The US Census Bureau thread

[craigs]

Originally Posted by ChiSoxRox

Thanks, I enjoy the insight these numbers give.

Did you see the CSA list a few pages back? Especially LA CSA edging ahead of SF CSA!

I did, thank you!

LA's CSA is a monster, consisting of surprisingly uniform residential densities across hundreds of square miles, interspersed with mostly unpopulated mountain ranges. The Bay Area is similar, in the areas where people live, but is far more geographically constrained than even LA. Places like SF proper, downtown Oakland, and parts of LA like downtown, Koreatown, Hollywood, etc. are unique. But most of the two regions respectively consist of quite similar swathes of mixed commercial-residential suburbia with remarkably consistent, upper-middle population densities.

[Steely Dan]

Here's a grim population stat for a Saturday morning.

I was curious to see what impact Chicago's utterly atrocious levels of gun violence in certain neighborhoods might have had on population loss in those same areas.

Chicago's Austin neighborhood on the far west side has been one of the city's most violent areas for awhile now. Last decade its population modestly decreased by 1,957 people (-1.99%), dropping to 96,557.

Over that same decade, there were ~550 homicides in Austin. That's more than 25% of the neighborhood's total population loss!

And given that the vast majority of homicide victims tend to be between ages 15 - 45, most of those 550 lives would still be living today, were they not prematurely gunned down in the prime of their lives.

Quite sobering to see that Chicago's tragic homicide numbers directly and meaningfully move the needle of population loss in certain neighborhoods.

[ChiSoxRox]

Here is a quick graph I made of the top MSAs by % per density bin.

A nice visualization of NYC lapping the field.



If you go to higher densities:



So NYC is the king of high density -- and would San Francisco be the crown prince? Notice how flat the San Francisco graph gets. That's three Tenderloin tracts at 189k, 216k, and 224k ppsm!

Edit: Manhattan though still wins even into the 200k range. The densest tract in Manhattan -- and the entire United States! -- is Census Tract 154.03 at 287,370.2 people per square mile! This is the Ruppert Yorkville Towers, bounded by 91st, 94th, 2nd Avenue, and 3rd Avenue.

There are 11 tracts in the US over 200k ppsm. 2 in San Francisco, 1 in Chicago, 1 in Queens, still 7 in Manhattan.

[dave8721]

Interesting that by that graph it looks like over 50% of LA MSA's population lives at populations over 10k.
That 2nd graph would be cool if you made a version without NY, and zoomed in more on the other more bunched together MSA's.

[ChiSoxRox]

Originally Posted by dave8721

Interesting that by that graph it looks like over 50% of LA MSA's population lives at populations over 10k.
That 2nd graph would be cool if you made a version without NY, and zoomed in more on the other more bunched together MSA's.

Quick zoom in of the 2nd graph:



That is Miami peeking out at 130k-140k. The Chicago flat line is due to one 270k ppsm tract on the lakeshore, second densest in the country.

[craigs]

Originally Posted by dave8721

Interesting that by that graph it looks like over 50% of LA MSA's population lives at populations over 10k.

Yes, I believe that is correct. ChiSoxRox knows for sure.

[ChiSoxRox]

Found the list for % over 10k ppsm:

Originally Posted by dimondpark

Thank you ChiSoxRox for the data.

Half of Los Angeles lives in areas that are 10,000+ppsm, I already figured that I think, but to actually see it in a stat is neat. What a fantastic rebuttal to haters that bemoan the place about sprawl.

MSAs by % Population 10,000+ Per Square Mile
58.0% New York: 11,694,534
50.0% Los Angeles: 6,611,283
43.6% San Francisco: 2,073,127
38.8% Honolulu: 395,854
36.0% San Jose: 720,560
29.3% Boston: 1,448,764
27.1% Chicago: 2,614,012
26.4% Salinas: 116,532
25.3% Philadelphia: 1,580,169
24.7% San Diego: 816,530
23.2% Santa Barbara: 104,916
22.7% Miami: 1,398,475
19.5% Las Vegas: 441,510
19.2% Washington: 1,230,663
18.0% Oxnard: 152,811
18.0% Trenton: 70,272
17.9% Providence: 301,925
17.7% State College: 28,622
17.5% Bridgeport: 168,397
15.9% Santa Cruz: 43,412
14.3% Milwaukee: 226,941
14.2% Reading: 61,836
13.1% Baltimore: 375,152
13.1% Buffalo: 153,098
12.5% Seattle: 505,840
11.1% New Haven: 96,281
10.6% Denver: 315,809

[mhays]

So Seattle has the #3 percentage living over 120 ksm. (I'll take our anomolies where I can get em...one tract full of student housing!)

[ChiSoxRox]

Here is another perspective of the data, with finer bins. This graph is the population living at each band of 1000 ppsm.

This is the top four metros to emphasize their differing distributions, plus San Francisco.



Key takeaways:

1 - NYC's incredible density shelf. Queens is mostly in the 30k/40k range, Brooklyn and the Bronx build up 40k to 80k, and Manhattan fleshes out the shelf past 150k.

2 - San Francisco having scattered tracts up to and past the 200k ppsm mark.

3 - Los Angeles having a pronounced population peak at 7k/8k (rather than 0 like the other metros). This reflects the consistent density of LA's suburban sprawl.

4 - Chicago and LA having similar dense cores, but LA pulls away in total population due to that suburban density enhancement below 20k ppsm.

[RST500]

2020 Census: Speculating The Bay Area’s Demographic Future:

"The SF Metro’s current demographic breakdown is 36.2% White, 27.2% Asian, 22.9% Hispanic, and 6.8% Black, and for the San Josee metro it is 37.8% Asian, 28.8% White, and 26.3% Hispanic. The Bay Area is close to achieving roughly an even number of Whites, Asians, and Latinos, with the White proportion close to the State average, while Asians are overrepresented and Latinos are underrepresented. In 2017 the Bay Area Equity Atlas (page 23) predicted that the Bay Area’s White population would go from 37% in 2020 to 24% in 2050, the Asian population from 27% to 32%, Latino from 26% to 33%, and Black from 6% to 4%."

https://robertstark.substack.com/p/2...-the-bay-areas

[memph]

Originally Posted by memph

Map of growth in Houston's 610 Loop.



Overall

2010: 479,133
2020: 520,576
Change: +41,443 (+8.65%)

And Atlanta's "Inside The Perimeter".


2010: 770,119
2020: 875,881
Change: +105,762 (+13.73%)

It's worth noting that Atlanta's ITP covers a much larger land area than Houston's 610 Loop - almost 250 square miles compared to 73 square miles, respectively. So because Atlanta is a less dense city, a certain amount of growth per square mile will result in a higher % growth, due to the smaller base population. The growth per square mile in Atlanta and Houston is similar, although perhaps with a slight edge to Atlanta.

[pacarlson]

Originally Posted by memph

Map of growth in Houston's 610 Loop.



Overall

2010: 479,133
2020: 520,576
Change: +41,443 (+8.65%)

I found on the website houstontx.gov that the area encompassed by Loop 610 is 96 square miles, rounded off I'm sure. This calculates to a density of around 5,423 people per square mile within Loop 610. Compare this to the city of Milwaukee, which is 96.2 square miles and counted 577,222 people for the 2020 census, giving it 6,000 people per square mile density.

[memph]

Originally Posted by pacarlson

I found on the website houstontx.gov that the area encompassed by Loop 610 is 96 square miles, rounded off I'm sure. This calculates to a density of around 5,423 people per square mile within Loop 610. Compare this to the city of Milwaukee, which is 96.2 square miles and counted 577,222 people for the 2020 census, giving it 6,000 people per square mile density.

Yeah, my bad, Loop 610 is 96-97 sq mi.

[Obadno]

Originally Posted by ChiSoxRox

Weighted population density for MSAs over 1 million:

1. Phoenix....4,807.7
   

You may close, Census query tab. You have served well, go and rest now.

What's the methodology for "weighted" Not that phoenix is particularly dense by any stretch of the imagination but we get incredibly screwed due to absolutely massive expanses of undeveloped land annexed by the city in the 1990's


This map is the "Urban villages" basically how the city breaks things down into sub-management areas, Yes that is a massive area that literally has no name because its uninhabited desert and the three northernmost "villages" have virtually no population spread out over dozens of square miles

Desert View- 68,000
North Gateway-27,000
Rio Vista -9,000

For those keeping score that is roughly 5% of the population taking up 40% of the official city limits.

This doesn't include the Mountain Parks (City parks) which are massive and littered throughout the city. But Basically the city population/Area doesn't work at all in Phoenix due to the large tracks of undeveloped and park land within those limits, it skews us down immensely

Pretty good map I found with the major mountain preserves outlined:



For Context about 1.4mm of our near 1.7mm population lives north of South Mountain Park and South of North Mountain Park, Ahwatukee and the Northern parts of the city are very suburban and house there other 300k (With 80k being in Ahwatukee)

[memph]

Originally Posted by Obadno

What's the methodology for "weighted" Not that phoenix is particularly dense by any stretch of the imagination but we get incredibly screwed due to absolutely massive expanses of undeveloped land annexed by the city in the 1990's


This map is the "Urban villages" basically how the city breaks things down into sub-management areas, Yes that is a massive area that literally has no name because its uninhabited desert and the three northernmost "villages" have virtually no population spread out over dozens of square miles

Desert View- 68,000
North Gateway-27,000
Rio Vista -9,000

For those keeping score that is roughly 5% of the population taking up 40% of the official city limits.

This doesn't include the Mountain Parks (City parks) which are massive and littered throughout the city. But Basically the city population/Area doesn't work at all in Phoenix due to the large tracks of undeveloped and park land within those limits, it skews us down immensely

Pretty good map I found with the major mountain preserves outlined:



For Context about 1.4mm of our near 1.7mm population lives north of South Mountain Park and South of North Mountain Park, Ahwatukee and the Northern parts of the city are very suburban and house there other 300k (With 80k being in Ahwatukee)

If you have 10 square miles with 5000 people living in it (500 ppsm) and 5 square miles with 50,000 people living in it (10,000 ppsm), the weighted density would be

(5,000*500 + 50,000*10,000) / (5,000+50,000) = 9,136 ppsm

Whereas the overall (unweighted) density would be
(50,000 + 5,000) / (10 + 5) = 3,667 ppsm

So weighted density is much more representative of the density of the neighbourhoods that the average person lives in and much less likely to be skewed by sparsely populated areas. Also - those calculations were posted at the MSA level, not the municipal level.

[memph]

Originally Posted by ChiSoxRox

Definitely agreed. As a grand finale, I'm reposting the list that IMO is the closest to a decent apples-to-apples comparison that we have, i.e. the list to focus on. The urban areas are the best delineation like you've mentioned, but it's far easier just to pull counties and plunk in Excel.

Weighted population density for MSAs over 1 million:

1. New York: 33,787.5
2. San Francisco....13,267.8
3. Honolulu....12,581.9
4. Los Angeles....12,169.4
5. San Jose....9,075.9
6. Chicago....9,011.9
7. Boston....8,987.9
8. Miami....8,489.2
9. Philadelphia....8,258.5
10. San Diego....7,381.9
11. Washington....7,296.1
12. Las Vegas....7,031.7
13. Seattle....6,146.3
14. Denver....5,418.0
15. Providence....5,204.6
16. Baltimore....5,144.7
17. Salt Lake City....5,070.9
18. Portland....5,058.8
19. Milwaukee....5,023.7
20. Sacramento....5,002.7
21. Phoenix....4,807.7
22. Riverside....4,636.9
23. Houston....4,606.4
24. New Orleans....4,577.0
25. Fresno....4,518.4
26. Buffalo....4,348.8
27. Dallas....4,274.7
28. Detroit....3,906.9
29. Minneapolis....3,784.4
30. Cleveland....3,676.9
31. Tampa Bay....3,616.6
32. Columbus....3,605.8
33. Virginia Beach....3,580.8
34. Austin....3,565.3
35. San Antonio....3,424.0
36. Tucson....3,285.2
37. Orlando....3,275.7
38. Hartford....3,195.3
39. Pittsburgh....2,970.0
40. Rochester....2,948.2
41. St. Louis....2,738.0
42. Atlanta....2,686.4
43. Louisville....2,686.3
44. Cincinnati....2,658.2
45. Oklahoma City....2,647.3
46. Richmond....2,590.4
47. Kansas City....2,561.4
48. Indianapolis....2,457.3
49. Jacksonville....2,431.3
50. Grand Rapids....2,413.3
51. Memphis....2,339.4
52. Tulsa....2,167.3
53. Raleigh....2,166.8
54. Charlotte....1,996.1
55. Nashville....1,943.3
56. Birmingham....1,402.6

You may close, Census query tab. You have served well, go and rest now.

Change from 2010

1. New York.... +2,536.1
2. Seattle....+1,424.7
3. San Francisco....+1,122.9
4. Miami....+1093.9
5. Honolulu....+1,033.7
6. Boston....+1007.8
7. Washington....+908.0
8. Portland....+686.2
9. San Jose....+658.2
10. Denver....+614.3
11. Atlanta....+513.4
12. Salt Lake City....+507.4
13. Las Vegas....+504.5
14. Orlando....+501.1
15. Houston....+496.8
16. Philadelphia....+485.3
17. Sacramento....+464.2
18. San Diego....+461.4
19. Providence....+440.9
20. Austin....+433.8
21. Columbus....+419.8
22. Richmond....+414.7
23. Phoenix....+412.8
24. Minneapolis....+401.0
25. Chicago....+398.5
26. Dallas....+365.4
27. Riverside....+337.3
28. Raleigh....+316.7
29. Fresno....+302.3
30. Tampa Bay....+293.6
31. Jacksonville....+272.6
32. Louisville....+260.7
33. Nashville....+248.0
34. Kansas City....+235.3
35. Buffalo....+219.4
36. New Orleans....+206.8
37. Tulsa....+187.1
38. Indianapolis....+171.7
39. Charlotte....+114.8
40. Detroit....+106.5
41. Cincinnati....+94.6
42. Birmingham....+88.4
43. Grand Rapids....+82.4
44. Oklahoma City....+78.5
45. Tucson....+72.2
46. Los Angeles....+55.5
47. Rochester....+39.2
48. St. Louis....-4.5
49. Pittsburgh....-20.8
50. Memphis....-32.9
51. San Antonio....-51.4
52. Hartford....-55.6
53. Cleveland....-131.5
54. Milwaukee....-233.9
55. Baltimore....-291.0
56. Virginia Beach....-503.3

[Steely Dan]

^ thanks for crunching all them numbers! Fascinating data.

First off, damn it's good to see so many metros in the "+" column of the density change ledger. It truly was a decade of urban densification nearly across the board.

Second, I'm honestly a bit shocked at LA's low showing here. I would've expected it to be in the top 15 or so in terms of weighted density gain.

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

^ thanks for crunching all them numbers! Fascinating data.

First off, damn it's good to see so many metros in the "+" column of the density change ledger. It truly was a decade of urban densification nearly across the board.

Second, I'm honestly a bit shocked at LA's low showing here. I would've expected it to be in the top 15 or so in terms of weighted density gain.

Artificial constraints on new supply. I expect Los Angeles to post some insane weighted density increases this coming decade with the new state laws on local zoning.

[memph]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

^ thanks for crunching all them numbers! Fascinating data.

First off, damn it's good to see so many metros in the "+" column of the density change ledger. It truly was a decade of urban densification nearly across the board.

Second, I'm honestly a bit shocked at LA's low showing here. I would've expected it to be in the top 15 or so in terms of weighted density gain.

A lot of dense areas lost population, including Boyle Heights & East LA, the Gateway Cities, central Santa Ana, Filipinotown, Hollywood, parts of Pico Union, Koreatown and Mid City, Lennox, Central Long Beach... I guess there was not enough new development to offset decreasing household sizes/gentrification.

[craigs]

Originally Posted by memph

A lot of dense areas lost population, including Boyle Heights & East LA, the Gateway Cities, central Santa Ana, Filipinotown, Hollywood, parts of Pico Union, Koreatown and Mid City, Lennox, Central Long Beach... I guess there was not enough new development to offset decreasing household sizes/gentrification.

I suspect that the sharp decrease in international immigration, especially from Latin America, over the last decade is also a likely cause of lower populations in those areas--immigrants often move to a hub neighborhood in an international gateway like Los Angeles initially, but then move out to other neighborhoods, the suburbs, and even other parts of the state and country. So the outflow is happening as usual from a lot of the above-named districts, but the inflow just isn't there to replace the movers.