New Census Data

Posted by on . 6 comments.

I always love looking through new population estimates from the Census Bureau. New numbers, estimated as of July 2009, have just come out, and it appears the District is just a few hundred people short of crossing the 600,000 threshold. From 2008 to 2009, the District was the fifth fastest growing state, in percentage terms. Only Wyoming, Utah, Texas, and Colorado did better. And for the first time this decade, the District had a net increase in domestic migration — population growth wasn’t solely due to natural increase and international migrants.

The transformation the city has undergone in the last decade, set against the stunning decline it experienced during the previous 40 years, is really remarkable.

Comments

  1. Eric says:
    December 23, 2009 at 6:13 pm

    Since those stats are from July 2009, you can bet that the estimates would be well over 600,000 by now, many months later. Of course we’ll find out the real story when Census 2010 comes out. I have a feeling they’ve been underestimating DC’s population even more.

  2. Dave Murphy says:
    December 23, 2009 at 9:39 pm

    This is awesome news. If there is hope for Washington there is hope for Baltimore, Cincinnati, Buffalo, St. Louis, Cleveland, Pittsburgh…

  3. Doug says:
    December 24, 2009 at 12:58 pm

    Happy holidays to the burgeoning Avent family, including the dog.

  4. Dan Staley says:
    December 26, 2009 at 10:10 am

    I still haven’t bought into the ‘growth is good’ idea. Bigger numbers aren’t an inherent good.

  5. EdTheRed says:
    December 28, 2009 at 11:37 am

    @Dan Staley
    Growth in and of itself isn’t necessarily a good thing, but in the case of the District, population growth in an urban center is, IMHO, a better thing than population growth in new exurbs. This is especially true in DC’s case, since even with 600,000 residents, the population is still 200,000 below its historic high of 800,000 in 1950.

  6. rg says:
    January 1, 2010 at 1:03 pm

    Building on what Eric wrote: throughout the late 1990s, the Census Bureau estimated that the District was hemorrhaging population, right up to the 1999 estimate. Lo and behold, when they actually conducted the Census in 2000, it turned out that the 1999 estimate was off by tens of thousands of people: in 1999 the Census Bureau estimated the District’s population was 519,000; the 2000 Census counted 572,000 people in the District!!! They were WAY OFF in 1999. I write this not to trash the Census Bureau but to note that their estimates can be quite suspect. In the case of urban areas, it seems that their methodology, at least in 1990s, was biased against urban areas. So, do not be surprised if the actual 2010 Census count is much higher than this 2009 estimate.