March 30, 201114 yr Actually the Bluegrass region is one of the better ag areas in KY, so its not really in the "middle of nowhere". Atlanta, on the other hand, really IS in the middle of noewhere.
March 30, 201114 yr It also has one of the most favorable tax environments in the US. That and add in the county/city government merger, and it's no wonder that it has one of the highest employment growths in the US.
April 6, 201114 yr Numbers of Children of Whites Falling Fast By SABRINA TAVERNISE Published: April 6, 2011 WASHINGTON — America’s population of white children, a majority now, will be in the minority during this decade, sooner than previously expected, according to a new report. The Census Bureau had originally forecast that 2023 would be the tipping point for the minority population under the age of 18. But rapid growth among Latinos, Asians and people of more than one race has pushed it earlier, to 2019, according to William Frey, the senior demographer at the Brookings Institution who wrote the report about the shift, which has far-reaching political and policy implications. ... Read the whole article at: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/06/us/06census.html?_r=1&hpw
April 6, 201114 yr ^ I found it interesting that it's happening faster than they predicted and that the percentage of white children (and blacks too) isn't just decling but the actual number of kids under 18 is declining rapidly too.
April 6, 201114 yr The 20 and 30 something crowds are much more educated about birth control. Also, more women are career driven. I'm sure there are countless factors at play, but yeah... no surprise to me.
April 6, 201114 yr ^ I missed that memo....3 kids by the time I was 28....but I digress...also my wife is not what I would call "career driven"..
April 15, 201114 yr MSAs and CSAs over 1,000,000 including San Juan, PR as of April 2010 as defined by the US Census. 1 New York-Newark-Bridgeport, NY-NJ-CT-PA CSA 22,085,649 2 Los Angeles-Long Beach-Riverside, CA CSA 17,877,006 3 Chicago-Naperville-Michigan City, IL-IN-WI CSA 9,686,021 4 Washington-Baltimore-Northern Virginia, DC-MD-VA-WV CSA 8,572,971 5 Boston-Worcester-Manchester, MA-RI-NH CSA 7,559,060 6 San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland, CA CSA 7,468,390 7 Dallas-Fort Worth, TX CSA 6,731,317 8 Philadelphia-Camden-Vineland, PA-NJ-DE-MD CSA 6,533,683 9 Houston-Baytown-Huntsville, TX CSA 6,051,363 10 Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Gainesville, GA-AL CSA 5,618,431 ==================================== 11 Miami-Fort Lauderdale-Pompano Beach, FL Metro Area 5,564,635 12 Detroit-Warren-Flint, MI CSA 5,218,852 13 Seattle-Tacoma-Olympia, WA CSA 4,199,312 14 Phoenix-Mesa-Glendale, AZ Metro Area 4,192,887 15 Minneapolis-St. Paul-St. Cloud, MN-WI CSA 3,615,902 16 San Diego-Carlsbad-San Marcos, CA Metro Area 3,095,313 17 Denver-Aurora-Boulder, CO CSA 3,090,874 18 Cleveland-Akron-Elyria, OH CSA 2,881,937 19 St. Louis-St. Charles-Farmington, MO-IL CSA 2,878,255 20 Orlando-Deltona-Daytona Beach, FL CSA 2,818,120 ==================================== 21 Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, FL Metro Area 2,783,243 22 San Juan-Caguas-Fajardo, PR CSA 2,582,746 23 Sacramento--Arden-Arcade--Yuba City, CA-NV CSA 2,461,780 24 Pittsburgh-New Castle, PA CSA 2,447,393 25 Charlotte-Gastonia-Salisbury, NC-SC CSA 2,402,623 26 Portland-Vancouver-Hillsboro, OR-WA Metro Area 2,226,009 27 Cincinnati-Middletown-Wilmington, OH-KY-IN CSA 2,172,191 28 San Antonio-New Braunfels, TX Metro Area 2,142,508 29 Kansas City-Overland Park-Kansas City, MO-KS CSA 2,104,853 30 Indianapolis-Anderson-Columbus, IN CSA 2,080,782 ==================================== 31 Columbus-Marion-Chillicothe, OH CSA 2,071,052 32 Las Vegas-Paradise-Pahrump, NV CSA 1,995,215 33 Austin-Round Rock-Marble Falls, TX CSA 1,759,039 34 Milwaukee-Racine-Waukesha, WI CSA 1,751,316 35 Raleigh-Durham-Cary, NC CSA 1,749,525 36 Salt Lake City-Ogden-Clearfield, UT CSA 1,744,886 37 Virginia Beach-Norfolk-Newport News, VA-NC Metro Area 1,671,683 38 Nashville-Davidson--Murfreesboro--Columbia, TN CSA 1,670,890 39 Greensboro--Winston-Salem--High Point, NC CSA 1,589,200 40 Louisville/Jefferson County--Elizabethtown--Scottsburg, KY-IN CSA 1,427,483 ==================================== 41 Jacksonville, FL Metro Area 1,345,596 42 Hartford-West Hartford-Willimantic, CT CSA 1,330,809 43 Oklahoma City-Shawnee, OK CSA 1,322,429 44 Grand Rapids-Muskegon-Holland, MI CSA 1,321,557 45 Memphis, TN-MS-AR Metro Area 1,316,100 46 Greenville-Spartanburg-Anderson, SC CSA 1,266,995 47 Richmond, VA Metro Area 1,258,251 48 Buffalo-Niagara-Cattaraugus, NY CSA 1,215,826 49 New Orleans-Metairie-Bogalusa, LA CSA 1,214,932 50 Birmingham-Hoover-Cullman, AL CSA 1,208,453 ==================================== 51 Albany-Schenectady-Amsterdam, NY CSA 1,168,485 52 Rochester-Batavia-Seneca Falls, NY CSA 1,149,653 53 Fresno-Madera, CA CSA 1,081,315 54 Dayton-Springfield-Greenville, OH CSA 1,072,891 55 Knoxville-Sevierville-La Follette, TN CSA 1,055,086 ================Soon to be in the million club================ 56 Tulsa-Bartlesville, OK CSA 988,454 57 Tucson, AZ Metro Area 980,263 58 Honolulu, HI Metro Area 953,207 59 Omaha-Council Bluffs-Fremont, NE-IA CSA 902,041 "You don't just walk into a bar and mix it up by calling a girl fat" - buildingcincinnati speaking about new forumers
April 15, 201114 yr Ranked by/as MSA only 1 New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-PA Metro Area 18897109 2 Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana, CA Metro Area 12828837 3 Chicago-Joliet-Naperville, IL-IN-WI Metro Area 9461105 4 Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, TX Metro Area 6371773 5 Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington, PA-NJ-DE-MD Metro Area 5965343 6 Houston-Sugar Land-Baytown, TX Metro Area 5946800 7 Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV Metro Area 5582170 8 Miami-Fort Lauderdale-Pompano Beach, FL Metro Area 5564635 9 Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Marietta, GA Metro Area 5268860 10 Boston-Cambridge-Quincy, MA-NH Metro Area 4552402 ==================================== 11 San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont, CA Metro Area 4335391 12 Detroit-Warren-Livonia, MI Metro Area 4296250 13 Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario, CA Metro Area 4224851 14 Phoenix-Mesa-Glendale, AZ Metro Area 4192887 15 Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue, WA Metro Area 3439809 16 Minneapolis-St. Paul-Bloomington, MN-WI Metro Area 3279833 17 San Diego-Carlsbad-San Marcos, CA Metro Area 3095313 18 St. Louis, MO-IL Metro Area 2812896 19 Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, FL Metro Area 2783243 20 Baltimore-Towson, MD Metro Area 2710489 ==================================== 21 Denver-Aurora-Broomfield, CO Metro Area 2543482 22 San Juan-Caguas-Guaynabo, PR Metro Area 2478905 23 Pittsburgh, PA Metro Area 2356285 24 Portland-Vancouver-Hillsboro, OR-WA Metro Area 2226009 25 Sacramento--Arden-Arcade--Roseville, CA Metro Area 2149127 26 San Antonio-New Braunfels, TX Metro Area 2142508 27 Orlando-Kissimmee-Sanford, FL Metro Area 2134411 28 Cincinnati-Middletown, OH-KY-IN Metro Area 2130151 29 Cleveland-Elyria-Mentor, OH Metro Area 2077240 30 Kansas City, MO-KS Metro Area 2035334 ==================================== 31 Las Vegas-Paradise, NV Metro Area 1951269 32 San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, CA Metro Area 1836911 33 Columbus, OH Metro Area 1836536 34 Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill, NC-SC Metro Area 1758038 35 Indianapolis-Carmel, IN Metro Area 1756241 36 Austin-Round Rock-San Marcos, TX Metro Area 1716289 37 Virginia Beach-Norfolk-Newport News, VA-NC Metro Area 1671683 38 Providence-New Bedford-Fall River, RI-MA Metro Area 1600852 39 Nashville-Davidson--Murfreesboro--Franklin, TN Metro Area 1589934 40 Milwaukee-Waukesha-West Allis, WI Metro Area 1555908 ==================================== 41 Jacksonville, FL Metro Area 1345596 42 Memphis, TN-MS-AR Metro Area 1316100 43 Louisville/Jefferson County, KY-IN Metro Area 1283566 44 Richmond, VA Metro Area 1258251 45 Oklahoma City, OK Metro Area 1252987 46 Hartford-West Hartford-East Hartford, CT Metro Area 1212381 47 New Orleans-Metairie-Kenner, LA Metro Area 1167764 48 Buffalo-Niagara Falls, NY Metro Area 1135509 49 Raleigh-Cary, NC Metro Area 1130490 50 Birmingham-Hoover, AL Metro Area 1128047 ==================================== 51 Salt Lake City, UT Metro Area 1124197 52 Rochester, NY Metro Area 1054323 ================Soon to be in the million club================ 53 Tucson, AZ Metro Area 980263 54 Honolulu, HI Metro Area 953207 55 Tulsa, OK Metro Area 937478 56 Fresno, CA Metro Area 930450 57 Bridgeport-Stamford-Norwalk, CT Metro Area 916829 "You don't just walk into a bar and mix it up by calling a girl fat" - buildingcincinnati speaking about new forumers
April 15, 201114 yr A closer look at the 35 largest CSAs or MSAs (over 1.7 million) according to racial make-up: New York-Newark-Bridgeport, NY-NJ-CT-PA CSA White alone: 13,595,960 Black or African American alone: 3,727,105 American Indian and Alaska Native alone: 102,349 Asian alone: 2,008,906 Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone: 9,971 Some Other Race alone: 1,944,165 Two or More Races: 697,193 Hispanic or Latino (of any race): 4,790,542 Total: 22,085,649 Los Angeles-Long Beach-Riverside, CA CSA White alone: 9,821,469 Black or African American alone: 1,245,186 American Indian and Alaska Native alone: 145,427 Asian alone: 2,199,186 Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone: 50,835 Some Other Race alone: 3,604,422 Two or More Races: 810,481 Hispanic or Latino (of any race): 8,028,831 Total: 17,877,006 Chicago-Naperville-Michigan City, IL-IN-WI CSA White alone: 6,365,654 Black or African American alone: 1,675,181 American Indian and Alaska Native alone: 37,117 Asian alone: 534,436 Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone: 3,016 Some Other Race alone: 835,504 Two or More Races: 235,113 Hispanic or Latino (of any race): 1,973,340 Total: 9,686,021 Washington-Baltimore-Northern Virginia, DC-MD-VA-WV CSA White alone: 4,973,717 Black or African American alone: 2,245,992 American Indian and Alaska Native alone: 32,302 Asian alone: 645,203 Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone: 5,639 Some Other Race alone: 389,670 Two or More Races: 280,448 Hispanic or Latino (of any race): 912,129 Total: 8,572,971 Boston-Worcester-Manchester, MA-RI-NH CSA White alone: 6,172,385 Black or African American alone: 452,734 American Indian and Alaska Native alone: 22,970 Asian alone: 382,995 Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone: 2,688 Some Other Race alone: 328,350 Two or More Races: 196,938 Hispanic or Latino (of any race): 673,917 Total: 7,559,060 San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland, CA CSA White alone: 3,981,212 Black or African American alone: 484,610 American Indian and Alaska Native alone: 51,641 Asian alone: 1,676,939 Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone: 44,829 Some Other Race alone: 828,667 Two or More Races: 400,492 Hispanic or Latino (of any race): 1,797,078 Total: 7,468,390 Dallas-Fort Worth, TX CSA White alone: 4,471,256 Black or African American alone: 978,135 American Indian and Alaska Native alone: 47,062 Asian alone: 343,782 Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone: 6,349 Some Other Race alone: 697,288 Two or More Races: 187,445 Hispanic or Latino (of any race): 1,795,412 Total: 6,731,317 Philadelphia-Camden-Vineland, PA-NJ-DE-MD CSA White alone: 4,508,929 Black or African American alone: 1,293,664 American Indian and Alaska Native alone: 19,371 Asian alone: 303,058 Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone: 2,403 Some Other Race alone: 251,600 Two or More Races: 154,658 Hispanic or Latino (of any race): 577,980 Total: 6,533,683 Houston-Baytown-Huntsville, TX CSA White alone: 3,652,582 Black or African American alone: 1,045,232 American Indian and Alaska Native alone: 38,796 Asian alone: 390,357 Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone: 3,896 Some Other Race alone: 738,746 Two or More Races: 181,754 Hispanic or Latino (of any race): 2,124,875 Total: 6,051,363 Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Gainesville, GA-AL CSA White alone: 3,165,672 Black or African American alone: 1,769,623 American Indian and Alaska Native alone: 19,202 Asian alone: 259,169 Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone: 2,925 Some Other Race alone: 269,296 Two or More Races: 132,544 Hispanic or Latino (of any race): 602,485 Total: 5,618,431 Miami-Fort Lauderdale-Pompano Beach, FL Metro Area White alone: 3,914,239 Black or African American alone: 1,169,185 American Indian and Alaska Native alone: 16,108 Asian alone: 125,564 Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone: 2,356 Some Other Race alone: 197,183 Two or More Races: 140,000 Hispanic or Latino (of any race): 2,312,929 Total: 5,564,635 Detroit-Warren-Flint, MI CSA White alone: 3,728,988 Black or African American alone: 1,115,582 American Indian and Alaska Native alone: 18,745 Asian alone: 173,146 Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone: 1,184 Some Other Race alone: 61,290 Two or More Races: 119,917 Hispanic or Latino (of any race): 199,575 Total: 5,218,852 Seattle-Tacoma-Olympia, WA CSA White alone: 3,107,461 Black or African American alone: 208,518 American Indian and Alaska Native alone: 49,787 Asian alone: 424,645 Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone: 33,323 Some Other Race alone: 154,004 Two or More Races: 221,574 Hispanic or Latino (of any race): 371,797 Total: 4,199,312 Phoenix-Mesa-Glendale, AZ Metro Area White alone: 3,058,794 Black or African American alone: 207,734 American Indian and Alaska Native alone: 99,278 Asian alone: 138,717 Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone: 9,355 Some Other Race alone: 532,918 Two or More Races: 146,091 Hispanic or Latino (of any race): 1,235,718 Total: 4,192,887 Minneapolis-St. Paul-St. Cloud, MN-WI CSA White alone: 2,967,281 Black or African American alone: 251,537 American Indian and Alaska Native alone: 24,292 Asian alone: 193,280 Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone: 1,522 Some Other Race alone: 82,049 Two or More Races: 95,941 Hispanic or Latino (of any race): 189,380 Total: 3,615,902 San Diego-Carlsbad-San Marcos, CA Metro Area White alone: 1,981,442 Black or African American alone: 158,213 American Indian and Alaska Native alone: 26,340 Asian alone: 336,091 Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone: 15,337 Some Other Race alone: 419,465 Two or More Races: 158,425 Hispanic or Latino (of any race): 991,348 Total: 3,095,313 Denver-Aurora-Boulder, CO CSA White alone: 2,449,309 Black or African American alone: 148,133 American Indian and Alaska Native alone: 29,818 Asian alone: 109,160 Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone: 3,459 Some Other Race alone: 244,666 Two or More Races: 106,329 Hispanic or Latino (of any race): 682,087 Total: 3,090,874 Cleveland-Akron-Elyria, OH CSA White alone: 2,217,846 Black or African American alone: 504,921 American Indian and Alaska Native alone: 5,608 Asian alone: 55,087 Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone: 593 Some Other Race alone: 39,325 Two or More Races: 58,557 Hispanic or Latino (of any race): 112,307 Total: 2,881,937 St. Louis-St. Charles-Farmington, MO-IL CSA White alone: 2,214,298 Black or African American alone: 519,221 American Indian and Alaska Native alone: 7,057 Asian alone: 60,316 Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone: 1,069 Some Other Race alone: 24,416 Two or More Races: 51,878 Hispanic or Latino (of any race): 72,797 Total: 2,878,255 Orlando-Deltona-Daytona Beach, FL CSA White alone: 2,061,583 Black or African American alone: 416,517 American Indian and Alaska Native alone: 11,246 Asian alone: 95,085 Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone: 2,335 Some Other Race alone: 148,506 Two or More Races: 82,848 Hispanic or Latino (of any race): 607,906 Total: 2,818,120 Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, FL Metro Area White alone: 2,193,411 Black or African American alone: 329,334 American Indian and Alaska Native alone: 9,930 Asian alone: 80,879 Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone: 2,079 Some Other Race alone: 94,965 Two or More Races: 72,645 Hispanic or Latino (of any race): 452,208 Total: 2,783,243 Sacramento--Arden-Arcade--Yuba City, CA-NV CSA White alone: 1,629,248 Black or African American alone: 163,296 American Indian and Alaska Native alone: 26,583 Asian alone: 276,432 Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone: 16,590 Some Other Race alone: 207,418 Two or More Races: 142,213 Hispanic or Latino (of any race): 492,578 Total: 2,461,780 Pittsburgh-New Castle, PA CSA White alone: 2,154,767 Black or African American alone: 200,256 American Indian and Alaska Native alone: 2,982 Asian alone: 41,608 Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone: 504 Some Other Race alone: 8,549 Two or More Races: 38,727 Hispanic or Latino (of any race): 30,900 Total: 2,447,393 Charlotte-Gastonia-Salisbury, NC-SC CSA White alone: 1,648,993 Black or African American alone: 524,511 American Indian and Alaska Native alone: 10,749 Asian alone: 62,521 Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone: 1,186 Some Other Race alone: 105,290 Two or More Races: 49,373 Hispanic or Latino (of any race): 208,277 Total: 2,402,623 Portland-Vancouver-Hillsboro, OR-WA Metro Area White alone: 1,803,705 Black or African American alone: 63,650 American Indian and Alaska Native alone: 20,857 Asian alone: 126,965 Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone: 10,315 Some Other Race alone: 109,776 Two or More Races: 90,741 Hispanic or Latino (of any race): 241,844 Total: 2,226,009 Cincinnati-Middletown-Wilmington, OH-KY-IN CSA White alone: 1,806,250 Black or African American alone: 256,837 American Indian and Alaska Native alone: 4,201 Asian alone: 40,635 Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone: 1,414 Some Other Race alone: 22,689 Two or More Races: 40,165 Hispanic or Latino (of any race): 55,679 Total: 2,172,191 San Antonio-New Braunfels, TX Metro Area White alone: 1,617,352 Black or African American alone: 141,468 American Indian and Alaska Native alone: 17,322 Asian alone: 45,330 Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone: 2,681 Some Other Race alone: 248,363 Two or More Races: 69,992 Hispanic or Latino (of any race): 1,158,148 Total: 2,142,508 Kansas City-Overland Park-Kansas City, MO-KS CSA White alone: 1,659,382 Black or African American alone: 257,641 American Indian and Alaska Native alone: 10,808 Asian alone: 47,093 Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone: 3,345 Some Other Race alone: 68,555 Two or More Races: 58,029 Hispanic or Latino (of any race): 168,677 Total: 2,104,853 Indianapolis-Anderson-Columbus, IN CSA White alone: 1,648,271 Black or African American alone: 277,372 American Indian and Alaska Native alone: 5,467 Asian alone: 43,192 Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone: 842 Some Other Race alone: 62,425 Two or More Races: 43,213 Hispanic or Latino (of any race): 120,211 Total: 2,080,782 Columbus-Marion-Chillicothe, OH CSA White alone: 1,641,400 Black or African American alone: 283,289 American Indian and Alaska Native alone: 4,787 Asian alone: 58,416 Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone: 994 Some Other Race alone: 31,739 Two or More Races: 50,427 Hispanic or Latino (of any race): 69,968 Total: 2,071,052 Las Vegas-Paradise-Pahrump, NV CSA White alone: 1,225,867 Black or African American alone: 205,253 American Indian and Alaska Native alone: 15,125 Asian alone: 169,403 Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone: 13,839 Some Other Race alone: 264,779 Two or More Races: 100,949 Hispanic or Latino (of any race): 574,611 Total: 1,995,215 Austin-Round Rock-Marble Falls, TX CSA White alone: 1,288,157 Black or African American alone: 128,163 American Indian and Alaska Native alone: 13,742 Asian alone: 82,636 Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone: 1,364 Some Other Race alone: 189,310 Two or More Races: 55,667 Hispanic or Latino (of any race): 546,965 Total: 1,759,039 Milwaukee-Racine-Waukesha, WI CSA White alone: 1,302,677 Black or African American alone: 282,777 American Indian and Alaska Native alone: 9,264 Asian alone: 48,188 Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone: 597 Some Other Race alone: 67,051 Two or More Races: 40,762 Hispanic or Latino (of any race): 170,049 Total: 1,751,316 Raleigh-Durham-Cary, NC CSA White alone: 1,140,172 Black or African American alone: 388,784 American Indian and Alaska Native alone: 9,682 Asian alone: 73,011 Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone: 830 Some Other Race alone: 94,441 Two or More Races: 42,605 Hispanic or Latino (of any race): 183,786 Total: 1,749,525 Salt Lake City-Ogden-Clearfield, UT CSA White alone: 1,471,195 Black or African American alone: 24,069 American Indian and Alaska Native alone: 13,725 Asian alone: 43,792 Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone: 18,589 Some Other Race alone: 122,335 Two or More Races: 51,181 Hispanic or Latino (of any race): 258,892 Total: 1,744,886 "You don't just walk into a bar and mix it up by calling a girl fat" - buildingcincinnati speaking about new forumers
April 15, 201114 yr Sacramento now has a larger metro area in population that both Cincy and Cleveland? Wow. Seriously. In 1947 Sacramento and Canton were roughly the same size. Look at what happened in 60 years or so! 24 Portland-Vancouver-Hillsboro, OR-WA Metro Area 2226009 25 Sacramento--Arden-Arcade--Roseville, CA Metro Area 2149127 26 San Antonio-New Braunfels, TX Metro Area 2142508 27 Orlando-Kissimmee-Sanford, FL Metro Area 2134411 28 Cincinnati-Middletown, OH-KY-IN Metro Area 2130151 29 Cleveland-Elyria-Mentor, OH Metro Area 2077240 30 Kansas City, MO-KS Metro Area 2035334
April 16, 201114 yr I'm also surprised that Columbus has more blacks than Cincinnati, though I've heard that Columbus has been drawing blacks from Cleveland and Cincinnati for some time now. Also When will we know if Dayton has been added to the Cincinnati CSA?
July 6, 201113 yr Looking at the population increases in various cities I can't help but notice that revitalized urban business districts which have a good amount of density seem to have attracted population growth whether it's in Pittsburgh, Portland, or Columbus, where High St was basically the only urban area to see growth. This highlights the missed opportunity that Ohio cities had to invest in increasing the number and quality of dense, walkable environments where people want to be. Cities on the coasts in particular saw plenty of large population increases not just downtown, but in neighborhoods on various sides of town that offer what urbanites are looking for vs. rather stagnant cities that still don't.
July 6, 201113 yr How did Pittsburgh invest in their neighborhoods? What is meant by investment, other than transit? A lot of investment is private sector, and a result of market forces, which is not exactly something that the state or municipality can control. You also seem to get caught up on business districts a lot, when there is much more to the equation. In a neighborhood like OTR, where every street has mixed use buildings, what would you consider the business district?
July 6, 201113 yr By the Mid-2000s I think Ohio's cities started to really get on the Urban infill band wagon. With projects like The banks in Cincy, The triangle in Cleveland and the projects going on at the Eastern most end of Italian Village in Columbus along with the improving economy and credit thawing we will see an increase in urban population in Ohio. We got on the band wagon late point blank. That said I think our slow and steady pace is better than Atlanta, and Miami that now have huge downtown condo towers that are visually appealing, but are sitting greater than half empty.
July 6, 201113 yr Looking at the population increases in various cities I can't help but notice that revitalized urban business districts which have a good amount of density seem to have attracted population growth whether it's in Pittsburgh, Portland, or Columbus, where High St was basically the only urban area to see growth. This highlights the missed opportunity that Ohio cities had to invest in increasing the number and quality of dense, walkable environments where people want to be. Cities on the coasts in particular saw plenty of large population increases not just downtown, but in neighborhoods on various sides of town that offer what urbanites are looking for vs. rather stagnant cities that still don't. Looking at the census tracts for Pittsburgh, their downtown lost as well as the gentrifying Mexican War Streets neighborhood. Their neighborhood gains all came from Shadyside, Squirrel Hill, Southside Flats, and all the areas encompassing their colleges and universities from Duquesne to CMU. It's tough to say that there were missed opportunities to create dense walkable communities. There's definitely been progress made here in Cleveland considering the economic pitfalls of late. But the problem is that much of the city proper of Cleveland was never walkable to begin with, which makes it that much harder than trying to do infill on Euclid or the near west side. In a metro region with negative growth, it's that much harder to focus on dense walkable environments because what is the actual goal? If a city's goal is to not lose any more population, than working on creating great dense walkable environments is not the solution. Sure you can have a goal for downtown to grow 10k by the next census, 2k in the Flats, 3k in Ohio City, 2k in Tremont, 1K in DS, 2k in UC. While this would be incredible for the city to grow 20k new residents in these areas, as long as Hough, Glenville, Collinwood, Mt Pleasant, Corlett, and so on continue to hemorrhage residents by the tens of thousands the city still shrinks and puts a huge burden on the city and in turn inhibits the growth elsewhere. It's a difficult predicament. Cleveland definitely needs dense urban walkable areas to attract new residents, but at the same time needs to put a ton of effort into making Hough, Glenville, Collinwood, Mt Pleasant, Corlett and so on safe, desirable places that people want to live in. There's no doubt in my mind that Cleveland will shrink in the next census. The areas that are targeted for growth make up such a small fraction of the city of Cleveland that even if they do explode in population over the next 10 years they will be more than offset by the continued hemorrhaging of population elsewhere in the city, from which I have read no real plan at addressing. I suppose Cleveland could really embrace the shrinking cities model by getting people to leave their city proper residence for a denser city proper residence. However, how viable is this, both economically and politically by local leadership?
July 7, 201113 yr It is my understanding that based on the last census and how you define "Downtown". Cleveland has close to 12,000 people living downtown. This includes the following districts: Warehouse, Gateway, Theater, West bank of the Flats, CSU, The Avenue, the apartments on East 12th, the apartments on St. Clair and 30th, etc. Basically inside the loop. Is this correct?
July 7, 201113 yr By the Mid-2000s I think Ohio's cities started to really get on the Urban infill band wagon. With projects like The banks in Cincy, The triangle in Cleveland and the projects going on at the Eastern most end of Italian Village in Columbus along with the improving economy and credit thawing we will see an increase in urban population in Ohio. We got on the band wagon late point blank. I think this was the case in Dayton. Too late to the game, and when the regional economy stalled & sank after 2001, the trend to inner city loft/apt conversions and infill stalled, too. This is just now starting to change with two small (but for Dayton large) infill projects underway.
July 7, 201113 yr I think its important to look at every census tract in the rust belt that grew and try to figure out what the primary reason was. From there try to apply that knowledge to other tracts. Conversely, understanding why some tracts lost 15%+ is just as important to mitigate future declines.
July 7, 201113 yr It is my understanding that based on the last census and how you define "Downtown". Cleveland has close to 12,000 people living downtown. This includes the following districts: Warehouse, Gateway, Theater, West bank of the Flats, CSU, The Avenue, the apartments on East 12th, the apartments on St. Clair and 30th, etc. Basically inside the loop. Is this correct? Based on the 2010 census alone, that's generally correct, and the total is up by 57% from 2010. BUT, that total includes Lakeview Terrace, the county jail and the three subsidized/low income buildings downtown (Bohn Court, old Allerton Hotel, Carter Manor). And that total is about half black, which, given the many inequities in our city, suggests that the public/subsidized housing and jail make up a pretty large portion of our "downtown population." I think others have done this already, but I'd think that counting market-rate units would be a better measure of our downtown's progress over the years.
July 7, 201113 yr For Cincinnati, there were only a few census tracts that grew, so that is an easy question to answer. The growth in Cincinnati came in 3 places: the CBD (20+%), two tracts around UC (10-20%), and portions of OTR (10-20%). The CBD has seen pretty constant population growth, UC has been growing and Uptown has been adding lots of housing, and OTR has been experiencing a residential boom without the displacement of others, as most of the buildings renovated so far have been vacant. I think the point about striking a delicate balance between building dynamic, walkable neighborhoods and maintaining poorer neighborhoods to stop the bleeding is an interesting one. Cincinnati certainly has to worry about this as well. While Cincy is fortunate to have a number of established neighborhoods outside of the core (Hyde Park, Mt. Lookout, Mt. Washington, Pleasant Ridge, Oakley, parts of Westwood, etc), there are a lot of neighborhoods that are still really hurting. Evanston, Walnut Hills, Price Hill, Carthage, Hartwell, College Hill, etc. are not usually thought of as being cool or sexy neighborhoods, but they are large and contain a lot of residents that the city can't ignore while making sure progress is made in the core. I think a lot of smaller scale civic engagement is key for these areas, and I think we're starting to see that more and more with orgs like Price Hill Will, Westwood Concerned, etc.
July 8, 201113 yr Go to this link: http://www.dailyfinance.com/2011/07/07/texas-population-center-america-south-census/ It has a cool map that shows the geographical center of Population for the United States over the past 220 or so years. Passes right through the Cincinnati MSA.
August 4, 201113 yr Thought this was kinda interesting. I started with what I guessed might be considered the central point of each city’s downtown (correct me if way off) and went out the following distances from there. Using census blocks (for Columbus block groups) that have their center within the certain distance, here is what I found. I know some of the populations include jails and such, I haven’t tried to remove these. Obviously, some of Cleveland’s numbers are lower because of the lake, so this isn’t really a fair comparison for them in some ways. I did include Kentucky in Cincinnati’s totals, where applicable. Because I used block groups for C-bus, those numbers are not quite as good as the others, but certainly in the ballpark.
August 4, 201113 yr ^Wow, acetone, that is really cool, thanks so much for putting it together and sharing. I've been really curious to see that kind of analysis (and to see out a few more miles too...).
August 4, 201113 yr But the problem is that much of the city proper of Cleveland was never walkable to begin with, which makes it that much harder than trying to do infill on Euclid or the near west side. Huh? How do you figure that? Go on historicaerials.com and you will see dense commercial districts all over Cleveland on the 1950s aerial shots. The problem is that they were destroyed. Cleveland was certainly developed as a walkable city. The areas that are targeted for growth make up such a small fraction of the city of Cleveland that even if they do explode in population over the next 10 years they will be more than offset by the continued hemorrhaging of population elsewhere in the city, from which I have read no real plan at addressing. You just described what is happening in Chicago, in that the desirable areas are booming while the rest of the city loses population. I think this is the route which Cleveland will have to follow in order to improve, and once neighborhoods like Ohio City and Detroit-Shoreway reach their full potential you will see progress spread to other areas that were formerly considered undesirable. This process will take a very long time. Thought this was kinda interesting. I started with what I guessed might be considered the central point of each city’s downtown (correct me if way off) and went out the following distances from there. Using census blocks (for Columbus block groups) that have their center within the certain distance, here is what I found. I know some of the populations include jails and such, I haven’t tried to remove these. Obviously, some of Cleveland’s numbers are lower because of the lake, so this isn’t really a fair comparison for them in some ways. I did include Kentucky in Cincinnati’s totals, where applicable. Because I used block groups for C-bus, those numbers are not quite as good as the others, but certainly in the ballpark. I think this a data shows a major weekness of Cleveland, which is the downtown being surrounded by ring of neighborhoods with little residential development instead of blending into more traditional neighborhoods. Residential infill in the Flats and in the area between E. 12th Street and E. 30th Street would help out things a lot. Of course I think that all of the cities in Ohio could use some more downtown population!
August 5, 201113 yr But the problem is that much of the city proper of Cleveland was never walkable to begin with, which makes it that much harder than trying to do infill on Euclid or the near west side. Huh? How do you figure that? Go on historicaerials.com and you will see dense commercial districts all over Cleveland on the 1950s aerial shots. The problem is that they were destroyed. Cleveland was certainly developed as a walkable city. I was referring to most of the edge of the city of Cleveland proper, not the original core. There are vast swaths of the city of Cleveland that were designed post car era or are older residential that's just way too far from many commercial zones and not terribly walkable even when built. Examples: *The area along West 130th, between Bellaire and 480 *Almost anything in West Park away from Lorain Ave *Stockyards *Most areas south of 71 that aren't near Pearl/Memphis *Schaaf Road area as well as Spring Road *The southern end of West Blvd, just north of Clinton *Areas south of Puritas I'm a west sider so these are the neighborhoods I'm familiar with. But it also exists on Federal Drive, Cleveland's southeastern most side street and the homes in that area are very standard 1960 - 1970s suburban type homes with nothing to walk to. A lot of these west side neighborhoods just get overlooked way too often. They have decent housing stock, but have a city of Cleveland stigma attached to them. They aren't terribly walkable ... i.e. they're nothing like Tremont/Ohio City/DS. The homes in these neighborhoods are selling for practically nothing. The good thing is that the population loss in these neighborhoods is among the better for neighborhoods that are declining. They generally ran a 6-10% loss in the last census. I really don't know how/if/when these neighborhoods would ever turn around where people say, "Yeah, let's buy a house on McGowan Avenue." But until that happens all of these neighborhoods are going to continue to lose population. Most of the people in the city of Cleveland don't live in the neighborhoods that are frequently discussed on this board. We've got roughly 75 square miles of city, albeit small in comparison to many major US cities, that's still a sizeable piece of real estate, with a huge part of that in neighborhoods that are extremely hard sells by today's desires. Let's say you wanted to buy a decent house on Spring Rd near West 10th in Cleveland and you worked downtown. That's just a mere 5.5 miles from downtown, but there's nothing to walk to, and if you wanted to do RTA, it takes 58 minutes! There are just so many of these neighborhoods in the city of Cleveland that don't meet the definition of "city living." People like the suburbs because they get good school districts. People like the suburbs because they have tons of big box stores that they can drive to. When you put suburban style homes/neighborhoods in the boundary of a big city, you have a double negative. People who like city living find that these neighborhoods don't offer city style living, and those who like suburban style living find that while these may look suburban, you get a mediocre at best school district with limited shopping options. It's a huge issue that's been/will continue to plague Cleveland, and as such I don't expect to see much in the way of overall population gains for Cleveland, even if there are huge gentrifications to Ohio City/Detroit Shoreway, and numerous builds Downtown because thet can't offset the losses elsewhere.
August 5, 201113 yr I was referring to most of the edge of the city of Cleveland proper, not the original core. There are vast swaths of the city of Cleveland that were designed post car era or are older residential that's just way too far from many commercial zones and not terribly walkable even when built. There are just so many of these neighborhoods in the city of Cleveland that don't meet the definition of "city living." People like the suburbs because they get good school districts. People like the suburbs because they have tons of big box stores that they can drive to. When you put suburban style homes/neighborhoods in the boundary of a big city, you have a double negative. People who like city living find that these neighborhoods don't offer city style living, and those who like suburban style living find that while these may look suburban, you get a mediocre at best school district with limited shopping options. It's a huge issue that's been/will continue to plague Cleveland, and as such I don't expect to see much in the way of overall population gains for Cleveland, even if there are huge gentrifications to Ohio City/Detroit Shoreway, and numerous builds Downtown because thet can't offset the losses elsewhere. What you say is all true, but there are plenty of areas like this in every city. There are still many traditionally urban neighborhoods in Cleveland that could be revitalized and potentially offer great "city living." The east side was developed as the much more urban part of the city but unfortunately it's also the most blighted. If Cleveland's neighborhoods that were originally built to be truly urban actually lived up to their potential it would cover a rather large area. As far as the outer, less urban neighborhoods are concerned, I think they will either have to urbanize (perhaps around transit nodes) or the Cleveland public schools will have to improve for them to survive them long term.
August 5, 201113 yr ^I agree. In Cleveland the University Circle area, Hough Fairfax was many time more dense than it was now. There were a lot more multi family housing units including apartment buildings, and duplexes. But in the 60s came the Hough riots, and urban renewal which demolished a whole lot of this area and left it nearly barren. There are still areas and Cleveland that if gentrified and rehabilitated could be very urban. There are tons of dwellings that are in neighborhoods that could be walkable, there's just nothing to walk to because of blight.
August 5, 201113 yr I agree that a lot of the outer neighborhoods like Puritas don't have much specific appeal. But those are representative of average neighborhoods throughout America in cities great and small. Hardly a unique problem. Our unique problem is the extent to which our walkable urban neighborhoods have been willfully destroyed. Until this community and its leadership makes an open commitment to re-urbanizing Cleveland it will have a hard time competing. Cleveland cannot compete as a city of plazas and detached housing, but in 2011 that's what we're left with. Many recent gains really are just drops in the bucket because the scale of the destruction is so staggering. At this point it will take dozens, maybe hundreds of new mixed-use and multifamily buildings just to get back to par. It is therefore very important that we recognize and commit to the task at hand. It is also important to take a firm stand against those who oppose dense development or who support the further suburbanization of Cleveland.
August 5, 201113 yr ^^^^Not to nitpick (totally about to nitpick), but I feel like I have to put down for my neighborhoods. Most of Old Brooklyn between Broadview and Fulton is quite walkable. The neighborhood is definitely declining, but has some historical charm and great access to "suburban style" shopping (Steelyard, etc.) and all freeways. I'm not saying it won't continue to lose population, but I don't think it faces the same problems that Lee-Harvard and other "suburban" east side neighborhoods face that aren't walkable or convenient at all. Also, Stockyards is most certainly a neighborhood with great walking potential. Clark, Denison, Storer, Fulton, and 65th probably represent one of the densest collections of commercial corridors in the city. It's just that there aren't any stores in most of the commercial buildings. Stockyards also has great freeway access and walkable proximity to Detroit Shoreway and Ohio City.
August 5, 201113 yr On the flip side, it's probably good some of these cities have these urban, but mostly suburban neighborhoods. There are plenty of people who want a nice suburbanesque house in the city and don't want to walk, don't mind driving everywhere and will never catch a bus or train. Since these neighborhoods exist already we don't have to create anymore and can focus on recreating and rebuilding our lost urban neighborhoods
August 12, 201113 yr I agree that a lot of the outer neighborhoods like Puritas don't have much specific appeal. But those are representative of average neighborhoods throughout America in cities great and small. Hardly a unique problem. Our unique problem is the extent to which our walkable urban neighborhoods have been willfully destroyed. Until this community and its leadership makes an open commitment to re-urbanizing Cleveland it will have a hard time competing. Cleveland cannot compete as a city of plazas and detached housing, but in 2011 that's what we're left with. Many recent gains really are just drops in the bucket because the scale of the destruction is so staggering. At this point it will take dozens, maybe hundreds of new mixed-use and multifamily buildings just to get back to par. It is therefore very important that we recognize and commit to the task at hand. It is also important to take a firm stand against those who oppose dense development or who support the further suburbanization of Cleveland. Couldn't agree more!
August 12, 201113 yr I agree that a lot of the outer neighborhoods like Puritas don't have much specific appeal. But those are representative of average neighborhoods throughout America in cities great and small. Hardly a unique problem. Our unique problem is the extent to which our walkable urban neighborhoods have been willfully destroyed. Until this community and its leadership makes an open commitment to re-urbanizing Cleveland it will have a hard time competing. Cleveland cannot compete as a city of plazas and detached housing, but in 2011 that's what we're left with. Many recent gains really are just drops in the bucket because the scale of the destruction is so staggering. At this point it will take dozens, maybe hundreds of new mixed-use and multifamily buildings just to get back to par. It is therefore very important that we recognize and commit to the task at hand. It is also important to take a firm stand against those who oppose dense development or who support the further suburbanization of Cleveland. Couldn't agree more!
May 22, 201213 yr Census Bureau Releases Estimates of Undercount and Overcount in the 2010 Census The U.S. Census Bureau released today results from its post-enumeration survey, providing a measure of the accuracy of the 2010 Census. The results found that the 2010 Census had a net overcount of 0.01 percent, meaning about 36,000 people were overcounted in the census. This sample-based result, however, was not statistically different from zero. The post-enumeration survey, called “Census Coverage Measurement,” measures the coverage of the nation’s household population (excluding the 8.0 million people in “group quarters,” such as nursing homes or college dorms). It surveys a sample of the 300.7 million people living in housing units and then matches the responses to the census, resulting in estimates of error. The 2000 Census had an estimated net overcount of 0.49 percent and the 1990 Census had a net undercount of 1.61 percent. “On this one evaluation — the net undercount of the total population — this was an outstanding census,” Census Bureau Director Robert Groves said. “When this fact is added to prior positive evaluations, the American public can be proud of the 2010 Census their participation made possible.” Components of Coverage The Census Bureau also released estimates of the components of coverage: the number of correct census records, erroneous enumerations and omissions. The Census Bureau estimates that among the 300.7 million people who live in housing units, about 94.7 percent were counted correctly, about 3.3 percent were counted erroneously, 1.6 percent provided only a census count and had their demographic characteristics imputed, or statistically inserted, and 0.4 percent needed more extensive imputation after all census follow-up efforts were attempted. Among those erroneously counted, about 84.9 percent were duplicates, while the remainder were incorrectly counted for another reason, such as people who died before Census Day (April 1, 2010), who were born after Census Day or were fictitious census records. The Census Bureau estimated 16.0 million omissions in the census. Omissions include people missed in the census and people whose census records could not be verified in the post-enumeration survey because they did not answer enough of the demographic characteristic questions in the census. Of the 16.0 million omissions, about 6.0 million were likely counted in the census but couldn’t be verified in the post-enumeration survey. Variation by Characteristics As with previous censuses, the coverage of the population varied across demographic characteristics. The 2010 Census undercounted renters by 1.1 percent, showing no significant change compared with 2000. Homeowners were overcounted in both the 2000 and 2010 censuses. However, the 2010 Census reduced the net overcount for homeowners from 1.2 percent to 0.6 percent. Renters were more likely to be duplicated than owners and twice as likely to have all of their characteristics imputed. As with prior censuses, coverage varied by race and Hispanic origin. The 2010 Census overcounted the non-Hispanic white alone population by 0.8 percent, not statistically different from an overcount of 1.1 percent in 2000. The 2010 Census undercounted 2.1 percent of the black population, which was not statistically different from a 1.8 percent undercount in 2000. In 2010, 1.5 percent of the Hispanic population was undercounted. In 2000, the estimated undercount of 0.7 percent was not statistically different from zero. The difference between the two censuses was also not statistically significant. The Census Bureau did not measure a statistically significant undercount for the Asian or for the Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander populations in 2010 (at 0.1 percent and 1.3 percent, respectively). These estimates were also not statistically different from the results measured in 2000 (a 0.8 percent overcount and a 2.1 percent undercount, respectively). Coverage of the American Indian and Alaska Native population varied by geography. American Indians and Alaska Natives living on reservations were undercounted by 4.9 percent, compared with a 0.9 percent overcount in 2000. The net error for American Indians not living on reservations was not statistically different from zero in 2010 or 2000. Men 18 to 29 and 30 to 49 were undercounted in 2010, while women 30 to 49 were overcounted, a pattern consistent with 2000. The estimated overcount of women 18 to 29 was not statistically significant. “While the overall coverage of the census was exemplary, the traditional hard-to-count groups, like renters, were counted less well,” Groves said. “Because ethnic and racial minorities disproportionately live in hard-to-count circumstances, they too were undercounted relative to the majority population.” Other Findings The post-enumeration survey did not measure a statistically significant undercount or overcount in the population or housing units for any state. The survey did not measure a statistically significant undercount or overcount for the population in any counties or places of 100,000 or more. The 2010 Census undercounted housing units, mostly because of an undercount of vacant units. On the other hand, there was no statistically significant undercount or overcount of occupied housing units. As a whole, erroneous enumerations and imputations were lower among people who mailed back a census form, compared with those counted by a door-to-door census taker. Additionally, responses mailed back earlier in the process were generally less likely to have erroneous enumerations than those mailed later. Among people counted door-to-door by a census taker, responses from a household member were more accurate than those from proxies, such as neighbors or landlords who provided information when a householder could not be reached or refused to participate in the census. “We’ll use these coverage estimates to build a better 2020 Census,” Groves said. “The 2010 Census used a variety of operations to improve coverage of the population. We now have measures of their success, which will inform cost-quality tradeoff decisions for the 2020 Census.” The post-enumeration survey is one of three types of indicators that measure the quality of a census. The others consist of process indicators, which measure the quality of census operations and data collection, and comparisons to other methods of estimating population size. Each type of quality indicator has its own strengths and weaknesses as a measurement tool. For example, the estimates from the post-enumeration survey have sampling error and are susceptible to violations of the underlying statistical assumptions. CB12-95 Public Information Office 301-763-3030 e-mail: [email protected]
September 27, 201212 yr FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: THURSDAY, SEPT. 27, 2012 Report Supporting Materials Populations Increasing in Many Downtowns, Census Bureau Reports A U.S. Census Bureau report released today shows that in many of the largest cities of the most-populous metro areas, downtown is becoming a place not only to work but also to live. Between the 2000 and 2010 censuses, metro areas with 5 million or more people experienced double-digit population growth rates within their downtown areas (within a two-mile radius of their largest city’s city hall), more than double the rate of these areas overall. Chicago experienced the largest numeric gain in its downtown area, with a net increase of 48,000 residents over 10 years. New York, Philadelphia, Salt Lake City and Washington also posted large population increases close to city hall. These downtown gains were not universal, however: New Orleans and Baltimore experienced the greatest population declines in their downtown areas (35,000 and slightly more than 10,000, respectively). Two smaller areas in Ohio ─ Dayton and Toledo ─ also saw downtown declines of more than 10,000. These are just some of the findings in the new 2010 Census special report, Patterns of Metropolitan and Micropolitan Population Change: 2000 to 2010. The report uses 2010 Census results to examine contemporary geographic patterns (as well as changes since the 2000 Census) of population density and distribution by race, Hispanic origin, age and sex for metro and micro areas collectively as well as individually. Metro areas contain at least one urbanized area of 50,000 population or more, while micro areas contain at least one urban cluster of less than 50,000, but at least 10,000. “By including totals for both 2000 and 2010, this report helps us to understand patterns of change for this past decade,” Census Bureau Deputy Director Nancy Potok said. “The report, together with its associated online maps, graphics and statistical tables, provides a detailed view of the nation’s centers of population and economic activity.” A common theme for the non-Hispanic white alone population from 2000 to 2010 was population increases in the central areas of many of the largest principal cities, especially those in the largest metro areas. “The Washington metro area is a notable example of this pattern,” said Steven Wilson, a co-author of the report. “We see increases in the non-Hispanic white population, in both numeric terms and share of the total population, in many of the District’s census tracts in or close to the city’s downtown area.” At the same time, this group’s share of the population declined by 10 or more percentage points in many tracts in the surrounding suburbs of Washington, D.C. These demographic patterns were not uniform across all race and ethnic groups; the black alone population increased in most metro areas outside the area’s largest city. In Atlanta, for example, this group’s share of the population rose by at least 10 percentage points in wide swaths surrounding the city. For Hispanics, growth was greatest in pockets along principal city perimeters and adjacent territory. In several sections of the report, census tract data were examined to provide a neighborhood-level perspective on demographic patterns within individual metro areas. Because census tracts often change boundaries from one census to the next, one of the report’s innovations was to retabulate 2000 Census data in updated 2010 Census tracts, thereby allowing the calculation of 2000 to 2010 change data by tract. Another feature of the report is the construction of distance bands as measured from city hall. This permits a look at population distribution and density at various distance ranges from a metro area’s largest city center. Along with metro and micro area data for all variables in the report, two online data tools were released: a series of interactive population pyramids showing the age and sex structure of all metro and micro areas in 2000 and 2010, and a set of “distance profiles” of the population for all metro areas. Also, an interactive mapping tool that allows users to see metro and micro area and census tract-level data is now available. Other highlights: --More than one in 10 U.S. residents lived in either the New York or Los Angeles metro area in 2010. --Although metro areas covered only slightly more than one-quarter of the nation’s land area, they were home to eight of every 10 people. --The Hispanic share of the population increased in every U.S. metro area. --While the non-Hispanic white alone, black alone and Asian alone populations grew faster in metro areas than in micro areas, the reverse was true for Hispanics. --Next to those who were non-Hispanic white alone, Hispanics were the most populous race or ethnic group in most metro and micro areas in the western half of the U.S., with single-race blacks the largest in most areas in the eastern half. --Metro area populations were younger (a median of 36.6 years) than the population in either micro areas (39.3 years) or territory outside either of these areas (41.9 years). --Areas with the highest median ages were either in slow-growing regions like western Pennsylvania, which had past outmigration of the young combined with “aging in place,” or were faster-growing areas in parts of Florida and Arizona that were traditional retiree migration destinations. --Areas with the lowest median ages included metro areas and micro areas in Utah, southern Idaho and along the U.S.-Mexican border. -X- CB12-181 Robert Bernstein Public Information Office 301-763-3030 email: <[email protected]>
September 27, 201212 yr Wow, Dayton and Toledo each lost 10k people within 2 miles of city hall. I'm surprised they had that much to lose. Toledo at least has some dense residential near downtown, but apparently none of it has been maintained since I lived there in the late 90s.
September 27, 201212 yr Dayton ALSO has dense residential near downtown but it's not surprising the loss is 2 miles from downtown as many of the city's empty quarters are near downtown, across the river. "You don't just walk into a bar and mix it up by calling a girl fat" - buildingcincinnati speaking about new forumers
September 28, 201212 yr Regarding the recent report as far as city population in relation to distance from "City Hall", here is a metro by metro profile in Ohio for the first 20 miles, as well as a general stats picture. Akron Distance in Miles, 2010 Population, and Change since 2000. 0. 12,479 -1,109 1. 41,236 -7,807 2. 68,680 -6,958 3. 55,279 -2,233 4. 50,151 -426 5. 68,962 -872 6. 41,207 +1,141 7. 42,612 +1,551 8. 36,646 +3,252 9. 62,043 +6,849 10. 23,415 +405 11. 22,094 +887 12. 2,619 +124 13. 15,217 +979 14. 35,662 +4,528 15. 29,126 +3,023 16. 5,453 -410 17. 24,303 +2,809 18. 20,451 +1,650 19. 16,019 +1,242 20. 0 +0 Total Aggregate Population By Distance Markers in 2010 and Change Since 2000. 0. 12,479 -1,109 1. 53,715 -8,916 2. 122,395 -15,874 3. 177,674 -18,107 4. 227,825 -18,533 5. 296,787 -19,405 10. 502,710 -6,207 15. 607,428 +3,334 20. 673,654 +8,625 Total Population of Metro Area Beyond 20 Miles in 2010: 29,546 Total Population Change of Metro Area beyond 20 Miles, 2000-2010: -413 Mile Marker with the Highest Population in 2000: 2 Mile Marker with the Highest Population in 2010: 5 Mile Marker with the Lowest Population in 2000: 12 Mile Marker with the Lowest Population in 2010: 12 Mile Marker that saw the Largest Growth from 2000-2010: 9 +6,849 Mile Marker that saw the Largest Loss from 2000-2010: 1 -7,807 Total number of miles the metro population extends: 27
September 28, 201212 yr Canton Distance in Miles, 2010 Population, Change since 2000. 0. 7,488 -1,861 1. 37,677 -5,489 2. 22,626 -905 3. 39,391 -1,925 4. 28,902 +857 5. 34,911 +493 6. 26,667 +1,921 7. 41,439 +401 8. 35,325 +1,529 9. 3,950 -178 10. 23,836 +2,755 11. 7,624 +1,029 12. 22,892 +329 13. 16,477 -250 14. 3,960 -211 15. 17,581 -401 16. 18,058 -935 17-20. 0 +0 Total Aggregate Population By Distance Markers in 2010 and Change since 2000. 0. 7,488 -1,861 1. 45,165 -7,350 2. 67,791 -8,255 3. 107,182 -10,180 4. 136,084 -9,323 5. 170,995 -8,830 10. 302,212 -2,402 15. 370,746 -1,906 20. 388,804 -2,841 Total Metro Population Beyond 20 Miles in 2010: 15,618 Total Population Change of Metro Area Beyond 20 Miles, 2000-2010: +288 Mile Marker with the Highest Population in 2000: 2 Mile Marker with the Highest Population in 2010: 7 Mile Marker with the Lowest Population in 2000: 24 Mile Marker with the Lowest Population in 2010: 24 Mile Marker that saw the Highest Growth 2000-2010: 10 +2,755 Mile Marker that saw the Biggest Loss 2000-2010: 2 -5,489 Total # of Miles the Metro Population Extends: 27
September 28, 201212 yr Cincinnati Distance in Miles, 2010 Population, Change 2000-2010. 0. 17,681 -285 1. 47,573 -5,827 2. 72,981 -9,637 3. 67,389 -8,799 4. 110,041 -7,794 5. 84,589 -6,356 6. 79,231 -1,550 7. 101,221 -4,363 8. 105,252 +467 9. 77,558 +1,693 10. 99,416 +2,684 11. 103,560 +13,765 12. 82,272 +17,433 13. 73,797 +4,432 14. 42,371 +2,888 15. 62,487 +2,216 16. 77,824 +6,774 17. 74,796 +9,348 18. 86,357 +13,816 19. 68,887 +8,139 20. 57,622 +7,769 Total Aggregate Population by Distance Markers in 2010 and Change since 2000. 0. 17,681 -285 1. 65,254 -6,112 2. 138,235 -15,749 3. 205,624 -24,548 4. 315,665 -32,342 5. 400,254 -38,698 10. 862,932 -39,767 15. 1,227,419 +967 20. 1,592,905 +46,813 Total Metro Population Beyond 20 Miles in 2010: 537,246 Total Population Change for Metro Area Beyond 20 Miles, 2000-2010: +73,679 Mile Marker with the Highest Population in 2000: 4 Mile Marker with the Highest Population in 2010: 4 Mile Marker with the Lowest Population in 2000: 40 Mile Marker with the Lowest Population in 2010: 40 Mile Marker that saw the Highest Growth 2000-2010: 12 +17,433 Mile Marker that saw the Biggest Loss 2000-2010: 2 -9,637 Total # of Miles the Metro Population Extends: 49
September 28, 201212 yr Cleveland Distance in Miles, 2010 Population, Change since 2000. 0. 9,471 +3,158 1. 22,722 +16 2. 32,528 -6,562 3. 75,224 -19,899 4. 87,364 -18,661 5. 134,166 -28,119 6. 120,890 -19,843 7. 108,965 -12,484 8. 127,888 -7,636 9. 101,630 -6,712 10. 97,663 -4,120 11. 87,554 -4,243 12. 105,635 +362 13. 63,769 +920 14. 65,601 +3,207 15. 57,004 +6,657 16. 63,940 +3,750 17. 45,224 +527 18. 54,369 +8,951 19. 49,567 +9,953 20. 38,625 +2,256 Total Aggregate Population in 2010 and Change since 2000. 0. 9,471 +3,158 1. 32,193 +3,174 2. 64,721 -3,388 3. 139,945 -23,287 4. 227,309 -41,948 5, 361,475 -70,067 10. 918,511 -120,862 15. 1,298,074 -113,959 20. 1,549,799 -88,522 Total Metro Population Beyond 20 Miles in 2010: 527,441 Total Population Change in the Metro Area Beyond 20 Miles, 2000-2010: +17,744 Mile Marker with the Highest Population in 2000: 5 Mile Marker with the Highest Population in 2010: 5 Mile Marker with the Lowest Population in 2000: 36 Mile Marker with the Lowest Population in 2010: 36 Mile Marker with the Largest Growth 2000-2010: 19 +9,953 Mile Marker with the Biggest Loss 2000-2010: 5 -28,119 Total # of Miles the Metro Population Extends: 41
September 28, 201212 yr Columbus Distance in Miles, 2010 Population, Change since 2000. 0. 7,416 +1,598 1. 42,251 -2,647 2. 85,159 -4,955 3. 86,940 -2,505 4. 93,091 -1,141 5. 90,085 +1,726 6. 107,681 +4,156 7. 124,355 +7,965 8. 158,988 +19,241 9. 92,262 +5,849 10. 106,029 +30,586 11. 110,143 +21,667 12. 73,951 +15,995 13. 67,844 +20,001 14. 62,177 +22,559 15. 26,217 +10,812 16. 33,012 +8,903 17. 14,328 +7,149 18. 28,424 +11,574 19. 9,747 +688 20. 12,267 +3,813 Total Aggregate Population in 2010 and Chance since 2000. 0. 7,416 +1,598 1. 49,667 -1,049 2. 134,826 -6,004 3. 221,466 -8,509 4. 314,557 -9,650 5. 404,642 -7,924 10. 993,957 +59,873 15. 1,334,289 +150,907 20. 1,432,067 +183,014 Total Metro Population Beyond 20 Miles in 2010: 404,469 Total Population Change in Metro Area Beyond 20 Miles, 2000-2010: +40,524 Mile Marker with the Highest Population in 2000: 8 Mile Marker with the Highest Population in 2010: 8 Mile Marker with the Lowest Population in 2000: 30 Mile Marker with the Lowest Population in 2010: 30 Mile Marker with the Largest Growth 2000-2010: 10 +30,586 Mile Marker with the Biggest Loss 2000-2010: 3 -4,955 Total # of Miles Metro Population Extends: 50
September 28, 201212 yr Dayton Distance in Miles, 2010 Population, Change since 2000. 0. 9,182 -633 1. 31,871 -9,532 2. 60,764 -10,661 3. 50,972 -6,826 4. 61,825 -3,521 5. 47,455 -1,893 6. 87,282 +2,965 7. 56,003 -1,649 8. 54,947 +1,625 9. 78,022 +3,980 10. 47,855 +8,922 11. 44,426 +4,559 12. 6,523 +576 13. 34,905 +1,952 14. 13,652 -16 15. 14,718 +450 16. 11,201 -500 17. 7,292 +1,125 18. 10,557 -122 19. 10,033 +289 20. 18,138 +1,426 Total Aggregate Population in 2010 and Change since 2000. 0. 9,182 -633 1. 41,053 -10,165 2. 101,817 -20,826 3. 152,789 -27,652 4. 214,614 -31,173 5. 262,069 -33,066 10. 586,178 -17,233 15. 700,402 -9,702 20. 757,623 -7,484 Total Metro Population Beyond 20 Miles in 2010: 83,879 Total Population Chance in Metro Area Beyond 20 Miles, 2000-2010: +677 Mile Marker with the Highest Population in 2000: 6 Mile Marker with the Highest Population in 2010: 6 Mile Marker with the Lowest Population in 2000: 24 Mile Marker with the Lowest Population in 2010: 24 Mile Marker with the Largest Growth 2000-2010: 10 +8,922 Mile Marker with the Biggest Loss 2000-2010: 2 -10,661 Total # of Miles Metro Population Extends: 31
September 28, 201212 yr ^Wow im surprised Columbus has a steep drop off after 14 miles. Cleveland surprises me as well but the lake is effecting their numbers.
September 28, 201212 yr Toledo Distance in Miles, 2010 Population, Change since 2000. 0. 8,304 +170 1. 47,435 -10,288 2. 38,319 -6,653 3. 72,511 -4,698 4. 46,960 -570 5. 57,658 -4,055 6. 35,286 +170 7. 63,534 +662 8. 34,871 +974 9. 22,790 +1,049 10. 27,191 +1,603 11. 23,377 +9,465 12. 3,928 -5,559 13. 5,555 +2,272 14. 8,741 +686 15. 1,598 +34 16. 5,211 +1,381 17. 12,681 -327 18. 0 +0 19. 20,788 -987 20. 16,481 +559 Total Aggregate Population in 2010 and Change since 2000. 0. 8,304 +170 1. 55,739 -10,118 2. 94,058 -16,771 3. 166,569 -21,469 4. 213,529 -22,039 5. 271,187 -26,094 10. 454,859 -21,636 15. 498,058 -14,738 20. 553,219 -14,112 Total Metro Population Beyond 20 Miles in 2010: 93,210 Total Population Change for Metro Area Beyond 20 Miles, 2000-2010: +1,342 Mile Marker with the Highest Population in 2000: 3 Mile Marker with the Highest Population in 2010: 3 Mile Marker with the Lowest Population in 2000: 15 Mile Marker with the Lowest Population in 2010: 15 Mile Marker with the Largest Growth 2000-2010: 11 +9,465 Mile Marker with the Biggest Loss 2000-2010: 1 -10,288 Total # of Miles that Metro Population Extends: 41
Create an account or sign in to comment