The US Census Bureau thread

[mhays]

Yes, and it's too bad we had to turn woods into that.

[eixample]

Originally Posted by Obadno

LOL that is a cool factoid but that intro: "t’s incredible how much we’ve given up in the United States all so we can travel slightly faster by car"

Okay Mr. blogman, Atlanta didn't tear down FLORNCE to build that highway, that's an entirely absurd thing to say. If that highway was never built that area would be suburban housing or rural woods.

Cincinnati and many other cities tore down big swaths of their cities (what would now be considered beautiful urban environments) for highways and interchanges

[TexasPlaya]

Originally Posted by mhays

Yes, and it's too bad we had to turn woods into that.

Some woods. Agriculture and livestock are killers of forests along with unbridled timber industries.

[bnk]

Originally Posted by eixample

Cincinnati and many other cities tore down big swaths of their cities (what would now be considered beautiful urban environments) for highways and interchanges

Pretty much every big urban metro did the same thing in the 1950's and 60's back then.

[dktshb]

Originally Posted by ocman

Once again, Los Angeles will reach a milestone with 4 million people. It’s like one of those movies where the day keeps repeating itself. LOL.

City, increase YoY, current population
1) San Antonio, TX: 24,208 -- 1,511,946
2) Phoenix, AZ: 24,036 -- 1,626,078
3) Dallas, TX: 18,935 -- 1,341,075
4) Fort Worth, TX: 18,664 -- 874,168
5) Los Angeles, CA: 18,643 -- 3,999,759
6) Seattle, WA: 17,490 -- 724,745
7) Charlotte, NC: 15,551 -- 859,035
8) Columbus, OH: 15,429 -- 879,170
9) Frisco, TX: 13,470 -- 177,286
10) Atlanta, GA: 13,323 -- 486,290
11) San Diego, CA: 12,834 -- 1,419,516
12) Austin, TX: 12,515 -- 950,715
13) Jacksonville, FL: 11,169 -- 892,062
14) Irvine, CA: 11,068 -- 277,453
15) Henderson, NV: 10,534 -- 302,539


Yeah, Groundhog Day. Surprised to see LA in the top 5 and Irvine and San Diego being in the top 15 considering how much more expensive it is to make it here in Southern California.

[dktshb]

Originally Posted by mhays

https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/...es/index.xhtml to look up populations. (It's a very poorly designed site...to get "Cleveland" you have to say "cleveland city" because otherwise it'll give you a choice of three counties with that name. From there see "2017 Population Estimates Program".)

I used wikipedia for land areas.

Originally Posted by Obadno

Yeah we always get dinged here because huge areas of the "city" are city preserves, riverbed and large empty nothing in the northern "city limits"

Our density still isn't high but its higher than the pop/square miles division would indicate.

They have the "urban area" measure but I don't know if that methodology is entirely accurate either.

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

that is one reason why straight-up population/city limits land area calcs can be poor as a comparison tool.

in chicago's case, we have two major international airports inside city limits that take up 14 sq. miles of completely uninhabited land.

additionally, on the far south side there's the lake calumet industrial area which is inside city limits and consists of 18 sq. miles of uninhabited industrial wastelands.

that's 32 sq. miles of uninhabitted land in chicago right there. that's nearly the size of the entire city of miami!

many of the smaller cities with tighter city limits don't include things like giant airports or more than a dozen sq. miles of industrial wastelands, so their average density figures look better on paper.

weighted density figures, which typically look at smaller geographies like census tracts, and then weight the tracts where more people live more heavily, work much better as a comparison tool.

Probably the best way to get the most accurate measure of a City/Metro density comparison/ranking is to map the density at: 25, 50, 75, 100, 200, 300, 400, and 500 square miles.

LA by some on this thread is continually derided for its perceived low density but measured at each of those aforementioned levels with its contemporaries would put it right up there with the densest cities in the US.

[SteveD]

Same group of 15 ordered by percentage increase:

Frisco, TX: 7.60% (!!)
Irvine, CA: 3.89%
Henderson, NV: 3.48%
Atlanta, GA: 2.74%
Seattle, WA: 2.41%
Fort Worth, TX: 2.14%
Charlotte, NC: 1.81%
Columbus, OH: 1.75%
San Antonio, TX: 1.60%
Phoenix, AZ: 1.48%
Dallas, TX: 1.41%
Austin, TX: 1.32%
Jacksonville, FL: 1.25%
San Diego, CA: 0.90%
Los Angeles, CA: 0.47%

Of course, it's much easier for a city starting with a smaller base to post a higher percentage gain, still, quite respectable growth for Atlanta city limits. Frisco, TX is just insane.

[dktshb]

Originally Posted by SteveD

Same group of 15 ordered by percentage increase:

Frisco, TX: 7.60% (!!)
Irvine, CA: 3.89%
Henderson, NV: 3.48%
Atlanta, GA: 2.74%
Seattle, WA: 2.41%
Fort Worth, TX: 2.14%
Charlotte, NC: 1.81%
Columbus, OH: 1.75%
San Antonio, TX: 1.60%
Phoenix, AZ: 1.48%
Dallas, TX: 1.41%
Austin, TX: 1.32%
Jacksonville, FL: 1.25%
San Diego, CA: 0.90%
Los Angeles, CA: 0.47%

Of course, it's much easier for a city starting with a smaller base to post a higher percentage gain, still, quite respectable growth for Atlanta city limits. Frisco, TX is just insane.

smaller population base and smaller city limits.

[Ric 0_0]

I'm surprised with the percentage of increase for Atlanta's city limits. They have been slapping up condos and apartments, but I didn't realize it was that much.

[bnk]

http://www.news-gazette.com/opinion/...k-chicago.html


Editorial | Young, affluent flock to Chicago


Sat, 06/02/2018 - 7:00am | The News-Gazette

Young people with big incomes are finding the Windy City an increasingly attractive place to live and work.
...
upscale young people are flocking to the Windy City.
New census figures show that Chicago is second only to New York City in population growth between 2010 and 2016 for the young and affluent.

The specific population category involved a total income of more than $100,000 with the head of household under age 45.

... The number increased from 105,000 to 131,000. While trailing New York City's, Chicago's population gain topped Houston, San Francisco and Washington, D.C.
While it's gratifying to see Chicago's appeal, it's no great surprise. It's one of the world's great cities, particularly for those who have the means to take advantage of all that it has to offer.


...

Crain's reported that Chicago's population decline "is concentrated among blacks, with the number of whites, Latinos and Asians rising."
During his recent unsuccessful campaign for the Democratic Party's gubernatorial nomination, candidate Chris Kennedy suggested the city's declining black population was the direct result of urban planning policies implemented by Mayor Rahm Emanuel.
The mayor, of course, vehemently denied Kennedy's assertion that he's trying to remake Chicago into a more white and more affluent city, and he may well be innocent of the accusations Kennedy made. After all, it's no surprise that those who are better educated and higher earners can navigate the challenges of a city like Chicago much more easily than those with lesser means of doing so.

[mhays]

The shift from 105,000 to 131,000 would be some mix of inflation, the baby boom echo, and actual growth. But I'm sure there'd be somewhat of a jump regardless.

[tdawg]

Atlanta also just annexed the part of Dekalb County containing Emory University and the CDC which added something like 10,000 people. Not sure if that's reflected in that estimate.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by bnk

http://www.news-gazette.com/opinion/...k-chicago.html


Editorial | Young, affluent flock to Chicago

The Chicago media should be pretty ashamed with their Census rationalization campaign. The "what, me worry, it's just ghetto blacks leaving" is factually incorrect, inherently racist, and the ultimate in mindless boosterism.

The facts are as follows:

1. Chicago is the only first-tier U.S. city losing population
2. Chicago does not have notable black outmigration relative to its peers
3. Chicago's black outmigration appears to be middle class, not the poor
4. Chicago's wealth and education gains are not notable relative to peers, and don't explain the population losses

Chicago is losing population because it no longer gets immigrants in large numbers. It has nothing to do with blacks, or whites, or the rich or poor. There has been a massive decline in Chicago-area intl. in-migration. But the media spin is "the ghetto blacks are leaving and wealthy white folks are replacing them" with zero mention of the actual issue.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Crawford

The Chicago media should be pretty ashamed with their Census rationalization campaign. The "what, me worry, it's just ghetto blacks leaving" is factually incorrect, inherently racist, and the ultimate in mindless boosterism.

The facts are as follows:

1. Chicago is the only first-tier U.S. city losing population
2. Chicago does not have notable black outmigration relative to its peers
3. Chicago's black outmigration appears to be middle class, not the poor
4. Chicago's wealth and education gains are not notable relative to peers, and don't explain the population losses

Chicago is losing population because it no longer gets immigrants in large numbers. It has nothing to do with blacks, or whites, or the rich or poor. There has been a massive decline in Chicago-area intl. in-migration. But the media spin is "the ghetto blacks are leaving and wealthy white folks are replacing them" with zero mention of the actual issue.

I agree with this comment.

[IrishIllini]

Originally Posted by Crawford

The Chicago media should be pretty ashamed with their Census rationalization campaign. The "what, me worry, it's just ghetto blacks leaving" is factually incorrect, inherently racist, and the ultimate in mindless boosterism.

The facts are as follows:

1. Chicago is the only first-tier U.S. city losing population
2. Chicago does not have notable black outmigration relative to its peers
3. Chicago's black outmigration appears to be middle class, not the poor
4. Chicago's wealth and education gains are not notable relative to peers, and don't explain the population losses

Chicago is losing population because it no longer gets immigrants in large numbers. It has nothing to do with blacks, or whites, or the rich or poor. There has been a massive decline in Chicago-area intl. in-migration. But the media spin is "the ghetto blacks are leaving and wealthy white folks are replacing them" with zero mention of the actual issue.

You’re cherry picking, but that is beside the point. This is probably one of a handful of articles without a sensationalized title. There are clearly a lot of people moving in and out of Chicago. By and large, those that leave are less affluent than those who arrive. You should read Crains Chicago...I’m sure you’d be a big fan.

[PremierAtlanta]

Originally Posted by tdawg

Atlanta also just annexed the part of Dekalb County containing Emory University and the CDC which added something like 10,000 people. Not sure if that's reflected in that estimate.

The annexation was approved after the July 2017 Census cut off. The additional 6376 residents will be reflected in the July 2, 2017 - July 1, 2018 numbers. This annexation will also add an additional 1.1625 square miles to the city limits. The new city limits total will now be 135.2 square miles.

[PremierAtlanta]

Originally Posted by Crawford

The Chicago media should be pretty ashamed with their Census rationalization campaign. The "what, me worry, it's just ghetto blacks leaving" is factually incorrect, inherently racist, and the ultimate in mindless boosterism.

The facts are as follows:

1. Chicago is the only first-tier U.S. city losing population
2. Chicago does not have notable black outmigration relative to its peers
3. Chicago's black outmigration appears to be middle class, not the poor
4. Chicago's wealth and education gains are not notable relative to peers, and don't explain the population losses

Chicago is losing population because it no longer gets immigrants in large numbers. It has nothing to do with blacks, or whites, or the rich or poor. There has been a massive decline in Chicago-area intl. in-migration. But the media spin is "the ghetto blacks are leaving and wealthy white folks are replacing them" with zero mention of the actual issue.

There are many times that I pretty much agree with Crawford. This assessment only increases the percentage of agreement. I never hear NYC (a true world city) celebrate losing a certain population. In fact, it seems as if NYC does as much as a city can in a free-capitalist society to protect those that are less fortunate.

[The North One]

I don't think Chicago's loses are going to last for very long, it was growing pretty well in 2012 which wasn't that long ago, loses slowed this year too.

Also, cut the "true world city" bullshit, NYC has just become an oligarch's playground and priced everybody out, it doesn't deserve a pat on the back, they didn't do shit.

Does anybody have any idea why immigration in Chicago has slowed? It seems weird that it suddenly did this.

[IrishIllini]

Originally Posted by The North One

I don't think Chicago's loses are going to last for very long, it was growing pretty well in 2012 which wasn't that long ago, loses slowed this year too.

Also, cut the "true world city" bullshit, NYC has just become an oligarch's playground and priced everybody out, it doesn't deserve a pat on the back, they didn't do shit.

Does anybody have any idea why immigration in Chicago has slowed? It seems weird that it suddenly did this.

Same reason the working class population is shrinking...Fewer working class jobs resulting in less upward mobility.

[mrnyc]

Originally Posted by PremierAtlanta

There are many times that I pretty much agree with Crawford. This assessment only increases the percentage of agreement. I never hear NYC (a true world city) celebrate losing a certain population. In fact, it seems as if NYC does as much as a city can in a free-capitalist society to protect those that are less fortunate.

they do, nyc is a haven for the rich and poor.

if you are middle class forget it.

you are hated, despised and gentrified out at every turn.

much more so than elsewhere, even with the rapidly shrinking middle class.

thank the rich move ins and the economy for that.