The US Census Bureau thread

[SD_Phil]

That cities, throughout history, were not ringed by agricultural development. That this pattern of development is unique to the history of the United States and that this is what people mean when they talk about "suburbanization."

You're wrong on all counts.

[Onn]

Originally Posted by SD_Phil

That cities, throughout history, were not ringed by agricultural development. That this pattern of development is unique to the history of the United States and that this is what people mean when they talk about "suburbanization."

You're wrong on all counts.

I never said that, I said it's ingrained in the American tradtion. It is unique to our country, all other industrialized countries have and did emphisis dense urban growth. In America we largly have grown outward. We did sort of create the idea of living outside density in modern times.

[Chase Unperson]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

"quality of life" probably does play a part, but if americans were actually interested in strong inner cities, then the northeast would be blowing all other regions out of the water. nothing comes close to the bos-wash when it comes to strong inner cities. the vast majority of americans still seem to want cheap large homes in the suburbs, that's part of the reason why states where that type of arrangement predominates (even within the city propers through most of the sunbelt) are seeing the largest amount of growth. texas, for a state its size, has precious little of what i would classify as "city" in the traditional sense, and yet it's exploding.

But having said that There is no shortage of large cheap homes in exurbia in any us metro.

Texas/florida are killing it for other reasons.

[Chicago103]

In 2000 Illinois increased by 8.6% and the city of Chicago alone by 4%.

In 2010 Illinois increased by 3.3% and while that is not horrible that is a lower percentage growth for the city of Chicago alone for 2000. How do you think that bodes for the city of Chicago's population? It is entirely possible that downstate is losing people badly but I would find it hard to believe that the city of Chicago grew more percentage wise than the state of Illinois as a whole, but do you think it is possible? Indications seem to be that NYC grew more than New York State so who knows.

Hell the District of Columbia grew (its first increase since 1950) by more percentage wise than the state of Illinois and if that is a gauge for how well America's cities are doing and not just an isolated incident of what is happening there than that is a good sign.

[Onn]

Originally Posted by Chicago103

Hell the District of Columbia grew (its first increase since 1950) by more percentage wise than the state of Illinois and if that is a gauge for how well America's cities are doing and not just an isolated incident of what is happening there than that is a good sign.

DC's a very unique case, think what is in the city.

[Chicago103]

Originally Posted by Onn

DC's a very unique case, think what in the city.

Yeah but what is "in the city" didn't help it population wise between 1950 and 2000, it was losing people during that whole period.

[schwerve]

Originally Posted by Onn

I never said that, I said it's ingrained in the American tradtion. It is unique to our country, all other industrialized countries have and did emphisis dense urban growth. In America we largly have grown outward. We did sort of create the idea of living outside density in modern times.

US in 1900, 40% Urban, 60% Rural

US in 1990, 75% Urban, 25% Rural

source: US Census Bureau

[Onn]

Originally Posted by Chicago103

Yeah but what is "in the city" didn't help it population wise between 1950 and 2000, it was losing people during that whole period.

That's because the government has been growing leaps and bounds since 2000, why else would that growth be taking place in DC?

[Onn]

Originally Posted by schwerve

US in 1900, 40% Urban, 60% Rural

US in 1990, 75% Urban, 25% Rural

source: US Census Bureau

Yes, but "urban" does not mean the dense kind of growth that all other industrialized countries have seen.

[plinko]

*ugh* my helmet hurts with all this non-sensical nonsense that started off discussing Michigan and then went...um...somewhere else...

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Anyway, it's obvious that the recession (and subsequent immigration purge) really damaged the population growth in Arizona. It was projected to already be larger than Indiana and maybe Massachusetts.

They have to be really disappointed in North Carolina that they didn't gain another house seat (remember that in 2000 the final seat went to Utah and not NC as well). NC grew by 1.486M people and Georgia grew by 1.501M (and is just a bit larger). Georgia gets a seat, NC does not.

[Nowhereman1280]

Originally Posted by Onn

Not literally suburbia, but an earlier form that put emphasis on outward expanion.

Lose an argument, change the definition of the word. You can't call something by a word and then change the definition of the word to make your argument work, sorry. If you had said "Westward Expansion is a theme in the hisory of development in America." Then you would have been correct, but you can't say suburbia is a theme and then attempt to redefine the word suburbia as "westward expansion." That said, you aren't even using the term westward expansion, you are saying "outward expansion" which I would assume means cities sprawling outwards in which case you are still extremely incorrect.

Drive though small towns in America from the 19th century and you'll see many of the same characteristics that you see in modern subrubs today. They just were smaller.

Bhahahaha like what? Name one characteristic shared between an agrarian small town from the 1800's and a suburb. I can guarantee that the only similarity you will find is that suburbs from the past 25 years attempt, and miserably fail, to replicate the traditional architectural styles of small towns by tacking gables onto box stores.

Trust me, I grew up in an agrarian small town (it was a regional mill town providing grain processing services to the nearby farmers) nearly perfectly preserved from the 1800's. It is in no way similar to the suburbs. In fact, the planning and design of the historic areas of town is much more akin to the planning of downtown Chicago than it is to a suburb...

Again, name one thing a suburb and a small town from the 1800's have in common that is more than superficial (i.e. you can't say something like "they both have grass") and not a common trait of all human civilization and I'll admit you have a point. If you truly believe what you just said you've clearly never been to a small town with any historical sections.

[Chicago103]

Originally Posted by Onn

That's because the government has been growing leaps and bounds since 2000, why else would that growth be taking place in DC?

I think that's a bit simplistic of a take on it. Washington D.C. suffered the same effects of suburbanization and urban decay that most northern cities did after 1950, I am sure the loss had nothing to do with the federal government shrinking. If anything this means that among those moving to the DC metro area during the past decade more of them are choosing to move to the District of Columbia itself as opposed to the suburbs than in previous decades.

[Onn]

Originally Posted by Chicago103

I think that's a bit simplistic of a take on it. Washington D.C. suffered the same effects of suburbanization and urban decay that most northern cities did after 1950, I am sure the loss had nothing to do with the federal government shrinking. If anything this means that among those moving to the DC metro area during the past decade more of them are choosing to move to the District of Columbia itself as opposed to the suburbs than in previous decades.

I think the government has a lot to do with it...

"While Washington, D.C. was hit hard by the economic recession, some analysts believe that the area is now on the mend. The government is still hiring despite many industries are still enacting hiring freezes. However, the District of Columbia is still posting a 12 percent unemployment rate, indicating there is more work ahead to bolster the economy."

http://www.job.com/career-advice/emp...g-economy.html

[Chicago103]

Originally Posted by Onn

I think the government has a lot to do with it...



http://www.job.com/career-advice/emp...g-economy.html

My point is that those with jobs in DC could easily decide to move to the DC suburbs instead just like how people with jobs in any major city can chose to move to the suburbs. Now given Virginia and Maryland's growth rates it would seem to indicate that the entire DC metro area is seeing a good amount of growth and that might reflect on DC itself growing in population. So a growth in government jobs can have an effect on a 61 square mile district but it also reflects a shift towards more centralized urban living as well.

[Nowhereman1280]

Originally Posted by Chicago103

I think that's a bit simplistic of a take on it. Washington D.C. suffered the same effects of suburbanization and urban decay that most northern cities did after 1950, I am sure the loss had nothing to do with the federal government shrinking. If anything this means that among those moving to the DC metro area during the past decade more of them are choosing to move to the District of Columbia itself as opposed to the suburbs than in previous decades.

I imagine that this trend has a lot more to do with plummeting crime rates over the past few decades and the generally increasing popularity of inner cities among the younger generations. IE the white flight wounds are just gradually healing.

[Onn]

Originally Posted by Nowhereman1280

Lose an argument, change the definition of the word. You can't call something by a word and then change the definition of the word to make your argument work, sorry. If you had said "Westward Expansion is a theme in the hisory of development in America." Then you would have been correct, but you can't say suburbia is a theme and then attempt to redefine the word suburbia as "westward expansion." That said, you aren't even using the term westward expansion, you are saying "outward expansion" which I would assume means cities sprawling outwards in which case you are still extremely incorrect.

Sure you can change your word, I misspoke. I know what I mean in my own mind and that's really all that matters at the end of the day. I know what I'm speaking here, I could write an entire book on it all...with a lot of facts.

Bhahahaha like what? Name one characteristic shared between an agrarian small town from the 1800's and a suburb. I can guarantee that the only similarity you will find is that suburbs from the past 25 years attempt, and miserably fail, to replicate the traditional architectural styles of small towns by tacking gables onto box stores.

Trust me, I grew up in an agrarian small town (it was a regional mill town providing grain processing services to the nearby farmers) nearly perfectly preserved from the 1800's. It is in no way similar to the suburbs. In fact, the planning and design of the historic areas of town is much more akin to the planning of downtown Chicago than it is to a suburb...

Again, name one thing a suburb and a small town from the 1800's have in common that is more than superficial (i.e. you can't say something like "they both have grass") and not a common trait of all human civilization and I'll admit you have a point. If you truly believe what you just said you've clearly never been to a small town with any historical sections.

Large yards, cookie-cutter like construction, skewed and dubbed down architectural elements. I've been around them quite a lot as well, I can see a resmblance.

[Nowhereman1280]

Originally Posted by Onn

Yes, but "urban" does not mean the dense kind of growth that all other industrialized countries have seen.

For about 100 years Chicago and New York City were the densest, fastest growing, and most industrialized cities in the world. So you must admit that the United States did indeed go through a period of extreme urbanization.

[schwerve]

Originally Posted by Onn

Yes, but "urban" does not mean the dense kind of growth that all other industrialized countries have seen.

I think have arbitrary definitions that you essentially made up and no facts to support your arguments, but I'm sure they "feel" right.

[Onn]

Originally Posted by Nowhereman1280

For about 100 years Chicago and New York City were the densest, fastest growing, and most industrialized cities in the world. So you must admit that the United States did indeed go through a period of extreme urbanization.

90% of the population never lived in those cities.

[Onn]

Originally Posted by schwerve

I think have arbitrary definitions that you essentially made up and no facts to support your arguments, but I'm sure they "feel" right.

I wouldn't be saying if it didn't have some solid base, and I have presented evidence as well.