Posts about Demographics
This week, celebrate the new 11th Street bridge, learn how DC could become the nation's cycling capital, Metro's plans to run buses all night, and how to live a greener life at events all around Greater Washington.
New 11th Street Bridge: On Saturday, Mayor Gray and DC officials will dedicate the bridge with a festival from 12-3pm on the local span featuring music, performances, and food trucks. Click here for more information.
Talk about bikes in Arlington: Dr. Ralph Buehler, professor and author of City Cycling, will talk about ways to promote biking with Shane Farthing of WABA, Arlington County board member Chris Zimmerman, and our own Jaime Fearer. The event will be on Thursday, September 12 at 6:30pm at the Virginia Tech Research Center, 900 N. Glebe Road in Arlington. Visit their website for info or to RSVP.
After the jump: Learn about the Purple Line in Bethesda and how Montgomery County's demographics are changing. And if you have any events for future roundups, email me at firstname.lastname@example.org.
Could Metrobus run all night?: Next week, the Action Committee for Transit hosts Jim Hamre, head of bus planning for WMATA, who'll talk about plans to increase late-night bus service. That meeting will be at 7:30pm on Tuesday at the Silver Spring Civic Building, One Veterans Place in downtown Silver Spring. For more information, visit their website.
Green Living Expo DC: Over 40 exhibitors, workshops, and eco-tours will offer information on bike lanes, home energy-saving resources and government grants, green roofs, urban forests, and more. The event will take place at the University of DC's Dennard Plaza on Saturday, September 7th from 10 am to 4 pm. Visit greenlivingdc.org for more info.
Going Purple in Bethesda: Montgomery County planners are exploring potential design options for routing the Purple Line and the Capital Crescent Trail near Wisconsin Avenue and want public input. The event will take place at the Bethesda Regional Services Center, 4805 Edgemoor Lane on Saturday, September 7th beginning at 10 am. Find out more information at the Planning Department's website.
Discuss Montgomery County's future: The Committee for Montgomery will host a forum on the county's rapidly changing demographics featuring Metro's head planner Shyam Kannan and Gwen Wright, director of planning at the Montgomery County Planning Department. The discussion will happen on Monday, September 9 at 8am at Building 1 of the Universities at Shady Grove in Rockville. For more information or to RSVP, visit their website.
There are about 1.5 million Baby Boomers in Greater Washington, representing 26 percent of its population. The housing choices of these individuals will have a profound effect on the region over the next 30 years. Where do they live now, and where will they live in the future?
Where do Boomers live today?
The Baby Boom generation is defined as those born between the years of 1946 and 1964, The vast majority of Boomers in the Washington area are homeowners: as of 2010, there were about 823,000 households in the region with a Baby Boomer householder, 629,000 or 76% of which own their homes.
While Boomers account for 26 percent of the region's population, they make up 47 percent of all homeowners. In Calvert, Fairfax, and Fauquier counties, Boomers make up more than half of all homeowner households, and slightly less than half in Stafford, Montgomery, and Prince George's counties. The concentration of Boomer homeowners was lowest in close-in jurisdictions like DC, Arlington, and Alexandria, and in Loudoun County, where younger homeowners drive most growth.
More specifically, Boomer homeowners can be found in affluent areas located outside the Beltway dominated by large-lot, single-family housing units. Over 60 percent of homeowners are Boomers in places like Brookeville in Montgomery County, Oakton in Fairfax County, and Upper Marlboro in Prince George's County. Less affluent inner suburban areas like Annandale and Bladensburg also have high concentrations of Boomer homeowners.
Where will they live in the future?
According to several national research studies, most Boomers plan to stay exactly where they are, as long as they can. A 2011 study by AARP found that 84 percent of Boomers want to stay in their current homes. A 2010 survey by retirement community developer Del Webb found that 64 percent of Boomers had not even thought about where they will live during retirement.
Due to the effects of the Great Recession, many Boomers plan to postpone retirement and remain in their current homes. In 1996, Del Webb found that 85 percent of 50 year olds surveyed thought they would be financially prepared to retire by the age of 65. In a 2010 survey of the same group, now 64, only 46 percent thought they would ever be able to retire.
But many aging Boomers won't be able to stay put. AARP found that 41 percent of Boomers surveyed thought they would always be in good health, and 35 percent expect to always be able to drive their own cars. But the National Association of Home Builders' "Characteristics of Home Buyers" report suggests that health issues will increasingly determine Boomers' housing choices, especially after age 75.
If Boomers do begin to move from their single-family houses in the suburbs in large numbers, where will they go? The Del Webb survey found that 56 percent of those who planned to leave their homes would move out of state, while the remaining 44 percent planned to stay local. This could mean a smaller home in the same suburban community, a retirement community or continuing care facility, or, as many have suggested, an apartment or condo in a more urban environment.
However, even those who suggest that Boomers will embrace city life concede that this only a "mini-trend" at this point. In all likelihood, most Boomer homeowners in the Washington metro area will stay put and continue to live in their single-family houses in the suburbs for at least the next 10 to 20 years. While this stability may appear to be a positive thing, it actually raises several key concerns about the future.
What will happen to the areas where they are currently concentrated?
Boomers who "age in place" will create major spillover effects for the suburban communities where they first moved to raise families.
Suburban jurisdictions will need to address the reality of having large elderly populations. If large numbers of Boomers do choose to age in place, the neighborhoods that once served as havens for families with children will suddenly become naturally occurring retirement communities (NORCs).
This will drive increased needs for public services for the elderly, including recreational and social service programs, demand for paratransit for those who live in car-dependent areas but are not able to drive, and declining school enrollments. Perhaps more importantly, political priorities will shift, as older voters are more likely to advocate for lower taxes instead of making investments in infrastructure, schools, or parks.
Aging homeowners will struggle to maintain their properties. As the oldest Boomers reach 75, most will have to rely on retirement income and savings even as their health care costs increase. As a result, investment in the upkeep and maintenance on aging houses will become more difficult for many homeowners to afford.
This will be a particular issue in older suburbs where income levels tend to be lower and houses require more upkeep. Neglect of homes may become widespread in these areas, leading to permanent decline.
Boomers will shut Millennials out. The Millennial generation, currently aged between 15 and 35, is just starting to reach prime homebuying age. The conventional wisdom is that Millennials will reject the values of their Boomer parents and rent smaller units in urban environments.
While that may be true today, a 2011 Urban Land Institute study generated two contrary conclusions. First, three-quarters of older Millennials (those currently aged 28-35) expected to buy a home within five years. Second, 82 percent of all Millennials expected to live in a single-family detached house in five years.
Assuming that at least some Millennials do want to buy houses, there are few affordable options for them. The region's median home price in July 2013 was $425,000, and the median price for a single-family home was $541,750.
The ULI study found that the median income level for Millennials with full-time jobs was less than $50,000. Though the income level for Millennials in this region is undoubtedly higher, few Millennials can afford new single-family homes anywhere in the area. So long as Boomers stay put in their homes, the supply of existing homes will be limited, making it more difficult for younger buyers to find places to live.
The crash could be swift and painful. In 2040, just 27 years from now, the age range of the Baby Boom generation will be from 76 to 94. By that time, there will obviously no longer be 1.5 million Boomers living in metro Washington, and there will certainly not be 629,000 Boomer homeowners. Twenty years later, in 2060, all but the hardiest of Boomers will have passed away.
While Boomers seem to be committed to living in their suburban homes, at some point age and health will take their toll. If Boomers do intend to stay in their homes for the duration, their eventual departures from their homes and neighborhoods will likely occur under difficult circumstances. Most will either leave quickly due to health issues, or their surviving family members will need to sell their homes after they are gone.
As difficult as it may be to consider, the years from 2030 to 2050 will bring wholesale changes to the communities where Boomers are now living. As discussed above, many Boomers will have let their homes fall into disrepair by that point, so many of the stable suburban neighborhoods they currently inhabit are likely to decline. Local governments around the region need to understand and plan for these trends now so they do not have to face very difficult problems down the road.
Where do people use iPhones, Android phones, Blackberries, and other devices? In our region, it appears Android is far more popular on the east side of the region than the west:
Tom MacWright, who has written for Greater Greater Washington about open laws, made the tool for MapBox using 280 million Tweets, each of which has information about which kind of device the tweeter was using.
I initially expected to see a big blob of purple (Blackberry) in the federal core, but there is none; probably this is a combination of many federal agencies moving to iPhones, and federal workers not using their government phones for tweeting.
But really, these maps look awfully similar to the same maps of DC's demographic divides:
Update: Several commenters noted that the combined map seems to overlay iPhones over Androids, so green areas are really areas with Androids but fewer iPhones. I've added a toggle to switch between the combined map, iPhone-only, and Android-only.
Keith Ivey has created an interactive map of DC's April 23 special election results. The maps seem to back up the notion that there are ongoing geographic and racial divisions in our politics, though except for east of the Anacostia (which is a big "except"), Elissa Silverman's appeal was far broader, geographically, than citywide candidates in other recent elections.
Ivey also maps which candidate won the most votes in each precinct.
Left: Plurality votes on April 23, 2013. Bonds=cyan, Silverman=red, Mara=blue, Frumin=green. Right: Plurality votes on April 26, 2011. Orange=orange, Biddle=red, Mara=blue, Weaver=green. Images by Keith Ivey.
Ivey also notes that looking at the overall amount of ink for each candidate doesn't necessarily reflect reality. The peripheral areas where Bonds was strongest, for instance, are also less densely-populated areas of the city. He says,
The map can be misleading in the same way typical U.S. presidential election maps are, since the area of a precinct is not proportional to the number of voters there. A candidate who wins in densely populated, high-turnout areas will often look worse on the map than a candidate who wins in less dense or low-turnout areas.One observation is that you can't really detect Rock Creek Park on the Silverman map. Rock Creek forms a bright line on the other maps, but not Silverman's. On the other hand, the Anacostia River is a bright line on everyone's map.
We know that DC has more people than Wyoming and about to pass Vermont. Reddit user desert_wombat created a map of all US counties that are more populous than some states.
With 9.8 million people, Los Angeles County is larger than North Carolina, the 10th most populous US state. (It's also geographically larger than Rhode Island and Delaware, combined).
Baltimore County (which doesn't include Baltimore City) is more populous than Wyoming, Vermont, North Dakota and Alaska; Prince George's is also larger than South Dakota; Montgomery County larger than Delaware; and Fairfax County has more people than all of those as well as Montana and Rhode Island.
Thanks to Dan Malouff for the tip via Twitter.
Last week's post about census tract density in the DC area showed which neighborhoods inside the Beltway are densest. Now let's look at the densest spots in the core areas of other large cities.
Urban areas are defined by the US Census as geographically-connected areas with a population density of at least 1,000 people per square mile (ppsm). The standard provides a uniform definition of "city," more useful for national comparisons than political boundaries. These maps show the central county in each of America's 20 largest urban areas, in order beginning with the largest.
1. New York: America's biggest city breaks the scale. While others on this list might have a few neighborhoods in the top density category, New York is covered end to end. It's one of only 4 cities with tracts above 100,000 ppsm. Its peak is 200,000 ppsm.
2. Los Angeles: Despite its reputation for sprawl, LA compares favorably to the densest cities after New York. Its peak density of 94,000 ppsm is well above DC's.
3. Chicago: Home to probably the single densest census tract in America, a 508,000 ppsm anomaly that's so small it's not visible at normal scale. Besides that tract, Chicago tops around at about the same level as LA.
4. Miami: Thanks to more narrowly-drawn census tracts along its high-rise coast, Miami's peak density shot up from 38,000 ppsm in 2000 to 77,000 ppsm in 2010, but the actual change wasn't as significant on the ground.
5. Philadelphia: At 64,000 ppsm, Philadelphia's peak is about the same as DC's, but Philly's rowhouse neighborhoods extend farther out.
6. Dallas: Dallas' density dropped significantly. It has fewer dense tracts in 2010 than in 2000, and its peak is down to 44,000 ppsm from 57,000 ppsm.
7. Houston: Unlike Dallas, Houston appears to be densifying. Oddly, its densest area is not the core.
8. Washington (with Arlington & Alexandria): Washington is has more dense neighborhoods and a higher peak than in 2000. The numbers shown on these maps are slightly different than those on Michael Rodriguez's map, which used a different map projection to calculate area. These census numbers are official.
9. Atlanta: Not only is Atlanta shockingly sparse, its densest tract fell from 41,000 ppsm in 2000 to just 21,000 ppsm in 2010. The explanation? A downtown public housing complex was demolished, erasing the population of the densest 2000 tract.
One of only 4 cities with a tract above 100,000, Boston has a single tract that reaches 110,000 ppsm.
11. Detroit: Detroit's peak density of 18,000 ppsm is about the same as in 2000, but the number of mid-density tracts in the 10,000-20,000 ppsm range declined significantly as the city continued to empty.
12. Phoenix: Central Phoenix didn't change much, and tops out at 23,000 ppsm.
13. San Francisco: San Francisco has more tracts above 100,000 ppsm than any city except New York. It tops out at 161,000 ppsm.
14. Seattle: With a peak of 51,000 ppsm and a small but significant core, Seattle occupies a middle ground between the older denser cities and newer sparser ones.
15. San Diego: While downtown San Diego densified compared to 2000, and its 50,000 ppsm peak is higher, some of its other denser neighborhoods are sparser in 2010.
16. Minneapolis: Minneapolis' changes were minor compared to most other cities. Its peak was 25,000 ppsm in 2000, and it still is in 2010.
17. Tampa: By far the sparsest city on this list, Tampa's peak of 13,000 ppsm means it has no tracts in the 3rd or 4th categories, and precious few crack even into the 2nd.
18. Denver: Like a smaller Minneapolis, Denver looks much the same. Its peak of 23,000 ppsm is respectable for a mid-sized non-coastal city.
19. Baltimore: Baltimore's lone tract in the densest category is an impressive 86,000 ppsm, but that tract is down from a whopping 176,000 ppsm in 2000. What happened?
20. Saint Louis: Saint Louis' losses have been less drastic than Detroit's, but they still hurt. Its peak is down to a Tampa-like 13,000 ppsm, from 15,000 ppsm in 2000.
I made all these maps using American FactFinder on census.gov, which has data for every county in the United States. I couldn't have done it without Geoff Hatchard, who walked me through the laborious census.gov process. If you'd like to make your own maps, I documented step-by-step instructions. Godspeed.
Cross-posted at BeyondDC.
Density is a good thing for urbanism. More density means more shops and amenities nearby, better transit service, and shorter walks. But what qualifies as dense? Overall city density is often reported, but a more telling statistic is neighborhood density.
Thse two maps show DC neighborhood density at the time of the 2000 census (top) and 2010 census (bottom). I made the 2000 map using census.gov sometime after the 2000 census. Michael Rodriguez created the bottom map just recently. Unfortunately the two maps use different scales, but they're still informative.
In 2000 the densest census tract in the DC region was in northern Columbia Heights, between Spring Road and Newton Street. It had 57,317 people per square mile (ppsm). In 2010 that tract is up to 59,209 ppsm, but that's only good enough for 2nd place in DC, and 3rd regionally.
The densest tract is now southern Logan Circle, between Rhode Island and Massachusetts Avenues. It's boomed and is now a whopping 67,149 ppsm.
The rest of central Northwest, from Mount Pleasant down to Massachusetts Avenue, varies from around 30,000-50,000 ppsm. Capitol Hill is in the 20,000-30,000 ppsm range.
Meanwhile, in Alexandria, the tract at the corner of I-395 and Seminary Road is up to 59,886 ppsm, 2nd densest in the region after Logan Circle. There hasn't been any new development in that tract since 2000, but the suburban-style apartment towers in it may have fewer singles and more families, which could account for the increase. Crystal City is 45,448 ppsm, and Ballston is 43,788 ppsm.
Suburban Maryland's densest tract is in Langley Park, at 49,354 ppsm. Downtown Silver Spring is 34,816 ppsm, and downtown Bethesda is around 11,000 ppsm.
Cross-posted at BeyondDC.
- How well do you know Metro? It's whichWMATA week 16
- The Silver Line's opening day, in 41 photos
- In White Oak, the region's east-west divide becomes an urban-suburban one
- The Metro plan has changed a lot since 1968
- Did Rush Plus depress Blue Line ridership?
- Who needs Metro? Not (as often) Capital Bikeshare users in central neighborhoods
- Forget the Washington Monument; DC's tallest tower is actually in Ward 4