Domestic migration has accelerated in the past few years as Americans relocate — typically from larger urban areas to mid-sized and smaller metros. Whether this trend ultimately will reshape parts of America by voting with their feet and moving and reduce the polarization between red and blue states remains to be seen.
A commenter on the article (Comparing Urban Densities: Winnipeg and New York) expressed an interest in seeing the extent of the New York urban area. The main page of the Census Bureau map is posted here (PDF, 9MB). The map is difficult to read, but easier if the zoom function is employed. The New York urban area is defined by a black line, and extends:
South to the southern tip of Long Beach Island, in Ocean County, New Jersey, about 10 miles from the city limits of Atlantic City --- about 85 miles south of Manhattan (“as the crow flies”).
West to within 7 miles of the Pennsylvania border, in Warren County, New Jersey --- about 50 miles west of Manhattan.
North to southern Dutchess County, New York --- about 60 miles of Manhattan)
East to 25 miles west of Montauk, New York (east end of Long Island) --- about 85 miles east of Manhattan.
The entire map is available here and contains 22 maps with more detailed information.
In 2010, the New York urban area covered 3,450 square miles (8,936 square kilometers), with a population of 18.351 million and a population density of 5,319 per square mile (2,054 per square kilometer). Among the large urban areas in the United States, New York was the fourth densest, trailing Los Angeles (6,999 per square mile), San Francisco (6,267 per square mile) and San Jose (5,820 per square mile).
Urban areas are defined by Census Bureau criteria principally using population density of continuously developed urbanization. The 2010 census urban area criteria are here. The 2020 data has not yet been released.
Have at least 50 percent of their population in urban areas of at least 10,000 population; or
Have within their boundaries a population of at least 5,000 located in a single urban area of at least 10,000 population.”
Metropolitan areas comprise the central counties and “outlying counties that meet commuting interchange criteria. Urban areas can have small extensions into counties not within the corresponding metropolitan area, such as Warren County, New Jersey and Dutchess County, New York as in the case of the New York urban area (above).
Due to the huge size of the New York urban area, all but one of the 23 metropolitan counties is “central.” Only Pike County, Pennsylvania is an “outlying” county.
There is a misimpression that metropolitan areas are organized around commuting into central business districts, or central cities (municipalities). In fact, the current commuting criteria relates only to central counties --- the 22 in New York metropolitan area, not Manhattan or the city of New York.
New population estimates by census authorities in Canada (Statistics Canada) and the United States (Bureau of the Census) show that cities (municipalities) with the largest central business districts lost residents in the year ended July 1, 2021. Currently data is available for seven of the 10 such municipalities, with US data only for cities that are also counties. Data is yet to be released for Chicago, Boston and Seattle. However, in each of these cases, the counties containing these cities lost population (Cook, Illinois; Suffolk, Massachusetts and King, Washington).
The largest loss was in the city of San Francisco, which lost 6.3% of its population, dropping from 870,000 to 815,000. This erases a decade of population growth (from 2011), when the city had 816,000 residents, according to the Census Bureau.
New York lost 3.5% of its population, dropping by 305,000. Washington fell 2.9%, while Philadelphia lost 1.5%.
The losses in Canada were less, but were nonetheless surprising, because Canadian core municipalities did not suffer the huge mid to late 20th century losses that afflicted US cities like Philadelphia, Boston and Washington. Montreal lost 2.5% of its population (45,000). Vancouver lost 1.0% of its population, which is considerable given the seemingly unending densification that has occurred there (unrivaled by any core municipality in the West that was virtually fully developed by mid-century and has had no significant annexations). Toronto lost 0.6%.
For some years, the University of Minnesota’s Accessibility Observatory has produced major metropolitan area job access estimates for the average worker, at various trip lengths and modes. Estimates are provided for all the nation’s 53 major metropolitan areas (over 1,000,000 million), with the exception of Grand Rapids, Rochester and Tucson.
The data indicate auto access to jobs is far greater by car than by transit. This is shown below at the 30-minute job access level, which is slightly more than the average one-way work trip travel time of 28 minutes (about 60% of US workers reached work in 30 minutes), according to the American Community Survey (not counting people who work at home, who have no work trip travel time). At the median, cars can access, on average, 57.7 times as many jobs (5,770% as many jobs) as transit within 30 minutes.
The following table shows auto 30-minute access to jobs in relation to 30-minute access by transit, in terms of auto commuters per transit commuter. The table also indicates actual commuting patterns, express in the actual number of 30-minute auto commuters per 30-minute transit commuter, again from the 2019 American Community Survey. There is a strong correlation between the modeled 30-minute job access and the actual 30 minute commute data (0.686, statistically significant at the 99% level of confidence).
Finally, transit ridership has plummeted during the pandemic and has recovered far more slowly than other modes of transport, including driving and air (which are now between 80% and 100% of their pre-pandemic levels as well as Amtrak and transit, which are between 50% and 60% of their previous levels, according to Randal O’Toole. With the future of transit ridership uncertain, especially due to the massive increase in hybrid and remote working and a residual fear of proximity (infection), the car advantage could widen.
Recent victories for unions at Amazon, Starbucks and Apple stores suggest to some a resurgence of America’s long declining labour movement. Amid deepening labour shortages, soaring rents and more concern about class divides, this could be a time for a union renaissance — especially for large, well-financed firms.
The politics will be complex. Democrats, traditionally pro-union, face an embarrassing conundrum, since the companies most likely to face continued union drives — Amazon, Apple, Google and Starbucks tend to be among their big money funders. The recent Amazon vote of a union in one of the company’s high pressure, tech-monitored warehouses was also a slap in the face for Jeff Bezos, a key funder of progressive causes and owner of the gentry liberal mouthpiece, The Washington Post.
On top of these political challenges, the pandemic has had a mixed effect on union drives. Over the last two years, private sector union membership has actually declined, and younger workers’ total unionisation rates now approach 4% of the workforce. In 2021 strike activity was actually well below those of previous years.
But conditions could be changing, in large part due to a mounting labour shortage. U.S. population growth has dropped from 20% in the eighties to less than 5% in the last decade. What’s more, the number of new workers has fallen by two million over the past decade, creating what the consulting firm EMSI calls a “sansdemic” (i.e. without enough people). This could provide an ideal moment for unions to press their case that they do indeed generate higher wages; certainly the public is more supportive than in the past, with 65% favouring union efforts.
As the economy opens, there are massive shortages across the employment front — from nurses and delivery people to farm labourers, retail and hotel workers, truckers and restaurant workers. Nearly 90% of companies recently surveyed by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce blamed a lack of available workers for slowing the economy, more than twice as many as blamed pandemic restrictions. Such labour shortages exert wage pressure, which has resulted in corporations like Target and Walmart announcing sweeping wage increases.
Chase DiFeliciantonio reports in the March 28, 2020 San Francisco Chronicle that efforts to attract office workers back to downtown San Francisco, and consequently to restore the busy “happy hours” at bars are faltering. “Monday and especially Fridays are seeing less foot traffic downtown, which makes midweek after-work happy hours more likely. Some people still working from home are also choosing neighborhood saloons closer to home rather than venturing to other parts of town.”
A financial district bar owner characterized the phenomenon of a packed bar after work is “not dead, but in a coma.”
A bartender aid that “Thursday is the new Friday.”
The article also referred to research findings predicting that workers will use “three midweek days for in-office work, while working remotely on Mondays and Fridays.”
In his second appearance on the Power Hungry Podcast, Kotkin discusses his recent article for Quillette, “The New Great Game,” how China and Russia are allying against the West, why America needs “a new nationalism” to counter this alliance, how California’s administrative state is crushing the poor and the middle class, Michael Shellenberger’s gubernatorial bid, energy, housing, and why despite his many concerns, he remains bullish on the future of the United States.
Joel Kotkin is a demographer, journalist, author, and executive editor of NewGeography.com.
California poses many challenges for the middle- and working-class. As a result, there is a significant migration of people, jobs, and opportunities— both within and outside the state.
Who is leaving California, and who is no longer seeking to move to the golden state? Are there incentives for job creation and how can the state remain competitive?
Join Joel Kotkin, alongside Jorge De la Roca, and Marshall Toplansky as we tackle these questions and more. This expert panel will offer an overview of current demographic trends in California, followed by a discussion around future implications for the state and possible solutions to reinvigorate the California dream. The event will conclude with audience Q&A.
Date: Thursday, March 24, 2022 Time: 10:00AM - 10:45AM Pacific
Infinite Suburbia is the culmination of the MIT Norman B. Leventhal Center for Advanced Urbanism's yearlong study of the future of suburban development. Find out more.
Authored by Aaron Renn, The Urban State of Mind: Meditations on the City is the first Urbanophile e-book, featuring provocative essays on the key issues facing our cities, including innovation, talent attraction and brain drain, global soft power, sustainability, economic development, and localism.
Email this Blog entry
