Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Be careful- DC came in way below projections and it was thought to already be at 705k. I have no idea what any of these towns will come in as apart from Chelsea and Everett which I think are surefire for those levels of growth
I think a big difference is DC suburbs are less NIMBY. Mass was undercounted by 200,000. I really don’t think Metrowest or the South Shore can be expected to have much of that because those towns build like 6 houses a year.
Unless the Census really miscounted the amount of people who retired to the Berkshires or the Cape vs having their 2nd homes there it has to be in Boston and the inner suburbs maybe Worcester, Brockton and Lowell too.
New Census Data Expected to Reveal a More Diverse America
The white population in America has grown far more slowly than minority groups for decades. White people are having fewer children and starting their families at a later age than other groups, a long-term trend that demographers have called a baby bust. The opioid epidemic, too, has claimed so many lives that it measurably reduced the nation’s life expectancy, especially among white people.
The pace of the decrease is accelerating, too. Between 2016 and 2017, the white population fell by an estimated 129,000 people. From 2019 to 2020, that decline sped up to 482,000.
If trends from annual estimates conducted over the last decade hold, the census data released Thursday is likely to show an America that is, for the first time in the nation’s history, less than 60 percent white.
Hispanic or Latino Americans are fastest growing population then it Asians American. A lot of immigration from China, Philippines, Vietnam, India and Southeast Asia. Asian population for first time is growing faster than African American population.
I'm thinking they had access to embargoed numbers and accidental or not, broke the embargo, because I looked at these cities and what they have listed as the 2020 census numbers and they are different than the 2019 estimates that were released in the spring.
It looks like Rochester, Minn., added an additional 927 people from the 2019 estimates (0.78 percent). Minnesota was undercounted by close to 69,000 from the official 2020 results compared to the 2019 estimates. It probably was never a doubt, but I think you can draw a reasonable conclusion that Minneapolis-St. Paul MSA (which have estimated growth rates similar to Rochester) will make up pretty much all the rest of it. The six other Minnesota cities on that list either stayed about the same or saw a slight uptick.
On the other hand, those cities that are listed include seven small Iowa cities. Collectively, those cities saw a combined -0.81 decrease compared to the 2019 numbers. That spells bad news for similar rural, almost entirely white cities across the rest of the Midwest. Mason City saw a decrease of 249 (-0.92 percent), Charles City a decrease of 90 (-1.23 percent), Decorah a decrease of 92 (-1.21) percent. If this holds across similar type cities, it's going to be a lot of rural decreases.
Iowa as a state was undercounted by 35,000 despite that. That bodes very well for Des Moines, which by itself could conceivably pick up 40,000-plus across its metro if you consider that Iowa as a whole was undercounted even though these rural places (which make up most of Iowa's population) were overcounted.
I'm thinking they had access to embargoed numbers and accidental or not, broke the embargo, because I looked at these cities and what they have listed as the 2020 census numbers and they are different than the 2019 estimates that were released in the spring.
It looks like Rochester, Minn., added an additional 927 people from the 2019 estimates (0.78 percent). Minnesota was undercounted by close to 69,000 from the official 2020 results compared to the 2019 estimates. It probably was never a doubt, but I think you can draw a reasonable conclusion that Minneapolis-St. Paul MSA (which have estimated growth rates similar to Rochester) will make up pretty much all the rest of it. The six other Minnesota cities on that list either stayed about the same or saw a slight uptick.
On the other hand, those cities that are listed include seven small Iowa cities. Collectively, those cities saw a combined -0.81 decrease compared to the 2019 numbers. That spells bad news for similar rural, almost entirely white cities across the rest of the Midwest. Mason City saw a decrease of 249 (-0.92 percent), Charles City a decrease of 90 (-1.23 percent), Decorah a decrease of 92 (-1.21) percent. If this holds across similar type cities, it's going to be a lot of rural decreases.
Iowa as a state was undercounted by 35,000 despite that. That bodes very well for Des Moines, which by itself could conceivably pick up 40,000-plus across its metro if you consider that Iowa as a whole was undercounted even though these rural places (which make up most of Iowa's population) were overcounted.
Buffalo City and Rochester City Grew from 2010-2020 just because NYS was wildly undercounted.
I also think Cleveland might be closer to 390,000 than 380,000.
I can run some numbers for both Buffalo and Rochester, but I think you are right on both.
As for Cleveland, 390,000 should be a given, IMO, and could be as much as 400,000 (which would be slight growth over 2010).
I base that on census estimates showing that occupied housing units went from 164,990 in 2010 to 171,632 in 2019 (a 6,642 total increase or 4.03 percent). Why is Cleveland showing a population decrease despite that? It's because the number of people per unit went from something like 2.32 to 2.20. That doesn't add up, to me, when the median age in the city went from 37 years old in 2010 to 35 in 2019. You would think getting younger overall would mean increase in family size.
With that, I get that you probably have case of older husband/wife moving out and replaced by 1 person moving in. But you also have widowed husband or wife moving out and replaced by 1 person moving in, which is a wash. Then you have a widowed husband or wife moving out to be replaced by a family with a kid or two, which is a gain.
I do think overall household size will show a decrease, but I don't see how it's as drastic as the estimates show. Even keeping it the same (2.32) puts the city at 398,186 which would be a slight increase from 2010. Move it to 2.3 (a 0.2 percent decrease) is at 394,754. Move it down to 2.28 and it's at 391,321. It seems hard to believe that household size will decrease as much as estimates are showing. But it's Cleveland, the city that had the lowest response rate in the country, so who knows. There is probably more than 400,000 people actually living in the city regardless of what the numbers show.
I believe its another 20 minutes for before census is suppose to release the data, correct?
Think so. Here we go . . . let the fun and bickering and dick swinging commence.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
