US Census Bureau Releases July 1, 2014 State Populations

[JManc]

Yeah, New England has some fantastic small towns. New Hampshire and Vermont are littered with them. Eastern MA too.

[Onn]

Originally Posted by Chef

This suggests that a lot of Texas' growth comes from natural increase which tends to be tied to immigration these days (except in Utah):

Natural increase would not be immigration, natural increase would be an increase due to the population already living in Texas. Not all of those are immigrants. 26.6% of Texas's population is below 18 as of 2013, above the national average. It's expected these kids will grow up to have families of their own on top of their parents, which compounds the population increase.

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/48000.html

[ChiSoxRox]

Originally Posted by Crawford

And I don't think Chicago is "one of the largest cities in the world". It's big but not among the biggest.

Chicago is somewhere around 35th place (metro area, of course).

[mhays]

How could San Francisco (city of) not shrink during the 50s-80s...household sizes got substantially smaller, and there wasn't much room to add units. It's similar to Paris. You had to add a ton of units to counteract the smaller families and new prevalence of living alone, and they just couldn't. (Admittedly I don't know SF's specific numbers on that.)

[Dr Nevergold]

Originally Posted by Ch.G, Ch.G

Hmm. While some of its farther flung suburbs and satellite cities sprawl like the worst of them, Chicago also has some of the country's best suburbs, many of which are largely indistinguishable from the residential neighborhoods of the city proper. (Speaking of which, you do not have to be in the very core of the city proper to experience an urban built environment.) In terms of transit, Evanston (pop. ~75,000, ~9,700 ppsm), Oak Park (pop. ~51,000; ~11,000 ppsm), Skokie (pop. ~65k; ~6,400 ppsm), and Wilmette (pop. ~27,000; ~5,000 ppsm) are all directly served by the city's heavy rail network (the CTA's 'L', averaging 774k weekday rides according to the latest APTA report). Most suburbs are also served by commuter rail (Metra, averaging 300k weekday rides). I won't argue that the commuter rail system couldn't/shouldn't be better utilized, but its ridership volume and extensiveness seem to indicate a suburban transit 'reality' that's not as bleak as you suggest (for Chicagoland, anyway). Also, is PACE the best example to illustrate your point? As a mostly suburban network, it still manages higher weekday ridership (137k) than the urban networks in a handful of the country's large cities.

My point is that even in Chicago and NYC, the darlings of urbanism in America, their suburbs aren't European at all. They're not even Canadian for that matter. Ridership, urban housing stock, and all these things are much better in suburban Vancouver, Toronto, Berlin, Paris. I don't know how you convert single family homes to urban housing and transit oriented developments. You're dealing with mass property rights and individuals who do as they wish with their little lot of land. BTW, there isn't much utility/value in a bus that runs every 30mins-45mins-1 hour a few times a day so I don't blame those who don't use the PACE service, or other smaller tier cities services.

But anyway, I think Berlin is a great example of what American cities could do. We need more Spandau, and less Levittown and less Joliet. Not everything in NYC and Chicago are exemplars of development, which is my point.

[austlar1]

Originally Posted by Chef

This suggests that a lot of Texas' growth comes from natural increase which tends to be tied to immigration these days (except in Utah):

The graph is interesting, but I am not sure exactly what it means in actual numbers of newborns compared to the overall population increase. I guess I could pull up some raw data and try to do some math. Texas probably does have a high birth rate for the US. A lot of young people starting families move to Texas from all over the place, and the large immigrant population also has a fairly high birth rate. Trust me, major Texas metro areas are seeing significant and highly visible numbers of new arrivals from other parts of the country and elsewhere around the globe in addition to the large Hispanic population from Mexico and Central America. I'll try to find some figures and post them later.

[C.]

My theory: suburban and rural towns in the northeast will decline due to the continued renaissance of the urban centers, attracting new residents, and retirees escaping the higher cost of living and cold climates for the south.

Same may be true in a state like Illinois. Chicago and its metro area sees decent growth but areas in the hinterland are in decline, resulting in a loss in total population in the state during the past year.

[austlar1]

This first link is for 2012 net domestic migration stats. It is interactive and pretty tricky to use. Once you get the hang of it, it is a lot of fun and very informative. Texas seems to collect new residents from just about every state in numbers greater than that of Texans moving to those same states. The net in-migration for 2010-2013 is supposedly 403,000.
http://vizynary.com/2013/11/18/restl...ation-in-2012/

The second link is a list of states with the highest net in-migration from 2010-2013. Texas was number one with around 403,000 new domestic residents. There was a net 207,000 gain in population due to new international arrivals. Probably 2/3 or more of this recent figure is from Mexico and Central America. Finally during the 2010-2013 period there was a natural population increase in Texas of 684,000 reflecting a high birth rate. Only California had a higher natural birth increase rate. New York was number three in that category. In this link, keep scrolling beyond the first post to find more complete lists for all three categories.
http://www.city-data.com/forum/gener...013-state.html

The third link contains detailed 2012 demographic information for foreign born residents of Texas. It is quite comprehensive. The data shows that of the over 4,000,000 foreign born residents, about 3/4th of them are from Mexico or Central America. There are about 900,000 Asians (Asia, India, and the Middle East), which is almost double the number from 2000. There are over 180,000 born in Europe, a number that has also almost doubled since 2000. There are about 160,000 Africans which is a number that has more than doubled since 2000.
http://www.migrationpolicy.org/data/...emographics/TX

[Chase Unperson]

I believe that one day the north will be completely abandoned and people will say "wtf are,we doing in London, nyc, Chicago, Toronto, etc... when we could be living in cabo, San Diego, Arizona, Costa Rica, etc..which have 100 times the natural beauty and have no grey cold dark winters.

Living in the dreary north made sense when there was a lot of parasitic and infectious disease, but those days are done.

[Chef]

Originally Posted by Onn

Natural increase would not be immigration, natural increase would be an increase due to the population already living in Texas. Not all of those are immigrants. 26.6% of Texas's population is below 18 as of 2013, above the national average. It's expected these kids will grow up to have families of their own on top of their parents, which compounds the population increase.

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/48000.html

I realize that natural increase isn't directly a result of immigration but indirectly it is because immigrants tend to have higher birth rates and be younger than the rest of the population.

Originally Posted by austlar1

Trust me, major Texas metro areas are seeing significant and highly visible numbers of new arrivals from other parts of the country and elsewhere around the globe in addition to the large Hispanic population from Mexico and Central America. I'll try to find some figures and post them later.

I don't doubt that but I wonder how much of that is natural churn and how much is from it being a transplant magnet. I know that in Minneapolis I see a ton of out of state plates in certain neighborhoods and there are a lot of transplants, but I know that from a demographic perspective most of our growth comes from immigrants and their kids. My question would be how much was this the case for Texas and other high growth sunbelt areas. I'm sure the data is out there. I'm guessing it is a little bit of column A and a little bit of column B.

[austlar1]

Originally Posted by Chef

I realize that natural increase isn't directly a result of immigration but indirectly it is because immigrants tend to have higher birth rates and be younger than the rest of the population.

I don't doubt that but I wonder how much of that is natural churn and how much is from it being a transplant magnet. I know that in Minneapolis I see a ton of out of state plates in certain neighborhoods and there are a lot of transplants, but I know that from a demographic perspective most of our growth comes from immigrants and their kids. My question would be how much was this the case for Texas and other high growth sunbelt areas. I'm sure the data is out there. I'm guessing it is a little bit of column A and a little bit of column B.

My post located above on this page provides a lot of that information. Perhaps you did not see it.

[Chef]

I have a bad habit of commenting on posts before I read to the end of the thread.

[jd3189]

Originally Posted by chris08876

Could that happen now a days with the ability for residents or even immigrants to move freely? I think of it in a way that the Northeast developed most of this character based on the limited mobility of residents to move from one area to another around the 19th and early 20th century where people generally didn't move in droves to other states. Instead, lived their lives within core cities or the inner metro area, and developed a sort of culture/lifestyle/urban fabric. This happened over 1st or even 2nd generations, with the roots strongly tied towards these neighborhoods or cities. Now, we have cities down South or even in the Midwest that are experiencing a influx of transplants, as opposed to growth based on the families that were already there and brought the same culture that the earlier generations had. The lack of this I feel adds a heterogeneous mixture when it comes to urban fabric, and I don't see how newer cities can compete with the urban fabric of the founding U.S. Cities (Philly, NYC, Washington, Boston, ect) and how they grew.

This is an advantage that the Northeast has with its history, but I think it's still possible today if new urbanism prevails in certain Southern cities. We may one day see more inward growth within cities if gas prices start rising again and more people starting favoring urban living again. I don't expect another NYC or Boston to rise from the South. That is impossible. What I do want is a different kind of urban style that is seen in California cities like LA, SF, and SD. These cites aren't like the Northeast. They are relatively new and somewhat suffer from sprawl as well. However, they have dense areas that weren't necessarily built by generations of residents. They are in between the the Rustbelt and most of the Sunbelt in terms of urban layout and are basically the model I want to see certain Sunbelt cities emulate.

Originally Posted by Dr Nevergold

Unless you're talking about the very core of NYC, America doesn't really have mass urbanism.

Even in NYC, once you step outside the urban core served by the very utilitarian NYC Subway system, buses run maybe once every 30 minutes to an hour on many routes. In far flung suburbs of Toronto or Berlin you'll still get frequent service, so even our shining exemplar of urbanism has issues outside the core.

That is true, but it could change. I don't expect the US to somewhat be another Europe. The car will always be a way we travel, but it may not always have an monopoly. Even in Manhattan people drive around, but people also walk and take public transportation. The population is still increasing, but the people who come to replace the current lot of Americans today aren't mostly going to live in a suburb. Immigrants from overseas are and will continue to be the major source of population growth. It's just a matter of redirecting a good portion of that influx of skilled foreigners from the traditional gateway regions in the Northeast and West Coast. It would allow the US to development more urban powerhouses instead of just concentrating on a select few.

Originally Posted by YSL

I love living in Austin, but growth in the South is not equal. Texas is doing well but the Northeast and the West don't have the massive poverty of South, they have the highest productivity, the biggest corporations on earth remain in those expensive slower growth metros.. As do most of this nation's brainpower. Silicon Valley's population is basically rust belt as far as growth goes, but it remains influential and everyone wants to copy that (or NYC), not unproductive Miami or North Carolina.

Agreed. Like I said before on another thread, SF and the Bay Area at large is the best model of urban development for the Sunbelt. It is a much younger region than the Northeast and Midwest but still was able to create something close. I'm not saying that the entire South has a chance to turn around. I'm kinda just focusing on Texas, Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, and possibly a few other states that are growing and have suburban development that could easily become more urban if desired. The entire South has a chance( as with any place in the world) but it's highly unlikely outside of Texas and Florida. In Florida's case, there are many examples of cities that could easily develop without sprawl and will have to in the future. Miami and South Florida in general is the biggest. There is income disparity and the region is still mostly autocentric. However, it barely has room to grow geographically and is located in a strategic point near Latin America (similar to Texas and California). It also has a large population that continues to grow. Miami. by far,is or has the potential to be one of the most globalized American cities in the Sunbelt. I know I'm a deep booster for it, but I just look past the blemishes of South Florida and see something that could experience high productivity, headquarters of huge corporations, and be another center for both American and foreign brainpowers. It may be a vision but it is possible and I could only wish it happened years ago.

[jd3189]

Originally Posted by austlar1

Texas is growing rapidly from several sources. Austin, DFW, and Houston (which account for probably two thirds of the population gain in any given year) have all witnessed a huge influx of residents from other states, particularly California, the Midwest, Florida, and NY. You meet these people every day in stores and the workplace. The other large source of growth is from across the border, but Texas has also gained thousands of new residents from overseas. Texas is now a big port of entry with two busy international airports that slowly but surely provide the area with a steady flow of immigrants from Asia, Europe, South America, and the Middle East. Don't kid yourself that all the growth in Texas is due to undocumented immigrants sneaking across the border. That just is not the case.

If Florida could witness the same level of diverse growth as Texas, along with attracting of developing more influential businesses and concentrating on smart growth, it would be an interesting result.

[JManc]

"Flariduh"...god's waiting room. The snow belt will just keep replenishing more old people though so those Grand Marquis, Lincoln Town Cars and Crown Victorias keep piling down 95.

[Dr Nevergold]

Originally Posted by JManc

"Flariduh"...god's waiting room. The snow belt will just keep replenishing more old people though so those Grand Marquis, Lincoln Town Cars and Crown Victorias keep piling down 95.

It isn't as if New York is shrinking, it just isn't growing as fast as Florida or California or Texas.

I'm not sure about the fate of upstate, since I lived there for 5 years and got to know the area well I can say it feels like its on an upswing. Buffalo's downtown is being revitalized like it hasn't been in many decades. Rochester has a very R&D oriented new economy. Syracuse still has education centric downtown area and that's hard to see decline with. These regions only have to deal with significant winter snowfall as their primary lack of attraction, since Americans seem to be afraid of winter snows more than large mosquitoes or alligators or many more snakes or ... you name it. SO, I don't see upstate growing significantly, but it does seem to have stabilized. Buffalo isn't really shrinking for example, its maintaining now. Most people seem to forget that these upstate populations have seen impressive decreases in actual population loss. There was one decade where Buffalo lost nearly 100k people as a metro, but these days its not losing much of any.

I'm in the south this winter (returned here from Winnipeg at the end of summer in September), likely my last winter in the south if things go as planned, and the milder winters here don't impress me enough to ever consider staying. I mean its still cool and dark, just without as much snowfall and daytime temps are more often in the 40's and 50's than happens around Chicago or Toronto. Yawn... It isn't like you can go outside in shorts and enjoy the outdoors this time of year, so there isn't much of a benefit in the south unless you're literally down in Miami or something.

...but my opinion doesn't translate to most Americans.

I still don't understand why upstate New York isn't booming like gangbusters. The Great Lakes have awesome beaches in the summer (and the water is plenty warm in the summer months for a dip), or even good for windsurfers in a wetsuit as late as November or December in some of the winds that blow up huge waves. There's ski resorts in the mountains just to the immediate south of Buffalo, Rochester, and Syracuse. The rugged terrain of the finger lakes all the way to the Adirondacks is world reknowned. It isn't like the region is all hillbilly, there's lots of wine tasting locations at the numerous winery locations in virtually all of upstate, there's uber hipster towns like Ithaca. New York City is a quick drive, train ride, or flight from all upstate cities, Toronto and Montreal are both not far away to the north... World cities and multiculturalism all around the region, it isn't like the eastern Great Lakes are Wisconsin (not that there is anything wrong with the fine people and cities of Wisconsin). Once you get a few miles from the lakes its the Appalachians all over and its far more rugged.

If snow really is that repulsive, then I simply don't get it. The region has everything Americans would want for a good quality of life. There's literally more outdoors lifestyle opportunity than destination locations like Colorado or Seattle in upstate New York. At least in the summer the water is warm enough to swim in... You can easily drive to the Olympic quality ski jumps over at Lake Placid for a weekend trip anytime if the ones closer to you aren't up to snuff, there's watersports and water culture everywhere with the lakes... Personally, I took advantage of every single one of these activities while I lived there. I went to Lake Placid in the winter, I enjoyed the Ice Castle in winter up at Saranac Lake. I tasted wine in the finger lakes (and Niagara region for that matter). I did boating up the Niagara gorge and took a dip into Lake Ontario from the boat. There were weekends in the summer when I went to some of the regional beaches and just soaked up sun and did nothing at all, and enjoyed the hell out of it. Upstate NY has immense natural beauty and opportunity.

It has everything... except the obsessive compulsive hangup over snowfall in winter time.

You're never going to get an ice castle (in an natural setting) in the middle of Florida or Arizona, I think its a unique and fantastic experience to live in an area with these things.



Seriously, New York has everything. Even if you don't live in the city, you have NYC on the southern edge, Toronto on the western edge, Montreal on the northern edge and you're surrounded by mountains water everywhere else. What is there to not like??? There's a weekend trip for everyone, every weekend guaranteed.

[C.]

Older article using 2013 city data. Let's put the rest some of the hysteria of old urban centers losing out to suburbia. Go NYC!

New York City's population growth exceeds the suburbs: Report
By IVAN PEREIRA September 30, 2014

http://www.amny.com/news/new-york-ci...port-1.9450321

The huge green lawns and picket fences of the suburbs are not the dream
destination for people anymore.

For the first time since World War II, more residents moved into the five boroughs than Long Island, New Jersey and southwestern Connecticut combined, according to a Rutgers University study released Monday.

In fact, between 2010-2013, there were nearly twice as many people settling down in the Big Apple than the suburbs, according to the report that analyzed census data decade-by-decade between 1950 and 2010 and from '10-'13.

The surge in new Big Apple residents can be attributed to improved city conditions and a general change in taste among millennials compared to their parents, according to James W. Hughes, the dean of the university's public policy school and the study's co-author.

"During the '70s, New York lost its cache. It wasn't as glamorous as it used to be," he said. "Now it's a reverse flow."

Between 2010 and 2013, the city's population grew by 215,840 while the suburban communities (which the study defines as including four Pennsylvania counties, three in Connecticut, nine in New York and eleven in New Jersey) grew only by 113,227. Brooklyn led the city with 82,426 new residents followed by Queens with 61,135.

The New Jersey counties of Essex, Hudson and Union (which saw a 2010-13 population increase of 40,013) were considered part of the "regional core" by Hughes' team and exempt from the suburban total...

"The 'echo boomers' and millennials like the city setting. They like walking to work and living near the best restaurants, parks, etc.," Hughes said.
The population influx will boost the city's economy, according to Hughes. Institutions big and small, such as Google and even "The Tonight Show," are taking root in New York and tapping into the growing number of young professionals.

The Department of City Planning, which tracks population changes, said it will continue to complement the population boom with policy alterations that improve the quality of life in the five boroughs.

[AviationGuy]

Originally Posted by jd3189

If anything, I would like Florida (as well as Texas and a few other significant Sunbelt states) to actually develop its own wealth and urban feel in the same way that the Northeast and Midwest have. Suburbia will continue to thrive, but that's pretty much anywhere in the country. There could be a chance for rapid urban development and economic/ethnic diversity in cities like Miami, Houston, and Atlanta.

There COULD be a chance for economic/ethnic diversity in cities like Miami, Houston, and Atlanta? Where have you been?

[AviationGuy]

Originally Posted by Crawford

I don't get it, at all. And for SSP-types like me, it's wasted growth, because it doesn't usually mean anything in terms of city building.

Phoenix with 10 million won't be remotely as urban as Pittsburgh with 2 million.

I still think a lot of it has to do with the average American not really caring a lot about the things SSP members consider most important. There is of course a percentage of Americans who do care, but I'm betting the biggest percentage don't care and don't think about it. I've been all over this country, and trying to get people to talk about these things is like pulling teeth. But bring up the latest smart phone, reality show, or Hollywood gossip, you can get an audience right away.

[jd3189]

Originally Posted by AviationGuy

There COULD be a chance for economic/ethnic diversity in cities like Miami, Houston, and Atlanta? Where have you been?

I know there could. What I'm saying is that this chance could be bigger. I'm envisioning something a bit bigger than what is being speculated for the future.