Growth in urban areas

[nclib]

While the data for large cities isn't as bad as it was in previous censuses, plenty of urban areas struggled. Even some cities that had solid growth (Louisville, Indianapolis) were due to annexation and suburban areas within the city limits. New York City had solid growth, and DC and Philly barely gained, but for the first time in decades.

Which cities and urban areas had the largest growth?

[Padfoot]

Just comparing 2000 population to 2010 population Charlotte, NC is one of the biggest gainers with about 190,000 new residents.  Fort Worth, TX had a similarly sized gain.  San Antonio, TX added about 180,000.  Austin, TX added over 130,000 and Phoenix added 125,000.  But again, those are all just raw comparisons of 2000 to 2010 without accounting for annexations.  Also, I just took a cursory glance at the top 20 cities so there may be some smaller cities out there that posted bigger gains.

[Alcon]

I wish someone would get down to the tract level and do a comparison of downtown/core areas, or change in neighborhoods above x density, or eliminating annexations, or some fun stuff like that.  Comparing the growth rates of suburbs incorporated into large cities just isn't very much fun.

[Verily]

I wish someone would get down to the tract level and do a comparison of downtown/core areas, or change in neighborhoods above x density, or eliminating annexations, or some fun stuff like that.  Comparing the growth rates of suburbs incorporated into large cities just isn't very much fun.

The change is dramatic and striking.

[timothyinMD]

While the data for large cities isn't as bad as it was in previous censuses, plenty of urban areas struggled. Even some cities that had solid growth (Louisville, Indianapolis) were due to annexation and suburban areas within the city limits. New York City had solid growth, and DC and Philly barely gained, but for the first time in decades.

Which cities and urban areas had the largest growth?

A 2% increase in New York City is "solid growth?"   What planet are you living on?

[PulaskiSkywayDriver]

Hoboken, NJ (almost 30%)

[nclib]

On a CD level, the most dense districts (as of 2000) that gained people were:

1.   New York 16th - Bronx
2.   New York 8th - Manhattan and Brooklyn
3.   New York 10th - Brooklyn
4.   New York 12th - Brooklyn, Manhattan, and Queens
5.   New York 7th - Queens and Bronx
6.   California 8th - San Francisco
7.   New York 9th - Queens and Brooklyn
8.   Massachusetts 8th - Boston
9.   California 35th - Los Angeles
10.   New Jersey 13th - Hudson County

Outside of NYC, they are:

1.   California 8th - San Francisco
2.   Massachusetts 8th - Boston
3.   California 35th - Los Angeles
4.   New Jersey 13th - Hudson County
5.   Pennsylvania 1st - Philadelphia
6.   California 34th - Los Angeles
7.   California 39th - SE Los Angeles County (Lynwood, Lakewood)
8.   District of Columbia At-large - Washington, DC
9.   California 37th - Los Angeles County (Long Beach, Compton)
10.   California 36th - SW Los Angeles County

[patrick1]

While the data for large cities isn't as bad as it was in previous censuses, plenty of urban areas struggled. Even some cities that had solid growth (Louisville, Indianapolis) were due to annexation and suburban areas within the city limits. New York City had solid growth, and DC and Philly barely gained, but for the first time in decades.

Which cities and urban areas had the largest growth?

A 2% increase in New York City is "solid growth?"   What planet are you living on?

1.  I think there was a significant undercount
2. It is not like there is really much room for significant growth.  New York is already much denser than any other large American city.  New York is a mature city- large growth would be a negative thing.

[bgwah]

While the data for large cities isn't as bad as it was in previous censuses, plenty of urban areas struggled. Even some cities that had solid growth (Louisville, Indianapolis) were due to annexation and suburban areas within the city limits. New York City had solid growth, and DC and Philly barely gained, but for the first time in decades.

Which cities and urban areas had the largest growth?

A 2% increase in New York City is "solid growth?"   What planet are you living on?

1.  I think there was a significant undercount
2. It is not like there is really much room for significant growth.  New York is already much denser than any other large American city.  New York is a mature city- large growth would be a negative thing.

I would also guess that gentrification might have lowered the population in quite a few areas, not to mention the overall movement of blacks out of northern cities (just look at Chicago, around 90% of their population loss was from a black exodus). That the city still grew despite all of this (though I'll admit "this" is just my speculation, I don't have any hard numbers to back this up at the moment) is somewhat encouraging. Also, it grew as fast as the state as a whole, which is more than most major cities can say...

[cinyc]

FWIW, the Philly papers just published an article on the black population of the city of Philadelphia.  Blacks are now the top racial group in the city, despite declining in raw numbers over the past decade.  And, as elsewhere, middle class blacks are fleeing to the suburbs, somewhat replaced by black immigrants from overseas.

[Verily]

While the data for large cities isn't as bad as it was in previous censuses, plenty of urban areas struggled. Even some cities that had solid growth (Louisville, Indianapolis) were due to annexation and suburban areas within the city limits. New York City had solid growth, and DC and Philly barely gained, but for the first time in decades.

Which cities and urban areas had the largest growth?

A 2% increase in New York City is "solid growth?"   What planet are you living on?

1.  I think there was a significant undercount
2. It is not like there is really much room for significant growth.  New York is already much denser than any other large American city.  New York is a mature city- large growth would be a negative thing.

I would also guess that gentrification might have lowered the population in quite a few areas, not to mention the overall movement of blacks out of northern cities (just look at Chicago, around 90% of their population loss was from a black exodus). That the city still grew despite all of this (though I'll admit "this" is just my speculation, I don't have any hard numbers to back this up at the moment) is somewhat encouraging. Also, it grew as fast as the state as a whole, which is more than most major cities can say...

The verdict on this result is at best out. Prospect Heights, Fort Greene, Clinton Hill and other rapidly gentrifying established neighborhoods saw mixes of population growth and decline, more or less breaking even or growing slightly. And of course neighborhoods gentrifying mostly by means of new development, like Williamsburg and Long Island City, saw huge population gains.

The wealthy, dense areas that saw population declines were generally the well-established neighborhoods: The Upper West Side, the Upper East Side, Brooklyn Heights, etc.

[Torie]

I wish someone would get down to the tract level and do a comparison of downtown/core areas, or change in neighborhoods above x density, or eliminating annexations, or some fun stuff like that.  Comparing the growth rates of suburbs incorporated into large cities just isn't very much fun.

The change is dramatic and striking.

It looks like Chicago is gentrifying as the drab neighborhoods thin out, and folks flock to Downtown and Lincoln Park and environs, doesn't it?