NEW YORK | 2020 Census data | 8,804,190 - Page 3

jaxg8r1 · #41 Posted **Mar 25, 2011, 2:39 PM**

Makes me wonder if the challenges NYC won this past decade were in fact incorrect. Take away those challenges (235k), and the numbers are pretty close...

Just a thought.

yankeesfan1000 · #42 Posted **Mar 25, 2011, 2:53 PM**

Not to beat a dead horse, but here's another article about the undercount. It says that the city successfully appealed the Census' 1990 numbers, also says the city hasn't decided if it will or not but anyone have any hunches on that?

If I had to guess the city's population, I would say it's at least 8.4, maybe north of 8.5.

http://gothamist.com/2011/03/24/cens...n_barely_b.php

The 2010 Census numbers were released today and already they are causing consternation in City Hall. According to the Census the city only grew by 166,855 people (or 2.1 percent) since 2000 to a total of 8,175,133 and our mayor is not amused. He and the city think the numbers are off by as much as a quarter million.

"We don't quite understand the numbers," Mayor Bloomberg said at City Hall this morning. "For example, the Census Bureau determined the population of Queens increased by only 1,300 people...Think about that—1,300 people over 10 years. I’m not criticizing them, but it doesn’t make any sense."
And Bloomie wasn't the only pol pissed. "I’m flabbergasted, I know they made a big, big mistake," Brooklyn Beep Marty Markowitz announced today. And in a press release Manhattan Beep Scott Stringer called the numbers "preposterous," and adding that "the impact of this undercounting has severe ramifications for the city, when it comes to redistricting and the distribution of crucial social services to those most in need." According to the Census, Brooklyn only grew by 1.6 percent (to 2,504,700 people) in the past decade while Manhattan reportedly grew by 3.2 (to 1,585,873 people).

What is suspicious about the new numbers, according to Joseph Salvo of the City Planning Department, is that they say the city's population only rose by about 166,000 since 2000 while at the same time the number of homes and apartments in town grew by 170,000. For what it is worth, the city successfully appealed the Census's 1990 numbers for the city and five years ago city demographers persuaded the Census Bureau to up its 2005 estimate to 8.2 million. The city has not decided if it will appeal again.

Other interesting stats include the fact there are now more than one million Asians in the city, with that ethnic group making up 12.6 percent of the population. The Hispanic population also grew, by 8 percent, to make up 28.6 percent of the city's mix. Meanwhile the population of non-Hispanic blacks declined by 5 percent to 22.8 percent of the population and the population of non-Hispanic whites dropped 2.8 percent to 33.3 percent of the population.

Fortunate4Now · #43 Posted **Mar 25, 2011, 4:14 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evergrey

Do we have metro populations for Buffalo, Rochester, Albany, Syracuse, Binghamton, Utica, Elmira, Ithaca?

These were the 20 most populous counties in New York as of April 2010:

Kings County: 2,504,700
Queens County: 2,230,722
New York County: 1,585,873
Suffolk County: 1,493,350
Bronx County: 1,385,108
Nassau County: 1,339,532
Westchester County: 949,113
Erie County: 919,040
Monroe County: 744,344
Richmond County: 468,730
Onondaga County: 467,026
Orange County: 372,813
Rockland County: 311,687
Albany County: 304,204
Dutchess County: 297,488
Oneida County: 234,878
Saratoga County: 219,607
Niagara County: 216,469
Broome County: 200,600
Ulster County: 182,493

And these were the state's 20 largest incorporated places (a category that includes cities and villages, but not towns) as of April 2010:

New York city: 8,175,133
Buffalo city: 261,310
Rochester city: 210,565
Yonkers city: 195,976
Syracuse city: 145,170
Albany city: 97,856
New Rochelle city: 77,062
Mount Vernon city: 67,292
Schenectady city: 66,135
Utica city: 62,235
White Plains city: 56,853
Hempstead village: 53,891
Niagara Falls city: 50,193
Troy city: 50,129
Binghamton city: 47,376
Freeport village: 42,860
Valley Stream village: 37,511
Rome city: 33,725
Long Beach city: 33,275
Poughkeepsie city: 32,736

per: http://www.bizjournals.com/buffalo/n...opulation.html

Thundertubs · #44 Posted **Mar 25, 2011, 4:37 PM**

This applies to all cities, but how can anyone "guess" or "feel" what the population is for a massive city like New York? It's like guessing how many items are in a supermarket. Would you notice if they reduced a section you never shop in? We take note of new buildings going up and neighborhoods that get hot, but does anyone notice when people leave?

My Chicago neighborhood lost 11% of it's population last decade, but doesn't feel any different, except maybe a little whiter, but I might be noticing that because I've seen the numbers.

Fortunate4Now · #45 Posted **Mar 25, 2011, 4:37 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by MOTOR

Are there any signs that the hollowing out of Buffalo will continue to the point that Rochester becomes the number 2 city in the state? That interests me.

(my opinion) no chance. Buffalo and Rochester are experiencing the same thing - further suburban sprawl and an exodus to the sunbelt. I just don’t see buffalo falling that much further; in fact most are predicting a fall to about 250k before a very slow reversal. It's too bad Buffalo at only 41 sq mi (land) couldn't annex a few suburbs. For comparison Rochester, also compact at 36 sq mi (land).

Crawford · #46 Posted **Mar 25, 2011, 4:37 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by MOTOR

Are there any signs that the hollowing out of Buffalo will continue to the point that Rochester becomes the number 2 city in the state? That interests me.

I would imagine Yonkers would eventually be the second largest city. Yonkers grew in most decennial Censuses.

In this one, it was basically stagnant, but it's still doing better than Buffalo or Rochester.

Crawford · #47 Posted **Mar 25, 2011, 4:43 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thundertubs

This applies to all cities, but how can anyone "guess" or "feel" what the population is for a massive city like New York? It's like guessing how many items are in a supermarket.

You make a good point, and I assume none of us are demographers.

But there are some population counts that really strain credulity.

For example, would you say that the biggest housing vacancies in NYC are in the immigrant enclaves of Western Queens? Does that make sense?

The Census claims that Jackson Heights, Elmhurst, Corona and Flushing (basically the most heavily immigrant neighborhoods in NYC, and perhaps the U.S.) have a massive, massive glut of empty apartments. Do you find this believable?

I don't believe that landlords are warehousing massive amounts of vacant apartments in these teeming neighborhoods. If there was a slight population drop in these areas due to gentrification, smaller family sizes, less immigration, etc., then I would buy it. But I don't buy massive vacancies everywhere and huge population drops in places like Flushing. That's just crazy.

Evergrey · #48 Posted **Mar 25, 2011, 5:48 PM**

amazing that Utica city gained population... it appears the population pressure of the East Coast is reaching further inland... extending westward to long time rust belt losers like Utica, Binghamton, Scranton/Wilkes-Barre, etc.

sofresh808 · #49 Posted **Mar 25, 2011, 5:59 PM**

Here's a graphic from an article on NYC's Census results from the Times.

Article : http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/25/ny...s.html?_r=1&hp

Crawford · #50 Posted **Mar 25, 2011, 5:59 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evergrey

amazing that Utica city gained population... .

There are really two Upstate New Yorks.

The eastern half is tied into the Northeast Corridor overflow, and benefits from proximity to NYC. This half is growing, and is quite prosperous, with very low unemployment.

Places like Albany are doing quite well, and all the rural areas within 2.5-3 hours of Manhattan have the weekend second home market. I know so many folks in NYC who have bought cheap weekend homes and even farms upstate in the last 5 years, in places like Delaware County. (areas like Delhi, Oneonta, etc.)

The western half of Upstate NY has the more familiar problems of the Eastern Rustbelt. Culturally and economically, it's more tied into the Detroit-Cleveland-Pittsburgh region. Basically everything west of Syracuse and Ithaca/Finger Lakes looks and feels more like this Lake Erie region.

VivaLFuego · #51 Posted **Mar 25, 2011, 6:18 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thundertubs

This applies to all cities, but how can anyone "guess" or "feel" what the population is for a massive city like New York? It's like guessing how many items are in a supermarket. Would you notice if they reduced a section you never shop in? We take note of new buildings going up and neighborhoods that get hot, but does anyone notice when people leave?

My Chicago neighborhood lost 11% of it's population last decade, but doesn't feel any different, except maybe a little whiter, but I might be noticing that because I've seen the numbers.

For that matter, you won't notice from the streets when people are having, on average, fewer babies than they used to. In Chicago, the adult population has only declined a little bit since 1990, but the population of children has plumetted. Our perception of streetside vibrancy and such is of course driven by adults.

Crawford · #52 Posted **Mar 25, 2011, 6:23 PM**

Speaking of family sizes, I notice that the Census maps show that some Hasidic neighborhoods in Brooklyn and Queens supposedly have fewer housing units and people.

I have to say, that is very odd data. Perhaps even odder than the Western Queens data. The Hasidic neighborhoods are generally bulging at the seams, have huge family sizes, and are expanding to "take over" adjacent neighborhood.

Maybe the Census visited these neighborhoods during the Sabbath or something? I mean, WTF?

sofresh808 · #53 Posted **Mar 25, 2011, 7:13 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crawford

Speaking of family sizes, I notice that the Census maps show that some Hasidic neighborhoods in Brooklyn and Queens supposedly have fewer housing units and people.

I have to say, that is very odd data. Perhaps even odder than the Western Queens data. The Hasidic neighborhoods are generally bulging at the seams, have huge family sizes, and are expanding to "take over" adjacent neighborhood.

Maybe the Census visited these neighborhoods during the Sabbath or something? I mean, WTF?

Just an extremely difficult demographic to get to, they have a real reluctance to participate. Also many apartments in the area were combined into larger single units, leading to a lot of duplicate addresses, which in turn led to fewer housing units or places being considered unoccupied. I wouldn't know how they controlled for this.

yankeesfan1000 · #54 Posted **Mar 25, 2011, 7:33 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thundertubs

This applies to all cities, but how can anyone "guess" or "feel" what the population is for a massive city like New York? It's like guessing how many items are in a supermarket. Would you notice if they reduced a section you never shop in? We take note of new buildings going up and neighborhoods that get hot, but does anyone notice when people leave?

My Chicago neighborhood lost 11% of it's population last decade, but doesn't feel any different, except maybe a little whiter, but I might be noticing that because I've seen the numbers.

The main reason is that in 2008 the population was 8,346,794, in 2009 it was 8,391,881, according to New York City Department of Planning who I trust more on this type of subject, there's no reason to think that it wasn't at the very least equal to what it was in 2009, and further there is no reason at all to think that the city didn't experience the same type of annual growth. Neighborhoods don't empty in New York, one group moves out another moves in.

DBR96A · #55 Posted **Mar 25, 2011, 7:35 PM**

If you live in "sanctuary" city, then you can shut up about being undercounted, because a sizable slice of population in your city doesn't want to be counted.

jaxg8r1 · #56 Posted **Mar 25, 2011, 7:54 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankeesfan1000

The main reason is that in 2008 the population was 8,346,794, in 2009 it was 8,391,881, according to New York City Department of Planning who I trust more on this type of subject, there's no reason to think that it wasn't at the very least equal to what it was in 2009, and further there is no reason at all to think that the city didn't experience the same type of annual growth. Neighborhoods don't empty in New York, one group moves out another moves in.

Actually those are estimates. And I would imagine that local authorities not only have less resources to estimate correctly, but have many more reasons to fudge those estimates a bit.

SD_Phil · #57 Posted **Mar 25, 2011, 8:26 PM**

^By the same token the state of CA estimated Los Angeles' population to be over 4 million in 2009 and it too is 300k or so off the census' estimates.

If it was one city or two cities it might be a fluke or flub on the part of the census but this is a consistent trend and not necessarily a bad one. Maybe it's not a bad thing for population growth to slow, to allow city infrastructure to catch up with and anticipate future demand, before big growth spurts happen again.

In LA's case this would not be a bad thing, I think similar things might be said for NYC.

jaxg8r1 · #58 Posted **Mar 25, 2011, 8:41 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by SD_Phil

^By the same token the state of CA estimated Los Angeles' population to be over 4 million in 2009 and it too is 300k or so off the census' estimates.

If it was one city or two cities it might be a fluke or flub on the part of the census but this is a consistent trend and not necessarily a bad one. Maybe it's not a bad thing for population growth to slow, to allow city infrastructure to catch up with and anticipate future demand, before big growth spurts happen again.

In LA's case this would not be a bad thing, I think similar things might be said for NYC.

Thats kind of where Im at, either almost all reported cities are undercounted, or cities just aren't as large as we all thought. Maybe we were all led to believe this by the massive building boom, but I tend to think of us (demographically speaking) as a little behind Europe. It seems as though European cities have been stable for some time now, even though many seem more vibrant and alive.

I suspect that it has to do with fewer children, more wealth, etc. Middle income singles are now taking the same space that immigrant families with several children took. (Which is exactly what I did myself, I own a 3 bd house in the city of Portland and live by myself. I replaced a family with 2 kids/2 parents).

**Edit** Total NYC Public School Enrollment in 2000-2001 school year: 1,098,832 Source:
http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/pdf/pub/schlbronx.pdf
2006 999150 Source http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2009/2009020.pdf

PremierAtlanta · #59 Posted **Mar 25, 2011, 9:39 PM**

I am curious about the numbers as well. Someone asked "how can you feel a population change"? In my neighborhood as a whole I [feel] that it has grown. In my immediate area however I did see many multifamily dwellings return to their original one family dwelling status. Having said that, I think Mayor Bloomberg should challenge the census numbers.

NYguy · #60 Posted **Mar 25, 2011, 10:22 PM**

This is where you know things obviously went wrong. Of all the boroughs in NY, Queens is supposedly the one with virtually no increase in population. Not likely.

ny1

• Video Link