Census 2016 City Population Estimates

[NorthernDancer]

Usually there is a negative correlation between murder rates and population growth rates (people flee cities with high murder rates), yet Atlanta and Miami are growing fast even with relatively high per capita murder rates.

[chris08876]

July 2016 estimate: 3,976,322 for Los Angeles.

I thought LA was over 4 million years ago?

I could of swore reading articles in 2012 stating 4 million. IDK if they where basing it state figures or ones from the Feds. But, its good that essentially its past 4 million.

[Emprise du Lion]

Originally Posted by Ant131531

The real reason is that it lacks a constant inflow of immigrants. That is the only reason LA and NYC are growing is because of immigrants. Immigration can overtake domestic black outflow if it's high enough, but it's not in Chicago unlike in NYC or LA.

But even then, none of this explains why the entire Chicago metro is stagnant. We can argue Chicago's numbers are poor because of unusually high AA outflow, sure, but why is Chicago's metro growth so poor as well? Something is wrong with the Chicagoland area period. Enough people simply aren't moving to the Chicago area period. Could be weather, could be taxes, could be perception of crime I guess, could be a poor economy...who knows.

Chicagoland was slow growth, but I don't believe it turned negative until after Illinois' budget crisis began. Illinois had been slowly growing as well up until that point. What's happened is that the state has been operating without a budget for 2 years now, and the bills the state has been paying have primarily been court ordered. Since the crisis began social services have been cut across the board, it seems the state's school districts are almost constantly imperil of running out of money, the state universities are seeing their credit ratings get continuously downgraded as Illinois continues to give them less money, etc.

[The North One]

Originally Posted by Ant131531

The people moving out from the Southside aren't the gangbangers. It takes money to move to the South or West. It's likely those with at least moderate income who contribute to the tax base who are moving out. That's partly the reason why the crime rate hasn't dropped in proportion to the black residents that are moving out because the ones moving out aren't generally the ones commiting crime.

It does not take a lot of money to move to the South, especially when you can find low-level work or if black people have extended family back home in the south (most do), lower incomes flood into where they can get decent work without a super high education, coupled with low cost of living it's the whole reason the Sunbelt is gaining so much population, there is no other amenity the south has to offer. Moderate income black families will move to the more affluent suburbs of their respective cities, they won't move away when they already have jobs.

The weather hasn't magically changed either, Chicago was colder 50 years ago than it is now, southern summers haven't gotten any less awful. I don't know why this is constantly mindlessly cited, especially when Minneapolis is growing like it is with the most extreme climate in the U.S. and Seattle grows regardless of its terrible gray skies, it's got nothing to do with weather.

I've noticed this prevailing attitude among declining or stagnant midwestern cities. The notion that "It's fine that we're losing population. We're still gaining wealth!). It's a way to spin a loss as positive. A world class city shouldn't be declining no matter who is moving in or out especially in a golden age for cities across the country and honestly across general Western civilization. Chicago might literally be the only world class city that has a declining population in America, Canada, and Western Europe. That's sad.

These population trends are tied very closely with race relations, hardly something Chicago ever had control over. We're far from any kind of "golden age" either considering younger generations make at least 30% less when adjusted for inflation than previous generations in this country, we're mostly seeing the effects of globalization which elevates some classes and leaves others in the dust; wealth has decided it likes old urban cores again and they figured out they can use their power to push people out just as they used it to isolate themselves.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by Ant131531

The real reason is that it lacks a constant inflow of immigrants. That is the only reason LA and NYC are growing is because of immigrants. Immigration can overtake domestic black outflow if it's high enough, but it's not in Chicago unlike in NYC or LA.

But even then, none of this explains why the entire Chicago metro is stagnant. We can argue Chicago's numbers are poor because of unusually high AA outflow, sure, but why is Chicago's metro growth so poor as well? Something is wrong with the Chicagoland area period. Enough people simply aren't moving to the Chicago area period. Could be weather, could be taxes, could be perception of crime I guess, could be a poor economy...who knows.

The recent slowdown in immigration to Chicago is definitely a big factor in its population loss. Couldn't agree more.

Where there is a need, a demand generally gets filled. Whatever is happening in Chicago is much more complicated than mere net population numbers. But again, I largely see a region undergoing some kind of correction of sorts. We'll see where things take us.

[The North One]

Originally Posted by Eightball

My question would be why isn't Chicago making a more concerted effort to retain its African American population?

Why would Chicago ever do that when there are obviously a plethora of other looming problems? Chicago needs to focus on attracting educated professionals and international investment.

Why would they waste effort in trying to keep low to moderately educated people who are little more than pension burdens anyway? The Southside already has good public transit so they have access to jobs if they exist. Schools are kind of a vicious cycle, a sort of chicken-egg paradox. Just throwing money at them doesn't work and neighborhoods won't get better without decent schools, but schools don't get better without good neighborhoods.

Besides providing all the basic city services and eliminating blight as much as possible there isn't much the city really can do, unless there is a dramatic cultural shift in America, not much will change.

[LMich]

Originally Posted by The North One

Their methodology might also be skewed against the city since blight is being removed en masse lately.

http://www.detroitnews.com/story/new...sus/102124386/

This is something important I forget from time to time as it relates to the Bureau's formula for estimates. It is heavily weighted towards construction and demolition, which can have the effect of overstating population growth for cities building lots of new construction housing, and overstating population loss for cities demolishing a lot of vacant housing. The city of Detroit and it's land bank, alone, have demolished 11,500 housing units since 2014. This doesn't take into account the thousands demolished under the Bing administration or private demolitions.

Anyway, apart from all of that the city corroborates the trend of slowing population loss pointing to utility hook-ups and the like. Detroit lost a full quarter of it's population between 2000 and 2010. If the loss would even for some reason accelerate in these last four years of the decade and Detroit only halves that 25% loss that'd be a huge accomplishment. In my worst-case scenario, I think the 10-year loss could be around 11-12%. My rosier scenario places it below the 7.5% loss during the 90's.

[eixample]

Originally Posted by chris08876

July 2016 estimate: 3,976,322 for Los Angeles.

I thought LA was over 4 million years ago?

I could of swore reading articles in 2012 stating 4 million. IDK if they where basing it state figures or ones from the Feds. But, its good that essentially its past 4 million.

Every year they redo not just the estimates for the current year, but also the estimates for past years. Most big cities' 2015 population estimates were changed down for the 2016 estimates with NyC and LA going way down.

https://medium.com/migration-issues/...-ecf8b7408842?

[muertecaza]

Originally Posted by Capsule F

So what do we think Phoenix would be as a weighted density for metro, 1000-1200ppsm?

As of 2010, it was 4,394.9 ppsm. Between 2000 and 2010, weighted density was decreasing. But since 2010, my sense is that weighted density has likely stayed about the same or slightly increased.

[plinko]

Anybody got a simple list of the largest cities in population order over 100,000 people? I find the census site cumbersome, but I'm sure somebody here has done it already.

Originally Posted by Ant131531

I've noticed this prevailing attitude among declining or stagnant midwestern cities. The notion that "It's fine that we're losing population. We're still gaining wealth!). It's a way to spin a loss as positive.

I know I don't need to, but I just want to reiterate how absurdly simplistic and arbitrary this is.

[muertecaza]

Originally Posted by plinko

Anybody got a simple list of the largest cities in population order over 100,000 people? I find the census site cumbersome, but I'm sure somebody here has done it already.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o..._by_population

[Eightball]

Originally Posted by The North One

Why would Chicago ever do that when there are obviously a plethora of other looming problems? Chicago needs to focus on attracting educated professionals and international investment.

Why would they waste effort in trying to keep low to moderately educated people who are little more than pension burdens anyway? The Southside already has good public transit so they have access to jobs if they exist. Schools are kind of a vicious cycle, a sort of chicken-egg paradox. Just throwing money at them doesn't work and neighborhoods won't get better without decent schools, but schools don't get better without good neighborhoods.

Besides providing all the basic city services and eliminating blight as much as possible there isn't much the city really can do, unless there is a dramatic cultural shift in America, not much will change.

Sentiments like this are exactly why African Americans don't feel welcome. Sheesh.

And you have lost your mind thinking weather doesn't matter. Sure summers in the South suck but most people are fat and lazy and drive around/live in AC all day. Ice/snow is just worse for a number of reasons - oftentimes it is difficult to even safely walk/drive around. Sure some people prefer it, but not most imo

[mhays]

We know weather is a huge part of why people move. There's even a large volume of surveying on this. Skepticism is useful but this one has gotten to "do cigarettes kill" territory.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by mhays

We know weather is a huge part of why people move. There's even a large volume of surveying on this. Skepticism is useful but this one has gotten to "do cigarettes kill" territory.

Agreed, weather is a big factor in the Northeast/Midwest. But weather doesn't account for the variability over time. It doesn't explain why, say, Chicago had less outmigration in the 90's and 00's than today, obviously.

It's more of a permanent condition that accounts for some % of outmigration, with probably a higher share in good times (because people can afford to sell at good prices and move to Florida or wherever when they're feeling financially secure).

[The North One]

Weather is a side aspect that is considered, not the main driving force for city growth, it's not that difficult to understand.

Why would these cities ever exist with their populations if nobody wanted to live in a seasonal climate anyway? And as stated before plenty of cities with awful weather are growing, so that's not the central issue with these places.

Hot mugginess is not easy to escape, you can easily be kept warm in winters with proper attire.

[The North One]

Originally Posted by Eightball

Sentiments like this are exactly why African Americans don't feel welcome. Sheesh.

???

You're imagining something here, there is no negative sentiment, it's just the reality of this country. Chicago isn't going to solve systematic racism on its own, nor should the city waste time and cash attempting it and it's not logical for it to be chasing citizens who want to leave anyway.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by The North One

Weather is a side aspect that is considered, not the main driving force for city growth, it's not that difficult to understand.

Why would these cities ever exist with their populations if nobody wanted to live in a seasonal climate anyway?

You're right, but air conditioning and the auto changed everything. Prior to the 1950's, most of the Sunbelt was an awful place to live because no AC and because you were exposed to the heat/humidity. Nowadays you can live in 100 degree weather with terrible humidity and it barely registers for most folks, because you can avoid the weather.

The climate problems in the Northern cities aren't as easily avoided. Lack of sun can't be fixed. Cold can be avoided, but snow can't.

[bnk]

Originally Posted by Crawford

How are the worst population numbers in the entire U.S. characterized as "fairly well"?

No city in the U.S. comes close to Chicago's loss in the recent estimates. No metro, no state has comparable numbers. No way can that be spun as a positive.

I see this as fairly well. Our growth in income is outpacing the nation. Exporting people, many on assistance......

Latinos up 38k (+5.0%)
Whites up 16k (+1.9%)
Asian-Americans up 16k (+11.1%)
Blacks down 70k (-7.7%)







https://www.chicagobusiness.com/arti...-year-in-a-row

The difference appears to be what's happening in the black community.


According to Alden Loury, director of research and evaluation at the Metropolitan Planning Council, while the degree of black flight from the city has slowed some this decade, it's still averaging about 12,000 a year, based on data from the American Community Survey, also issued by the Census Bureau. Blacks leaving Cook County tended to move either to northwest Indiana or farther out in the metro area, or to Atlanta, Minneapolis-St. Paul, Dallas-Fort Worth, Indianapolis or Milwaukee, in that order of popularity of destinations.

The same data show the population of whites, Latinos and people of Asian heritage growing, he said.

Loury's conclusion: "The numbers show Chicago . . .Areas around the Loop and the central area are doing well, ...

Here's another result of the population shift:

According to Loury and other researchers, average income is growing faster in the Chicago area than nationally, even as population growth is slower.

ACS data indicate Cook County this decade has been "exporting" poor people to other regions—anywhere from 12,000 to 20,000 a year.


Another demographer, Kenneth Johnson from the University of New Hampshire, said he sees signs that, now that economic times are better, we're returning to an old pattern of people moving to the edge of the metro area where housing is cheaper, if at a somewhat slower rate compared to prior decades.
...

Meantime, let's look at Chicago's rival for the country's No. 3 city.
Houston, which some believe is poised to surpass Chicago soon in population, last year grew at a slower rate. Houston gained 18,666 people, hitting 2.3 million. If Chicago continued to decline and Houston to grow at these rates, the Texas city would be ahead of us around 2033.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by bnk

I see this as fairly well. Our growth in income is outpacing the nation. Exporting people, many on assistance......

Latinos up 38k (+5.0%)
Whites up 16k (+1.9%)
Asian-Americans up 16k (+11.1%)
Blacks down 70k (-7.7%)

You can't be serious. This is almost Trumpian-level absurd spin.

You're basically trying to spin this by saying "Chicago is doing fine because only the black hooligans are leaving, and that's a good thing".

Putting aside the apparent racism, and absurd premise, there is nothing happening with Chicago outmigration that isn't happening in every other big city in the Northeast and Midwest. There's absolutely no difference. In every city, the black population is declining. In fact, many cities have higher black population loss than Chicago. But none of these cities have equivalent overall population loss, so what gives?

Also, the premise is wrong. Chicago isn't losing people because of outmigration, or blacks leaving. Chicago is declining because there is lower inmigration than in other cities or metros. Again, Chicago isn't losing blacks (or others) at a greater rate than other cities; it's not gaining blacks (or others) at a similar rate, hence the decline.

When you look at net migration, you're looking at inflows vs. outflows. Chicago is losing whites just like they're losing blacks. But Chicago receives more white inmigration (the Big 10 grads) so the overall numbers for whites are better. But it doesn't mean that whites aren't fleeing at similar rates as blacks.

Also, looking specifically at black outmigration (which makes no sense as Chicago isn't declining because of blacks leaving), there's zero evidence that the blacks leaving are lower income. Black neighborhoods in Chicago have gotten much poorer over time. Obviously people moving to suburban/Sunbelt homeownership tend to be middle class. Historically middle class black enclaves that have slid into poverty; places like South Shore, are the neighborhoods suffering losses. Crime and disorder in such areas has risen, not declined.

The real reason Chicago is declining is because Chicago used to have huge immigrant numbers, especially from Mexico, and those numbers have plummeted in recent years. That's the primary issue.