NEW YORK | 2020 Census data | 8,804,190 - Page 13

C. · #**241** Posted **Mar 24, 2016, 4:31 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by chris08876

Here's a chart with some cities/regions:

A 87,988 gain for NY-PA-NJ.

I didn't realize Texas metro areas are growing that fast. Over 300,000 to Dallas and Houston metro areas... IN A SINGLE YEAR.

mhays · #**242** Posted **Mar 24, 2016, 4:32 AM**

On a related topic, why hasn't the US "Yearbook of Immigration Statistics" updated since the 2013 issue? Am I missing something? That also had good localized data.

Ant131531 · #**243** Posted **Mar 24, 2016, 4:36 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by CIA

In other news, Chicago's Cook County loss 10,488 residents, a 0.2% decline in 2015. That's big news. I hope that's an outlier and the trend remains positive.

The Chiacgo metro area lost about 3,000 people. Man, it's crazy how much the area has fallen from grace. Just 2 decades ago, it was growing 100k/yr.

chris08876 · #**244** Posted **Mar 24, 2016, 6:59 PM**

Credit: NXT

mhays · #**245** Posted **Mar 24, 2016, 7:05 PM**

It's odd....admirable stuff like reining in sprawl (hence SF's wierd cutoff due to narrowness of its corridor to the south) and people not commuting long distance as much actually reduce how we define MSAs and CSAs.

chris08876 · #**246** Posted **Mar 24, 2016, 9:26 PM**

Some Tables

TriState:

Every County in NY State:

1) http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/t...xhtml?src=bkmk

Every County in NJ:

1) http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/t...xhtml?src=bkmk

My County of Somerset grew by a 1000. Yay high taxes keeping it from becoming overcrowded.

Every County in Pennsylvania:

1) http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/t...xhtml?src=bkmk

Every County in Conneticut:

1) http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/t...xhtml?src=bkmk

------------------

For the rest of the 50 states:

1) https://www.census.gov/popest/data/c...ST2015-01.html

If your a crackhead for stats, here's a table that contains 4400+ rows of data. Make this into an excel workbook and crash your pc.

1) http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/t...xhtml?src=bkmk

chris08876 · #**247** Posted **Mar 25, 2016, 12:28 PM**

Just to get an idea of the urban nature of NJ and NYC, if we just add:

1) Hudson at 634,266
2) Bergan at 905,116
3) Essex at 797,434
4) NYC at 8,550,405

We get 10,887,221 residents.

Lots of people in consolidated in just 711 sq miles. Nitpicking counties here, but as a general idea. North NJ is intensely urban.

If we add Westchester, where essentially at 12 million and approximately 1140 sq miles.

memph · #**248** Posted **Mar 25, 2016, 3:23 PM**

Fastest % growth rates for 1,000,000+ MSAs.

1. Austin: 2.95%
2. Orlando: 2.60%
3. Raleigh: 2.46%
4. Houston: 2.45%
5. Las Vegas: 2.21%
6. San Antonio: 2.20%
7. Denver: 2.12%
8. Dallas: 2.08%
9. Nashville: 2.03%
10. Jacksonville: 2.00%

Slowest % growth rates for 1,000,000+ MSAs.
1. Hartford: -0.16%
1. Rochester: -0.16%
3. Cleveland: -0.14%
4. Pittsburgh: -0.12%
4. Buffalo: -0.12%
6. Chicago: -0.04%
7. Memphis: 0.09%
8. Milwaukee: 0.10%
9. Detroit: 0.13%
10. St Louis: 0.19%

memph · #**249** Posted **Mar 25, 2016, 3:41 PM**

The real story though IMO is not that Texas is growing fast, it was growing fast before too and continuing to grow at similar rates. It's the desert SW and smaller Florida cities picking up growth, and many urban cities seeing decreases.

% Growth Per Year

2014-2015 vs 2010-2014 average

Miami: 1.27% vs 1.64%
Phoenix: 1.96% vs 1.77%
Tampa: 1.97% vs 1.19%
Orlando: 2.60% vs 2.19%
Las Vegas: 2.21% vs 1.52%
Jacksonville: 2.00% vs 1.37%
Tucson: 0.58% vs 0.62%
Port St Lucie: 2.33% vs 1.20%
Palm Bay-Melbourne: 2.01% vs 0.62%
Sarasota-Bradenton: 2.69% vs 1.65%
Lakeland-Winter Haven: 2.33% vs 1.35%
Deltona-Dayton Beach: 2.13% vs 0.83%
Cape Coral-Ft Myers: 3.35% vs 2.46%

Miami is the main exception, but it's rather different from most of those cities, being quite a bit denser, and also bigger. Other similar cities like Myrtle Beach and Stockton also saw increases in growth rates.

Large Urban Cities
New York: 0.43% vs 0.67%
Los Angeles: 0.65% vs 0.85%
Philadelphia: 0.31% vs 0.36%
DC: 1.06% vs 1.76%
Boston: 0.89% vs 0.99%
San Francisco: 1.31% vs 1.49%
Detroit: 0.13% vs 0.00%
Seattle: 1.65% vs 1.68%
Minneapolis: 0.84% vs 1.09%
San Diego: 1.11% vs 1.36%
St Louis: 0.19% vs 0.17%
Baltimore: 0.41% vs 0.70%
Denver: 2.12% vs 2.07%
Pittsburgh: -0.12% vs 0.00%
Portland: 1.73% vs 1.37%
Cincinnati: 0.38% vs 0.41%
Cleveland: -0.14% vs -0.17%

Denver and St Louis saw small increases in growth rate, Detroit a somewhat more noticeable increase, and Portland a large increase, but that's it, and those 4 cities are among the less urban cities of that group.

San Jose, Austin and New Orleans also saw fairly significant slow-downs.

Crawford · #**250** Posted **Mar 25, 2016, 4:01 PM**

My takeaways-

Texas growth is amazing. I mean, it makes sense because of high birthrates and geographic location proximate to Mexico/Central America, but still amazing. And Texas actually has less domestic in-migration than metros in the Southeast, meaning relative youth (meaning more births and fewer deaths) is driving growth.

Florida is going gangbusters again. No shocker once the economy recovered.

Atlanta is booming like crazy again with domestic in-migration.

High housing prices and over-regulation don't stop growth. Look at the Bay Area. If you have a job, things will work out.

Illinois has more population loss than the rest of the Midwest combined. Need to get that state's financial house in order, as people aren't going to move there for the scenery or weather.

Northeast Corridor is doing very well, but rural inland areas continue to shrink.

Ant131531 · #**251** Posted **Mar 25, 2016, 4:24 PM**

All that's happening is that we're going back to pre-recession times. The recession actually benefited cities like New York and Chicago because people couldn't move out of dodge because they were broke or had no jobs. NY had 188k a year growth in 2010-2011...now it's barely 87k.

CCs77 · #**252** Posted **Mar 25, 2016, 11:44 PM**

Since 2010, the metropolitan area (the New York counties of it) is adding more residents than the entire state of New York. The New York counties added 447.042 residents, while the entire state only 417.689.

In fact, of 62 counties in New York, only 19 have grown since 2010:

The five counties of NYC + the counties of Albany, Erie, Jefferson, Monroe, Nassau, Onondaga, Ontario, Orange, Rensselaer, Rockland, Saratoga, Suffolk, Tompinks and Westchester.

Of those, Erie, Jefferson, Monroe, Onondaga, Ontario and Suffolk lost population between 2014 and 2015.

The counties in red, gained population between 2010 and 2015, the ones in orange had a net gain, but lost some people between 2014 and 2015. All the others lost population.

Basically the ones with consistent growth are the ones around NYC, Albany and Ithaca.

Qubert · #**253** Posted **Mar 26, 2016, 12:55 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by chris08876

Just to get an idea of the urban nature of NJ and NYC, if we just add:

1) Hudson at 634,266
2) Bergan at 905,116
3) Essex at 797,434
4) NYC at 8,550,405

We get 10,887,221 residents.

Lots of people in consolidated in just 711 sq miles. Nitpicking counties here, but as a general idea. North NJ is intensely urban.

If we add Westchester, where essentially at 12 million and approximately 1140 sq miles.

Bergen and Westchester counties are not urban. Essex begins to fade into suburbia a little beyond the GSP.

If you continue by subtracting Staten Island from NYC's numbers but folding in Newark + Hudson County NJ you end up with a core urbanized city of right around 9 million people.

Crawford · #**254** Posted **Mar 26, 2016, 1:09 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Qubert

Bergen and Westchester counties are not urban.

Most of Bergen is urban. Westchester, mostly no.

Bergen has some of the densest suburbs in the U.S. The majority of residents live in a small portion of the county. The sprawly parts have most of the land but a small part of the population.

Westchester tends to be more typical railroad suburbia, though a portion, near the Bronx, tends to be an extension of NYC.

chris08876 · #**255** Posted **Mar 26, 2016, 1:13 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Qubert

Bergen and Westchester counties are not urban. Essex begins to fade into suburbia a little beyond the GSP.

Its still urban compared to most of the U.S.. Was just a quick little addition just for sake of getting an idea of how many people live within the proxy of NYC.

Bergen County has a pretty high density along with Essex. If Essex County itself was a city, I'd be the largest 10th largest in just 126 sq miles. Which is relatively small for your usual city size in the U.S.. Bergan County alone has more people than Austin, and its smaller in size. Single family homes and a suburban like nature doesn't necessarily mean its not urbanized.

Shame Essex lags in growth. Thats one county that I'd like to see higher figures for.

CCs77 · #**256** Posted **Mar 27, 2016, 3:38 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by chris08876

Just to get an idea of the urban nature of NJ and NYC, if we just add:

1) Hudson at 634,266
2) Bergan at 905,116
3) Essex at 797,434
4) NYC at 8,550,405

We get 10,887,221 residents.

Lots of people in consolidated in just 711 sq miles. Nitpicking counties here, but as a general idea. North NJ is intensely urban.

If we add Westchester, where essentially at 12 million and approximately 1140 sq miles.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Qubert

Bergen and Westchester counties are not urban. Essex begins to fade into suburbia a little beyond the GSP.

If you continue by subtracting Staten Island from NYC's numbers but folding in Newark + Hudson County NJ you end up with a core urbanized city of right around 9 million people.

Some years ago I compiled the municipalities around NYC with higher density. (all of NYC and Hudson Co. was automatically included) I choose a threshold of 2500 people for sq km (6475 in/sq. mi) municipalities with smaller densities could've been included if they were surrounded by higher densities municipalities or formed a bridge to a municipality with over 2500 in/sq. km.

People tend to forget Nassau County, but it has a corridor of relatively high density all over its south coast, extending all the way to Suffolk including a few municipalities there.

In Westchester only the southern municipalities have high densities. There are many municipalities in southern Bergen, and a few in the southeastern tip of Passaic. About the eastern half of Essex was included, some municipalities in eastern Union and two in Middlesex.

I found out that those high density municipalities form a compact cluster around NYC. outside that cluster, very few municipalities had a density of 2500 in/sq. km. or higher.

All that formed a territory covering 1720 sq. km (664 sq. miles) with 11630000 people in 2010 (now would be a bit over 12 million) with a density of 6761 in/sq. km in 2010 (about 7000 in/sq. km now) wich is higher than the densities of cities such as Washington DC (4251 in/sq.km) Philadelphia (4492 in/sq.km) Chicago (4447 in/sq.km) Boston (5151in/sq.km) and about the same as the city of san Francisco (7022 in/sq.km)

chris08876 · #**257** Posted **Apr 23, 2016, 11:49 PM**

^^^^^

Thats some great work that you did. Very neat.

Anyways, here is just a chart.

Credit: http://www1.nyc.gov/site/planning/da...pulations.page

I have a feeling Queens is going to eclipse Brooklyn in time due. Its cheaper as a whole, and a good chunk of where the affordable housing will go.

dc_denizen · #**258** Posted **Apr 29, 2016, 12:14 AM**

Quote:

All that formed a territory covering 1720 sq. km (664 sq. miles) with 11630000 people in 2010 (now would be a bit over 12 million) with a density of 6761 in/sq. km in 2010 (about 7000 in/sq. km now) wich is higher than the densities of cities such as Washington DC (4251 in/sq.km) Philadelphia (4492 in/sq.km) Chicago (4447 in/sq.km) Boston (5151in/sq.km) and about the same as the city of san Francisco (7022 in/sq.km)

cool! I've always wanted someone to do this. So same size as London but with 4,000,000 more people..

MolsonExport · #**259** Posted **Apr 29, 2016, 1:17 PM**

Staten Island, despite all its underdeveloped areas, is growing far more slowly than the other boroughs. Nimbyism?

chris08876 · #**260** Posted **Apr 29, 2016, 1:26 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

Staten Island, despite all its underdeveloped areas, is growing far more slowly than the other boroughs. Nimbyism?

I'd say its a lack of infrastructure that can handle the growing density and the borough isn't probably zoned. SI is the worst borough in terms of transit options. Its essentially like Essex County, only part of NYC. That and high property taxes, and its not really what people who flock to NYC for the car free, and urban life desire.

Although rent is cheap, and might be desirable for someone who works in Lower Manhattan to save more at the end of the month. Cheap in the sense that you can get a 2 bedroom for under 2k or even a house for under 2.5k a month. Depends where, but try getting a whole house in Manhattan or the nice parts of Brooklyn for that price. The ferry is free which is nice.