LlamaLawyer

I also have to point out . . . What's that yellow thing in the background?

I don't completely agree about that. The census's biggest surprise was New York City which outpaced expectations by 600,000 people (i.e. a roughly 7% underestimate by the census bureau). Chicago also defied expectations by gaining population. Philadelphia gained more than expected. If you exclude Detroit, Baltimore, and Cleveland, pretty much every old city in the U.S. beat expectations. On the other hand, major sunbelt cities were in line with or slightly below expectations, with Phoenix gaining about 100,000 fewer people than expected. Also don't forget the way regression to the mean affects percentage change in counties. Suburban counties have lower starting point populations, and so smaller additions in absolute numbers lead to bigger percentage changes. The bigger story is the death of the small town. Most counties in the U.S. lost population, despite an overall increase. So some percentage of the growth in the suburbs is actually driven by people from more rural counties moving into suburban counties. EDIT: As one point of comparison, from 2010 to 2020 the New York City Metro gained hundreds of thousands more people than did the entire state of Arizona, and New York City alone gained almost as many as the entire state of Arizona.

Let's reach out to Bo Knez and say "I know you're already working at 11, but do you think you could turn it up to 13?"

Great work. As I suspected, this shows big losses in lower income neighborhoods. EDIT: And in an encouraging sign, most of the fastest growing tracts are in the urban core. The suburbs have some modest growth in places, but the main dynamic areas are clearly downtown and neighboring areas.

Household size I believe can be found by dividing population by number of occupied housing units, both of which should be available on the county level data viewer. Income data is tracked through the ACS, not the census.

According to Wikipedia, the 2010 population of downtown was over 11,000, so that must mean some other tract is included in downtown. What’s missing is probably some of the west bank of the flats. That could easily add a few thousand and put the population near 20,000. I’m curious if someone has definite info.

Probably because the population loss is in neighborhoods like Hough, Central, Kinsman, and Mt. Pleasant. When we get more data breakdown, I expect it to show most (or all) of the Cleveland population loss was a loss of black population. Most of those individuals in turn probably moved to suburbs. Those neighborhoods likely contribute very little to the regional GDP. They're also not very visible because they're not the kinds of neighborhoods people who aren't from there visit. So it becomes easy to not realize the population loss in those neighborhoods is happening at all. This is just a guess, but it makes a lot of sense.

Detroit is apparently planning to sue claiming an undercount. I'm curious if any other cities would join.

To be clear, NEO actually gained population. Cuyahoga County lost, but the Cleveland metro posted a narrow gain. The Census publishes county level migration flows which show that the Columbus metro is the number one destination for folks fleeing the Cleveland metro. This is just based on estimated data, not actual census data, but just using some common sense it must be true.

The County-level data for this is available in a convenient viewer. https://www.census.gov/library/visualizations/interactive/race-and-ethnicity-in-the-united-state-2010-and-2020-census.html?linkId=100000060666476 At the Cuyahoga County level, asian population and hispanic population increased dramatically, with black population essentially constant and white population posting a modest decline. I suspect that the black population of Cleveland proper did decline dramatically and most of those leaving ended up in suburbs.

It does. If you split your time between two residences, the one you report on the online census form is where you live as far as the Census Bureau is concerned. They don't really have a way of challenging what you say.

Where did you find this?

The 3 census tracts that make up the area downtown bounded by the river on the west, the innerbelt on the east, and the industrial valley on the south appear to have a population of 13,338. Is that all of downtown? If so, it suggests the 20,000 population estimate is way off, which would be very disappointing...

Also, as was pointed out in another thread, the Cleveland metro gained population (Yay!). It was projected to have lost about 25K but instead gained 11K.

The Cleveland number above is correct by the way. So here are some Cuyahoga County city numbers: Cleveland: 372,624 (Ouch) Parma: 81,146 Lakewood: 50,942 Euclid: 49,692 Strongsville: 46,491 Cleveland Heights: 45,312 Westlake: 34,228 North Royalton: 31,322 Shaker Heights: 29,439 South Euclid 21,883 University Heights 13,914 East Cleveland: 13,792 Warrensville Heights 13,789 Clearly the suburbs are doing better than Cleveland still. It is refreshing to see some of the inner ring suburbs doing well, in particular Shaker which actually gained population since 2010.

Unfortunately not. I think @thomasbw's new post above is correct.

It's in the data @thomasbwlinked to. I think he's right that he only listed the part in Franklin County.

Columbus is 905,748. You can find it elsewhere in the data.

Those look like they may be the 2020 estimates, not actuals.

As some were pointing out in the other threads, this can't be right, because Columbus added more than 100K according to the presentation

Ouch.

Census data is out. Cuyahoga County beat the 2019 estimate by about 30,000 but still experienced an overall decline from 2010. The current form of the data is hard to use, so I'll see if I can figure out Cleveland. https://mtgis-portal.geo.census.gov/arcgis/apps/MapSeries/index.html?appid=2566121a73de463995ed2b2fd7ff6eb7

Kinda looks like a massing of a 300 ft building with the bottom floors (dark orange) available for development.

I can't tell what the margin of error is, but with 500 online respondents, I'm betting it's not great. Also respondents were solicited via social media. The voting block in Cleveland (like most places) skews toward older folks, so social media is probably a terrible way to find a representative sample. Also would note that the leader isn't actually Dennis, it's "unsure." Dennis has the best name recognition, so he also probably has the least to gain from the undecideds. As a sort of (but not very good) comparable, in a mid July poll on the 11th district race, Shontel had 36%, Nina Turner 41%, with 18% undecided. The ultimate result was 50% Shontel, 44% Nina Turner. So if the poll was correct, Shontel soaked up nearly all the undecideds. That can happen here. I think the only thing we can conclude from this poll is that Ross DiBello is going to lose.

The orange is cool but also looks like an unfinished building! I’m looking forward to when this looks like a finished building! 😉