The US Census Bureau thread

[Austin55]

Originally Posted by subterranean

Shouldn’t those be ranked by 2020 population?

Good call, fixed.

[ChiSoxRox]

Originally Posted by Austin55

Good call, fixed.

Thanks for compiling the table. Another fix: you've pulled Baltimore County instead of Baltimore city.

[Austin55]

Originally Posted by ChiSoxRox

Thanks for compiling the table. Another fix: you've pulled Baltimore County instead of Baltimore city.

Thank you. I've fixed and opened the sheet to comments if there are other errors.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets...it?usp=sharing

The Census does not make it simple do they!?

[Ant131531]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

I looked at some numbers based on the state population growth to make a prediction about where some cities will land once the actual census numbers are released. I'm not going to put actual numbers to many of them to avoid that type of conversation, but here are my general guesses.

The Good

NYC looks in good shape. I'd be surprised if the actual population is below 8.5M. My official guess is 8.71M for NYC.

Texas - Houston, Dallas, and San Antonio will probably come in close to the ACS estimates. However, I wouldn't be surprised if Austin is a slight miss. I think it's certainly not going to hit 1m this census.

Miami - Prospects for growth are good. Like Austin, the ACS estimates might be a little too rosy, but growth seems certain.

Possible surprises in the older midsize cities - Baltimore, Cleveland, St. Louis, and Milwaukee might actually pulled out of their decades long population declines.

Pacific Northwest - The major cities in the Northwest, Seattle and Portland, both appear to continue to grow.

The Bad

I think the slower than usual growth in the Sun Belt is going to introduce a few surprises at the city level. North Carolina's cities (Raleigh and Charlotte) probably didn't grow as fast as projected. Ditto for Nashville. And, I wouldn't be surprised to see a small population drop in Atlanta.

The Ugly

Chicago and California. Especially L.A. and Chicago. L.A. seems on track for a first ever population loss. I see a small loss for San Francisco as well, but it's close enough that it could also be a small increase.

Chicago will also probably show a loss, which shouldn't be too controversial considering that Illinois was the only state to lose population. But Chicago's population losses might be as bad as what happened last decade. Or worse. And Houston might have overtaken it as America's third largest city.

So you think Atlanta dropped in population from 2010? Why would you believe that? It would mean Atlanta's black population has cratered and white people are the new plurality which based on eyes still doesn't seem to be the case. Georgia was underestimated by a small bit in the estimate(which is opposite of most sunbelt states which were overestimated from the estimates according to the census numbers). I think they were very careful with Atlanta this decade after what happened in 2010 and even our own regional commission shows Atlanta growing which didn't happen in the 2000s.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by SIGSEGV

Not at all obvious to me that Chicago will show a loss. It could, but I think downstate places like Danville or Decatur are more likely to account for a larger share of the Illinois population loss. The 2020 estimate has both of them 9% down in population from 2010, while Chicago is "only" 0.7% down, so relatively speaking, they ought to do worse. I think most likely Chicago will be effectively flat, maybe gaining or losing a few tenths of a percent.

Keep in mind that the 2020 estimate has Illinois losing 243,000 people while in actuality only 18,000 people were lost in the actual 2020 census. Given how wrong the estimate was, I'm not sure we can trust the relative numbers in the estimate too much either.

I guess it's possible that Chicago managed to not show a loss, but in order for Chicago to not have lost population it would need to do something it has never done before: add more people than the state of Illinois. However, this is the state of Illinois's first ever population loss, so we're in uncharted territory. But, in general, the a state's major city/cities tend to feel most acutely the effects of a statewide population loss.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Ant131531

So you think Atlanta dropped in population from 2010? Why would you believe that? It would mean Atlanta's black population has cratered and white people are the new plurality which based on eyes still doesn't seem to be the case. Georgia was underestimated by a small bit in the estimate(which is opposite of most sunbelt states which were overestimated from the estimates according to the census numbers). I think they were very careful with Atlanta this decade after what happened in 2010 and even our own regional commission shows Atlanta growing which didn't happen in the 2000s.

To be honest, I was surprised by it too. But Georgia's population expansion slowed substantially this past decade from the two decades prior. For the city to have grown, Atlanta would have needed to capture far more of the statewide population growth than it has in recent decades. It's possible that it happened, but it seems unlikely.

[ChiSoxRox]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

But, in general, the a state's major city/cities tend to feel most acutely the effects of a statewide population loss.

True, but the estimates this past decade have the losses driven more by downstate counties, especially Forgottonia and Little Egypt. Citypopulation.de has a nice map compiling the rate of change (the arrow tab).

The "Chicago has grown" hope is that the estimates were correct on the rural counties' trends while the smaller loss in the Census entails Chicago treading water to the positive side, rather than a drop compounding the rural losses.

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by Ant131531

So you think Atlanta dropped in population from 2010? Why would you believe that? It would mean Atlanta's black population has cratered and white people are the new plurality which based on eyes still doesn't seem to be the case. Georgia was underestimated by a small bit in the estimate(which is opposite of most sunbelt states which were overestimated from the estimates according to the census numbers). I think they were very careful with Atlanta this decade after what happened in 2010 and even our own regional commission shows Atlanta growing which didn't happen in the 2000s.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ajc...outputType=amp

The same factors apply to the city of Austin and it’s MSA as applied to Atlanta in 2010. This tracks with the idea that a disproportionate share of the Texas overestimation may be in the Austin area. Dallas (city and county) may also experience this problem to a lesser degree.

There is also an alternative argument that an additional factor is at play this census that was not in 2010: citizenship. If response rates were depressed in immigrant communities, Houston, San Antonio, and Fort Worth will suffer as well and the distribution of where the “missing” people are will be more equitable. Dallas may actually suffer the most estimate vis-a-vis count vis-a-vis population size.

There is also the issue of the panhandle and its rapid demographic changes with respect to immigrant communities (many of these counties are majority Hispanic now in reality). IE Did a depressed response rate also affect rural west Texas?

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by ChiSoxRox

True, but the estimates this past decade have the losses driven more by downstate counties, especially Forgottonia and Little Egypt. Citypopulation.de has a nice map compiling the rate of change (the arrow tab).

The "Chicago has grown" hope is that the estimates were correct on the rural counties' trends while the smaller loss in the Census entails Chicago treading water to the positive side, rather than a drop compounding the rural losses.

The other part of it is the tug of war between Chicago and the suburbs. Chicagoland may not have declined in population, but flat or modest growth at the metropolitan level almost certainly means that city of Chicago has lost population. I think the statewide population loss suggests a very slow growing Chicagoland.

[Ant131531]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

To be honest, I was surprised by it too. But Georgia's population expansion slowed substantially this past decade from the two decades prior. For the city to have grown, Atlanta would have needed to capture far more of the statewide population growth than it has in recent decades. It's possible that it happened, but it seems unlikely.

GA grew by over 1 million people. The Atlanta metro grew by about 800k people this decade. Atlanta capturing 10% of the metro's growth is not out of the question which would put it at growing at around 80k in the last 10 years.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Ant131531

GA grew by over 1 million people. The Atlanta metro grew by about 800k people this decade. Atlanta capturing 10% of the metro's growth is not out of the question which would put it at growing at around 80k in the last 10 years.

Not out of the question, no. But unlikely, as the city of Atlanta hasn't historically captured anywhere near that much of the regional growth. If Atlanta were to grow by 80k people it would be the second largest raw population increase in the city's history.

[Ant131531]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Not out of the question, no. But unlikely, as the city of Atlanta hasn't historically captured anywhere near that much of the regional growth. If Atlanta were to grow by 80k people it would be the second largest raw population increase in the city's history.

Considering the amount of construction in the city over the last decade, it's not really out of the question. By your logic, Atlanta will never grow then. We'll see when the census numbers come out, but there's nothing indicating Atlanta has fallen in population(multiple sources has Atlanta consistently growing over the last decade)....you seem unaware of anything going on in Atlanta. You just seem to come with conjecture and "feeling" rather than actual numbers and statistics so I'd rather just end it here and let the census speak for itself in August or September.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Ant131531

Considering the amount of construction in the city over the last decade, it's not really out of the question.

Construction doesn't have much to do with population growth. In urban centers, it's usually completely unrelated to population growth.

It only really makes a difference when you have a lightly populated geography with an orgy of construction (like a formerly commercial warehouse area converted to residential or a rural area turning into sprawl). But citywide, it's unlikely to be linked to population trends, especially because most new construction is higher-end, with few residents per unit, and overall a small share of citywide units.

[Flaguy]

But that is exactly what has happened in Atlanta over the past decade. Look at West Midtown, for example, which was a light industrial/warehouse district a little over a decade ago. It’s basically been converted into a mid rise apartment zone. There is absolutely no way Atlanta has lost population in the past decade. If so, let it continue because it seems light years more dense/populated than it did 10-15 years back.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Flaguy

But that is exactly what has happened in Atlanta over the past decade.

So you're claiming that the city of Atlanta was largely empty in 2010? And 200k net units have been built?

Without looking up the Census housing starts, sounds absurd.

[Flaguy]

That’s obviously not what I said... lol, not even close.

[ChiSoxRox]

I've updated the Wikipedia US city population table.

Of the top 50 largest cities, the fastest growing is not Austin or Charlotte, but Seattle, posing 26% growth since 2010 to 769,714 and reaching a density of 9,185 ppsm. I know Seattle is growing, but that seems insane for a built-out city.

[craigs]

Originally Posted by ChiSoxRox

I've updated the Wikipedia US city population table.

Of the top 50 largest cities, the fastest growing is not Austin or Charlotte, but Seattle, posing 26% growth since 2010 to 769,714 and reaching a density of 9,185 ppsm. I know Seattle is growing, but that seems insane for a built-out city.

Great work!

[Manitopiaaa]

Originally Posted by ChiSoxRox

I've updated the Wikipedia US city population table.

Of the top 50 largest cities, the fastest growing is not Austin or Charlotte, but Seattle, posing 26% growth since 2010 to 769,714 and reaching a density of 9,185 ppsm. I know Seattle is growing, but that seems insane for a built-out city.

Thank you for doing this. Very helpful!

[ChiSoxRox]

Originally Posted by craigs

Great work!

Originally Posted by Manitopiaaa

Thank you for doing this. Very helpful!

You're welcome.

Does anyone have a summary of how has Seattle pulled off that stunning growth rate? I know it's an epicenter of the tech boom and that Seattle has been putting up apartment towers left and right, but how does an established city outgrow the Sunbelt?

Indeed, Seattle seems to be an overlooked city on this forum.