NEW YORK | 2020 Census data | 8,804,190

[CCs77]

Originally Posted by j korzeniowski

wow, extremely jealous. that's amazing, and great for nyc, obviously. (as a chicagoan, it really hurt to type that, heh heh.)

my apologies if already discussed, but why the growth? (and not just growth, astounding growth-- i mean, a northern city with net positive *inward* migration?! the mind boggles)

it can't be as simple as "it's new york", as nyc was hemorrhaging people for a few decades, especially the 80's.

New York was hurt by similar problems as other northern and rust belt cities, but to explain why it rebounded you may indeed say that is just because "it is New York" .

I mean, New York is unique among all other cities, its own characteristics made it more resilient to the changes that affected other cities. For example, it suffered deindustralization, as rust belt cities, but being the economy much more diverse, it could grow in other sectors as the industry was declining.

A good example is the tourism, it has had a phenomenal growth. You know "it's New York" no other city could attract the number of people visiting New York, not even near, both from inside or outside the U.S. And that is just because"it is New York" no other city has that advantage inherent to itself.

In Spanish we have a saying "crea fama y echate a dormir" (make fame and then go to sleep) So, New York is like a promise land, or at least perceived as such, it has built an image, worldwide, that no other city has, it is like an Urban Icon. Many people or bussinesses would move to New York just because you know "it's New York" (I certainly would) with all what that means. And that has even been promoted with TV shows like "sex and the city". New York has always thought to be both rough and chic, during the 70's the roughness outpaced the chicness, but now it is the other way, I think.

Concluding, when you think of New York you think of diversity, that leads to some characteristics that make New York New York. things that other cities don't have "because you know, they are not New York"

Originally Posted by Antares41

In about 2-3 years the Bronx may eclipse it maximum population of 1.471 million. This is an amazing story. There is still vacant lots in the south and central Bronx. It will be interesting to see if the swell in population results in a boom in residential construction like what we are seeing in Brooklyn and Queens. Affortable rental property will certainly accelerate the population growth.

As a matter of fact, The Bronx has had a construction boom, A great part of it precisely with affordable (for NY standards) rentals.
You can see how the Southern Bronx has changed in the past decade, with dozens of new building filling the land previously empied since the times when "The Bronx was burning"

2001






2011

[Chicago103]

Originally Posted by fleonzo

That's right....they're talking about "domestic" migration. The foreign immigration has been outpacing the domestic migration (out) for over two decades- hence the reason why NYC is still growing. The slow down in domestic migration plus the birth/death rate increasing the # of births over deaths is making the population increase accelerate even more than it did in the past decade.

I think when they talk about migration they should include both domestic and foreign combined because either way they are still people moving "to" a given city. To do otherwise is to somehow imply that domestic migrants are somehow preferable to foreign immigrants. Considering for much of NYC's history it's growth has always been in large part due to immigrants.

[JDRCRASH]

Originally Posted by NYguy

I don't think Manhattan will ever again reach its peak population.

Wait, why not? Obviously back in the early 20th century, there were A LOT more people living in each unit. But at some point, I would have to think that increasingly taller new residential towers will eventually offer more condos and lofts than even some of the densest buildings back in the day once did. Eventually, albeit decades in the future, all these new units under construction, while currently ridiculously expensive, are bound to be over capacity, and thus leading to higher populations, right?

Hope this question makes sense.

[fflint]

Originally Posted by Chicago103

I think when they talk about migration they should include both domestic and foreign combined because either way they are still people moving "to" a given city. To do otherwise is to somehow imply that domestic migrants are somehow preferable to foreign immigrants.

Agreed. A new arrival is a new arrival, and population growth is population growth.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by JDRCRASH

Wait, why not? Obviously back in the early 20th century, there were A LOT more people living in each unit. But at some point, I would have to think that increasingly taller new residential towers will eventually offer more condos and lofts than even some of the densest buildings back in the day once did.

Obviously no one can predict the future, but I would guess probably no.

The problem is that new residential buildings in Manhattan tend to consist of very large units. Developers are typically building 2-5 bedroom apartments, not studios and one bedrooms. And the 2 bedrooms they're building now (to take an example) are much bigger than the the 2 bedrooms from previous decades.

To compound the problem, existing units are being combined like crazy. So you have plenty of apartment buildings that had 30-40 units decades ago and now have 15-20 units.

And then you have increasing numbers of nonresidents who own or rent second or third homes in Manhattan, and they aren't counted in the population numbers.

So I think it's theoretically possible that Manhattan could reach a new population high, but it would require an absolute deluge of construction, and over many decades, and even then, I'm not confident.

[CCs77]

Originally Posted by Chicago103

I think when they talk about migration they should include both domestic and foreign combined because either way they are still people moving "to" a given city. To do otherwise is to somehow imply that domestic migrants are somehow preferable to foreign immigrants. Considering for much of NYC's history it's growth has always been in large part due to immigrants.

I think it makes sense that they distinguish domestic and foreign migration because they are not the same (not that one is better than the other, but that they are differen situations) It is not the same people coming from abroad, that inhabitants of one country moving inside that same country.

The United States has always been a country with huge internal movements, People moving west, people moving from south to north, then the reverse situation, from north to south, etc. But the United States also has always been a country that receive foreign inmigrants, much, much more than it give away.

That is why it make sense they make that distinction, there's always been more people entering the U.S. than going away, but the internal movements of population can vary over the time.

[Antares41]

Originally Posted by CCs77:

"As a matter of fact, The Bronx has had a construction boom, A great part of it precisely with affordable (for NY standards) rentals.
You can see how the Southern Bronx has changed in the past decade, with dozens of new building filling the land previously empied since the times when "The Bronx was burning"

Yes, I recall that the Melrose section has seen a lot of new construction and there is a ton of renovation along the Grand Councourse. And, some commercial development in the Hub (149th and Third Ave.). Just wondering how long it will take to spread to other neighborhoods east and north ( i.e. Port Morris, Longwood, Hunts Point, Morrisania, Crotona Park East, etc.), perhaps they are already seeing new construction, just don't hear much about them. Still great news for the Bronx.

[Bronxwood]

Oh of course! Development in those neighborhoods is already coming. You just dont hear much about it unfortunately because only the starchitecture going uP in Manhattan, Brooklyn, Queens and Staten Island (large observation wheel) gets showcased. Most projects in the Bronx, as mentioned, are affordable housing for middle and working class families. You definitely see things getting built in areas outside the south bronx, especially alongside the elevated train, which you can see while riding through.

Theres's currently a massive housing complex proposed near the cross bronx and theres also construction going on at webster avenue north of fordham road, mostly all new housing on empty lots. The gas station across from the hunts point avenue station will become a mixed use midrise with commercial uses and apartments soon. This will further develope the commercial strip that is southern boulevard.

Edit: now that I remember, there is a proposal to transform the kingsbridge armory into a hockey destination. So developemnt is definitely already creeping up away from the south bronx. The borough is no longer the abandoned slum of yeasteryear! Change has arrived!

[Bronxwood]

Here's that large development proposed near the cross bronx in west farms:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/25/re...anted=all&_r=0

[fleonzo]

Originally Posted by Chicago103

I think when they talk about migration they should include both domestic and foreign combined because either way they are still people moving "to" a given city. To do otherwise is to somehow imply that domestic migrants are somehow preferable to foreign immigrants. Considering for much of NYC's history it's growth has always been in large part due to immigrants.

Agreed!

[Antares41]

Originally Posted by Bronxwood

Here's that large development proposed near the cross bronx in west farms:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/25/re...anted=all&_r=0

Thanks, That was an interesting article and just the type of development I was hoping to see occur in the rest of the Bronx. However, had to laugh about the statement regarding the Sheridan Expressway. Seem like there been discussion to tear it down for at least 30 years now, yet it still exist.

[Chicago103]

Originally Posted by CCs77

I think it makes sense that they distinguish domestic and foreign migration because they are not the same (not that one is better than the other, but that they are differen situations) It is not the same people coming from abroad, that inhabitants of one country moving inside that same country.

The United States has always been a country with huge internal movements, People moving west, people moving from south to north, then the reverse situation, from north to south, etc. But the United States also has always been a country that receive foreign inmigrants, much, much more than it give away.

That is why it make sense they make that distinction, there's always been more people entering the U.S. than going away, but the internal movements of population can vary over the time.

My sensitivity to this issue arises from right wingers here in Illinois who try to give the impression that the state is losing population just by looking at domestic migration when in reality the state is still growing because of immigration and natural increase. It can be used as a propaganda piece of "look at those blue liberal states, metros, cities, etc. hemorraging people" when in reality many of these areas have stable population growth even if it is relatively less. They can even say "look at NYC barely more people are moving in than moving out" when in reality it's growth is very impressive considering how old and dense it is.

[NYguy]

http://www.rew-online.com/2013/03/20...p-to-brooklyn/

World catching up to Brooklyn

By Orlando Rodriguez
March 20, 2013

Brooklyn could overtake Chicago as the third largest “city” in the US if it continues to grow at its present rate. Currently growing at 2.4 percent, the borough’s population will pass the three million mark some time in the next decade if the growth rate stays the same. A faster influx of new residents to Kings County would place it right behind Los Angeles even sooner, maybe before 2020.

Overall, the New York City’s population grew by 161,564 from April 2010 to July 2012, a two percent increase, according to data released by the US Census Bureau. Manhattan’s growth rate was 2.1 percent and Staten Island was last among the boroughs, growing by only 0.4 percent.

Chicago, currently the nation’s third largest city, is mired in the slowest population growth of all of the largest metro areas in the country, according to the Census data. Brooklyn’s growth would place it ahead of the Windy City sometime within the next 12 years.

Brooklyn Borough President Marty Markowitz said during his ‘State of the Borough’ address. “During the 70s, Brooklyn lost nearly one out of every seven residents, today it’s a different story. Every day brings new arrivals from all over the world to Brooklyn whose dreams are their ticket in. For those of us old-school Brooklynites who never gave up on Brooklyn, it has been incredible to see the world catch up with us.”

[nei]

Originally Posted by Chicago103

I assume when they mean "more people moving in than out" they are talking about domestic migration only and does not include foreign immigration? I can't imagine it being both foreign and domestic migration otherwise are you telling me that the growth in the 1990's was all natural increase (birth over deaths)?

Domestic migration for NYC in the 90s was a large negative.

[NYguy]

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/27/ny...ates-show.html

Population Growth in New York City Is Reversing Decades-Old Trend, Estimates Show


By SAM ROBERTS
MARCH 27, 2014

New York City may be an expensive place to live. Jobs are not easy to find, even as the city rebounds from the recession. And the public transit system is not always reliable or comfortable.

But despite the challenges of city living, the city’s population is growing in ways not seen in decades.

For the third consecutive year, New York City last year gained more people than it lost through migration, reversing a trend that stretched to the mid-20th century.

For the year ending July 1, 2013, an influx of foreigners combined with a continuing decline in the loss of migrants to other states increased the population by more than 61,000, nudging it past 8.4 million for the first time, according to estimates to be released on Thursday by the United States Census Bureau.

Every borough registered a gain in population. Even the Bronx, a traditional laggard, recorded a rate nearly as high as top-ranked Brooklyn and Manhattan. While Manhattan and the Bronx lost more people to migration than they gained, the difference was made up by more births than deaths.

Joseph J. Salvo, director of the population division for the Department of City Planning, estimated that the number of New Yorkers had grown by 2.8 percent since 2010.

“That’s big,” he said.

Overall, Dr. Salvo said, “it’s the first time since the late 1940s or early 1950s that we’ve had a net migration near zero or positive.” Three years suggest a trend that he described as “very significant.”

“These population increases underscore the need to spur creation of housing for all New Yorkers, something which we are focusing on as part of the mayor’s mandate to provide 200,000 affordable apartments over the next 10 years,” said Carl Weisbrod, the planning commission chairman.

[MolsonExport]

Always great to hear of core cities hitting all-time high population counts. I recall the gloomy seventies, when NYC was projected to go below 7 million (it didn't, but only barely).

[LouisVanDerWright]

Nice, NYC it at its all time population peak right? I long for a day when Chicago sees 3,000,000+ residents in the city proper again.

Is there a source for these estimates for other cities? Or is that data not out yet?

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright

Nice, NYC it at its all time population peak right? I long for a day when Chicago sees 3,000,000+ residents in the city proper again.

Is there a source for these estimates for other cities? Or is that data not out yet?

This is county-based data, so you can only get city populations when it's coterminous with a county or counties.

So, just glancing at the stats, NYC gained over 61,000, Philly and New Orleans gained a few thousand, Baltimore lost a few hundred, SF gained somewhat more than Philly and New Orleans, DC gained 13,000, etc.

You can also make rough guesses of cities based on their counties. For example, Boston makes up most of Suffolk county, which grew slightly, so one would assume Boston grew slightly.

As to all-time population high, the article is misleading in that it writes about domestic growth, not overall growth. The trend they're idenitying is that NYC has had positive domestic in-migration for the last few years, but overall growth has been constant since around 1980.

[C.]

Anyone have the exact number and.the.breakdown of the five boroughs?

8.336 million in 2012 + 61,000 and change = 8.397 million or 8.398

I hope that article is correct but it looks like it should be just under 8.4 million. So hope I'm wrong on this!!

[chris08876]

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright

Nice, NYC it at its all time population peak right? I long for a day when Chicago sees 3,000,000+ residents in the city proper again.

Is there a source for these estimates for other cities? Or is that data not out yet?

Same here. Its amazing to think in the 1950's it had 3,620,962 people. Ughgh I wish it never lost population can you imagine what it would of been like today.

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

Always great to hear of core cities hitting all-time high population counts. I recall the gloomy seventies, when NYC was projected to go below 7 million (it didn't, but only barely).

I wonder what the population will be like by 2016? With all of the projects going up in Manhattan, and the very large residentials going up in Queens and Brooklyn, 2016 will be a interesting year as many of those will probably be finished and most likely achieve full occupancy. The demand is just crazy. With everything that is going on, at the end of the 2014 year, I bet the population is close to 8.5 mil. Probably even higher if right now if you make a projection for the undocumented immigrants.