The full text on this page is automatically extracted from the file linked above and may contain errors and inconsistencies.
Population Distribution Chapter 2 Population Distribution more than 14 times as large in 2000 as in 1900, ne of the key characteristics of a popula O U.S. Census Regions tion is the way in which it is geographi increasing from 4.3 million in 1900 to 63 million. cally distributed. Is the population prima In 1950, the proportion of the total U.S. popula rily urban, for instance, with people living in densely tion in the West (1 3 percent) was half that of the nextlargest region, the Northeast (26 percent). By 1990, settled cities and adjacent or nearby communities? Or the population in the West had surpassed the popula is the population spread across a sparsely settled, rural landscape, with sizable distances separating tion in the Northeast, and by 2000 it was close to Northeast Midwest South W est communities? To give geographic context to the social and economic characteristics of the U.S. population overtaking the Midwest as the country’s second-mostpopulous region. Not applicable shown in subsequent chapters, it is useful to know the Increased Urbanization, 1900 to 2000 size and geographic distribution of the population and how these features have changed over time. U.S. population growth during the twentieth century occurred against a backdrop of increasing population Historical Changes in Population Distribution such as the populous “megalopolis” region stretching tion was 39.6 percent, and the percentages for individ When the United States conducted its first census in from Boston to Washington, DC, and the urbanized ual states and territories ranged from under 10 per density. In 1900, the urban share of the U.S. popula 1790, the new nation’s population of 3.9 million peo regions on the Great Lakes and along the Pacific cent urban to over 80 percent (map 02-02). Several ple was overwhelmingly rural. The most populous set Coast. Many areas of the Great Plains and the West states in the Northeast were more than 60 percent tlements at that time were the port cities of New York, continued to have low population densities. urban, while most states in the South were less than Philadelphia, Boston, Charleston, and Baltimore. There 20 percent urban. were 24 urban places (population of 2,500 or more), Population Growth by Region nearly all located on or close to the Atlantic coastline. While all four census regions of the United States— the a whole had increased to 64 percent, with noticeable The largest urban place was New York, with 33,000 Northeast, the Midwest, the South, and the West— increases since 1900 in the percentage urban for inhabitants. grew considerably during the By 1950, the percentage urban for the nation as twentieth century, the South Figure 2-1. 76.2 million. Population centers such as St. Louis, New and the West experienced the Percent Distribution of Population by Region, 1900 to 2000 Orleans, Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Louisville, and largest increases in population, Memphis emerged near major rivers, and cities such 76 million and 59 million, By 1900, the country’s population had grown to lllllllllll as Chicago, Detroit, Cleveland, Buffalo, and Milwaukee respectively. Combined, these grew up around the Great Lakes. Also during this two regions increased by 471 period, the railroad penetrated the West, and railroad percent during the century, towns such as Columbus, Ohio; Indianapolis; and compared with the combined Denver developed. The South remained predominantly increase of 149 percent for the rural, while the industrial Northeast and Midwest were Northeast and the Midwest. Midwest home to most of the larger cities. (Map 02-01 displays Between 1900 and 2000, the South the boundaries of the four census regions.) total increase of 135 million West At the end of the twentieth century, the country’s people in the South and the population totaled 281.4 million, over 70 times as West represented 66 percent of large as the population in 1790, and it continued to be the U.S. population’s increase distributed unevenly across the landscape. High popu of 205 million people. The lation densities existed in some parts of the country, population in the West was 8 Northeast 60 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 U.S. Census Bureau states in the South and the West (map 02-03). While population lived in metropolitan areas (known as met Figure 2-2. several states in the Northeast continued to be ropolitan districts at the time); by 1950, the propor highly urban, other states had urbanized at faster tion in metropolitan areas had grown to more than Percent of Population in Metropolitan Areas by Central Cities and Suburbs, 1910 to 2000 rates. In all states, at least 26 percent of the popula half of the U.S. population (56 percent). By 2000, the tion was urban. metropolitan population represented 80 percent of the In 2000, 79 percent of the U.S. population was urban (map 02-04), and the differences in percentage U.S. total of 281.4 million people (Figure 2-2). Metropolitan areas include central cities and their urban among the states were smaller than in previous suburbs. Between 1910 and 1960, a larger proportion decades. The West, which grew most rapidly during of the total population lived in central cities than in the twentieth century, was the most urbanized region suburbs. For example, in 1910, 21 percent of the total in 2000 and included five of the ten most urbanized U.S. population lived in central cities and 7 percent states (California, Nevada, Hawaii, Utah, and Arizona). lived in suburbs. From 1940 onward, suburbs experi Nevada in 2000 had a higher percentage urban than enced more population growth than central cities, and Massachusetts, while Utah and Arizona both had by 1960, the proportion of the total U.S. population higher percentages urban than New York. living in suburbs (territory within metropolitan areas but outside central cities) was 31 percent, almost Increasing Metropolitanization equal to the proportion of the population living in cen In addition to becoming more urban, the population tral cities (32 percent). By 2000, half of the entire U.S. has become more metropolitan. For Census 2000, the population lived in the suburbs of metropolitan areas. 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 I960 1970 1980 1990 2000 percent. Five other states had gains of 2 5 percent to general concept of a metropolitan area was that of a Population Change for States and Counties, 1990 to 2000 40 percent: Arizona, Colorado, Utah, Idaho, and together with adjacent counties (or minor civil divi sions in New England) having a high degree of social Between 1990 and 2000, all 50 states gained popula grew at rates lower than the U.S. rate. The District of and economic integration with that core. Over the tion, with the largest percentage increases in states in Columbia’s population declined by 6 percent. course of the twentieth century, increasing proportions the West or the South (map 02-05). Nevada had the of the U.S. population lived in metropolitan areas. In highest percentage gain for the decade, increasing by growth were found throughout the nation but most 1910, less than a third (28 percent) of the total 66 percent, compared with the U.S. gain of 13 often within or adjacent to rapidly growing core area containing a substantial population nucleus, Percent Urban Population, 1900 80.0 to 100.0 60.0 to 79.9 39.6 to 59.9 20.0 to 39.5 6.2 to 19.9 U.S. Census Bureau Georgia. All states in the Northeast and the Midwest During the 1990s, counties with rapid population Percent Urban Population, 1950 80.0 to 64.0 to 40.0 to 26.6 to 100.0 79.9 63.9 39.9 9 Chapter 2. Population Distribution Population Change, 1990 to 2000 a key underlying dimension of patterns displayed in Los Angeles all contained many census tracts with many maps in subsequent chapters. densities of 10,000 or more people per square mile. Maps 02-09 through 02-20 show that all states had periods of rapid growth, and many states had swings in their growth rates over time. Nevada was Densities were generally lower across the tracts in Phoenix, San Antonio, Dallas, and Houston. Reflecting regional population trends discussed the fastest-growing state for the four final decades of earlier, many cities and metropolitan areas of the West the twentieth century, yet it was also the state with and the South had much larger populations in 2000 the largest drop in population in consecutive decades, than in earlier decades. In 1950, the city of Phoenix, falling 23.9 percent between 1880 and 1890, and a Arizona contained just over 100,000 people; by 2000, further 10.6 percent between 1890 and 1900. its population had increased to 1.3 million. The The different state-level rates of population percentage of the population residing in northeastern growth are also evident in maps 02-58 through 02-81, and midwestern cities of 100,000 or more decreased which show the changes in the distribution of con from 36 percent in 1950 to 23 percent in 2000. The gressional seats between 1789 and 2002. Some states percentage residing in southern and western cities have experienced only increases in the size of their increased from 20 percent in 1950 to 29 percent in metropolitan areas in the South or the West. High rates congressional delegation over time; other states have 2000. So, while Americans were slightly less likely to of growth also occurred in some counties in the seen both increases and decreases. The final map in live in a large city in 2000 than 50 years earlier (56 interior West that had natural resource amenities the series, showing the number of seats each state percent in 1950; 52 percent in 2000), the region (scenic lakes, mountain vistas, or mild climates), as was apportioned for the 107th Congress in 2002, is a where that large city is located was far more likely to well as in some coastal counties along the Atlantic state-level representation of the cumulative impact of be in the South or the West than it was 50 years seaboard that were attractive to retirees. two centuries of population growth and redistribution. earlier. Many of the counties that lost population during Population trends are also seen in map 02-23, Still, the national patterns of relative population the l 990s are located in a large band of sparsely popu showing the year of maximum population by county. lated nonmetropolitan counties in the Great Plains While in 2000 many counties had their largest density in 2000 were visible over a century ago, as shown in maps 02-30 and 02-31 on national patterns stretching from North Dakota to western Texas. Other decennial-census population ever, a large number of of population density in 1880 and 2000. Map 02-30 is pockets of population decline included some counties nationwide experienced their census year of reproduced from Scribner's Statistical Atlas o f the Appalachian counties and the Mississippi Delta. maximum population decades earlier. The prominence United States, created following the 1880 census. This Population declines also occurred in some large cities of the Great Plains, Appalachia, and parts of the lower map shows that density levels were higher across the in the Northeast and the Midwest, such as Philadelphia Mississippi River Valley illustrates the latter pattern. eastern half of the continental United States and along and Detroit. Several dozen counties in the Midwest had their maxi urban stretches of the Pacific coast and lower in much This Chapter’s Maps mum decennial population in the latter half of the of the interior of the West. Denver and Salt Lake City nineteenth century. are visible pockets of higher density in low-density Maps 02-24 through 02-29 chart the increase in regions. Population distribution in 2000, seen in map the United States can be seen in the various types of the number of large cities (populations of 100,000 or 02-31, displays a similar pattern. While the 2000 map changes over the centuries, such as the westward and more) in the United States, from 3 in 1840 to 234 in contains an additional category (1,000 and above), southward movement of the population, twentieth- 2000. The series of six maps also demonstrates the and densities were much higher in parts of California, century suburbanization, population declines in the emergence of large cities across all four regions of the Florida, and Texas, the basic patterns in the two maps rural Midwest, and continued urban and metropolitan country. While almost all of the large cities in 1890 are roughly similar. growth— particularly in the South and the West. were located in the Northeast or the Midwest, by Patterns of population distribution and redistribution in Map 02-07 portrays the country’s overall population distribution in 2000, with each dot on the 2000, many were also in the South and the West. Variations exist in the tract-level population den map representing 1,000 people. The uneven sity patterns for the largest cities in 2000 (maps 02-43 distribution of the population illustrated in this map is through 02-51). New York, Philadelphia, Chicago, and 10 U.S. Census Bureau Chapter 2. Population Distribution Center of Population, 1790 to 2000 With Territorial Expansion Date of acquisition o Center of population -----Proclam ation Line of 1763 1898 1800 Original thirteen colonies 1777 Treaty Line of 1842 Red R iver Basin ' ---\ 1818 Oregon Country 1846 Louisiana Purchase 1803 Territory N orthw est of the Ohio R iver 1787 Original Thirteen Colonies 1763 18o00o 1820 O > ° 1810 1790 V? Mexican Cession 1848 Territory South of the Ohio River 1790 Gadsden Purchase 1853Texas Annexation 1845 M ississippi Territory 1798 Florida Cession j 1819 \ Puerto R ico Cession 1898 Hawaii Annexation 1898 Each decade, as part of its tabulation and publication activities following the decennial census, the U.S. Census Bureau calculates the country's center of population. The center is determined as the place where an imaginary, flat, weightless, and rigid map of the United States would balance perfectly if all residents were of identical weight. For Census 2000, the mean center of population was at 37°42'N latitude and 91°49'W longitude. (Alaska, Hawaii, U.S. Census Bureau and Puerto Rico were not included in the calculation of the center of population.) This location was in Phelps County, Missouri, approximately 2.8 miles east of the rural community of Edgar Springs. The center of population had moved 12.1 miles south and 32.5 miles west of the 1990 center of population, which was 9.7 miles southeast of Steelville, Missouri. Historically, the movement of the center of popula tion has reflected the expansion of the country, the set tling of the frontier, waves of immigration, and migration west and south. Since 1790, the center of population has moved steadily westward, angling to the southwest in recent decades. The center of population in 2000 was more than 1,000 miles from the first center in 1790, located near Chestertown, Maryland. 11 Chapter 2. Population Distribution Population Distribution, 2000 One dot represents 1,000 people The U.S. population in 2000 continued to be distributed unevenly across the country. Solid dark areas in the above map contained large numbers of people in rela tively densely settled territory, while the lighter-shaded areas contained few, if any, permanent residents. The eastern half of the United States contained a sizable number of settled areas in 2000, with the nearly uninter rupted string of densely settled territory stretching from 12 southern Maine to northern Virginia clearly visible. In the eastern half of the United States, the most visible areas with few residents are the Everglades of southern Florida and the wilderness areas of southern Georgia, upstate New York, and northern Maine. Unlike the eastern half of the United States, where population density generally lessens gradually as distance from an urban center increases, the West is an area of population extremes, containing populous metropolitan areas surrounded by large areas of mainly unpopulated terrain. As the Los Angeles area shows, density transi tions in the West can often be abrupt. The thin lines of population concentration connecting larger metropolitan areas in the West—for instance, between Las Vegas and Salt Lake City— are often the locations of highways or rivers or both. U.S. Census Bureau Chapter 2. Population Distribution Population Density, 2000 With Border Populations Can. U.S. Mex. 2,000.0 to 66,940.0 A verage population per square mile 300.0 to 1,999.9 160.0 to 299.9 79.6 to 159.9 30.0 to 79.5 7.0 to 29.9 San Diego, U.S.; Tijuana, Mex. Calexico, Mexicali, U.S.; Matamoros, Mex. The border populations in the United States, as this map reminds us, often coexist with neighboring population concentrations across the border in Canada or Mexico. While much of the U.S. border—for instance, along the Canadian border from Minnesota to Washington— is lightly populated and has low population densities, other U.S. Census Bureau areas have sizable population concentrations, as shown by the darker shadings of some border U.S. counties, Canadian census areas, and Mexican municipios on this map. The pairs of cities shown represent major centers within cross-border urban areas. The duplication or near duplication of city names on both sides of the border in some instances is testament to their intertwined histories and longstanding relationships. Data for Mexican municipios are from 2000. Data for Canadian census areas are from 2001. 13 Chapter 2. Population Distribution PERCEN T CHANGE IN POPULATION 14 U.S. Census Bureau Chapter 2. Population Distribution Com parison of Population Change, 1980s and 1990s Net increase or decrease in total population 1980 to 1990 and 1990 to 2000 Increase both decades D ecrease 1980s, increase 1990s Increase 1980s, decrease 1990s Decrease both decades Data not comparable U.S. Census Bureau l5 Chapter 2. Population Distribution Year of M axim um Population, 1790 to 2000 16 U.S. Census Bureau Chapter 2. Population Distribution TPBJ-,7 Population Density, 1880 5 < ? h I \ /> ay v ) < 1 l i f e 'f — \ •v j ; \ ^ A verage population per square mile 90 and above 45 to 89 18 to 44 6 to 17 2 to 5 1 or fe w e r 02-30 Reproduced from: S c rib n e r’s S ta tis tic a l A tla s o f th e U n ite d States'. 1883, with additional title and key. A verage population per square mile 1,000 and above ! 90 to 999 45 to 89 18 to 44 6 to 17 2t° 5 1 or fe w e r U.S. Census Bureau 17 Chapter 2. Population Distribution METROPOLITAN AREAS San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose, CA Population Density, 2000 Largest Metropolitan Areas A verag e population per square mile; U .S . m ap by county, m etropolitan area m aps by census tract 40.000. 0 and above 20.000. 0 to 39,999.9 10.000. 0 to 19,999.9 5.000. 0 to 9,999.9 2.000. U.S. density 79.6 0 to 4,999.9 79.6 to 1,999.9 0.0 to 79.5 Houston-Galveston-Brazoria,TX 18 U.S. Census Bureau Chapter 2. Population Distribution METROPOLITAN AREAS Chicago-Gary-Kenosha, IL-IN-WI Boston-Worcester-Lawrence-Lowell-Brockton, MA-NH Dallas-Fort Worth, TX New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT-PA TEX A S Fort Worth Dallas Newark-^j^ Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City, PA-NJ-DE-MD New York N EW JE R S E Y Atlantic City Baltimore At anta. GA Washingtoi D ELA W A R E Atlanta Washington-Baltimore, DC-MD-VA-WV U.S. Census Bureau 19 Chapter 2. Population Distribution CITIES Los Angeles, CA Population Density, 2000 Largest Cities A verag e population per square mile; U .S . m ap by county, city m aps by census tract 20 0 and above 20.000. 0 to 39,999.9 10.000. 0 to 19,999.9 5.000. 0 to 9,999.9 2.000. 0 to 4,999.9 U.S. density 79.6 San Diego, CA 40.000. 79.6 to 1,999.9 0.0 to 79.5 Phoenix, AZ U.S. Census Bureau Chapter 2. Population Distribution CITIES U.S. Census Bureau 21 Chapter 2. Population Distribution 100.0 Average population per square mile; U .S. density 21.5 7.0 and above 2.0 to 6.9 0.0 to 1.9 80.0 to 99.9 Rural population as a percentage of total population 60.2 to 79.9 40.0 to 60.1 20.0 to 39.9 Data not available 0.0 to 19.9 Data not available 100.0 80.0 to 99.9 A verag e population per square mile; U.S. density 79.6 7.0 and above 2.0 to 6.9 0.0 to 1.9 Rural population as a percentage of total population 60.0 to 79.9 40.0 to 59.9 U.S. percent 210 22 21.0 to 39.9 0.0 to 20.9 U.S. Census Bureau Chapter 2. Population Distribution Rural population center at each decade County w a s at least 50 percent rural in 2000 U.S. Census Bureau 23 Chapter 2. Population Distribution CHANCE IN D ISTRIBUTIO N OF C O N G RESSIO N A L SEATS Confederation Congress, 1789 2nd Congress, 1792 7th Congress, 1802 Change in number of congressional seats as a result of the 1790 census Change in number of congressional seats as a result of the 1800 census 12th Congress, 1812 17th Congress, 1822 22nd Congress, 1832 Change in number of congressional seats as a result of the 1810 census Change in number of congressional seats as a result of the 1820 census Change in number of congressional seats as a result of the 1830 census 27th Congress, 1842 32nd Congress, 1852 37th Congress, 1862 Change in number of congressional seats as a result of the 1840 census Change in number of congressional seats as a result of the 1850 census Change in number of congressional seats as a result of the 1860 census plus nonvoting seats for territories N um ber o f Seats I 10 (VA) 6 to 8 3 to 5 1 to 2 No seats Total voting seats: 65 4 to 5 1 to 3 No change -2 to -1 I Non voting seats _| No seats Total voting seats: 243 42nd Congress, 1872 47th Congress, 1882 Change in number of congressional seats as a result of the 1870 census Change in number of congressional seats as a result of the 1880 census plus nonvoting seats for territories 52nd Congress, 1892 Change in number of congressional seats as a result of the 1890 census 4 to 5 1 to 3 No change B -1 Nonvoting seats No seats Total voting seats: 332 24 U.S. Census Bureau Chapter 2. Population Distribution CHANGE IN D ISTRIBUTIO N OF C O N G RESSIO N AL SEATS 57th Congress, 1902 Change in number of congressional seats as a result of the 1900 census 62nd Congress, 1912 67th Congress, 1922 Change in number of congressional seats as a result of the 1910 census No reapportionment was made ]] No change J Non voting seats _ No seats Total voting seats: 435 72nd Congress, 1932 77th Congress, 1942 82nd Congress, 1952 Change in number of congressional seats as a result of the 1930 census Change in number of congressional seats as a result of the 1940 census Change in number of congressional seats as a result of the 1950 census 87th Congress, 1962 92nd Congress, 1972 97th Congress, 1982 Change in number of congressional seats as a result of the 1960 census Change in number of congressional Change in number of congressional 102nd Congress, 1992 107th Congress, 2002 107th Congress, 2002 Change in number of congressional seats as a result of the 1990 census Change in number of congressional seats as a result of Census 2000 4 to 8 1 to 3 No change -2 to -1 -3 (PA) H Non voting seats No seats Total voting seats: 435 N um ber of Seats 4 to 7 1 to 3 No change -2 to -1 -3 (NY) Non voting seats 1 to 2 No change -2 to -1 Nonvoting seats Total voting seats: 435 Total voting seats: 435 U.S. Census Bureau 25
@FedFRASER