Nov 5th, 2009 at 8:31 am
NYC Population By Borough
I forget what I was trying to prove when I started working on this chart yesterday morning, but late yesterday afternoon I realized there was a 90 percent finished visual display of data on my computer so I figured I might as well finish it:
Brooklyn follows a pretty standard American city pattern here—growing until World War II then shrinking during the postwar suburbanization, then turning around more recently but remaining below peak. But Queens and the Bronx had only one down decade, the 1970s, and it came late. Nevertheless, the collapse in the Bronx was so dramatic that it’s still at below-peak levels. Queens and Staten Island are currently experiencing their peaks. Manhattan, meanwhile, reached its peak way back in 1910.
60 Responses to “NYC Population By Borough”
Register
RSSLogin
Advertisement
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Books By Matthew Yglesias
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Basketball
Ben Bernanke
Ben Nelson
Budget
China
climate
Congress
Crime
DC
Earl Blumenauer
Economics
Economy
Energy
Environment
Eric Cantor
Finance
Gender
Health Care
History
India
Intellectual Property
International Relations
iraq
Jeff Merkley
Joe Lieberman
Media
Medicaid
Medicare
Monetary Policy
National Security
NBA
Philosophy
planning
Political Reform
Public Health
Public Opinion
Race
Regulation
Religion
Sports
taxes
transportation
TV
Yemen
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Contact Matthew Yglesias
Use this form to contact blog author Matthew Yglesias.
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
November 5th, 2009 at 8:33 am
That is the worst subway map I’ve ever seen.
November 5th, 2009 at 8:46 am
Exactly, JG — how do I get from Jay Street-Borough Hall to the Upper East Side? MY, you can do better than this.
November 5th, 2009 at 8:55 am
To paraphrase Yogi Berra, “Manhattan is so crowded no one lives there anymore.”
November 5th, 2009 at 8:57 am
The statistics you should be paying attention to – what the income distribution in NYC looks like:
It seems that higher taxation does drive people to love to lower tax locales – something the left likes to pretend isn’t the case.
Add to that the entirely counter-productive income limits that the administration is imposing on some of the banks in NYC, and you get a city that won’t be able to bring in enough tax revenue to fund the services its gotten used to having.
Faux “fairness” trumps reality, I guess.
November 5th, 2009 at 8:57 am
Jeebus, Matthew labelled BOTH axes and you people are still complaining about his charts.
November 5th, 2009 at 9:00 am
What I don’t understand about Manhattan is – where did all those people live in 1910? It looks like there was about 50% more people living in Manhattan a century ago. Was there somehow more housing stock then? I find that difficult to believe. Was it just a much higher density of people per apartment?
November 5th, 2009 at 9:02 am
Tenements.
November 5th, 2009 at 9:02 am
I forget what I was trying to prove when I started working on this chart yesterday morning, but late yesterday afternoon I realized there was a 90 percent finished visual display of data on my computer so I figured
We have so much fun trying to figure out what your posts mean, that just this once you wanted to join in the game yourself?
November 5th, 2009 at 9:06 am
Manhattan hasn’t done too badly when compared with the City of London. With this level of depopulation, it always surprises me that real estate in the City of London is so expensive.
November 5th, 2009 at 9:06 am
The middle class has been priced out of Manhattan for years, hence the growth in Queens where “affordable” middle income housing still exists alongside reasonably safe neighborhoods with good schools.
November 5th, 2009 at 9:06 am
Wow, retirees who move away earned more than people who move to NY to take their first real job. Amazing discovery!
November 5th, 2009 at 9:06 am
Whatever the point of the chart, it is sure fun to look at- I think Bronx and Brooklyn do mirror each other and I think that’s what comes across. Do one for DC and burbs. Probably same result- inner city down- near inner city, higher growth- outer city, even higher growth.
November 5th, 2009 at 9:07 am
In MattY terms, this chart isn’t so bad, but it does not show as dramatic a collapse of the Bronx as MattY says, perhaps due to scaling.
The funny thing is, James, a middle aged conservative man I know was bitching about the exact same thing over the weekend. My initial guess ws that he was repeating something he read in the WSJ. Now I see it was the post. It is funny how you socially isolated conservatives bond and create the simulacrum of a social life and being “informed” by simply repeating the same things verbatim.
Whereas those of “poor people” as you call us are moving to NYC, making lots of money and then leaving for the suburbs when we have kids to be replaced by other enthusiastic young workers trying to make it in the world. It is the yuppie version of the circle of life. Being isolated in a dead-end job in Columbia, I cann see how you wouldn’t know anything about that. In any case, NYC has never had a shortage of rich people.
November 5th, 2009 at 9:07 am
Al,
No Matthew did not label both axes. Labeling both axes would be putting something like Year on the x-axis and Population on the y-axis.
People get laughed out of graduate school for posting plots like this.
November 5th, 2009 at 9:09 am
A marked improvement in chart quality, Matt. We’re so very proud of you. Next time, please use comma separators, scientific notation, or SI abbreviations (k, M) to replace the stings of zeros on the vertical scale.
November 5th, 2009 at 9:14 am
I moved to Manhattan in 1981. Thus the turn in the borough’s fortunes.
November 5th, 2009 at 9:20 am
Tyro – right, that explains the amazing job growth in NYC, too. Now that the Feds are punishing the bankers, where do you suppose they’ll go? The thing you have to realize is that NYC is not the only cosmopolitan urban area on the planet – there are plenty of others where tax rates are lower and the local governments would really, really like to attract high income earners.
It’s not so much about people fleeing to the suburbs, even if that’s most of it. It’s about worldwide competition for talent. The US has benefited tremendously by being the place that talent wanted to come over the last few decades – we throw that away at our peril.
November 5th, 2009 at 9:23 am
We are all from the Bronx now.
November 5th, 2009 at 9:25 am
Me too. I had always thought that Manhatten’s population took off with the introduction of common electric elevators, but it looks like it was jam-packed while they were still rare.
November 5th, 2009 at 9:27 am
I think its incredible the number of people who live on staten island, by Yglesias’ chart it seems at least half a million. I’ve lived here for half my life and nobody seems to know anyone who lives out there.
November 5th, 2009 at 9:32 am
The average Manhattan taxpayer who left the state earned $93,264 a year. The average newcomer to Manhattan earned only $72,726.
Wouldn’t that be because young people move to Manhattan after college, work their way up and then move to the suburbs when they have children?
November 5th, 2009 at 9:33 am
People get laughed out of graduate school for posting plots like this.
And here I am not in grad school. People get laughed out of professional blogging for taking months to finish a piece of writing.
November 5th, 2009 at 9:34 am
It could be that the real estate is becoming too valuable to live in. The value of commercial real estate depends more on people being able to get there than being able to live there. The City of London has the commercial advantage of being surrounded by the city of London. If you look at Wall Street, I think you’ll see more significant population than the rest of Manhatten.
November 5th, 2009 at 9:34 am
Re Terry@20, I agree…I would have guessed “250k like it’s always been.”
November 5th, 2009 at 9:38 am
Part of the reason the Bronx saw population drop in the 1970s had to do with the construction the Cross-Bronx Expressway, which destroyed a bunch of the existing neighborhoods. There was also a huge arson problem in 1970s Bronx. Everyone with money fled the neighborhood, and unlike the other boroughs, the Bronx never completely recovered (in terms of population). It did lead to the birth of hip-hop, though, so it wasn’t all bad.
November 5th, 2009 at 9:47 am
I agree with Raoul: this chart needs no further context.
November 5th, 2009 at 9:48 am
No Matthew did not label both axes. Labeling both axes would be putting something like Year on the x-axis and Population on the y-axis.
Why would he need to label the axes? Everyone knows quite well in this case what the data represents. In this instance labeling the axes would force him to make a smaller chart for no reason but to satisfy an imaginary school assignment.
November 5th, 2009 at 9:53 am
My experience underscores what jmo said. Young and single, I lived in Manhattan. After getting married, I moved to Queens to save for an apartment purchase, which I did several years ago – in Queens.
November 5th, 2009 at 9:55 am
No Matthew did not label both axes. Labeling both axes would be putting something like Year on the x-axis and Population on the y-axis.
I meant that he included the numbers on both axes, and what those numbers represent is clear from the title of the chart. Agree with the above comments that this chart is pretty good as is.
November 5th, 2009 at 9:58 am
Wouldn’t that be because young people move to Manhattan after college, work their way up and then move to the suburbs when they have children?
I resemble that remark.
I guess the question is whether there is any problem for the city in having young people (making less money) move into the city and older people (making more money) move out. My first thought is that this might indeed be a problem, as it would lead to decreases in the standard of living. But on second thought, that’s probably wrong.
November 5th, 2009 at 9:58 am
Brooklyn and Queens are starving for better services.
November 5th, 2009 at 10:04 am
And here I am not in grad school.
Places like CAP should really require their “fellows” and anyone else they want to pubicly be giving policy insights to have a graduate degree and actually produce some real quantitative analysis that is held up to professional scrutiny before being let loose on the public.
At least, that is what the rest of us have to do if we want a job that pays us for our insights an analysis when it really matters.
November 5th, 2009 at 10:06 am
Me too. I had always thought that Manhatten’s population took off with the introduction of common electric elevators, but it looks like it was jam-packed while they were still rare.
Exactly. My impression is that Manhattan of 1910 was mostly 5 or 6 story walk-ups. (Sure, there were some taller residential buildings, but they were fewer in number.) Those apartments must have been packed to the gills with people.
November 5th, 2009 at 10:12 am
Places like CAP should really require their “fellows” and anyone else they want to pubicly be giving policy insights to have a graduate degree and actually produce some real quantitative analysis that is held up to professional scrutiny before being let loose on the public.
Leading to boring blogers, with no readers, who post bi-weekly.
November 5th, 2009 at 10:19 am
The average Manhattan taxpayer who left the state earned $93,264 a year. The average newcomer to Manhattan earned only $72,726.
Wouldn’t that be because young people move to Manhattan after college, work their way up and then move to the suburbs when they have children?
As is illustrated by the Vanishing White Children of Manhattan phenomenon. Walking around Manhattan you will see white infants and toddlers, but relatively few white school-aged children.
November 5th, 2009 at 10:21 am
Tyro wrote:
that is what the rest of us have to do if we want a job that pays us for our insights an analysis when it really matters.
That’s becasue the rest of us have mediocre minds. Geniuses don’t need degrees to make money doing waht they love. See Rafael Yglesias.
November 5th, 2009 at 10:24 am
“I think its incredible the number of people who live on staten island, by Yglesias’ chart it seems at least half a million. I’ve lived here for half my life and nobody seems to know anyone who lives out there.”
I had the misfortune to grow up in that hellhole, and everyone I know who got an education got out. I have no idea why people keep moving there. It combines the disadvantages of a city (fairly high crime, crappy schools, high taxes, expensive small houses) with the disadvantages of a suburb (nothing to do, long commutes, few local jobs, lousy public transit).
November 5th, 2009 at 10:28 am
That’s becasue the rest of us have mediocre minds. Geniuses don’t need degrees to make money doing waht they love. See Rafael Yglesias.
well, I suppose it helps to look at MattY’s posts as entertaining fiction, but I an not really sure that this is CAP’s mission.
I missed the boat on the “cranky old man complaining about bloggers,” but I am beginning to see their point– blogging selects for the prolific rather than the insightful or intelligent.
November 5th, 2009 at 10:30 am
blogging selects for the prolific rather than the insightful or intelligent.
If you don’t like it, go find some boring pendant who posts every few days – there are tons of blogs like that. No one reads them of course, but you’re welcome to start.
November 5th, 2009 at 10:31 am
It seems that higher taxation does drive people to love to lower tax locales
What, like New Jersey?
November 5th, 2009 at 10:55 am
Jim Roberston’s post are the urban analog of the Imminent Death of the Net Predicted” posts on USENET back in the early 90s.
Is NYC less friendly to rich people now than in the 90s? or the 80s? or the 70s? Or was the NY Post facing a slow news day and needed to cone up with something to get the angry old men riled up about and to make them feel self-righteous about their lives in Nassau County?
November 5th, 2009 at 11:06 am
If you don’t like it, go find some boring pendant who posts every few days
When it comes to intelligence vs output, I am more about both/and rather than either/or. CAP is a think tank, after all, isn’t it?
November 5th, 2009 at 11:16 am
To anyone confused about the peak in Manhattan population density prior to the advent of skyscrapers and elevators, I recommend visiting the Tenement Museum on the Lower East Side. The living conditions faced by turn-of-the-century immigrants are difficult to even comprehend.
I’d guess that the relative population trends in Early 20th Century Manhattan and Brooklyn are largely explained by the 1901 Tenement House Act.
November 5th, 2009 at 11:18 am
Yeah, I personally was pretty baffled by those mysterious numbers from “1900″ to “2008″ in a chart illustrating a post about population growth of New York boroughs over time. What could they mean?
November 5th, 2009 at 11:22 am
Here are some clues how they fit all those people into Manhattan back in the teens:
http://www.laguardiawagnerarchive.lagcc.cuny.edu/PhotosVirtualExhibit/PhotoEhibit.asp
November 5th, 2009 at 11:24 am
Those apartments must have been packed to the gills with people.
They really were. The Tenement Museum on the Lower East Side communicates this extremely effectively. Families with two parents and a few children routinely lived in one or two rooms, so one walk-up could have two or three dozen inhabitants. A Tenement Commission report of 1901 says:
November 5th, 2009 at 11:26 am
Sorry, someone beat me to the plug for the Tenement Museum! Must stop trying to fully research my blog comments.
November 5th, 2009 at 11:26 am
I think Tyro should change his name to Jealous Pédant – it would be far more fitting.
November 5th, 2009 at 11:43 am
And one should keep in mind that all of the third world mega-cities (and even the smaller ones) have a significant chunk of the population that still lives like what one would see in that museum.
November 5th, 2009 at 12:01 pm
Of the 3,437,202 inhabitants of New York City, 2,372,079, or more than two-thirds, live in tenement houses
I knew that tenements existed. What I underestimated is just how pervasive they were and how truly packed with people they were. That’s difficult to comprehend given today’s living conditions in Manhattan.
November 5th, 2009 at 12:02 pm
Matt equates verticality with population density. It’s a factor, but household size and income are probably of greater import.
That historic Manhattan population was provided by waves of migrants who were dirt poor, had large numbers of kids and lived with extended family. They were (ware)housed in two or three room tenement apartments.
Replace those families with one or two person occupancy and it’s a very different population dynamic.
November 5th, 2009 at 12:16 pm
Places like CAP should really require their “fellows” and anyone else they want to pubicly be giving policy insights to have a graduate degree and actually produce some real quantitative analysis that is held up to professional scrutiny before being let loose on the public.
I take your point, but I somewhat disagree. First, Matt is not one of their researchers producing reports. He is there to put out interesting progressive material on a daily basis, which he does very well. Matt has mad blogger skills and lots of good insights into the political process as well as an ability to stand back from a policy debate and ask interesting questions. What I personally think Matt should do though, if he is going to continue to aspire to being a mini-Tyler Cowen, is actually take a mid-level micro and macro economics class (and a monetary policy course as well) along with a readings in Political Economy class and/or and Economic History survey course to give him a better perspective on the econ stuff he posts. He has some good philosophically grounded critiques of economics and has read a book here and there, but I think his economics posting would really benefit from a more solid footing. And, as others have often noted, a stats course wouldn’t hurt anything.
November 5th, 2009 at 12:28 pm
BTW: I also agree that the chart is good enough and a definite improvement over some past ones.
November 5th, 2009 at 12:40 pm
MY makes his charts in what software? I’m assuming bloggers who make a lot of charts leave crappy excel aside in favor of something with more functionality and prettier graphics.
November 5th, 2009 at 3:17 pm
I’ve lived here for half my life and nobody seems to know anyone who lives out there.
Like bizarre fetishes, admitting you live in Staten Island is something that’s only done in safe, supportive company.
November 5th, 2009 at 3:33 pm
Will someone please take a look at when the bridges were built? People left Manhattan when it became easier to commute. Urban sprawl, I think you guys call it.
November 5th, 2009 at 4:09 pm
I guess the question is whether there is any problem for the city in having young people (making less money) move into the city and older people (making more money) move out.
You probably have to look beyond the baseline income numbers — how much of those young people’s paychecks are being spent in and around the city, as opposed to being squirreled away for retirement or investment or college funds or whatnot? So I’d be curious to know the role that kind of spending plays, and if income tax is offset to some degree by sales tax.
November 5th, 2009 at 4:35 pm
But most growth is beyond the five boroughs.
http://www.demographia.com/db-nyca20002004.htm
November 5th, 2009 at 7:50 pm
Bridges helped populate Brooklyn. The subways really did the job in getting folks out of Manhattan. Herbert Croly called it in 1904.
November 6th, 2009 at 9:46 am
[...] 6, 2009 · Leave a Comment Manhattan’s population peaked in 1910 (Brooklyn’s is the same as it was in 1930). Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)Brooklyn vs Manhattanday 3. non il papaLove Letter [...]