The US Census Bureau thread

[the urban politician]

^ I think Chicago also suffered from unusually high underreporting for the census.

I really hope Chicago takes this data and asks some tougher questions. The city cannot continue to shrink like this and remain healthy.

[MayorOfChicago]

Over 200,000! I certainly wasn't expecting it to be THAT much. That's a new all time low for the city by a long shot.

[emathias]

Originally Posted by MayorOfChicago

Over 200,000! I certainly wasn't expecting it to be THAT much. That's a new all time low for the city by a long shot.

There must be some underreporting.

How could there be such a large discrepancy between the annual community area counts and the official census count?

I also look forward to seeing the neighborhood counts.

[the urban politician]

^ This is a situation where I think Chicago would benefit from paying for a census recount. I too agree that underreporting must have contributed a fair deal to such a discrepancy.

Having said that, it's still time to ask the tough questions, Chicago

[Chicago103]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

2.695 million.

Largely due to black flight.

Ouch. Chicago took a big hit...

That is less than the 1990 census figure of 2.783 million.

Ah Shit, this is very dissapointing, there was alot of writing on the wall recently that the 2010 census would not be what we expected a few years ago even that there would be a small decrease given the census estimates and other data but not this bad.

It seems the 2010 census is the exact opposite of what the 2000 Census was. In the 1990's census estimates it was said that Chicago was still losing population when in reality it gained 112K people. In the 2000's census estimates again said Chicago was losing people but this time the official figures were worse than the estimates. This means that Richard M. Daley leaves as mayor of a slightly smaller city than what he started with in 1989. Its sad because so many viewed the 2000 census results as a sign that Chicago was on an upward trajectory and not just a one time thing. I am still optomisitic for the future and now that the public housing demolition has probably already taken away most of the people that will leave the city it can start to increase again.

I guess a city can have a sense of renewed vibrancy even with a population loss because whenever you are in any Chicago neighbohrood that is not a ghetto I get a sense that the neighborhoods are in better shape then they were 10 or 20 years ago.

I am also very curious how this works on a community area by community area basis. Will the gentrified areas still show population increases even if they are less? Is there still significant population increases in gentrified areas meaning that there was MASSIVE population losses in the ghettos?

[SD_Phil]

I'm really surprised at the Chicago numbers. I assume they'll appeal the census count with their own data but that is a serious hit.

[Tex17]

Originally Posted by BevoLJ

Wow, guess I hit a nerve saying Austin is liberal.

Lets look at the past elections.

2008: Every major Texas city voted for Obama (Austin, Dallas, Houston, EP, and SA)
2004: Kerry got Austin and El Paso, Bush got Dallas, Houston, and San Antonio
2000: Every city voted Bush
1992 and 1996: Clinton got Austin, El Paso, and San Antonio while Houston and Dallas voted for Dole
1988: Dukakis got Austin and EP, rest voted Bush Sr.
1984: Reagan carried the state.
1980: Only Austin voted for Carter while Dallas, Houston, EP and SA voted Regan.
1976: Entire state voted for Carter
1972: Entire state voted for Nixon
1968: Humphrey got Austin, SA and EP while Houston and Dallas voted Nixon.
1964: LBJ so obviously all Texans voted for him.
1960: Kennedy got Austin, SA and EP while Houston and Dallas voted for Nixon.

It goes on and on like that. Some might even call it a trend.... Lets take the final number. Times a city voted D and time they voted R.

Austin: D-10 R-3
Dallas: D-4 R-9
El Paso: D-9 R-4
Houston: D-4 R-9
San Antonio: D-6 R-7

And with what you call "show off liberalism" what do you expect from a city with over 100k students and the 3 main factors that make up that city are education, politics and music. Just because we are more vocal doesn't make us less liberal. Look at the election results they speak for themselves.

I suggested to another poster asking how the cities might have changed with the influx of people and in that post I said I believe Austin hasn't while Houston, and Dallas have become more liberal. I also said that was my guess about the other cities and invited you guys from those cities to state if that was right or not. However rather than state what change your cities might have experienced you go and say my assessment of my own city is inaccurate? Really?

Why'd you leave out Fort Worth?

[Chicago103]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^ This is a situation where I think Chicago would benefit from paying for a census recount. I too agree that underreporting must have contributed a fair deal to such a discrepancy.

Having said that, it's still time to ask the tough questions, Chicago

Yes it is worth an appeal, especially as we get more information. How do they deal with underreporting anyways? Is there anyway to scientficially calculate the people who never filled out a form? I know I did my part in the Garfield Ridge/Clearing neighborhoods as a census enumerator, can't wait until that infor comes out but just going door to door you have no idea how your information compares to the 2000 census numbers. I guess neighborhood by neighborhood is the only bragging points left, if the middle class white (I say white because its clear that blacks of every income are leaving the city as a fact and not because I think it is good) areas are at least stable it will show that there isn't some fundamental problem with the middle class in the city that transcends racial lines.

[J_M_Tungsten]

Haha, good point steely!

[fflint]

Keep in mind the role household size can play in a city's fluctuating population. Even where vacancy rates are relatively stable or indeed where there has been significant new infill, if families with children move out of an area and are replaced by childless couples or singles, then the official population can still drop. I'm not saying that is what happened for sure in Chicago, but it could help explain why there's been a steep drop in overall population despite the revival of many Northern and core districts. The number and size of households in Chicago may help us understand the new numbers. I'd wager the number of households hasn't dropped 6.9%, but I could be wrong.

[lawfin]

Here is a link to CMAP analysis of census participation rated for city:
http://www.cmap.illinois.gov/documen...6-7a733e0963c6

[ChiMIchael]

I honestly thin the city should appeal it too but this is just another slap in the face for the city.

[bnk]

Listening to WGN on the radio it said that for the Chicago city limits the white and asian populations grew and the Hispanic population stayed about the same. So Blacks alone account for the -200 K figure. The finishing of the demolishing of the housing projects are just about over. The region and areas I traverse still appear dense and vibrant. And just based upon the growth in the state of Illinois it is clear Chicagoland is still growing in population. Now we just need to repopulate the dead zones in the west and south side.

http://www.wbez.org/blog/lee-bey/201...-chicagos-prio

Chica-grow: Should creating a significantly more populous city be Chicago's priority?

by Lee Bey | Feb. 15, 2011


When I was high up in Trump Tower a few weeks ago for that event I told you about, I couldn't get the words of a prominent Chicago urban planner out of my mind.

Let's not forget about the overall gains Chicagoland made.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/l...,3579208.story



The city’s population when census workers counted the state’s residents last April was 2,695,598, a drop of almost 7 percent from the population of 2,896,016 recorded in the 2000 census. Cook Country dropped in population from 5,376,741 in 2000 to 5,194,675, reflecting the city’s loss.

In general the suburban collar counties continued to grow, some spectacularly. The biggest gainers were Will County, growing by 34.9 percent in the last 10 years to 677,560 residents, Kane County, growing 27.5 percent to 515,269 and McHenry Country, growing 18.7 percent to 308,760.
The older suburban collar counties also grew, but at a much slower pace. Lake County grew by 9.2 percent to 703,462 residents in 2010, DuPage County by 1.4 percent to 916,924.
Several suburban cities also experienced phenomenal growth, including Joliet, growing by 38.8 percent to 147,433 residents in 2010, Aurora by 38.4 percent to 197,899, Bolingbrook, by 30.3 percent to 73,366, Elgin, by 14.5 percent to 108,188, and Naperville by 10.5 percent to 141,853.

[BevoLJ]

I am not all that familiar with Chicago (been 12 years since I have been there) but has all of that gentrified areas pushed out a lot of the people who used to live there? I was talking to one of our landscapers the other day and his parents lived in a part of East Austin for 35 years that has become very gentrified the past few years and they just had to move to a small town just south of Austin because they can't afford their old neighborhood.

I was surprised because I know most of the apartments that have been replacing the houses in those areas are required to provide more low-income housing than they are replacing. Perhaps that isn't really happening. Could that have become a issue in some of those parts of Chicago y'all are talking about? I am really shocked by the 2.7 number for Chicago. I thought it was going to be over 3 million. I never would have guessed it would drop that much.

[shane453]

OKC grew 15% to 580,000. Norman grew 16% to 111,000. And, we almost got our fourth 6-figure city from Broken Arrow which made it to 99,000 with 32% growth. Quite a few suburban cities in both metros showed 30-50% growth.

Tulsa was not able to make up for population lost after tech bust, finishing decade with 391,000- down from 392,000 in 2000 (but up from 382,000 in its decade low.)

-------

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).

[bnk]

Some more details


We all knew the city was losing blacks but did anyone see or expect such a mass exodus?






http://www.cdobs.com/archive/feature...r-2010-census/


Look Out Below! Chicago Population “Drops” by 200,000 Per 2010 Census
Greg Hinz 15 February 2011

The city of Chicago lost 200,000 people during the past decade, as an influx of whites and Asians was more than offset by a historic drop in the African-American population. The Hispanic population of the city proper stayed about even.

Among other conclusions of the population count, which details major shifts in the size and makeup of metropolitan Chicago’s population:

* The metropolitan area as a whole gained about 210,000 people between 2000 and 2010, with Cook County’s population off about 180,000, DuPage County flat, Lake and McHenry counties growing some, and Kane and Will counties together adding nearly 300,000 residents.

* In Chicago’s suburbs, major cities held about even or, in the cases of cities in the exurbs, exploded in size.

* Democratic congressmen, particularly those representing mostly minority districts, will have to scramble to save their jobs in upcoming congressional reapportionment.

The four smallest districts in the state, population wise, are represented by Congressmen Bobby Rush (1st), Luis Gutierrez (4th), Jesse Jackson Jr. (2nd) and Danny Davis (7th).

The four largest belong to Republicans: Randy Hultgren (14th), Judy Biggert (13th), Adam Kinzinger (11th) and Downstater Donald Manzullo.

...

[emathias]

Originally Posted by Chicago103

...
I am also very curious how this works on a community area by community area basis. Will the gentrified areas still show population increases even if they are less? Is there still significant population increases in gentrified areas meaning that there was MASSIVE population losses in the ghettos?

I'm interested in the neighbourhood-by-neighbourhood counts, too, but realistically gentrification, especially initially, nearly always results in reduced population because people of means can afford more square feet per person. It takes a while for gentrification to results in increased density of people. It dramatically increases economic density, but not usually population density.

[babybackribs2314]

Originally Posted by bnk

Some more details


We all knew the city was losing blacks but did anyone see or expect such a mass exodus?






http://www.cdobs.com/archive/feature...r-2010-census/


Look Out Below! Chicago Population “Drops” by 200,000 Per 2010 Census
Greg Hinz 15 February 2011

The city of Chicago lost 200,000 people during the past decade, as an influx of whites and Asians was more than offset by a historic drop in the African-American population. The Hispanic population of the city proper stayed about even.

Among other conclusions of the population count, which details major shifts in the size and makeup of metropolitan Chicago’s population:

* The metropolitan area as a whole gained about 210,000 people between 2000 and 2010, with Cook County’s population off about 180,000, DuPage County flat, Lake and McHenry counties growing some, and Kane and Will counties together adding nearly 300,000 residents.

* In Chicago’s suburbs, major cities held about even or, in the cases of cities in the exurbs, exploded in size.

* Democratic congressmen, particularly those representing mostly minority districts, will have to scramble to save their jobs in upcoming congressional reapportionment.

The four smallest districts in the state, population wise, are represented by Congressmen Bobby Rush (1st), Luis Gutierrez (4th), Jesse Jackson Jr. (2nd) and Danny Davis (7th).

The four largest belong to Republicans: Randy Hultgren (14th), Judy Biggert (13th), Adam Kinzinger (11th) and Downstater Donald Manzullo.

...

If Chicago's metro area really did only grow by 200k, that puts Baltimore-Washington well within 1,000,000 of Chicago as that's only 9.3 million (Balti-Wash is around 8.5, if someone had specific census numbers it would be great!). The difference between the two is decreasing at about 5-600,000/decade, so 2025 may mark the time when DC becomes the #3 CSA in the US.

[bnk]

Originally Posted by BevoLJ

I am not all that familiar with Chicago (been 12 years since I have been there) but has all of that gentrified areas pushed out a lot of the people who used to live there? snip

More than anything it was the demolishing of the horrible highrise public housing of the poor over the last decade that was about 100% black housing at the time. They were dysfunctional and had to go but I suspect that no one thought of where these displaced people were to be rehoused. Some went to the south suburbs many others spread throught the country esp south and esp Atlanta. The trend should slow in Chicago because the units are down now, but the black exodus is not special and alone to Chicago. NYC also lost blacks ect as other previous articles meantioned.

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

At one time, it was the largest public housing development in the country, and it was intended to offer decent affordable housing. It was composed of 28 high-rise buildings with 16 stories each, with a total of 4,321 apartments, mostly arranged in U-shaped clusters of three, stretching for two miles (three kilometers). STATUS Demolished
Constructed 1962
Demolished 2007


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cabrini%E2%80%93Green

and many more

http://www.uwec.edu/geography/ivogel...s/chprjcts.htm

http://www.nhi.org/online/issues/138/chicago.html

...

As of 2003, HUD had approved about 135,000 units for demolition. This far surpasses the original goal proposed by the Commission, leading critics to charge that HOPE VI and other development initiatives offer municipalities an easy way to tear down low-income units without adequately replacing them.

...

[BevoLJ]

Originally Posted by bnk

More than anything it was the demolishing of the horrible highrise public housing of the poor over the last decade that was about 100% black housing at the time. They were dysfunctional and had to go but I suspect that no one thought of where these displaced people were to be rehoused. Some went to the south suburbs many others spread throught the country esp south and esp Atlanta. The trend should slow in Chicago because the units are down now, but the black exodus is not special and alone to Chicago. NYC also lost blacks ect as other previous articles meantioned.

Thank you.

One other question about Chicago. I know this is a census thread and not a job thread, but has there been a decrease in jobs in the metro area? I haven't looked but I think the unemployment is not that bad (although so many moving out could account for a bit of that) but what about job growth? Has the area lost that many jobs over the past 10 year, while not gaining that much? Or has housing been a bigger part of it than jobs do you think?