Population density patterns in cities (NYC and Chicago as a starter)

[The North One]

Originally Posted by memph

So since the weighted density increases were calculated in the US Census Bureau thread, I thought I'd compare that to the increases for some Canadian cities...

I didn't catch this, but wow I thought LA was gaining density like crazy this decade. How is their weighted gain that mediocre?

Cleveland, Baltimore and Milwaukee are in weighted density free-fall. What explains this? Sprawl still outpacing new inner development?

The Toronto gain is extremely impressive.

[mhays]

Are we sure they "are" in a freefall? Or just guessing based on the 4/1/10 to 4/1/20 period?

[The North One]

Originally Posted by mhays

Are we sure they "are" in a freefall? Or just guessing based on the 4/1/10 to 4/1/20 period?

Or were I guess.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by The North One

Cleveland, Baltimore and Milwaukee are in weighted density free-fall

IMO, "free-fall" is a bit hyperbolic when we look at their WPD drops last decade on a percentage basis.


City: 2020 MSA WPD - 2010 MSA WPD = change

Baltimore: 5,144.7 - 5,435.7 = -291.0 (-5.5%)

Milwaukee: 5,023.7 - 5,257.6 = -233.9 (-4.4%)

Cleveland: 3,676.9 - 3,808.4 = -131.5 (-3.5%)



I wouldn't categorize low single digit % drops as a "free-fall", but whatever.....

And along with Pittsburgh and St. Louis, those are the 5 major rustbelters that saw central city population drops as well as MSA WPD drops. The 6th major rustbelter that lost central city population was Detroit, yet it bucked that trend of MSA WPD drops by actually modestly gaining on that front. What makes that most unexpected to me is that Detroit city proper lost more people, both by percentage and in aggregate, than any other top 100 US city.

[memph]

Originally Posted by dc_denizen

I thought Montreal was densifying faster than this.

I'd expect the 2016-2021 increase to be bigger. It's worth noting that compared to other cities with big core vs suburb density differences (ie NE + Chicago), Montreal is seeing a fairly high proportion of its growth as greenfield development. Philadelphia, Boston, New York... have basically sprawled as far as is feasible so most of their growth is urban and suburban infill.

Also, many of Montreal's fastest growing census tracts have low population densities at the census tract level, such as in the Bois-Franc, Mont-Royal Triangle and Cite Multimedia/Griffintown areas. As these new neighbourhoods fill out, and infill shifts towards existing neighbourhoods, the weighted density numbers should increase.

[memph]

Originally Posted by The North One

I didn't catch this, but wow I thought LA was gaining density like crazy this decade. How is their weighted gain that mediocre?

Cleveland, Baltimore and Milwaukee are in weighted density free-fall. What explains this? Sprawl still outpacing new inner development?

The Toronto gain is extremely impressive.

LA lost population in many of its densest neighbourhoods.
https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/sho...73#post9405673

Milwaukee experienced significant population loss in its majority black neighbourhoods on the north side, as well as the majority Hispanic neighbourhoods on the south side. Those south side neighbourhoods had the densest census tracts in the city. Meanwhile low density suburbs grew. There was some growth in downtown and northern lakefront areas, but not enough to offset these other factors.

Cleveland lost a lot of population in its NE, SE and even in Tremont and Clark-Fulton areas. Lakewood, which at this point is the densest part of the MSA also lost a bit of population. Elyria also lost population. Main growth areas were outlying suburbs like Sheffield, North Ridgefield, and just outside of Medina.

With Baltimore, most neighbourhoods outside downtown and a few desirable close in neighbourhoods lost population. Most of the growth was in DC MSA adjacent suburbs. Also noteworthy, the city's densest census tract saw its density decline from 86,776 ppsm to 34,548 ppsm. That census tract consists entirely of a huge prison complex and some of those prisons got demolished.

[memph]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

IMO, "Free-fall" is a bit hyperbolic when we look at their WPD drops last decade on a percentage basis.


City: 2020 MSA WPD - 2010 MSA WPD = change

Baltimore: 5,144.7 - 5,435.7 = -291.0 (-5.5%)

Milwaukee: 5,023.7 - 5,257.6 = -233.9 (-4.4%)

Cleveland: 3,676.9 - 3,808.4 = -131.5 (-3.5%)



I wouldn't categorize low single digit % drops as a "free-fall", but whatever.....

And along with Pittsburgh and St. Louis, those are the 5 major rustbelters that saw central city population drops as well as MSA WPD drops. The 6th major rustbelter that lost central city population was Detroit, yet it bucked that trend of MSA WPD drops by actually modestly gaining on that front. What makes that most unexpected to me is that Detroit city proper lost more people, both by percentage and in aggregate, than any other top 100 US city.

Detroit kinda "unsprawled" with population loss in rural/exurban St. Clair County. Also population loss in the most derelict areas didn't hurt that much because by 2010, those areas weren't contributing that much density anyways. Also significant was rising densities in many inner suburbs, which make up much of the densest tracts in the MSA. This includes Dearborn, Dearborn Heights, Allen Park, but most importantly Hamtramck. Hamtramck was already the densest part of the MSA in 2010 and got 27% denser by 2020. Greater Downtown grew a fair bit, and many low density mid-outer ring suburbs had more negative population trajectories than the inner suburbs.

[memph]

Also if anyone's wondering about Virginia Beach... it entirely comes down to a single census tract that had a massively inflated population in 2010.

Virginia Beach MSA Census Tract 38 population

1990: 2,678
2000: 2,770
2010: 22,065
2020: 2,766

In the 2020 census, it had a fairly ordinary density of 6048 ppsm but in 2010, that amounted to a very large number of people living in a tract with 48,243 ppsm... For an MSA like NYC that might not skew things much but for a small MSA like Virginia Beach, it's enough to throw off the weighted density by over 500 ppsm...

I'm not sure what happened there in 2010. The 2010 population was 81% white, 67% between age 20-29, with another 16% aged 30-39, and another 11% aged 10-19 or 40-49. Only 6% combined aged 0-9 or 50+. Also 80% male. Considering this is in Norfolk harbor, maybe a bunch of navy ships were docked there in 2010 and the sailors listed their address as the navy pier?

[mhays]

Ah, a Navy base. That makes sense. It could be about what ships were there, or it could be a change in Census methodology.

In 2010 it seemed like there was a simiilar change. In my area, two tracts lost significant population -- one with a county jail, and another being Greek Row at the UW. In both cases, nuances about who counted as a "resident" probably evolved.

[memph]

Originally Posted by mhays

Ah, a Navy base. That makes sense. It could be about what ships were there, or it could be a change in Census methodology.

In 2010 it seemed like there was a simiilar change. In my area, two tracts lost significant population -- one with a county jail, and another being Greek Row at the UW. In both cases, nuances about who counted as a "resident" probably evolved.

The weird thing is, it's not even a navy base. It's just a census tract with a navy pier, but no land based accommodations (Chelsea/West Ghent area of Norfolk). Naval Station Norfolk (the world's largest naval base) is a few miles to the North. The census tract containing that naval base experienced a very large population decrease in 2010 just as the Chelsea/West Ghent increased, so it matches up. The Naval Station Norfolk census tract covers much more land so the resultant density is lower in 2000 and 2020 when that's where the navy personnel were registered. I'm just wondering why it seems the address for navy personnel was moved from the actual naval base to that census tract (Chelsea/West Ghent).

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by memph

Detroit kinda "unsprawled" with population loss in rural/exurban St. Clair County. Also population loss in the most derelict areas didn't hurt that much because by 2010, those areas weren't contributing that much density anyways. Also significant was rising densities in many inner suburbs, which make up much of the densest tracts in the MSA. This includes Dearborn, Dearborn Heights, Allen Park, but most importantly Hamtramck. Hamtramck was already the densest part of the MSA in 2010 and got 27% denser by 2020. Greater Downtown grew a fair bit, and many low density mid-outer ring suburbs had more negative population trajectories than the inner suburbs.

yeah, strange things can happen when you break the density down by census tracts. census tracts don't really care about what is or isn't within the municipal limits of the central city, only where the people are. and detroit is one of the most extreme inverse donut cities that we have (densifying core, hollowing out city neighborhoods, densifying inner ring burbs).

but it's still interesting that, of the 1M+ MSAs, only Detroit and Birmingham were able to increase MSA WPD while simultaneously seeing a drop in their central city population. the other central city decliners (St. Louis, Pittsburgh, Memphis, Hartford, Cleveland, Milwaukee, Baltimore) all lost WPD at the MSA level, as one would normally expect.

and the only two that went the other way (central city gain, MSA WPD loss) were San Antonio and Virginia Beach (which is largely explained by that one weird tract near the navy base in Norfolk). I'm guessing that San Antonio's city proper is so vast in land area that the city itself is still sprawling out to some degree?

[Crawford]

The highest density census tracts in the U.S. are very heavily correlated with the most transit-oriented census tracts. Not exactly surprising, but it shows the potentially symbiotic relationship between the two:

https://www.liberallandscape.org/202...united-states/

And I wish we had such metro transit share maps for non-U.S. metros.

[mhays]

Originally Posted by memph

The weird thing is, it's not even a navy base. It's just a census tract with a navy pier, but no land based accommodations (Chelsea/West Ghent area of Norfolk). Naval Station Norfolk (the world's largest naval base) is a few miles to the North. The census tract containing that naval base experienced a very large population decrease in 2010 just as the Chelsea/West Ghent increased, so it matches up. The Naval Station Norfolk census tract covers much more land so the resultant density is lower in 2000 and 2020 when that's where the navy personnel were registered. I'm just wondering why it seems the address for navy personnel was moved from the actual naval base to that census tract (Chelsea/West Ghent).

Maybe the post office moved?

[memph]

Originally Posted by Crawford

The highest density census tracts in the U.S. are very heavily correlated with the most transit-oriented census tracts. Not exactly surprising, but it shows the potentially symbiotic relationship between the two:

https://www.liberallandscape.org/202...united-states/

And I wish we had such metro transit share maps for non-U.S. metros.

Well those maps are just transit vs car free households but anyways, here's a rough map for the GTA at the ward/district level (2011 data)

Car free households


Cars per person of driving age (16+)

Suburbs generally have more adults per household, so they're unlikely to be car free even if they have moderate amounts of cars per adult.

So the core has a lot of car free households, however the more affluent subway served areas of North Toronto, Willowdale and Central Etobicoke are less likely to be car-free than the mostly bus served areas of York and western North York.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-PVR6Cp05Fm...ownership2.png

[Crawford]

Thanks for those Toronto maps. They make sense to me. The auto usage generally follows the relative density and age, excepting a few wealthy in-town geographies.

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

yeah, strange things can happen when you break the density down by census tracts. census tracts don't really care about what is or isn't within the municipal limits of the central city, only where the people are. and detroit is one of the most extreme inverse donut cities that we have (densifying core, hollowing out city neighborhoods, densifying inner ring burbs).

but it's still interesting that, of the 1M+ MSAs, only Detroit and Birmingham were able to increase MSA WPD while simultaneously seeing a drop in their central city population. the other central city decliners (St. Louis, Pittsburgh, Memphis, Hartford, Cleveland, Milwaukee, Baltimore) all lost WPD at the MSA level, as one would normally expect.

and the only two that went the other way (central city gain, MSA WPD loss) were San Antonio and Virginia Beach (which is largely explained by that one weird tract near the navy base in Norfolk). I'm guessing that San Antonio's city proper is so vast in land area that the city itself is still sprawling out to some degree?

San Antonio may also be explained by changes to methodology, being one of the largest centers of military employment.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by wwmiv

San Antonio may also be explained by changes to methodology, being one of the largest centers of military employment.

yeah, maybe there was a similar situation there like that one odd-ball tract in norfolk that appears to have been massively impacted by the movement/redefinition of military personnel.

[memph]

Edmonton CMA

Population
2011: 1,160,416
2016: 1,321,426

Weighted Density
2011: 5,418 ppsm
2016: 5,758 ppsm

[memph]

Hamilton CMA

Population
2011: 721,053
2016: 747,545

Weighted Density
2011: 7,455 ppsm
2016: 7,350 ppsm

[memph]

London CMA

Population
2011: 474,786
2016: 494,069

Weighted Density
2011: 5,248 ppsm
2016: 5,289 ppsm