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.
It would be interesting to see how many in any case. I'll take your word that it's a small number.
PS, defending Seattle's honor here...a SFR can be a townhouse, like this section of Ballard that's getting a lot of them. A former bungalow lot can easily be three or four new houses...many unattached and attached types are shown here:
It would be interesting to see how many in any case. I'll take your word that it's a small number.
PS, defending Seattle's honor here...a SFR can be a townhouse, like this section of Ballard that's getting a lot of them. A former bungalow lot can easily be three or four new houses...many unattached and attached types are shown here:
Yeah, I meant attached and detached single family homes. DC is just out of space. The heights limits make space very limited so the whole city has to build up. There is no choice. Once a neighborhood is built out, its on to the next one because we can’t go any higher. All construction tends to be buildings over 200 units. The plus side is DC’s built environment gets more urban everyday because even outer neighborhoods have to build up.
This is the reality, like it or not. Big cities like nyc, sf, sea are the losers here. I will say it may be temporary however.
Housing costs have just become too astronomical. As much as I'd love to stay/live in these cities, they really are out of reach for young people looking to expand beyond a one-bedroom.
New York - surpassed 20 million, with the estimate off 864,000!
Illinois - population much more stable than estimates reported, only losing 18,000 people in a decade
New Jersey - up to almost 9.3 million! Under estimated by 400,000!
Pennsylvania - passes the 13 million mark! Under estimated by 200k!
As a resident of the Chicago area, the Illinois negligible loss ( probably just downstate ) is not surprising. There is alot of new construction in the Chicago area, traffic is back, and housing is very tight, with a record low housing inventory on the market and a healthy price rise. The only thing different is there is little exurban growth as was the case in the early 2000s, but that is something that the normal person in the Chicago area might not notice unless they travel outside their routine.
In fact, in a recent article, developers are paying over a million dollars per house for very modest houses to buy entire subdivisions in areas around O"Hare just to get land to develop:
This is the reality, like it or not. Big cities like nyc, sf, sea are the losers here. I will say it may be temporary however.
Don't worry, the data below includes the entirety of 2020---1 year did NOT put any major state in negative territory for the decade. Only 2 states(Louisiana and Wyoming) have negative growth over the decade, even including 2020, and that was part of existing declines due to turmoil in energy, not the pandemic.
GDP Percent Growth, 2010-2020
+69.3% Washington
+64.4% Utah
+56.6% California
+54.2% North Dakota
+54.0% South Dakota
+53.3% Oregon
+52.9% Colorado
+52.7% Idaho
+50.0% Arizona
+49.5% Georgia
+48.4% Tennessee
+48.3% Florida
+47.8% South Carolina
+42.3% Massachusetts
+42.1% Texas
+41.2% North Carolina
+40.6% Nebraska
+40.1% New York
+39.6% UNITED STATES
+39.8% Nevada
+37.5% Minnesota
+36.2% Kansas
+36.0% Ohio
+35.2% Iowa
+34.9% District of Columbia
+34.2% Montana
+33.5% Maryland
+33.4% Michigan
+33.0% Wisconsin
+32.8% Indiana
+32.8% New Hampshire
+31.5% Delaware
+30.8% Hawaii
+30.5% Illinois
+30.4% Virginia
+30.2% Pennsylvania
+29.4% Maine
+29.0% Arkansas
+28.0% Alabama
+28.0% Kentucky
+25.3% New Jersey
+24.9% Missouri
+22.4% Rhode Island
+21.5% Oklahoma
+20.0% Mississippi
+19.0% New Mexico
+18.5% Vermont
+17.6% Connecticut
+12.3% West Virginia
+6.6% Louisiana
-2.7% Wyoming
-3.8% Alaska
4 Largest States Total GDP Growth, 2010-2020
California +$1,118,000,000,000
Texas.........+$522,000,000,000
New York ...+$487,000,000,000
Florida........+$357,000,000,000
Source: United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis
So yes, 2020 was a bad year, but the United States sustained long term economic growth over the decade nonetheless that the pandemic did not change that---at least as of Dec 31, 2020.
Last edited by 18Montclair; 04-28-2021 at 03:06 AM..
So the lose in Illinois turns out to not have been nearly as much as estimated. Still, it's a bummer to be one of the lonely three states to have declined since 2010.
Abc7 has released an article today stating that basically Latinos and Asians saved the state, while just as many white and black people have left( I wonder how many went to just Northwest Indiana.). The exodus of blacks within inner city Chicago will still hold true once those details are released. I suspect the latino population has risen to represent a whole eighteen, maybe nineteen, percent of the state, whereas Asians are at or near seven percent. Also, people here guessed it right that the decline is driven by downstate, in rural areas and small towns. I guess Peoria, Springfield, and even Decatur aren't among those that lost population like the estimates suggested. I wonder how close is Champaign to having one hundred thousand people. https://www.google.com/amp/s/abc7chi...tion/10554392/
A correction since I saw it mentioned here wrongly a few times: We aren't getting county/city estimates until August (August 16 is scuttlebutt on Twitter). The May estimates from Census are the July 1, 2020 estimates that Census puts out every year.
So it will be using the same dataset that under-estimated the NE by 1.9 million, not the actual Census counts.
Huh? Blacks are very visible in the East Bay which is no small corner, and even in the City, I belong to a group that is far smaller than Blacks(Pacific Islander) and even I see other Pacific Islanders with regularity so I dont about this 'where are the black folks?' narrative?
Also, did these visitors also hear about how Blacks in the Bay Area are migrating inland because they can sell their 1 million-dollar shack in Oakland buy a huge house in Sacramento?
Because that's what's happened. The Black population in the Central Valley counties in and around the Bay Area CSA are exploding--and we are even seeing increases in San Francisco proper.
Also, keep in mind, Northern California is the largest multiracial corridor in the country by percentage of persons that are two or more races. San Joaquin is 12% multiracial, the highest percent of any metropolitan county in the mainland United States.
BLACK OR AFRICAN AMERICAN ALONE OR IN COMBINATION WITH ONE OR MORE OTHER RACES
The Black(of all races) population is actually growing in the greater Bay Area-Sacramento megalopolis, even as thousands of other Black households moved to more affordable areas of the country---the vast majority moved from the coast to the valley.
I predict Sacramento will surpass Alameda as the largest Black population in NorCal soon, in fact.
And that's okay, people have a right to move if they want a bigger house in a safer neighborhood for HALF the price. More power to them.
the reason black people say that the Bay Area lacks black people is because in comparison to where most black people live (South and Northeast) it is noticeably less black . The Bay Area and Sacramento MSAs are both less than 10% which is less than the nationwide percentage (roughly 13-14%). It's a matter of perspective.
Big ups to the Midwest states that all grew. North Dakota is the fastest growing with double digit percentage growth in a 10 year span. Minnesota, Indiana, Ohio, and Wisconsin saw raw growth ranging 200k-400k. In respects to Ohio moving ever so closer to Illinois in population, I like to bring the importance of having a balanced state in the long game. Ohio is by far the most balanced Midwest state, with three 2m+ metros and three others at 600k-800k each. If Cleveland and Cincinnati loses some, then it goes to the capital city, Columbus, which is on its way to join the 1m+ city club, along with Indianapolis right there on that trajectory. Illinois is basically the antithesis to Ohio with Chicagoland being like a state within a state. I believe it will do the state wonders if downstate(namely the central cities) and Rockford can really step up their game in attracting hundreds of thousands people to those metros in the coming decades. One of them at least attaining 600k-700k is feasible. Peoria and Tazewell county filling up more of the rural space it has could possibly attract growth in downtown Peoria, which is the second best skyline in the state. Rockford has a lot of room to grow even while being so close to Chicagoland and Madison, since it almost the same distance between Milwaukee and Chicago and Milwaukee and Madison. It becomes more clear by reading the article about the rural decline that the state can't no longer put all of its eggs in just the northeast corner.
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.