census

Moving to North Dakota: The New Census Estimates

Wendell Cox — Wed, 26 Dec 2012 20:26:17 -0500

The new state (and DC) population estimates indicate a substantial slowdown in growth, from an annual rate of 0.93 percent during the 2000s to 0.75% between 2011 and 2012. This 20 percent slowdown in growth was driven by a reduction in the crude birth rate to the lowest point ever recorded in the United States (12.6 live births per 1000 population).

The big surprise was the population growth leader, North Dakota, which has experienced a strong boom in natural resource extraction. Between 1930 and 2010, North Dakota had lost population. However in the first two years of the new decade, North Dakota has experienced strong growth, and reached its population peak, according to the new estimates, in 2012. North Dakota's population growth rate between 2011 and 2012 was 2.17%. Nearby South Dakota also grew rapidly, ranking 10th in population growth. The other fastest-growing states were all in the South or the West. The District of Columbia, located in the strongly growing Washington, DC Metropolitan area ranked second in growth rate behind North Dakota (Figure 1).

Two states lost population, Vermont and Rhode Island, as the Northeast and Midwest represented all but one of the 10 slowest growing states. West Virginia, in the South, was also included among the slowest growing states (Figure 2).

The domestic migration trends continue to favor the South and West. Texas continues to attract the largest number of domestic migrants (141,000), followed by Florida (101,000). These two states have been the domestic migration leaders in the nation every year since 2000 (Figure 3). Four states gained from 25,000 to 35,000 domestic migrants (Arizona, North Carolina, Tennessee and South Carolina).

Generally, the same states continued to dominate domestic migration losses, with New York losing the most migrants, Illinois ranking second, followed by California, Ohio and Michigan. With the exception of California, all of the 10 states losing the largest number of domestic migrants were in the Northeast or the Midwest (Figure 4).

Overall, domestic migration continues to be dominated by the South, which attracted 354,000 residents from other states. The West added 52,000 domestic migrants, however virtually all of this gain occurred in the Intermountain West. Gains in Oregon and Washington were far more than offset by the large losses in California, as well as losses in Hawaii and Alaska. The Intermountain West gained more than 70,000 domestic migrants. The Northeast lost 221,000 domestic migrants, while the Midwest lost 185,000.

Exodus to Suburbs Continues Through 2012

Wendell Cox — Tue, 11 Dec 2012 14:33:48 -0500

The latest US Census Bureau migration data shows that people continue to move from principal cities (which include core cities) in metropolitan areas to what the Census Bureau characterizes as "suburbs" (Note). Between 2011 and 2012, a net 1.5 million people moved from principal cities to suburbs (principal cities lost 1.5 million people to the suburbs). The movement to the suburbs was pervasive. In each of the age categories, there was a net migration from the principal cities to the suburbs. There was also net migration to the "suburbs" in all categories of educational attainment.

These data are in contrast to claims that people are moving from a suburbs to central cities. Virtually none of the migration data has shown any such movement. Moreover, the city population estimates produced for 2011 by the Census Bureau, which indicated stronger central city growth have been shown to be simply allocations of growth within counties, rather than genuine estimates of population increase.

----

Note on Census Bureau "Suburbs:"

The movement to the suburbs is undoubtedly understated in the Census Bureau estimates, because many jurisdictions included in the "principal city" classification are in fact suburbs. The Real State of Metropolitan America showed that virtually all population growth in principal cities was either in suburban jurisdictions classified as principal cities, or in cities with substantial expenses of post-World War II automobile oriented (or suburban) land-use patterns. The remaining core cities that are largely only urban core in land use accounted for only 2% of principal city growth from 2000 to 2008.

For a decade, the Census Bureau has used a "principal city" designation instead of the former "central city" term. All former "central cities" are "principal cities." The Census Bureau characterizes all other areas of metropolitan areas as "suburbs." In fact, many of the principal cities are functionally suburbs, having barely existed or not existed at all at the beginning of the great automobile oriented suburban exodus following World War II.

Examples of such suburban principal cities, with their metropolitan areas in parentheses, are Hoffman Estates (Chicago), Arlington (Dallas-Fort Worth), Aurora (Denver), Fountain Valley (Los Angeles), Eden Prairie (Minneapolis-St. Paul), Mesa (Phoenix), Hillsboro (Portland), San Marcos (San Diego), Pleasanton (San Francisco), Kent (Seattle), Virginia Beach (Virginia Beach-Norfolk) and many others.

Census Bureau Finds 3.2 Million More People in Salt Lake City?

Wendell Cox — Thu, 27 Sep 2012 23:46:37 -0400

Today the US Bureau of the Census released a fascinating report on metropolitan area population growth by radius from the corresponding city halls. The report provides summary tables indicating the metropolitan areas that had the greatest and least growth, for example, near the downtown areas. I was surprised to find that Salt Lake City had done so well, having seen is population rise from 336,000 to 355,000 within a two mile radius of city hall (Table 3-7). That struck me as odd. A two mile radius encompasses an area of only 12.6 square miles, for a density of about 28,000 per square mile. Only the city San Francisco has densities that high over such a large area in the West. Moreover, all of the municipality of Salt Lake City is within two miles of city hall, and the 2010 census counted only 186,000 people in the entire city of more nearly 110 square miles.

In reviewing the backup file, Worksheets "Pop2000", Pop2010", "Density2000" and "Density 2010"), I discovered that Salt Lake City's data was actually that of San Francisco and that metropolitan Salt Lake City was credited with 3.2 more people than it had Another surprise was that the San Francisco metropolitan area was reported with 260,000 people, less than one-third the population reported for the core city of San Francisco in 2010. Santa Fe had a reported population 3.4 million people, about 1.4 million people more than live in the entire state of which it is the capital. Further, in at least 35 cases, the populations for metropolitan areas did not correspond to those reported in the 2010 census.

Obviously this is the kind of automated (computer) error that can happen to anyone or any agency. Nonetheless, an immediate correction would be appropriate.

With considerable effort, we were able to get through to the public information office at the Bureau of the Census to notify them of the error.

Until a corrected report is issued, any analysis of the report will need to be very cautious indeed. We look forward to the revision.

A Summary of 2011 Commuting Data Released Today

Wendell Cox — Thu, 20 Sep 2012 13:40:25 -0400

The Census Bureau's American Community Survey released its annual one-year snapshot of demographic data in the United States. As usual, this included journey to work (commuting data), which is summarized in the table below.

American Community Survey Commuting Data
2011, 2010 & 2000
ESTIMATES of Total Commuters	2000	2010	2011
Drive Alone	97.10	104.86	105.64
Car/Van Pool	15.63	13.27	13.39
Transit	5.87	6.77	6.96
Bicycle	0.49	0.73	0.78
Walk	3.76	3.80	3.89
Motorcyle, Taxi & Other	1.24	1.60	1.63
Work at Home	4.18	5.92	5.99
Total	128.28	136.94	138.27
In Millions

MARKET SHARE
Drive Alone	75.70%	76.57%	76.40%
Car/Van Pool	12.19%	9.69%	9.68%
Transit	4.57%	4.94%	5.03%
Bicycle	0.38%	0.53%	0.56%
Walk	2.93%	2.77%	2.81%
Motorcyle, Taxi & Other	0.97%	1.17%	1.18%
Work at Home	3.26%	4.33%	4.34%
Total	100.00%	100.00%	100.00%

Sources: 2000, 2010 Census & 2011 American Community Survey

Trends Since 2010

As estimated employment improved from 137.9 million in 2010 to 138.3 from 2010 to 2011, there was an increase of 800,000 in the number of commuters driving alone, which, as usual, represented the vast majority of commuting (105.6 million daily one way trips), at 76.40 percent. This was not enough, however, to avoid a small (0.17 percentage point) decline in market share.

Car pooling experienced a rare increase of 120,000 commuters, which translated into a 0.1 percentage point loss in market share, to 9.68 percent. Transit increased 190,000 commuters, and had a 0.09 percentage point increase in market share, to 5.03 percent. This brought transit's market share to above its 2008 share of 5.01 percent and near its 1990 market share of 5.11 percent.

Working at home increased by 70,000, with a modest 0.1 percentage point increase from 2010.

Trends Since 2000

Even with declining falling household incomes and rising gasoline prices, single-occupant commuting continued to rise between 2000 and 2011. Solo drivers increased nearly 8 million, more than the total transit commuting in 2011. Car pooling continued its long-term decline, falling 2.2 million. Transit did well (as would be expected with unfavorable economic conditions and unprecedented gasoline price increases), as we noted last year, having added 1.1 million commuters. This was spread thinly around the country, though with a 70 percent concentration in New York and Washington, DC. Over the period, working at home experienced an increase of 1.8 million, the largest increase outside solo driving.

Media Attention

For the most part the commuting data was ignored by the media --- and for good reason. The one year changes were predictably modest. However, the exception was USA Today, with a top of the webpage "Fewer Americans Driving Solo" headline. In fact, as noted above, the short term and long term trends reflected an increase in solo driving. Moreover, reading the story it would be easy to get the impression that a sea change had occurred in how people get to work. To its credit, however, USA Today appropriately labeled the likely reasons for the mountains it made into molehills --- the economy and gasoline prices.

Observations on Exurban Trends

Wendell Cox — Mon, 14 May 2012 01:12:20 -0400

Getting the Migration Story Straight: Analysts continue to misunderstand the recent metropolitan area census estimates. Much of the misunderstanding arises from a misinterpretation of a chart produced by the Brookings Institution, which indicates that the rate of population growth has fallen in exurban counties and was, last year, less than the rate of growth in what Brookings calls emerging suburbs and "city/high density suburbs." However, the Brookings chart characterizes only total population growth, which is the combination of the natural growth rate, net international migration and net domestic migration. In other words, the Brookings Institution chart includes both people who move between areas of the United States and the net of those who move from outside the United States, are born or died.

Perhaps the most befuddled was the Arch Daily, which says that "people are leaving the suburbs and once again flocking to the cities..." In fact exurban and suburban areas continue to grow, though their growth rates have fallen. The highly touted decline in exurban growth rates is for one year only (2010-2011) and represents only the first year in the last 20 that the exurban has trailed that of the "city/high density suburbs." It is also the first year out of the last 20 that the "city/high density suburbs" did not trail both the suburbs and exurbs.

However, aggregate growth rates say nothing about moving to or from cities. Only one of the components of population change, domestic migration, can possibility indicate movement from the suburbs and exurbs to the cities. People who migrate from outside the nation, for example, are not moving from suburbs to the city (the suburbs of Paris don't count). People who are born or die are not migrating from the suburbs to the cities (where they might come from or are going has been the source of endless debate through history). The only people who can possibly be moving from suburbs and exurbs to the city are domestic migrants ---people who move within the United states.

Figure 1 indicates the components of population change in the core counties of the nation's 51 metropolitan areas with more than 1,000,000 population (there are no city level migration data).

There was a net gain in natural growth of 556,000 (births minus deaths)
There was a net gain in international migration of 295,000 (people who moved from outside the nation to the core counties.
There was a net loss in domestic migrants of 67,000. These US residents moved away from the core counties.

As we indicated in Still Moving to the Suburbs and Exurbs: The 2011 Census Estimates, there was net domestic migration to the suburbs and exurbs between 2010 and 2011. There was net domestic migration out of the central counties (there is no "city" migration data). This is illustrated in Figure 2, which has been annotated to make the actual moving of people clear.

If it should ever occur, it will be very clear when people are moving to the cores from the suburbs and exurbs. There will be PLUS domestic migration numbers to the core counties and MINUS domestic migration numbers from the suburbs and exurbs. Until that time any flocking (though that is too strong a word for current trends) will be away from the cores and to the suburbs and exurbs.

Of course, in the greatest economic downturn in more than 75 years, domestic migration has slowed considerably. It is not surprising, therefore that population growth rates in the exurbs and suburbs have fallen, since far fewer people are moving.

All Domestic Migration was to the Suburbs: Finally, all of the net domestic migration in the nation was to the suburbs and exurbs of the nation's major metropolitan areas (Also see Figure 2).

On the Health of Exurban Housing Markets

On a related subject, University of South Florida Professor Steven Polzin offered an interesting comment on the Planetizen site:

While I have not explicitly researched the distribution of home foreclosures as a function of the transportation costs of residents, I would caution analysts to more fully explore the nature of the housing foreclosure trend before jumping to the assumption that transportation costs were a significant contributor to geographically differential rates of foreclosure. Foreclosures were more prominent in homes purchased more recently relative to the housing crash. These new home purchasers were more often highly leveraged, had little equity in their home, and in many cases younger workers with less job seniority and more susceptible to layoffs. In addition, in fringe areas that had been growing there was a high concentration of homes all purchased recently. Thus, new growth areas were more susceptible to both foreclosures and the cascading effect of home depreciation spreading based on nearby foreclosed properties.

In a new suburb a young financially extended family may lose their job, have no equity in the house and quickly lose their house. Its depreciated value is soon reflected in adjacent appraisals cascading the stress throughout relatively fragile neighborhoods. On the other hand in established neighborhoods only a relatively small share of the homes changed hands near the peak of the building bubble. Thus, many of those homeowners had far more equity in their home and perhaps more job seniority and security enabling them to whether a housing downturn. In addition, the diversity of home ages and types and the less frequent occurrence of foreclosed properties will control the pace at which home value depreciation will cascade through the neighborhood.

If commuting cost was as big a contributor to suburban fringe foreclosure rates then one would have expected downtown condominiums to weather the housing bubble. In many locations like Florida large clusters of new downtown residential properties suffered the same rapid depreciation as did suburban fringe areas. The concentration of new units seemed to be more critical than the location.

Similar sentiments have been posted on these pages from time to time, such as here and here.

Census Bureau Releases Latest Take on America’s Urban Areas

Aaron M. Renn — Sun, 08 Apr 2012 14:33:37 -0400

We are used to dealing with jurisdictional boundaries when assessing and comparing cities. These are often either municipal areas or metropolitan statistical areas (which are based on entire counties). But these can have little relevance to the amount of area in a given city-region that is actually urban in nature. This makes apples to apples across regions difficult.

Once a decade though the Census Bureau gives us a more detailed look. They release definitions of so-called “urbanized areas” that attempt to look at just the amount of land that is actually urban in form. In theory this would allow for better apples to apples comparisons between regions. Unfortunately, most data is not sliced this way, so we only get this glimpse. Here’s the map of the new 2010 urbanized area definitions:

Wendell Cox has a breakdown of the largest urbanized areas that includes density. He also published a historical review that tracks urbanized area population and density since 1950 for the largest city regions. For more thoughts on urbanized areas, see Nate Berg’s take over at Atlantic Cities.

I don’t want to try to offer a complete analysis of this right now, but one thing that really jumped out at me was the very low densities of some southern boomtowns like Atlanta (1,707/sq. mi) and Charlotte (1,685/sq. mi.). Contrast with even Houston (2,979/sq. mi.) and Dallas (2,879/sq. mi) and see the difference. Atlanta is already showing serious signs of weakness vs. the Texas mega-metros and I wonder if this is part of the reason why. It also makes me wonder if Charlotte might someday suffer in a similar manner if its growth ever flames out.

New US Urban Area Data Released

Wendell Cox — Mon, 26 Mar 2012 10:16:24 -0400

This morning the US Bureau of the Census released data for urban areas in the United States. The urban population of the US rose to 249.3 million in 2010, out of a total population of 308.7 million. Urbanization covered 106,000 square miles, representing 3.0 percent of the US land mass. Overall urban density was 2,342 per square mile (905 per square kilometer).

The Los Angeles urban area was again the nation's most dense, at 6,999 per square mile (2,702 per square kilometer), a slight reduction from the 7,068 figure (2,729 per square kilometer) in 2000. The most dense urban areas with more than 1,000,000 population were Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Jose, New York and Las Vegas (in that order).

Overall, the 41 major urban areas had an average density of 3,245 per square mile (1,253 per square kilometer). The table below provides data for the major urban areas and overall data.

United States Urban Area Data: 2010 Census
Major Urban Areas & Summary

Rank	Urban Area	Population	Land Area (Square Miles)	Density	Density per Square KM
1	New York--Newark, NY--NJ--CT	18,351,295	3,450	5,319	2,054
2	Los Angeles--Long Beach--Anaheim, CA	12,150,996	1,736	6,999	2,702
3	Chicago, IL--IN	8,608,208	2,443	3,524	1,361
4	Miami, FL	5,502,379	1,239	4,442	1,715
5	Philadelphia, PA--NJ--DE--MD	5,441,567	1,981	2,746	1,060
6	Dallas--Fort Worth--Arlington, TX	5,121,892	1,779	2,879	1,112
7	Houston, TX	4,944,332	1,660	2,979	1,150
8	Washington, DC--VA--MD	4,586,770	1,322	3,470	1,340
9	Atlanta, GA	4,515,419	2,645	1,707	659
10	Boston, MA--NH--RI	4,181,019	1,873	2,232	862
11	Detroit, MI	3,734,090	1,337	2,793	1,078
12	Phoenix--Mesa, AZ	3,629,114	1,147	3,165	1,222
13	San Francisco--Oakland, CA	3,281,212	524	6,266	2,419
14	Seattle, WA	3,059,393	1,010	3,028	1,169
15	San Diego, CA	2,956,746	732	4,037	1,559
16	Minneapolis--St. Paul, MN--WI	2,650,890	1,022	2,594	1,002
17	Tampa--St. Petersburg, FL	2,441,770	957	2,552	985
18	Denver--Aurora, CO	2,374,203	668	3,554	1,372
19	Baltimore, MD	2,203,663	717	3,073	1,187
20	St. Louis, MO--IL	2,150,706	924	2,329	899
21	Riverside--San Bernardino, CA	1,932,666	545	3,546	1,369
22	Las Vegas--Henderson, NV	1,886,011	417	4,525	1,747
23	Portland, OR--WA	1,849,898	524	3,528	1,362
24	Cleveland, OH	1,780,673	772	2,307	891
25	San Antonio, TX	1,758,210	597	2,945	1,137
26	Pittsburgh, PA	1,733,853	905	1,916	740
27	Sacramento, CA	1,723,634	471	3,660	1,413
28	San Jose, CA	1,664,496	286	5,820	2,247
29	Cincinnati, OH--KY--IN	1,624,827	788	2,063	796
30	Kansas City, MO--KS	1,519,417	678	2,242	865
31	Orlando, FL	1,510,516	598	2,527	976
32	Indianapolis, IN	1,487,483	706	2,108	814
33	Virginia Beach, VA	1,439,666	515	2,793	1,078
34	Milwaukee, WI	1,376,476	546	2,523	974
35	Columbus, OH	1,368,035	510	2,680	1,035
36	Austin, TX	1,362,416	523	2,605	1,006
37	Charlotte, NC--SC	1,249,442	741	1,685	651
38	Providence, RI--MA	1,190,956	545	2,185	844
39	Jacksonville, FL	1,065,219	530	2,009	775
40	Memphis, TN--MS--AR	1,060,061	497	2,132	823
41	Salt Lake City--West Valley City, UT	1,021,243	278	3,675	1,419
	Total	133,490,862	41,139	3,245	1,253

	Other Urban Areas	115,762,409	65,247	1,774	685
	Total Urban	249,253,271	106,386	2,343	905
	Rural	59,492,267	3,431,052	17	7
	Total Population	308,745,538	3,537,439	87	34
	Share Urban	80.7%	3.0%

2011 Canada Census: Strong Growth & Suburbanization Continues

Wendell Cox — Thu, 09 Feb 2012 09:51:06 -0500

Statistics Canada has just released the first results of the 2011 census. The nation's population rose to 33.5 million, from 31.6 million in 2006. This is a 5.9 percent growth rate, up from a 5.4 percent rate between 2001 and 2006 and nearly one-half above the 4.0 percent growth rate from 1996 to 2001.

Suburbanization continued apace in Canada's largest metropolitan areas. Overall, the suburbs accounted for 83 percent of the population growth in Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver, with 17 percent of the growth in the central municipalities. In the other major metropolitan areas (Ottawa-Gatineau, Calgary and Edmonton), the central municipalities themselves encompass nearly all of the suburban development, so that the core-suburban population increase proportion is masked.

The Great Dakota Boom

Matthew Leiphon — Wed, 21 Dec 2011 17:55:45 -0500

The Census Bureau released their yearly population estimates today. As noted by Wendell Cox, the estimates showed signs of the South's continued leadership in population expansion. While the overall numbers of people involved are much smaller, the Dakotas, in particular North Dakota, also showed signs of growth worthy of note. According to the Census Bureau, North Dakota now has an estimated population of around 683,000, up over 11,000 in just one year. This made it the 6th fastest growing state in the nation over the past year- a notable achievement in its own right for a state more accustomed to dealing the challenge of outmigration.

However, the most interesting thing about the new estimate is that it represents a new record population for the state. There have never been more North Dakotans then there are today. The previous high count was about 680,000 way back in 1930. With the onset of the depression, the state entered a long period largely marked by periods of population decline and stagnation.

As a lifelong North Dakotan, I've occasionally found myself having difficulty coming to grips with our state's recent prosperity. North Dakotans can be a self effacing lot, and it sometimes seems that there’s a still a healthy dose of skepticism among my fellow citizens regarding our current good fortune. We’re not used to being on top like this, seeing our often ignored home highlighted in the press for its economic strength and tagged as "the state the recession forgot." For decades, we've been trying to find ways to deal with what seemed an inexorable cycle of rural decline and depopulation. While the new estimate is just a number, it does serve to break a bit of a psychological barrier for the state. We’re not just making up lost ground anymore- we’re now in uncharted territory and building beyond previous limits. It's a refreshing change.

Historians refer to the 1880s and period from 1900-1915 as the “Great Dakota Booms”. Growth was unchecked in what became North and South Dakota, and the population soared as immigrants poured into the region in search of economic opportunity. While oil has taken the lead role in place of land in this performance, it appears that our corner of the nation is in another "Great Dakota Boom" for many of the same reasons. Hopefully it will prove lasting. I, and my fellow North Dakotans will just have to learn to deal with prosperity. Call it “How North Dakota (and Matthew) Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Boom”.

All in all, it's a good time to be a Nodak.

Australia's 2011 Census: Chock Full of Surprises

Michael Matusik — Thu, 21 Jul 2011 00:17:04 -0400

There is nothing better than a good old count to check out what’s really happening. And a lot has happened across Australia over the last five years. But what actually has happen to the country’s demographic fabric might surprise many.
There are ten trends which I think will emerge out of our next national count on Tuesday 9th August.

1. Acceleration towards suburbia. Despite what we are feed by the intelligentsia most Australian’s want to live in a suburban settling. The amount of new development on the fringe and the proportion of the population living out there will have increased over the last five years. This trend is also likely accelerate in coming decades as to will a shift to “opportunity” regions, many of which being regional towns. And there is the real surprise, many of those that moved to suburbia are young – the 25 to 34 age group.

2. Increase in household size. Household sizes are no longer shrinking. 2006’s 2.6 people per household average will be closer to 2.8 this census and may rise even higher in the future. Why? The baby bonus, change in overseas migrant mix, low housing affordability and poor government decisions like, ironically, the first home owners grant and the more recent increase in owner-resident transfer duties in Queensland.

3. More family households. Despite forecasts of more lone person and couple households, we are likely to see an increase in the proportion of family households this census. In fact the proportion of lone households is likely to fall, as many are forced to live in shared arrangements or move back home with family.

4. Increase in net wealth. Despite the GFC, rising household costs and now declining house prices our net household wealth will have risen sharply between census periods; as too will our household incomes. Equity in our homes (and investment properties) will have also risen, with more people owning their home outright than ever before. The August 2011 poll will also find that Australia’s net household wealth is also at a record high.

5. Working longer. The number of hours reported as worked each week will be up, but when they were clocked will be increasingly outside of the core 9 to 5. Yet, and whilst not a census measurement, our productivity and ability to innovate will be down. In broader terms our economic measurements are wrong – we have suffocating, quarterly consciousness and proprietary trading rather a focus on nurturing talent and innovation. The county is far less dynamic as a result.

6. Change in demographic mix. A shift in overseas migrants from China, India, Africa and the Middle-East and less arriving here from more traditional sources such as the United Kingdom, Europe and New Zealand. This means bigger household groups, a younger age profile and rising demand for detached housing (and burqas too).

7. Larger homes. Whilst there has been shrinkage in apartment sizes of late and only really to make them easier to sell, most other housing types across Australia over the last five years have gotten bigger. High and rising land costs, relatively cheap building costs and increasing household sizes are the main reasons why. Our aging demographic will also want big new homes – assuming that baby boomers move – but how cheap new housing will be to build in the future is uncertain at present. Home owners are also moving less often and the distance, when the do move, is becoming less. “Fewer moves, local focus” should be the catch-cry for the next decade.

8. Fewer marriages. And those that are taking the plunge are getting married later. The average age of mothers having their first child should exceed 30 years.

9. Dissolution of relationships. Not only are fewer Australians getting married, but we are breaking off relationships at an increasing rate. Family and relationship disbanding reflects our declining resiliency and mounting acceptance of the nanny state. We don’t seem to overcome hardships these days, just “cut and run”. From a housing prospective if our households are fracturing so easily, then why are our prescriptions for housing increasingly rigid?

10. Less religion. Last census more Australia’s nominated that they believed in the Order Of The Jedi than Christianity, so maybe the census is bunkum after all. Yet more Australian’s are likely to nominate that they have no religion at all. Whilst we are not America, we do live largely an American way of life and were founded on similar values – industriousness, honesty, marriage and social cohesion – but these seems to be unravelling. This census count should show us how far lost we have become.

To paraphrase international urban authority Joel Kotkin “Whatever your politics or economic interests, the 2011 census will show that the country is changing and in a dramatic way – if not always in the ways often predicted by pundits, planners or the media. It usually makes more sense to study the actual numbers than largely wishful thinking of mostly urban-centric, big-city based and often quite biased analysts.” As we wrote after the last census, it maybe time for the planning industry to take a breather and set a different course with regard to our urban land use. Hopefully this time around the planning intelligentsia will take some notice.

The Matusik Snapshot is opinion and not advice. Readers should seek their own professional advice on the subject being discussed. Comments are welcome, contact me on michael@matusik.com.au.