census

Census Bureau Focuses on Younger Adults Leaving Larger Urban Cores

Wendell Cox — Fri, 01 Jul 2022 15:18:52 -0400

The Census Bureau has released an ”America Counts: Stories Behind the Numbers” issue entitled: “Fewer Younger Adults Drives Population Loss in Some U.S. Cities.” According to the Census Bureau, “Previously released population estimates for counties showed core counties of many large metro areas experienced large declines in their population from July 1, 2020-2021.” The net domestic migration dimension of this was the subject of our article Huge Spike in Domestic Migration from Urban Cores, which documented a 1.1 million net domestic migration loss by urban core counties of the major metropolitan areas (those over 1,000,000 population in the single year of 2021. By contrast, suburban counties gained about 400,000.

The new Census Bureau analysis shows, in the urban core counties covered, a disproportionate share of the 2021 population loss was “due largely to a loss of population in one specific group — younger adults in their early 20s to mid-30s.”

The article focuses on New York, San Francisco, where particularly large declines occurred among younger adults. This is an ominous trend for large core municipalities with the largest central business districts (downtowns), which have been particularly attractive in the past to this younger demographic and are most at risk of reduced office occupancy as a result of remote working. New York has by far the largest central business district in the United States, while San Francisco and Boston are among the top five.

Read the Census Bureau article: here

New York Urban Area Map

Wendell Cox — Mon, 25 Apr 2022 12:31:26 -0400

A commenter on the article (Comparing Urban Densities: Winnipeg and New York) expressed an interest in seeing the extent of the New York urban area. The main page of the Census Bureau map is posted here (PDF, 9MB). The map is difficult to read, but easier if the zoom function is employed. The New York urban area is defined by a black line, and extends:

South to the southern tip of Long Beach Island, in Ocean County, New Jersey, about 10 miles from the city limits of Atlantic City --- about 85 miles south of Manhattan (“as the crow flies”).
West to within 7 miles of the Pennsylvania border, in Warren County, New Jersey --- about 50 miles west of Manhattan.
North to southern Dutchess County, New York --- about 60 miles of Manhattan)
East to 25 miles west of Montauk, New York (east end of Long Island) --- about 85 miles east of Manhattan.

The entire map is available here and contains 22 maps with more detailed information.

In 2010, the New York urban area covered 3,450 square miles (8,936 square kilometers), with a population of 18.351 million and a population density of 5,319 per square mile (2,054 per square kilometer). Among the large urban areas in the United States, New York was the fourth densest, trailing Los Angeles (6,999 per square mile), San Francisco (6,267 per square mile) and San Jose (5,820 per square mile).

Urban areas are defined by Census Bureau criteria principally using population density of continuously developed urbanization. The 2010 census urban area criteria are here. The 2020 data has not yet been released.

Metropolitan areas are organized around urban areas, and their corresponding “central counties.” The central counties associated with a particular urbanized area or urban cluster are grouped to form a single cluster of central counties for purposes of measuring commuting to and from potentially qualifying outlying counties. Central counties are defined as “those counties that:

Have at least 50 percent of their population in urban areas of at least 10,000 population; or
Have within their boundaries a population of at least 5,000 located in a single urban area of at least 10,000 population.”

Metropolitan areas comprise the central counties and “outlying counties that meet commuting interchange criteria. Urban areas can have small extensions into counties not within the corresponding metropolitan area, such as Warren County, New Jersey and Dutchess County, New York as in the case of the New York urban area (above).

Due to the huge size of the New York urban area, all but one of the 23 metropolitan counties is “central.” Only Pike County, Pennsylvania is an “outlying” county.

There is a misimpression that metropolitan areas are organized around commuting into central business districts, or central cities (municipalities). In fact, the current commuting criteria relates only to central counties --- the 22 in New York metropolitan area, not Manhattan or the city of New York.

Wendell Cox is principal of Demographia, an international public policy firm located in the St. Louis metropolitan area. He is a founding senior fellow at the Urban Reform Institute, Houston, a Senior Fellow with the Frontier Centre for Public Policy in Winnipeg and a member of the Advisory Board of the Center for Demographics and Policy at Chapman University in Orange, California. He has served as a visiting professor at the Conservatoire National des Arts et Metiers in Paris. His principal interests are economics, poverty alleviation, demographics, urban policy and transport. He is co-author of the annual Demographia International Housing Affordability Survey and author of Demographia World Urban Areas.

Mayor Tom Bradley appointed him to three terms on the Los Angeles County Transportation Commission (1977-1985) and Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich appointed him to the Amtrak Reform Council, to complete the unexpired term of New Jersey Governor Christine Todd Whitman (1999-2002). He is author of War on the Dream: How Anti-Sprawl Policy Threatens the Quality of Life and Toward More Prosperous Cities: A Framing Essay on Urban Areas, Transport, Planning and the Dimensions of Sustainability.

Tentative Work from Home Estimates Based on ACS 2020 Experimental Data

Wendell Cox — Wed, 01 Dec 2021 12:46:02 -0500

The pandemic has interfered substantially with the annual release of the American Community Survey (ACS). The Census Bureau indicates that “Due to the challenges of fielding a household survey during the COVID-19 pandemic, household nonresponse increased substantially in the American Community Survey, with evidence of increased nonresponse bias in many statistics.”

Fortunately, the Census Bureau went to considerable efforts to release the 2020 American Community Survey 1-Year Experimental Estimates yesterday (November 30). The Census Bureau recommends caution in comparing the data (for the nation, the states and the District of Columbia) to previous years data and we offer tentative estimates based on the assumptions below.

Our principal interest is employment access by working from home, largely because of the considerable evidence of large increases during the pandemic. These data will not match the ACS 2019 data, because only five modes are included in the experimental data (drive alone, car pool, transit, taxicabs and work from home). The ACS experimental data excludes modes such as walking, bicycles and motorcycles while this analysis does not include taxicabs.

Assumptions

In that spirit, we cautiously offer a “what if” analysis with clearly stated assumptions to provide “guesstimates” of the widely reported expansion of working at home (the largest share of remote work) during the pandemic. The tentative assumptions are that:

In the first two months of 2020, work access modes is assumed to have had had the distribution of usual work trip access methods as was reported for the entire year of 2019. Generally, the changes in employment access that have been associated with the pandemic lockdowns in early March 2020 or later.
Employment access shares for ten months (March through December) were assumed to be equal to the annual ACS 2020 experimental estimates minus the estimates from Assumption #1, above.

Working From Home

Tentative employment access estimates are derived based upon these assumptions, shown in Figure 1. Driving alone is estimated to have dropped 12%, car pools 14% and transit 43%. Working from home would have increased more than 210% (Figures 1 and 2).

If the assumptions above were to hold, the work at home access figure for the pandemic period (March to December) would be 18.7% compared to 6.0% for the first two months (the 2019 rate).

The same assumptions can be used to estimate the work from home share for the states and the District of Columbia. This data is illustrated in Figure 3, with the actual estimates shown in Table 1, below.

The District of Columbia would have had by far the highest work from home share, at 46.7%, almost 75% above second place Massachusetts (26.7%). The District of Columbia (Washington) results are not surprising, reflecting the huge physical commuting losses that occurred in the nation’s largest central business districts (CBDs), since their office jobs are so easily replaced by remote working. At the state/DC level, the District is by far the smallest jurisdiction and with one of the largest CBDs in the nation, a larger work at home share is not unexpected.

Nearby Maryland (estimated third at 25.1%) and Virginia (estimated seventh at 23.1%) also show high work from home shares, as many formerly Washington bound auto and transit riders worked from home instead.

The state of Washington is estimated to have ranked fourth, at 25.0% and is home to the nation’s seventh largest CBD (Seattle). Metro Seattle is one of the nation’s premier tech centers, in which many jobs can readily be done from home. Colorado is estimated to have ranked fifth, while New Jersey was sixth. Before the pandemic, New Jersey supplied many commuters to New York’s Manhattan, by far the nation’s largest CBD as well as to Center City Philadelphia, the nation’s sixth largest CBD.

The largest work from home increases from pre-pandemic to pandemic levels also occurred in the District of Columbia and Maryland. New Jersey had the third largest increase, and Maryland the fourth largest (shown in Table 1).

The Future?

The ACS data are based upon usual mode of employment access. There are indications that once the pandemic passes, many more workers will have hybrid schedules that could have them still usually at the physical work location, but working more often from home. Jose Maria Barrero (Instituto Tecnologico Autonomo de Mexico) Nicholas Bloom (Stanford University) and Steven J. Davis (University of Chicago) have reported survey data to the effect that 20% of full workdays will be from home after the pandemic. This includes the “usual” work from home access and the more hybrid arrangements that would entail fewer work at home days. Further, the National Association of Realtors notes falling office demand in major downtown areas, Further challenges to the largest and densest office markets from working at home could come from the new Omicron variant of COVID-19 and working from satellite offices.

With the pandemic effects still with us, it could take some time to obtain the reliable ACS estimates down to the lowest geographies normally reported.

Table 1 (back to reference)

Share of Employment Access
TENTATIVE ESTIMATES: WORK AT HOME EMPLOYMENT ACCESS: 2020
Four Modes Only (Drive Alone, Car Pool, Transit & Work from Home)
	2020: Jan-Feb	2020: Mar-Dec	Rank	Change	Rank
Alabama	3.5%	9.8%	48	182%	28
Alaska	5.0%	14.8%	33	198%	18
Arizona	7.9%	20.9%	15	164%	33
Arkansas	3.6%	9.0%	50	149%	39
California	6.7%	22.6%	8	238%	13
Colorado	9.6%	24.5%	5	155%	36
Connecticut	5.8%	21.7%	13	274%	7
Delaware	5.3%	20.0%	16	274%	8
District of Columbia	9.2%	46.6%	1	407%	1
Florida	7.3%	16.6%	25	128%	45
Georgia	7.2%	18.2%	21	153%	37
Hawaii	5.1%	13.0%	41	152%	38
Idaho	7.7%	16.4%	26	112%	48
Illinois	5.7%	19.9%	17	249%	11
Indiana	4.5%	13.2%	39	196%	21
Iowa	6.0%	13.8%	35	129%	44
Kansas	5.3%	15.0%	32	183%	27
Kentucky	4.5%	13.3%	38	198%	19
Louisiana	4.1%	9.2%	49	125%	47
Maine	6.6%	18.8%	19	183%	26
Maryland	5.7%	25.1%	3	337%	4
Massachusetts	5.9%	26.7%	2	356%	2
Michigan	4.7%	16.7%	24	257%	10
Minnesota	6.7%	22.6%	9	235%	14
Mississippi	3.2%	6.1%	51	92%	49
Missouri	5.2%	15.2%	30	191%	23
Montana	7.0%	16.1%	27	131%	43
Nebraska	4.8%	13.1%	40	171%	31
Nevada	5.1%	13.8%	36	170%	32
New Hampshire	7.6%	18.6%	20	144%	40
New Jersey	5.2%	23.2%	6	350%	3
New Mexico	5.3%	15.0%	31	184%	25
New York	5.2%	22.3%	10	325%	5
North Carolina	6.9%	17.9%	22	158%	35
North Dakota	3.8%	11.1%	44	193%	22
Ohio	4.8%	15.6%	29	228%	15
Oklahoma	4.6%	10.7%	46	135%	42
Oregon	7.8%	22.1%	11	182%	29
Pennsylvania	5.7%	19.7%	18	245%	12
Rhode Island	4.7%	14.4%	34	205%	16
South Carolina	5.3%	12.0%	42	127%	46
South Dakota	6.4%	11.6%	43	81%	50
Tennessee	5.8%	13.7%	37	136%	41
Texas	5.9%	17.5%	23	196%	20
Utah	7.7%	21.3%	14	176%	30
Vermont	7.5%	21.8%	12	189%	24
Virginia	6.0%	23.1%	7	283%	6
Washington	6.9%	25.0%	4	263%	9
West Virginia	4.1%	10.7%	45	162%	34
Wisconsin	5.3%	15.9%	28	199%	17
Wyoming	6.0%	10.1%	47	67%	51
UNITED STATES	6.0%	18.7%		212%
Estimated from ACS 2019 and ACS 2020 Experimental Data (see text for assumptions)

Used by permission from Inrix.com

Metropolitan Growth: 2020 Census

Wendell Cox — Thu, 19 Aug 2021 11:57:48 -0400

The recently released 2020 Census count indicates that the nation now has 56 major metropolitan areas (over 1,000,000 residents), with the addition of Fresno, Tulsa and Honolulu toward the end of the decade. The Table below provides detailed information.

New York, the largest metropolitan area, climbed to 20.1 million from 18.9 million in 2010. New York had the second largest population increase, at 1,243,000. This was a 6.6% population increase, slightly below the 7.4% national growth rate. For the first time in decades, New York led Los Angeles in population growth, and it wasn’t even close. New York’s population increase was 3.3 times that of second ranked Los Angeles, which gained 372,000. The Los Angeles percentage growth rate (2.9%) was stunningly low for a metro that had been among the faster growing in the world for decades. Out of the 20 largest metropolitan areas, Los Angeles grew slower than all but two. Los Angeles edged up to 13.2 million according to the census count.

Chicago ranked third, at 9.6 million, having added only 157,000 (1.7%) over the last 10 years.

Fourth ranked Dallas-Fort Worth reached 7.6 million, an increase of 1,271,000, the largest increase of any metropolitan area (20.0%). However, in-state rival Houston had greater percentage growth, at 20.3%, adding 1,202,000 to reach 7.1 million and now ranks 5th largest.

Washington continued its strong growth, adding 736,000 new residents, the fifth strongest gain (13.0%). Washington now ranks sixth largest in the nation, at 6.4 million. During the decade, Washington passed Philadelphia, now ranked 7th , having also been passed by Houston and by Dallas-Fort Worth in the 2000s. In the 2020 census and since the 1960 census, Philadelphia had been the nation’s fourth largest metropolitan area. Philadelphia added 278,000 residents, with a population of 6.2 million in 2020.

Boston added 389,000 residents (8.5%) since 2010 and ranked 10th. Boston had a population of 4.9 million. Phoenix ranked 11th and had a 653,000 population increase (15.6%). San Francisco reached 4.8 million, with Riverside-San Bernardino following closely at 4.7 million. Both of these California metros had larger census count increases than Los Angeles.

Fourteenth ranked Detroit grew by nearly 100,000, for a 2.2% increase, which is rivals that of Los Angeles. Detroit’s count was 4.4 million. Detroit was passed by Phoenix and Riverside-San Bernardino over the decade.

Seattle ranked 14th and had a population of 4.0 million. Seattle gained 579,000 residents for a growth rate of 16.8%.

The fastest growing major metropolitan area was Austin, at 33.0% (567,000). Austin reached 2.3 million and ranks 28th largest. One other major metropolitan area had growth over half-a-million, Orlando, at 539,000, a growth rate of 25.3%. Orlando had a count of 2.7 million, ranking 22nd.

Overall, the major metropolitan areas grew above the national rate, at 9.4%. The 2020 total count for the 56 metros was 189.1 million, representing 57.1% of the national population. This is up from 55.9% in 2010. None of the major metros lost population, though there were some very thin gains. The slowest growing was Hartford, at 0.1%, followed by Cleveland (0.5%) and Pittsburgh (0.6%). Finally, areas outside the historical core municipalities had 78.2 % of the population growth, somewhat more than their 73.4% 2010 share of major metro population (see Note below).

Click the image above to download a PDF of the census information (opens in new tab or window)

Note: This definition of “suburbs” excludes functionally suburban areas within historical core municipalities. About 58% of historical core municipality population is functionally suburban or exurban, according to the City Sector Model, while 86% of the major metro population is functionally suburban or exurban.

California Loses 70,000 Residents 2019 to 2020

Wendell Cox — Wed, 23 Dec 2020 12:25:45 -0500

The Census Bureau has just published its 2020 state population estimates, which indicate that the state that has led growth in the United States for the last 170 years lost 70,000 residents last year. For the first five years of the decade, California had gained 300,000 residents, with a total gain over the period of 1.6 million. Since 2015, California’s population gain plummeted, reaching virtually zero in 2019 and the loss in 2020 (Figure 1). At the same time, the Census Bureau restated California’s 2018 to 2019 population change, which had been shown as a gain of 51,000 last year to a gain of only 147.

This may be California’s first annual population loss since statehood (1850). According to Census Bureau data reported by macrotrends.net, California had gained population in every year since 1900. Earlier annual data was not found.

National Trends

Overall, the national population growth rate has been falling throughout the decade. In 2011, the nation added 0.73% to its population, and fell to 0.35% in 2020. In 2019, the gain was 0.46%. The smaller gain in 2020 is likely attributable to the generally downward trend and smaller international migration flows in the COVID environment.

Over the past year, the South has accounted for 85% of the nation’s growth, adding nearly 1,000,000 residents. The West had 30% of the growth (350,000). The Midwest experienced a modest loss (20,000), while the Northeast lost more than 150,000 residents (Figure 2).

Fastest Gainers

Texas added the largest number of residents in the last year, at 374,000. Florida was second, at 241,000 and Arizona was third at 130,000 (Figure 3). Among the top ten states, six were from the South and the other four from the Intermountain West. The five Pacific Coast states added about 25,000 residents, with an 80,000 gain in Washington and 25,000 in Oregon, which was nearly offset by losses in California, Hawaii and Alaska.

The largest percentage gain was in Idaho, which added 2.11% between 2019 and 2020. Arizona, Nevada and Utah all gained more than 1.40%. Texas ranked 5th, while Florida placed 7th (Figure 4).

Fastest Losers

By far the largest losses were in New York (minus 126,000), Illinois (minus 79,000) and California (minus 70,000). Sixteen states had population losses (Figure 5). New York had the largest percentage loss from 2019 to 2020, at 0.65%. The largest percentage losses were in Illinois, Hawaii and West Virginia, all had losses exceeding 0.55%. California had the 10th largest percentage loss, at 0.18% (Figure 6).

As was the case in 2010, this year’s estimates did not include migration data, unlike the earlier years in the decade.

The 2020 estimates will be superseded by the 2020 Census counts, which will be released in the near future.

The table below shows the 2010 Census as well as the 2019 and 2020 population estimates.

Wendell Cox is principal of Demographia, an international public policy firm located in the St. Louis metropolitan area. He is a founding senior fellow at the Urban Reform Institute, Houston and a member of the Advisory Board of the Center for Demographics and Policy at Chapman University in Orange, California. He has served as a visiting professor at the Conservatoire National des Arts et Metiers in Paris. His principal interests are economics, poverty alleviation, demographics, urban policy and transport. He is co-author of the annual Demographia International Housing Affordability Survey and author of Demographia World Urban Areas.

Photograph: Great Seal of the State of California via Wikimedia.

2020 Population Estimates

	2010 Census	2019 Estimate	2020 Estimate	2019-20 #	2019-20 %
United States	309,327,143	328,329,953	329,484,123	1,154,170	0.35%

Alabama	4,785,514	4,907,965	4,921,532	13,567	0.28%
Alaska	713,982	733,603	731,158	(2,445)	-0.33%
Arizona	6,407,342	7,291,843	7,421,401	129,558	1.78%
Arkansas	2,921,998	3,020,985	3,030,522	9,537	0.32%
California	37,319,550	39,437,610	39,368,078	(69,532)	-0.18%
Colorado	5,047,539	5,758,486	5,807,719	49,233	0.85%
Connecticut	3,579,173	3,566,022	3,557,006	(9,016)	-0.25%
Delaware	899,647	976,668	986,809	10,141	1.04%
District of Columbia	605,282	708,253	712,816	4,563	0.64%
Florida	18,846,143	21,492,056	21,733,312	241,256	1.12%
Georgia	9,712,209	10,628,020	10,710,017	81,997	0.77%
Hawaii	1,364,004	1,415,615	1,407,006	(8,609)	-0.61%
Idaho	1,570,819	1,789,060	1,826,913	37,853	2.12%
Illinois	12,840,545	12,667,017	12,587,530	(79,487)	-0.63%
Indiana	6,490,555	6,731,010	6,754,953	23,943	0.36%
Iowa	3,050,819	3,159,596	3,163,561	3,965	0.13%
Kansas	2,858,266	2,912,635	2,913,805	1,170	0.04%
Kentucky	4,348,464	4,472,345	4,477,251	4,906	0.11%
Louisiana	4,544,635	4,658,285	4,645,318	(12,967)	-0.28%
Maine	1,327,651	1,345,770	1,350,141	4,371	0.32%
Maryland	5,788,784	6,054,954	6,055,802	848	0.01%
Massachusetts	6,566,440	6,894,883	6,893,574	(1,309)	-0.02%
Michigan	9,877,597	9,984,795	9,966,555	(18,240)	-0.18%
Minnesota	5,310,934	5,640,053	5,657,342	17,289	0.31%
Mississippi	2,970,615	2,978,227	2,966,786	(11,441)	-0.38%
Missouri	5,996,089	6,140,475	6,151,548	11,073	0.18%
Montana	990,730	1,070,123	1,080,577	10,454	0.98%
Nebraska	1,829,591	1,932,571	1,937,552	4,981	0.26%
Nevada	2,702,483	3,090,771	3,138,259	47,488	1.54%
New Hampshire	1,316,807	1,360,783	1,366,275	5,492	0.40%
New Jersey	8,799,451	8,891,258	8,882,371	(8,887)	-0.10%
New Mexico	2,064,614	2,099,634	2,106,319	6,685	0.32%
New York	19,399,956	19,463,131	19,336,776	(126,355)	-0.65%
North Carolina	9,574,586	10,501,384	10,600,823	99,439	0.95%
North Dakota	674,752	763,724	765,309	1,585	0.21%
Ohio	11,539,449	11,696,507	11,693,217	(3,290)	-0.03%
Oklahoma	3,760,014	3,960,676	3,980,783	20,107	0.51%
Oregon	3,837,614	4,216,116	4,241,507	25,391	0.60%
Pennsylvania	12,711,406	12,798,883	12,783,254	(15,629)	-0.12%
Rhode Island	1,053,994	1,058,158	1,057,125	(1,033)	-0.10%
South Carolina	4,635,846	5,157,702	5,218,040	60,338	1.17%
South Dakota	816,193	887,127	892,717	5,590	0.63%
Tennessee	6,355,518	6,830,325	6,886,834	56,509	0.83%
Texas	25,241,897	28,986,794	29,360,759	373,965	1.29%
Utah	2,775,413	3,203,383	3,249,879	46,496	1.45%
Vermont	625,886	624,046	623,347	(699)	-0.11%
Virginia	8,024,004	8,556,642	8,590,563	33,921	0.40%
Washington	6,743,009	7,614,024	7,693,612	79,588	1.05%
West Virginia	1,854,265	1,795,263	1,784,787	(10,476)	-0.58%
Wisconsin	5,690,538	5,824,581	5,832,655	8,074	0.14%
Wyoming	564,531	580,116	582,328	2,212	0.38%
Source: US Census Bureau

US Population Estimate Accuracy: 2010

Wendell Cox — Tue, 02 Jun 2015 11:11:40 -0400

Intercensal population estimates, while generally reliable, are prone to substantial variation in some cases. This is especially so with municipal population estimates.

Between 2000 and 2010, the average discrepancy between the US Census Bureau 2010 estimates and the 2010 census counts at the county level was 3.1% (absolute value). By comparison, among the 50 largest municipalities and census designated places, the average discrepancy was more than one-half higher, at 4.7 using the 2000 to 2009 estimates (there were no 2010 sub-county population estimates). The variations, however, can be substantial in sub-county population estimates. Between 2000 and 2010, the Census Bureau estimated that New York had added more than 410,000 residents. However, the 2010 census count showed a much smaller gain, at approximately 165,000 (2010 estimates are available for New York because it is composed of whole counties).

There were even more substantial variations. The 2009 population estimates for Atlanta and Detroit were more than 25% higher than the 2010 census count. In the case of Atlanta, the 2000 to 2009 population growth estimate was more than 120,000, more than 100 times the actual increase of approximately 1,000. The discrepancies in Atlanta and Detroit were greater than in all but a three of the nation's more than 3,000 counties and each of the counties with larger discrepancies had populations of less than 1,000 in 2010.

Business Insider: "Americans are Still Moving to the Suburbs"

Wendell Cox — Mon, 17 Feb 2014 16:06:41 -0500

Andy Kiersz's article in the Business Insider (see Americans are Still Moving to the Suburbs) summarizes data from the US Census Bureau's American Community Survey (ACS) to conclude that "Americans still love the suburbs, and are still moving there from big cities."

This has long been and continues to be indicated in the data, even as major media rely on anecdotes are to suggest that large numbers of people are leaving the suburbs to "return" to the core cities (from which, by the way, most never moved). There is no doubt that the core cities are doing much better than before, and that is a good thing. Much of this is because the cities are safer than in the 1970s and 1980s. The historic urban core has been restored as an integral part of the modern urban area. However, promoting the health of core cities does not require demeaning or dismissing the suburbs, which are just as integral to modern urbanism as core cities.

Kiersz refers to a list of the 25 largest met migration movements between counties as reported by the ACS for 2007 to 2011. In every case, the 25 largest net domestic migration movements are from more highly urban core environments to more suburban environments (domestic migration is measured only at the county level).

The list shows that even within the nation's largest core city, New York, people are moving to more dispersed areas. This includes net migration from Manhattan to the Bronx and Brooklyn to Queens. Then there is the suburban movement, with a stream of migrants from Queens, in the city to adjacent, suburban Nassau County. Migration from Nassau County even further out, to Suffolk County also made the top 25.

The outward movement is not limited to New York. A net 50,000 people left the Los Angeles metropolitan area than arrived, just among the 25 largest county migration pairs. Most went to the Riverside-San Bernardino area (which depending on the definition can be called "exurban") and a large number to the Bakersfield metropolitan area. Within the metropolitan area, 10,000 moved from Los Angeles County to Orange County.

The city (also a county) of San Francisco, which has had the strongest growth of any fully developed major US municipality that has not annexed since 1950, lost 5,000 people to nearby suburban San Mateo County.

The top 25 also includes nearly 20,000 people moving from Chicago's core Cook County to three suburban counties.

It will probably be quite a long time, if ever, before the top 25 migration list has meaningful representation showing movement from suburban counties to core counties. Yet, today's more healthy cities will do better if they genuinely tackle their remaining challenges. Most important are their education systems that send a disproportionate share of young families to the suburbs. However, from the United States to Europe, Japan, and China, the natural order is that cities (metropolitan areas with their core cities, suburbs, and exurbs) tend to disperse as they add population. That reality is again confirmed by the new data.

North Dakota Leads Population Growth Again

Wendell Cox — Mon, 30 Dec 2013 23:49:06 -0500

New US Census Bureau state level estimates have just been released. Repeating the pattern similar to that developing since 2010, North Dakota, the District of Columbia, Texas, Utah and Colorado have posted the strongest percentage gains. North Dakota added 3.1 percent to its population between 2012 and 2013 and 7.6 percent since the 2010 Census. Close behind was the District of Columbia, which added 7.4 percent since 2010, though its growth over the past year has been at a lower 2.1 percent rate.

Texas added the most residents of any other state over the last three years (1.3 million), a fifth more than 22nd ranked California, which is nearly 50 percent larger. Texas has added 5.2 percent to its population since 2010, while California has added 2.9 percent.

Utah grew 5.0 percent, followed closely by Colorado, at 4.8 percent.

Former perennial growth leader Florida continues to recover, placing 6th, with a three year growth rate of 4.0 percent. At its present growth rate, Florida should pass New York by 2014, to become the fourth largest state. South Dakota, Washington, Arizona and Alaska rounded out the top ten.

The slowest growing states were Rhode Island (the only state to lose population since 2010), Maine, West Virginia, Michigan and Vermont. A table is attached with the data.

States Ranked by 2010-2013 Population Change
Rank		2010 Census	2012	2013	Pop. Change 2010-2013	% Change 2012-2013	% Change 2010-2013
1	North Dakota	672,591	701,345	723,393	50,802	3.1%	7.6%
2	District of Columbia	601,723	633,427	646,449	44,726	2.1%	7.4%
3	Texas	25,145,561	26,060,796	26,448,193	1,302,632	1.5%	5.2%
4	Utah	2,763,885	2,854,871	2,900,872	136,987	1.6%	5.0%
5	Colorado	5,029,196	5,189,458	5,268,367	239,171	1.5%	4.8%
6	Florida	18,801,310	19,320,749	19,552,860	751,550	1.2%	4.0%
7	South Dakota	814,180	834,047	844,877	30,697	1.3%	3.8%
8	Washington	6,724,540	6,895,318	6,971,406	246,866	1.1%	3.7%
9	Arizona	6,392,017	6,551,149	6,626,624	234,607	1.2%	3.7%
10	Alaska	710,231	730,307	735,132	24,901	0.7%	3.5%
11	Wyoming	563,626	576,626	582,658	19,032	1.0%	3.4%
12	Nevada	2,700,551	2,754,354	2,790,136	89,585	1.3%	3.3%
13	North Carolina	9,535,483	9,748,364	9,848,060	312,577	1.0%	3.3%
14	Virginia	8,001,024	8,186,628	8,260,405	259,381	0.9%	3.2%
15	South Carolina	4,625,364	4,723,417	4,774,839	149,475	1.1%	3.2%
16	Hawaii	1,360,301	1,390,090	1,404,054	43,753	1.0%	3.2%
17	Georgia	9,687,653	9,915,646	9,992,167	304,514	0.8%	3.1%
18	Delaware	897,934	917,053	925,749	27,815	0.9%	3.1%
19	California	37,253,956	37,999,878	38,332,521	1,078,565	0.9%	2.9%
20	Idaho	1,567,582	1,595,590	1,612,136	44,554	1.0%	2.8%
21	Maryland	5,773,552	5,884,868	5,928,814	155,262	0.7%	2.7%
22	Oklahoma	3,751,351	3,815,780	3,850,568	99,217	0.9%	2.6%
23	Montana	989,415	1,005,494	1,015,165	25,750	1.0%	2.6%
24	Oregon	3,831,074	3,899,801	3,930,065	98,991	0.8%	2.6%
25	Tennessee	6,346,105	6,454,914	6,495,978	149,873	0.6%	2.4%
26	Nebraska	1,826,341	1,855,350	1,868,516	42,175	0.7%	2.3%
27	Massachusetts	6,547,629	6,645,303	6,692,824	145,195	0.7%	2.2%
28	Minnesota	5,303,925	5,379,646	5,420,380	116,455	0.8%	2.2%
29	Louisiana	4,533,372	4,602,134	4,625,470	92,098	0.5%	2.0%
30	Arkansas	2,915,918	2,949,828	2,959,373	43,455	0.3%	1.5%
31	Iowa	3,046,355	3,075,039	3,090,416	44,061	0.5%	1.4%
32	Kansas	2,853,118	2,885,398	2,893,957	40,839	0.3%	1.4%
33	New York	19,378,102	19,576,125	19,651,127	273,025	0.4%	1.4%
34	Indiana	6,483,802	6,537,782	6,570,902	87,100	0.5%	1.3%
35	Kentucky	4,339,367	4,379,730	4,395,295	55,928	0.4%	1.3%
36	New Mexico	2,059,179	2,083,540	2,085,287	26,108	0.1%	1.3%
37	New Jersey	8,791,894	8,867,749	8,899,339	107,445	0.4%	1.2%
38	Alabama	4,779,736	4,817,528	4,833,722	53,986	0.3%	1.1%
39	Wisconsin	5,686,986	5,724,554	5,742,713	55,727	0.3%	1.0%
40	Missouri	5,988,927	6,024,522	6,044,171	55,244	0.3%	0.9%
41	Mississippi	2,967,297	2,986,450	2,991,207	23,910	0.2%	0.8%
42	Connecticut	3,574,097	3,591,765	3,596,080	21,983	0.1%	0.6%
43	Pennsylvania	12,702,379	12,764,475	12,773,801	71,422	0.1%	0.6%
44	New Hampshire	1,316,470	1,321,617	1,323,459	6,989	0.1%	0.5%
45	Illinois	12,830,632	12,868,192	12,882,135	51,503	0.1%	0.4%
46	Ohio	11,536,504	11,553,031	11,570,808	34,304	0.2%	0.3%
47	Vermont	625,741	625,953	626,630	889	0.1%	0.1%
48	Michigan	9,883,640	9,882,519	9,895,622	11,982	0.1%	0.1%
49	West Virginia	1,852,994	1,856,680	1,854,304	1,310	-0.1%	0.1%
50	Maine	1,328,361	1,328,501	1,328,302	(59)	0.0%	0.0%
51	Rhode Island	1,052,567	1,050,304	1,051,511	(1,056)	0.1%	-0.1%
	United States	308,745,538	313,873,685	316,128,839	7,383,301	0.7%	2.4%

Little Housing Boom on the Prairie

Matthew Leiphon — Thu, 04 Jul 2013 13:06:32 -0400

The great North Dakota boom, driven by oil development and strong agricultural markets, has continued to put the state at the top of economic growth rankings. The state can now add "housing growth" to the list.

As the region's oil industry expands and matures, the market for more permanent housing solutions has heated up. According to recently released Census data, North Dakota led the nation in housing growth in 2012, increasing its supply of housing by 2.3% in just one year. Overall national growth was 0.3%.

While much of this growth has been focused on the oil patch, the entire state has seen strong economic growth, job creation, and accompanying strength in the housing market. Cities located hours outside the oilfield are reporting shortages of housing and tight markets for existing housing. Shortages of housing have also been reported in small towns throughout the state, as job-seekers move to the region looking to find work in the state's growing oil and ag industries. A review of the new Census data bears out such reports. North Dakota is home to 8 of the top 100 counties nationwide for housing growth, including 4 of the top 10. Williams and McKenzie County, in the heart of the Bakken development, placed number one and two nationally, respectively, but counties far outside the oil patch also showed strong rates of growth.

The new shift towards more permanent housing construction will probably come as a relief to communities and officials throughout the state, who have been scrambling to find solutions to shortages. While temporary housing for oil workers has boomed throughout the oilfield, local officials have begun to explore limits on such "man camps", citing their negative effects on local communities, impact on permanent development, strain on infrastructure, and safety concerns. The state has also seen rising rates of homelessness, and faced challenges finding enough workers to fill job openings- often due to lack of places for those interested in moving to the region to work. As estimates of the amount of recoverable oil in the Bakken continue to climb, larger, out of state developers have begun to enter the region, looking to take advantage of what may be a longer, more sustained expansion. With 21,000 job openings currently unfilled statewide and the potential for tens of thousands of wells remaining to be drilled over the next three decades, the pressure for more housing growth to meet the needs of expanding businesses is likely to continue.

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.