Stability & Change in NYC Neighborhoods, 2010 to 2020
How Patterns of Migration, Births, and Deaths Shape Racial/Hispanic Composition
Key Takeaways and Definitions
Key Takeaways
- New York City has a long-standing pattern of migration losses – more people move out of the city than move in. The net outflow from the city totaled just 51,000 in the 2010s, but it was a result of a remarkable population churn, with 2.57 million people moving to New York City and 2.62 million people leaving.
- The net outflow of 51,000 was more than offset by natural increase of 613,000 (the excess of births over deaths), resulting in a population gain of 562,000 ( see note on 2010 Census population adjustment ). This population dynamic – migration losses offset by natural increase – has defined New York City for nearly every decade since the 1940s.
- Outflows act as a brake on population growth. If no New Yorker moved out of the city over the 2010s, inflows combined with natural increase would have resulted in a population surge of nearly 3.2 million, placing strains on the city’s infrastructure and resources.
- Roughly half of neighborhoods experienced net outflows. The vast majority of these still experienced population growth through natural increase, reflecting the citywide pattern of population growth despite net migration losses.
- Hispanic population growth also reflected the citywide pattern, with natural increase outstripping net outflows. Asian population growth bucked the trend, with both natural increase and net inflows, resulting in dramatic increases across the boroughs. There were population declines among the White and Black populations as natural increase only partially offset net outflows.
- Racial/Hispanic differentials in natural change and net migration shape changes, or stability, in the race/Hispanic composition of neighborhoods . These population dynamics roughly pattern into four neighborhood typologies:
- change driven by net outflows of one group and net inflows of another, such as in parts of central and northern Brooklyn where net outflows of Black and Hispanic populations occurred alongside net inflows of the White population
- change driven primarily by natural decrease (an excess of deaths over births) of one group and net inflows of others, such as in many neighborhoods in the eastern Bronx and northeast Queens with natural decreases in the White population and net inflows of Asian and Hispanic populations
- stability over the decade (i.e., minimal change in race/Hispanic composition), resulting from substantial natural increase and net outflows of the majority population, reflecting the broader population patterns of the city, as was the case with the Hispanic population in the western Bronx
- population growth as a result of new construction, which increased the housing stock and prompted net inflows of multiple groups, such as along the East River waterfront in Queens and Brooklyn with large White and Asian net inflows.
Total Population Change
Chapter Table of Contents
Historical Context for Components of Change
While New York City’s long-term population trajectory has been one of population increase, growth has not been monotonic, and the components comprising that growth have changed over the decades. New York City’s population burgeoned in the first half of the 20th century, more than doubling from 3.4 million in 1900 to 6.9 million in 1930, then reaching 7.9 million in 1950. The population declined slightly in the next decade, crossed 8 million in 1970, but then declined precipitously, to 7.2 million in 1980. Over the subsequent four decades, the population has grown, recovering to its historical population peak of 8 million in 2000, and reaching new population peaks of 8.2 million in 2010 and 8.8 million in 2020.
Population growth in the city between 2010 and 2020 stood at 562,000 residents. Population change can be broken down into two components – natural change, or the balance of births and deaths, and net migration, or the balance of those moving in and those moving out. Between 2010 and 2020, the city experienced a net migration loss of 51,000, but this masked the remarkable volume of movement into and out of the city. Over the course of the decade, approximately 2,570,000 people moved to New York City – roughly 1,642,000 from within the U.S. and 928,000 from other countries. At the same time, approximately 2,621,000 people left New York City – roughly 2,206,000 to elsewhere in the U.S. and 415,000 to other countries (see note on estimation of in- and outflows ). This continuous flow of people plays a key role in shaping the city’s population, with movement into and out of New York creating a population churn, reinvigorating the city with new New Yorkers who contribute to its vibrant economic, social, and cultural fabric.
Despite net migration losses, the city grew by 562,000 ( see note on 2010 Census population adjustment ), or 6.8 percent, the result of natural change, which totaled 613,000. Population growth through natural increase despite net outflows continues a long-standing pattern for New York City.
Outflows have served as a manner of “release valve,” moderating the city’s population growth. Without outflows, New York City’s population would grow at unsustainable rates. If no New Yorker moved out of the city between 2010 and 2020, inflows combined with natural increase would have led to population growth of nearly 3.2 million, or 39 percent. Such a rapid increase in population would have placed severe strains on the city’s infrastructure and resources.
Current migration patterns stand in sharp contrast to those at the turn of the last century. In the first four decades of the 1900s, New York City experienced net inflows, which, alongside natural increase, contributed to the remarkably rapid population growth of the era. Since the 1940s, however, more people have moved out of New York City each decade than moved in, resulting in net outflows from the city. Net outflows have offset natural increase, which has moderated the pace of growth in most decades or, in the 1950s and 1970s, resulted in population declines. In the 2010s, net outflows were the smallest they have been since the 1940s, and the overall population growth of 6.8 percent was the fastest since the 1930s.
While net migration figures have changed substantially over the past century, natural change has consistently been positive in New York City, the result of more births than deaths each decade. Natural increase of 613,000 in the 2010s was roughly on par with recent decades: 646,000 in the 2000s and 585,000 in the 1990s. Historically, natural increase peaked at 747,000 in the 1950s during the height of the baby boom, before declining by nearly one-half, to 339,000, during the baby bust era of the 1970s, and then rising again in subsequent decades.
Over the past four decades, the city as a whole has followed a regular pattern of population growth through natural increase despite net outflows, but there are substantial differences by borough and neighborhood , which are explored in the following sections.
Net Migration
The city’s overall net migration loss of 51,100 was the balance of net migration gains in Manhattan, Queens, and Staten Island, which partially offset net migration losses in the Bronx and Brooklyn. Net inflows in Manhattan and Queens from 2010 to 2020 represent a departure from 2000 to 2010, when both boroughs had substantial net outflows. (Note that borough-level net migration does not sum to city-level net migration due to a population adjustment applied at the city-level for 2010 .)
Recent net migration losses at the neighborhood level were concentrated in Brooklyn. Four of the five neighborhoods with the highest net migration losses were in Brooklyn, including Borough Park (-16,300) and South Williamsburg (-11,300). There were also large net outflows for Sunset Park and for a cluster of neighborhoods from Kensington south to Gravesend E.-Homecrest and from Flatbush east to Flatlands.
Washington Heights N. and S. (-6,900 and -9,900) in Manhattan also had among the highest net outflows, part of a stretch of neighborhoods with net outflows from the Upper West Side to Inwood, as well as a cluster of neighborhoods across the Harlem River in the western and southern Bronx.
Portions of northwest Queens also experienced net outflows, with the largest concentrated in Jackson Heights (-7,000), Ridgewood (-6,500) and Elmhurst (-6,100).
Large gains through net migration occurred in areas with substantial amounts of new construction, including Long Island City-Hunters Point (17,500), Downtown Brooklyn-DUMBO-Boerum Hill (12,200), Chelsea-Hudson Yards (12,100), Hell’s Kitchen (11,900) and Williamsburg (11,200).
There were net inflows to many neighborhoods in the eastern Bronx, northeast and southeast Queens, eastern Brooklyn, and Staten Island.
Relative to the size of their populations, a handful of neighborhoods had exceptional net migration flows. Long Island City-Hunters Point’s net migration was equivalent to 162 percent of its 2010 population, a product of the large-scale housing developments constructed over the decade. In contrast, net outflows from South Williamsburg and Borough Park were equivalent to 27 and 19 percent of their 2010 populations, respectively.
Natural Change
All five boroughs grew through natural increase, with Brooklyn’s natural increase of 246,500 comprising over 40 percent of the city’s total 612,600. Natural increase stood at 153,000 in Queens (about a quarter of the city total), 114,400 in the Bronx, 81,900 in Manhattan, and 17,800 in Staten Island.
The vast majority of neighborhoods throughout the five boroughs experienced natural increase. Borough Park (26,000) and South Williamsburg (16,800) had the largest natural increases. Many neighborhoods with sizable young, immigrant populations also experienced large natural increase, such as Sunset Park Ctr. (13,300) in Brooklyn, and a quadrant of neighborhoods in northwest Queens comprising Elmhurst (10,500), Corona (8,600), Jackson Heights (8,000), and North Corona (7,200).
Only a handful of neighborhoods experienced natural decrease, with more deaths than births, generally those with aging populations. Riverdale-Spuyten Duyvil (-2,000) and Co-op City (-1,200) in the Bronx had the largest natural decreases, followed by Coney Island-Sea Gate (-1,100) in Brooklyn and Breezy Point-Belle Harbor-Rockaway Park-Broad Channel (-900) in Queens.
Population Change
New York City’s population grew by 561,600 over the decade, the result of natural increase and net outflows. Substantial population growth occurred in all five boroughs, through both natural increase and net migration in Manhattan, Queens, and Staten Island, and through natural increase despite net outflows from the Bronx and Brooklyn. (Note that borough-level population change does not sum to city-level change due to a population adjustment applied at the city-level for 2010 .)
Populations increased in all but a handful of neighborhoods. Growth for roughly four out of every 10 neighborhoods was a result of natural increase offsetting losses through net migration. Net migration losses at the neighborhood level have been a constant since the middle of the last century, and growth has occurred due to natural increase. Most neighborhoods that experienced the largest population increases grew through both natural increase and net inflows. Many of these neighborhoods had a substantial amount of newly constructed housing units, including Long Island City-Hunters Point (21,400), Williamsburg (18,700), and Downtown Brooklyn-DUMBO-Boerum Hill (16,400), where net migration accounted for most of the population growth.
Most neighborhoods with natural decrease experienced more than sufficient net inflows for population growth, including Riverdale-Spuyten Duyvil and Spring Creek-Starrett City. Less than a tenth of neighborhoods declined in population over the decade. For such neighborhoods, including the corridor from Inwood to Washington Heights S., population loss was the result of natural increase only partially offsetting net migration losses, except for Breezy Point-Belle Harbor-Rockaway Park-Broad Channel and Coney Island-Sea Gate, where small net inflows fell short of offsetting natural decrease.
Components of Change in Recent Decades
All five boroughs have consistently experienced growth over the past four decades, though the volume of growth has fluctuated. Natural increase and net migration in the Bronx in the 2010s closely resemble figures for the 1980s and 1990s, with substantial natural increase pared by net outflows; this compared to smaller growth due to larger net outflows in the 2000s. Brooklyn experienced large population growth in the 2010s, with net outflows much smaller compared to previous decades, and with natural increase continuing to grow. Manhattan experienced net inflows in the 2010s, which had not occurred since the 1980s, contributing to substantial population growth in combination with natural increase. In Queens, natural increase remained on par with natural increase in the 1990s and 2000s, and net migration contributed relatively little to population growth, after substantial fluctuations in net migration over the past few decades. Staten Island has grown consistently through both net migration and natural increase since the 1980s.
Population Change by Race/Hispanic Origin
Chapter Table of Contents
Historical Context for Components of Population Change by Race/Hispanic Origin
A series of “demographic moments” for each race/Hispanic group have contributed to New York City’s population growth. Each group experienced a rapid increase in population for some part of the 20 th century, a string of demographic moments that have ultimately defined the remarkable racial/Hispanic diversity of the city today. In the early decades of the 1900s, the White non-Hispanic population was increasing rapidly. In the 1920s, as growth of the White non-Hispanic population slowed, the Black non-Hispanic population more than doubled. In the 1950s and 1960s, as the White non-Hispanic population began to decrease and Black non-Hispanic population growth moderated, the Hispanic population more than doubled. The Asian non-Hispanic population has been experiencing a demographic moment since the 1970s, while the Black non-Hispanic and Hispanic populations grew more slowly and the White non-Hispanic population continued to decrease. (Hereafter White non-Hispanic, Black non-Hispanic, and Asian non-Hispanic will be referred to as “White,” “Black,” and “Asian” for conciseness. Hispanic of any race will be referred to as “Hispanic.” See note on race/Hispanic origin for more detail. Also note that Pacific Islanders are included with the Asian population for the 1980 and 1990 Censuses, as well as 1980 to 1990 and 1990 to 2000 time periods due to data limitations. In figure 10, percent change is calculated for decades in which the population is at least 100,000 in the starting year.)
The rapid growth indicative of a demographic moment is comprised of both net inflows and natural increase. Over the past four decades, the Asian population has experienced such growth. Indeed, Asian population growth constituted more than half of the city’s overall population growth in the 2010s. The White population, in contrast, has decreased in each of the past four decades, but has experienced slowing population decrease as natural increase transitioned from negative to positive, and net outflows have moderated. The Black population, which grew in the 1980s and 1990s through natural increase despite net outflows, transitioned to population decreases in the 2000s and 2010s with net outflows outpacing natural increase. Over the same four-decade period, the Hispanic population transitioned from the end of a demographic moment with population growth through both net migration and natural increase in the 1980s and 1990s to population growth through natural increase moderated by net outflows in the 2000s and 2010s.
As a group experienced its demographic moment, its share of the population increased, contributing to the hallmark diversity of New York City’s population today. One measure of diversity, the Diversity Index, measures the likelihood that two people, chosen at random would be from different groups. (With five groups – White, Black, Asian, Hispanic, and all other groups – the greatest possible likelihood is an 80 percent chance. See note on the Diversity Index for more detail .) In the 1950s, when the White population accounted for more than 87 percent of New York City’s population, there was only a 23 percent chance that two people, chosen at random, would be from different groups. The Diversity Index increased rapidly over the second half of the 20 th century, reaching 69 percent in 1990, when the White population comprised under half of New York City’s populations for the first time, and the Black and Hispanic populations each formed approximately a quarter of the population. The Diversity Index has continued to increase, though more slowly, as the share of the population identifying as Asian has increased through the first decades of the 21 st century. By 2020, no single group constituted more than a third of the population, and the Diversity Index stood at 76 percent, near the maximum for five groups.
Focusing on just the past decade, patterns of net migration for most groups mirrored the broader dynamic of the city’s overall population – the White, Black, and Hispanic populations all had net outflows in the 2010s. Natural increase of the White population nearly offset net outflows, resulting in a small population decrease. For the Black population, natural increase offset approximately half of net outflows, resulting in a substantial population decrease. In contrast, natural increase more than offset net outflows of the Hispanic population, resulting in substantial population growth. As mentioned above, the Asian population, experienced both net inflows and natural increase, resulting in rapid population growth.
Differences in natural change can be attributed to differences in birth rates, death rates, and the size of a given population. The annualized crude birth rate for the city from 2010 to 2020 was 14.1 per 1,000 residents, while the crude death rate was 6.3 per 1,000. Black natural increase, the smallest of the four major groups, was the result of a relatively low birth rate (12.9), and a relatively high death rate (7.8). Hispanic natural increase was the largest because of a relatively high crude birth rate (14.5), a low crude death rate (4.2). The White death rate was 9.0, the highest of the four major groups, resulting in relatively small natural increase, despite a birth rate of 14.6, higher than the Black birth rate and on par with the Hispanic birth rate. Asian natural increase was large relative to the size of the population because the Asian crude birth rate was the highest of the four major groups at 16.5, and the crude death rate the lowest at 3.3. (See note on birth and death rates .)
Patterns of population change by race/Hispanic origin, and concomitant changes in neighborhood composition, vary at the neighborhood level. The following section, Population Change by Race/Hispanic Origin, explores the components of change for each race/Hispanic origin group at the borough- and neighborhood levels. The final section of the report, Neighborhood Dynamics, explores patterns of change across groups and their relationship to changes in neighborhood race/Hispanic origin composition.
White Components of Change
White Net Migration
White net outflows totaled 129,800 over the decade. Queens (-61,400) contributed the most to the decrease, but Brooklyn (-28,400), Staten Island (-22,100), the Bronx (-12,100), and Manhattan (-6,300) had net outflows as well.
The largest net outflows were from Borough Park (-22,000) and South Williamsburg (-13,400), which together accounted for more than a quarter of the city’s overall White net outflow. Alongside Borough Park, southern Brooklyn had the largest concentration of neighborhoods with sizable White net outflows, including Bensonhurst (-10,800), Gravesend E.-Homecrest (-7,400), and Mapleton-Midwood W. (-7,100). Net outflows also occurred on the Upper East and Upper West Sides of Manhattan, as well as across the northern and eastern Bronx, most of Queens, and Staten Island.
Net outflows amounted to about a third of the 2010 White population in South Williamsburg and Borough Park, as well as a quarter or more in the northeast Queens neighborhoods of Kew Gardens Hills, Queensboro Hill, and East Flushing, as well as in nearby North Corona and in Sunset Park E.-Borough Park W. in southern Brooklyn.
Bedford-Stuyvesant (E. and W.) had the largest White net inflows (11,100 and 11,600, respectively), with large inflows in adjacent Crown Heights N. (9,900) and Bushwick W. (9,200), as well as other nearby neighborhoods. There were also substantial net inflows into many Upper Manhattan neighborhoods including Harlem N. and S. (3,800 and 2,700, respectively) and Hamilton Heights-Sugar Hill (3,600). White net inflows also occurred in areas with substantial growth of the housing stock, including Williamsburg (7,100) and Long Island City-Hunters Point (6,200).
The White net migration rate to Bedford-Stuyvesant E. was extraordinarily high, where net inflows were equivalent to 416 percent of the White population in 2010. There were also notable net inflows to nearby northern and central Brooklyn neighborhoods Bushwick E. (339 percent), Crown Heights N. (140 percent), and Bushwick W. (130 percent).
White Natural Change
The White population experienced natural increase of 126,700 citywide, with the majority in Brooklyn (103,500). Manhattan had natural increase (38,100), but the Bronx (-8,300), Queens (-5,900), and Staten Island (-100) each had White natural decrease.
The largest natural increases, by far, were in Borough Park (23,300) and South Williamsburg (16,500), which together accounted for 31 percent of the city’s overall White natural increase. Bedford-Stuyvesant W. (6,600) and Williamsburg (5,600) had the next largest natural increases. All four neighborhoods had disproportionately young populations. There was White natural increase across Manhattan, much of northwest Queens, and throughout much of Brooklyn, save for sections of eastern Brooklyn and parts of southern Brooklyn.
Many neighborhoods with aging White populations experienced natural decrease, including Coney Island-Sea Gate (-2,700), Riverdale-Spuyten Duyvil (-2,400), and Glen Oaks-Floral Park-New Hyde Park (-1,800). Natural decrease was spread throughout much of the north Bronx, northern section of Queens, and parts of Staten Island.
White Population Change
The White population in New York City decreased by about 3,000 between 2010 and 2020 – natural increase offset much of the large net outflow. At the borough level, however, the White population increased in Brooklyn (75,100) and Manhattan (31,800), where natural increase was more than sufficient to offset net outflows. In the Bronx (-20,400), Queens (-67,400), and Staten Island (-22,200), natural decrease compounded population decreases from net outflows.
The largest growth took place in central and northern Brooklyn neighborhoods, driven largely by net migration in Bedford-Stuyvesant E., Crown Heights N., and Bushwick, but also by substantial natural increase in Bedford Stuyvesant W. and Williamsburg. Increases also occurred in western Brooklyn neighborhoods, Upper Manhattan, and along the East River waterfront in Queens.
Rates of increase were particularly high in Bedford-Stuyvesant E. (445 percent) and Bushwick E. (351 percent). The White population more than doubled in several neighborhoods, mostly in central and northern Brooklyn, but also in Long Island City-Hunters Point (138 percent) and Harlem N. (113 percent).
Three neighborhoods had decreases in the White population in excess of one-third – Co-op City (-43 percent), Queensboro Hill (-39 percent), and East Flushing (-38 percent), the product of natural decrease from aging White populations alongside White net outflows.
White Components of Change in Recent Decades
While the Bronx and Queens have long experienced net outflows and natural decrease, both have slowed over the past four decades. As a result, the White population continues to decrease in both boroughs, but with smaller decreases each decade. In Brooklyn and Manhattan, natural decrease in past decades has changed to natural increase, with a substantial uptick in natural increase in Brooklyn in the 2000s and 2010s. Brooklyn has experienced net outflows consistently, though outflows in the 2000s and 2010s were smaller than in earlier decades. In Manhattan, net migration has vacillated between positive and negative, with small net outflows in the 2010s. Natural change in Staten Island declined over the past four decades, becoming negative in the 2010s. But for the 1990s when net migration was positive, Staten Island has experienced net outflows of the White population in the past four decades.
Black Components of Change
Black Net Migration
Net outflows of the Black population from the city totaled 171,700, with net outflows from Brooklyn (-109,200) totaling more than the other four boroughs combined – Queens (-30,100), the Bronx (-26,700), Manhattan (-4,600), and Staten Island (-1,300).
Net outflows were concentrated in areas with higher proportions of Black residents, particularly central Brooklyn. Crown Heights N. (-13,700), Bedford-Stuyvesant E. and W. (-13,000 and -11,100, respectively), and Flatbush (-11,900) had the largest Black net outflows, followed by Crown Heights S. (-7,900), East Flatbush-Erasmus (-7,600), Prospect Lefferts Gardens-Wingate (-7,300), and Bushwick E. (5,500). These eight neighborhoods with the largest Black net outflows, forming a contiguous cluster in central and northern Brooklyn, together accounted for 45 percent of the city’s overall Black net outflow. Many neighborhoods in the Bronx also experienced net outflows, including the corridor from Concourse-Concourse Village north to Kingsbridge and Norwood, the northern Bronx neighborhoods of Williamsbridge-Olinville, Wakefield-Woodlawn, Eastchester-Edenwald-Baychester, and the eastern Bronx neighborhoods of Soundview-Bruckner-Bronx River and Parkchester. Other clusters of net outflows were in Upper Manhattan, particularly Harlem N. and S. and Hamilton Heights-Sugar Hill, as well as in southwestern and southeastern Queens from South Ozone Park to Queens Village.
When considering net migration rates, additional neighborhoods with net outflows stand out. Net outflows were equivalent to about one third of the 2010 Black population in South Richmond Hill and Ozone Park N. in Queens, and about a quarter in the central and northern Brooklyn neighborhoods of Bushwick E., Bedford-Stuyvesant W., Flatbush, and Crown Heights S.
In contrast, a handful of neighborhoods scattered across the city had notable net inflows, including Co-op City (2,800) and some neighborhoods with many newly constructed units over the decade, including Spring Creek-Starrett City (2,600), Midtown-Times Square (1,500), and Chelsea-Hudson Yards (1,400).
Many neighborhoods with large amounts of new construction over the decade also had high net migration rates for the Black population, including Midtown South-Flatiron-Union Square, with net inflows equal to 90 percent of the Black population in 2010, as well as Williamsburg (61 percent). Although not a neighborhood with a large amount of new construction, Sunnyside experienced large relative net inflows as well (53 percent).
Black Natural Change
The Black population experienced natural increase of 87,300. Brooklyn (39,800) had the largest natural increase, followed by the Bronx (29,400), Queens (15,600), and Staten Island (3,800). There was a small natural decrease in Manhattan (-1,200).
Canarsie had the largest natural increase (5,200), part of a cluster of neighborhoods in eastern and central Brooklyn that had substantially more births than deaths. Williamsbridge-Olinville (2,900), Eastchester-Edenwald-Baychester (1,800), and Wakefield-Woodlawn (1,800) also experienced sizable natural increase, alongside most neighborhoods in the Bronx. There was notable natural increase in Rosedale (1,600), with more moderate natural increases in neighborhoods across much of southeast and southwest Queens.
Natural decrease occurred in the corridor from Washington Heights to the Upper West Side, as well as in a handful of neighborhoods scattered across the city: Co-op City (-500) and Riverdale-Spuyten Duyvil (-400) in the Bronx, Clinton Hill (-500) in Brooklyn, East Elmhurst (-300) in Queens, and on the Upper East Side-Lenox Hill-Roosevelt Island (-200) in Manhattan.
Black Population Change
The Black population decreased by 84,400 in New York City, the result of natural increase offsetting approximately half of the net outflows. The largest population decrease was in Brooklyn (-69,400), with natural increase mitigating a portion of the net outflows. Similarly in Queens, a population decrease of 14,500 was the result of natural increase moderating net outflows. The Bronx (2,700) and Staten Island (2,500) had small population growth, with natural increase slightly larger than net outflows. In Manhattan, small natural decrease and small net outflows resulted in a population decrease of 5,700.
Population decreases were largest in central Brooklyn, driven by large net outflows, which could not be offset by the small natural increases. Similarly in Queens, from South Ozone Park to Queens Village, large net outflows outweighed small natural increases. The population decreases in Upper Manhattan and the western Bronx were also driven by net outflows, pared by small natural increases in Harlem and the western Bronx, and compounded by natural decrease in the corridor from Washington Heights to the Upper West Side.
The Black population decreased by one quarter or more, primarily through net outflows, in four neighborhoods: South Richmond Hill (-32 percent) in Queens as well as Brooklyn Heights (-30 percent), Bushwick E. (-26 percent) and Bedford-Stuyvesant W. (-25 percent).
The largest growth in the Black population occurred in eastern Brooklyn, portions of the Bronx, and neighborhoods with large amounts of new construction. In Canarsie, population growth occurred through natural increase, despite net outflows. Growth occurred through both natural increase and net migration in Morrisania, Mott Haven-Port Morris, and Crotona Park E. in the Bronx. In Spring Creek-Starrett City, Midtown-Times Square, and Chelsea-Hudson Yards, all neighborhoods with substantial housing construction over the decade, growth occurred as a result of net migration.
Black Components of Change in Recent Decades
Black population increases in Brooklyn and Queens in the 1980s and 1990s changed to population decreases in the 2000s and 2010s; this change has been driven in part by net migration switching from net positive or near zero in the 1980s to net negative thereafter, as well as by a trend of attenuating natural increase over the decades. In the Bronx, a period of Black population growth in the 1980s and 1990s turned to minimal population changes in subsequent decades, due to higher net outflows and smaller natural increase. In Manhattan, net outflows have accounted for the majority of Black population decreases in Manhattan since the 1980s, with lower net outflows in the 2010s leading to a smaller population loss than in previous decades. And, in Staten Island, net inflows in the 1980s, 1990s, and 2000s gave way to net outflows in the 2010s. Still, continued natural increase was sufficient to extend the pattern of population increases over the past four decades in Staten Island.
Hispanic Components of Change
Hispanic Net Migration
With a citywide net outflow of the Hispanic population of approximately 87,900, net outflows were distributed across Brooklyn (-30,200), Manhattan (-25,300), the Bronx (-19,900), and Queens (-18,400), pared slightly by net migration increases in Staten Island (5,700).
There were Hispanic net outflows in many areas with substantial Hispanic populations. Washington Heights and Inwood in Manhattan had a combined net outflow of 33,700, or 38 percent of the city’s overall Hispanic net outflow; other areas experiencing substantial net outflows were Bushwick and Sunset Park in Brooklyn; Jackson Heights, Ridgewood, and Elmhurst in Queens, and across much of the western, central, and southern portions of the Bronx.
Hispanic net outflows from Bushwick W. were equivalent to 30 percent of the 2010 Hispanic population, and a little under a quarter in Brighton Beach, Washington Heights S., Bushwick E., and Ridgewood.
The largest net Hispanic inflows occurred in Riverdale-Spuyten Duyvil (3,900) as well as across the borough in the adjacent neighborhoods of Throgs Neck-Schuylerville (3,800) and Pelham Bay-Country Club-City Island (3,000). Net Hispanic inflows also took place in many neighborhoods with high levels of new construction over the decade, such as Chelsea-Hudson Yards (2,700), Midtown South-Flatiron-Union Square (2,100), and Hell’s Kitchen (1,900) in Manhattan, and Long Island City-Hunters Point (1,600) in Queens.
Hispanic net inflows in Midtown South-Flatiron-Union Square were equivalent to 111 percent of the Hispanic population in 2010, with rates of net migration in Long Island City-Hunters Point and Midtown-Times Square nearly as high at 86 and 85 percent, respectively. Net migration in Riverdale-Spuyten Duyvil was equivalent to a little over 50 percent of the 2010 Hispanic population.
Hispanic Natural Change
Natural increase for the Hispanic population was 242,200 over the decade, with increases across all five boroughs. The Bronx (85,000) had the largest Hispanic natural increase, followed by Queens (72,500), Brooklyn (50,400), Manhattan (24,300), and Staten Island (10,200).
The largest natural increases were in the cluster of neighborhoods comprising Corona (7,500), North Corona (6,800), and Jackson Heights (5,600) in Queens, followed by Soundview-Bruckner-Bronx River (5,400) in the Bronx, all neighborhoods with large immigrant populations from Latin America. Moderate natural increases, represented by the middle shade of blue on the map, were distributed across much of the Bronx, Upper Manhattan, portions of northwest Queens, Bushwick and Ridgewood, Bay Ridge, and Sunset Park, and the corridor of neighborhoods from East New York N. to Jamaica.
While a handful of neighborhoods had small natural change of less than ±150, no neighborhoods experienced substantial Hispanic natural decrease.
Hispanic Population Change
The Hispanic population increased by 154,300 citywide, with the largest growth in the Bronx (65,100) followed by Queens (54,100), and Brooklyn (20,100), where natural increase more than offset net outflows. Staten Island (15,900) also experienced Hispanic population increase, through both net inflows and natural increase. The Hispanic population decreased slightly in Manhattan (-900), the product of natural increase that was just shy of net outflows.
Natural increase in many areas with large Hispanic populations was insufficient to offset deep decreases through net migration. In the corridor from Inwood south to Manhattanville-West Harlem in Manhattan; Bushwick and Sunset Park in Brooklyn; and Ridgewood and Jackson Heights in Queens, there were population decreases driven by large net outflows.
In contrast, in much of the Bronx, where the Hispanic population comprises a majority, Hispanic populations grew overall, generally through natural increase more than offsetting net outflows in the western, central, and southern portions of the borough, and through natural increase and net inflows in the northern and eastern portions of the borough.
Population increases in areas with large amounts of new construction, such as the west side of Manhattan and Long Island City-Hunters Point, grew mostly through net migration.
The Hispanic population increased in many neighborhoods in northeast and southeast Queens, eastern and southern Brooklyn, and Staten Island, in most cases by both natural increase and net inflows.
Hispanic Components of Change in Recent Decades
The Hispanic population has grown consistently over the past four decades in each borough except Manhattan, where the Hispanic population grew in the 1980s and 1990s, driven by natural increase, but decreased in the 2000s and 2010s as net outflows outpaced slowing natural increase. Natural increase has driven Hispanic growth in the Bronx and Queens in recent decades, even as net inflows in the 1980s and 1990s changed to net outflows in the 2000s and 2010s. Brooklyn experienced small Hispanic population growth since the 2000s with net outflows nearly offsetting natural increase. The Hispanic population in Staten Island has grown consistently throughout the last four decades through both natural increase and net migration.
Asian Components of Change
Asian Net Migration
The citywide Asian population grew by 196,400 through net migration, with net inflows in each of the five boroughs. The largest net inflows were to Queens (79,600), followed by Brooklyn (61,400), Manhattan (22,500), Staten Island (20,600), and the Bronx (12,400).
There were Asian net inflows to the vast majority of neighborhoods throughout New York City. Particularly large net inflows occurred in many neighborhoods in southern Brooklyn, including Bensonhurst (7,900), Dyker Heights (5,000), and Gravesend W. (4,900), as well as to southeast Queens, including Jamaica (5,100) and South Jamaica (4,400). Net inflows were also sizable to neighborhoods with marked amounts of new construction such as Long Island City-Hunters Point (7,700), Downtown Brooklyn-DUMBO-Boerum Hill (4,300), and Hell’s Kitchen (4,300).
Asian net inflows to Long Island City-Hunters Point were 372 percent of the Asian population in 2010. Other neighborhoods with notable rates of net migration were scattered across the city, including South Jamaica (225 percent) in Queens, Downtown Brooklyn-DUMBO-Boerum Hill (171 percent), Bushwick E. (122 percent), Crown Heights N. (118 percent), and Bedford Stuyvesant E. and W. (116 and 108 percent, respectively) in Brooklyn, and New Dorp-Midland Beach (166 percent) and Great Kills-Eltingville (121 percent) in Staten Island.
There were net outflows from historical centers of Asian population, including Chinatown-Two Bridges (-6,000), SoHo-Little Italy-Hudson Square (-1,400), and the Lower East Side (-1,100) in Manhattan, as well as Sunset Park Ctr. (-5,500) and Sunset Park E.-Borough Park W. (-2,900). Clusters of neighborhoods including University Heights N.-Fordham, Bedford Park, and Kingsbridge in the Bronx, and the Queens neighborhoods of Sunnyside and Astoria, as well as Richmond Hill, South Richmond Hill, and South Ozone Park also experienced net outflows.
Asian Natural Change
The Asian population grew by 148,900 through natural increase, distributed across all five boroughs. The largest increase was in Queens (68,700), followed by Brooklyn (49,300), Manhattan (19,500), the Bronx (8,000), and Staten Island (3,500).
The neighborhoods experiencing the largest increases were Sunset Park Ctr. (10,600) and Sunset Park E.-Borough Park W. (5,900) in Brooklyn, and Elmhurst (6,000) and Flushing-Willets Point (5,900) in Queens, all areas with substantial Asian populations. Other areas with large natural increase were Bensonhurst (3,800) and Dyker Heights (2,700) in southern Brooklyn, and South Ozone Park (3,200), Jamaica (2,900), and Forest Hills (2,900) in Queens. There was moderate natural increase in the vast majority of neighborhoods across the city, as shown in the middle shade of blue on the map. All neighborhoods had natural increase, even if small.
Asian Population Change
The Asian population increased by 345,400, or nearly 32 percent, over the decade, growth that was driven by both net inflows and natural increase. All five boroughs experienced increases through both components of change, with the largest overall population growth in Queens (148,200), followed by Brooklyn (110,600), Manhattan (42,000), Staten Island (24,100), and the Bronx (20,400). In Staten Island, growth was driven primarily by migration, whereas for the other four boroughs growth was driven roughly equally by net migration and natural increase.
The largest population growth occurred in some neighborhoods with sizable Asian populations at the start of the decade, including Bensonhurst (11,700) and Flushing-Willets Point (9,500), which both experienced considerable natural increase and net inflows, as well as Elmhurst (7,100), which experienced substantial natural increase, but more modest net inflows. Large Asian population growth also occurred in neighborhoods with many newly constructed units completed over the decade, including Long Island City-Hunters Point (8,900) and Jamaica (8,000), driven disproportionately by net migration.
While most neighborhoods grew through both natural increase and net inflows, a handful of neighborhoods grew through natural increase despite net outflows. For example, in much of Sunset Park net outflows moderated population growth through natural increase, resulting in population growth of approximately 19 percent in Sunset Park Ctr., and 18 percent in Sunset Park E.-Borough Park W.
Population decreases were greatest in the downtown Manhattan neighborhoods of Chinatown-Two Bridges (-4,600), SoHo-Little Italy-Hudson Square (-1,200), and the Lower East Side (-700), the result of net outflows only slightly pared by natural increase. Other areas of small population decreases were Sunnyside in Queens, Canarsie in Brooklyn, and a handful of neighborhoods in the western Bronx.
Asian Components of Change in Recent Decades
Asian natural change and net migration have been consistently positive across boroughs over the past four decades. Natural increase has grown each decade in the Bronx, Brooklyn, Queens, and Staten Island. In Manhattan, natural increase grew from the 1980s to the 2000s, waning somewhat in the 2010s. Net inflows to Queens have decreased in the 2000s and 2010s compared to earlier decades, though still represent the largest net inflows among all boroughs. Net inflows to Brooklyn increased in the 2010s compared to earlier decades. In the Bronx and Manhattan, though net inflows were smaller in the 1990s and 2000s compared to the 1980s, they rebounded in the 2010s. Net inflows to Staten Island in 2010 were double or triple net inflows in recent decades. Natural increase and net migration have resulted in considerable Asian population growth across New York City over the past 40 years.
Note that Pacific Islanders are included with the Asian population for the 1980 to 1990 and 1990 to 2000 periods, due to data limitations.
Neighborhood Dynamics
Citywide, the White, Black, and Hispanic populations experienced natural increase alongside net outflows. The White population decreased slightly with net outflows slightly greater than natural increase. For the Black population, net outflows outpaced natural increase, resulting in population decrease. In contrast, for Hispanic population grew as net outflows only partly offset large natural increase. With net inflows, the Asian population grew through both natural increase and net migration over the decade.
Although all five boroughs experienced population growth, the racial/Hispanic components of population growth were different for each borough. Growth in the Bronx was largely driven by Hispanic natural increase. Hispanic net outflows in the borough pared natural increase only slightly, and other groups had relatively small contributions to overall population change. In Brooklyn, Black net outflows were more than twice as large as natural increase, resulting in Black population decrease, while Hispanic net outflows offset a large portion of Hispanic natural increase. Population growth was primarily due to Asian natural increase and net inflows, and White natural increase. In Manhattan, the Black and Hispanic populations were relatively unchanged. Most of the population growth in the borough was a result of White natural increase and Asian population growth through both natural increase and net migration. In Queens, population growth was driven by Asian net inflows and natural increase, as well as by Hispanic natural increase, offset by large White net outflows. Population growth in Staten Island was primarily a result of Asian net inflows and Hispanic natural increase, which were offset by White net outflows.
The dynamics of population change by race/Hispanic origin are complex at the city and borough levels, and much more complex when considering individual neighborhoods. Neighborhood net migration figures reflect movement to and from elsewhere in the city, as well as flows to and from the rest of the United States and internationally, and births and deaths occur both to those that lived in a given neighborhood at the start of the decade as well as those who moved in later in the decade. A handful of overarching patterns can be discerned to group neighborhoods throughout the city.
Change Through Migration
Some changes in populations were driven mostly by migration patterns. In central Brooklyn, change in the racial/Hispanic composition of Bedford-Stuyvesant, Crown Heights, Prospect Lefferts Gardens, and parts of Flatbush were driven by net inflows of White residents and net outflows of Black residents. Similarly, in northern Brooklyn, changes in Bushwick were the result of net inflows of White resident and net outflows of Hispanic residents. In Upper Manhattan, changes were largely due to White net inflows alongside Hispanic net outflows in Washington Heights S. and Hamilton Heights-Sugar Hill, as well as Black net outflows in Harlem. White and Hispanic net inflows occurred alongside Black net outflows in Harlem N. In a similar pattern, changes in the racial/Hispanic composition of neighborhoods in South Jamaica and Hollis in southeast Queens were in large part the result of Asian net inflows and Black net outflows.
Change Through Natural Decrease
Other changes were driven by population aging. Natural decrease (and to a lesser extent net outflows) of the aging White population occurred throughout much of the eastern Bronx, northeast Queens, parts of southern Brooklyn, and much of Staten Island. Many of these areas of the city are becoming new areas of settlement for Asian and Hispanic migrants, leading to changes in the composition of the population.
Stability Over the Decade Through Natural Increase and Net Outflows
In some neighborhoods the majority population grew through natural increase despite net outflows, reflecting New York City’s overall population growth pattern. The Hispanic population in the western Bronx neighborhoods of Kingsbridge, Bedford Park, and University Heights increased over the decade with natural increase offset by net outflows, but the composition of the neighborhoods changed only slightly. In Brooklyn, the Asian population in Sunset Park Ctr. and Sunset Park E.-Borough Park W., as well as the White population in South Williamsburg and Borough Park, also experienced this pattern of stability though natural increase and net outflows. The large net outflows in these neighborhoods indicate population churn that is not apparent from changes in the racial/Hispanic composition of neighborhoods alone.
Population Growth as a Result of New Construction
As might be expected, areas with large amounts of new construction experienced an increase in the housing stock, along with large net inflows, but different groups comprised the bulk of the inflows in different neighborhoods. Midtown South-Flatiron-Union Square, Hell’s Kitchen, and Chelsea-Hudson Yards in Manhattan grew through net inflows of all groups. In Long Island City-Hunters Point, Williamsburg, and Downtown Brooklyn-DUMBO-Boerum Hill, population growth was driven by large inflows of White and Asian new residents. The population of Spring Creek-Starrett City grew primarily through net inflows of Black and Hispanic residents. In some neighborhoods, the migration flows largely mirrored the composition of the neighborhood in 2010, leading to population growth across groups with relatively small changes in the racial/Hispanic composition, such as in Chelsea-Hudson Yards. In other neighborhoods, migration flows led to larger changes in racial/Hispanic composition, such as in Long Island City-Hunters Point, where the Asian share of the population increased substantially and the shares White and Hispanic decreased.
To explore these patterns, individual or multiple neighborhoods can be selected on the map on the right to view the components of change by racial/Hispanic group from 2010 to 2020.
Notes
2010 Census Population Adjustment
For this report, DCP uses an adjusted 2010 population to account for housing units that were likely erroneously recorded as vacant. The adjustment of 67,491 people brings the citywide population to 8,242,624 from 8,175,133. No adjustment is applied for the population of boroughs, NTAs, or racial/Hispanic groups. As a result, figures reported for boroughs, neighborhoods, and race/Hispanic groups may not add up to city totals.
Estimating In- and Outflows
No single data source can provide data on domestic in-migration and out-migration as well as international immigration and emigration, and most data that are available are estimates. Figures from different data sources do not always align closely. To produce estimates of inflows and outflows for the 2010 to 2020 period, DCP used 2010 and 2020 Census data for total population, estimates from the 2010 through 2019 1-year American Community Survey for domestic in-migration and international immigration, estimates from the Census Bureau’s Population Estimates Program (Vintage 2020) on net international migration, and data from the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene for natural increase. Note that DCP’s 2010 Census population adjustment was used (see note on the 2010 Census Population Adjustment ).
The Population Balancing Equation was used to calculate total net migration (see note on methodology ), with net migration the residual of population change and natural increase. Net domestic migration was calculated as the residual of net migration and net international flows. Domestic out-migration was calculated as the residual of net domestic migration and domestic in-migration, and international emigration was calculated as the residual of net international migration and international immigration.
Neighborhoods
Throughout this report, the term “neighborhood” is used synonymously with Neighborhood Tabulation Area (NTA). NTAs are medium-sized statistical geographies that roughly approximate New York City neighborhoods for the purpose of reporting Decennial Census and American Community Survey (ACS) data. NTAs are created by aggregating census tracts and nest within Community District Tabulation Areas (CDTA). For more information on 2020 NTAs see 2020 Census Reconfiguration of Statistical Geographies .
Race/Hispanic Origin
The U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) requires two minimum categories for data on ethnicity (Hispanic or Latino and Not Hispanic or Latino) and five minimum categories on race (American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian, Black or African American, Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, and White). The Census Bureau is also required by Congress to use the category “Some Other Race.” People may report multiple races. The OMB standards require two separate race and ethnicity questions for self-response.
Data from the questions on race and Hispanic origin can be organized in multiple ways. For this report, mutually exclusive race/Hispanic origin categories are used. Those who select one race are considered one race “alone.” Those who select more than one race are considered “two or more races.” Those who report Hispanic origin are included in the “Hispanic” population, regardless of race(s) reported. (DCP acknowledges that there are other terms – e.g., Latinx – people of Latin American origin or descent may use to self-identify. DCP uses “Hispanic” in order to maintain consistency with data provided and terminology used by the U.S. Census Bureau.)
Using the above classification scheme for race and Hispanic origin, this report includes the categories “White non-Hispanic, alone,” “Black or African American non-Hispanic, alone,” “Asian non-Hispanic, alone,” “some other race non-Hispanic, alone,” and “two or more races non-Hispanic.” For the sake of succinctness, these groups are referred to as “White,” “Black,” “Asian,” “some other race,” and “two or more races.”
The Census Bureau notes that race and ethnicity categories generally reflect social definitions in the U.S. and are not an attempt to define race and ethnicity biologically, anthropologically, or genetically; it recognizes that these categories include racial, ethnic, and national origins and sociocultural groups. Data on race and Hispanic origin are used to inform enforcement of civil rights and equal employment opportunity laws, in addition to other anti-discrimination mandates. It is important to note that there is significant diversity within each of the broad race and Hispanic origin categories reported by the Census Bureau. For more information on how race and ethnicity questions are asked on the census and reported by the Census Bureau, please see the Census Bureau’s 2020 Census Frequently Asked Questions About Race and Ethnicity .
The Census Bureau improved the question format and processing of responses for the measurement of race for the 2020 Census. Identification with two or more races is likely to be more accurately captured in the 2020 Census, and so some of the increase between the 2010 and 2020 Censuses in the enumerated population identifying as two or more races is likely due to methodological improvements, in addition to changes in the underlying population and self-identification. These methodological changes also affect measurement of the population identifying as one race alone. Comparisons of race/Hispanic groups over time should be interpreted in the context of such methodological changes, and caution is advised when using race/Hispanic origin data from multiple time points. For more information on methodological changes to the 2020 Census, please see the Census Bureau’s Improvements to the 2020 Census Race and Hispanic Origin Question Designs, Data Processing, and Coding Procedures .
Note that Pacific Islanders are included with the Asian population for the 1980 and 1990 Censuses, as well as 1980 to 1990 and 1990 to 2000 time periods due to data limitations.
For data on births, the race/Hispanic origin of the child was defined by the race of the mother, since demographic data is often missing for the second parent. Using this method, a child may be assigned more than one race at birth, however this occurs only when the mother identifies as two or more races. As a result, the number of children defined as two or more races is likely underrepresented. This limitation may affect calculations of natural change and net migration by race/Hispanic origin. It is not possible to measure natural increase nor to estimate net migration of the population identifying as two or more races due to limitations in measurement of births of children of two or more races.
Diversity Index
The Diversity Index is a measure of the likelihood that two people, chosen at random from a population, would be from different groups. In this report, race/Hispanic origin groups are considered. The Diversity Index is calculated by the following equation:
The lowest possible score, 0%, represents a population in which all people are from the same group. The highest possible score depends on the number of groups in a population. With five groups (White, Black, Hispanic, Asian, and all other people, see note on race/Hispanic origin), the maximum score is 80%, and corresponds to a population with equal populations within each group.
Birth and Death Rates
The crude birth rate is the number of births per 1,000 population. The crude death rate is the corresponding figure for deaths. Crude birth and death rates were calculated using data from the annual Summary of Vital Statistics published by the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene for calendar years 2010 through 2019. These data include births and deaths occurring in New York City to non-residents. Population bases are mid-decade averages calculated from the 2020 Census (Public Law 94-171 Summary File) and DCP's adjusted 2010 Census population.
Pacific Islanders are included with the Asian population in calculation of crude birth and death rates due to data limitations.
The crude birth and death rates presented do not constitute official rates for New York City.
Natural change elsewhere in the report is based on restricted data on births and deaths occurring to New York City residents, provided to the Department of City Planning by the Department of Health and Mental Hygiene.
Methodology for Calculating Net Migration as a Residual
Population change is captured by one of the components of change – natural change or migration. Thus, population change can be expressed using the Population Balancing Equation:
For the decade from 2010 to 2020, the Population Balancing Equation can be written as
A rearrangement of the Population Balancing Equation can also provide a calculation for population change over the decade:
The Population Balancing Equation can also be used to calculate net migration as a residual of population change (population at time two minus population at time 1) and natural change:
Calculating net migration as a residual provides an alternative to migration data sources that each have their own limitations. Data on the size of the population and natural change are reliable and available; the decennial census enumerates the population, and records of births and deaths are quite robust. Data on net migration, however, are often incomplete or estimated. Applying this method, New York City’s population grew to 8,804,190 in 2020 from 8,242,624 in 2010, with natural increase of 612,638, thus,
For this report, the residual method is used to calculate net migration for each race/Hispanic origin group and each neighborhood.
Resources
Below is an interactive dashboard that allows for exploration of population change by race/Hispanic group by neighborhood. You can select neighborhoods on the map or from the table on the bottom right. To select multiple neighborhoods, hold down Ctrl (on a PC) or Command (on a Mac). The bar chart tile in the dashboard will update automatically to your selection.
Click the button in the top right corner to open dashboard in a new tab.
Components of change data used in this report can be downloaded here .
- Decennial Census data: 2010, 2020, and Change 2010-2020
- Briefing Booklet on 2020 Census results
- Dynamics of Racial/Hispanic Composition in NYC Neighborhoods
- Declines in Household Size & Ramifications for Growth
- 2020 geographic relationship files
- A resource for exploring and downloading census data for various geographies
- Custom geographies available through combinations of census blocks, tracts, and more
- Components of Change by Race and Hispanic Origin for NYC Neighborhoods
- Report and data for the 2000 to 2010 census period
