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.
Texas grew by 557K black residents. It looks like DFW and Houston grew by 250K a piece (at least). It just goes to show how concentrated the black communities are in Texas. Same with Asian communities (though Austin was more significant there).
If 70% of TX’s black population is in 2 metros-is it really that “concentrated”? compared to your average state?
It's incredible after looking up numbers for Cleveland and its inner ring burbs and comparing it to Columbus and its enclaves and seeing how they are nearly identical in size, density and demographics.
Population:
Columbus - 1,011,854 (+128,896)
Cleveland - 1,001,756 (-22,236 ... Cleveland alone lost 24,000, and East Cleveland 4,000)
First, and I mentioned it a couple days ago, is how restablized the inner ring Cleveland suburbs had become this decade. Take away Cleveland and East Cleveland and the rest grew by more than 6,000 collectively with most showing gains. From 2000-2010, the non-Cleveland/East Cleveland inner burbs lost 36,000 people. (Cleveland/East Cleveland lost 91,000 from 00-10 to 28,000 this past decade).
Second, is how diverse Columbus is getting. 20 years ago, Cleveland probably would have still been about 60 percent white over the same area (now 52 percent). Columbus was probably close to 75 percent white (now 55 percent).
Lastly, is Columbus is thought of as a sprawl city with huge land area (which is somewhat true), but you can add another 30 square miles between cities/villages that are completely engulfed by Columbus city limits and it has no affect on the population density. For Cleveland, you can add close to 160 square miles and it only takes the density down from 4,700 to 4,200 per square mile. My take is that Columbus isn't as sprawled as perceived despite its large land area and Cleveland despite 50-plus years of losses over this same area can still get to 1 million in a fairly small land area.
If 70% of TX’s black population is in 2 metros-is it really that “concentrated”? compared to your average state?
Yes Texas is only 11.8% (black alone) as a state. I don't think it's uncommon for most of the state's black population to be located in the largest cities but Texas is an extreme example though several states like Michigan, Illinois are probably similar to Texas than in most of their large black population is one 1-2 cities. New York is probably the same. Cities in the Southeast are setup different, a lot of their black population still lives in smaller cities and rural areas.
Last edited by MichiganderTexan; 08-16-2021 at 04:54 PM..
I have never seen blatant misuse of information. NYC is looking at a population of 8.8 million people and Cali in fact did not decrease population.
It looks like the haters probably took over the media these last few years.
What I heard was more California losing population for the first time for one year. It wasn't for the entire decade, and both CA & NY still lost domestic immigrants. Plus because of how fast growing the sunbelt was, it caused CA to lose a seat. Do you have any links that show people were referring to CA/NY losing people overall for the entire decade?
There are over 1 million Black people in Texas not living in the DFW and Houston metro areas. The Black alone population has Texas at 3.552 million. Texas still has a good bit of a rural and small town blacks in East Texas and parts of the Triangle and they are a significant influence. This is different from the Midwestern States. However, Blacks in Texas are becoming a bit more urban. I would bet that many of those 250k that moved to Dallas and Houston came right from other parts of Texas as well. Same to a smaller extent is happening in most Southern states that have a large rural black population.
I have never seen blatant misuse of information. NYC is looking at a population of 8.8 million people and Cali in fact did not decrease population.
It looks like the haters probably took over the media these last few years.
I think we need to be fair here. The media certainly like to push their agendas but they didn’t just make up the numbers. They got them from the census estimates which were way way way wrong in a lot of cities and counties. So, I think the blame rests primarily with the census bureau.
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.
