the 2010 census

Exact population figures from last April's census will be released soon. For now, there is a new estimate of US population that has been released:

Bloomberg (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-12-06/u-s-population-may-have-climbed-to-as-high-as-312-7-million-census-says.html)

Census Bureau Projects U.S. Population as High as 312.7 Million

By Timothy R. Homan - Dec 6, 2010

The Census Bureau estimates the U.S. population is 305.7 million to 312.7 million, based on an analysis of data available before its official count was conducted.

The estimates were compiled from data as of April 1 and are not part of the overall 2010 count, the agency said today at a news conference in Washington. Still, the Census Bureau said the numbers represent possible growth trends of certain demographic groups. The 2010 census results will be released before Jan. 1 as required by law.

“The 2010 Census provides the official population count, but demographic analysis provides an honest presentation of alternative estimates,” Robert Groves, director of the Census Bureau, said in a statement. These figures “make plausible assumptions,” he told reporters at a media briefing in Washington.

Today’s numbers, compiled separately from the official census, mark the first wave of data that offer a snapshot of the U.S. and its residents. The census will influence the allocation of about $4 trillion in federal funds during the next decade and will determine which states will gain or lose seats in the House of Representatives.

‘Wait and See’

“We will all wait and see” what the census numbers provide in the exact population count, Groves said at the press briefing.

Later this month -- and before the overall population count is announced -- the agency will publish findings from an annual survey sent to about 3 million U.S. households. The data will be an average from 2005 to 2009 and will offer estimates for topics including income, poverty, foreign-born population, commute time to work and housing costs. Those numbers will be released Dec. 14.

The U.S. population in 2000 was 281.4 million, and in 1990 it was 248.7 million, according to the Census Bureau. Today’s population projections, based on the high-range estimate of 312.7 million, mean that there was an 11.1 percent rate of growth during the past 10 years. That is slower than the 13.1 percent pace in the previous decade.

Gender, Race Estimates

Today’s report offered population estimates for categories such as gender, race and age. The analysis shows the number of males in the U.S. is as low as 151.9 million or as high as 155.5 million. For women, the range is from 153.7 million to 157.2 million.

The black population in the U.S. ranged from 40.9 million to 41.7 million, the Census Bureau said. The number of young Hispanics -- limited to residents under the age of 20 since not enough states began gathering detailed race information until 1990 -- ranged from 18.3 million to 21.3 million.

Figures released today did not include an estimate of the number of white residents. “The non-black population has become a lot more diverse,” Jason Devine, head of methodology research in the agency’s population division, said in an interview. He said census demographers for this report focused more on the changing Hispanic population.

The data measured the non-black population, which includes Hispanics and other races. That figure ranged from 264.8 million to 271 million.

The U.S. Constitution requires the federal government to count the population every 10 years.

I was projecting 313 million so I hope i was right. But why is the range so big? 305 million was the projected population in 2007 so the range that takes into account the population in 2007 seems rather big. I would have expected more like a 2 million persons range.

I was projecting 313 million so I hope i was right. But why is the range so big? 305 million was the projected population in 2007 so the range that takes into account the population in 2007 seems rather big. I would have expected more like a 2 million persons range.

As with any statistical sampling, the numbers seem to fall within that '3% margin for error'.

People fuck like crazy in America. :ohno: Soon we'll have to invade another country for more living space. :yes:

Says the guy from India... Most of the growth rate in the U.S. is due to immigration. Natural increase is relatively low, though not quite at the level of much of Europe.

It was a joke bro. I'm well aware of the demographic characteristics.

I was projecting 313 million so I hope i was right. But why is the range so big? 305 million was the projected population in 2007 so the range that takes into account the population in 2007 seems rather big. I would have expected more like a 2 million persons range.


We'll be looking forward to looking over the official count very soon.

We'll be looking forward to looking over the official count very soon.

If Texas gets more than 3 electoral votes because of the census, there is no hope for the nation. :ohno:

High chance that New York will lose at least 2 House seats, both of them upstate and at least one of those will be in the Buffalo area.

High chance that New York will lose at least 2 House seats, both of them upstate and at least one of those will be in the Buffalo area.

Not necessarily. Districts should be reapportioned by the national average population for a congressional district (845,000 based on an overall 310,000,000). So districts upstate will likely grow larger in geographic size while the losses could occur anywhere in the state. Also, Andrew Cuomo would get killed if he signed onto a chop like that for Buffalo.

My guess is that if New York does lose two seats, it'll be the 26th and 24th districts that get chopped up the most. Granted, the fact that Republicans won a majority in the State Senate likely means that they'll put up a fight when it comes to redistricting. The Democrats will likely want to pack the most conservative areas into two districts, leaving the rest more winnable for democrats.

In Michigan the Republicans will have no problem redrawing the lines in their favor. I would think there stategy would be to somehow cut up the 5th district leaving the only "blue" districts in the Detroit area.

They should kill Levin's district and extend the two majority black districts in Detroit northwards.

Finally this topic came out!

312.7 million give us an 11.1% increase over 2000, quite impressive. It's not as strong as 1990-2000, even though surprinsingly high, at least for me. Brazil just conducted its census, finding 190.7 million over 169.8 million in 2000, or a 12.3% increase. As the immigration/migration is negligible
here (at least the net between them), the natural increase is around 12.2-12.4%.

Anyway, when the definite data will come out? I'm anxious!

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

About the discussions over politics, I'm pro-Republicans, but I'm also pro-Northeast-Midwest, so I'm looking forward a more balanced growth among all states.

Anyway, when the definite data will come out? I'm anxious!



Around the end of the month, they say...

They say Dec 31st. So I wonder if they're gonna release the population of every MSA or city too, or is just for each state....

^^The census covers everything, so of course we'll have all of that info.

The Census Bureau doesn't have to release the information to the public on December 31st, they just have to hand it over to Congress.

Guys, what are your forecasts over the CSA/MSAs population and growth rate? Do you believe Detroit and Cleveland growth will be positive? Pittsburgh and Buffalo will halt the population loss? The population of Dallas, Houston, Atlanta and Phoenix are overestimated? Are you expecting any major changes on CSA/MSAs definitions?

I'd expect any CSA/MSA changes to happen later, after they digest the data. Wasn't the last round in 2002 or so?

Washington state will probably stay ahead of Arizona, which I'm guessing will nearly guarantee that Washington will add a congressional seat.

Local population figures will show temporary effects of the economy -- more roommates, more living with parents, less moving due to inability to sell, etc. At the same time, some overbuilt places will have filled a lot of units through fire sales, resulting in significant growth, but not growth that would project forward once the fire sales are over.

Oddly, when the economy gets better and people stop sharing housing so much, populations in a lot of places will decline.

^^The census covers everything, so of course we'll have all of that info.

Yeah i know, but I thought that that info would be available later next year and not on Dec 31st...

Guys, what are your forecasts over the CSA/MSAs population and growth rate? Do you believe Detroit and Cleveland growth will be positive? Pittsburgh and Buffalo will halt the population loss? The population of Dallas, Houston, Atlanta and Phoenix are overestimated? Are you expecting any major changes on CSA/MSAs definitions?

There may be some surprises. Certainly over the last 2 years the economy has killed the mobility that funneled people out of the rust-belt metros to places like Las Vegas and Phoenix. That slowing of out-migration could be balancing the natural increase issues in some cities resulting in flat or slightly positive growth.

I can't wait and see the city and metro area population figures. I think Chicago's population will be very close to that of the 2000 census. The metro area probably grew by 800,000 or more.


My family just left Chicago(after living basically in the say neighborhood for 36 years) for the south suburbs. I couldn't take the taxes anymore, plus my kid is now of school age, and CPS absolutely sucks...

Yes I'm a suburbanite :D

However, my sister in law and her family just moved back in to the city... So it's a wash :)

Guys, what are your forecasts over the CSA/MSAs population and growth rate? Do you believe Detroit and Cleveland growth will be positive? Pittsburgh and Buffalo will halt the population loss? The population of Dallas, Houston, Atlanta and Phoenix are overestimated? Are you expecting any major changes on CSA/MSAs definitions?

I think that Buffalo did lose population but perhaps not as much as the estimates forecast.

Pittsburgh's metro population has stabilized but it was perhaps too late to reverse declines earlier in the decade.

Guys, what are your forecasts over the CSA/MSAs population and growth rate? Do you believe Detroit and Cleveland growth will be positive? Pittsburgh and Buffalo will halt the population loss? The population of Dallas, Houston, Atlanta and Phoenix are overestimated? Are you expecting any major changes on CSA/MSAs definitions?

Not likely. Recently Pittsburgh became the first of the major US metros where deaths have overtaken births, Buffalo is nearing that point. Neither has been very good at attracting new immigrants to change their losing equations. decline.

Given that both lost population during the booming 1990s, its hard to see how they's have gained over the past decade. We'll have to see, sure they'll be a few surprises.

There may be some surprises. Certainly over the last 2 years the economy has killed the mobility that funneled people out of the rust-belt metros to places like Las Vegas and Phoenix. That slowing of out-migration could be balancing the natural increase issues in some cities resulting in flat or slightly positive growth.

But why people keep leaving the Rust Belt cities to Phoenix or Las Vegas? What's the real problem with them? The Rust Belt metro areas seem diversified to me, economically speaking. I mean, what's the big difference between a Detroit suburb and an Atlanta one?


Not likely. Recently Pittsburgh became the first of the major US metros where deaths have overtaken births, Buffalo is nearing that point. Neither has been very good at attracting new immigrants to change their losing equations. decline.

More deaths than births?!?! Why Pittsburgh's metro area demographics are so different from the rest of the country?


Given that both lost population during the booming 1990s, its hard to see how they's have gained over the past decade. We'll have to see, sure they'll be a few surprises.

I don't know, I thought maybe the American population will finally settle, closing all this dramatic migrations through the country. It's quite bizarre some metro areas growing almost 40% a decade, while others are losing population.

Yeah i know, but I thought that that info would be available later next year and not on Dec 31st...

I think they'll announce just the state populations and national figures on the 31st and everything else will come out in March/April

Guys, what are your forecasts over the CSA/MSAs population and growth rate? Do you believe Detroit and Cleveland growth will be positive? Pittsburgh and Buffalo will halt the population loss? The population of Dallas, Houston, Atlanta and Phoenix are overestimated? Are you expecting any major changes on CSA/MSAs definitions?

I think Cleveland, Detroit, Buffalo and Pittsburgh will all be in the negative in CSA with Detroit and Pittsburgh posting better than expected numbers. Dallas, Houston, Atlanta will all be past 6 million (Atlanta will pass because of the adding of several more counties to the CSA) with the Dallas CSA approaching 7. Phoenix will not see typical growth but probably another 80k during 2010 gives them a 4.5 million estimate. I would be surprised if San Jose isn't added to San Francisco and Riverside/Oxnard aren't added to LA. I also think Sarasota/Bradenton should be added to Tampa but i'm not sure that will happen. Tulsa will barely miss the 1 million mark. :ohno:

But why people keep leaving the Rust Belt cities to Phoenix or Las Vegas? What's the real problem with them? The Rust Belt metro areas seem diversified to me, economically speaking. I mean, what's the big difference between a Detroit suburb and an Atlanta one?

More deaths than births?!?! Why Pittsburgh's metro area demographics are so different from the rest of the country?

I don't know, I thought maybe the American population will finally settle, closing all this dramatic migrations through the country. It's quite bizarre some metro areas growing almost 40% a decade, while others are losing population.

Historically, up thru the early 1960s, rural American southerners used to move north to the industrial cities like Chicago, Detroit, Cleveland, etc. (similar to when rural Northeast Brazilians left for Sao Paulo, etc.)

The big migration out of the Rust Belt coincided with the decline of the steel, auto, & other heavy industrial sectors starting in the '70s.

Its stabilized recently partly given that many people can't sell their houses, so their stuck in place.

That metros like Pittsburgh & Buffalo have aging peopling owes to that their older cities & a many of the youth leave, while the older population ages in place.

Much of the US growth over the past few decades has come from immigration. Immigration policies vary widely by area.

Many of the larger metros like NYC & the SF Bay area have very little if any immigration enforcement.

By contrast, some of the he declining rustbelt metros, Buffalo in particular, have very tough immigration enforcement.

Immigrants end up going to where they feel comfortable. For example, many Brazilians immigrants have settled in Miami, Boston, the NYC-NJ area, & California where immigration enforcement is very relaxed.

The places that have attracted lots of immigrants have grown, while those which have walled themselves off from immigration, like Buffalo, have declined.

Why all the migration? Well, you also have to consider that the real estate & development business accounts for a big part of the US economy & profits from high rates of population migration, mobility, etc.

The Detroit CSA had an estimated 30,000 fewer people in 2009 than in 2000, however the Census Bureau is notorious for undercounting areas where new housing isn't going up in large numbers. While the 2000's were certainly way behind the 90's for growth, I wouldn't be surprised to see just a slight bump in population, with the region ultimately staying in the 5.4 million range.

Historically, up thru the early 1960s, rural American southerners used to move north to the industrial cities like Chicago, Detroit, Cleveland, etc. (similar to when rural Northeast Brazilians left for Sao Paulo, etc.)

The big migration out of the Rust Belt coincided with the decline of the steel, auto, & other heavy industrial sectors starting in the '70s.

Its stabilized recently partly given that many people can't sell their houses, so their stuck in place.

That metros like Pittsburgh & Buffalo have aging peopling owes to that their older cities & a many of the youth leave, while the older population ages in place.

Much of the US growth over the past few decades has come from immigration. Immigration policies vary widely by area.

Many of the larger metros like NYC & the SF Bay area have very little if any immigration enforcement.

By contrast, some of the he declining rustbelt metros, Buffalo in particular, have very tough immigration enforcement.

Immigrants end up going to where they feel comfortable. For example, many Brazilians immigrants have settled in Miami, Boston, the NYC-NJ area, & California where immigration enforcement is very relaxed.

The places that have attracted lots of immigrants have grown, while those which have walled themselves off from immigration, like Buffalo, have declined.

Why all the migration? Well, you also have to consider that the real estate & development business accounts for a big part of the US economy & profits from high rates of population migration, mobility, etc.

Really? I'm not familiar with Buffalo's enforcement of immigration policies but why would a city bleeding population turn anybody away? That seems counterproductive to me.

Really? I'm not familiar with Buffalo's enforcement of immigration policies but why would a city bleeding population turn anybody away? That seems counterproductive to me.

Indeed, its been very been very counterproductive.

Buffalo's one of just a couple of the US major metros which has steadily declined in metro population.

There's a huge contigent of border patrol & immigration (ICE) deployed around Buffalo as its right on the Canadian border.

Presumably to protect NYC from terrorist attack.

But since there aren't lots of terorists swimming across Niagara Falls, the border guards & immigration end up raiding farms, resturants & businesses that employ undocumented immigrants.

Even the local police often double as immigration agents.

Compared to most US cities, Buffalo's a rather homegenous close-knit type of place, so Latino or Asian immigrants tend to stand out.

Not exactly the best way to attract growth or new business!

But why people keep leaving the Rust Belt cities to Phoenix or Las Vegas? What's the real problem with them? The Rust Belt metro areas seem diversified to me, economically speaking. I mean, what's the big difference between a Detroit suburb and an Atlanta one?

It isn't so much migration that is the issue, places seen as much more desirable like NYC and California lose much more people to other regions than the Rust Belt cities, their main problem instead is the lack of newcomers who could keep the population from declining.

The relatively poor economies, even before the recession, and their perception played a role in keeping most newcomers away.

It isn't so much migration that is the issue, places seen as much more desirable like NYC and California lose much more people to other regions than the Rust Belt cities, their main problem instead is the lack of newcomers who could keep the population from declining.

The relatively poor economies, even before the recession, and their perception played a role in keeping most newcomers away.

I know for Pittsburgh population loss isn't really translated to people leaving the region due to job loss but moreso due to senior citizens dying off (I read somewhere that Allegheny County has the most senior citizens in the US after West Palm Beach.)

Using data from the 2009 ACS, the counties with the largest number of seniors (65+) are:

1. Los Angeles County, CA - 1,042,880
2. Cook County, IL - 621,348
3. Maricopa County, AZ - 449,055
4. Miami-Dade County, FL - 360,649
5. San Diego County, CA - 347,654
6. Orange County, CA - 346,396
7. Harris County, TX - 327,774
8. Queens County, NY - 300,698
9. Kings County, NY - 299,841
10. Palm Beach County, FL - 275,180
11. Broward County, FL - 247,291
12. Riverside County, CA - 244,917
13. Wayne County, MI - 235,030
14. Dallas County, TX - 211,072
15. New York County, NY - 207,420
16. Nassau County, NY - 206,810
17. Allegheny County, PA - 204,980
18. King County, WA - 204,858
19. Suffolk County, NY - 204,088
20. Clark County, NV - 203,542

Using the same data, the counties (with a population of at least 65,000) with the highest percentage of seniors (65+) are:

1. Charlotte County, FL - 34.6%
2. Highland County, FL - 31.9%
3. Citrus County, FL - 30.6%
4. Sarasota County, FL - 30.4%
5. Lake County, FL - 30.2%
6. Sumter County, FL - 30.1%
7. Collier County, FL - 26.9%
8. Martin County, FL - 26.6%
9. Indian River County, FL - 26.5%
10. Hernando County, FL - 26.3%
11. Flagler County, FL - 24.7%
12. Marion County, FL - 24.6%
13. Barnstable County, MA - 24.6%
14. Clallam County, WA - 23.6%
15. Yavapai County, AZ - 23.6%
16. Lee County, FL - 22.7%
17. Manatee County, FL - 22.6%
18. Mohave County, AZ - 22.4%
19. Henderson County, NC - 22.2%
20. Josephine County, OR - 21.9%

If you only include counties with 1,000,000+ inhabitants:

1. Palm Beach County, FL - 21.5%
2. Allegheny County, PA - 16.8%
3. Cuyahoga County, OH - 15.3%
4. Nassau County, NY - 15.2%
5. Pima County, AZ - 15.1%
6. Miami-Dade County, FL - 14.4%
7. Broward County, FL - 14.0%
8. Suffolk County, NY - 13.4%
9. Queens County, NY - 13.0%
10. Oakland County, MI - 12.9%
11. Middlesex County, MA - 12.9%
12. New York County, NY - 12.7%
13. Philadelphia County, NY - 12.5%
14. Wayne County, MI - 12.2%
15. Contra Costa County, CA - 12.1%
16. Hillsborough County, FL - 11.8%
17. Cook County, IL - 11.8%
18. Kings County, NY - 11.7%
19. Riverside County, CA - 11.5%
20. Orange County, CA - 11.4%

But why people keep leaving the Rust Belt cities to Phoenix or Las Vegas? What's the real problem with them? The Rust Belt metro areas seem diversified to me, economically speaking. I mean, what's the big difference between a Detroit suburb and an Atlanta one?

Atlanta's suburbs are filled with corporate relocations while Detroit's are mainly auto industry execs and people with inherited wealth. Rust Belt metros had lost population to job and climate meccas like Phoenix and Las Vegas but now that stream has narrowed or even reversed. The cities themselves lack the mobility to drive those stats. That's where the big die-offs are occuring. Only immigration is rebalancing that bleak urban picture but some cities are attracting fewer immigrants than others, for a variety of reasons.

You think that the only reason people in Detroit's suburbs are wealthy is because they inherited their parent's auto money? The median household income in Oakland County, which is a highly urbanized suburban county of 1.2 million was over $62,000 last year according to the ACS. Of the 41 counties with a population of at least 1 million, it ranks #11 ahead of Hennepin County (Minneapolis), San Diego County, and Atlanta's own Fulton County.

I know for Pittsburgh population loss isn't really translated to people leaving the region due to job loss but moreso due to senior citizens dying off (I read somewhere that Allegheny County has the most senior citizens in the US after West Palm Beach.)

That plus the lack of immigration.

To Pittsburgh's credit though, its one of the few of the rust-belt decliners where (at least the local business leadership) has stepped up to the plate to start attracting some immigrants.

St Louis is another of the long-time decliners thats also been having success stablizing its decline by becoming more immigrant-freindly over the past couple of decades.

That's probably because compared to the other Great Lakes cities (and especially the rest of the country) Pittsburgh has a very low foreign-born population.

This is how the major/middling (275,000+) Midwest/Rust Belt metros rank when it comes to the percentage of foreign-born residents:

1. Chicago, IL - 17.2%
2. Ann Arbor, MI - 11.5%
3. Minneapolis, MN - 9.1%
4. Detroit, MI - 8.9%
5. Rockford, IL - 7.6%
6. Milwaukee, WI - 6.9%
7. Columbus, OH - 6.9%
8. Des Moines, IA - 6.6%
9. Omaha, NE - 6.6%
10. Rochester, NY - 6.3%
11. Grand Rapids, MI - 6.3%
12. Madison, WI - 6.3%
13. Wichita, KS - 6.1%
14. Lincoln, NE - 6.1%
15. Indianapolis, IN - 5.8%
16. Kansas City, MO - 5.8%
17. Buffalo, NY - 5.7%
18. Lansing, MI - 5.6%
19. Cleveland, OH - 5.6%
20. Fort Wayne, IN - 5.4%
21. Syracuse, NY - 5.3%
22. Davenport, IA - 4.9%
23. Green Bay, WI - 4.7%
24. South Bend, IN - 4.6%
25. Kalamazoo, MI - 4.5%
26. Louisville, KY - 4.1%
27. St. Louis, MO - 4.0%
28. Erie, PA - 4.0%
29. Cincinnati, OH - 3.8%
30. Akron, OH - 3.6%
31. Toledo, OH - 3.1%
32. Dayton, OH - 3.0%
33. Pittsburgh, PA - 3.0%
34. Flint, MI - 2.4%
35. Peoria, IL - 2.3%
36. Youngstown, OH - 2.2%
37. Evansville, IN - 2.0%
38. Springfield, MO - 1.8%
39. Duluth, MN - 1.8%
40. Canton, OH - 1.4%

If you only include the major (1 million+) metros, Pittsburgh comes in dead last:

Tier 1
1. Chicago - 17.2%

Tier 2
2. Minneapolis - 9.1%
3. Detroit - 8.9%

Tier 3
4. Milwaukee - 6.9%
5. Columbus - 6.9%
6. Rochester - 6.3%
7. Indianapolis - 5.8%
8. Kansas City - 5.8%
9. Buffalo - 5.7%
10. Cleveland - 5.7%

Tier 4
11. Louisville - 4.1%
12. St. Louis - 4.0%
13. Cincinnati - 3.8%
14. Pittsburgh - 3.0%

Will California surpass the 40m mark?

You think that the only reason people in Detroit's suburbs are wealthy is because they inherited their parent's auto money? The median household income in Oakland County, which is a highly urbanized suburban county of 1.2 million was over $62,000 last year according to the ACS. Of the 41 counties with a population of at least 1 million, it ranks #11 ahead of Hennepin County (Minneapolis), San Diego County, and Atlanta's own Fulton County.

Detroit ranked very high in the 2010 Metro Wealth Index. Much of that is inherited wealth. Besides auto industry heirs what else is there? Movie moguls?

Will California surpass the 40m mark?

No, not even close. The 2009 Estimated population was 36,961,664 and it has "only" averaged a gain of 343,335 per year. At that rate, California won't pass the 40 million mark until maybe the late 2010s. Texas does appear set to break the big 25 million and maybe at that rate the 30 million by 2020. Georgia looks about even in regards to breaking the 10 million mark and Michigan does as well. Other likely notables-Iowa cracks 3 million after like a trillion years, Louisiana sees the slowest growth in the nation (Katrina), Missouri cracks 6 million, New Mexico cracks 2 million for the first census, and Virginia maybe cracks the 8 million (35% chance in my opinion) :banana: I hope the next decade of growth isn't as urban sprawl related as the past one however. I can't fathom a nation of 430 million people in 2050 where the growth is all centered on the suburbs. :ohno:

But why people keep leaving the Rust Belt cities to Phoenix or Las Vegas? What's the real problem with them? The Rust Belt metro areas seem diversified to me, economically speaking. I mean, what's the big difference between a Detroit suburb and an Atlanta one?




More deaths than births?!?! Why Pittsburgh's metro area demographics are so different from the rest of the country?




I don't know, I thought maybe the American population will finally settle, closing all this dramatic migrations through the country. It's quite bizarre some metro areas growing almost 40% a decade, while others are losing population.

Jobs my friend, jobs. Upper Midwest and Northeast are heavily unionized. And are the richest part of the country. Sunbelt, in contrast, still has a lot to grow.

Detroit ranked very high in the 2010 Metro Wealth Index. Much of that is inherited wealth. Besides auto industry heirs what else is there? Movie moguls?

Really??? You honestly think that Metro Detroit is wealthy because somehow everyone is inheriting money? Really???:lol:

No, not even close. The 2009 Estimated population was 36,961,664 and it has "only" averaged a gain of 343,335 per year. At that rate, California won't pass the 40 million mark until maybe the late 2010s. Texas does appear set to break the big 25 million and maybe at that rate the 30 million by 2020. Georgia looks about even in regards to breaking the 10 million mark and Michigan does as well. Other likely notables-Iowa cracks 3 million after like a trillion years, Louisiana sees the slowest growth in the nation (Katrina), Missouri cracks 6 million, New Mexico cracks 2 million for the first census, and Virginia maybe cracks the 8 million (35% chance in my opinion) :banana: I hope the next decade of growth isn't as urban sprawl related as the past one however. I can't fathom a nation of 430 million people in 2050 where the growth is all centered on the suburbs. :ohno:
36? I thought that California already had 38 million inhabitant... Or that's what I heard..

Using the same data, the counties (with a population of at least 65,000) with the highest percentage of seniors (65+) are:

1. Charlotte County, FL - 34.6%
2. Highland County, FL - 31.9%
3. Citrus County, FL - 30.6%
4. Sarasota County, FL - 30.4%
5. Lake County, FL - 30.2%
6. Sumter County, FL - 30.1%
7. Collier County, FL - 26.9%
8. Martin County, FL - 26.6%
9. Indian River County, FL - 26.5%
10. Hernando County, FL - 26.3%
11. Flagler County, FL - 24.7%
12. Marion County, FL - 24.6%
13. Barnstable County, MA - 24.6%
14. Clallam County, WA - 23.6%
15. Yavapai County, AZ - 23.6%
16. Lee County, FL - 22.7%
17. Manatee County, FL - 22.6%
18. Mohave County, AZ - 22.4%
19. Henderson County, NC - 22.2%
20. Josephine County, OR - 21.9%

If you only include counties with 1,000,000+ inhabitants:

1. Palm Beach County, FL - 21.5%
2. Allegheny County, PA - 16.8%
3. Cuyahoga County, OH - 15.3%
4. Nassau County, NY - 15.2%
5. Pima County, AZ - 15.1%
6. Miami-Dade County, FL - 14.4%
7. Broward County, FL - 14.0%
8. Suffolk County, NY - 13.4%
9. Queens County, NY - 13.0%
10. Oakland County, MI - 12.9%
11. Middlesex County, MA - 12.9%
12. New York County, NY - 12.7%
13. Philadelphia County, NY - 12.5%
14. Wayne County, MI - 12.2%
15. Contra Costa County, CA - 12.1%
16. Hillsborough County, FL - 11.8%
17. Cook County, IL - 11.8%
18. Kings County, NY - 11.7%
19. Riverside County, CA - 11.5%
20. Orange County, CA - 11.4%

US TV series are always making jokes about Florida and its elderly population, but I didn't know it was that extreme: all counties over 24%, but one, are in Florida.



Atlanta's suburbs are filled with corporate relocations while Detroit's are mainly auto industry execs and people with inherited wealth. Rust Belt metros had lost population to job and climate meccas like Phoenix and Las Vegas but now that stream has narrowed or even reversed. The cities themselves lack the mobility to drive those stats. That's where the big die-offs are occuring. Only immigration is rebalancing that bleak urban picture but some cities are attracting fewer immigrants than others, for a variety of reasons.

I was not talking about they are similar on the economic sense. I was saying, for me, as an outsider, I don't see any major difference in terms of living, between an Atlanta's and a Detroit's suburb today. They look the same: a lot of green and plenty of space. That's why I can't understand why the jobs and the population flight to South keeps going. I mean, for a big company, what's the difference to have the HQ on Detroit/Cleveland and Atlanta/Charlotte, generally speaking?



Jobs my friend, jobs. Upper Midwest and Northeast are heavily unionized. And are the richest part of the country. Sunbelt, in contrast, still has a lot to grow.

I don't know, but today Sunbelt seems crowded to me. I keep wnadering when the flight to the South will be over.

I don't know, but today Sunbelt seems crowded to me. I keep wnadering when the flight to the South will be over.

It may be crowded, but no so much as the Northeast. And to creat a job below the Mason-Dixon line is much easier than above it, for the aforementioned reasons. It used to be the reverse: the Northeast used to generate more jobs 40 yrs or so ago. But then things began to change...

US TV series are always making jokes about Florida and its elderly population, but I didn't know it was that extreme: all counties over 24%, but one, are in Florida.

It's no joke. It's almost eerie.

It’s often overlooked by those who don’t know the history. But the reality of why the migrations reversed from north to south owes a great deal to the civil rights revolution that we had in the US during the fifties & sixties.

Of course, It didn’t make much economic sense to require 2 separate sets of laws, neighborhoods, schools, buses, & just about everything etc. Up thru the mid-sixties poor southerners (black & white) were leaving the South in droves to go to places where there were better opportunities.

Atlanta was the first southern city that realized that being dubbed as the city that was “too busy to hate” was key to keeping & attracting people as well as corporations. The 2 guys for whom the world’s busiest airport is named had a lot to do with Atlanta’s rise as a global hub.

Atlanta has biggest Afro-American middle-class in the US. And so other southern cities followed its example: Charlotte, The Raleigh-Durham Triangle, etc, Nashville. etc.

And so, over the past few decades we’ve had a huge southward migration of people & jobs. I’d love to see the Great Lakes region, with all the fresh water, etc. re-populated by internal migrants & immigrants. But so long as the so many of the “Rust Belt” metros remain so racially segregated & polarized & unwelcoming to new immigrants, their a hard sell for newcomers as well as businesses.

Thanks to its openness to immigrants, Chicago’s a rare example of an-rustbelt metro that’s been able to stage a comeback. When the 2010 census comes out, even with the post-2008 hits, I’d be surprised if we didn’t see a stable Chicago city population & a growing metro.

I actually did some work with the Census Bureau to help them with their address list on the Indian reservation where I work. And having gone through the experience, all I can say is, whatever number they come up with, add about 5% to get something closer to the real figure.

I was not talking about they are similar on the economic sense. I was saying, for me, as an outsider, I don't see any major difference in terms of living, between an Atlanta's and a Detroit's suburb today. They look the same: a lot of green and plenty of space. That's why I can't understand why the jobs and the population flight to South keeps going. I mean, for a big company, what's the difference to have the HQ on Detroit/Cleveland and Atlanta/Charlotte, generally speaking?


The suburbs and the lifestyles within them are very similar although Detroit's suburbs are much older and Atlanta's have more investment and ammenities. The big advantage that Atlanta offers to big corporations is the world's busiest airport, Hartsfield International, which allows them to hop on a flight to anywhere in the US at a moment's notice. Detroit's airport is quite large and has excellent service due to the needs of the auto giants. Another huge factor is simply growth. Atlanta has grown 75% since 1990. Detroit has grown little since that time.

Will California surpass the 40m mark?

California should be very close to that
I would say about 39.5 million

The suburbs and the lifestyles within them are very similar although Detroit's suburbs are much older and Atlanta's have more investment and ammenities. The big advantage that Atlanta offers to big corporations is the world's busiest airport, Hartsfield International, which allows them to hop on a flight to anywhere in the US at a moment's notice. Detroit's airport is quite large and has excellent service due to the needs of the auto giants. Another huge factor is simply growth. Atlanta has grown 75% since 1990. Detroit has grown little since that time.

Detroit's central suburbs are older and much more urban than Atlanta's. In fact, most of those suburbs are more urban than the typical Atlanta neighborhood. While Metro Detroit's population has remained relatively flat since the 1970's, that hasn't stopped the outer suburbs from growing like weeds, especially in the boom years of the 90's. Keep in mind that despite losing over 1.5 million people in the city and inner-ring suburbs since the 70's, the regional population is about the same as it was in that time. That means that those 1.5 million ended up moving to the fringes to places like Macomb TWP, Canton TWP, Novi, Brighton, etc. In that sense, you'll find plenty of Atlanta-style suburbs, they just happen to be much further away from Downtown. And as far as the airports, Atlanta is Delta's #1 hub, but Detroit is clearly Delta's #2 hub, with much of the same access as Atlanta. In fact, Detroit is quickly becoming Delta's primary connection to Asia. So they are basically the same in that respect.;)

Los Angeles Times (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-rural-census-20101215,0,2084635.story)


Rural America gets even more sparsely populated

Most thinly populated counties in the U.S. continued to lose residents in the last decade, new census data show.

By Doug Smith and Richard Fausset, Los Angeles Times
December 15, 2010

The majority of the nation's sparsely populated rural counties lost even more residents in the last decade, though some of the counties — particularly those in the Mountain West — saw population gains that may be the result of retirees striking out for areas that are both scenic and affordable, according to a Times analysis of figures released by the Census Bureau on Tuesday.

The data offer the first detailed portrait of heartland America in a decade, covering the roughly 1,400 counties of fewer than 20,000 people. The numbers also show a growing Latino presence in these counties.

Such data had been hard to come by previously. Concentrated from the Mississippi River to the Rocky Mountain region, the counties constitute half of the United States by area, but were too sparsely populated to provide meaningful statistics as the Census Bureau rolled out a new yearly national survey in the mid-2000s.

To account for the low numbers, the data released Tuesday — including population, income and social characteristics — have been averaged over five years. That makes some of the data difficult to interpret, particularly income figures, because the five-year period spans the pre-recession boom, the recession and the beginning of the recovery.

But the Times analysis of the numbers shows unequivocally that a thick swath of the country, from north Texas to the Dakotas, has lost population. Ken Johnson, senior demographer for the Carsey Institute at the University of New Hampshire, has noted that this shift was the case for much of the 20th century, although the country saw rural population growth in the 1970s, as city-dwellers left struggling cities, and another rebound in the early 1990s.

But growth in rural America is the exception. A different story is unfolding in places like Lane County, Kan., a wheat- and corn-growing area in the central-west portion of the state that lost 23% of its population — the 11th greatest population loss in the nation among rural counties.

"We're just a small community and there are no jobs, and they're just moving to find other jobs," said April Berry, 35, a cook at the Frigid Creme diner in downtown Dighton, the county seat, in a phone interview Tuesday night. Berry said the loss was palpable in the sleepy downtown, where in the last few years, a jeweler and florist closed up shop. Now, she said, locals have to drive 55 miles to Garden City just to get to flowers or jewels, or even find a Wal-Mart.

The rural area with the largest population growth, of 42%, was Spencer County, Ky., 45 minutes from downtown Louisville and encompassing a popular 3,000-acre recreational lake. That growth is in keeping with a 2006 study in which Johnson noted that rural areas with "natural amenities, recreational opportunities or quality of life advantages" are best suited to grow.

The second-largest population growth was in Teton County, Idaho, in the shadow of the Grand Tetons and just west of Jackson Hole, Wyo., the once-pokey town that in recent years has become a preferred destination for the jet set.

Johnson, in an interview Tuesday, said such places are attractive to retirees, but also to urban types looking for a second home. "But what that means is that some of the people who were already living there might not have to leave," he said, because the part-timers bring increased commerce.

Johnson had only begun to study the voluminous data released as part of the Census Bureau's American Community Survey. But what he had seen thus far, he said, reinforced how much minorities, particularly Latinos, have contributed to population growth in both urban and rural areas.

Between 2000 and 2008, he noted, 51.2% of the entire population increase in the United States has come from Latinos, who represented 15.3% of the population in 2008. Most of that growth was not from immigration, but from what demographers call "natural increase": between 2000 and 2008, there were 8.2 million Latino births in the U.S. and only 900,000 Latino deaths.

The Times analysis shows significant gains in Latino populations not only in the Southwest, but also in rural counties from Mississippi to the northernmost reaches of Montana. The Census Bureau projects the current total population of the United States to be almost 311 million, with a net gain of one person every 13 seconds.

Data show that many counties in the Great Plains are also experiencing a loss of young people. Johnson said that trend was probably creating a "downward spiral" of population loss in these areas since the young weren't sticking around to bear children. "The only thing that might break them out of it," he said, "is an influx of young Hispanics."

The American Community Survey is the Census Bureau's replacement for the once-a-decade "long-form" questionnaire that went to one in six U.S. households to provide a snapshot of the population, its age, economic health, working patterns, family structures, housing characteristics and racial makeup.

Although annual census updates are now routine in urban and suburban areas of the West Coast, the East and South, such numbers were not available from a vast swath of the country's middle because the sample sizes were too small. To compensate, the Census Bureau withheld data on the smaller counties until the five years of surveys, reaching about 3 million households a year, could be averaged.

Starting with Tuesday's release, American Community Survey estimates for the entire nation will be produced annually down to the level of block groups — areas of about 1,500 people. The result: a more detailed, although somewhat fuzzier, report on America each year.

The American Community Survey is distinct from Census 2010, a 100% count of the population used for redistricting. It will be released early next year.

^^

I've always wondered that with this rural depopulation trend, how states like North Dakota have managed to gain population overall. Nebraska has Omaha to boost its numbers and Kansas has the KC Suburbs. Even Wyoming has Cheyenne growing and Sioux Falls helps South Dakota but how is North Dakota managing to gain people. How is Mississippi gaining people? How is West Virginia gaining people? Those are very rural states yet they somehow always buck the trend and gain people, even if it is just .01%

^^
I read few months ago, on Exame (Brazilian economic magazine), that all those states on western section of Midwest were doing very well during the crisis, and they mentioned North Dakota as the best example. A very interesting article. Maybe one of the forumers here got more information about that.


Detroit's central suburbs are older and much more urban than Atlanta's. In fact, most of those suburbs are more urban than the typical Atlanta neighborhood. While Metro Detroit's population has remained relatively flat since the 1970's, that hasn't stopped the outer suburbs from growing like weeds, especially in the boom years of the 90's. Keep in mind that despite losing over 1.5 million people in the city and inner-ring suburbs since the 70's, the regional population is about the same as it was in that time. That means that those 1.5 million ended up moving to the fringes to places like Macomb TWP, Canton TWP, Novi, Brighton, etc. In that sense, you'll find plenty of Atlanta-style suburbs, they just happen to be much further away from Downtown. And as far as the airports, Atlanta is Delta's #1 hub, but Detroit is clearly Delta's #2 hub, with much of the same access as Atlanta. In fact, Detroit is quickly becoming Delta's primary connection to Asia. So they are basically the same in that respect.;)

Hudkina (and everybody), can you see Northeast/Midwest atracting migration on the next decades or at least growing on the same level to the country overall? American people is always moving around and it's quite unlikely the South will keep atracting people forever. Where do you think it will be the next hotspot of population growing?

^^

I've always wondered that with this rural depopulation trend, how states like North Dakota have managed to gain population overall. Nebraska has Omaha to boost its numbers and Kansas has the KC Suburbs. Even Wyoming has Cheyenne growing and Sioux Falls helps South Dakota but how is North Dakota managing to gain people. How is Mississippi gaining people? How is West Virginia gaining people? Those are very rural states yet they somehow always buck the trend and gain people, even if it is just .01%

Even North Dakota has cities. Small ones.

^^Exactly. For instance, the Fargo/Moorhead metropolitan area has a relatively great economy right now with jobs in technology, retail trade, higher education, and healthcare. Bismarck and Grand Forks have similar economies. In North Dakota, there really never was a recession.

Out in western North Dakota, the oil industry is attracting workers to communities like Dickinson and Williston.

^^Exactly. For instance, the Fargo/Moorhead metropolitan area has a relatively great economy right now with jobs in technology, retail trade, higher education, and healthcare. Bismarck and Grand Forks have similar economies. In North Dakota, there really never was a recession.

Out in western North Dakota, the oil industry is attracting workers to communities like Dickinson and Williston.

Yep, huge oil finds in N. Dakota. In fact it's the reason that for the first time in ages, proven oil reserves in the US have actually risen.

I found the article. It's in Portuguese, but Google Translator is pretty decent those days:

A América que é feliz

Enquanto estados ricos do país, como a Califórnia, penam com a desaceleração econômica, a pequena Dakota do Norte vive dentro de uma bolha de prosperidade
09/07/2009

(...)

http://exame.abril.com.br/revista-exame/edicoes/0947/negocios/noticias/america-feliz-482555

^^
The headline is something like "The Happy America" or literally "the America that (or who, I'm not sure) is happy".

If Texas gets more than 3 electoral votes because of the census, there is no hope for the nation. :ohno:

After what happened on November 2, I've given up all hope. People in the US have the attention span of squirrels.

Signed, Someone from a state that actually voted for Scott Brown ...

Texas should get 4 more electoral votes and Arizona 1. that is good for this nation
We need more Texas in this country

Texas should get 4 more electoral votes and Arizona 1. that is good for this nation
We need more Texas in this country

Only if you're from Mexico :nuts: Any chance we can rescind the Battle of San Jacinto win of 1836?

Only if you're from Mexico :nuts: Any chance we can rescind the Battle of San Jacinto win of 1836?

I am not from Mexico and I am Republican, just like texas and AZ

Maybe Texas and Arizona could form their own country! Go Texas and Arizona!

Texas should get 4 more electoral votes and Arizona 1. that is good for this nation
We need more Texas in this country


we saw how texas was good for the country from 2000 - 2008. no thanks.

I would love to see Texas become an independent Republic again. They could take half the south with them for all I care.;)

I would love to see Texas become an independent Republic again. They could take half the south with them for all I care.;)
and most of the mid west (and orange county) lol

After what happened on November 2, I've given up all hope. People in the US have the attention span of squirrels.

Signed, Someone from a state that actually voted for Scott Brown ...

Here's to cheer you up: http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2010/12/15/Poll-GOP-won-seats-but-not-hearts/UPI-88791292431727/

Maybe Texas and Arizona could form their own country! Go Texas and Arizona!

Here's the Future CIA World Factbook Entry on it:


TEXAZONA
Official Name: Texas and Arizona
Nicknames: Jesusland, The Lone Race State, Neo-Con Fairyland
Motto: "Me, Me, Me"
Population: 31,378,080
Area: 382,579sq mi
Type of Government: Theocratic Oligopoly
Capitol: Austin, Texas
Sex Ratio: Sex is banned
Official Language: English, Anglo-Hebrew
Literacy:Top 2%
Educational Expenditures: 0%, Education is for Commies
National Holidays: Christmas, Confederate Victory Day, Rick Perry Freedom Day, Glenn Beck Day, Invest in Gold Day, Fox News' Media Freedom Day, Pollute Day (coincides with Earth Day), Shoot Rainbows Day, Capital Punishment Day, Cyberbullying Celebration Day, Hummers Are Cool Day
Suffrage: Landowners, All-American Cowboys, and White Nobility
Elections: None, ruled by Divine Right
Head of State: Celestial Cowgirl Seraph Janice Brewer The Magnificent
Legislative Branch: None, Rule By Decree
Judicial Branch: National Rifle Association Executive Board
Political Pressure Groups: Exxon Mobil, Halliburton, Blackwater, Israel Lobby
National Anthem: "Texazona, the Patriotic Song" by Michael Reagan and Ann Coulter
GDP: None, economy crashed due to lack of revenue after implementation of "Zero Taxes Act of 2028"
GDP Per Capita: None, all Texazonans starve or cross the border to the United States
GDP Composition by Sector:
10% Indentured Servitude
20% Subsistence Farming
10% Missionary Work
30% Miscellaneous Warfare
15% Border Security
15% Ministry of Truth
Unemployment Rate: 98%
Population below poverty line: 98%
Budget: $0, borrows from Saudi Arabia
Agriculture: wheat, barley, tomatoes, melons, dates, citrus; mutton, chickens, eggs, milk, suffering,
Industry: Branson postcards, 9/11 keychains

and most of the mid west (and orange county) lol

We can keep Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, northern Illinois and the Mississippi river cities. They can have the rest.

We can keep Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, northern Illinois and the Mississippi river cities. They can have the rest.

Agreed.

Here's the Future CIA World Factbook Entry on it:


TEXAZONA
Official Name: Texas and Arizona
Nicknames: Jesusland, The Lone Race State, Neo-Con Fairyland
Motto: "Me, Me, Me"
Population: 31,378,080
Area: 382,579sq mi
Type of Government: Theocratic Oligopoly
Capitol: Austin, Texas
Sex Ratio: Sex is banned
Official Language: English, Anglo-Hebrew
Literacy:Top 2%
Educational Expenditures: 0%, Education is for Commies
National Holidays: Christmas, Confederate Victory Day, Rick Perry Freedom Day, Glenn Beck Day, Invest in Gold Day, Fox News' Media Freedom Day, Pollute Day (coincides with Earth Day), Shoot Rainbows Day, Capital Punishment Day, Cyberbullying Celebration Day, Hummers Are Cool Day
Suffrage: Landowners, All-American Cowboys, and White Nobility
Elections: None, ruled by Divine Right
Head of State: Celestial Cowgirl Seraph Janice Brewer The Magnificent
Legislative Branch: None, Rule By Decree
Judicial Branch: National Rifle Association Executive Board
Political Pressure Groups: Exxon Mobil, Halliburton, Blackwater, Israel Lobby
National Anthem: "Texazona, the Patriotic Song" by Michael Reagan and Ann Coulter
GDP: None, economy crashed due to lack of revenue after implementation of "Zero Taxes Act of 2028"
GDP Per Capita: None, all Texazonans starve or cross the border to the United States
GDP Composition by Sector:
10% Indentured Servitude
20% Subsistence Farming
10% Missionary Work
30% Miscellaneous Warfare
15% Border Security
15% Ministry of Truth
Unemployment Rate: 98%
Population below poverty line: 98%
Budget: $0, borrows from Saudi Arabia
Agriculture: wheat, barley, tomatoes, melons, dates, citrus; mutton, chickens, eggs, milk, suffering,
Industry: Branson postcards, 9/11 keychains

You wish,

Texas is growing faster than any other state and AZ is very close.

DFW, Houston and Phoenix are cities with future.

we have lower unemployment than most of the states.
we have beautiful scenery,
TExas have more 500 fortunes than any other state.

we have some of the biggest cities in the country
that will be nice Arizona/Texas

you guys keep CA, WA, NY, MA
you will require visas to come to our states

TEXAZONA :banana::banana::banana:

Here's the Future CIA World Factbook Entry on it:


TEXAZONA
Official Name: Texas and Arizona
Nicknames: Jesusland, The Lone Race State, Neo-Con Fairyland
Motto: "Me, Me, Me"
Population: 31,378,080
Area: 382,579sq mi
Type of Government: Theocratic Oligopoly
Capitol: Austin, Texas
Sex Ratio: Sex is banned
Official Language: English, Anglo-Hebrew
Literacy:Top 2%
Educational Expenditures: 0%, Education is for Commies
National Holidays: Christmas, Confederate Victory Day, Rick Perry Freedom Day, Glenn Beck Day, Invest in Gold Day, Fox News' Media Freedom Day, Pollute Day (coincides with Earth Day), Shoot Rainbows Day, Capital Punishment Day, Cyberbullying Celebration Day, Hummers Are Cool Day
Suffrage: Landowners, All-American Cowboys, and White Nobility
Elections: None, ruled by Divine Right
Head of State: Celestial Cowgirl Seraph Janice Brewer The Magnificent
Legislative Branch: None, Rule By Decree
Judicial Branch: National Rifle Association Executive Board
Political Pressure Groups: Exxon Mobil, Halliburton, Blackwater, Israel Lobby
National Anthem: "Texazona, the Patriotic Song" by Michael Reagan and Ann Coulter
GDP: None, economy crashed due to lack of revenue after implementation of "Zero Taxes Act of 2028"
GDP Per Capita: None, all Texazonans starve or cross the border to the United States
GDP Composition by Sector:
10% Indentured Servitude
20% Subsistence Farming
10% Missionary Work
30% Miscellaneous Warfare
15% Border Security
15% Ministry of Truth
Unemployment Rate: 98%
Population below poverty line: 98%
Budget: $0, borrows from Saudi Arabia
Agriculture: wheat, barley, tomatoes, melons, dates, citrus; mutton, chickens, eggs, milk, suffering,
Industry: Branson postcards, 9/11 keychains

Yes, Texas is very backwards I mean only rednecks such as myself are willing do such things as to vote in a lesbian mayor, have one of the most rapidly growing light rail systems in the country, or started a successful organic grocery chain, or became a hub for a successful medical and hi-tech industry. :nuts:

Oh well, at least I don't live in some sh*thole like Oklahoma. :ohno:

TEXAZONA :banana::banana::banana:

What about Colorado and New Mexico? Oh, and if anyone asks Texas is claiming those states as well.

Yes, Texas is very backwards I mean only rednecks such as myself are willing do such things as to vote in a lesbian mayor, have one of the most rapidly growing light rail systems in the country, or started a successful organic grocery chain, or became a hub for a successful medical and hi-tech industry. :nuts:

Oh well, at least I don't live in some sh*thole like Oklahoma.

Yes, Oklahoma and Texas are completely different. The minute you cross the Red River it's as if you are lost in translation. :lol: Come on, be serious. If you consider Oklahoma a sh*thole, Texas isn't much different. FYI-I agree Oklahoma in general is a sh*thole, not in the least offended if that was your goal. :banana:

You wish,

Texas is growing faster than any other state and AZ is very close.

DFW, Houston and Phoenix are cities with future.

we have lower unemployment than most of the states.
we have beautiful scenery,
TExas have more 500 fortunes than any other state.

we have some of the biggest cities in the country
that will be nice Arizona/Texas

you guys keep CA, WA, NY, MA
you will require visas to come to our states

TEXAZONA :banana::banana::banana:

First, Texas HAS more, not have more. Second, Texas and Arizona combined have 1% of California's scenic beauty. That is just obvious. If you want to see Arizona's scenery, go to the Sahara and plant some random cacti. Scenic Texas is an oxymoron so I don't even have to go into that. Nobody moves to Arizona unless they have asthma or hips problems. Dallas, Houston, and Phoenix have a future? Have you ever heard Arcade Fire's "Sprawl ii"? That song reminds me of Phoenix. Nothing but suburban sprawl and senior centers. Oh, don't forget the random knockoff Casinos and Golf Courses. Third, Texas and California both have 57 Fortune 500 companies. New York is in third place with 56. Don't nitpick data just to prove your desperate assertion that Texas is inherently better than the liberal states. You know which city has the most Fortune 500 companies? New York. You know why? Because 4 times more people choose to live in the area than the number that choose to live in Dallas. That is a fact. Arizona only has 5, less than Kentucky and tied with Nebraska. So much for economic supercenter. Houston is arguably the only economic hub and that is simply because our nation is addicted to oil. Sooner or later, that oil bubble will pop and the liberal states will be subsidizing the red states with solar and wind power. :cheers:

Here's the Future CIA World Factbook Entry on it:


TEXAZONA
Official Name: Texas and Arizona
Nicknames: Jesusland, The Lone Race State, Neo-Con Fairyland
Motto: "Me, Me, Me"
Population: 31,378,080
Area: 382,579sq mi
Type of Government: Theocratic Oligopoly
Capitol: Austin, Texas
Sex Ratio: Sex is banned
Official Language: English, Anglo-Hebrew
Literacy:Top 2%
Educational Expenditures: 0%, Education is for Commies
National Holidays: Christmas, Confederate Victory Day, Rick Perry Freedom Day, Glenn Beck Day, Invest in Gold Day, Fox News' Media Freedom Day, Pollute Day (coincides with Earth Day), Shoot Rainbows Day, Capital Punishment Day, Cyberbullying Celebration Day, Hummers Are Cool Day
Suffrage: Landowners, All-American Cowboys, and White Nobility
Elections: None, ruled by Divine Right
Head of State: Celestial Cowgirl Seraph Janice Brewer The Magnificent
Legislative Branch: None, Rule By Decree
Judicial Branch: National Rifle Association Executive Board
Political Pressure Groups: Exxon Mobil, Halliburton, Blackwater, Israel Lobby
National Anthem: "Texazona, the Patriotic Song" by Michael Reagan and Ann Coulter
GDP: None, economy crashed due to lack of revenue after implementation of "Zero Taxes Act of 2028"
GDP Per Capita: None, all Texazonans starve or cross the border to the United States
GDP Composition by Sector:
10% Indentured Servitude
20% Subsistence Farming
10% Missionary Work
30% Miscellaneous Warfare
15% Border Security
15% Ministry of Truth
Unemployment Rate: 98%
Population below poverty line: 98%
Budget: $0, borrows from Saudi Arabia
Agriculture: wheat, barley, tomatoes, melons, dates, citrus; mutton, chickens, eggs, milk, suffering,
Industry: Branson postcards, 9/11 keychains

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Yes, Oklahoma and Texas are completely different. The minute you cross the Red River it's as if you are lost in translation. :lol: Come on, be serious. If you consider Oklahoma a sh*thole, Texas isn't much different. FYI-I agree Oklahoma in general is a sh*thole, not in the least offended if that was your goal. :banana:

But unlike Oklahoma, Texas alone has at least four major metropolitan areas that provide a significant economic boost.

And don't worry about me commenting on Oklahoma since that was just sarcasm, although I do think it is sad that you lack civic pride for your own state.

Houston is arguably the only economic hub and that is simply because our nation is addicted to oil. Sooner or later, that oil bubble will pop and the liberal states will be subsidizing the red states with solar and wind power. :cheers:

You definitely need to do some fact checking. Texas already generates more power from wind than any other state including California, and don't worry the state is investing in solar power as well. Second of all Houston's economic base does not 100% revolve around the energy industry, you also have the Texas Medical Center, along with a significant aerospace industry, and one of the largest ports in the US.

^^
Come on, girls! Let's not turn this into "I hate Sarah Palin" kind of thread.

^^
Come on, girls! Let's not turn this into "I hate Sarah Palin" kind of thread.

It's actually kind of funny that you mention it because I actually dislike Sarah Palin. So much for red state stereotypes. :lol:

you guys keep CA, WA, NY, MA
you will require visas to come to our states

TEXAZONA :banana::banana::banana:

If we can keep Oregon too, we have a deal.

^^
Come on, girls! Let's not turn this into "I hate Sarah Palin" kind of thread.

+1

If you knuckleheads need to troll about politics, head to the MilqueSkybar! :lol:

It's actually kind of funny that you mention it because I actually dislike Sarah Palin. So much for red state stereotypes. :lol:

Really? I love her (or love to watch people hating her, I'm not sure). I hope she will be the next US President, with Ann Coulter as VP or Secretary of State. Obama will end up on jail, probably. Let's fix DC! J'adore.

I need to include Fox News on cable. CNN is so dull.


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


Anyway, where are the numbers?!?!?!?!?!?!

http://img222.imageshack.us/img222/8785/desespero3full.jpg (http://img222.imageshack.us/i/desespero3full.jpg/)

I'm organizing a list with "expanded metro areas" (maybe the future CSAs), with population from 1900 up to 2010. For example:

Atlanta Area: Atlanta CSA, Macon CSA, Calhoun µSA, Rome MSA and Summerville µSA

Boston Area: Boston CSA, Portland CSA and Barnstable Town MSA

Buffalo-Rochester Area: Buffalo CSA, Jamestown µSA, Rochester CSA, Wyoming County and Yates County

Charlotte Area: Charlotte MSA and Hickory MSA

Chicago Area: Chicago CSA, Rockford CSA, Milwaukee CSA, Whitewater µSA, Watertown µSA, Janesville MSA, Monroe µSA, Madison CSA, Sheboygan MSA and Fond du Lac CSA

Cincinnati Area: Cincinnati CSA, Switzerland County, Ripley County, Dayton CSA and Sydney µSA

Cleveland Area: Cleveland CSA, Sandusky MSA, Norwalk µSA, Ashland µSA, Wooster µSA, Canton MSA, Youngstown CSA, Meadville µSA and Erie MSA

Dallas Area: Dallas CSA, Stephenville µSA, Corsicana µSA, Van Zandt County, Rains County, Sulphur Springs µSA and Paris µSA

Denver Area: Denver CSA, Colorado Springs MSA and Fort Collins MSA

Detroit Area: Detroit CSA, Lansing CSA, Jackson MSA, Adrian µSA and Toledo CSA

Houston Area: Houston CSA, Beaumont MSA, Grimes County, Brenham µSA, Colorado County and El Campo µSA

Indianapolis Area: Indianapolis CSA, Muncie MSA, Kokomo CSA, Lafayette CSA and Bloomington MSA

Kansas City Area: Kansas City CSA, Lawrence MSA, Topeka MSA and St. Joseph MSA

Los Angeles Area: Losa Angeles CSA, San Diego MSA and Santa Barbara MSA

Miami Area: Miami MSA and Port St. Lucie CSA

New Orleans Area: New Orleans MSA, Hammond µSA, Baton Rouge CSA, St. James Parish and Houma MSA

New York Area: New York CSA, Hartford CSA, Norwich MSA, Sullivan County, Wayne County, East Stroudsburg µSA and Allentown MSA

Norfolk-Richmond Area: Norfolk MSA, Richmond MSA, Franklin City and Southampton County

Philadelphia Area: Philadelphia CSA, Atlantic City MSA, Ocean City MSA, Dover MSA, Lancaster MSA, Pottsville µSA, Harrisburg CSA and York CSA

Phoenix Area: Phoenix MSA, Tucson MSA and Prescott MSA

Pittsburgh Area: Pittsburgh CSA, Greene County, Somerset µSA, Johnstown MSA, Indiana µSA, Jefferson County, Clarion County, Oil City µSA, Weirton MSA, Wheeling MSA and Morgantown MSA

Portland Area: Portland MSA, Longview MSA, Salem MSA, Astoria µSA, Hood River µSA and Albany CSA

Salt Lake City Area: Salt Lake City CSA, Provo MSA and Logan MSA

San Antonio-Austin Area: San Antonia MSA, Austin MSA, Blanco County and Burnet County

San Francisco Area: San Francisco CSA, Sacramento CSA, Stockton MSA, Modesto MSA, Merced MSA and Salinas MSA

Seattle Area: Seattle CSA, Centralia µSA, Jefferson County, San Juan County and Bellingham MSA

Tampa Area: Tampa MSA, Sarasota CSA, Arcadia µSA, Wauchula µSA, Lakeland MSA and Homosassa SpringsµSA

Washington-Baltimore Area: Washington-Baltimore CSA, Hagerstown MSA, Cumberland MSA, Rappahannock County, Orange County, King George County, Cambridge µSA, Easton µSA, Caroline County and Kent County

^^
Come on, girls! Let's not turn this into "I hate Sarah Palin" kind of thread.

I love Sarah Palin. I'll love her even more if she wins the Republican nomination. Sarah 2012!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :cheer::cheer::cheer::cheer: Nothing would cheer me up more than a 530-8 Electoral Landslide for Obama

+1

If you knuckleheads need to troll about politics, head to the MilqueSkybar! :lol:

Uggghhhh...Milquetoast is just awful when it comes to political discussions. I'd rather rate obscure Indonesian skylines. :lol:

First, Texas HAS more, not have more. Second, Texas and Arizona combined have 1% of California's scenic beauty. That is just obvious. If you want to see Arizona's scenery, go to the Sahara and plant some random cacti. Scenic Texas is an oxymoron so I don't even have to go into that. Nobody moves to Arizona unless they have asthma or hips problems. Dallas, Houston, and Phoenix have a future? Have you ever heard Arcade Fire's "Sprawl ii"? That song reminds me of Phoenix. Nothing but suburban sprawl and senior centers. Oh, don't forget the random knockoff Casinos and Golf Courses. Third, Texas and California both have 57 Fortune 500 companies. New York is in third place with 56. Don't nitpick data just to prove your desperate assertion that Texas is inherently better than the liberal states. You know which city has the most Fortune 500 companies? New York. You know why? Because 4 times more people choose to live in the area than the number that choose to live in Dallas. That is a fact. Arizona only has 5, less than Kentucky and tied with Nebraska. So much for economic supercenter. Houston is arguably the only economic hub and that is simply because our nation is addicted to oil. Sooner or later, that oil bubble will pop and the liberal states will be subsidizing the red states with solar and wind power. :cheers:
:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:
Yep, Arizona is nothing but sand dunes and old people.

Just some food for thought here...take a look at this map as to who voted for the Democratic candidate for Governor of Texas in this past midterm election. Barring Ft. Worth, all of Texas' major cities (Houston, Dallas, Austin, San Antonio, and El Paso) voted my way :). The Texas suburbs are the problem. Take a peek at this map of Texas:

http://www.texastribune.org/texas-politics/2010-general-election/2010-texas-governors-race-maps/

Though I understand why most people perceive all Texans to be the same, it still annoys me from time to time. I just want to get on national TV just for the purpose of shoving down the throats of the "informed" the fact that we are all not right-winged conservative republicans. As a proud Houstonian, I would then proceed to point out our openly gay mayor, our city's first transgendered judge, our diverse population, and the fact the city has never elected a republican mayor. Gosh I hate that red state blue state crap!

That's the difference though. Just about every urban center is liberal just as every rural town is conservative. It's the suburbs that define the political identity of a state.

BTW, do Texans realize that the only reason their "numbers" are always on top is because the state is so geographically huge? For example, the five traditional Great Lakes States (Illinois, Ohio, Michigan, Indiana, and Wisconsin) have a population of 46.5 million. That's nearly double the population of Texas. And those five states are collectively smaller than Texas by a wide margin. In fact, you could add Massachusetts, New Jersey, Delaware, and Rhode Island to the Great Lakes States and the combined land area would still be smaller than Texas. And guess what! The Great Lakes States are home to 87 Fortune 500 companies and have the 8th largest GDP in the world with $1.98 trillion, just behind the U.K. and Italy and ahead of California if it were also independent. Oh, and there would be nine metropolitan areas with at least 1 million people in the Great Lakes Republic, compared to just four in Texas and five in California.

Texas doesn't sound so big now, does it?;)

New York Area: New York CSA, Hartford CSA, Norwich MSA, Sullivan County, Wayne County, East Stroudsburg µSA and Allentown MSA

Not going to happen in 2010.

Buffalo and Rochester are not close to becoming one metro either, there's still a fair amount of farmland between the ends of their respective sprawls.

First, Texas HAS more, not have more. Second, Texas and Arizona combined have 1% of California's scenic beauty. That is just obvious. If you want to see Arizona's scenery, go to the Sahara and plant some random cacti. Scenic Texas is an oxymoron so I don't even have to go into that. Nobody moves to Arizona unless they have asthma or hips problems. Dallas, Houston, and Phoenix have a future? Have you ever heard Arcade Fire's "Sprawl ii"? That song reminds me of Phoenix. Nothing but suburban sprawl and senior centers. Oh, don't forget the random knockoff Casinos and Golf Courses. Third, Texas and California both have 57 Fortune 500 companies. New York is in third place with 56. Don't nitpick data just to prove your desperate assertion that Texas is inherently better than the liberal states. You know which city has the most Fortune 500 companies? New York. You know why? Because 4 times more people choose to live in the area than the number that choose to live in Dallas. That is a fact. Arizona only has 5, less than Kentucky and tied with Nebraska. So much for economic supercenter. Houston is arguably the only economic hub and that is simply because our nation is addicted to oil. Sooner or later, that oil bubble will pop and the liberal states will be subsidizing the red states with solar and wind power. :cheers:

Wethere you like it or not.
Texas and AZ are growing faster than your belove CA and NY
People are going out like crazies out of NY, and CA.

we only have 1% of CA scenery?

South padre Island, or have you heard of the Grand Canyon? one of the 7 naturals wonders of the world and the only one in USA.
Sedona. the white Mountains and I can go on and on.

Maricopa county is the 4 county with the most millionaries in the country.
http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2007/pf/0704/gallery.Millionaire_Counties/3.html

:banana::banana::banana::banana:

Wethere you like it or not.
Texas and AZ are growing faster than your belove CA and NY
People are going out like crazies out of NY, and CA.

we only have 1% of CA scenery?

South padre Island, or have you heard of the Grand Canyon? one of the 7 naturals wonders of the world and the only one in USA.
Sedona. the white Mountains and I can go on and on.

Maricopa county is the 4 county with the most millionaries in the country.
http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2007/pf/0704/gallery.Millionaire_Counties/3.html

:banana::banana::banana::banana:

When you are forced to use South Padre as evidence of Texas's scenic beauty, that just says how weak your argument is. South Padre is a shit-stained barrier island that winds up looking like a knockoff 1970s Miami Beach minus the beach, women, and fun. I know, ive been there. I will hand it to you that the Grand Canyon is a major natural feature but if that is all you can name, then my point is proven. Here's what the Liberal States Have: Rainier National Park, Cascade Range, Olympic National Park, Mount Shasta, Crater Lake, Yosemite, Joshua Tree, Sequoia, Napa Valley, Redwood Natl Park, Adirondacks, Catskill, and i'm not even naming off the other liberal states like Hawaii and the New England states. :banana: Liberal States: The Most Beautiful States Since EVER!!!

When you are forced to use South Padre as evidence of Texas's scenic beauty, that just says how weak your argument is. South Padre is a shit-stained barrier island that winds up looking like a knockoff 1970s Miami Beach minus the beach, women, and fun. I know, ive been there. I will hand it to you that the Grand Canyon is a major natural feature but if that is all you can name, then my point is proven. Here's what the Liberal States Have: Rainier National Park, Cascade Range, Olympic National Park, Mount Shasta, Crater Lake, Yosemite, Joshua Tree, Sequoia, Napa Valley, Redwood Natl Park, Adirondacks, Catskill, and i'm not even naming off the other liberal states like Hawaii and the New England states. :banana: Liberal States: The Most Beautiful States Since EVER!!!

You left out Yellowstone, the Hill Country, Big Bend, the Great Smoky's, Bryce Canyon, Canyonlands, Arches, Glacier, Rocky Mountain, the Everglades, Zion, Bryce Canyon, and the Grand Tetons. Oh wait, silly me those are all located in Red (or at least swing) states.

Seriously you have no idea how ignorant you are starting to look (I would even say you are about equal with Milque on this one).

That's the difference though. Just about every urban center is liberal just as every rural town is conservative. It's the suburbs that define the political identity of a state.
So true. Most central cities are liberal. I think they have to be in order to survive.

BTW, do Texans realize that the only reason their "numbers" are always on top is because the state is so geographically huge?
http://img143.imageshack.us/img143/9434/57822808.png

There's some truth there. Just sayin'...

You all sound so childish. By the way Manitopiaaa it doesn't make sense that you go grumbling about Arizona and Texas being red when your state is the redest one I can think of. It's like someone from the the Bay Area complaining about how blue Massachuesetts and New York are and how they should form their own nation.

You all sound so childish. By the way Manitopiaaa it doesn't make sense that you go grumbling about Arizona and Texas being red when your state is the redest one I can think of. It's like someone from the the Bay Area complaining about how blue Massachuesetts and New York are and how they should form their own nation.

:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

If you're a blue in a red state, then it would still help you if some reds left the country.

So true. Most central cities are liberal. I think they have to be in order to survive.


http://img143.imageshack.us/img143/9434/57822808.png

There's some truth there. Just sayin'...

No matter how you cut it, "Texas" just can't compete with the "Great Lakes" region.;)

For example:
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5165/5270118624_8f0f473866_o.jpg

There are over 30 million people living in the blue along the Great Lakes, while barely 20 million people can be found within the Texas Triangle.

And don't even get me started on the Northeast...

No matter how you cut it, "Texas" just can't compete with the "Great Lakes" region.;)

For example:
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5165/5270118624_8f0f473866_o.jpg

There are over 30 million people living in the blue along the Great Lakes, while barely 20 million people can be found within the Texas Triangle.

And don't even get me started on the Northeast...

yes but how many states against Texas in the Great Lakes? Indiana, ohio, Illinois, Michigan etc.

North East? most people I know are moving out of the North East.
wait 20 years Texas will be the King
wether you like it or not. Texas will keep growing like crazy
is the North East growing? is Boston growing faster than DFW?
is Chicago growing faster than Houston? is Detroit growing faster than San Antonio?

No matter how fast DFW grows or how many people live there it will always be a Cowtown compared to Boston,same with Chi to Houston!Dont get me wrong DFW and HOU are large metropolis' that lack The urbanity that Bos and Chi do!

No matter how fast DFW grows or how many people live there it will always be a Cowtown compared to Boston,same with Chi to Houston!Dont get me wrong DFW and HOU are large metropolis' that lack The urbanity that Bos and Chi do!

These thing change though with time and both Dallas, Houston, and Austin are increasing their density and starting to fill in. Also there was once a time when Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Chicago were referred to as cowtowns in comparison with the east coast cities.

Some of you guys are ruining the thread, seeing as how the beginning of the 2010 census results will be out in a few days.

No matter how fast DFW grows or how many people live there it will always be a Cowtown compared to Boston,same with Chi to Houston!Dont get me wrong DFW and HOU are large metropolis' that lack The urbanity that Bos and Chi do!

Things change, New orleans was much bigger than LA before

DFW is already bigger than Boston.
its airport is busier, its freeway system is way larger than any other on the midwest or north east.
and it is growing 3 times faster or more than Boston
I am sure we will see DFW soon with 9 million

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Table_of_United_States_Metropolitan_Statistical_Areas

4 Days to go....

http://www.census.gov/





:)

4 Days to go....

http://www.census.gov/





:)

good news Desertpunk :banana::banana::banana:
I can't wait

Things change, New orleans was much bigger than LA before

DFW is already bigger than Boston.
its airport is busier, its freeway system is way larger than any other on the midwest or north east.
and it is growing 3 times faster or more than Boston
I am sure we will see DFW soon with 9 million

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Table_of_United_States_Metropolitan_Statistical_Areas

If you're arguing for Dallas, why are you pointing out the big freeway system?

^^ :rofl:

This is like an early christmas gift. I can remember waiting for the 2000 census to come out and at the time the census estimated the country to have 276-277 million and the highest estimate I saw was 279 million and so I expected 279 at the most so you can imagine my surprise when I woke up the next day and got online and saw 281,421,906.

Right now the census estimates 310,934,371, what do any of you expect? 309....312.......315 or more?

If you're arguing for Dallas, why are you pointing out the big freeway system?

well, that is part of a city infrastructure, just like an Airport.
but anyway this is about the census not about politic.

I see most people here are LIberal, and think that if a city does not have huge skyscrapers is not a city. or you have live in a 500 SQF studio

I stick with my style of PHoenix, DFW and houston.
Big houses, big SUV, swimming pool, big stores, big airports.
:banana::banana::banana::banana:

If you're arguing for Dallas, why are you pointing out the big freeway system?

Freeway systems and urbanity can go hand in hand. Just look at Chicago with it's freeway/tollway network, or New York. Or even Buenos Aires with it's Acceso Norte. The only ingrediant required is a good mass transit system which is slowly developing in all of the sunbelt cities.

NY Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/15/nyregion/15nycensus.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss)

Region Is Reshaped as Minorities Go to Suburbs
By SAM ROBERTS
Published: December 14, 2010

Metropolitan New York is being rapidly reshaped as blacks, Latinos, Asians and immigrants surge into the suburbs, while gentrification by whites is widening the income gap in neighborhoods in Manhattan and Brooklyn, according to new census figures released on Tuesday.

Some of the largest population gains since 2000 were recorded in places that not long ago might have been considered marginal, including Bedford-Stuyvesant and Williamsburg in Brooklyn; Castle Hill and Hunts Point in the Bronx; South Jamaica in Queens; and Newark, Jersey City and Hoboken in New Jersey. Parts of those neighborhoods and cities, as well as the financial district in Lower Manhattan, registered large gains.

The number of Hispanic residents declined in tracts in Williamsburg, Bushwick and Greenpoint, Brooklyn, and in Washington Heights, but increased in the north Bronx; Woodside and Ozone Park, Queens; and central Harlem. The black population shrunk by double digits in Brooklyn’s Prospect Heights, Clinton Hill and Fort Greene, in central Harlem and in South Ozone Park, but jumped in Canarsie and Flatlands, Brooklyn, and in Springfield Gardens, Queens.

The non-Hispanic white population swelled on the Lower East Side and in Harlem, Washington Heights, Clinton Hill and Bushwick, but declined in Bensonhurst, Brooklyn, and in Rego Park, Queens. Asians increased in Forest Hills and Flushing, Queens, and in Bensonhurst.

Diverse racial, ethnic and immigrant enclaves have proliferated in New York City and especially its suburbs since 2000, but that increase generated only negligible inroads against historic patterns of racial segregation, according to analyses of the new data. Most whites in the metropolitan area and most blacks in the city still live where a majority of their neighbors are of the same race.

The latest figures are the single largest data release in the Census Bureau’s history, providing a look for the first time since 2000 at a variety of characteristics, including income, race, immigration and commuting habits for people in areas as small as just a few square blocks. Based on samples taken from 2005 to 2009, the five-year American Community Survey is separate from the 2009 survey, which probably better reflects the full impact of the recession, and from the 2010 Census, which is supposed to count people at every address.

Since 2000, decades of white flight eased and the proportion of non-Hispanic white New Yorkers increased slightly, to 35.5 percent. So did New York City’s proportion of Hispanic residents, to just over 27 percent. The proportion of blacks declined by a percentage point, to 23.3 percent, and the share of Asian residents rose by almost two percentage points, to nearly 12 percent.

For the first time since the 1970s, fully half of Manhattan’s population is non-Hispanic white. The borough is 24 percent Hispanic, 14 percent black and 11 percent Asian.

The number of non-Hispanic whites has increased in three other counties in the area since 2000: Brooklyn, and Middlesex and Ocean in New Jersey.

New York City’s foreign-born population remained fairly constant since 2000, about 36 percent. Three of the nine counties in the country where people born abroad made up one-third or more of the population are in New York or the surrounding area: Queens (47 percent, second to Miami-Dade, with 49 percent), Brooklyn (37 percent) and Hudson (40 percent) in New Jersey.

Hispanics are now the majority population in the Bronx, though Puerto Ricans, who were once dominant, have lost numbers, while the populations of Dominicans and Mexicans have risen.

Gentrification decreased the number of non-English speakers in Sunset Park, Brooklyn, while Chinese and Hispanic immigrants swelled the proportion of people who do not speak English at home in the southern portion of Staten Island.

Since 2000, the Dominican Republic, China and Mexico have sent the most people to New York. There have also been large influxes from Bangladesh and Pakistan, as well as from Ghana and elsewhere in the sub-Saharan region of Africa.

But many of the biggest gains in diversity were in the suburbs, generated by newly arrived Hispanic and Asian immigrants, and their American-born children. Their population increased in every county, typically clustered in ethnically or racially monolithic communities. Big percentage gains were recorded in places as far-flung as Ramapo and Huntington in New York; New Haven and Meriden, Conn.; and Jackson Township and Camden, N.J.

Spurred by a surge in people from Latin America, the Caribbean and Asia, foreign-born residents exceeded 60 percent of the population in Palisades Park and West New York, N.J.; 50 percent in Fairview, Guttenberg, Harrison and Union City, N.J.; 40 percent in Bergenfield, Cliffside Park, Elizabeth, Fort Lee, North Bergen, Passaic, Ridgefield and Teterboro, N.J.; and Bellerose Terrace, Elmont, Hillcrest, New Cassel, Port Chester, Sleepy Hollow, South Floral Park and Spring Valley in the Westchester, Rockland and Long Island suburbs. An influx of Jamaicans helped push the foreign-born population in Blue Hills, Conn., near Hartford, to more than 40 percent.

In the entire nation, residents of only four counties took 40 minutes or more to get to work: the Bronx, Brooklyn, Queens and Staten Island, where, at 42.5 minutes, mean travel time was highest. (The lowest was 3.4 minutes in agricultural King County, Tex.) Manhattan, with 58 percent, was one of 17 counties in the country in which more than half of the residents over 25 had a bachelor’s degree or higher.

Despite progress in the last decades of the 20th century, among the 100 largest metropolitan areas, New York stands third, behind Milwaukee and Detroit, on an index of black segregation compiled by William H. Frey, a Brookings Institution demographer.

Dr. Frey and Profs. John Iceland of Pennsylvania State University and John R. Logan of Brown University found persistent patterns of residential segregation in metropolitan areas around the nation that were repeated in New York.

In 2000, on average, a black suburbanite lived in a neighborhood that was 47 percent black. In 2005-9, that neighborhood would have been 44 percent black, the analysts found. In 1970, whites in the metropolitan area were likely to live in a neighborhood that was 92 percent white, a figure that declined to 76 percent in 2000, and to 73 percent in 2005-9.

“New York is among a group of metropolitan regions,” Professor Logan said, “where the Great Migration created large black ghettos, and where very high levels of segregation have proved very resistant to change.”

when is the census supposed to have the data for metro areas?

when is the census supposed to have the data for metro areas?

They release tomorrow but some metro data lags behind. Anybody??

They release tomorrow but some metro data lags behind. Anybody??

Thanks Desertpunk

God help me for posting this...

Bloomberg (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-12-20/census-reapportionment-to-add-heft-to-republican-leaning-states.html)

Republican Strongholds in South, West to Gain Clout in U.S. Census Count
By John McCormick and Tim Jones - Dec 20, 2010

Republican strongholds in the U.S. South and West are poised to gain political power in time for the 2012 presidential election, taking electoral votes away from states Barack Obama carried in 2008, new population data is likely to show.

The U.S. Census Bureau releases 2010 state population totals tomorrow, and the information will be used to reallocate many of the 435 U.S. House seats and provide a fresh look at America for demographers, planners and business.

Gains in the South and West will come at the expense of the Northeast and Midwest, which stand to lose as many as 10 seats in the U.S. House. Texas could be the biggest winner, with projections suggesting a gain of four seats, while Ohio could be the biggest loser with a possible loss of two.

“This will help Republicans in the House,” said Andrew Smith, a political science professor at the University of New Hampshire in Durham. “The states that are gaining are primarily Republican states, and Republicans are much more likely to win those new seats.”

Nine states are projected to lose representatives and eight are likely to gain, according to a Bloomberg forecast that used 2008 and 2009 population estimates to predict 2010 populations for each state. That’s similar to a projection from Election Data Services Inc., a consulting firm based in Manassas, Virginia, that expects 18 states will see their number of representatives change.

Winners and Losers

Besides Texas, other potential winners are Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Nevada, South Carolina, Utah and Washington, the Bloomberg analysis shows. Probable losers are Illinois, Iowa, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Jersey, New York and Pennsylvania, as well as Ohio.

The scope of the reapportionment would be the smallest since 1970 if just 17 states see a gain or loss. That’s a reflection of slower migration in recent years triggered by the worst recession since the Great Depression.

Nevada, which is projected to gain one seat, was the nation’s fastest-growing state for much of the past decade, before its growth was stunted by the recession. The state had the highest foreclosure filing rate for the 47th straight month in November, at one in every 99 households, five times the national average, according to RealtyTrac Inc.

New Look

The latest state population counts will mark the start of a new look at America. The census data will be used by the government to distribute more than $400 billion in annual federal funding, by businesses to identify markets, and by social scientists to examine the changing demographics.

Tomorrow’s release will include only population counts. More detailed data on race, ethnicity, housing and other variables will gradually be provided, beginning in February, for all levels of geography, from neighborhoods to states.

Congressional seats are reapportioned every decade after completion of the census, with each district to have roughly the same number of people. After the 2000 Census, each member was supposed to represent about 647,000 people, which will now increase to reflect the nation’s growth.

Electoral Votes

The reapportionment will also alter electoral vote calculations. A state’s Electoral College vote is the sum of its House seats, plus its two Senate seats. That could provide assistance to Republicans as they prepare to oppose an Obama re- election bid.

Robert Gibbs, the White House press secretary, discounted the importance of the potential shift, telling reporters today that the movements wouldn’t represent a dramatic change in presidential politics.

“I don’t think shifting some seats from one area of the country to another necessarily marks a concern that you can’t make a politically potent argument in those new places,” he said.

Of the eight states that may gain at least one seat, five were won by Arizona Senator John McCain when he was the 2008 Republican presidential nominee. Obama carried eight of the nine states most likely to lose seats, including New York and Ohio. The only McCain-voting state in this group is Louisiana, which is projected to lose one of its seven seats, after residents fled from 2005’s Hurricane Katrina.

The state counts will include residents, plus military and federal civilian employees and their dependents from that state who are living outside the U.S. The populations of the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico are excluded from the apportionment totals because they don’t have voting seats in the U.S. House.

Possible Surprises

Kimball Brace, president of Election Data Services, said there will probably be at least a few surprises when the data is released. He also said it’s “very likely” the states closest to the cutoff for losing a seat will file lawsuits. “In the past, they have been generally unsuccessful,” he said.

The biggest loser for total seats could be Ohio, which has played a pivotal economic and political role for two centuries. It is the birthplace of seven presidents and a core member of the nation’s manufacturing heartland, producing automobiles, rubber, steel and glass. Since January 2000, Ohio has lost 409,000 manufacturing jobs -- a 40 percent drop -- Bureau of Labor Statistics data shows.

Shifting Employers

Ohio’s industrial heritage has taken a back seat to Wal- Mart Stores Inc., Kroger Co. and the Cleveland Clinic, the state’s three largest employers, according to the Ohio Department of Development. General Motors Co., once a major employer in the state, ranks 23rd.

As jobs moved out, the state’s political influence began to slide. Ohio had 24 members in its congressional delegation in 1972. Today, it has 18, and that number is projected to drop again this time. “It’s all about votes and power,” said Ned Hill, an economist and dean of the college of urban affairs at Cleveland State University. “Ohio and the Midwest are going to be at a huge competitive disadvantage.”

Traditional voting behavior has worked against most northern states, Hill said. “The North has never had the same levels of seniority as the South,” Hill said, referring to members of Congress. “We tend to vote ours out more frequently. That meant the political power in the Midwest and Northeast was based more on the sheer numbers of representatives.”

Boehner Advantage

For at least the 2011-12 congressional term, Ohio will have the advantage of Representative John Boehner, a native son and the presumed Speaker of the House in the new session.

New York, which lost two seats in 2000, is projected to lose ground in the House for the seventh consecutive reapportionment, dropping from 29 seats to 27 or 28, the Bloomberg analysis shows. As recently as the 1940 reapportionment, New York had 45 seats. If the state drops to 27, it will have as small a House delegation as it had in 1810.

The loss of a seat in Pennsylvania would mark the ninth consecutive reapportionment where it has lost.

The potential gain of four seats for Texas would be the biggest jump in the state’s representation since it went from six to 11 seats in the 1880 reapportionment.

Florida will probably gain one or more seats for the 11th consecutive reapportionment, while Arizona is likely to gain at least one seat for the sixth time in a row.

If California doesn’t win an additional House seat, it would mark the first time in state history that it wouldn’t gain representation. The nation’s largest state now has 53 seats.

God help me for posting this...

Bloomberg (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-12-20/census-reapportionment-to-add-heft-to-republican-leaning-states.html)

Go TEXAS and ARIZONA :banana::banana::banana::banana:

It's not quite as bad as that. As people move, they generally take their political leanings with them. Some red states are becoming less red longer term.

It's not quite as bad as that. As people move, they generally take their political leanings with them. Some red states are becoming less red longer term.

True. If I'm not mistaken, the last political map I saw of Texas showed the major urban centers becoming bluer, like Houston and Austin. I think they're trying to make a mountain out of a molehill with this. I don't think this will cause some giant political tide to sweep through, nor do I think this will have any major effect in the 2012 election. At any rate, I'm excited to see the data. I hope my city finally overtakes that overgrown cowtown Fresno to the south.

True. If I'm not mistaken, the last political map I saw of Texas showed the major urban centers becoming bluer, like Houston and Austin. I think they're trying to make a mountain out of a molehill with this. I don't think this will cause some giant political tide to sweep through, nor do I think this will have any major effect in the 2012 election. At any rate, I'm excited to see the data. I hope my city finally overtakes that overgrown cowtown Fresno to the south.

Well the cities in Texas (ie Houston, Austin, Dallas) have already been blue for a while now. For all intents and purposes it is the suburbs that are slowly starting to change and with the growing latino electorate Texas probably will vote democratic or at least become a swing state in the near future if the GOP does not change their stance on immigration.

Well the cities in Texas (ie Houston, Austin, Dallas) have already been blue for a while now. For all intents and purposes it is the suburbs that are slowly starting to change and with the growing latino electorate Texas probably will vote democratic or at least become a swing state in the near future if the GOP does not change their stance on immigration.

If the GOP change their stance on immigration, they might win Hispanic electorate, but they will lose the rest.

Not all Hispanic want to keep having ilegal immigrants here and people breaking the law. I have talked to many Hispanics, and they also want secure borders and legal immigrants not the mess we have now.

that is why Janes brewer was elected governor of AZ people are tired here in AZ and other states of people breaking the laws and then get rewarded with a Green Card

For all intents and purposes, the 20 million or so illegal immigrants in this country are part of this country now. They park your car. They clean your schools. And, as much as I try to stay away from stereotypes, they do your landscaping. Of course, there are also some successful illegal immigrants. I'll accept militarizing the border (something that should be a joint project between the American and Mexican governments) if something is done with the illegal immigrants already here other than rounding them up and kicking them out. I was quite disappointed and angry that the Dream Act failed.

Now, before I go completely off into politics, I just want to see the numbers so I can hopefully go crazy over the fact that Sacramento finally kicked Fresno's ass. I also suspect California will be within at least three million of the 40 million mark with this census.

Good God. A decent threat ruined on pages 3 and 4. Just fuckin childish anyway you slice it.

Good God. A decent threat ruined on pages 3 and 4. Just fuckin childish anyway you slice it.

They miss their little Milque bottle! ;)

forget it.

Everyone was just fuckin joking anyway you slice it...;)

no census data yet?

It's not 11:00 am yet ^^

Watch the presentation live here
http://www.c-span.org/Live-Video/C-SPAN3/

Thanks a lot

Wow it's lower than they estimated 308,745,538

Yeah ^^, California is the most populated state with over 37 million.

Yeah, I thought some other state was going to pass it. JK!

That webcast was a whole lotta talking before any info came out. Glad Washington got its added house seat.

Wow it's lower than they estimated 308,745,538

The country rose in population by 9.7% – the slowest rate of growth since the Great Depression.

States Population 2010

Alabama --- 4,779,736
Alaska --- 710,231
Arizona --- 6,392,017
Arkansas --- 2,915,918
California --- 37,253,956
Colorado --- 5,029,196
Connecticut --- 3,574,097
Delaware --- 897,934
District of Columbia --- 601,723
Florida --- 18,801,310
Georgia --- 9,687,653
Hawaii --- 1,360,301
Idaho --- 1,567,582
Illinois --- 12,830,632
Indiana --- 6,483,802
Iowa --- 3,046,355
Kansas --- 2,853,118
Kentucky --- 4,339,367
Louisiana --- 4,533,372
Maine --- 1,328,361
Maryland --- 5,773,552
Massachusetts --- 6,547,629
Michigan --- 9,883,640
Minnesota --- 5,303,925
Mississippi --- 2,967,297
Missouri --- 5,988,927
Montana --- 989,415
Nebraska --- 1,826,341
Nevada --- 2,700,551
New Hampshire --- 1,316,470
New Jersey --- 8,791,894
New Mexico --- 2,059,179
New York --- 19,378,102
North Carolina --- 9,535,483
North Dakota --- 672,591
Ohio --- 11,536,504
Oklahoma --- 3,751,351
Oregon --- 3,831,074
Pennsylvania --- 12,702,379
Rhode Island --- 1,052,567
South Carolina --- 4,625,364
South Dakota --- 814,180
Tennessee --- 6,346,105
Texas --- 25,145,561
Utah --- 2,763,885
Vermont --- 625,741
Virginia --- 8,001,024
Washington --- 6,724,540
West Virginia --- 1,852,994
Wisconsin --- 5,686,986
Wyoming --- 563,626

UNITED STATES --- 308,745,538



States Growth

http://img207.imageshack.us/img207/1079/uscensus2010.jpg (http://img207.imageshack.us/i/uscensus2010.jpg/)

Well we know one major city that's been on the decline since 1950 has grown.

So...detailed census data isn't up yet?

Nope, it will comes out in February ^^

Some info may not be out until April.

Not surprised at the slow growth. The 2008-10 years were devastating for immigration and for procreation according to polls. Life expectancy rates have also leveled off. The erosion of mobility is also a factor as people who stay put for economic reasons may also choose not to have children or as many children. The sharp decline in the teen pregnancy rate factors into it as well. ( which is a good thing :))

NY Times (http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=f6274751f694bb24e19d74bf853116ed)

Census Data Show Regional Shift in U.S.
By SABRINA TAVERNISE and JEFF ZELENY
Published: December 21, 2010

WASHINGTON — The Census Bureau rearranged the country’s political map on Tuesday, giving more Congressional seats to the South and the West, and taking away from the Northeast and the Midwest, in largely anticipated changes that will have far reaching implications for political life cycles over the next decade.

Bureau officials declared that the United States population had grown to 308,745,538 over the last decade, an increase of about 9.7 percent, close to what the bureau had estimated but the slowest rate of growth since 1940. It was the first result from the 2010 census conducted this year, a finding that will be used to reapportion seats in Congress, based on new state population counts, and, in turn, the Electoral College.

By that new count, Texas will gain four seats, Florida will gain two, while New York and Ohio each lose two. Fourteen other states gained or lost one seat. The gainers included Arizona, Georgia, Nevada, South Carolina and Utah, and the losers included Illinois, Louisiana, Massachusetts and New Jersey.

“This teaches us how we’ve changed as a country,” said Robert Groves, director of the Census Bureau. “The trend is for a growth in seats for western and southern states.”

The release rang the opening bell on a political season of redistricting, the process of redrawing Congressional districts that has been acrimonious ever since it began in the time of George Washington and James Madison. With a presidential election just two years away, and the Republican sweep of state legislatures in November, the stakes are high.

On the surface, the Republicans would seem to have the advantage. Most of the states winning seats trend Republican, and most of those losing them tend to elect Democrats. What is more, Republicans will be in a strong position to steer the process, with Republican governors outnumbering Democrats 29 to 20, with one independent, come January. Republicans also gained control of at least 18 legislative chambers in the midterms last month.

“Republicans are in the best position since modern redistricting began,” said Tim Storey, an expert on redistricting at the National Conference of State Legislatures.

But population gains in the South and West were driven overwhelmingly by minorities, particularly Hispanics, and the new districts, according to the rules of redistricting, will need to be drawn in places where they live, opening potential advantages for Democrats, who tend to be more popular among minorities.

“Just because Texas is getting four new seats does not mean Republicans will get four new Republicans to Congress,” Mr. Storey said. “You don’t have unfettered ability to redraw new boundaries.”

It is a complex landscape of shifting advantages, and lawyers for both parties are already designing legal strategies in the event of stalemates in state legislatures, where redistricting battles play out. The last census, in 2000, set off litigation in 40 states. The real work of redrawing will begin in February, when the Census Bureau releases detailed geographic counts for each state.

“You either have a deadlock or a compromise plan, and I don’t see a lot of compromise going on these days,” said Gerald Hebert, a lawyer who represents Congressional Democrats. “Parties really prepare for war on this thing.”

The population shifts will also bring significant changes to the map for the 2012 presidential race and the makeup of the Electoral College, with electoral votes being taken away from several states that President Obama carried across the Midwest and the Northeast in 2008.

Mr. Obama won eight of the nine states that are expected to lose seats, including Illinois, New York and Ohio. And of the eight states that were expected to gain one seat or more, five were carried by the Republican nominee, Senator John McCain of Arizona.

While Republicans will see their biggest and most lasting political gains in the House of Representatives, the landscape for the next presidential race will add another layer of complication to Mr. Obama’s re-election campaign. The battleground state of Florida, which he carried in 2008, will become even more critical to his efforts to win a second term and to Republican attempts to defeat him.

But the most lasting political impact for Republicans and Democrats alike is the rise in the influence of Hispanic voters, particularly across Arizona, Nevada and Texas, which underscores the urgency facing both parties in finding new ways to appeal to Hispanics. In future presidential races, Democrats believe they can make inroads into Arizona and Texas, which are traditionally carried by Republicans, particularly if voters speak out against Arizona’s tough immigration law.

The White House will carefully monitor the reapportionment, particularly the adjustments to the Electoral College. Even though the changes are not as big as in other years, given that migration within the country’s borders has slowed during the recession, the shifts in electoral votes could make a difference in a close presidential election.

Ohio, for example, was among the most competitive states in the country in recent presidential campaigns, and has long been seen as a bellwether for the mood of the country. But with the state expected to lose two seats, it remains an open question whether it will remain a critical — or simply a symbolic — swing state.

Commerce Secretary Gary Locke delivered the results of the 23rd United States census to President Obama on Tuesday morning. The president and his advisers have long been anticipating the outcome, particularly with the shifts in the Electoral College, but Robert Gibbs, the press secretary, said he did not believe the census findings represented a dramatic change.

Mr. Obama, under the new apportionment, would lose six electoral votes if he carried the same states that he did in 2008.

“I don’t think that shifting some seats from one area of the country to another necessarily marks a concern that you can’t make a politically potent argument in those new places,” Mr. Gibbs told reporters, signaling the intent by the White House to try and compete in Arizona and, perhaps, Texas.

This article has been revised to reflect the following correction:

Correction: December 21, 2010


In an earlier version of this article, the word "million" appeared in error after the figure for the population of the United States, 308,745,538.

I wasn't expecting Michigan to lose people. I was expecting it to be slightly above 10 million. Those numbers don't bode well for Detroit and Flint. Arizona's estimates for 2009 were 6.6 million so the estimates were either way off or the population has left be it for immigration or economic reasons. Florida held up through the recession rather nicely. Louisiana gaining people looks like good news for the New Orleans numbers. New York's weak performance doesn't look good for New York City. It might be closer to 8.2 million than the 8.4 the estimates showed in '09. Nevada held up through the recession well. Illinois overperformed, good news for Chicago. 3 mil? Georgia underperformed. Atlanta might not be as high as expected. Rural Georgia probably took a beating. Virginia overperformed. I was not expecting it to go past 8 million. Most of the growth will be in Northern Virginia, silver lining for Dems. That's all I got right now :)

NY Times (http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/12/21/exurban-growth-should-bolster-g-o-p-in-congressional-redistricting/?ref=us)


NY Times Politics


December 21, 2010, 9:39 am
Exurban Growth Should Bolster G.O.P. in Congressional Redistricting

By NATE SILVER

Update: For more on the results from the 2010 census: Census Data Show 308 Million People and a Regional Shift

Having made significant gains in statewide races on Nov. 2, Republicans are in an advantageous position for the Congressional redistricting process that will take place between now and the 2012 elections. That process will kick off later today when the Census Bureau announces the first set of results from the 2010 Census, including which states will gain or lose seats in Congress (and consequently, votes in the Electoral College).

Even before the midterm elections, though, Republicans were poised to gain seats in the next Congress for another reason: under the old boundary lines, which first went into effect in 2002, their Congressional districts tended to grow faster than Democratic ones.

Nine Congressional districts, for instance, had populations of 900,000 or more as of 2009, according to Census Bureau estimates, while the average Congressional district has about 700,000 people. All nine — as well as 17 of the 20 most populous districts over all — elected Republicans to the U.S. House in November. That means that the Republicans will, in many cases, have the luxury of both protecting their incumbents in these districts and spreading out their excess voters to neighboring districts to make them easier to win.

Essentially all of the fastest-growing districts are in inland areas south of the Mason-Dixon line, or are west of the Continental Divide. Many are in areas that demographers describe as ‘exurbs’: newly developing areas that are located relatively far — perhaps a 30- or 60-minute drive — from cities like Phoenix, Dallas, Houston, Las Vegas, Charlotte or Atlanta, and that attract an upscale mix of commuters, families and retirees. Although most major American cities are no longer losing population — on the contrary, at least 20 of the 25 largest cities are likely to have gained population in the 2010 Census compared with 2000 — they are not growing as fast as the exurbs, and therefore stand to lose proportionally, because the number of seats in Congress is fixed.

The partisan patterns are by no means uniform. Democrats will benefit from growing Hispanic populations in some places, and some Republican-leaning rural districts in Farm Belt states like Iowa are losing population. Further, in the urban areas that are losing population, like Cleveland and New Orleans, the voters are so overwhelmingly Democratic that modest changes in boundaries will not harm Democrats much. But the trends should benefit Republicans over all, almost no matter how the new boundary lines are drawn.

That is true even in states that will neither gain nor lose seats in Congress, since redistricting rules require that the populations of Congressional districts be as even as possible, not just between states (a congressman in Arizona should ideally represent about the same number of people as one in Minnesota) but also within them (each of Arizona’s Congressional districts should have about the same number of people).

Nevertheless, most of the action will take place in states that do stand to gain or lose seats, so those are worth examining in more detail. (Redistricting geeks might also want to review the work of David Wasserman at the Cook Political Report, whose analysis I will be referencing frequently in this article, as well as this chart — originally produced by the Republican National Committee and re-published by Ben Smith of Politico — which documents which party controls the redistricting process in each state.)

States that stand to gain seats in Congress

Texas (+3 or 4 seats). Texas’s population has grown by 4 million to 5 million people since 2000. Some of this growth comes from heavily Hispanic areas in South Texas, but the exurbs around Houston and Dallas have been growing even faster, and they tend to be heavily Republican. In fact, the eight Texas Congressional districts with the largest populations as of 2009 are all represented by the G.O.P. in Congress.

If Texas gains 3 seats in the new Congress rather than 4, population trends would probably dictate that one of them would be a Hispanic-majority district in South Texas, and the Dallas and Houston suburbs would each get one. If a fourth district were added, it would probably belong in Central Texas, but it would make the overall process much more fluid.

Republicans will control the redistricting process in Texas, and they may face a choice between creating a handful of extremely safe Democratic districts while also protecting their own incumbents, or instead creating a larger number of Republican-leaning (but not completely safe) ones.

However, Republican gains could be constrained by the fact that Texas’s congressional boundaries were already quite favorable to Republicans under the state’s controversial 2003 redistricting plan, and by the fact that the demographics of the state are evolving: some districts which might seem relatively safe now might not be by 2016 or 2018 as the Hispanic population continues to grow, particularly if Democrats are successful in registering more Hispanic voters.

Florida (+1 or 2 seats). The three Congressional districts in Florida that have gained the most population since 2000 are the 5th, 14th and 25th, all on the state’s west coast, which tends to be more Republican than the Democratic-leaning east coast. Exurban districts in the northern part of the state, like the 6th and the 7th, have also gained population, and they too are represented by Republicans. Since Republicans control both the governorship in Florida and both branches of the state legislature, they should be poised to gain ground here.

However, Florida voters also approved Amendment 5 on Nov. 2, which requires that districts be drawn to preserve geographic integrity, rather than to the benefit of either party. The measure is already subject to litigation and it is hard to predict how it will be perceived by the courts. Under the strictest interpretation, Democrats could actually improve their position in Florida, since the state’s existing boundaries, some of which are highly gerrymandered, are relatively favorable to Republicans. But under more flexible interpretations, the amendment might hardly impede Republicans at all.

Arizona (+1 or 2 seats). The 6th district, consisting of suburbs and exurbs to the southeast of Phoenix, and the oddly-shaped 2nd district — which stretches from the outskirts of Phoenix all the way to the borders with Nevada and Utah — are the most Republican in the state, and they are also the fastest-growing. Although Arizona has a bipartisan redistricting commission, its first new seat in Congress is therefore likely to to fall into Republican hands.

Republicans might be indifferent, however, as to whether Arizona also wins a second new seat: Mr. Wasserman speculates that it might be a Hispanic-majority district on the western outskirts of Phoenix, which would presumably favor Democrats.

Georgia (+1 seat) By far the fastest-growing of Georgia’s current congressional districts is the 7th, which now has more than 920,000 people, mostly in exurban Gwinnett County, which is heavily Republican. The Republicans, who control the new redistricting process, should have the flexibility to add a new safe seat while protecting their existing ones.

Nevada (+1 seat) This is one of the more interesting cases and one of the few where Democrats could have an advantage. The whole of Nevada has been growing, but growth has been especially strong in the 3rd District, consisting of Las Vegas suburbs like Henderson; it already had more than 1 million people as of 2009, making it the most populous in the country. The 3rd is a swing district that changed party in November, when a Republican, Joe Heck, defeated the Democratic incumbent, Dina Titus. His margin was narrow, and both parties have a veto on the new map, because Democrats control the state legislature while Republicans have the governorship. The most logical outcome might be to protect Mr. Heck while creating a 4th district that would be Democratic-leaning.

Utah (+1 seat) Utah is Utah, so the new district is almost certain to be won by a Republican. The question is whether Republicans, who are in control the redistricting process, might also try to redraw the current 2nd District to impair the re-election prospects of the state’s lone Democratic representative, Jim Matheson. There is very little downside to their doing so — there just aren’t enough Democrats in Utah to make more than one district competitive — but Mr. Matheson might prove to be up for the challenge, after having survived in the very difficult climate of 2010.

South Carolina (0 or +1 seat) South Carolina is likely, but not certain, to gain a seat. If it does, Republicans would seem to be the favorites on paper, as they control the redistricting process, and as the most overpopulated of South Carolina’s current districts is the 1st, which runs along the Atlantic Coast and has voted Republican since 1980.

Still, the party will need to be careful not to cleave their seats too finely and create a newly competitive district in Charleston (which, while liberal-leaning, is now outweighed by more conservative parts of the 1st district like Myrtle Beach). Also, as Mr. Wasserman notes, there is chance that a version of this scenario might be compelled by the courts: there are enough African Americans in the state to create two black-majority districts — one resembling the 6th district (the only one in the state still held by a Democrat, Jim Clyburn) and the other surrounding Charleston —. Certain interpretations of the Voting Rights Act might require the state to do just that. Politics is rarely pretty in South Carolina, and this should be no exception.

Washington (0 or +1 seat) Although Washington is a rare blue state that might gain a seat, that is not necessarily good news for Democrats, because the most overpopulated among its current districts are the 3rd and the 8th, two swing seats now held by Republicans. In looking at the map, I come to the same conclusion that Mr. Wasserman does: the most logical and likely outcome is a map that creates a new Democratic-leaning 10th district but also makes the 3rd and the 8th safer for their Republican incumbents, Jaime Herrera and Dave Reichert.

North Carolina (0 or +1 seat) The existing, highly gerrymandered boundary lines in North Carolina are favorable to Democrats, but since Republicans will be in control of the redistricting process, this state may be intriguing. Population growth has been spread unevenly throughout the state: the Democratic-leaning Research Triangle area is growing rapidly, but so is the exurban and Republican 9th district southwest of Charlotte. A particularly aggressive Republican plan might be to gerrymander the Democratic-held 1st district in the Inner Banks region, which has lost population, into something more competitive.

California (0 or +1 seat) At one point the state seemed unlikely to gain another seat, but more recent population estimates suggest it has a chance. If it does, it will be because of prodigious population growth away from the coast, both in the Inland Empire and the Central Valley. Although it has largely been driven by an influx of Hispanic residents (including, to some extent, illegal immigrants), the voter rolls in those parts of the state are nevertheless much more Republican than their coastal counterparts, so Republicans might actually have the chance to make a couple of their incumbents safer, or to create a new Republican-leaning district.

This is especially so since redistricting in California will now be led by a bipartisan commission, rather than a Democratic majority, as had been the case in 2002. Bipartisan commissions in many states have been inclined to protect incumbents. But California currently has remarkably few competitive seats, so the equilibrium could swing the other way.

Oregon (0 or +1 seat) Oregon has an outside chance to add a Congressional seat, making the politics of redistricting interesting: Democrats control both the governorship and the state senate, but the house of representatives is evenly divided. The 1st district in the northwest corner of the state, which is liberal, has grown somewhat faster than other regions, which might give the Democrats an edge. But the Democratic advantage is narrow in the neighboring 5th district so they would need to proceed carefully. If Oregon does not gain a seat, then using the excess voters from the 1st to reinforce the 5th might be nearly as good an outcome for them.

States that stand to lose seats in Congress

Ohio (−2 seats) Quite a few Ohio districts have lost population outright since 2000. The one that has lost the most is 11th district, which covers most of Cleveland, but it is so blue that a core of Democratic voters will remain to ensure Marcia Fudge’s re-election to Congress. Dennis Kucinich’s neighboring 10th district, however, has also lost ground, and he could be vulnerable. Some of Ohio’s Republican-leaning and swing areas, like the Appalachian 6th district that Republicans took over in November, have lost population as well. But the Republicans in control of the redistricting process will do their best to see that the two seats the state loses both come from the Democratic column.

New York (−1 or 2 seats) If the state loses just one seat, it will almost certainly come from the region that Democrats would prefer: upstate. Northwestern New York — and even more particularly, Buffalo — has lost significant population since 2000.

The loss wouldn’t necessarily be a Republican one, since several of the upstate districts are held by Democrats or are otherwise competitive, but eliminating one seat upstate would be a better outcome for Democrats than what might happen if New York loses two seats: that might mean one of New York City’s districts might have to to be consolidated, even though the city’s population has increased by 5 percent since 2000.

Democrats, indeed, may very much regret not having won control of the State Senate in November, in which case Republicans would lack a veto over redistricting. That might have allowed them to improve the odds that the upstate loss was a Republican seat, and to protect their city incumbents from a second seat loss through creative measures like combining city and suburban tracts or merging the Republican-held 13th district on Staten Island — which is not quite populous enough to warrant a district of its own — with especially Democratic-leaning areas in Brooklyn. Finally, the Democrats might have had the chance to squeeze the Republican Peter King out of the 3rd district in Long Island. As it is, his district has lost population relative to the neighboring 2nd and 4th districts, so he could be rendered somewhat more vulnerable anyway.

Louisiana (−1 seat) Here’s a potential case of addition by subtraction for Democrats. Although Louisiana’s population loss is concentrated around New Orleans, which hemorrhaged population after Hurricane Katrina (its 2nd Congressional District was the least populous in the country as of 2009), there are probably still enough African-American voters in the city that it will be impossible to draw a map without a Democratic-leaning seat there. Republicans already control the red-trending state’s other six seats, and one of those would probably have to go.

While I’ve come across a couple of a highly creative proposals to gerrymander the 2nd district into one that is more competitive for Republicans, they would probably run afoul of both the Voting Rights Act and the state legislature, which is still controlled by Democrats. It’s more likely that the new map will keep the 2nd as Democratic as possible and ensure that the five remaining Republican incumbents have a safe path to re-election.

Massachusetts (−1 seat) There’s not much to think about here: all 10 of its current Congressional districts are still controlled by Democrats, Democrats control the redistricting process, and no one part of the state has gained or lost much population relative to the others. Democrats will probably look at who is planning to retire — or to run for the Senate against Scott Brown — and will build a plan from there.

Michigan (−1 seat) As in Ohio, many Michigan districts have lost population. The districts with the largest population losses, the 13th and the 14th, are Democratic-leaning parts of Detroit, and Republicans are in control of redistricting, which would seem to give them an edge.

Michigan’s current boundaries were already pretty decent for Republicans — and some of their strongholds have lost population, too — so while they can work to improve the odds that the lost seat will be a Democratic one, they may not be able to guarantee it. For instance, they could try to force Democratic incumbents Dale Kildee and Gary Peters, now of the 5th and 9th districts, to compete against one another — but that might render the 11th or the 8th districts, now held by Republicans, more vulnerable.

Iowa (−1 seat) Most of Iowa’s population loss is concentrated in the western portion of the state, which is also the strongest region for Republicans. That could make Steve King, the Republican incumbent in the 5th district, especially vulnerable (Democrats narrowly held on to a majority in the state senate, so they have a say in redistricting). All four of Iowa’s remaining districts should be highly competitive.

New Jersey (−1 seat) New Jersey will use a commission to redraw its map. But the most Democratic districts in the state — particularly the 10th in parts of Newark and Jersey City and the 8th in Passaic and Essex Counties — are the ones that have lost the most population, so the Republicans have a mathematical advantage.

Pennsylvania (−1 seat) Winning control of both the legislature and the governorship was a big deal for Republicans, since several different parts of Pennsylvania have lost population — urban Pittsburgh, for instance, but also the state’s conservative center — so there will be any number of possibilities for how to reconfigure the remaining seats. Given Republican control, the 12th district held by the Democrat Mark Critz — which was already highly gerrymandered and has lost population — seems especially likely to be absorbed into its neighbors.

Missouri (0 or −1 seat) With Democrats holding the governorship but Republicans the legislature, both parties have a veto here, and it is hard to figure out who will lose the game of musical chairs. Most of the population loss is concentrated in the eastern portion of the state, including the 1st district in St. Louis, Russ Carnahan’s suburban-leaning 3rd district, and the strongly Republican 8th district in the southeast. Mr. Carnahan’s district is the most vulnerable of the three on paper, but he is a powerful figure in Missouri and will resist any erosion in his boundaries. One way or another, if Missouri loses a seat — which is likely, but not certain — its congressional elections are likely to be more competitive than in the recent past, with blurred dividing lines between urban, rural and suburban areas.

Illinois (0 or −1 seat) Democrats were fortunate to retain control over redistricting in Illinois. Whether or not the state loses a seat — and it is not assured to — it has seen a population shift out of Chicago’s predominately black South Side and into the suburbs and exurbs surrounding the city, which might ordinarily favor Republicans. But with control in Springfield, Democrats may well be able to draw relatively safe districts to protect their inner-city incumbents in the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th districts — all are so overwhelmingly Democratic that they can afford to expand their boundaries somewhat — while targeting any of a number of Republicans, who surprisingly emerged with a 11 of the state’s 19 districts in November.

Minnesota (0 or −1 seat) The seats with slack population growth, like the 4th, 5th and 7th, are held by Democrats; meanwhile, the suburban 6th district, held by Michelle Bachmann, has gained population. If Minnesota holds steady at 8 seats, Democrats and Republicans will probably preserve their 4-4 tie, as the parties will share control over redistricting. But if a seat is lost, it is more likely to come from the blue team.

Nebraska (0 or −1 seat) Nebraska has an outside chance to lose a seat, which would be problematic for Republicans since they hold all three seats now and since the western part of the state, which is extremely Republican, has lost the most population. The downside for Democrats is that the 2nd district in Omaha, which is sometimes competitive in both Congressional and Presidential elections (Nebraska awards one electoral vote to the winner of each of its Congressional districts), would also become less so.

Rhode Island (0 or −1 seat) Rhode Island may finally have reached the point where it will be reduced from two seats to one; if it holds on now, it will be even more vulnerable in 2020. Democrats hold both seats now, and neither is typically competitive, so they would endure the loss.

Illinois overperformed, good news for

I don't know about over performed. Not sure what the estimates were, but an increase of 400,000+ for the state is only have the growth it saw between 1990-2000.

Either way we lost 1 congressional seat.

http://blogs-images.forbes.com/jonbruner/files/2010/12/apport_chart3_appt.jpg




Chicago. 3 mil? :)


Highly doubt it. The vast majority of the growth was in the six or seven counties sorrounding Cook (where Chicago is). Cook probably lost a little or broke even, while the city of Chicago probably lost 50,000 residents or more since 2000.... myslef included as I moved to the south suburbs where there are less hassles (less taxes better schools). Chicago's number one growth machine during the 1990's was the Hispanic boom. It still is number one, but they are now bypassing the city for affordable suburbs, which means that the city growth rate is stymied (not to mention an increasing number of African Americans are leaving the city).


I would REALLY be surprised if the city posted a net gain since 2000.

I used to be an optimist in the early 2000's but what I've seen happen here over the course of this past decade is really pushing middle class families out. Gentrification alone wont increase your population.

Teen Pregnancy Rate Falls To Lowest Level In 70 Years (http://www.latimes.com/health/boostershots/la-heb-birth-rate-20101221,0,10406.story)

The National Center for Health Statistics said Tuesday that the teen birthrate fell to its lowest point in seven decades, when records were first taken. The measure fell to 39.1 births per 1,000 teenagers ages 15 to 19 in 2009—a 6 percent drop from 2008 and the lowest rate since 1940. Less than 20 years ago, in 1991, the teen birthrate was 61.8 per 1,000 births. While the report does not cite any specific reasons for the decline, there have been nearly two decades of public-health initiatives to curb teen pregnancy—despite saturation in media of teenage parents. For women aged 40 to 44 years, births rose 4 percent between 2008 and 2009.

The official numbers have been released for some states. Virginia, New Jersey, Louisiana, and Mississippi municipality numbers are out. Here's some numbers

Baton Rouge's 2010 Census Numbers is officially 229,493 (2009 Estimates were 225,390; 2000 # 227,818)
New Orleans' 2010 Census Numbers is officially 343,829 (2009 Estimates were 354,850; 2000 # was 484,674)
Newark's 2010 Census Number is officially 277,140 (2009 Estimates were 278,154; 2000 # was 273,546)
Norfolk's 2010 Census Number is officially 242,803 (2009 Estimates were 233,333; 2000 # was 234,403)<-Strong Showing
Richmond's 2010 Census # is officially 204,014 (2009 Estimates were 204,451; 2000 # was 197,790)
Virginia Beach's 2010 Census # is officially 437,994 (2009 Estimates were 433,575; 2000 # was 425,257)

SURPRISES-
*Really Strong Showing-Lakewood, NJ 92,834 (2009 Estimates were 71,359; 2000 # was 60,352) +54%
Went from 22nd biggest New Jersey City to 7th. Nice.

*Mississippi Demographics-The state's white population grew by 8,585 while the black population grew by 64,576
http://m.clarionledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20110203/NEWS/110203024/-1/WAP&template=wapart

Full data of Mississippi Numbers:
http://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/2010_census/cb11-cn14.html
Loudoun County Numbers:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/03/AR2011020305555.html
Full data of New Jersey Numbers:
http://2010.census.gov/news/releases/operations/cb11-cn15.html
Some New Jersey Demographics Info:
http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2011/02/census_data_shows_hispanics_as.html
Good site for Virginia Numbers:
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/local-breaking-news/virginia/virginia-population-data-from.html
Full data of Virginia Numbers:
http://dlsgis.state.va.us/2010_Redistricting/2010_PL94-171/2010_PL94-171.htm
Full data of Louisiana Numbers:
http://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/2010_census/cb11-cn13.html
New Orleans:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/04/us/04census.html?partner=rss&emc=rss
Census County Interactive Maps For 4 states:
http://2010.census.gov/2010census/data/

*NOTE*-Full data will be released on Friday, this is preliminary data that has been obtained by local media outlets.

Wow many people moved out in MS.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/13/2010_Census_map_by_population_change_-_MS.svg

Wow many people moved out in MS.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/13/2010_Census_map_by_population_change_-_MS.svg

The white growth was flat. Hispanics are becoming a big part of the growth as in Virginia where the hispanic population doubled since 2000. The black population is less through childbirth and more through immigration from Memphis. Many middle class blacks are moving into DeSoto County up north and making Mississippi grow in the process.

Maryland Data Out:
http://2010.census.gov/2010census/data

Baltimore-620,961 (Official); 2009 Estimate was 637,418 so Baltimore has been losing people at a higher than anticipated rate
It is now only 18,000 more in population than Washington and data shows Washington will most likely be the biggest city by 2020

2000 Population for Baltimore was 651,154

Coming tomorrow:
Arkansas, Indiana, Iowa, Vermont

Coming next week:
Illinois, Oklahoma (YAY!), South Dakota, Texas

uscensus.gov (http://2010.census.gov/news/releases/operations/cb11-cn20.html)

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: WEDNESDAY, FEB. 9, 2011


U.S. Census Bureau Delivers Maryland's 2010 Census Population Totals, Including First Look at Race and Hispanic Origin Data for Legislative Redistricting



The U.S. Census Bureau today released more detailed 2010 Census population totals and demographic characteristics to the governor and leadership of the state legislature in Maryland. These data provide the first look at population counts for small areas and race, Hispanic origin, voting age and housing unit data released from the 2010 Census.

The official 2010 Census Redistricting Data Summary File can be used to redraw federal, state and local legislative districts under Public Law 94-171. The census data are used by state officials to realign congressional and state legislative districts in their states, taking into account population shifts since the 2000 Census.

Data for Maryland show that the five most populous incorporated places and their 2010 Census counts are Baltimore, 620,961; Frederick, 65,239; Rockville, 61,209; Gaithersburg, 59,933; and Bowie, 54,727. Baltimore decreased by 4.6 percent since the 2000 Census. Frederick grew by 23.6 percent, Rockville grew by 29.2 percent, Gaithersburg grew by 13.9 percent and Bowie grew by 8.9 percent.

The largest county is Montgomery with a population of 971,777. Its population grew by 11.3 percent since 2000. The other counties in the top five include Prince George's, with a population of 863,420 (increase of 7.7 percent); Baltimore, population of 805,029 (increase of 6.7 percent); Anne Arundel, population of 537,656 (increase of 9.8 percent); and Howard, population of 287,085 (increase of 15.8 percent). (Note: Baltimore city and Baltimore County are separate entities and the city is not included in the county's population.)

[...]

Next Release: Illinois, South Dakota, Oklahoma, and Texas (http://2010.census.gov/news/releases/operations/cb11-cn29.html)

^^
Finally, Desert Punk. Ill leave the future population posts to you. Tomorrow four states' population totals come out so don't forget to post those. :)

Is it me or the American fact finder website doesn't work? I've been trying to get all the data from small cities in NJ, but it never shows the data, it kept loading! grr

Is it me or the American fact finder website doesn't work? I've been trying to get all the data from small cities in NJ, but it never shows the data, it kept loading! grr

I went to the census site s few minutes ago and it was a mess. New releases today are scheduled at 2:00pm EST check back then...

I know! they mess up everthing. I still prefer the old look, it was WAY easier to use!
http://factfinder.census.gov/home/saff/main.html?_lang=en
Now u search for let's say "New Orleans" and I always get "No results found. See American FactFinder Help for additional guidance on search." grr
http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/searchresults.xhtml?refresh=t#none

^^
You have to fiddle with tables till you get this enigmatic excel file with all the numbers in it. It was super frustrating.

uscensus.gov (http://2010.census.gov/news/releases/operations/cb11-cn28.html)

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: THURSDAY, FEB. 10, 2011

U.S. Census Bureau Delivers Vermont's 2010 Census Population Totals

The U.S. Census Bureau today released more detailed 2010 Census population totals and demographic characteristics to the governor and leadership of the state legislature in Vermont. These data provide the first look at population counts for small areas and race, Hispanic origin, voting age and housing unit data released from the 2010 Census.

The official 2010 Census Redistricting Data Summary File can be used to redraw federal, state and local legislative districts under Public Law 94-171. The census data are used by state officials to realign congressional and state legislative districts in their states, taking into account population shifts since the 2000 Census.

Data for Vermont show that the five most populous cities and towns and their 2010 Census counts are Burlington, 42,417; Essex, 19,587; South Burlington, 17,904; Colchester, 17,067; and Rutland, 16,495. Burlington grew by 9.1 percent since the 2000 Census. Essex grew by 5.2 percent, South Burlington grew by 13.2 percent, Colchester grew by 0.5 percent, and Rutland decreased by 4.6 percent.

The largest county is Chittenden with a population of 156,545. Its population grew by 6.8 percent since 2000. The other counties in the top five include Rutland with a population of 61,642 (decrease of 2.8 percent); Washington, 59,534 (increase of 2.6 percent); Windsor, 56,670 (decrease of 1.3 percent); and Franklin, 47,746 (increase of 5.1 percent).
[...]

uscensus.gov (http://2010.census.gov/news/releases/operations/cb11-cn28.html)


FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: THURSDAY, FEB. 10, 2011

U.S. Census Bureau Delivers Arkansas' 2010 Census Population Totals

The U.S. Census Bureau today released more detailed 2010 Census population totals and demographic characteristics to the governor and leadership of the state legislature in Arkansas. These data provide the first look at population counts for small areas and race, Hispanic origin, voting age and housing unit data released from the 2010 Census.

The official 2010 Census Redistricting Data Summary File can be used to redraw federal, state and local legislative districts under Public Law 94-171. The census data are used by state officials to realign congressional and state legislative districts in their states, taking into account population shifts since the 2000 Census.

Data for Arkansas show that the five most populous incorporated places and their 2010 Census counts are Little Rock, 193,524; Fort Smith, 86,209; Fayetteville, 73,580; Springdale, 69,797; and Jonesboro, 67,263. Little Rock grew by 5.7 percent since the 2000 Census. Fort Smith grew by 7.4 percent, Fayetteville grew by 26.8 percent, Springdale grew by 52.4 percent, and Jonesboro by 21.2 percent.

The largest county is Pulaski with a population of 382,748. Its population grew by 5.9 percent since 2000. The other counties in the top five include Benton, with a population of 221,339 (increase of 44.3 percent); Washington, 203,065 (increase of 28.8 percent); Sebastian, 125,744 (increase of 9.3 percent); and Faulkner, 113,237 (increase of 31.6 percent).
[...]

uscensus.gov (http://2010.census.gov/news/releases/operations/cb11-cn28.html)

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: THURSDAY, FEB. 10, 2011


U.S. Census Bureau Delivers Indiana's 2010 Census Population Totals

The U.S. Census Bureau today released more detailed 2010 Census population totals and demographic characteristics to the governor and leadership of the state legislature in Indiana. These data provide the first look at population counts for small areas and race, Hispanic origin, voting age and housing unit data released from the 2010 Census.

The official 2010 Census Redistricting Data Summary File can be used to redraw federal, state and local legislative districts under Public Law 94-171. The census data are used by state officials to realign congressional and state legislative districts in their states, taking into account population shifts since the 2000 Census.

Data for Indiana show that the five most populous incorporated places and their 2010 Census counts are Indianapolis, 829,718; Fort Wayne, 253,691; Evansville, 117,429; South Bend, 101,168; and Hammond, 80,830. Indianapolis grew by 4.8 percent since the 2000 Census. Fort Wayne grew by 23.3 percent, Evansville decreased by 3.4 percent, South Bend decreased by 6.1 percent, and Hammond decreased by 2.7 percent.

The largest county is Marion with a population of 903,393. Its population grew by 5.0 percent since 2000. The other counties in the top five include Lake, with a population of 496,005 (increase of 2.4 percent); Allen, 355,329 (increase of 7.1 percent); Hamilton, 274,569 (increase of 50.3 percent); and St. Joseph, 266,931 (increase of 0.5 percent).
[...]

uscensus.gov (http://2010.census.gov/news/releases/operations/cb11-cn28.html)

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: THURSDAY, FEB. 10, 2011

U.S. Census Bureau Delivers Iowa's 2010 Census Population Totals

The U.S. Census Bureau today released more detailed 2010 Census population totals and demographic characteristics to the governor and leadership of the state legislature in Iowa. These data provide the first look at population counts for small areas and race, Hispanic origin, voting age and housing unit data released from the 2010 Census.

The official 2010 Census Redistricting Data Summary File can be used to redraw federal, state and local legislative districts under Public Law 94-171. The census data are used by state officials to realign congressional and state legislative districts in their states, taking into account population shifts since the 2000 Census.

Data for Iowa show that the five most populous incorporated places and their 2010 Census counts are Des Moines, 203,433; Cedar Rapids, 126,326; Davenport, 99,685; Sioux City, 82,684; and Waterloo, 68,406. Des Moines grew by 2.4 percent since the 2000 Census. Cedar Rapids grew by 4.6 percent, Davenport grew by 1.3 percent, Sioux City decreased by 2.7 percent and Waterloo decreased by 0.5 percent.

The largest county is Polk with a population of 430,640. Its population grew by 15.0 percent since 2000. The other counties in the top five include Linn, with a population of 211,226 (increase of 10.2 percent); Scott, 165,224 (increase of 4.1 percent); Black Hawk, 131,090 (increase of 2.4 percent); and Johnson, 130,882 (increase of 17.9 percent).
[...]

http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=DEC_10_PL_GCTPL2.ST13&prodType=table

This one is good for new city populations but I think the page expires

I dont see anything there ^^. Even if u check all those tables, u still won't get anything grr!

It worked for me.

Try this:
1-Go the main Factfinder page (http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml)
2-Click the Geographies tab to your left
3-Get rid of the select geographies pop up if it shows up. You should now have the annoying list of tables
4-The sixth from the bottom should be called "Population and Housing Occupancy Status: 2010 - State -- Place". Click it
5-Now you should get a scrolling list of cities in Arkansas. Where you see Arkansas you can change the state and this should be the page I earlier linked. Write if it still doesn't work.

Nope, it didnt work ^^ :S, I don't know what's wrong! and I know is not my browser.. Could u please post a link with the list of places in New Jersey, please! so I can click it, maybe that would work :D

Edit

Wow, thank you so much, u dont know how much i needed it. It's for a demographic project that im working on anthropology, and i wanted to use the latest data of the US Census. :hug:

Post edit: NM

Wow, thank you so much, u dont know how much i needed it. It's for a demographic project that im working on anthropology, and i wanted to use the latest data of the US Census. :hug:

No problem :):cheers:

uscensus.gov (http://2010.census.gov/news/releases/operations/cb11-cn33.html)

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: TUESDAY, FEB. 15, 2011


U.S. Census Bureau Delivers Oklahoma's 2010 Census Population Totals

The U.S. Census Bureau today released more detailed 2010 Census population totals and demographic characteristics to the governor and leadership of the state legislature in Oklahoma. These data provide the first look at population counts for small areas and race, Hispanic origin, voting age and housing unit data released from the 2010 Census.

The official 2010 Census Redistricting Data Summary File can be used to redraw federal, state and local legislative districts under Public Law 94-171. The census data are used by state officials to realign congressional and state legislative districts in their states, taking into account population shifts since the 2000 Census.

Data for Oklahoma show that the five most populous incorporated places and their 2010 Census counts are Oklahoma City, 579,999; Tulsa, 391,906; Norman, 110,925; Broken Arrow, 98,850; and Lawton, 96,867. Oklahoma City grew by 14.6 percent since the 2000 Census. Tulsa decreased by 0.3 percent, Norman grew by 15.9 percent, Broken Arrow grew by 32.0 percent, and Lawton grew by 4.4 percent.

The largest county is Oklahoma with a population of 718,633. Its population grew by 8.8 percent since 2000. The other counties in the top five include Tulsa, with a population of 603,403 (increase of 7.1 percent); Cleveland, 255,755 (increase of 22.9 percent); Comanche, 124,098 (increase of 7.9 percent); and Canadian, 115,541 (increase of 31.8 percent).

uscensus.gov (http://2010.census.gov/news/releases/operations/cb11-cn31.html)

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: TUESDAY, FEB. 15, 2011

U.S. Census Bureau Delivers Illinois' 2010 Census Population Totals

The U.S. Census Bureau today released more detailed 2010 Census population totals and demographic characteristics to the governor and leadership of the state legislature in Illinois. These data provide the first look at population counts for small areas and race, Hispanic origin, voting age and housing unit data released from the 2010 Census.

The official 2010 Census Redistricting Data Summary File can be used to redraw federal, state and local legislative districts under Public Law 94-171. The census data are used by state officials to realign congressional and state legislative districts in their states, taking into account population shifts since the 2000 Census.

Data for Illinois show that the five most populous incorporated places and their 2010 Census counts are Chicago, 2,695,598; Aurora, 197,899; Rockford, 152,871; Joliet, 147,433; and Naperville, 141,853. Chicago decreased by 6.9 percent since the 2000 Census. Aurora grew by 38.4 percent, Rockford grew by 1.8 percent, Joliet grew by 38.8 percent, and Naperville grew by 10.5 percent.

The largest county is Cook with a population of 5,194,675. Its population decreased by 3.4 percent since 2000. The other counties in the top five include DuPage, with a population of 916,924 (increase of 1.4 percent); Lake, 703,462 (increase of 9.2 percent); Will, 677,560 (increase of 34.9 percent); and Kane, 515,269 (increase of 27.5 percent).

I predict a huge fight over those Chicago numbers...

Wow, I thought Chi would have had a larger count!

I predict a huge fight over those Chicago numbers...

It is what it is I guess, that's the official count they have and used for representation. Have they ever gone back and changed it? I wouldn't think so unless they plan on recounts. I am a little surprised the numbers for Chitown are that much less...must be one heck of a miscount if there's a fight then, yikes...

I lived in Chicago (now the south suburbs) and to tell you the truth, I'm not that shocked. What fueled the Chicago population spike throughout the 90's was the Hispanic growth, and a relatively stable African American population. Now you have a relatively stable Hispanic population (as much of their growth in now in the suburbs), but a free falling black population. The white population has finally stablized after decades of decline.

Why? Cost of living, stupid ass city fees, ridiculous property taxes for the lot size, shitty schools and of course corruption which has become a sport in this town.... the list goes on and on....

Wait until the recession eases and people become more mobile. The exodus of middle and lower income people will accelerate. :ohno:


Yeah keep raising taxes.. Why don't we just institute a tax to pay for everyone's airline tickes to the South :bash:

Looks like the city of Houston will take the #3 spot a lot quicker than we thought. :lol:



Chicago’s population declined by 200,0418 people, a 6.9 percent drop from 2000, to 2,695,598, according to 2010 census numbers released Tuesday.

Cook County’s population dropped by nearly as much — 182,000, down 3.4 percent from 2000, to 5,194,675 residents.

All of the collar counties saw population gains, which ranged from 1.4 percent in DuPage County to 34.9 percent in Will County. Lake County’s population grew by 9.2 percent, Kane County by 27.5 percent, McHenry by 18.7 percent. Kendall county had the highest percentage growth in the state, 110.4 percent.

The 2010 census totals show DuPage County with 916,924 residents, Lake County with 703,462, Will County with 677,560, Kane County with 515,269, McHenry County with 308,760 and Kendall County with 114,736.

All cities in the top 10 in Illinois other than Chicago and Cicero gained population, led by Aurora, which grew by nearly 55,000 people or 38.4 percent. Joliet, in Will County, had the largest percentage gain, 38.8 percent or 41,000 people. Cicero, in 10th place, dropped by 1,700, to 83,891

http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/3838469-417/census-shows-chicagos-population-fell-by-200418-people.html


On a postive note, at least the metro area grew steadily (outside Crook County). We should be at the 10 million mark when all tri-state counties come out with the population figures.

I predict a huge fight over those Chicago numbers...


Yeah, you can bet on that!


Chicago never goes down without a big fight!

Bitching about your census numbers is a zero sum game.

In 2000, every rust belt city bitched about their census counts and many succeeded in having the numbers adjusted upwards. But what does that change?

Let's say everyone bitches about their height measurement, and then everyone's allowed to be measured in their shoes. So what did that change? Nothing.

Ironically, the upward adjustments of 2000 now make the 2010 declines look eve more precipitous. :laugh:

Most American urban enthusiasts think that their city is 1 square mile downtown. They see some yuppies moving in, some warehouse conversion lofts being built, and they're like "oh snap, Duluth/Syracuse/Cleveland is back!" They fail to notice the other 50 square miles that has people moving out. :hahaha: Even Chicago has the extremely bleak south side ghetto which is practically as large physically and populous as Detroit. Who cares about that? Nobody. The yuppies in Chicago don't even notice that it exists, so of course they are shocked that the decline in Chicago's population is so huge.

Chicago's numbers are pretty shocking, a decline was likely but 200k is a big drop.

Bitching about your census numbers is a zero sum game.

It definitely is, because of $$$.

I notice the Chicago article refers to collar counties." I have never heard that expression before. Is "collar county" a purely Chicago colloquialism or do other parts of the country use that term?

Bitching about your census numbers is a zero sum game.

In 2000, every rust belt city bitched about their census counts and many succeeded in having the numbers adjusted upwards. But what does that change?

Let's say everyone bitches about their height measurement, and then everyone's allowed to be measured in their shoes. So what did that change? Nothing.

Ironically, the upward adjustments of 2000 now make the 2010 declines look eve more precipitous. :laugh:

Most American urban enthusiasts think that their city is 1 square mile downtown. They see some yuppies moving in, some warehouse conversion lofts being built, and they're like "oh snap, Duluth/Syracuse/Cleveland is back!" They fail to notice the other 50 square miles that has people moving out. :hahaha: Even Chicago has the extremely bleak south side ghetto which is practically as large physically and populous as Detroit. Who cares about that? Nobody. The yuppies in Chicago don't even notice that it exists, so of course they are shocked that the decline in Chicago's population is so huge.

The question then becomes where are these people moving to? Do these places where the people are moving to provide adequate services and offer sufficient infrastructure? The places people are still moving out of in cities were once considered suburban too. The suburbs won't be laughing much longer. Their communities are getting older and are exhibiting similar patterns that were seen in American cities during the late 1940s and early 1950s.

^^ Also many inner city neighborhoods were among those least affected by the housing bust, and property values for houses in walkable neighborhoods (which tend to be in inner cities and close in suburban areas) are much higher than in most auto orientated neighborhoods. This can even be seen in Houston where closer in neighborhoods have a much higher property value than far out suburbs such as Katy.

Im shocked with Chicago's population, i thought they were already 3 million inh. :S

Im shocked with Chicago's population, i thought they were already 3 million inh. :S

It'll happen eventually. Chicago is being transformed more and more each year. At some point the losses will reverse and the city will grow like NY has. The thing to remember about aging or gentrifying cities is that at their historical high populations, there may have been as many as 6 persons per dwelling. Now you get maybe 2 or 3. That accounts for a lot of the population loss and the difficulty that many re-emerging cities have in growing their numbers back up. Chicago is infinitely healthier and nicer than it was 40 years ago.

Hispanics now outnumber Native Americans in Oklahoma according to the US Census.


Hispanics now outnumber Native Americans in Okla.
By TIM TALLEY Associated Press © 2011 The Associated Press
Feb. 15, 2011, 10:23PM
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/top/all/7429224.html

OKLAHOMA CITY — A state that has been considered the heart of the nation's Indian Country since the Trail of Tears nearly two centuries ago now has more residents who identify themselves as Hispanic than Native American, according to figures released Tuesday by the U.S. Census Bureau.

While Oklahoma is likely to maintain the nation's largest per capita population of Native Americans, their numbers are not growing nearly as rapidly as the booming Hispanic population.

Over the past decade, the number of Hispanics has nearly doubled from 179,304 in 2000 to 332,007 in 2010. Hispanics now account for 9 percent of the state's 3.75 million residents, compared to 8.5 percent for Native Americans.

"I suspect that Native Americans took a little bit of pride in being the largest minority population," said state Rep. Paul Wesselhoft, a member of the Citizen Potawatomi tribe. "Now it's the Hispanic population that can now take that pride."

Oklahoma's history has been linked to Native Americans decades before it gained statehood in 1907. It is home to dozens of sovereign tribes, many forced from their homes along the Trail of Tears in the 1830s. It's also the birthplace of iconic cowboy and humorist Will Rogers, a member of a prominent Cherokee Nation family who was born in Indian Territory that later became the state.

While the 85 percent population spike has allowed Hispanics to become the state's largest minority, the population of people identifying themselves solely as Native Americans increased from 273,230 in 2000 (7.9 percent of all Oklahoma residents) to 321,687 (8.5 percent) in 2010.

When all combinations of mixed-race people are included, over 12 percent of Oklahomans claim some level of Indian ancestry.

Former Oklahoma House Speaker Larry Adair, chairman of the Cherokee Nation Gaming Commission, said it proves the state continues to be a "melting pot." Still, he said he was surprised Hispanics had moved past Native Americans in population.

Keith Gaddie, a professor of political science at the University of Oklahoma, said the figures show some public policy efforts to curtail illegal immigration may not be having an impact on Hispanic immigration.

House Bill 1804, an anti-illegal immigration bill enacted in 2007, makes it illegal to knowingly transport illegal immigrants, creates state barriers to hiring illegal immigrants and requires proof of citizenship before one can get certain government benefits. The law is being challenged in federal court.

"For folks who thought HB 1804 would lead to an exodus of Hispanics from the state of Oklahoma, that doesn't appear to have happened," Gaddie said.

In the far western Oklahoma Panhandle, Hispanics drawn to the region by swine farms and other concentrated animal feeding operations comprise 36 percent of the population, according to the census figures.

More than 17 percent of the 580,000 residents of Oklahoma City, the state's largest city, now identify themselves as being of Hispanic descent while in Tulsa, the state's second largest city, 14 percent of its 392,000 residents say they are Hispanic. Lawton and Enid also recorded significant concentrations of Hispanic residents.

State lawmakers said the substantial increase in Hispanic residents, especially in south Oklahoma City, make it more likely than ever that they will be able draw new legislative voting districts with Hispanic majorities although proponents of anti-illegal immigration legislation may voice opposition.

"There will be, I'm sure, some," said Rep. Dale DeWitt, R-Braman, chairman of the Oklahoma's House's Redistricting Committee. "But at the end of the day, we'll do this thing as fair as we possibly can. If we don't do it fair, the thing will end up in court."

State lawmakers attempted to draw a majority Hispanic House district on Oklahoma City's south side following the 2000 census, Adair said.

But former Rep. Bill Paulk, a Democrat who headed the legislative redistricting committee under Adair, said the Hispanic population was too dispersed to form the core of a legislative district. He said lawmakers would have been forced to resort to gerrymandering to create a Hispanic majority district.

"It would have looked like a piece of string to make it work," Paulk said.

I'm shocked that anybody is shocked by Chicago's decline. It's no secret that families and minorities are moving out.

I notice the Chicago article refers to collar counties." I have never heard that expression before. Is "collar county" a purely Chicago colloquialism or do other parts of the country use that term?
I've only heard it refered to Chicago's outer counties

I thought Chicago was the most affordable of the "big cities" in America, i mean compared to NY and other cities, Chicago is pretty cheap, so i don't get why such a big decline. I heard that many African-Americans were moving to the south, but Chicago isn't attracting anyone at the moment? :ohno:


Btw, when will information like ethnicity come out?

It'll happen eventually. Chicago is being transformed more and more each year. At some point the losses will reverse and the city will grow like NY has. The thing to remember about aging or gentrifying cities is that at their historical high populations, there may have been as many as 6 persons per dwelling. Now you get maybe 2 or 3. That accounts for a lot of the population loss and the difficulty that many re-emerging cities have in growing their numbers back up. Chicago is infinitely healthier and nicer than it was 40 years ago.

New York City grows because the region grows inward instead of outward. The growth rates for New York Metro haven't been all that spectacular in quite a while, but over the past couple decades the city has absorbed the lion's share of the growth that has happened in the region. Look at the housing starts in NYC versus the rest of the tri-state. There has been minimal new construction going on outside of the 5 boroughs (really outside of Manhattan, Brooklyn and Queens).

If Chicago had absorbed the regional Chicagoland growth, instead of offsetting it to the suburbs, Chicago would have grown again. Instead places like Aurora and Joliet grew by nearly 50%, together taking roughly half of the population growth in the region, I believe.

New York City grows because the region grows inward instead of outward. The growth rates for New York Metro haven't been all that spectacular in quite a while, but over the past couple decades the city has absorbed the lion's share of the growth that has happened in the region. Look at the housing starts in NYC versus the rest of the tri-county. There has been minimal new construction going on outside of the 5 boroughs (really outside of Manhattan, Brooklyn and Queens).

If Chicago had absorbed the regional Chicagoland growth, instead of offsetting it to the suburbs, Chicago would have grown again. Instead places like Aurora and Joliet grew by nearly 50%, together taking roughly half of the population growth in the region, I believe.

That's true becuase the path of least resistance in NYC is urban infill. Look at Toll Brothers: an essentially suburban McMansion developer building urban lofts and condos in Brooklyn! Because land acquisition outside NYC has become insanely expensive or treacherous due to NIMBYs.

Chicagoland has had that classic 1950s dispersion model where major corporate employers still build far outside the city core and suburbs swell with new subdivisions and development. But as the exurbs push further out, the costs of building and maintaining infrastructure to support that growth have ballooned (at a time when Illinois is virtually shut out of the muni bond markets and default risks on existing muni bonds is high) you will get a breaking point. But the city won't reap the full benefits until something happens with the schools. Lousy inner city schools are why suburbs are still expanding and why cities that attract young professional singles continue to lose population.

Do you think urban schools will improve a lot in next 10 years?

Do you think urban schools will improve a lot in next 10 years?

They did in New York. Beyond the fact that wealthy residents have been very vocal about the quality of their neighborhood schools, there has been a shift away from the dropout factories and towards charter and magnet schools. Community involvement with education made the difference, not just throwing more money at a broken system. But the results are still uneven and still unsatisfactory in many areas of the city. Other urban districts have a ways to go but involvement is the first step. The more engaged the community is, the more they see the opportunities for changes to the system.

I personally see schools in major cities making huge improvements in next decade while many suburban schools will go downhill do to budget cuts, declining standards, and bad parenting producing dumber and dumber kids.

This sums up the situation... not only for Chicago, but even for cities that have seen growth.

from today's Chicago Tribune:


I think these data from here and elsewhere in the country reflect that the United States has become a suburban nation," said Scott W. Allard, a University of Chicago associate professor of social service administration. "It is a continuing migration from the city out to the suburbs while there are also immigration waves directly to the suburbs as well."

did the chicago loop increase in population like ppl were saying or is it still not many ppl

i was born and reared in chicago---ravenswood area. i love chicago in many ways. i now call home, memphis. i love it, and i meet former folk from chicago regularly. memphis is growing w/ hispanics, who are beginning to take many of the traditionally black enclaves of the inner city. some of the black middle class are moving to second ring suburbs and outer ring suburbs, but newly arrived hispanics are appearing in very rural areas en masse. downtown memphis, as well as midtown, have become fast growing areas of the city. the island has reached capacity, and much of the upper class single black professionals are choosing to remain in downtown, many of whom are researchers employed by st. jude research hospital and the downtown medical center and bioscience park.

one thing that i have noticed on forums is the lack of acknowledgment of the phenomenal growth of the hispanic population. they have long since become the new majority minority in america, in fact, a little over a decade back, the hispanics outnumbered blacks by over 10 million. reportedly, that number will, ultimately, be much larger, after final numbers are reported by the census bureau. i believe this is going to cause some problems between the two largest minorities. i lived a year and a half in b'ham, and a great deal of tension existed between blacks and hispancis. many blacks see traditionally black neighborhoods and schools being overtaken by the presence of continuing rises in the hispanic population, and a significant portion of the blacks feel that they are being forced to move because of the large number of hispanics that move into neighborhoods, filling apts and houses w/ two and three families per dwelling.

New York City grows because the region grows inward instead of outward. The growth rates for New York Metro haven't been all that spectacular in quite a while, but over the past couple decades the city has absorbed the lion's share of the growth that has happened in the region. Look at the housing starts in NYC versus the rest of the tri-state. There has been minimal new construction going on outside of the 5 boroughs (really outside of Manhattan, Brooklyn and Queens).


Could it also be partially because NYC is almost 4 times larger in terms of area than Chicago, meaning its outer quarter is more suburban in its characteristics and thus affordable? NYC is probably also a far bigger magnet for foreigners (esp. from Europe and Asia) than Chicago which may offset any decline in US born residents.

I've heard/read plenty about apparent 'black flight' from major US cities, most notably LA and now Chicago, but also Boston, SF and even NYC. Is this a trend likely to continue? Coming from a city (outside the US) where the black population is still growing strongly, perhaps even ballooning over the past 15 years, I find this interesting, not least as a possible indicator for my home town's future.

Could it also be partially because NYC is almost 4 times larger in terms of area than Chicago, meaning its outer quarter is more suburban in its characteristics and thus affordable? NYC is probably also a far bigger magnet for foreigners (esp. from Europe and Asia) than Chicago which may offset any decline in US born residents.

I've heard/read plenty about apparent 'black flight' from major US cities, most notably LA and now Chicago, but also Boston, SF and even NYC. Is this a trend likely to continue? Coming from a city (outside the US) where the black population is still growing strongly, perhaps even ballooning over the past 15 years, I find this interesting, not least as a possible indicator for my home town's future.

The land area of New York City is only about a fourth larger than the land area of Chicago. If you take Staten Island out of the equation, the remaining boroughs have roughly the same land area as Chicago. All boroughs posted growth between 1990 and 2000, but the overwhelming majority of New York's growth in that period took place in Brooklyn, Queens and Manhattan. Those boroughs all grew by at least 100,000 residents during that period, and Queens grew by almost 300,000 residents -- no doubt due to foreign immigration. (Staten Island only grew by about 50,000 residents despite being New York City's least densely populated borough.)

If you take Staten Island out of the equation, the remaining boroughs have roughly the same land area as Chicago

I think you underestimate NYC:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3150/2338080579_f0be7792ec_o.png

uscensus.gov (http://2010.census.gov/news/releases/operations/cb11-cn35.html)

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: WEDNESDAY, FEB. 16, 2011

U.S. Census Bureau Delivers South Dakota's 2010 Census Population Totals

The U.S. Census Bureau today released more detailed 2010 Census population totals and demographic characteristics to the governor and leadership of the state legislature in South Dakota. These data provide the first look at population counts for small areas and race, Hispanic origin, voting age and housing unit data released from the 2010 Census.

The official 2010 Census Redistricting Data Summary File can be used to redraw federal, state and local legislative districts under Public Law 94-171. The census data are used by state officials to realign congressional and state legislative districts in their states, taking into account population shifts since the 2000 Census.

Data for South Dakota show that the five most populous incorporated places and their 2010 Census counts are Sioux Falls, 153,888; Rapid City, 67,956; Aberdeen, 26,091; Brookings, 22,056; and Watertown, 21,482. Sioux Falls grew by 24.1 percent since the 2000 Census. Rapid City grew by 14.0 percent, Aberdeen grew by 5.8 percent, Brookings grew by 19.2 percent, and Watertown grew by 6.2 percent.

The largest county is Minnehaha, with a population of 169,468. Its population grew by 14.3 percent since 2000. The other counties in the top five include Pennington, with a population of 100,948 (increase of 14.0 percent); Lincoln, 44,828 (increase of 85.8 percent); Brown, 36,531 (increase of 3.0 percent); and Brookings, 31,965 (increase of 13.3 percent).

The land area of New York City is only about a fourth larger than the land area of Chicago. If you take Staten Island out of the equation, the remaining boroughs have roughly the same land area as Chicago. All boroughs posted growth between 1990 and 2000, but the overwhelming majority of New York's growth in that period took place in Brooklyn, Queens and Manhattan. Those boroughs all grew by at least 100,000 residents during that period, and Queens grew by almost 300,000 residents -- no doubt due to foreign immigration. (Staten Island only grew by about 50,000 residents despite being New York City's least densely populated borough.)

Yeah, I got my numbers wrong (mistakenly compared Chicago's size in sq miles with NYC in km2). NYC is around 26% larger comparing land areas.

I did a quick search and calculation just for my own amusement. NY Metro grew by roughly 1.65M residents from 1990 to 2000. NYC itself grew by nearly 700,000 residents. So the city itself claimed almost half of the metropolitan area's population growth that decade. That is pretty much unheard of for mature, developed cities in the U.S.

i was born and reared in chicago---ravenswood area. i love chicago in many ways. i now call home, memphis. i love it, and i meet former folk from chicago regularly. memphis is growing w/ hispanics, who are beginning to take many of the traditionally black enclaves of the inner city. some of the black middle class are moving to second ring suburbs and outer ring suburbs, but newly arrived hispanics are appearing in very rural areas en masse. downtown memphis, as well as midtown, have become fast growing areas of the city. the island has reached capacity, and much of the upper class single black professionals are choosing to remain in downtown, many of whom are researchers employed by st. jude research hospital and the downtown medical center and bioscience park.

one thing that i have noticed on forums is the lack of acknowledgment of the phenomenal growth of the hispanic population. they have long since become the new majority minority in america, in fact, a little over a decade back, the hispanics outnumbered blacks by over 10 million. reportedly, that number will, ultimately, be much larger, after final numbers are reported by the census bureau. i believe this is going to cause some problems between the two largest minorities. i lived a year and a half in b'ham, and a great deal of tension existed between blacks and hispancis. many blacks see traditionally black neighborhoods and schools being overtaken by the presence of continuing rises in the hispanic population, and a significant portion of the blacks feel that they are being forced to move because of the large number of hispanics that move into neighborhoods, filling apts and houses w/ two and three families per dwelling.

this has been happening in Los Angeles and California for decades. its funny how no one noticed until it became a national issue.

^^

But L.A. is 100 miles from the border... It's a given that Hispanics would ultimately squeeze most other groups (inlcuding African Americans) out of the city and eventually L.A County will become predominantly Hispanic if that's not already the case... That's actually not happening in Chicago. Hispanic are growing at a much slower rate than earlier decades because they are now sidestepping the city to move to affordable suburbs (Aurora, Joliet, Elgin, West Chicago, Waukegan, and Northwest Indiana...) where much industry has moved and crime is a bit lower..... African Americans middle class is getting the hell out of dodge. Even African American lower economic groups are working their away out of crime ridden areas of the West and South sides of Chicago. Both are either going to nearby southern suburbs or down south (Atlanta)....


The city of Chicago's black population peaked in 1980 at 1.2 million.....


The exodus took a big chunk out of the city's black population in particular, shrinking it to 887,608 from 1,065,009, according to William Frey, a demographer at the Brookings Institution think tank in Washington.

"The black decline is really powering the city loss," Mr. Frey said, calling it "part of the great reverse migration to the South."

Blacks remain the most-populous race in Chicago, Mr. Frey said, while the number of whites fell during the decade by about 52,000 to just under 855,000 and Hispanics' ranks rose by about 25,000 to just below 780,000.





Chicago’s black population fell the most, nearly 17 percent. Today, blacks make up only 33 percent of the city’s population, down from 36 percent 10 years ago.

One likely cause is the Chicago Housing Authority’s Plan for Transformation, in which thousands of inner-city public housing units were demolished.

Also, a Sun-Times analysis of previously released tract level census estimates showed a trend of black population growth particularly in the south suburbs.

“I think there may well be a loss of middle-class blacks down into those south suburbs,” said Kenneth Johnson, senior demographer of the Carsey Institute at the University of New Hampshire.

Hispanic population grew 3.3 percent in the city. But since this is less than the birthrate it is likely that Hispanics also are leaving the city for the suburbs.Non-Hispanic whites are now 32 percent of the population, while Hispanics of all races make up 29 percent



http://oi56.tinypic.com/2efm35s.jpg


Suburban sprawl marches onwards with no end in sight.... South suburbs growing the fastest (which is where Im currently living).

http://www.chicagotribune.com/media/graphic/2011-02/59464558.jpg


^^

The six county area now has about 8.3 million people. Once you include, Kendall, Kenosha, Kankakee, and Lake and Porter counties in Indiana, that should push the Chicago CSA to about 9.9 million.

The black exodus isn't limited to Chicago, in general black people are leaving the inner cities for the same reasons why white people did in the past: Cheaper cost of living, better schools, and less crime. Same thing is happening here in Hartford.

I did a quick search and calculation just for my own amusement. NY Metro grew by roughly 1.65M residents from 1990 to 2000. NYC itself grew by nearly 700,000 residents. So the city itself claimed almost half of the metropolitan area's population growth that decade. That is pretty much unheard of for mature, developed cities in the U.S.


The city estimates it grew at around 440,000 in that time frame. Based on the fact it found a lot of addresses that the census kept missing and finally released them to the census before the 2000 count. So the actual count was more like 7.5 million than the 7.3 million in 1990.

i was born and reared in chicago---ravenswood area. i love chicago in many ways. i now call home, memphis. i love it, and i meet former folk from chicago regularly. memphis is growing w/ hispanics, who are beginning to take many of the traditionally black enclaves of the inner city. some of the black middle class are moving to second ring suburbs and outer ring suburbs, but newly arrived hispanics are appearing in very rural areas en masse. downtown memphis, as well as midtown, have become fast growing areas of the city. the island has reached capacity, and much of the upper class single black professionals are choosing to remain in downtown, many of whom are researchers employed by st. jude research hospital and the downtown medical center and bioscience park.

one thing that i have noticed on forums is the lack of acknowledgment of the phenomenal growth of the hispanic population. they have long since become the new majority minority in america, in fact, a little over a decade back, the hispanics outnumbered blacks by over 10 million. reportedly, that number will, ultimately, be much larger, after final numbers are reported by the census bureau. i believe this is going to cause some problems between the two largest minorities. i lived a year and a half in b'ham, and a great deal of tension existed between blacks and hispancis. many blacks see traditionally black neighborhoods and schools being overtaken by the presence of continuing rises in the hispanic population, and a significant portion of the blacks feel that they are being forced to move because of the large number of hispanics that move into neighborhoods, filling apts and houses w/ two and three families per dwelling.

Sure, there's a certain degree of displacement when Latinos or other immigrant groups move in. Particularly when the economy slows, at it has since 2008. But when the economy booms, Latinos have helped pushed Afro-Americans up the labor ladder.

Consider a metro like Buffalo NY, ringed by large numbers of immigration & border patrol forces, no Mexican or other Latino immigrants to speak off. Yet Buffalo has one of the poorest African American populations in the US. Around Buffalo, blacks have trouble competing with whites just to get the service or construction jobs that Latino immigrants do in most cities. And there's very little demand for the housing in black neighborhoods.

Much the same exists in Pittsburgh, Youngstown, Flint. Or even a city as near to Chicago as Gary, Indiana, one of the only cities that has fewer Latinos than it did several decades ago. Although nearby Hammand has a good sized Latino population & E Chicago has been mostly Latino for sometime.

The black exodus isn't limited to Chicago, in general black people are leaving the inner cities for the same reasons why white people did in the past: Cheaper cost of living, better schools, and less crime. Same thing is happening here in Hartford.

Even Atlanta and Washington DC is now "whiter" than before because of this. Both cities also have declining black populations.

I lived in Chicago (now the south suburbs) and to tell you the truth, I'm not that shocked. What fueled the Chicago population spike throughout the 90's was the Hispanic growth, and a relatively stable African American population. Now you have a relatively stable Hispanic population (as much of their growth in now in the suburbs), but a free falling black population. The white population has finally stablized after decades of decline.

Why? Cost of living, stupid ass city fees, ridiculous property taxes for the lot size, shitty schools and of course corruption which has become a sport in this town.... the list goes on and on....

Wait until the recession eases and people become more mobile. The exodus of middle and lower income people will accelerate. :ohno:


Yeah keep raising taxes.. Why don't we just institute a tax to pay for everyone's airline tickes to the South :bash:

Looks like the city of Houston will take the #3 spot a lot quicker than we thought. :lol:



http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/3838469-417/census-shows-chicagos-population-fell-by-200418-people.html


On a postive note, at least the metro area grew steadily (outside Crook County). We should be at the 10 million mark when all tri-state counties come out with the population figures.

Hard to say. Houston came in just under 2.1 million.

BTW, here is Texas.
http://www2.census.gov/census_2010/01-Redistricting_File--PL_94-171/Texas/

I'll be surprise if Los Angeles is below 4 million!

In the mean time these states are next :D.
• Alabama
• Colorado
• Hawaii
• Missouri
• Nevada
• Oregon
• Utah
• Washington

^^

I think it will be under 4 million.

Hard to say. Houston came in just under 2.1 million.

Wow that's also a bit of a surprise. So basically up 100,000 since 2000. I thought it would have been over 2.2 million with all the talk of Texas growth...

Agian reaffirming my convictions that we are truly a suburban sprawling nation that if anything has picked up speed.

Suburban Chicago is seeing robust population growth and massive sprawl (especially south and west).

http://i53.tinypic.com/2r7bqz7.png

^^

I think it will be under 4 million.

Wow that's also a bit of a surprise. So basically up 100,000 since 2000. I thought it would have been over 2.2 million with all the talk of Texas growth...

Agian reaffirming my convictions that we are truly a suburban sprawling nation that if anything has picked up speed.

Suburban Chicago is seeing robust population growth and massive sprawl (especially south and west).

http://i53.tinypic.com/2r7bqz7.png

Houston grew by about 145K in the city. The metro area still grew by 1.23 million people though, with DFW at 1.2 million. Austin gained 466K and San Antonio gained 430K last decade. That's still a lot of growth for the four major Texas metro areas.

Anyone know when will ancestry information come out? Or if it already has, anyone know where i can find it?

Anyone know when will ancestry information come out? Or if it already has, anyone know where i can find it?

I think that comes out towards the end of the year. Could be wrong. Hope I am.:lol:

I don't think Houston will surpass Chicago anytime soon. While Houston isn't quite as hemmed in by its suburbs as Dallas, I don't think it will be doing any more wholesale annexation, and what land it does have is already becoming built out. A time will probably come where outward growth will be negated by an aging population which leads to shrinking household sizes. While obviously there will be a big push for urbanization in the core, it won't significantly affect demographic changes the city will face in the future. In other words, Houston is probably near its peak population...

The black exodus isn't limited to Chicago, in general black people are leaving the inner cities for the same reasons why white people did in the past: Cheaper cost of living, better schools, and less crime. Same thing is happening here in Hartford.

If you'd like to set your mind at ease and dream about dandillions and ponies that's the version you believe but it isn't the truth.

Cheaper cost of living: Whites moved out of the inner cities after the first black family moved in with the blessings of the Federal Govt onto FHA approved subsidized homes in the suburbs as they drove along the newly built Interstate Highway System. Because of race based housing codes and/or because of very real threats of being "burned out" if they did blacks were not allowed to follow.

Better Schools: Brown v Board of Education which desegragated the US school system drove even more whites out of the inner cities and onto the suburbs not to mention bussing. Capital was then divested away from the inner city which drastically effected the public school system within the city which created a continued downward spiral.

Less Crime: As blacks moved in and became neighbors to whites before and even moreso following WWII, the stigma and perhaps belief by many whites that the Negro was inclined to crime, rape and any other immoral misdeeds that could be conjured up in the mind motivated many a family who could get approved for a loan to get out of what was becoming (in their minds) a chocolate and therefore dangerous inner city.

So I don't believe that the blacks of today are leaving the city for quite the same reasons as whites of post WWII America did. After decades of disinvestment in the inner city, underfunded schools and a rich pool of black men to put into privatized prisons where they make up astonishingly well over half of all prisoners though blacks accounting for only 12% of the total population, I tend to get the feeling that blacks are just done with the traditional city especially those of the "promised land". There weren't a beavy of bike lanes and sidewalk cafes when they were living there. Interestingly enough exactly a century after the first Great Migration we are now witnessing yet another.

Chicago lost nearly 17% of its black population over the course of the decade. The emptying of certain neighborhoods on the South and West Side represent not just a loss of numerical population, but also the customer base of now shuttered institutions like Edna's, Army & Lou's, and Izola's. As people leave these neighborhoods and their vibrant cultural life, the vacancy left behind only intensifies the scourge of abandoned properties and foreclosures. If the trends from the 2010 census continue, these communities will likely become even more isolated. This stratification doesn't fortell good things for the residents of these neighborhoods, nor for the cost it will take to continue extending services to them without additional tax revenue being generated.

Chicago is a strange animal. The population drop makes for good alarmist headlines, but the numbers distort the true story being told here. Chicago is truly what Aaron Renn has called "two cities in one - a thriving global city core and a larger lumpen-city that more fits the Rust Belt model." Over the course of the past decade, it's been a place that has torn down enormous swaths of densely-packed housing projects faster than it could accommodate its residents. At the same time, it has erected numerous upscale high-rises for recent retirees and young professionals. A city that's seen its income grow, its college attainment level boom, its cultural prominence rise, and a President thrown from its lakeshore.

http://gapersblock.com/mechanics/2011/02/18/stratification-and-silver-linings-chicagos-population-drop/

I don't think Houston will surpass Chicago anytime soon. While Houston isn't quite as hemmed in by its suburbs as Dallas, I don't think it will be doing any more wholesale annexation, and what land it does have is already becoming built out. A time will probably come where outward growth will be negated by an aging population which leads to shrinking household sizes. While obviously there will be a big push for urbanization in the core, it won't significantly affect demographic changes the city will face in the future. In other words, Houston is probably near its peak population...

I don't know about that. There is still a ton of empty land left in the city limits, the core is still getting denser, infill going on in other parts of the city, and you see the typical suburban growth like in the suburbs . And there are plans for more annexation, but mostly for the city to increase its tax base (the dark orange spots): http://www.houstontx.gov/planning/DevelopRegs/mobility/MTFPMap/MTFP_Map10.pdf

I'll be curious to see what Houston's "inner loop" population count was. Discussions have pointed to heavy infill and numbers like 600,000 by now.

I don't know about that. There is still a ton of empty land left in the city limits, the core is still getting denser, infill going on in other parts of the city, and you see the typical suburban growth like in the suburbs . And there are plans for more annexation, but mostly for the city to increase its tax base (the dark orange spots): http://www.houstontx.gov/planning/DevelopRegs/mobility/MTFPMap/MTFP_Map10.pdf

Infill could also eventually revitalize those very neighborhoods in Chicago that are now being emptied..... Annexation is a thing of the past here though...

Houston is already what 600sq miles in size? How much bigger can it get? That's 2/3rds the size of Cook County!:nuts:

Infill could also eventually revitalize those very neighborhoods in Chicago that are now being emptied..... Annexation is a thing of the past here though...

Houston is already what 600sq miles in size? How much bigger can it get? That's 2/3rds the size of Cook County!:nuts:

Yeah, infill could happen in Chicago also (never said it wouldn't happen). I'm just saying Houston has not seen it's peak in population. You guys always look down on annexation like it's a bad thing. The ability to annex a mall or other commercial areas, or new corporate campus is a good thing. It's not like Houston is annexing neighborhoods anymore and has actually released land it could annex to its suburbs these past few years (The Woodlands will be a city in 2014, for example). Click the link that I posted and you'll see what I'm talking about with the annexations. Houston can get both typical suburban growth, infill, and new higrises and things around the core. Then, annex commercial areas (leaving the residential alone to not have to provide a lot of services) to increase its tax base.

Yeah, infill could happen in Chicago also (never said it wouldn't happen). I'm just saying Houston has not seen it's peak in population. You guys always look down on annexation like it's a bad thing. The ability to annex a mall or other commercial areas, or new corporate campus is a good thing.

Well if your annexing commercial areas to Houston that means you are decreasing the corporate tax base of another community right? So what might be a good thing for Houston, is a bad thing for the community losing out.



It's not like Houston is annexing neighborhoods anymore and has actually released land it could annex to its suburbs these past few years (The Woodlands will be a city in 2014, for example).

I can imagine Chicago wanting to release several South or West side communities to it's suburbs too... but then what suburb would be willing to take them? :lol:



Click the link that I posted and you'll see what I'm talking about with the annexations. Houston can get both typical suburban growth, infill, and new higrises and things around the core. Then, annex commercial areas (leaving the residential alone to not have to provide a lot of services) to increase its tax base.

All I'm saying is that for many older cities in the Midwest and East Coast annexation ended 50 years ago, and out State laws make it difficult for it to happen today, and in actuallity I can't even think of one suburb that borders Chicago that would actually want to be annexed by Chicago.

Well if your annexing commercial areas to Houston that means you are decreasing the corporate tax base of another community right? So what might be a good thing for Houston, is a bad thing for the community losing out.

Nope, because those communities aren't cities. They are just large swaths of unincorporated areas, that are run more by HOAs and MUDs than anything else. What Houston does by annexing the commercial areas is prohibiting those cities from incorporating themselves in the future, since they wouldn't have much of a tax base. If Houston leaders let the unincorporated areas form their own cities, Houston would have some pretty big burbs of 200K plus (like the Katy area). You're starting to see the growth reach the suburbs that can annex, like Houston, and they have went from 30K to 90K (in the case of Pearland).

I can imagine Chicago wanting to release several South or West side communities to it's suburbs too... but then what suburb would be willing to take them? :lol:

I think you're misunderstanding me. Houston isn't releasing parts of its city. It's releasing parts of land that it could annex (its ETJ). The Woodlands is like 30 miles from Downtown. Houston could have annexed it if it wanted to and added about 100K people, a Fortune 500 company, and a lot of new tax base. The Woodlands would have probably fought Houston to the end, so instead, The Woodlands' new government will be paying millions to Houston (I believe it was like $14M), just so they won't be annexed and can form their own city.

All I'm saying is that for many older cities in the Midwest and East Coast annexation ended 50 years ago, and out State laws make it difficult for it to happen today, and in actuallity I can't even think of one suburb that borders Chicago that would actually want to be annexed by Chicago.

And I'm not saying if the suburbs would like to be annexed by Chicago, but would Chicago like to annex some of the suburbs (if it could and pretending the suburbs were not cities). You think Chicago leaders (and other cities in the Northeast and Midwest) would like to annex commercial areas off of freeways and major boulevards, while leaving the residential areas behind them alone? I do. Being boxed in by suburbs is old news. The fast growing cities today all have land to expand, if needed.

Nope, because those communities aren't cities. They are just large swaths of unincorporated areas, that are run more by HOAs and MUDs than anything else. What Houston does by annexing the commercial areas is prohibiting those cities from incorporating themselves in the future, since they wouldn't have much of a tax base. If Houston leaders let the unincorporated areas form their own cities, Houston would have some pretty big burbs of 200K plus (like the Katy area). You're starting to see the growth reach the suburbs that can annex, like Houston, and they have went from 30K to 90K (in the case of Pearland).

See there is really no parallel here as there are is very little if any unicorporated land that borders on the Chicago city limits. There is some within Cook County, but not much. The collar counties have lots of unincorporated land.



I think you're misunderstanding me. Houston isn't releasing parts of its city. It's releasing parts of land that it could annex (its ETJ). The Woodlands is like 30 miles from Downtown. Houston could have annexed it if it wanted to and added about 100K people, a Fortune 500 company, and a lot of new tax base. The Woodlands would have probably fought Houston to the end, so instead, The Woodlands' new government will be paying millions to Houston (I believe it was like $14M), just so they won't be annexed and can form their own city.


Only analogy that I can think of with your Woodlands would be Norridge here which is it's own suburb by entirely sorrounded by Chicago (close to O'Hare). of course they want nothing to do with Chicago's dirty political machine.


And I'm not saying if the suburbs would like to be annexed by Chicago, but would Chicago like to annex some of the suburbs (if it could and pretending the suburbs were not cities). You think Chicago leaders (and other cities in the Northeast and Midwest) would like to annex commercial areas off of freeways and major boulevards, while leaving the residential areas behind them alone? I do. Being boxed in by suburbs is old news. The fast growing cities today all have land to expand, if needed.

So you see the central city as some sort of monster that if given the legal opportunity, would be willing to devour suburbs that box it in for it's own gain? Sounds very imperialistic:lol: But seriously, centralizing power and gov. in a region might have it's benifits, but at the same time will also have it's drawbacks.

Personally I'm against it..... I believe in more local control. Luckily here there are state laws (self determination) that prohibit such tactics to deligitimze corporated towns simply because they are smaller in size.... or at least make it nearly impossible. I mean at what point does a city stop becoming a city? 1000 sq miles? :nuts:
http://www.lib.niu.edu/1979/ii790126.html

i read earlier this week that memphis and atlanta had become the out migration areas for chicago.

i read earlier this week that memphis and atlanta had become the out migration areas for chicago.

That's what I heard too. Especially for African Americans.

I don't think Houston will surpass Chicago anytime soon. While Houston isn't quite as hemmed in by its suburbs as Dallas, I don't think it will be doing any more wholesale annexation, and what land it does have is already becoming built out. A time will probably come where outward growth will be negated by an aging population which leads to shrinking household sizes. While obviously there will be a big push for urbanization in the core, it won't significantly affect demographic changes the city will face in the future. In other words, Houston is probably near its peak population...

At 2.1 million Houston came in much lower than many estimates so it won't be overtaking Chicago anytime soon. That said, there's plenty of room to grow within the city of Houston and remember that Houston has few if any zoning restrictions which means that NIMBYs have very little impact on what gets built in Houston. The only thing that has prevented Houston from seeing really dense, tall residential development is the region's low housing prices that make high rise condos and apartments less competitive than the traditional house on a cul de sac. If that ever changes, there's nothing standing in the way of a swarm of high rise construction in Houston's desirable neighborhoods.

At 2.1 million Houston came in much lower than many estimates so it won't be overtaking Chicago anytime soon. That said, there's plenty of room to grow within the city of Houston and remember that Houston has few if any zoning restrictions which means that NIMBYs have very little impact on what gets built in Houston. The only thing that has prevented Houston from seeing really dense, tall residential development is the region's low housing prices that make high rise condos and apartments less competitive than the traditional house on a cul de sac. If that ever changes, there's nothing standing in the way of a swarm of high rise construction in Houston's desirable neighborhoods.

That's not entirely accurate since most of the most coveted areas closer in into the inner loop have started to densify through condos and townhomes. The only "cheap" areas are those places that have a long commute to the major employment centers (ie Downtown, Medical Center, Galleria area, etc).

That's not entirely accurate since most of the most coveted areas closer in into the inner loop have started to densify through condos and townhomes. The only "cheap" areas are those places that have a long commute to the major employment centers (ie Downtown, Medical Center, Galleria area, etc).

Yeah, 610 is like the physical boundary between the more expensive and cheaper areas of Houston.

chicagogeorge, did you remember all of the article about why blacks were moving? i remember that part of it was because they had so many black middle and upper middle class, and they were seeking safety, better schools, and one other opportunity that i can't remember----oh, just came to me, corruption and upwardly spiraling taxes. i don't know as much about atlanta, but memphis has become a top 10 city for new business starts and entrepreneurialship, especially for hispanics, blacks, and asians. in migration of hispanics is projected to be approximately 87,000, and about half of the 200,000+ which has left chicagoland in the last 10 years. i was born and reared in the ravenswood district, and i have family who remains in the city. i miss the weather.

chicagogeorge, did you remember all of the article about why blacks were moving? i remember that part of it was because they had so many black middle and upper middle class, and they were seeking safety, better schools, and one other opportunity that i can't remember----oh, just came to me, corruption and upwardly spiraling taxes. i don't know as much about atlanta, but memphis has become a top 10 city for new business starts and entrepreneurialship, especially for hispanics, blacks, and asians. in migration of hispanics is projected to be approximately 87,000, and about half of the 200,000+ which has left chicagoland in the last 10 years. i was born and reared in the ravenswood district, and i have family who remains in the city. i miss the weather.

I am in full agreement with the reasons you listed. If current trends continue, African American communities in the city of Chicago will have nothing left but the people too poor to move. Horrible that we let it go this way.:ohno:

chicagogeorge, not that i am a big fan of RE, i think that he will apparently be elected. i know a little bit about chicago politics, and i am confident that the city will be set up for probably the next 8 to 10 years, regardless of obama's success in the political arena. chicago has so much going for it, and i think there will be definite help in the south, southwest sections of the city. too, i think chicago will easily receive much of the green energy technology sector, major grants for research for fed gov projects, and other high tech sectors. i just don't see obama not producing heavy paybacks for his home town and his really hurting state. that state has a great deal of power, and their politicians, by and large, have long reaches, so i look for better days. by the way, i was really disappointed to read about the spire outcome. that would have been a beautiful building.

chicagogeorge, not that i am a big fan of RE, i think that he will apparently be elected. i know a little bit about chicago politics, and i am confident that the city will be set up for probably the next 8 to 10 years, regardless of obama's success in the political arena. chicago has so much going for it, and i think there will be definite help in the south, southwest sections of the city. too, i think chicago will easily receive much of the green energy technology sector, major grants for research for fed gov projects, and other high tech sectors. i just don't see obama not producing heavy paybacks for his home town and his really hurting state. that state has a great deal of power, and their politicians, by and large, have long reaches, so i look for better days. by the way, i was really disappointed to read about the spire outcome. that would have been a beautiful building.

Emmanuel won, no big surprise, but I can't imagine huge changes. In fact I see more of the same political machine politics that has plagued Chicago for 100 years.... :sleepy:

Chicago has a lot going for it. Obama is a proud Chicagoan, but I don't think that alone with funding for green sector jobs will a a damn thing for middle/working class in the city. For one, that sector is insignificantly small. To keep middle/working class here we need industry, but that industry has moved to cheaper more affordable suburbs, which is where the the people are going. The reasons why Chicago lost nearly 200,000 (or 17%) of it's African American population is quite simple. High crime in the South and West sides, no jobs in those communities, and very poor performing schools. We also saw an almost complete stop in the growth of Chicago's Hispanic population, as much of their growth is now in the suburbs (actually exploding growth). Chicago's average median income is steadily rising. That's all that matters to the politicians. Not really the overall population. It's not how many people live in the city, it's how high their tax bracket is.

I now expect by the 2020 census to see Hispanic numbers also to fall in the city for the very same reason African American numbers fell this census. The white population decline has almost stopped and will reverse as Chicago gentrifies, but their future growth wont be enough to off set further Black population losses and future Hispanic declines (only reason why they grew slightly in this census is a result of higher birth rates). I forecast a 2020 population of 2.5 million if things don't miraculously change. They direction the city is going is simple. A vibrant lakeshore and downtown area, and a steadily gentryfing adjacent areas, a continued gutting of the inner city West and South sides (primarily in the Black sections), and a replacement of White (Irish/Polish) with Hispanics in the Bungelow Belt Southwest and also part of the Northwest sides.



Last to leave Chicago, turn out the lights

Neil steinberg nsteinberg@suntimes.com Feb 20, 2011 02:11AM
ShareE-MailPrintNow I feel bad.

Had I known, when I left the city in 2000 to move my family to the leafy suburban paradise of Northbrook, that 200,000 of my fellow Chicagoans would follow clumping after us, fleeing en masse to the surrounding region, according to the United States Census, well, I might have given it a second thought.

OK, that’s not true. It wasn’t my fault. People left Chicago over the past decade for a variety of reasons — some were public housing residents who had their homes demolished out from under them. Some lost their jobs in the Great Recession and had to seek work elsewhere. And yes some — 20,000? 40,000? the number is unknowable — were middle class wage slaves like myself (OK, lower upper middle class wage slaves, to borrow George Orwell’s term) who couldn’t bring themselves to fling their darling children into the stormy chop of the Chicago public school system and couldn’t make the nut at a private school that might not deign to accept them anyway, whatever the price.
And yes, there are good Chicago public schools, and yes, it is possible to get one’s children into them, or so I’m told. But the question was: Is this a risk you’re willing to take?

We weren’t.

Sure, there were other factors. Our boys rode their Big Wheels around and around the dining room table, because it was too much of a hassle for them to find an adult to escort them down the flight of stairs, out the three, count ’em, three locked doors, to finally the busy street and tiny, dog-piss murdered patch of blasted grass, with its anemic locust tree, that served as their playground. A backyard was a plus, or would have been, had they ever put their video games down. But it was there.

This is not to criticize the city — Geez, hold your fire. People seem to have this bellyful of vindictiveness, boiling in their guts, and are scanning the horizon, desperate to find somebody, anybody, for them to spew it onto. Look! A guy who fled to the suburbs! The treachery of betrayal! He’s dissing our city! Get him!

Chicago’s population loss is ominous — first, because a city needs people. Detroit had a population of 2 million in 1950; it has 800,000; just 40 percent of that, now, and it’ll be interesting to see whether our elephant step in Detroit’s direction over the past 10 years will tarnish Mayor Daley’s legacy, the central leg of which is that we didn’t become Detroit under his watch. It isn’t the same if you tack “yet” at the end, “We didn’t become Detroit yet.”

Yes “we.” Because the concerns of Chicago are the concerns of Northern Illinois, which rises or falls with it, and while the bowl haircuts Downstate would like to cut off the city, out of prejudice and parochialism, and the city would like to disown suburbanites like me, out of pure spite, the truth is we are all bound together, sink or swim.

Frankly, I’m not expecting a lot of attention to the population loss story. Like global warming, it’s just too grim for many people to accept or think about. Population loss is connected to every urban problem. How to get those people back? Well, fix the schools, cut crime, create jobs, lower taxes. That’s a start.

My guess is that, when Mayor Daley does his victory lap this spring, basking in the glow of being — everybody, all together now: “the best mayor in the best city in the whole world!” — the incredible shrinking population will be barely a footnote, the throat clearing in between listing his various glories and accomplishments (which were? Oh right, sparing us the fate of Detroit, so far).

Heck, maybe this can be spun as new, edgy thinking. The old concept — that a city is only as strong as its residents — that’s so 20th century. Maybe Chicago can be recast as a brand, an icon on your iPhone. Maybe the city can collect royalties and clicks. If Chicago can have 3 million friends on its Facebook page, maybe it won’t matter how many people actually live here. Nobody really lives in Farmville, do they? Chicago can assume a disembodied online identity: “Click Chicago.” We could be pioneers in this regard. It sounds like something Mayor Daley would hear about on one of his visits to France and get behind.

Daley hasn’t yet said what he’s doing after he retires, has he? Besides giving expensive speeches. He’ll still live in Chicago, right? That’ll be something, to bump into him in line for bagels at the Eleven City Diner.

Maybe we’ll rub elbows. Because as useful as the suburbs have been — really, very nice people, if you can find them — the boys are teenagers, soon college-bound. Then, having done my duty, I plan to move back to the city. (“What about me?” my wife asks. “You’re invited,” I say). That’s where all the fun is.

http://www.suntimes.com/news/steinberg/3889836-417/last-to-leave-chicago-turn-out-the-lights.html

i think chicago will easily receive much of the green energy technology sector, major grants for research for fed gov projects, and other high tech sectors. i just don't see obama not producing heavy paybacks for his home town and his really hurting state.
I was so hopeful for Obama to give back to Chicago while in office. He's really been a no-show in this regard (and many other regards). Except for the doomed-from-the-start Olympic bid, Obama hasn't done a single thing for Chicago.

Emmanuel won, no big surprise, but I can't imagine huge changes. In fact I see more of the same political machine politics that has plagued Chicago for 100 years....
I didn't vote for him, but I'm not unhappy that he won. I'd much rather take him than batshit crazy CMB or some of the other no-names. Yes, more likely more of the same from RE...the fact that he doesn't have concrete plans for anything shows that he's more in love with the title of Mayor than actually doing good for the city. I just hope the city regains its moniker as "the city that works"...as sketchy as the machine is, I always liked how things 'just got done'.

I'd say Obama's help in getting high speed rail dollars spent is one thing that is helping Chicago. The St. Louis - Chicago HSR connection should be done in a year or two -- and improvements to the HSR corridor to Detroit are also happening. If Wisconsin wouldn't have given their money to Florida and California (and some to Illinois) -- the route to the Twin Cities would have been well on its way as well. Becoming the primary hub of the Midwest high speed rail network will help Chicago continue to grow in the future. (The CREATE rail project is also moving along for Chicago as well - helping to get rid of or at least improve some of the freight rail bottlenecks in Chicago. Hundreds of millions are currently going into that project -- and eventually a few billion will be spent.)

Which States Have Shipped:
• Census Bureau Ships Local 2010 Census Data to Colorado
• Census Bureau Ships Local 2010 Census Data to Hawaii
• Census Bureau Ships Local 2010 Census Data to Oregon
• Census Bureau Ships Local 2010 Census Data to Washington

In just 40 mins those states will be out.

Major Cities Population Totals-
Aurora, CO-325,078
Colorado Springs, CO-416,427
Denver, CO-600,185
Fort Collins, CO-143,986
Portland, OR-583,776
Pueblo, CO-106,595
Seattle, WA-608,660
Spokane, WA-208,916
Tacoma, WA-198,397
Vancouver, WA-161,791

Portland is only 25k from Seattle. Could Portland pass Seattle within the next 20 years?

Major Cities Population Totals-
Aurora, CO-325,078
Colorado Springs, CO-416,427
Denver, CO-600,185
Fort Collins, CO-143,986
Portland, OR-583,776
Pueblo, CO-106,595
Seattle, WA-608,660
Tacoma, WA-198,397
Vancouver, WA-161,791

Portland is only 25k from Seattle. Could Portland pass Seattle within the next 20 years?
You know that is really interesting because to me Seattle looks much bigger...

Seattle is 83.9 square miles vs. something like 130(?) for Portland (functionally more like 110(?) minus the wetlands and Forest Park, and 150(?) for Denver, which in fairness should be 102(?) or whatever minus the airport. Sorry, those are vague recollections.

Portland grew 54,655 vs. Denver's 45,522 and Seattle's 45,286. Portland and especially Denver gained in significant part by developing greenfields and brownfields. Both had infill/densification of existing neighborhoods as well. Seattle had no "clean slate" districts like Stapleton, Lowry, and the Central Platte Valley in Denver, or the Pearl and South Waterfront in Portland. Our malls and hospitals don't close, a la Denver, meaning no campuses to reuse. We just added infill a building at a time, primarily in/near Downtown and neighborhood business districts.

All of us have a long way to grow. The Pearl is well along, but the other four districts, to my understanding, are still early or midway through their buildouts. All are excellent candidates for more infill of the traditional sort. We're all bungalow cities that are growing denser neighborhoods to varying degrees. We're all transitioning to be more multifamily than single-family, a line that Seattle crossed a few years ago in terms of unit count, with houses still dominating land use.

Seattle won't be a high-growth region again, because land is fairly expensive. But we have an economic base that can support growth amidst high prices. Portland has expensive land too, with better growth management than Seattle's, but without a similar economic base, and with substantially lesser average incomes. That's a recipe for Portland to stagnate populationwise, as it's been doing for a couple(?) years, while Seattle continues to grow.

PS, Spokane belongs on your list at 208,916.

You know that is really interesting because to me Seattle looks much bigger...

What does municipal population have to do with how big a city really is? (Not much)

You know that is really interesting because to me Seattle looks much bigger...

Seattle is MUCH bigger than Portland...dont let the city population's fool you...

jumping back to chicago. of course it has always been a political machine city. it, unless the world stops, will remain that way. it will remain basically democratic in rhetoric; however, for the inner city, the lake shore, those communities, and, perhaps some gentrifcation of the south/sw areas by wealthy developers will make a similar outcome for chircago as exists in manhatten. basically, manhatten is liveable more and more only for the upper class and extremely wealthy. i look for that to continue, especially as the world trade center complex comes back together.

w/ regard to re, there is no doubt that he, along w/ obama, are narcissist to the bone, and chicago probably has him for about 30 or so years, unless you all have term limits. w/ regard to the railroad situation, memphis and chicago are a bit head to head w/ the reail yard situation. memphis currently has 5 out of 6 of the major rail systems. i forgot how many hundred millions was poured into the downtown rail yard in memphis proper, and presently, a 200+ million dollar intermodal system is currently being built in an area outside of the city proper. the former mayor of chicago stated sometime back in the late summer or early fall that chicago wanted to get in on some of the memphis action. i'll look for the article and post the address.

as for the middle class, i'm afraid that we, as usual, are being played by both sides, and the middle class will be livid when next year rolls around, and the payroll taxes are really realized. currently, i am waiting on a check, which i was mandated to remove from an investment, and i could not avoid paying a forced $1,300 penalty, and in addition to that, i had to pay a 10% fee for processing. i was so mad about the notification, that i actually had to up my dosages of hypertension medicine. a true government "gottacha" moment. i really hate to see the true middle class having to struggle so much. i'm better off than many, but i can't imagine having two or three children and a wife depending on me, on the salary that i make.

Guys, I calculated the metro population of some areas, as the census has released figures of only few states:

------------- Census 2010 --- Census 2000 --- Growth %

Dallas, TX (CSA) --- 6,731,317 --- 5,487,956 --- 22.66%

Houston, TX (CSA) --- 6,051,363 --- 4,815,122 --- 25.67%

Seattle, WA (CSA) --- 4,199,312 --- 3,707,144 --- 13.28%

Denver, CO (CSA) --- 3,090,874 --- 2,629,980 --- 17.52%

Baltimore, MD (MSA) --- 2,710,489 --- 2,552,994 --- 6.17%

Portland, OR-WA (MSA) --- 2,226,009 --- 1,927,881 --- 15.46%

San Antonio, TX (MSA) --- 2,142,508 --- 1,711,703 --- 25.17%

Indianapolis, IN (CSA) --- 2,080,782 --- 1,843,588 --- 12.87%

Austin, TX (CSA) --- 1,759,039 --- 1,283,910 --- 37.01%

Oklahoma City, OK (CSA) --- 1,322,429 --- 1,160,942 --- 13.91%

New Orleans, LA (CSA) --- 1,214,932 --- 1,360,436 --- -10.70%

Tulsa, OK (CSA) --- 988,454 --- 908,528 --- 8.80%

^^
Surprisingly, contradicting the estimates, Houston has grown faster than Dallas.

Surprisingly, contradicting the estimates, Houston has grown faster than Dallas.

That's cherry picking. On the grand scheme of things Texas metros grew really fast. Houston would need the same percentage growth (or Dallas simply stops growing)for decades for them to switch. The raw population numbers are relatively the same spread as they were in 2000 between the two. Austin growth is just amazing.

As for the Seattle and Portland, It's like comparing Charlotte (Portland) to Atlanta (Seattle). Seattle is bigger, and feels better, hence the skylines reflects it metro wise.

Guys, I calculated the metro population of some areas, as the census has released figures of only few states:

------------- Census 2010 --- Census 2000 --- Growth %

Dallas, TX (CSA) --- 6,731,317 --- 5,487,956 --- 22.66%

Houston, TX (CSA) --- 6,051,363 --- 4,815,122 --- 25.67%

Seattle, WA (CSA) --- 4,199,312 --- 3,707,144 --- 13.28%

Denver, CO (CSA) --- 3,090,874 --- 2,629,980 --- 17.52%

Baltimore, MD (MSA) --- 2,710,489 --- 2,552,994 --- 6.17%

Portland, OR-WA (MSA) --- 2,226,009 --- 1,927,881 --- 15.46%

San Antonio, TX (MSA) --- 2,142,508 --- 1,711,703 --- 25.17%

Indianapolis, IN (CSA) --- 2,080,782 --- 1,843,588 --- 12.87%

Austin, TX (CSA) --- 1,759,039 --- 1,283,910 --- 37.01%

Oklahoma City, OK (CSA) --- 1,322,429 --- 1,160,942 --- 13.91%

New Orleans, LA (CSA) --- 1,214,932 --- 1,360,436 --- -10.70%

Tulsa, OK (CSA) --- 988,454 --- 908,528 --- 8.80%

^^
Surprisingly, contradicting the estimates, Houston has grown faster than Dallas.

Wow, thanks for the data!

Major Cities Population Totals-
Birmingham, AL-212,237
Honolulu, HI-337,256 (for some reason it's now called "Urban Honolulu" and appears to have lost Census Designated Land)
Huntsville, AL-180,105
Kansas City, MO-459,787
Las Vegas, NV-583,756
Mobile, AL-195,111
Montgomery, AL-205,764
Reno, NV-225,221
Salt Lake City, UT-186,440
St. Louis, MO-319,284 :O

Big Suburbs-
Henderson, NV-257,729
North Las Vegas, NV-216,961
Paradise, NV-223,167

^^
INTERESTING NOTES-
St. Louis now has less people than it had 140 years ago.
Enterprise, NV (if you've heard of it) cracked 100k (it was 14k in 2000).
Honolulu's MSA grew significantly faster than the estimates (953k actual v. 909k estimated)
Nevada's Native Hawaiian population doubled in the last ten years (as did the Asian pop. to 7.2%)

QUESTIONS-
1) What will be Alabama's biggest city in 2020? (It's a tossup now)
2) Why was Saint Louis so low?
3) Is there a reason why Salt Lake City never grows?

Wow North Las Vegas grew 97%

but i can't imagine having two or three children and a wife depending on me, on the salary that i make.

Just wait until inflation becomes a problem.

1) What will be Alabama's biggest city in 2020? (It's a tossup now)

^you can say that again. How the f did Birmingham drop so low? it lost over 30,000 residents. Montgomery only needs 7k to be #1 (:lol:). At least the counties have a better balance of rankings.

2) Why was Saint Louis so low?
I could take a few guesses, but it wouldn't be very nice.

Updating:

------------- Census 2010 --- Census 2000 --- Growth %

Dallas, TX (CSA) --- 6,731,317 --- 5,487,956 --- 22.66%

Houston, TX (CSA) --- 6,051,363 --- 4,815,122 --- 25.67%

Seattle, WA (CSA) --- 4,199,312 --- 3,707,144 --- 13.28%

Denver, CO (CSA) --- 3,090,874 --- 2,629,980 --- 17.52%

St. Louis, MO-IL (CSA) --- 2,878,255 --- 2,754,328 --- 4.50%

Baltimore, MD (MSA) --- 2,710,489 --- 2,552,994 --- 6.17%

Portland, OR-WA (MSA) --- 2,226,009 --- 1,927,881 --- 15.46%

San Antonio, TX (MSA) --- 2,142,508 --- 1,711,703 --- 25.17%

Indianapolis, IN (CSA) --- 2,080,782 --- 1,843,588 --- 12.87%

Las Vegas, NV (CSA) --- 1,995,215 --- 1,408,250 --- 41.68%

Austin, TX (CSA) --- 1,759,039 --- 1,283,910 --- 37.01%

Salt Lake City, UT (CSA) --- 1,744,886 --- 1,469,474 --- 18.74%

Oklahoma City, OK (CSA) --- 1,322,429 --- 1,160,942 --- 13.91%

Richmond, VA (MSA) --- 1,258,251 --- 1,096,957 --- 14.70%

New Orleans, LA (CSA) --- 1,214,932 --- 1,360,436 --- -10.70%

Birmingham, AL (CSA) --- 1,208,453 --- 1,129,721 --- 6.97%

Tulsa, OK (CSA) --- 988,454 --- 908,528 --- 8.80%

Honolulu, HI (MSA) --- 953,207 --- 876,156 --- 8.79%

Little Rock, AK (CSA) --- 877,091 --- 785,024 --- 11.73%

Baton Rouge, LA (CSA) --- 825,905 --- 729,361 --- 13.24%

Springfield, MO MSA --- 436,713(2010) --- 325,721(2000) +111,992(34.4%) <---maybe this is where people from STL are moving to? lol

Is there a reason why Salt Lake City never grows?

Salt Lake City proper is already built out which is why growth has been stagnant in the city. Most of the growth there has taken place in the suburbs to the north and south.

I wonder when Texas will have a larger population than California. Surely within 30 or 40 years right?

In 2000, California had 34 million. In 2000 Texas had 21 million.... Now it has 25 million. It will be interesting to see where California stands in 2010.

Sometimes, the more you grow, the more barriers there are to future growth.

I wonder when Texas will have a larger population than California. Surely within 30 or 40 years right?

In 2000, California had 34 million. In 2000 Texas had 21 million.... Now it has 25 million. It will be interesting to see where California stands in 2010.
texas only gained 900,000 people on california in the last 10 years. i doubt it will happen in the time frame you're talking about, if ever.