The US Census Bureau thread

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by MNMike

Whoever said 100 square miles is a small area for a city...it is not! That is actually a pretty large footprint for a mid sized city, average at best...that is the is basically the square mileage of Minneapolis and St. Paul combined(population 670,000 together). I am pretty sure Denver has open land within it's city limits...some of which was turned into suburban style development over the past decade...along with the land that was left to fill when the airport moved. All of that Denver growth was not in the core of the city, so don't try to make it sound like that I am sure an impressive enough amount of it was though, with all the nice new developments.

What I was getting at was that Denver is not known for being a largely suburban city, with the addendum that every city has its share of suburban development.

[hudkina]

Originally Posted by BevoLJ

Year    Detroit       Austin
1930   1,568,662      53,120
1950   1,849,568      132,459
1980   1,203,368      345,496
2010   713,777        790,390

Austin in 1950 had an area of 32 sq. mi. Detroit had an area of 139 sq. mi. Austin in 2010 had an area of 265 sq. mi. in 2010 Detroit had an area of 139 sq. mi.

Detroit would need only annex the suburb of Dearborn for it to retake Austin. It would have a population of 811,930 in 163 sq. mi. compared to Austin with 790,390 in 265 sq. mi. If Detroit went out and annexed a full 265 sq. mi. it would have a population of about 1.3 million.

And yes, I was quoting the CSA numbers, but even if you exclude Genessee County (Flint) it is still a metropolitan area of 4.8 million. Washtenaw and Monroe Counties are very much in the realm of Metro Detroit, even if they were technically excluded from the MSA using the 2003 OMB standards.

[mhays]

Detroit is still well over 5,000/sm. Still better than most suburbs outside the NY/LA/SF metros. And certainly way over Austin.

Denver can legitimately subtract its airport, leaving something like 102 square miles if I recall. If so, it's nearly 6,000/sm in that area. Not great but ok vs average for newer US cities. True, much of that growth was in greenfield/brownfield zones at the Stapleton or Lowry airport sites, in the Central Platte Valley alongside Downtown, or in suburban tendrils along the edges. Still a fair amount of misc. infill too.

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by mhays

Detroit is still well over 5,000/sm. Still better than most suburbs outside the NY/LA/SF metros. And certainly way over Austin.

/sm? I assume this is shorthand for people per square mile? If so, Detroit has 138.8 square miles of land and 5,142 ppsm (a more common abbreviation, btw). Austin has 251.5 square miles of land and 3,143 ppsm.

Ofcourse Detroit still has more people per square mile. It is a longstanding dense urban community while Austin is still in its growth phase.

[The ATX]

Detroit and Austin are two cities that I would never have expected to be part of a city-versus-city discussion.

[BG918]

Originally Posted by Hill Country

Detroit and Austin are two cities that I would never have expected to be part of a city-versus-city discussion.

Yet here we are. Detroit/Michigan and Austin/Texas are going in opposite directions. One's importance is dwindling and the other's increasing.

[mhays]

While Austin has a lot going for it, it's still 1/3 the size of Detroit, obviously.

[jcchii]

the main issue for Detroit right now seems to be that the ship is not pointed in the right direction.
at least there's evidence that some of the population stayed in the metro...

[babybackribs2314]

I'm surprised no-one is commenting on how amazing the numbers for DC metro are... unless NYC's metro gained more population, DC's CSA increased more than Dallas did (for the #3 spot, between Dallas and Houston). It's fairly remarkable that a member of the Megalopolis (aka: an old city) gained so much, and DC stands out big time on the list.

[Raining Inside]

Originally Posted by mhays

While Austin has a lot going for it, it's still 1/3 the size of Detroit, obviously.

??? Are you referring to the metro population? Downtown Austin is exponentially more happening than Detroit. If you want to compare 2011 Austin to 1940 Detroit I will have to say that Detroit wins. But what year are we living in?

[Allnatural85]

someone should post densities... Would love to see how some city and metros desified... Diamondpark?

[mhays]

Originally Posted by Raining Inside

??? Are you referring to the metro population? Downtown Austin is exponentially more happening than Detroit. If you want to compare 2011 Austin to 1940 Detroit I will have to say that Detroit wins. But what year are we living in?

City populations aren't considered very relevant on SSP. The "city" is more like the metro or UA or whatever. The big blotch you can see when you fly over.

[KB0679]

Originally Posted by babybackribs2314

I'm surprised no-one is commenting on how amazing the numbers for DC metro are... unless NYC's metro gained more population, DC's CSA increased more than Dallas did (for the #3 spot, between Dallas and Houston). It's fairly remarkable that a member of the Megalopolis (aka: an old city) gained so much, and DC stands out big time on the list.

I don't think of DC as an "old city," at least not in the same way as Philly, NYC, and Boston. Still, the growth in the region has been remarkable over the decade--even if much (not all) of it was due to wars and a recession.

[Ch.G, Ch.G]

Originally Posted by babybackribs2314

I'm surprised no-one is commenting on how amazing the numbers for DC metro are... unless NYC's metro gained more population, DC's CSA increased more than Dallas did (for the #3 spot, between Dallas and Houston). It's fairly remarkable that a member of the Megalopolis (aka: an old city) gained so much, and DC stands out big time on the list.

I think for a lot of people DC's growth is bittersweet. Yes, an "old" city has added hundreds of thousands to its population in a way that favors urbanism/TOD, but it's because the federal government has grown to unprecedented levels over the past decade even as the rest of the nation suffers.

[dave8721]

Originally Posted by Allnatural85

someone should post densities... Would love to see how some city and metros desified... Diamondpark?

The new 2010 densities for Miami and the other densest cities in Miami-Dade:
North Bay Village 21,484 pp/sqmile
Sunny Isles Beach 20,524 pp/sqmile
Sweetwater 17,087 pp/sqmile
Bay Harbor Islands 14,070 pp/sqmile
Aventura 13,245 pp/sqmile
Miami Beach 12,540 pp/sqmile
Hialeah 11,702 pp/sqmile
Miami 11,196 pp/sqmile
Surfside 10,077 pp/sqmile
Key Biscayne 10,069 pp/sqmile

Those cities combine for 69 square miles and a population of 812,851 if Miami got all annexy. Those darn "new non-dense" sunbelt cities again....

[BG918]

Originally Posted by Ch.G, Ch.G

I think for a lot of people DC's growth is bittersweet. Yes, an "old" city has added hundreds of thousands to its population in a way that favors urbanism/TOD, but it's because the federal government has grown to unprecedented levels over the past decade even as the rest of the nation suffers.

The same impetus that fostered high growth in DC also benefitted other cities with a large government presence, such as cities with military bases, state universities, and the seat of state government where the majority of federal offices are located in each state. Places without those advantages, like Detroit, were left on their own...

[BG918]

Originally Posted by dave8721

The new 2010 densities for Miami and the other densest cities in Miami-Dade:
North Bay Village 21,484 pp/sqmile
Sunny Isles Beach 20,524 pp/sqmile
Sweetwater 17,087 pp/sqmile
Bay Harbor Islands 14,070 pp/sqmile
Aventura 13,245 pp/sqmile
Miami Beach 12,540 pp/sqmile
Hialeah 11,702 pp/sqmile
Miami 11,196 pp/sqmile
Surfside 10,077 pp/sqmile
Key Biscayne 10,069 pp/sqmile

Those cities combine for 69 square miles and a population of 812,851 if Miami got all annexy. Those darn "new non-dense" sunbelt cities again....

Miami and New Orleans, while definitely Sunbelt cities, are much older and therefore are more dense than their Southern counterparts. They also are restricted in their growth (Miami with the ocean on one side and protected swampland on the other and New Orleans with its flooding/land issues and rivers) while other Southern cities can sprawl into the surrounding forest and/or farmland.

[urbanactivist]

Well I definitely see a correlation between Austin and Detroit. I see a correlation between Detroit and every other US metro... an unsustainable growth pattern and economy.

Right now our economies are driven by push out growth... the assumption that everyone will continue to choose the suburbs over the cities. We rely so much on the industry of new home construction that it's quickly become the most frequent thing that we actually "produce". A dip in the housing market casts a long shadow over our whole financial industry and stock exchange.

But here's the problem... Americans aren't going to continue to buy up newly constrcted mcmansions. The younger generation is going to be less car-dependent, and less willing to tie themselves down to a mortgage for the rest of their lives. Suburban school systems are starting to decline and don't hold all of the advantages that they were once perceived to have. In short, I don't think the big sweeping housing recovery that everyone is hoping for isn't going to happen.

Now Detroit had some other challenges going on... turmoil in the auto industry, etc. But housing definitely played a role there too. Instead of trying to invest in urban neighborhoods, people saw the decline around them and abandoned ship. The first half of the decade we had craziness in the markets that allowed people that would never be able to afford a home the chance to grab one. I think the mass exodus in Detroit is partly stemming from that as well.

[themaguffin]

Miami is not dense because of age, but for the lack of land as already mentioned.

[Ch.G, Ch.G]

Originally Posted by BG918

The same impetus that fostered high growth in DC also benefitted other cities with a large government presence, such as cities with military bases, state universities, and the seat of state government where the majority of federal offices are located in each state. Places without those advantages, like Detroit, were left on their own...

DC is in its own league when it comes to benefiting from (federal) government largesse.