2012 county & metro area estimates released today

[muon2]

Wayne county Michigan still losing people but only down to 1,792,000 from 1,820,000 in 2010. So Wayne county is on pace to lose 140K by 2020. Also on the bright side Michigan only lost 275 people in the last 2 years compared with 55k between 2000 and 2010. So Michigan will still lose a congress seat in 2020 unless we have some huge growth in the next 8 years but are we at risk to lose 2 seats. Does anyone know, would negative growth cause it.

MI would probably have to lose 400K or more to lose 2 seats in 2020.

[Linus Van Pelt]

Great map, Sheliak.

And thanks for that explanation of metro areas, jimrtex. I'd wondered before why the census's metro areas often seem to include a layer of rural counties that wouldn't be counted by the everyday understanding of the metro area.

[traininthedistance]

The Census Bureau starts by defining Urban Areas which are densely populated areas (500+ per square mile).  If 50% of a county population is in urban areas of at least 10,000 population; or the county has 5,000 persons in single urban area with more than 10,000 persons it is a "Central County".

Nice explanation; I knew it was based on commuting patterns but I wasn't clear on the specifics.

As an aside, it blows my mind that 500 people per square mile is considered "urban".  I have a hard time applying that adjective to areas ten times as dense sometimes.  (This is what happens when you grow up in a suburb whose density is roughly 9000 persons per square mile.)

[Linus Van Pelt]

The Census Bureau starts by defining Urban Areas which are densely populated areas (500+ per square mile).  If 50% of a county population is in urban areas of at least 10,000 population; or the county has 5,000 persons in single urban area with more than 10,000 persons it is a "Central County".

Nice explanation; I knew it was based on commuting patterns but I wasn't clear on the specifics.

As an aside, it blows my mind that 500 people per square mile is considered "urban".  I have a hard time applying that adjective to areas ten times as dense sometimes.  (This is what happens when you grow up in a suburb whose density is roughly 9000 persons per square mile.)

Any area with 500 people per square mile has residential subdivisions in a town or suburb rather than farms.

I realize the purpose of distinguishing urban from suburban areas for some urban-planning or sociological purposes, but of course the census bureau will count suburbs as urban for purposes of defining what's in a metropolitan area.

[jimrtex]

Wayne county Michigan still losing people but only down to 1,792,000 from 1,820,000 in 2010. So Wayne county is on pace to lose 140K by 2020. Also on the bright side Michigan only lost 275 people in the last 2 years compared with 55k between 2000 and 2010. So Michigan will still lose a congress seat in 2020 unless we have some huge growth in the next 8 years but are we at risk to lose 2 seats. Does anyone know, would negative growth cause it.

To lose an N^th seat, a state has to have a growth rate about 1/N slower than the country.   So to lose a 14th seat, would mean that Michigan would have to grow about 7.1% slower than the country as a whole.  Between 2000-2010, the country grew about 10%, but will probably grow around 8% between 2010-2020.  So if Michigan had no change for the decade it would be just a bit less than 7.1% slower.   So if Michigan has zero change the rest of the decade, it will be at a rate to lose 1 seat and no more.

But there is a complication of rounding.  In 2010, Michigan was entitled to 13.9 representatives.  Projecting the changes forward to 2020, would result in 12.9 representatives, which would round to 13.   If Michigan were to lose population, it would edge toward the 12.5 mark and be subject to loss of an additional representative.   This would require a loss of 3.8% or around 338,000.   Because rounding is not done independently, there is a fuzzy zone, perhaps from a loss of 2.5% to a loss of 5.0%.  At 2.5% Michigan would have to be lucky to lose the extra seat, at 5.0% it would be lucky keep the seat.

[jimrtex]

Great map, Sheliak.

And thanks for that explanation of metro areas, jimrtex. I'd wondered before why the census's metro areas often seem to include a layer of rural counties that wouldn't be counted by the everyday understanding of the metro area.

It is somewhat schizophrenic.   An extreme example is Armstrong County which is part of the Amarillo metropolitan area and has a population just under 2000.  It also has an interstate highway, so it is an easy commute into Amarillo.

[krazen1211]

Rhode Island appears to be shrinking.

[Gass3268]

Nice to see that Dane County has overtaken St. Croix County as the fastest growing county in Wisconsin. Also cool to see my home county go over a half million!   

[Horus]

Baltimore city is growing faster than Carroll (my home county). 15 years ago that idea would've been laughed at for hours.

[LastVoter]

They added Benton County MS to the Memphis metro. That decision belongs in the deluge. It's an hour outside of town and at least a half hour beyond any signs of civilization. We're not Atlanta. People don't commute across three counties here.

Actually they do, there are lots of dumb exurban dwellers everywhere in America, although some of the colder climates penalize such behavior in winter to a certain degree.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

Thanks to the manufacturing growth/auto bailout, the population decline in the Rustbelt is starting to go away.

[jimrtex]

As an aside, it blows my mind that 500 people per square mile is considered "urban".  I have a hard time applying that adjective to areas ten times as dense sometimes.  (This is what happens when you grow up in a suburb whose density is roughly 9000 persons per square mile.)

Historically, any town with a population above 2500 was classified as "urban", while anything else was considered rural.   Around 1950, the Census Bureau started defining urbanized areas to reflect that the fringe around larger cities wasn't necessarily being formed into incorporated cities.

In 2000, the delineation of urban areas was switched to be entirely based on density, to recognize that city limits quite often do not reflect land use - often including large swaths of undeveloped land, and other areas that are not legally defined as cities or town.  An area must have 2500 persons to be classified as an "Urban Area".  Urban Areas with population above 50,000 are "Urbanized Areas" while those between 2500 and 50,000 are "Urban Clusters".

9000 per square/mile is pretty dense.   An area with single family houses might have half that, without any land being used for parks, schools, or commercial areas.

The 500/square mile is not the average for the entire area, but rather for each area that is added.  Agricultural land won't come close to qualifying, even if it is on the edge of a town and some lots have been carved off and a few houses built.   And any formally subdivided land will easily surpass ir - though it might not reach the 2500 total population limit.

An area with 3 and 4 acres lots would be near the threshold, but it would difficult to sustain over large areas.

[traininthedistance]

As an aside, it blows my mind that 500 people per square mile is considered "urban".  I have a hard time applying that adjective to areas ten times as dense sometimes.  (This is what happens when you grow up in a suburb whose density is roughly 9000 persons per square mile.)

Historically, any town with a population above 2500 was classified as "urban", while anything else was considered rural.   Around 1950, the Census Bureau started defining urbanized areas to reflect that the fringe around larger cities wasn't necessarily being formed into incorporated cities.

In 2000, the delineation of urban areas was switched to be entirely based on density, to recognize that city limits quite often do not reflect land use - often including large swaths of undeveloped land, and other areas that are not legally defined as cities or town.  An area must have 2500 persons to be classified as an "Urban Area".  Urban Areas with population above 50,000 are "Urbanized Areas" while those between 2500 and 50,000 are "Urban Clusters".

9000 per square/mile is pretty dense.   An area with single family houses might have half that, without any land being used for parks, schools, or commercial areas.

The 500/square mile is not the average for the entire area, but rather for each area that is added.  Agricultural land won't come close to qualifying, even if it is on the edge of a town and some lots have been carved off and a few houses built.   And any formally subdivided land will easily surpass ir - though it might not reach the 2500 total population limit.

An area with 3 and 4 acres lots would be near the threshold, but it would difficult to sustain over large areas.

The part of town I grew up in was virtually all single-family houses on fairly small lots (quarter acre maximum, but most were a sixth or eighth)- the only exception being one large garden apartment complex and maybe a couple small buildings here and there. Most houses date from the 1920s and 1930s, with a few split-levels that filled in the gaps in the '50s.  There are in fact a couple parks and schools, as well as a major highway that takes up a lot of area, and one relatively small office park.  The Census pegs its density at close to 6K.

The other end of town has a higher proportion of apartments, as well as a fair number of two-family homes, but even there it's mostly single-family.  I'm well aware now that my suburb was atypically dense- it being 90 percent prewar and all.  It just took awhile for that perspective to take hold.

I think that when I see "500 people per square mile" now, the picture that comes to mind is a mostly agricultural area where, say, one or two of the farms have been sold to developers and subdivided but the surrounding area is still productive or protected land.  Eh, I guess that does count as the far exurban fringe these days.

[Franknburger]

I think that when I see "500 people per square mile" now, the picture that comes to mind is a mostly agricultural area where, say, one or two of the farms have been sold to developers and subdivided but the surrounding area is still productive or protected land.  Eh, I guess that does count as the far exurban fringe these days.

I tried to figure out how such an "urban" area would look in Germany, and found this place:


Not necessarily the first thing coming to mind, but yes, I guess with a bit of fantasy you may still call this place "urban". A few more impressions from local websites and real estate offers:

 
 
 

[Skill and Chance]

Another interesting question is whether/when Texas could pass California.  Using a straight line model, this could happen sometime in the 2050's.  I'm not sure straight line growth is appropriate here because inland Texas may well hit its ecological capacity long before then, but let's say it's possible.  Could we be looking at this apportionment come 2050?

[Benj]

Another interesting question is whether/when Texas could pass California.  Using a straight line model, this could happen sometime in the 2050's.  I'm not sure straight line growth is appropriate here because inland Texas may well hit its ecological capacity long before then, but let's say it's possible.  Could we be looking at this apportionment come 2050?

Seems unlikely. It's pretty much impossible for Texas's growth to go any faster, and keeping up its current pace for more than another decade or so will be very difficult. Additionally, Texas's economic strength is based entirely on the strength of the energy sector, particularly oil. In the long-run, it's doubtful the current oil boom (either in production/extraction or in demand) can continue more than another decade. The environmental stresses you mention will also start to come into play eventually, but that's only really important for isolated outposts like Midland/Odessa and Lubbock. There's also the immigration factor: Many border towns are growing quickly due to immigration, but it's hard to say how immigration will continue over the next 40 years. I would have to assume immigration will decrease over time, especially given the poor economic state South Texas is in.

tl;dr: Texas will continue to grow quickly for about a decade, then slow down, primarily for economic reasons.

[Gass3268]

If California gains another seat, where would it go? Just curious.

[Horus]

If California gains another seat, where would it go? Just curious.

I would guess San Jose or perhaps Riverside county, but a California poster would probably know better.

[traininthedistance]

So I actually bothered to look it up with my own eyes, and while 500 people per square mile is emphatically the exurban fringe, the ratio of subdivisions to rural uses is higher than I had imagined.

Inside the dotted line is Buckingham Township, in Bucks County PA.  497 people per square mile.



And here's a view from the ground: new houses on one side of the road, corn on the other.



...

I think the lesson here is that 500 people per square mile is a very unnatural density- the largest-lot subdivisions will be higher, anything purely rural (even including hamlets, and in wet climates) will be lower.  You need a hodgepodge to hit that mark. 

If you get fine-grained enough, down to the block, 500 people per square mile is too low I think.  But at a township level it's more defensible.

[Linus Van Pelt]

I think the lesson here is that 500 people per square mile is a very unnatural density- the largest-lot subdivisions will be higher, anything purely rural (even including hamlets, and in wet climates) will be lower.  You need a hodgepodge to hit that mark. 

If you get fine-grained enough, down to the block, 500 people per square mile is too low I think.  But at a township level it's more defensible.

Yeah, that seems about right. I probably overstated things a bit earlier, now that I see the kind of areas you're discussing.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Wow, the bay area is really growing. In that 2 1/4 year period, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Alameda, and Contra Costa counties all grew by around 3%.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I think the lesson here is that 500 people per square mile is a very unnatural density- the largest-lot subdivisions will be higher, anything purely rural (even including hamlets, and in wet climates) will be lower.  You need a hodgepodge to hit that mark. 

If you get fine-grained enough, down to the block, 500 people per square mile is too low I think.  But at a township level it's more defensible.

If you tell people from China and India that 501 people per square mile can't be rural, they will laugh at you.

[traininthedistance]

I think the lesson here is that 500 people per square mile is a very unnatural density- the largest-lot subdivisions will be higher, anything purely rural (even including hamlets, and in wet climates) will be lower.  You need a hodgepodge to hit that mark. 

If you get fine-grained enough, down to the block, 500 people per square mile is too low I think.  But at a township level it's more defensible.

If you tell people from China and India that 501 people per square mile can't be rural, they will laugh at you.

I am speaking purely from an American perspective here.

I'm aware that things like intensive rice cultivation and small-scale subsistence farming will lead to much higher densities.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

You could end up with a 500 people per square mile density in an urban area if it's a mostly commercial district. There's a suburb in Minnesota with around that density that consists of a couple townhomes and a few car dealerships (the total population by the way is less than 500, minuscule place in both population and area.) Minneapolis' Downtown East neighborhood by the way has a density of 237 people per square mile.

[Sbane]

If California gains another seat, where would it go? Just curious.

I would guess San Jose or perhaps Riverside county, but a California poster would probably know better.

The Bay Area as a whole would probably gain one, and inland Southern California as well. Maybe most of a district would be lost from the rural, mountain areas and perhaps a little from LA County.