New Geography

Tag: census

  • New US Urban Area Data Released

    This morning the US Bureau of the Census released data for urban areas in the United States. The urban population of the US rose to 249.3 million in 2010, out of a total population of 308.7 million. Urbanization covered 106,000 square miles, representing 3.0 percent of the US land mass. Overall urban density was 2,342 per square mile (905 per square kilometer).

    The Los Angeles urban area was again the nation’s most dense, at 6,999 per square mile (2,702 per square kilometer), a slight reduction from the 7,068 figure (2,729 per square kilometer) in 2000. The most dense urban areas with more than 1,000,000 population were Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Jose, New York and Las Vegas (in that order).

    Overall, the 41 major urban areas had an average density of 3,245 per square mile (1,253 per square kilometer). The table below provides data for the major urban areas and overall data.

    United States Urban Area Data: 2010 Census
    Major Urban Areas  & Summary
    Rank Urban Area
    Population
    Land Area (Square Miles)
    Density
    Density per Square KM
    1 New York–Newark, NY–NJ–CT
    18,351,295
    3,450
    5,319
    2,054
    2 Los Angeles–Long Beach–Anaheim, CA
    12,150,996
    1,736
    6,999
    2,702
    3 Chicago, IL–IN
    8,608,208
    2,443
    3,524
    1,361
    4 Miami, FL
    5,502,379
    1,239
    4,442
    1,715
    5 Philadelphia, PA–NJ–DE–MD
    5,441,567
    1,981
    2,746
    1,060
    6 Dallas–Fort Worth–Arlington, TX
    5,121,892
    1,779
    2,879
    1,112
    7 Houston, TX
    4,944,332
    1,660
    2,979
    1,150
    8 Washington, DC–VA–MD
    4,586,770
    1,322
    3,470
    1,340
    9 Atlanta, GA
    4,515,419
    2,645
    1,707
    659
    10 Boston, MA–NH–RI
    4,181,019
    1,873
    2,232
    862
    11 Detroit, MI
    3,734,090
    1,337
    2,793
    1,078
    12 Phoenix–Mesa, AZ
    3,629,114
    1,147
    3,165
    1,222
    13 San Francisco–Oakland, CA
    3,281,212
    524
    6,266
    2,419
    14 Seattle, WA
    3,059,393
    1,010
    3,028
    1,169
    15 San Diego, CA
    2,956,746
    732
    4,037
    1,559
    16 Minneapolis–St. Paul, MN–WI
    2,650,890
    1,022
    2,594
    1,002
    17 Tampa–St. Petersburg, FL
    2,441,770
    957
    2,552
    985
    18 Denver–Aurora, CO
    2,374,203
    668
    3,554
    1,372
    19 Baltimore, MD
    2,203,663
    717
    3,073
    1,187
    20 St. Louis, MO–IL
    2,150,706
    924
    2,329
    899
    21 Riverside–San Bernardino, CA
    1,932,666
    545
    3,546
    1,369
    22 Las Vegas–Henderson, NV
    1,886,011
    417
    4,525
    1,747
    23 Portland, OR–WA
    1,849,898
    524
    3,528
    1,362
    24 Cleveland, OH
    1,780,673
    772
    2,307
    891
    25 San Antonio, TX
    1,758,210
    597
    2,945
    1,137
    26 Pittsburgh, PA
    1,733,853
    905
    1,916
    740
    27 Sacramento, CA
    1,723,634
    471
    3,660
    1,413
    28 San Jose, CA
    1,664,496
    286
    5,820
    2,247
    29 Cincinnati, OH–KY–IN
    1,624,827
    788
    2,063
    796
    30 Kansas City, MO–KS
    1,519,417
    678
    2,242
    865
    31 Orlando, FL
    1,510,516
    598
    2,527
    976
    32 Indianapolis, IN
    1,487,483
    706
    2,108
    814
    33 Virginia Beach, VA
    1,439,666
    515
    2,793
    1,078
    34 Milwaukee, WI
    1,376,476
    546
    2,523
    974
    35 Columbus, OH
    1,368,035
    510
    2,680
    1,035
    36 Austin, TX
    1,362,416
    523
    2,605
    1,006
    37 Charlotte, NC–SC
    1,249,442
    741
    1,685
    651
    38 Providence, RI–MA
    1,190,956
    545
    2,185
    844
    39 Jacksonville, FL
    1,065,219
    530
    2,009
    775
    40 Memphis, TN–MS–AR
    1,060,061
    497
    2,132
    823
    41 Salt Lake City–West Valley City, UT
    1,021,243
    278
    3,675
    1,419
    Total
    133,490,862
    41,139
    3,245
    1,253
    Other Urban Areas
    115,762,409
    65,247
    1,774
    685
    Total Urban
    249,253,271
    106,386
    2,343
    905
    Rural
    59,492,267
    3,431,052
    17
    7
    Total Population
    308,745,538
    3,537,439
    87
    34
    Share Urban
    80.7%
    3.0%

  • 2011 Canada Census: Strong Growth & Suburbanization Continues

    Statistics Canada has just released the first results of the 2011 census. The nation’s population rose to 33.5 million, from 31.6 million in 2006. This is a 5.9 percent growth rate, up from a 5.4 percent rate between 2001 and 2006 and nearly one-half above the 4.0 percent growth rate from 1996 to 2001.

    Suburbanization continued apace in Canada’s largest metropolitan areas. Overall, the suburbs accounted for 83 percent of the population growth in Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver, with 17 percent of the growth in the central municipalities. In the other major metropolitan areas (Ottawa-Gatineau, Calgary and Edmonton), the central municipalities themselves encompass nearly all of the suburban development, so that the core-suburban population increase proportion is masked.

  • The Great Dakota Boom

    The Census Bureau released their yearly population estimates today. As noted by Wendell Cox, the estimates showed signs of the South’s continued leadership in population expansion. While the overall numbers of people involved are much smaller, the Dakotas, in particular North Dakota, also showed signs of growth worthy of note. According to the Census Bureau, North Dakota now has an estimated population of around 683,000, up over 11,000 in just one year. This made it the 6th fastest growing state in the nation over the past year- a notable achievement in its own right for a state more accustomed to dealing the challenge of outmigration.

    However, the most interesting thing about the new estimate is that it represents a new record population for the state. There have never been more North Dakotans then there are today. The previous high count was about 680,000 way back in 1930. With the onset of the depression, the state entered a long period largely marked by periods of population decline and stagnation.

    As a lifelong North Dakotan, I’ve occasionally found myself having difficulty coming to grips with our state’s recent prosperity. North Dakotans can be a self effacing lot, and it sometimes seems that there’s a still a healthy dose of skepticism among my fellow citizens regarding our current good fortune. We’re not used to being on top like this, seeing our often ignored home highlighted in the press for its economic strength and tagged as “the state the recession forgot.” For decades, we’ve been trying to find ways to deal with what seemed an inexorable cycle of rural decline and depopulation. While the new estimate is just a number, it does serve to break a bit of a psychological barrier for the state. We’re not just making up lost ground anymore- we’re now in uncharted territory and building beyond previous limits. It’s a refreshing change.

    Historians refer to the 1880s and period from 1900-1915 as the “Great Dakota Booms”. Growth was unchecked in what became North and South Dakota, and the population soared as immigrants poured into the region in search of economic opportunity. While oil has taken the lead role in place of land in this performance, it appears that our corner of the nation is in another “Great Dakota Boom” for many of the same reasons. Hopefully it will prove lasting. I, and my fellow North Dakotans will just have to learn to deal with prosperity. Call it “How North Dakota (and Matthew) Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Boom”.

    All in all, it’s a good time to be a Nodak.

  • Australia’s 2011 Census: Chock Full of Surprises

    There is nothing better than a good old count to check out what’s really happening.  And a lot has happened across Australia over the last five years.  But what actually has happen to the country’s demographic fabric might surprise many. 
    There are ten trends which I think will emerge out of our next national count on Tuesday 9th August.

    1.            Acceleration towards suburbia.  Despite what we are feed by the intelligentsia most Australian’s want to live in a suburban settling.  The amount of new development on the fringe and the proportion of the population living out there will have increased over the last five years.  This trend is also likely accelerate in coming decades as to will a shift to “opportunity” regions, many of which being regional towns.  And there is the real surprise, many of those that moved to suburbia are young – the 25 to 34 age group. 

    2.            Increase in household size.  Household sizes are no longer shrinking.  2006’s 2.6 people per household average will be closer to 2.8 this census and may rise even higher in the future.  Why?  The baby bonus, change in overseas migrant mix, low housing affordability and poor government decisions like, ironically, the first home owners grant and the more recent increase in owner-resident transfer duties in Queensland.

    3.            More family households.  Despite forecasts of more lone person and couple households, we are likely to see an increase in the proportion of family households this census.  In fact the proportion of lone households is likely to fall, as many are forced to live in shared arrangements or move back home with family. 

    4.            Increase in net wealth.  Despite the GFC, rising household costs and now declining house prices our net household wealth will have risen sharply between census periods; as too will our household incomes. Equity in our homes (and investment properties) will have also risen, with more people owning their home outright than ever before.  The August 2011 poll will also find that Australia’s net household wealth is also at a record high.

    5.            Working longer.  The number of hours reported as worked each week will be up, but when they were clocked will be increasingly outside of the core 9 to 5.  Yet, and whilst not a census measurement, our productivity and ability to innovate will be down.  In broader terms our economic measurements are wrong – we have suffocating, quarterly consciousness and proprietary trading rather a focus on nurturing talent and innovation.  The county is far less dynamic as a result.

    6.            Change in demographic mix.  A shift in overseas migrants from China, India, Africa and the Middle-East and less arriving here from more traditional sources such as the United Kingdom, Europe and New Zealand.  This means bigger household groups, a younger age profile and rising demand for detached housing (and burqas too).  

    7.            Larger homes.  Whilst there has been shrinkage in apartment sizes of late and only really to make them easier to sell, most other housing types across Australia over the last five years have gotten bigger.  High and rising land costs, relatively cheap building costs and increasing household sizes are the main reasons why.  Our aging demographic will also want big new homes – assuming that baby boomers move – but how cheap new housing will be to build in the future is uncertain at present.  Home owners are also moving less often and the distance, when the do move, is becoming less.  “Fewer moves, local focus” should be the catch-cry for the next decade.

    8.            Fewer marriages.  And those that are taking the plunge are getting married later.  The average age of mothers having their first child should exceed 30 years. 

    9.            Dissolution of relationships.  Not only are fewer Australians getting married, but we are breaking off relationships at an increasing rate.  Family and relationship disbanding reflects our declining resiliency and mounting acceptance of the nanny state.  We don’t seem to overcome hardships these days, just “cut and run”.  From a housing prospective if our households are fracturing so easily, then why are our prescriptions for housing increasingly rigid?

    10.          Less religion.  Last census more Australia’s nominated that they believed in the Order Of The Jedi than Christianity, so maybe the census is bunkum after all.  Yet more Australian’s are likely to nominate that they have no religion at all.  Whilst we are not America, we do live largely an American way of life and were founded on similar values – industriousness, honesty, marriage and social cohesion – but these seems to be unravelling.  This census count should show us how far lost we have become.

    To paraphrase international urban authority Joel Kotkin “Whatever your politics or economic interests, the 2011 census will show that the country is changing and in a dramatic way – if not always in the ways often predicted by pundits, planners or the media.  It usually makes more sense to study the actual numbers than largely wishful thinking of mostly urban-centric, big-city based and often quite biased analysts.”  As we wrote after the last census, it maybe time for the planning industry to take a breather and set a different course with regard to our urban land use.  Hopefully this time around the planning intelligentsia will take some notice.

    The Matusik Snapshot is opinion and not advice.  Readers should seek their own professional advice on the subject being discussed.  Comments are welcome, contact me on michael@matusik.com.au.

  • Rahm Emanuel Wins The Right to Confront Chicago’s Problems

    Rahm Emanuel has won Chicago’s Mayoral election. He now must confront Chicago’s massive problems. The Chicago Sun-Times is already grim:

    Rahm Emanuel’s Round One victory gives him a running start on confronting problems so severe, the painful solutions could seal his fate as a one-termer.

    Whether Emanuel can avoid a one-and-done scenario — assuming he even wants to serve more than four years — will largely depend on how he tackles the biggest financial crisis in Chicago history.
    The city is literally on the brink of bankruptcy with a structural deficit approaching $1 billion when under-funded employee pensions are factored in.

    Mayor Daley borrowed to the hilt, sold off revenue-generating assets and spent most of the money to hold the line on taxes in his last two budgets. The city even borrowed $254 million to cover back pay raises long anticipated for police officers and firefighters.

    Last night’s election results could be a preview of Emanuel’s coming conflict with Chicago’s city workforce. Emanuel lost in some important wards where powerful city workers live. The government unions feel Emanuel might be too willing to cut their benefits and pensions. Alderman Ed Burke, Chairman of Chicago’s Finance Committee, will now be Emanuel’s biggest short-term problem (Burke’s 14th Ward didn’t support Emanuel). Does Emanuel have the votes in City Council to remove Alderman Ed Burke from his committee post? It’s too early to tell. Will Emanuel and Burke cut a deal?

    The new census numbers showed Chicago with population loss of 200,000 from 2000 to 2010. These Detroit style numbers show Rahm Emanuel will need all the help he can get. Chicago is in decline.

  • City of Chicago Falls to 1910 Population Level.

    The Bureau of the Census has just reported that the city of Chicago lost more than 200,000 people between 2000 and 2010. At 2,696,000, this takes Chicago to its lowest population since 1910, and nearly 1,000,000 fewer than its census population peak of 3,621,000 in 1950. In 1910, the city had a population of 2,185,000, and increased in 1920 to 2,702,000.

    The Bureau of the Census had estimated Chicago’s population at 2,851,000 in 2009, down from the 2000 census count of 2,897,000. Chicago is the seat of Cook County, which lost 180,000 between 2000 and 2010, though outside the city of Chicago, Cook County gained approximately 20,000 residents.

  • South Dakota’s Growth Is Noticeable in the Midwestern Arena

    According to the 2010 Census population data for the United States, the Midwest region was the slowest growing of the four Census regions, at a 3.9% increase overall. South Dakota led the Midwest for population with an increase of 7.9%, while the lowest was the battered state of Michigan at -0.6%. These numbers seem to suggest a shift from the Rust Belt to the Great Plains.

    This is more apparent when considering CNN Money’s list of the top 100 best cities to live in for 2010. Four cities represented the Dakotas on this list while only one city, Ann Arbor, stood for Michigan at number 46. The four cities from the Dakotas were Bismarck, ND at 74; Sioux Falls, SD at 77; Fargo, ND at 86; and finally Grand Forks, ND at 97.

    The odds seem to be against the growing state of South Dakota when compared to the once-great Michigan. Michigan has 32 Fortune 500 companies (the largest being GM, Ford, and Dow), a notable IT strength, three well-known universities (University of Michigan, Michigan State University, and Wayne State University), and is one of the biggest leaders of industrial research and development. However, Michigan’s weaknesses lie in its disintegrating manufacturing industries whereas South Dakota has attained a more promising outlook.

    South Dakota’s major city is Sioux Falls in Lincoln county, which has been named one of the “best counties to find a job” with a 67% increase in job growth in the last decade. Sioux Falls has been named one of the “best places to start a business” by CNN where operating a business costs an estimated 45% less there than it does in New York City. It also boasts a crime rate that is half the national average, is home to offices of many financial giants including Citibank and Wells Fargo that come to the state for its slackened usury laws and positive banking regulations, and has some of the region’s leading hospitals. A determined arts scene and a strong retail sector round out the package.

    Can Sioux Falls be compared to the crumbling Detroit? When considering Sioux Falls to be the major hub of its region (the most proximate major cities are Omaha and Minneapolis, both over 150 miles away) it’s no wonder that many people are flocking there to be a part of its thriving economy that can’t be found for miles. Detroit, on the other hand, is a homogenous product in a competitive market. Other Rust Belt cities find themselves in a corresponding situation, offering a similar lifestyle while depending on declining industries.

  • Surprise, Frisco and Beaumont Among Fastest Growing

    The Bureau of the Census has updated its city (municipality or local government area) population estimates for 2009. Predictably, anti-suburban interests saw more indication of the elusive (read non-existent) exodus from the suburbs to the central cities. One analyst even suggested that a “high quality” of life in one central city (Washington, DC) might have kept people from moving to the suburbs. In fact, since 2000, nearly 40,000 people (domestic migrants) have moved out of the city of Washington and in the last year, the city gained 4,500 residents while the suburbs gained 13,700.

    In contrast, Buffalo News reporter Jack Ray looked at the data and noted that some cities in that metropolitan area were growing rather quickly, while others were losing population. Generally, he found that outer suburban communities were growing more quickly. Ray’s analysis was reflective of trends around the nation.

    There are nearly 20,000 incorporated cities, towns and villages in the United States. Population trends in these cities show that urban areas are growing most strongly on their suburban fringes or even in their exurbs. For example, two-thirds of the fastest growing 100 municipalities in the nation were suburbs or exurbs in the nation’s major metropolitan areas (those with more than 1,000,000 population). The other third were all municipalities in smaller metropolitan areas or outside metropolitan areas.

    The extent of this growth on the edge is illustrated by an examination of the nation’s municipalities of 25,000 or greater population that grew more than 25% between 2000 and 2009.

    • Among the 89 municipalities that grew 50% or more, 59 were in major metropolitan areas and all were suburbs (nearly all near the urban fringe) or exurbs. The total population growth among these suburbs and exurbs was 2.2 million from 2000 to 2009, for an average growth rate of 91%. These major metropolitan suburbs and exurbs grew 1.8 million, while the municipalities outside the major metropolitan areas added 400,000.
    • Among the 119 municipalities that grew between 25% and 50%, 69 were in major metropolitan areas. This included 67 suburbs and exurbs. It also included 2 central cities, Raleigh (39%) and Atlanta (28%). These major metropolitan area suburbs and exurbs gained 1.7 million residents, while the two central cities gained a total of 200,000. The municipalities outside the major metropolitan areas grew 1,000,000.

    Combined, the fastest growing suburbs and exurbs with more than 25,000 population grew more than 3.5 million, while the municipalities outside the major metropolitan areas grew 1.5 million, for a combined growth of more than 5.0 million. The smaller high growth municipalities (under 25,000), nearly 1,200 of them, both major metropolitan and outside, grew another 2.5 million.

    The fastest growing municipalities, excluding the two central cities of Raleigh and Atlanta, accounted for nearly one-third of the nation’s growth between 2000 and 20009.

    Most of the fast growing suburbs and exurbs have names that are simply not recognizable. Yet, a half-dozen added nearly as many or more new residents than all of the 20-plus central cities combined in the major metropolitan areas that do not have large swaths of suburbanization inside their borders. These include such places as Phoenix suburb, Surprise, Dallas-Fort Worth suburb Frisco and Riverside-San Bernardino suburb Beaumont.

    In Crabgrass Frontier: The Suburbanization of the United States, Kenneth Jackson noted that central Philadelphia began losing population in the early 19th century. The dispersion of America continues.

    Photograph: Exurbs of New York: Pike County, Pennsylvania

  • Falling Off Bicycles in Portland

    It has become customary for the fawning print media to lazily repeat whatever information is provided them by the urbanist lobby. The result is all manner of puff pieces that report as reality what is nothing more than hopes, or even delusions.

    The latest puff piece is about Portland and is in today’s Wall Street Journal. The article indicates that 8 percent of Portlanders commute to work by bicycle, based upon data from a bicycle advocacy group. That number is more than five times the figure reported by the United States Bureau of the Census, (which is not a bicycle advocacy group). In 2007 (latest data available), 1.5 percent of Portland metropolitan area workers commuted by bicycle according to the Bureau of the Census.

    It is, of course, possible that there is confusion about the definition of Portland. Domestic migration is the principal subject and it is clear from the data cited that the article is citing metropolitan area data, rather than municipal (city of Portland) data.

    However, even if we allow that the editors might have erroneously substituted municipal for metropolitan data and that the advocacy group bicycle market share of 8 percent applies to the city of Portland; it would still be off by at least 100 percent. The Bureau of the Census data indicates that 3.9 of workers rode bicycles to work in 2007 in the city of Portland.

    Of course, it is always possible that three quarters of metropolitan Portland’s bicycle commuters have fallen off their bikes or that, if the editors were confused as to the difference between metropolitan and municipal, that half have fallen off.

  • Guessing Which Congressional Seats Change Hands at Census Time

    The next official Census isn’t till 2010, but Election Data Services is already predicting considerable impacts on Congressional representation.

    Things will be getting bigger in Texas, with four added seats, as well as Arizona, with two. Six states—Florida, Georgia, Nevada, Oregon, South Carolina, and Utah—will increase their federal delegations by one district each.

    On the opposite end, Illinois, Iowa, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania will all relinquish one seat, with Ohio appearing to lose two.

    While the redistricting process is in the distant future, it should prove interesting to see how the 2010 Census will change the seating arrangement in Washington.