imply in your posts (or maybe I'm mistaken in my understanding of your posts?).

People of all ethnic groups that can afford it are moving to what they perceive to be "safer" parts of the city. The loop and near north side is perceived to be safer than the inner suburbs, especially the near west side and south side, where gun violence, drug use, and gangs are perceived to be more troublesome in some neighborhoods. This is similar to what has happened in other cities, and historically. When the Roman Empire collapsed, the size of the city collapsed to a small area near the center. More defensible. Walls were erected. At some point, if the safety perception improves, real bargains will be available outside the center in the cities. "Gentrification" is now starting in many areas. This happened in the South Bronx and Brooklyn a decade ago. Now becoming desirable. May soon happen in Chicago & Detroit & other cities, or already happening, as "pioneer gentrifiers" move in. The gentrification starts at the center, and moves outward.

[Investing In Chicago]

Originally Posted by CIA

I agree with you Crawford. It's kinda sad what's been touted on this thread. A successful resurgence should be one in which all residents of a city are benefiting. Being proud that the poor are getting kicked out and replacing with higher earning transplants is the absolutely worst kind of gentrification. This is why some in the community fear new development for fear it will eventually lead to them intentionally being pushed out of the neighborhood.

I'm not arguing against the redevelopment of public housing. I believe the construction of 100% subsidized housing was a mistake that lead to concentrations of poverty and other societal ills. But as new developments are being built, there should be some mixed-income housing nearby.

Oh please, spare me the bleeding heart...Chicago has literally like 100 sq miles of areas of cheap housing, where one could buy a house for $60K or rent a 3 bed apartment for $500/mo. (I know because I own several apartment buildings in such areas)...the Poorest of the poor should not be living in the most expensive, most desirable parts of the city. Chicago needs to maximize the property tax revenue in these neighborhoods. Middle class families are priced out of Near North Side neighborhoods, why should people living in Public Housing live there? there is a vast city out there where mixed income would work just fine.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by CaliNative

People of all ethnic groups that can afford it are moving to what they perceive to be "safer" parts of the city. The loop and near north side is perceived to be safer than the inner suburbs, especially the near west side and south side, where gun violence, drug use, and gangs are perceived to be more troublesome in some neighborhoods.

Cook County, as a whole, has population decline, but the vast majority of the county isn't remotely unsafe or destitute. Lake County, which includes some of Chicago's wealthiest suburbs, and very few bad or poor areas, shows population decline too.

I think the major issue is immigration. When your immigration counts drop by half, and you're an older metro, that's a big deal.

[Yuri]

More on the US 2017 Estimates:

-------------------------- 2000 ------- 2010 ------- 2017

NEW YORK ------------- 22,242,140 -- 23,076,853 -- 23,876,155
LOS ANGELES ---------- 16,373,626 -- 17,877,317 -- 18,788,800
CHICAGO --------------- 9,466,066 --- 9,841,356 --- 9,901,711
WASHINGTON-BALTIMORE -- 7,981,785 --- 9,052,207 --- 9,764,315
SAN FRANCISCO --------- 7,656,428 --- 8,153,931 --- 8,837,789
BOSTON ---------------- 7,630,227 --- 7,893,712 --- 8,233,270
DALLAS ---------------- 5,596,513 --- 6,851,525 --- 7,846,293
PHILADELPHIA ---------- 6,688,799 --- 7,068,013 --- 7,206,807
HOUSTON --------------- 4,878,547 --- 6,114,704 --- 7,093,190
MIAMI ----------------- 5,476,158 --- 6,168,430 --- 6,828,241
ATLANTA --------------- 4,779,096 --- 5,910,318 --- 6,555,956
DETROIT --------------- 5,456,718 --- 5,319,084 --- 5,336,286
SEATTLE --------------- 3,775,924 --- 4,274,758 --- 4,764,736
PHOENIX --------------- 3,251,884 --- 4,193,129 --- 4,737,270
MINNEAPOLIS ----------- 3,335,489 --- 3,684,926 --- 3,946,533
DENVER ---------------- 2,630,026 --- 3,091,003 --- 3,515,374
CLEVELAND ------------- 3,582,652 --- 3,515,663 --- 3,485,691
SAN DIEGO ------------- 2,813,839 --- 3,095,342 --- 3,337,685
ORLANDO --------------- 2,191,049 --- 2,818,113 --- 3,284,198
PORTLAND -------------- 2,549,327 --- 2,921,427 --- 3,201,058
TAMPA ----------------- 2,396,038 --- 2,783,469 --- 3,091,399
ST. LOUIS ------------- 2,772,690 --- 2,892,570 --- 2,911,945
CHARLOTTE ------------- 1,871,868 --- 2,375,608 --- 2,684,121
PITTSBURGH ------------ 2,747,388 --- 2,660,779 --- 2,623,639
SACRAMENTO ------------ 2,028,073 --- 2,414,781 --- 2,598,377
SALT LAKE CITY -------- 1,846,306 --- 2,271,701 --- 2,559,350
COLUMBUS -------------- 2,069,126 --- 2,308,553 --- 2,481,585
SAN ANTONIO ----------- 1,711,578 --- 2,142,516 --- 2,473,974
KANSAS CITY ----------- 2,125,423 --- 2,343,008 --- 2,472,602
LAS VEGAS ------------- 1,563,244 --- 2,195,399 --- 2,455,481
INDIANAPOLIS ---------- 2,028,332 --- 2,266,768 --- 2,411,086
CINCINNATI ------------ 2,052,103 --- 2,174,213 --- 2,238,265
RALEIGH --------------- 1,452,652 --- 1,912,608 --- 2,199,459
AUSTIN ---------------- 1,249,963 --- 1,716,320 --- 2,115,827
MILWUAKEE ------------- 1,943,238 --- 2,026,061 --- 2,048,007
NASHVILLE ------------- 1,485,691 --- 1,788,396 --- 2,027,489

Those numbers are interesting to see the trending:

--- New York added 800,000 in the past decade, and added another 800,000 in this unfinished decade;

--- Los Angeles plunged from 1,5 million to 900,000. New York will be the US number 1 forever, specially it's the most likely to capture more counties into its CSA;

--- Chicago from 375,000 to 60,000 dragging itself towards the 10 million barrier;

--- Washington-Baltimore from over over 1 million to 700,000. It seems it will overtake Chicago by the 2020 Census already;

--- San Francisco from 500,000 to 700,000, although slowing down lately due the high prices there;

--- Boston from 260,000 to 340,000;

--- Dallas from 1.25 million to 1 million;

--- Philadelphia from 380,000 to 140,000. It seems they worked much better as proxy for New York in the past decade than now;

--- Houston exactly like Dallas, from 1.25 million to 1 million. It seems it's getting behind in the past two years though;

--- Miami from 700,000 to 650,000;

--- Atlanta from 1.1 million to 650,000. In the 1990's, it was even more impressive: added 1.3 million people from a much lower base;

--- Detroit reversing decline: lost 140,000 people in the 2000's and now added almost 20,000. Trend observed only in the New York, San Francisco and Boston, the "hottest" metro areas in the US nowadays.

--- Seattle adding 500,000 people each decade;

--- Phoenix from 950,000 to 550,000;

--- Minneapolis from 350,000 to 260,000;

--- Denver from 460,000 to 420,000;

--- Cleveland still on negative, but losing less people;

--- San Diego from 280,000 to 240,000;

--- Orlando from 630,000 to 470,000;

--- Portland from 370,000 to 280,000;

--- Tampa from 390,000 to 310,000;

--- St. Louis mirroring Chicago: 120,000 to 20,000;

--- Charlotte from 500,000 to 300,000;

--- Pittsburgh reducing its decline;

--- Sacramento from 390,000 to 180,000;

--- Salt Lake City from 420,000 to 290,000;

--- Columbus from 240,000 to 170,000;

--- San Antonio from 430,000 to 330,000;

--- Kansas City from 220,000 to 130,000;

--- Las Vegas from 630,000 to 260,000;

--- Indianapolis from 240,000 to 150,000;

--- Cincinnati from 120,000 to 60,000;

--- Raleigh from 460,000 to 290,000;

--- Austin from 470,000 to 400,000;

--- Milwaukee also following Chicago: from 80,000 to 20,000;

--- Nashville from 300,000 to 240,000.

[M II A II R II K]

US population disperses to suburbs, exurbs, rural areas, and “middle of the country” metros


March 26, 2018

By William H. Frey

Read More: https://www.brookings.edu/blog/the-avenu...-areas-and-middle-of-the-country-metros/

Newly released census data for the first seven years of this decade signal a resumption of the population dispersal that was put “on hold” for a good part of the post-Great Recession period. The Census Bureau’s annual county and metropolitan area estimates through 2017 reveal a revival of suburbanization and movement to rural areas along with Snow Belt-to-Sun Belt population shifts

- In addition, the data show a new dispersal to large- and moderate-sized metro areas in the middle of the country—especially in the Northeast and Midwest. If these shifts continue, they could call into question the sharp clustering of the nation’s population—in large metropolitan areas and their cities—that characterized the first half of the 2010s. --- The new numbers leave little doubt that suburbanization is on the rise, after a decided lull in the first part of the decade. Migration patterns and city-suburb shifts already hinted at this trend in the last year. But the trends through 2016 and 2017 put an exclamation point on it, as seen in Figure 1.

- The double whammy of the Great Recession and a mortgage meltdown seemed to have put the brakes on suburban growth, which trended downward through 2012—the peak year of the “back to the city” movement—when outer suburbs grew more slowly than urban cores. Since then, the growth of urban cores has halved and exurban county growth has quadrupled. --- Revived suburban and exurban growth is most pronounced in the Sun Belt metropolitan areas. Kaufman County in suburban Dallas, Pinal County in suburban Phoenix, and Toole County in suburban Salt Lake City, Utah were among those registering highest growth.

- In contrast, core urban counties in the Snow Belt, including Cook Co., Ill., Cuyahoga Co., Ohio, and Allegheny Co., Pa. showed some of the greatest numeric population losses. These suburbanization trends, while not yet at levels of the early 2000s, seem to be associated with recent improvements in the economy and housing market that have lifted the constraints to suburban relocation among potential movers, including young adult millennial households. There is reason to believe the trend is likely to continue.

- The lifting of mobility constraints applies to another aspect of population dispersal that was put on hold during the early part of this decade: the shift toward smaller metropolitan areas and counties outside metropolitan areas. As shown in Figure 2, non-metropolitan counties, in the aggregate, register positive population growth in 2016-2017 for the first time since 2010, and small metropolitan areas—those below half a million population—increased their rate of growth for the third straight year. At the same time, large metropolitan areas showed reduced rates of growth for two years in a row to a level of only 0.86 percent, the lowest since at least 1990.

- To be sure, large metropolitan areas are still growing faster than the rest of the country. But trends are moving in the direction reminiscent of the early 2000s when small metropolitan growth exceeded that in large areas, and non-metropolitan growth was much higher than it is now. The shift toward smaller areas is evident from domestic migration statistics, based on the new data release, showing that from 2016 through 2017, large metropolitan areas lost migrants to smaller and non-metropolitan areas for the first time since 2008.

- This modest “filling in” of populations in interior metropolitan areas might be seen as part of a broader dispersal of the population away from urban agglomerations that have recently dominated growth. Overall, the new census statistics make clear that this dispersal is occurring on several levels. It suggests that the steady improvement in the economy and the housing market in more places, along with changing residential preferences, may be prompting employers and job-seekers to take a new look at areas that were growing before the Great Recession.

.....

[isaidso]

So population growth in the Houston MSA is dropping significantly? Is it happening in other Texas MSAs like Dallas, Austin, and San Antonio?

[JManc]

Originally Posted by isaidso

So population growth in the Houston MSA is dropping significantly? Is it happening in other Texas MSAs like Dallas, Austin, and San Antonio?

It's slowed due to the slump in the oil and gas industry but I suspect it will pick back up once it recovers. When that happens is anyone's guess though..

[N90]

Originally Posted by JManc

It's slowed due to the slump in the oil and gas industry but I suspect it will pick back up once it recovers. When that happens is anyone's guess though..

It's already recovered, its job growth now only trails LA, NYC, and DFW. I think HOUs population growth numbers will dip again in 2018 because of Harvey but 2019 and beyond should be a return back to normalcy for HOU 120k. HOU is still gonna add the same amount or more people this decade than last decade.

https://www.bls.gov/news.release/metro.t03.htm

[muertecaza]

Originally Posted by yuriandrade

More on the US 2017 Estimates:

-------------------------- 2000 ------- 2010 ------- 2017

NEW YORK ------------- 22,242,140 -- 23,076,853 -- 23,876,155
LOS ANGELES ---------- 16,373,626 -- 17,877,317 -- 18,788,800
CHICAGO --------------- 9,466,066 --- 9,841,356 --- 9,901,711
WASHINGTON-BALTIMORE -- 7,981,785 --- 9,052,207 --- 9,764,315
SAN FRANCISCO --------- 7,656,428 --- 8,153,931 --- 8,837,789
BOSTON ---------------- 7,630,227 --- 7,893,712 --- 8,233,270
DALLAS ---------------- 5,596,513 --- 6,851,525 --- 7,846,293
PHILADELPHIA ---------- 6,688,799 --- 7,068,013 --- 7,206,807
HOUSTON --------------- 4,878,547 --- 6,114,704 --- 7,093,190
MIAMI ----------------- 5,476,158 --- 6,168,430 --- 6,828,241
ATLANTA --------------- 4,779,096 --- 5,910,318 --- 6,555,956
DETROIT --------------- 5,456,718 --- 5,319,084 --- 5,336,286
SEATTLE --------------- 3,775,924 --- 4,274,758 --- 4,764,736
PHOENIX --------------- 3,251,884 --- 4,193,129 --- 4,737,270
MINNEAPOLIS ----------- 3,335,489 --- 3,684,926 --- 3,946,533
DENVER ---------------- 2,630,026 --- 3,091,003 --- 3,515,374
CLEVELAND ------------- 3,582,652 --- 3,515,663 --- 3,485,691
SAN DIEGO ------------- 2,813,839 --- 3,095,342 --- 3,337,685
ORLANDO --------------- 2,191,049 --- 2,818,113 --- 3,284,198
PORTLAND -------------- 2,549,327 --- 2,921,427 --- 3,201,058
TAMPA ----------------- 2,396,038 --- 2,783,469 --- 3,091,399
ST. LOUIS ------------- 2,772,690 --- 2,892,570 --- 2,911,945
CHARLOTTE ------------- 1,871,868 --- 2,375,608 --- 2,684,121
PITTSBURGH ------------ 2,747,388 --- 2,660,779 --- 2,623,639
SACRAMENTO ------------ 2,028,073 --- 2,414,781 --- 2,598,377
SALT LAKE CITY -------- 1,846,306 --- 2,271,701 --- 2,559,350
COLUMBUS -------------- 2,069,126 --- 2,308,553 --- 2,481,585
SAN ANTONIO ----------- 1,711,578 --- 2,142,516 --- 2,473,974
KANSAS CITY ----------- 2,125,423 --- 2,343,008 --- 2,472,602
LAS VEGAS ------------- 1,563,244 --- 2,195,399 --- 2,455,481
INDIANAPOLIS ---------- 2,028,332 --- 2,266,768 --- 2,411,086
CINCINNATI ------------ 2,052,103 --- 2,174,213 --- 2,238,265
RALEIGH --------------- 1,452,652 --- 1,912,608 --- 2,199,459
AUSTIN ---------------- 1,249,963 --- 1,716,320 --- 2,115,827
MILWUAKEE ------------- 1,943,238 --- 2,026,061 --- 2,048,007
NASHVILLE ------------- 1,485,691 --- 1,788,396 --- 2,027,489

Those numbers are interesting to see the trending:

--- New York added 800,000 in the past decade, and added another 800,000 in this unfinished decade;

--- Los Angeles plunged from 1,5 million to 900,000. New York will be the US number 1 forever, specially it's the most likely to capture more counties into its CSA;

--- Chicago from 375,000 to 60,000 dragging itself towards the 10 million barrier;

--- Washington-Baltimore from over over 1 million to 700,000. It seems it will overtake Chicago by the 2020 Census already;

--- San Francisco from 500,000 to 700,000, although slowing down lately due the high prices there;

--- Boston from 260,000 to 340,000;

--- Dallas from 1.25 million to 1 million;

--- Philadelphia from 380,000 to 140,000. It seems they worked much better as proxy for New York in the past decade than now;

--- Houston exactly like Dallas, from 1.25 million to 1 million. It seems it's getting behind in the past two years though;

--- Miami from 700,000 to 650,000;

--- Atlanta from 1.1 million to 650,000. In the 1990's, it was even more impressive: added 1.3 million people from a much lower base;

--- Detroit reversing decline: lost 140,000 people in the 2000's and now added almost 20,000. Trend observed only in the New York, San Francisco and Boston, the "hottest" metro areas in the US nowadays.

--- Seattle adding 500,000 people each decade;

--- Phoenix from 950,000 to 550,000;

--- Minneapolis from 350,000 to 260,000;

--- Denver from 460,000 to 420,000;

--- Cleveland still on negative, but losing less people;

--- San Diego from 280,000 to 240,000;

--- Orlando from 630,000 to 470,000;

--- Portland from 370,000 to 280,000;

--- Tampa from 390,000 to 310,000;

--- St. Louis mirroring Chicago: 120,000 to 20,000;

--- Charlotte from 500,000 to 300,000;

--- Pittsburgh reducing its decline;

--- Sacramento from 390,000 to 180,000;

--- Salt Lake City from 420,000 to 290,000;

--- Columbus from 240,000 to 170,000;

--- San Antonio from 430,000 to 330,000;

--- Kansas City from 220,000 to 130,000;

--- Las Vegas from 630,000 to 260,000;

--- Indianapolis from 240,000 to 150,000;

--- Cincinnati from 120,000 to 60,000;

--- Raleigh from 460,000 to 290,000;

--- Austin from 470,000 to 400,000;

--- Milwaukee also following Chicago: from 80,000 to 20,000;

--- Nashville from 300,000 to 240,000.

These are CSAs for those that have them, and then MSAs for those that don't, yes? No real opinion about whether that's good or bad, just wanted to make sure I know what I'm reading.

[The ATX]

Those are CSAs. MSAs are the best measurement for comparisons.

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by muertecaza

These are CSAs for those that have them, and then MSAs for those that don't, yes? No real opinion about whether that's good or bad, just wanted to make sure I know what I'm reading.

This. Called Primary Statistical Areas by the US Census Bureau. Got the numbers on citypopulation.de as they don't update Wikipedia's article anymore.

Originally Posted by The ATX

Those are CSAs. MSAs are the best measurement for comparisons.

MSAs has ridiculous definitions for New York, Los Angeles and San Francisco. CSAs are free of it, defining much better a metropolitan area.