In 2023, the population of the Denver-Aurora-Lakewood metropolitan area in the United States was about three million people. This was a slight increase from the previous year, when the population was also about 2.99 million people.

Historical dataset of population level and growth rate for the Denver metro area from 1950 to 2025.

Graph and download economic data for Resident Population in Denver-Aurora-Lakewood, CO (MSA) (DNVPOP) from 2000 to 2022 about Denver, CO, residents, population, and USA.

Graph and download economic data for Resident Population in Denver County/city, CO (CODENV5POP) from 1970 to 2024 about Denver County, CO; Denver; CO; residents; population; and USA.

Comprehensive demographic dataset for Clear Creek County, CO, US including population statistics, household income, housing units, education levels, employment data, and transportation with year-over-year changes.

About this dataset

Context

The dataset tabulates the Denver City population distribution across 18 age groups. It lists the population in each age group along with the percentage population relative of the total population for Denver City. The dataset can be utilized to understand the population distribution of Denver City by age. For example, using this dataset, we can identify the largest age group in Denver City.

Key observations

The largest age group in Denver City, TX was for the group of age 25-29 years with a population of 616 (13.85%), according to the 2021 American Community Survey. At the same time, the smallest age group in Denver City, TX was the 75-79 years with a population of 21 (0.47%). Source: U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey (ACS) 2017-2021 5-Year Estimates.

Content

When available, the data consists of estimates from the U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey (ACS) 2017-2021 5-Year Estimates.

Age groups:

• Under 5 years
• 5 to 9 years
• 10 to 14 years
• 15 to 19 years
• 20 to 24 years
• 25 to 29 years
• 30 to 34 years
• 35 to 39 years
• 40 to 44 years
• 45 to 49 years
• 50 to 54 years
• 55 to 59 years
• 60 to 64 years
• 65 to 69 years
• 70 to 74 years
• 75 to 79 years
• 80 to 84 years
• 85 years and over

Variables / Data Columns

• Age Group: This column displays the age group in consideration
• Population: The population for the specific age group in the Denver City is shown in this column.
• % of Total Population: This column displays the population of each age group as a proportion of Denver City total population. Please note that the sum of all percentages may not equal one due to rounding of values.

Good to know

Margin of Error

Data in the dataset are based on the estimates and are subject to sampling variability and thus a margin of error. Neilsberg Research recommends using caution when presening these estimates in your research.

Custom data

If you do need custom data for any of your research project, report or presentation, you can contact our research staff at research@neilsberg.com for a feasibility of a custom tabulation on a fee-for-service basis.

Inspiration

Neilsberg Research Team curates, analyze and publishes demographics and economic data from a variety of public and proprietary sources, each of which often includes multiple surveys and programs. The large majority of Neilsberg Research aggregated datasets and insights is made available for free download at https://www.neilsberg.com/research/.

Recommended for further research

This dataset is a part of the main dataset for Denver City Population by Age. You can refer the same here

In 2023, the metropolitan area of New York-Newark-Jersey City had the biggest population in the United States. Based on annual estimates from the census, the metropolitan area had around 19.5 million inhabitants, which was a slight decrease from the previous year. The Los Angeles and Chicago metro areas rounded out the top three. What is a metropolitan statistical area? In general, a metropolitan statistical area (MSA) is a core urbanized area with a population of at least 50,000 inhabitants – the smallest MSA is Carson City, with an estimated population of nearly 56,000. The urban area is made bigger by adjacent communities that are socially and economically linked to the center. MSAs are particularly helpful in tracking demographic change over time in large communities and allow officials to see where the largest pockets of inhabitants are in the country. How many MSAs are in the United States? There were 421 metropolitan statistical areas across the U.S. as of July 2021. The largest city in each MSA is designated the principal city and will be the first name in the title. An additional two cities can be added to the title, and these will be listed in population order based on the most recent census. So, in the example of New York-Newark-Jersey City, New York has the highest population, while Jersey City has the lowest. The U.S. Census Bureau conducts an official population count every ten years, and the new count is expected to be announced by the end of 2030.

About this dataset

Context

The dataset tabulates the Denver City population over the last 20 plus years. It lists the population for each year, along with the year on year change in population, as well as the change in percentage terms for each year. The dataset can be utilized to understand the population change of Denver City across the last two decades. For example, using this dataset, we can identify if the population is declining or increasing. If there is a change, when the population peaked, or if it is still growing and has not reached its peak. We can also compare the trend with the overall trend of United States population over the same period of time.

Key observations

In 2022, the population of Denver City was 4,303, a 1.67% decrease year-by-year from 2021. Previously, in 2021, Denver City population was 4,376, a decline of 1.73% compared to a population of 4,453 in 2020. Over the last 20 plus years, between 2000 and 2022, population of Denver City increased by 325. In this period, the peak population was 4,885 in the year 2019. The numbers suggest that the population has already reached its peak and is showing a trend of decline. Source: U.S. Census Bureau Population Estimates Program (PEP).

Content

When available, the data consists of estimates from the U.S. Census Bureau Population Estimates Program (PEP).

Data Coverage:

• From 2000 to 2022

Variables / Data Columns

• Year: This column displays the data year (Measured annually and for years 2000 to 2022)
• Population: The population for the specific year for the Denver City is shown in this column.
• Year on Year Change: This column displays the change in Denver City population for each year compared to the previous year.
• Change in Percent: This column displays the year on year change as a percentage. Please note that the sum of all percentages may not equal one due to rounding of values.

Good to know

Margin of Error

Data in the dataset are based on the estimates and are subject to sampling variability and thus a margin of error. Neilsberg Research recommends using caution when presening these estimates in your research.

Custom data

If you do need custom data for any of your research project, report or presentation, you can contact our research staff at research@neilsberg.com for a feasibility of a custom tabulation on a fee-for-service basis.

Inspiration

Neilsberg Research Team curates, analyze and publishes demographics and economic data from a variety of public and proprietary sources, each of which often includes multiple surveys and programs. The large majority of Neilsberg Research aggregated datasets and insights is made available for free download at https://www.neilsberg.com/research/.

Recommended for further research

This dataset is a part of the main dataset for Denver City Population by Year. You can refer the same here

Graph and download economic data for Employed Persons in Denver-Aurora-Lakewood, CO (MSA) (LAUMT081974000000005A) from 1990 to 2024 about Denver, CO, household survey, persons, employment, and USA.

Comprehensive demographic dataset for City Park, Denver, CO, US including population statistics, household income, housing units, education levels, employment data, and transportation with year-over-year changes.

U.S. Census Bureau QuickFacts statistics for Denver city, Colorado. QuickFacts data are derived from: Population Estimates, American Community Survey, Census of Population and Housing, Current Population Survey, Small Area Health Insurance Estimates, Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates, State and County Housing Unit Estimates, County Business Patterns, Nonemployer Statistics, Economic Census, Survey of Business Owners, Building Permits.

Comprehensive demographic dataset for Denver City, TX, US including population statistics, household income, housing units, education levels, employment data, and transportation with year-over-year changes.

Graph and download economic data for Civilian Labor Force in Denver-Aurora-Lakewood, CO (MSA) (LAUMT081974000000006A) from 1990 to 2024 about Denver, CO, civilian, labor force, labor, household survey, and USA.

Metropolitan and Micropolitan Statistical Areas are together termed Core Based Statistical Areas (CBSAs) and are defined by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and consist of the county or counties or equivalent entities associated with at least one urban core (urbanized area or urban cluster) of at least 10,000 population, plus adjacent counties having a high degree of social and economic integration with the core as measured through commuting ties with the counties containing the core. Categories of CBSAs are: Metropolitan Statistical Areas, based on urbanized areas of 50,000 or more population; and Micropolitan Statistical Areas, based on urban clusters of at least 10,000 population but less than 50,000 population.

Disclaimer: These data are updated by the author and are not an official product of the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland.This project provides two sets of migration estimates for the major US metro areas. The first series measures net migration of people to and from the urban neighborhoods of the metro areas. The second series covers all neighborhoods but breaks down net migration to other regions by four region types: (1) high-cost metros, (2) affordable, large metros, (3) midsized metros, and (4) small metros and rural areas. These series were introduced in a Cleveland Fed District Data Brief entitled “Urban and Regional Migration Estimates: Will Your City Recover from the Pandemic?"The migration estimates in this project are created with data from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York/Equifax Consumer Credit Panel (CCP). The CCP is a 5 percent random sample of the credit histories maintained by Equifax. The CCP reports the census block of residence for over 10 million individuals each quarter. Each month, Equifax receives individuals’ addresses, along with reports of debt balances and payments, from creditors (mortgage lenders, credit card issuers, student loan servicers, etc.). An algorithm maintained by Equifax considers all of the addresses reported for an individual and identifies the individual’s most likely current address. Equifax anonymizes the data before they are added to the CCP, removing names, addresses, and Social Security numbers (SSNs). In lieu of mailing addresses, the census block of the address is added to the CCP. Equifax creates a unique, anonymous identifier to enable researchers to build individuals’ panels. The panel nature of the data allows us to observe when someone has migrated and is living in a census block different from the one they lived in at the end of the preceding quarter. For more details about the CCP and its use in measuring migration, see Lee and Van der Klaauw (2010) and DeWaard, Johnson and Whitaker (2019). DefinitionsMetropolitan areaThe metropolitan areas in these data are combined statistical areas. This is the most aggregate definition of metro areas, and it combines Washington DC with Baltimore, San Jose with San Francisco, Akron with Cleveland, etc. Metro areas are combinations of counties that are tightly linked by worker commutes and other economic activity. All counties outside of metropolitan areas are tracked as parts of a rural commuting zone (CZ). CZs are also groups of counties linked by commuting, but CZ definitions cover all counties, both metropolitan and non-metropolitan. High-cost metropolitan areasHigh-cost metro areas are those where the median list price for a house was more than $200 per square foot on average between April 2017 and April 2022. These areas include San Francisco-San Jose, New York, San Diego, Los Angeles, Seattle, Boston, Miami, Sacramento, Denver, Salt Lake City, Portland, and Washington-Baltimore. Other Types of RegionsMetro areas with populations above 2 million and house price averages below $200 per square foot are categorized as affordable, large metros. Metro areas with populations between 500,000 and 2 million are categorized as mid-sized metros, regardless of house prices. All remaining counties are in the small metro and rural category.To obtain a metro area's total net migration, sum the four net migration values for the the four types of regions.Urban neighborhoodCensus tracts are designated as urban if they have a population density above 7,000 people per square mile. High density neighborhoods can support walkable retail districts and high-frequency public transportation. They are more likely to have the “street life” that people associate with living in an urban rather than a suburban area. The threshold of 7,000 people per square mile was selected because it was the average density in the largest US cities in the 1930 census. Before World War II, workplaces, shopping, schools and parks had to be accessible on foot. Tracts are also designated as urban if more than half of their housing units were built before WWII and they have a population density above 2,000 people per square mile. The lower population density threshold for the pre-war neighborhoods recognizes that many urban tracts have lost population since the 1960s. While the street grids usually remain, the area also needs su

About this dataset

Context

The dataset tabulates the data for the Denver City, TX population pyramid, which represents the Denver City population distribution across age and gender, using estimates from the U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey 5-Year estimates. It lists the male and female population for each age group, along with the total population for those age groups. Higher numbers at the bottom of the table suggest population growth, whereas higher numbers at the top indicate declining birth rates. Furthermore, the dataset can be utilized to understand the youth dependency ratio, old-age dependency ratio, total dependency ratio, and potential support ratio.

Key observations

• Youth dependency ratio, which is the number of children aged 0-14 per 100 persons aged 15-64, for Denver City, TX, is 43.8.
• Old-age dependency ratio, which is the number of persons aged 65 or over per 100 persons aged 15-64, for Denver City, TX, is 9.8.
• Total dependency ratio for Denver City, TX is 53.6.
• Potential support ratio, which is the number of youth (working age population) per elderly, for Denver City, TX is 10.2.

Content

When available, the data consists of estimates from the U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey (ACS) 2017-2021 5-Year Estimates.

Age groups:

• Under 5 years
• 5 to 9 years
• 10 to 14 years
• 15 to 19 years
• 20 to 24 years
• 25 to 29 years
• 30 to 34 years
• 35 to 39 years
• 40 to 44 years
• 45 to 49 years
• 50 to 54 years
• 55 to 59 years
• 60 to 64 years
• 65 to 69 years
• 70 to 74 years
• 75 to 79 years
• 80 to 84 years
• 85 years and over

Variables / Data Columns

• Age Group: This column displays the age group for the Denver City population analysis. Total expected values are 18 and are define above in the age groups section.
• Population (Male): The male population in the Denver City for the selected age group is shown in the following column.
• Population (Female): The female population in the Denver City for the selected age group is shown in the following column.
• Total Population: The total population of the Denver City for the selected age group is shown in the following column.

Good to know

Margin of Error

Data in the dataset are based on the estimates and are subject to sampling variability and thus a margin of error. Neilsberg Research recommends using caution when presening these estimates in your research.

Custom data

If you do need custom data for any of your research project, report or presentation, you can contact our research staff at research@neilsberg.com for a feasibility of a custom tabulation on a fee-for-service basis.

Inspiration

Neilsberg Research Team curates, analyze and publishes demographics and economic data from a variety of public and proprietary sources, each of which often includes multiple surveys and programs. The large majority of Neilsberg Research aggregated datasets and insights is made available for free download at https://www.neilsberg.com/research/.

Recommended for further research

This dataset is a part of the main dataset for Denver City Population by Age. You can refer the same here

Graph and download economic data for Unemployed Persons in Denver-Aurora-Lakewood, CO (MSA) (LAUMT081974000000004A) from 1990 to 2024 about Denver, CO, household survey, persons, unemployment, and USA.

I have lived all over this great state and have spent time in every corner, so just making a recommendation on a single solitary community will not do. If it pleases the commission, I would like to submit the attached file as a recommendation for 2021's redistricted congressional map. CO-01 - The 1st would shed its northern and eastern portions while shifting south to accommodate the new 8th. It would be an extremely wealthy district containing the upper class suburbs of Denver, as well as Columbine, Ken Caryl, Centennial, and Highlands Ranch. CO-02 - The 2nd would shift eastward, shedding its mountain communities while taking in Greeley and Longmont to become a truly Northern Colorado district. CO-03 - The western-based 3rd would take in the mountain communities of the 2nd while letting go of historically, culturally, and hydrologically separate portions of southern Colorado. CO-04 - The 4th would become a Southern Colorado district, stretching from the south of Colorado Springs to Pueblo, down across the San Luis Valley, and concluding in Durango and Cortez. Additionally, this district would become the 2nd most diverse in the state, and an extremely competitive district at that! CO-05 - The 5th would be based in the north portions of Colorado Springs, an area unique to the south of the city in its demographics, wealth, and ties to the United States Air Force. It would take in the entirety of culturally similar Eastern Colorado, ensuring that this sparsely populated region of ~100,000 people would maintain its voice in Washington. CO-06 - The 6th would move out of Brighton and Thornton, with Parker absorbed in its entirety as it so closely resembles south Aurora in wealth, demographics, and travel habits. Previously the most malformed district the new 6th would be incredibly compact! CO-07 - The 7th remains largely unchanged, save for parts lost to the 8th and a continued move up I-25 as growing neighborhoods continue to sprout up from old farmlands. CO-08 - The 8th would be the most diverse district in the state, taking in the largely Hispanic portions for west Denver and Adams County. Previously divided between the old 1st, 6th, and 7th, this district would ensure a united voice for a previously underrepresented community in Colorado In summary: 4 districts are centered around Denver, matching the 50% of the state's population that lives in Denver, Adams, Arapahoe, Jefferson, Douglas, and Broomfield counties (i.e., the Denver Metro Area minus Boulder County). Four districts represent the four unique "corners" of our state outside of Denver: Southern Colorado, the Eastern Plains, Northern Colorado, and the Western Slope. These districts contain contiguous communities, following highways and major roads to ensure easy travel for our future representatives. Finally, they are of course as equal to one another in population as can be expected, however minor adjustments will likely need to be made once proper census numbers are made available. Thank you for your time. *Please note that previous attempts at this submission were made using .geojson and .csv files, however the website did not recognize them and produced an error. Therefore I have attached a .png, the only other functional format I have available.

This is a comment on the preliminary Congressional Commission redistricting map. Along with providing feedback on that map, it offers a draft alternative that better meets the criteria of the Colorado Constitution. As background, I participated in redistricting initiatives in South Bend, Indiana, in the mid-1980s and for Indiana legislative seats after the 1990 census. I didn’t engage with redistricting during the rest of my 20-year military career. After retiring, and while serving as Public Trustee for El Paso County, I participated in redistricting efforts at the county and city level. I also stood for El Paso County Clerk in 2010. I have lived in Colorado since 2000. The draft alternative map is created using Dave’s Redistricting App (DRA) and can be found at https://davesredistricting.org/join/346f297c-71d1-4443-9110-b92e3362b105. I used DRA because it was more user-friendly in that it allows selection by precinct and by city or town, while the tool provided by the commission seems to allow only selection by census block (or larger clusters). The two tools also use slightly different population estimates, but this will be resolved when the 2020 data are released in August. These comments acknowledge that any map created using estimated populations will need to change to account for the actual census data.

Description of Draft Alternative

    My process started by

identifying large-scale geographic communities of interest within Colorado: the Western Slope/mountain areas, the Eastern Plains, Colorado Springs/El Paso County, the North Front Range, and Denver Metro. Two smaller geographic communities of interest are Pueblo and the San Luis Valley—neither is nearly large enough to sustain a district and both are somewhat distinct from their neighboring communities of interest. A choice thus must be made about which other communities of interest to group them with. El Paso County is within 0.3% of the optimal population, so it is set as District 5. The true Western Slope is not large enough to sustain a district, even with the obvious addition of Jackson County. Rather than including the San Luis Valley with the Western Slope, the preliminary commission map extends the Western Slope district to include all of Fremont County (even Canon City, Florence, and Penrose), Clear Creek County, and some of northern Boulder County. The draft alternative District 3 instead adds the San Luis Valley, the Upper Arkansas Valley (Lake and Chaffee Counties, and the western part of Fremont County), Park and Teller Counties, and Custer County. The draft alternative District 4 is based on the Eastern Plains. In the south, this includes the rest of Fremont County (including Canon City), Pueblo, and the Lower Arkansas Valley. In the north, this includes all of Weld County, retaining it as an intact political subdivision. This is nearly enough population to form a complete district; it is rounded out by including the easternmost portions of Adams and Arapahoe Counties. All of Elbert County is in this district; none of Douglas County is. The draft alternative District 2 is placed in the North Front Range and includes Larimer, Boulder, Gilpin, and Clear Creek Counties. This is nearly enough population to form a complete district, so it is rounded out by adding Evergreen and the rest of Coal Creek in Jefferson County. The City and County of Denver (and the Arapahoe County enclave municipalities of Glendale and Holly Hills) forms the basis of draft alternative District 1. This is a bit too large to form a district, so small areas are shaved off into neighboring districts: DIA (mostly for compactness), Indian Creek, and part of Marston. This leaves three districts to place in suburban Denver. The draft alternative keeps Douglas County intact, as well as the city of Aurora, except for the part that extends into Douglas County. The map prioritizes the county over the city as a political subdivision. Draft alternative District 6, anchored in Douglas County, extends north into Arapahoe County to include suburbs like Centennial, Littleton, Englewood, Greenwood Village, and Cherry Hills Village. This is not enough population, so the district extends west into southern Jefferson County to include Columbine, Ken Caryl, and Dakota Ridge. The northwestern edge of this district would run along Deer Creek Road, Pleasant Park Road, and Kennedy Gulch Road. Draft alternative District 8, anchored in Aurora, includes the rest of western Arapahoe County and extends north into Adams County to include Commerce City, Brighton (except the part in Weld County), Thornton, and North Washington. In the draft alternative, this district includes a sliver of Northglenn east of Stonehocker Park. While this likely would be resolved when final population totals are released, this division of Northglenn is the most notable division of a city within a single county other than the required division of Denver. Draft alternative District 7 encompasses what is left: The City and County of Broomfield; Westminster, in both Jefferson and Adams Counties; Federal Heights, Sherrelwood, Welby, Twin Lakes, Berkley, and almost all of Northglenn in western Adams County; and Lakewood, Arvada, Golden, Wheat Ridge, Morrison, Indian Hills, Aspen Park, Genesee, and Kittredge in northern Jefferson County. The border with District 2 through the communities in the western portion of Jefferson County would likely be adjusted after final population totals are released.

Comparison of Maps

Precise Population Equality
    The preliminary commission

map has exact population equality. The draft alternative map has a variation of 0.6% (4,239 persons). Given that the maps are based on population estimates, and that I left it at the precinct and municipality level, this aspect of the preliminary map is premature to pinpoint. Once final population data are released, either map would need to be adjusted. It would be simple to tweak district boundaries to achieve any desired level of equality. That said, such precision is a bit of a fallacy: errors in the census data likely exceed the 0.6% in the draft map, the census data will be a year out of date when received, and relative district populations will fluctuate over the next 10 years. Both the “good-faith effort†and “as practicable†language leave room for a bit of variance in service of other goals. The need to “justify any variance†does not mean “no variance will be allowed.†For example, it may be better to maintain unity in a community of interest or political subdivision rather than separate part of it for additional precision. The major sticking point here is likely to be El Paso County: given how close it seems to be to the optimal district size, will it be worth it to divide the county or one of its neighbors to achieve precision? The same question would be likely to apply among the municipalities in Metro Denver.

Contiguity
    The draft alternative map

meets this requirement. The preliminary commission map violates the spirit if not the actual language of this requirement. While its districts are connected by land, the only way to travel to all parts of preliminary Districts 3 and 4 without leaving the districts would be on foot. There is no road connection between the parts of Boulder County that are in District 3 and the rest of that district in Grand County without leaving the district and passing through District 2 in either Gilpin or Larimer Counties. There also is no road connection between some of the southwestern portions of Mineral County and the rest of District 4 without passing through Archuleta or Hinsdale Counties in District 3.

Voting Rights Act
    The preliminary staff

analysis assumes it would be possible to create a majority-minority district; they are correct, it can be done via a noncompact district running from the west side of Denver up to Commerce City and Brighton and down to parts of northeastern Denver and northern Aurora. Such a district would go against criteria for compactness, political subdivisions, and even other definitions of communities of interest. Staff asserts that the election of Democratic candidates in this area suffices for VRA. Appendix B is opaque regarding the actual non-White or Hispanic population in each district, but I presume that if they had created a majority-minority district they would have said so. In the draft alternative map, District 8 (Aurora, Commerce City, Brighton, and Thornton) has a 39.6% minority population and District 1 (Denver) has a 34.9% minority population. The proposals are similar in meeting this criterion.

Communities of Interest
    Staff presented a long list

of communities of interest. While keeping all of these intact would be ideal, drawing a map requires compromises based on geography and population. Many communities of interest overlap with each other, especially at their edges. This difficulty points to a reason to focus on existing subdivisions (county, city, and town boundaries): those boundaries are stable and overlap with shared public policy concerns. The preliminary commission map chooses to group the San Luis Valley, as far upstream as Del Norte and Creede, with Pueblo and the Eastern Plains rather than with the Western Slope/Mountains. To balance the population numbers, the preliminary commission map thus had to reach east in northern and central Colorado. The commission includes Canon City and Florence

Plan Information Plan name: Thumb off scale plan Description: Plan ObjectivesObjective: not to dilute less urban and rural voices by putting them in districts with large population centers. D1 & D5: Denver and El Paso counties' population concentrations supports a District for each. D2: Combining Weld and Pueblo counties' hispanic populations into a District gives them a more meaningful voice... and the rest of the district's counties are similar geographically: East flowing watersheds, farming, more rural and religious in character. D3: A unified Western Slope District indicated by common themes of mountains, outdoor recreation and tourist focus, ranching, and West flowing watersheds with it's unique water issues. D4: Boulder-Larimer both educational and technology centers, promoters of open space preservation, etc. D6: Jefferson County anchors west of metro Denver. 7: Western Arapahoe -Douglas counties anchor south Metro 8: Adams-Arapahoe counties similar, having population centers abutting east Denver metro area.