Official US 2010 Census Results

[jimrtex]

Is there a schedule anywhere? I want Washington data!

http://2010.census.gov/news/press-kits/redistricting.html

[minionofmidas]

Oooh, South Dakota. Native figures will be interesting.

[bgwah]

Is there a schedule anywhere? I want Washington data!

http://2010.census.gov/news/press-kits/redistricting.html

That doesn't seem terribly informative.

Damnit, Gary! What's the point of having you in charge if you don't put WA first?

[jimrtex]

Is there a schedule anywhere? I want Washington data!

http://2010.census.gov/news/press-kits/redistricting.html

That doesn't seem terribly informative.

Damnit, Gary! What's the point of having you in charge if you don't put WA first?

It is largely tied to when the states need the data.  The first states were those that have odd-year elections for their legislatures and so need to complete legislative redistricting real soon (before the primaries).  Illinois and Texas have early primaries next year, so they need to be completed before the filing deadline.  Texas redistricting is done by the legislature so it has to be finished by May if it is done in the regular session.  Washington has an August primary, and a commission to do the redistricting, so they could be among the last.  It also takes longer for larger states, so Washington might lag a bit there.

The Census Bureau is required to provide all states results within 1 year of the census, so March 31st at the latest.

[ill ind]

  So I take a look at the data for Illinois released today:

  Big shocker:  Non Hispanic population -.8%
                       Hispanic population +32.5%

  If it weren't for Hispanics, our state's population wuold have been sunk.

Ill Ind

[Linus Van Pelt]

Cook shrinks a bit, older inner suburbs grow slightly, outer suburbs grow a lot (Kendall county more than doubled!), and the rest of the state looks like Iowa (cities grow a bit while rural counties shrink).

Not massively to the advantage of one party or another, since each party's strongest base area is shrinking.

[cinyc]

 So I take a look at the data for Illinois released today:

  Big shocker:  Non Hispanic population -.8%
                       Hispanic population +32.5%

  If it weren't for Hispanics, our state's population wuold have been sunk.

Ill Ind

Yes.  Illinois' non-Hispanic white (-3%) and black (-1.3%) population both fell.  Asians and Hispanics grew.

Chicago shrunk by almost 7%, at just under 2.7 million.  That's about 150,000 less than  2.85 million 2009 census estimate.  If Houston's population has been grossly understimated, the Second City might be our fourth largest... but I doubt it.

Far west suburban Aurora (+38%) is now the second largest city in the state, passing Rockford (+2%).  Far southwest suburban Joliet (+39%) rocketed from seventh to fourth.   Naperville's population was up by 10.5% - but fell from fourth to fifth.

Like Chicago, Cook County lost population (-3.4%).  DuPage tread water (+1.4%).  The far-out Chicago suburban collar counties grew the most, particularly Kendall (+110%), Will (+35%), Kane (+27%) and McHenry (+19%).

[cinyc]

Oklahoma was also released today.  The state grew by 8.7%, but the non-Hispanic white population only grew by 0.7%.   The Hispanic population is up by 85.2%; the non-Hispanic Native American population grew by 16.0%.

Oklahoma City grew (+14.6%); Tulsa shrunk (-0.3%) - though their respective counties both grew (Oklahoma County +8.8%; Tulsa County +7.1%).  The more rapid growth was in counties bordering those two - Canadian County, west of OKC, grew by 32%; Cleveland County, south of OKC, grew by 23%; Wagoner County, southeast of Tulsa, grew by 27%; Rogers to Tulsa's east, was up by 23%.

South Dakota will be next.  Legislative officials were sent the files today.

[minionofmidas]

Self-redesignation as American Indian continues apace in Oklahoma, I see. (One will have to wait until the release of the individual tribes count in a couple of years to see if there's also a population explosion among the more genuinely Indian population.)

[cinyc]

The data released so far doesn't match the sometimes trumpeted theme that people are moving away from the suburbs back into the cities.  Many of the cities we've seen that have grown thus far are those that include areas that very suburban to begin with, like Indianapolis and Oklahoma City, smaller towns, or exurban edge cities like Aurora, Illinois.  Old, dense cities like Chicago and Baltimore continue to lose population.  And suburban growth continues, especially in exurban areas further flung from the central city.

Of course, there will be exceptions to this (Washington D.C., for sure, likely New York City, too) - but it is a trend we should continue to watch.

[Verily]

The data released so far doesn't match the sometimes trumpeted theme that people are moving away from the suburbs back into the cities.  Many of the cities we've seen that have grown thus far are those that include areas that very suburban to begin with, like Indianapolis and Oklahoma City, smaller towns, or exurban edge cities like Aurora, Illinois.  Old, dense cities like Chicago and Baltimore continue to lose population.  And suburban growth continues, especially in exurban areas further flung from the central city.

Of course, there will be exceptions to this (Washington D.C., for sure, likely New York City, too) - but it is a trend we should continue to watch.

The problem with this assumption was always that the trend is limited to a fairly small area of cities, the yuppie urban core. In DC and New York, that area is quite large, but most elsewhere (save the West Coast cities) it is still fairly small. Somewhere like Chicago, the yuppie core probably did see a lot of growth, but it was offset by continued black middle class migration to the suburbs and dying off of the elderly working class whites. (Both of those are mitigated somewhat by Hispanic and Asian immigration, but those tend to be a little bit slower than the factors causing decline. Not always, though.)

Still, a few cities really turned it around this cycle. Newark saw population growth (even while Essex County as a whole declined).

[jimrtex]

Self-redesignation as American Indian continues apace in Oklahoma, I see. (One will have to wait until the release of the individual tribes count in a couple of years to see if there's also a population explosion among the more genuinely Indian population.)

You can use the ACS for that.

It appears that you need 2005-9 to get a complete picture.

2007-9 for selected states: WA to TX + CO + OK + MO + WI + FL

2009: CA and TX

[Linus Van Pelt]

Just to add on to Verily and Cinyc's comments, another issue is that areas can often decrease in population when they become gentrified and "hip". The reason is that upper-middle class people, especially those without kids who predominate in such areas, use more square feet per person than low-income people, especially minority families. If a bunch of minority families with kids are leaving an area while childless professionals who like to take up their own apartment or live just with one or two roommates are entering, the number of people per existing residential unit will likely decline. But the fluffier sections of the newspaper will include a lot of articles suggesting that "people" are moving in to the area because the journalists and intended readers know more of the people moving in than out, and it intuitively seems to the new middle class residents that they're living densely, because they are, in fact, living more densely than the white suburbanites they compare themselves to.

This can be offset sometimes if the total number of occupied residential spaces is increasing, either because there was a lot of vacant blight to start with, or because industrial spaces are converted into condos.

We'll have to see when the block results come out, but I suspect we'll find certain areas where this process is at its strongest, like the border areas between white brownstone Brooklyn and Bed Stuy/Crown Heights or the areas moving from Hispanic to liberal middle-class white in northwest Chicago, are either shrinking or at least increasing much less quickly than one might think.

[danny]

You can see how in Chicago the population changed in this map.
Basically central Chicago grew while most of the rest lost population.

[Brittain33]

I'm thinking of all the careful effort people put into drawing three 50% African-American districts for IL-1, IL-2, and IL-7, and how that didn't survive contact with real data.

[bgwah]

Vermont's black population grew 105%? Interesting...

[ag]

SD is out. Black population is up by 117%, but it is still only 1.3% ))) Hispanics also more than doubled - about 2.7% now and American Indian is up15.3% to 8.8%. Whites only up 4.5% but still it is quite white out there.

[minionofmidas]

Populations of Shannon and Todd didn't rise all that much. Mind you, grow they did. Most rural white counties' populations fell. Some of the smaller rez counties too - Buffalo, Corson, Dewey. Dewey fell by more than 10 while Ziebach grew by as much - what's going on here, intrarez urbanization? (Estimates say that's happening in Navajoland, hence my guess.)
Native share of Rapid City was 10% in 2000 IIRC, over 12 now.

[Verily]

You can see how in Chicago the population changed in this map.
Basically central Chicago grew while most of the rest lost population.

Pretty much exactly what I predicted, then. Except that Hispanic growth seems to have halted (and that seems to be the main difference in terms of trends from 2000); I wonder why that is? Anyone from the Chicago area know?

[Torie]

Two or three precincts in downtown LA must have gone through the roof, as office buildings were converted into housing, or new housing towers built, in a rather massive way. I suspect we are talking about say 15,000 new residents here, at the cost of next to zero being displaced. And I bet about 70%-80% of them are Asian.

[muon2]

 So I take a look at the data for Illinois released today:

  Big shocker:  Non Hispanic population -.8%
                       Hispanic population +32.5%

  If it weren't for Hispanics, our state's population wuold have been sunk.

Ill Ind

Yes.  Illinois' non-Hispanic white (-3%) and black (-1.3%) population both fell.  Asians and Hispanics grew.

Chicago shrunk by almost 7%, at just under 2.7 million.  That's about 150,000 less than  2.85 million 2009 census estimate.  If Houston's population has been grossly understimated, the Second City might be our fourth largest... but I doubt it.

Far west suburban Aurora (+38%) is now the second largest city in the state, passing Rockford (+2%).  Far southwest suburban Joliet (+39%) rocketed from seventh to fourth.   Naperville's population was up by 10.5% - but fell from fourth to fifth.

Like Chicago, Cook County lost population (-3.4%).  DuPage tread water (+1.4%).  The far-out Chicago suburban collar counties grew the most, particularly Kendall (+110%), Will (+35%), Kane (+27%) and McHenry (+19%).

Without Chicago, Cook gained about 18K in population.

It looks like the Hispanic growth was enough to have IL not lose a 2nd CD this decade.

[cinyc]

Populations of Shannon and Todd didn't rise all that much. Mind you, grow they did. Most rural white counties' populations fell. Some of the smaller rez counties too - Buffalo, Corson, Dewey. Dewey fell by more than 10 while Ziebach grew by as much - what's going on here, intrarez urbanization? (Estimates say that's happening in Navajoland, hence my guess.)
Native share of Rapid City was 10% in 2000 IIRC, over 12 now.

Ziebach County and urbanization aren't two words that I'd expect in the same sentence.  It's simply not that large.   The county's population population grew from 2,519 to 2,899   That's 380 new residents - fewer people than live in a large NYC apartment building. 

We'd have to look at the tract level data to figure out what happened.  Perhaps there was some spillover from Eagle Butte, which is on the border between the two counties of Cheyenne River Indian Agency Reservation, but largely in Dewey.

[cinyc]

You can see how in Chicago the population changed in this map.
Basically central Chicago grew while most of the rest lost population.

Areas near the Loop up to about Lincoln Park grew, as did some census tracts on the Far northwest side, near O'Hare, and southwest side near Midway.  Everything else lost population, as did the near South suburbs.

Otherwise, Cook County's growth is largely at the far fringes, especially in far Southwest areas.  That makes sense, since that's where some of the county's last available empty tracts were during the past decade.

[bgwah]

So Chicago lost 17% of its black population? Wow. But statewide the decline was only 1%? Hmm, what suburbs did they move to? Looks like ~60,000 moved to suburban Cook, with Will County being the runner-up at a net gain of ~23k...

[Torie]

So Chicago lost 17% of its black population? Wow. But statewide the decline was only 1%? Hmm, what suburbs did they move to? Looks like ~60,000 moved to suburban Cook, with Will County being the runner-up at a net gain of ~23k...

Wow, indeed. Just wow. What that suggests to me is that there has been considerable upward mobility in the black population in the last 10 years in Chicagoland. Am I wrong?  Or are inner city neighborhoods being gentrified, and the blacks pushed to undesirable suburbs, or back to the South? Or both?  As to the back to the South thing, there is this tendency for when Hispanics move in, the lower SES blacks move out. More should be written about that. But what happens when Hispanics are everywhere doing the grunt work?

By the way, how many Mexican restaurants did Chicago have when I arrived there in 1969 as a Freshman?  Yes you guessed it - one, way up on the northside just south of the Evanston border. Now Chicago has how many Mexicans? 700,000 or something?