in Density, Housing, Urban Change

Housing Economics

Even Texas, the state that added the most housing units, showed decreases in more than half (52.4%) of its counties — reflecting the concentration of housing unit growth in larger metropolitan counties, with declines more common in smaller non-metropolitan counties.

Spend some time looking through the 2020 Population and Housing State Data. The priority within the Bureau will remain in this area as it will direct the addition and subtraction of political representatives. The increase in metropolitan county density in states like Texas will reveal housing as a massive engine for growth. The lack of criticism for the quality of place-making should be observed very carefully as 2020 data rolls on to the nation’s micro-marketing platforms.

For example, criticism for using an archetypal housing structure (below) is warranted. The data on how housing production produces jobs and supports industries is important. That the data also reveals a metropolitan shift across the country is more so. The focus on jobs and industry is useful. however, the design of the new and restored communities is how lasting value is established in the new world of climate change roulette. Revealing the preference for the areas of the country that are becoming increasingly wet or dry under rapidly changing barometric domes of atmospheric heat threatens these gains. A shift in focus away from individual structures to the way entire communities produce jobs, support industries, and remain resilient is the core challenge.

In this context, the vast wealth of American households is generated by where Americans want to live or are forced to live. This is followed by the type of structure available and the cost of acquisition. The result remains a choice limited by income and the transfer of equity from one generation to the next. Thousands of other factors are involved, all of them well documented. The issue remains the general unwillingness to build a different society.

A national policy regarding the location of home equity is strengthened by a metropolitan strategy where inclusion is sustained as a high priority. The urbanization of the New York and Houston metro areas presents an important basis for comparing land-use policies that yield the greatest benefit. One example built into the libertarian argument of Texas where the idea of historic preservation was attacked by a lawsuit suggesting it violated the city’s “no zoning” rules –turning that city into a sprawling megalopolis of virtually uncontrolled land uses (here).

The numeric change at the state measure is vast, while the metro comparisons are statistically similar. The opportunity to understand metropolitan development in the context of climate change and resilience, public cost, and private benefit will be found in these two dynamic housing environments.

State and Core Based Statistical Areas

New York State
Population Density (2020): 428.7 people per square mile
Total population (2020): 20,201,249
Total population (2010): 19,378,102
Numeric change (2010–2020): 823,147
Percent change (2010–2020): 4.2

New York-Newark-Jersey City, NY-NJ-PA Metro Area
Total population (2020): 20,140,470
Total population (2010): 18,897,109
Numeric change (2010–2020): 1,243,361
Percent change (2010–2020): 6.6

Population Density (2020): 111.6 people per square mile
Total population (2020): 29,145,505
Total population (2010): 25,145,561
Numeric change (2010–2020): 3,999,944
Percent change (2010–2020): 15.9

Houston-The Woodlands-Sugar Land, TX Metro Area
Total population (2020): 7,122,240
Total population (2010): 5,920,416
Numeric change (2010–2020): 1,201,824
Percent change (2010–2020): 20.3

Thanks! I ripped this one into text like a bandage, and fixed most of it, but thanks again.

Write a Comment


This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.