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.

A dataset listing Colorado cities by population for 2024.

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 presents the median household income across different racial categories in Denver City. It portrays the median household income of the head of household across racial categories (excluding ethnicity) as identified by the Census Bureau. The dataset can be utilized to gain insights into economic disparities and trends and explore the variations in median houshold income for diverse racial categories.

Key observations

Based on our analysis of the distribution of Denver City population by race & ethnicity, the population is predominantly White. This particular racial category constitutes the majority, accounting for 69.19% of the total residents in Denver City. Notably, the median household income for White households is $82,677. Interestingly, despite the White population being the most populous, it is worth noting that Two or More Races households actually reports the highest median household income, with a median income of $100,182. This reveals that, while Whites may be the most numerous in Denver City, Two or More Races households experience greater economic prosperity in terms of median household income.

Content

When available, the data consists of estimates from the U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey (ACS) 2019-2023 5-Year Estimates.

Racial categories include:

• White
• Black or African American
• American Indian and Alaska Native
• Asian
• Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander
• Some other race
• Two or more races (multiracial)

Variables / Data Columns

• Race of the head of household: This column presents the self-identified race of the household head, encompassing all relevant racial categories (excluding ethnicity) applicable in Denver City.
• Median household income: Median household income, adjusting for inflation, presented in 2023-inflation-adjusted dollars

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 median household income by race. You can refer the same here

This is my second input on the preliminary Congressional Commission redistricting map, based this time on the census numbers that were released in mid-August. These additional comments again use on Dave’s Redistricting App (DRA), which has the current data for counties and precincts. As of this writing, the commission’s tool did not seem to have the current data loaded. My revised draft alternative is at https://davesredistricting.org/join/b26ec349-27da-4df9-a087-ce77af348056. 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. 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. A second principle I adopted was to prioritize keeping counties intact over municipalities. County boundaries are fixed, unlike municipal boundaries, and do not interlock based on annexation patterns. Precincts and census blocks do not overlap counties, but they may overlap municipal boundaries. Furthermore, county lines more often correspond to other layers of government than do municipal boundaries. This most matters along the western border of Weld County, which several municipalities overlap while also being rather entangled with each other. I was not able to find a particularly elegant alternative to using the county line that would not then require other communities of interest to be divided.I started with El Paso County, which exceeds the ideal district population (721,714) by 8,681 or 1.2%. It therefore must be split among different districts. El Paso, where I have lived for these past 20 years, is itself a coherent community that should remain as intact as possible – no plan that split it into two large pieces would comply with the commission’s mandate. The best options for moving population into other districts would be on the eastern and western edges. The northern part of El Paso County – Palmer Lake, Monument, Woodmoor, and Black Forest – is much more closely tied to the rest of El Paso County than it is to Douglas County. The small population along I-25 in southern El Paso County is also more closely tied to Fort Carson and the Fountain Valley than it is to Pueblo. The eastern parts of El Paso County, on the other hand – Ramah, Calhan, Yoder, Rush, Truckton – have far more in common with Lincoln County and the Eastern Plains than they do with Colorado Springs. Unfortunately, there is not enough population in the easternmost precincts to bring the county within the population limits. Once you get as far west as Peyton, you are reaching the edge of the Colorado Springs exurbs; once you get to Ellicott, you are reaching communities around Schriever Air Force Base that are part of the community of interest associated with the military. Rather than divide the community of interest there, it would be better to link the precincts in Ute Pass, the Rampart Range, and along the southern part of Gold Camp Road with Woodland Park and Teller County. While I will not claim that they are part of the Colorado Springs community, they are more linked to the larger town to their west than the northern and southern edges of El Paso County are to their neighboring counties. The use of census block data, not yet available on DRA, might allow more fine-tuning of this split that creates District 5 out of all but the western and eastern edges of El Paso County. The true Western Slope is not large enough to sustain District 3, even with the obvious addition of Jackson County and the necessary additions of Lake, Chafee, Park, and Teller Counties. The preliminary commission map would exclude most of the San Luis Valley (all but Hinsdale) from the Western Slope district. Based on the revised census numbers, a district that did this would need to add all of Clear Creek, Gilpin, and Fremont Counties to the Western Slope along with the small part of El Paso County. On its face, this maintains county integrity very well and would be a better map than the preliminary commission map that groups parts of Boulder County into the Western Slope. However, there are two problems with such a design. One would be that it breaks up communities of interest to the east: Gilpin and Clear Creek Counties are more associated with the Denver Metro, and Canon City with Pueblo, than any of them are with the Western Slope. The second problem is that it means any district centered in the North Front Range would need to take on arbitrary parts of neighboring Broomfield and Weld County or an even less-logical division of Arvada or Golden in Jefferson County. The draft alternative map submitted with these comments places the San Luis Valley with the Western Slope. To complete the required population, it adds western El Paso County (as described above), western Fremont County, Custer County, and Huerfano County to the Western Slope district. Certainly, arguments can be made about dividing communities of interest here as well, but ties do exist along the Wet Mountain Valley and across La Veta Pass. Throughout the map – throughout any map – tradeoffs must be made among which communities remain together. The draft alternative District 4 is based on the Eastern Plains. In the south, this includes eastern Fremont County (including Canon City), Pueblo County, Las Animas County, the Lower Arkansas Valley, and parts of far eastern El Paso County. In the north, this includes all of Weld and Elbert Counties, retaining them as intact political subdivisions. It does not extend into Larimer, Broomfield, Adams, Arapahoe, or Douglas Counties. 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 approximately the right size to form a district, but the complexities of interlocking communities make it sensible to include Bow Mar and a small piece of southern Lakewood in this district and exclude the Indian Creek and Kennedy neighborhoods. This leaves three districts to place in suburban Denver. A great place for a boundary among these three districts that does not split communities of interest is in the area of low population to the northeast of Denver International Airport. District 7 in this numbering (which is arbitrary) would include all of Adams County to the west of the airport: to name only the largest communities, Commerce City, Brighton (except the part in Weld), Thornton, Northglenn, and Westminster. It would also include the City and County of Broomfield, and Arvada and the rest of Westminster in Jefferson County. District 6 would include all of the City of Aurora and the parts of Adams and Arapahoe Counties to its east. It would also include Parker, Stonegate, and Meridian in Douglas County; Centennial, Greenwood Village, and Cherry Hills Village in Arapahoe County; and the Indian Creek and Kennedy neighborhoods in Denver. District 8 would include the rest. It would include all of Jefferson County from Golden and Lakewood south (except for small parts of southeastern Lakewood and western Bow Mar) It would include the rest of Douglas County, including Highlands Ranch, Lone Tree, Castle Pines, and The Pinery. Comparison of Maps Precise Population Equality The preliminary commission map has exact population equality. The draft alternative map has a variation of 0.28% (2,038 persons). This is well within the courts’ guidelines for population equality, without even considering that errors in the census data likely exceed this variation, the census data are already a year out of date, 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.†It may be better to maintain unity in a community of interest or political subdivision rather than separate part of it for additional precision. 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 draft alternative

description: A Visitor Study and Report on the Connections between People, Place and Bison Conservation at the Rocky Mountain Arsenal National Wildlife Refuge. This study makes an important contribution to visitor management and human dimensions of wildlife research at the Rocky Mountain Arsenal National Wildlife Refuge (RMA or Refuge) in metropolitan Denver. Denver Zoo researchers conducted visitor-intercept interviews to collect data about how the Refuge s conservation bison herd, reintroduced in 2009, is shaping the visitor experience. This report summarizes the 2015 findings of this work including the socio-demographic characteristics of Refuge visitors, their self-reported site use patterns and experiences, and their sense of connection to this grassland protected area and its conservation bison herd. Research findings illuminate greater opportunities for RMA, as an urban refuge, to attract and engage Denver publics and other visitors through its bison conservation herd, cementing the value of RMA herd for social and ecological benefit. Denver Zoo s conservation social science team conducted 100 visitor-intercept interviews with Refuge visitors from early July to late August 2015. These interviews followed the pilot testing of a structured interview guide in mid-June 2015. A multi-stage random sampling design for the visitor intercepts ensured a highly representative sample. Interviews were conducted across a range of weeks, days (e.g. weekdays and weekends), and times (morning and afternoon) to capture a variety of visitors. In conclusion, the Refuge s bison herd motivates visitation for almost 20% of Refuge visitors. The herd is seen by visitors as an asset and natural amenity that adds value to their experience and sense of connection to the Refuge. Looking forward, the Refuge s conservation bison herd is an opportunity for attracting broader audiences and supporters, across metropolitan Denver and more globally, to the Refuge and connecting them to the grassland ecosystem it protects. Moreover, the Refuge bison herd is a highly recognizable ambassador herd (and part of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service s bison meta-population critical for conservation) that can be interpreted to more effectively demonstrate to urban audiences the importance and value of grassland restoration and contemporary bison recovery across the American West.; abstract: A Visitor Study and Report on the Connections between People, Place and Bison Conservation at the Rocky Mountain Arsenal National Wildlife Refuge. This study makes an important contribution to visitor management and human dimensions of wildlife research at the Rocky Mountain Arsenal National Wildlife Refuge (RMA or Refuge) in metropolitan Denver. Denver Zoo researchers conducted visitor-intercept interviews to collect data about how the Refuge s conservation bison herd, reintroduced in 2009, is shaping the visitor experience. This report summarizes the 2015 findings of this work including the socio-demographic characteristics of Refuge visitors, their self-reported site use patterns and experiences, and their sense of connection to this grassland protected area and its conservation bison herd. Research findings illuminate greater opportunities for RMA, as an urban refuge, to attract and engage Denver publics and other visitors through its bison conservation herd, cementing the value of RMA herd for social and ecological benefit. Denver Zoo s conservation social science team conducted 100 visitor-intercept interviews with Refuge visitors from early July to late August 2015. These interviews followed the pilot testing of a structured interview guide in mid-June 2015. A multi-stage random sampling design for the visitor intercepts ensured a highly representative sample. Interviews were conducted across a range of weeks, days (e.g. weekdays and weekends), and times (morning and afternoon) to capture a variety of visitors. In conclusion, the Refuge s bison herd motivates visitation for almost 20% of Refuge visitors. The herd is seen by visitors as an asset and natural amenity that adds value to their experience and sense of connection to the Refuge. Looking forward, the Refuge s conservation bison herd is an opportunity for attracting broader audiences and supporters, across metropolitan Denver and more globally, to the Refuge and connecting them to the grassland ecosystem it protects. Moreover, the Refuge bison herd is a highly recognizable ambassador herd (and part of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service s bison meta-population critical for conservation) that can be interpreted to more effectively demonstrate to urban audiences the importance and value of grassland restoration and contemporary bison recovery across the American West.

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 polygon feature layer contains block groups found in the Metro Denver Nature Alliance's seven-county boundary, which includes Adams, Arapahoe, Boulder, Broomfield, Denver, Douglas, and Jefferson Counties. Each block group has been joined with selected characteristics from the American Community Survey, which provides five-year estimates from 2017 to 2021. Included attributes include demographic and socioeconomic characteristics with respect to total population, age of males and females, populations of racial groups, average educational attainment, median household income, total occupied housing units, and average household size.

description: Greater sandhill cranes of the Rocky Mountain Population (RMP) were counted at fall premigration staging areas in Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Utah, and Wyoming during September 2013. Migrants that had arrived at the RMP migration stopover areas near Jensen, Utah and in the San Luis Valley, Colorado were also recorded. The cooperative survey was organized by the Pacific Flyway Subcommittee on the RMP of Greater Sandhill Cranes and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). The FWS, Division of Migratory Bird Management (DMBM), Denver, provided a Cessna 206 for a portion of the survey. Aerial and ground surveys were conducted by personnel from the respective state agencies, FWS and volunteers (participants listed in Table 1). Dan Collins, from the FWS southwest region, was added to the FWS aerial survey crew this year to replace Doug Benning.; abstract: Greater sandhill cranes of the Rocky Mountain Population (RMP) were counted at fall premigration staging areas in Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Utah, and Wyoming during September 2013. Migrants that had arrived at the RMP migration stopover areas near Jensen, Utah and in the San Luis Valley, Colorado were also recorded. The cooperative survey was organized by the Pacific Flyway Subcommittee on the RMP of Greater Sandhill Cranes and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). The FWS, Division of Migratory Bird Management (DMBM), Denver, provided a Cessna 206 for a portion of the survey. Aerial and ground surveys were conducted by personnel from the respective state agencies, FWS and volunteers (participants listed in Table 1). Dan Collins, from the FWS southwest region, was added to the FWS aerial survey crew this year to replace Doug Benning.

BMI data is obtained from each systems’ electronic health record and combined into one database managed by the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment. These data represent individuals who presented for routine care at one of the participating health care organizations, and had a valid height and weight measured. Overweight and obesity prevalence estimates are available for the 7 metro Denver counties, and for rural Prowers County. Estimates generated from the Colorado BMI Monitoring System may be linked with other data sources to identify contributory social and environmental factors.This feature layer represents adult obesity estimates only.DefinitionsCoverage: The total number of individuals in the BMI Monitoring System with a valid BMI divided by the total estimated population from the American Community Survey Population and Demographic Estimates produced by the US Census Bureau in the specified geographic area and age group.Obesity Adults: Obesity is defined as a BMI, calculated from height and weight, of 30 kilograms per meter squared (kg/m2) or greater.Obesity Prevalence Estimates: Percentage of individuals with obesity based upon the total number of individuals with obesity in the specified geographic area and age group divided by the total number of valid BMI measurements in the same specified geographic area and age group.