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.
That’s not the same as domestic migration, the NAR also used that Census data.
This would mean the growth in DC this past year was via immigrants, not native Americans.
Thing is….I’m not sure if this analysis covers immigration and it certainly isn’t gonna cover the asylum seekers busses up to DC.
Here's the problem with ****ty journalism that doesn't put numbers into context. Even on CD, where people pay attention to demographics, it's used to make the wrong point.
The article was about domestic migration only. Not births/deaths, not international immigration.
Here's the problem with ****ty journalism that doesn't put numbers into context. Even on CD, where people pay attention to demographics, it's used to make the wrong point.
The article was about domestic migration only. Not births/deaths, not international immigration.
Which is what I’ve said, 2 times now . Not really ****ty journalism if you just read the article, or my comments…
I guess it’s bad to say “lost 3600 residents” while that may be true you could also gain 6000 residents or what have you. The phrasing was bad.
My point is DC has largely been a mix of domestic in migration and immigration. Last year it was just immigration. And that’s noteworthy.
Gaining just 3,000 resident overall per year would put DC well below any 2030 population projections and it would never be on pace for this grand plans. It would need domestic in migration.
Which is what I’ve said, 2 times now . Not really ****ty journalism if you just read the article, or my comments…
I guess it’s bad to say “lost 3600 residents” while that may be true you could also gain 6000 residents or what have you. The phrasing was bad.
My point is DC has largely been a mix of domestic in migration and immigration. Last year it was just immigration. And that’s noteworthy.
Gaining just 3,000 resident overall per year would put DC well below any 2030 population projections and it would never be on pace for this grand plans. It would need domestic in migration.
Don’t really know what point you’re making, but it’s best to go on occupancy rates and new construction for growth. That’s the real on the ground data that is accurate. If I build 50K new net units and they are all occupied, the city grows. It’s really that simple.
I would caution people on looking at population data without looking at who lives there. For instance, I showed the population data in the U street corridor in DC and compared it to Boston, Philadelphia, and LA and none of the areas in those cities could match the actual adult population of the DC corridor. It might have been in this thread months ago. Counting children doesn’t really paint the picture of vibrancy for a neighborhood in my view. They aren’t going to the restaurants, stores, and bars, or clubs.
An area of 100k with 90k of adults under 50 is different than an area of 100k with 70k of adults and 30k of children with only 50k of those adults under 50 and the rest over 50.
Last edited by MDAllstar; 02-08-2023 at 11:04 AM..
The public reads an article like that and gets a false impression. They don't connect the dots. Even worse if they just see the headline. That makes it sh*tty journalism.
As for CD posts, I try to assume that people haven't read the whole thread, so each post with any new data can stand on its own. (I try at least.)
The public reads an article like that and gets a false impression. They don't connect the dots. Even worse if they just see the headline. That makes it sh*tty journalism.
As for CD posts, I try to assume that people haven't read the whole thread, so each post with any new data can stand on its own. (I try at least.)
Theres a lot of valuable information that gets published that is well-researched and well-done that the public does not understand. Sadly huge percentages of American cant read a basic line graph or pie chart...
Don’t really know what point you’re making, but it’s best to go on occupancy rates and new construction for growth. That’s the real on the ground data that is accurate. If I build 50K new net units and they are all occupied, the city grows. It’s really that simple.
I would caution people on looking at population data without looking at who lives there. For instance, I showed the population data in the U street corridor in DC and compared it to Boston, Philadelphia, and LA and none of the areas in those cities could match the actual adult population of the DC corridor. It might have been in this thread months ago. Counting children doesn’t really paint the picture of vibrancy for a neighborhood in my view. They aren’t going to the restaurants, stores, and bars, or clubs.
An area of 100k with 90k of adults under 50 is different than an area of 100k with 70k of adults and 30k of children with only 50k of those adults under 50 and the rest over 50.
The point is the population growth in DC needs to rebound to pre-pandemic rates to achieve its lofty goals- 3k growth a year won't cut it. and the question is, will it? With WFH (why domestic Americans are leaving the district, im sure) an aging US population, and fewer young people coming of age than ever before, especially when compared to the 2005-2020 era.
Children do add vibrancy to a city btw they use the schools, they use stores, and they eat at restaurants. Just because cities no longer cater to families doesn't mean children don't enhance the vibrancy of an area. They absolutely do. The thing is uber elite cities like DC and Boston push families out and view it as an accomplishment because they get more usable tax revenue with an adult rather than a child. But there are children theme play places, parks, restaurants, and activities, in cities but more so in suburbs. They even used to play outside.
IMO being an adult playground rather than a more well-rounded city should not be a point of pride anywhere...
and it's very sad fewer Americans are getting to grow up in these lovely cities and experience them organically rather than as destination play places in their 20s. As someone who grew up in the city I lament the fact that kids dont get to experience it the way I did and with as many peers as I did.
True, and that makes it all the more important that reporters and headline writers make things as clear as possible.
Headline writers go for clicks rather than clarity, but the reporters have no excuse.
Okay, no debate there. We know the quality of journalism in general has fallen off a cliff in the last 15-20 years. Everything is about a click and I bet reporters are encouraged ot keep that in mind because the reshare is important too.
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.
