The Census Bureau released revised delineations for urban areas on December 29, 2022. The new criteria (contained in this Federal Register Notice) is based primarily on housing unit density measured at the census block level. The minimum qualifying threshold for inclusion as an urban area is an area that contains at least 2,000 housing units or has a population of at least 5,000 persons. It also eliminates the classification of areas as “urban clusters/urbanized areas”. This represents a change from 2010, where urban areas were defined as areas consisting of 50,000 people or more and urban clusters consisted of at least 2,500 people but less than 50,000 people with at least 1,500 people living outside of group quarters. Due to the new population thresholds for urban areas, 36 urban clusters in California are no longer considered urban areas, leaving California with 193 urban areas after the new criteria was implemented.

The State of California experienced an increase of 1,885,884 in the total urban population, or 5.3%. However, the total urban area population as a percentage of the California total population went down from 95% to 94.2%. For more information about the mapped data, download the Excel spreadsheet here.

Please note that some of the 2020 urban areas have different names or additional place names as a result of the inclusion of housing unit counts as secondary naming criteria.

Please note there are four urban areas that cross state boundaries in Arizona and Nevada. For 2010, only the parts within California are displayed on the map; however, the population and housing estimates represent the entirety of the urban areas. For 2020, the population and housing unit estimates pertains to the areas within California only.

Data for this web application was derived from the 2010 and 2020 Censuses (2010 and 2020 Census Blocks, 2020 Urban Areas, and Counties) and the 2016-2020 American Community Survey (2010 -Urban Areas) and can be found at data.census.gov.

For more information about the urban area delineations, visit the Census Bureau's Urban and Rural webpage and FAQ.

To view more data from the State of California Department of Finance, visit the Demographic Research Unit Data Hub.

This data publication contains urban tree inventory data for 929,823 street trees that were collected from 2006 to 2013 in 49 California cities. Fifty six urban tree inventories were obtained from various sources for California cities across five climate zones. The five climate zones were based largely on aggregation of Sunset National Garden Book's 45 climate zones. Forty-nine of the inventories fit the required criteria of (1) included all publicly managed trees, (2) contained data for each tree on species and diameter at breast height (dbh) and (3) was conducted after 2005. Tree data were prepared for entry into i-Tree Streets by deleting unnecessary data, matching species to those in the i-Tree database, and establishing dbh size classes. Data included in this publication include tree location (city, street name and number), diameter at breast height, species name and/or species code, and tree type.This record was taken from the USDA Enterprise Data Inventory that feeds into the https://data.gov catalog. Data for this record includes the following resources: ISO-19139 metadata ArcGIS Hub Dataset ArcGIS GeoService For complete information, please visit https://data.gov.

20 year Projected Urban Growth scenarios. Base year is 2000. Projected year in this dataset is 2020.

By 2020, most forecasters agree, California will be home to between 43 and 46 million residents-up from 35 million today. Beyond 2020 the size of California's population is less certain. Depending on the composition of the population, and future fertility and migration rates, California's 2050 population could be as little as 50 million or as much as 70 million. One hundred years from now, if present trends continue, California could conceivably have as many as 90 million residents.

Where these future residents will live and work is unclear. For most of the 20th Century, two-thirds of Californians have lived south of the Tehachapi Mountains and west of the San Jacinto Mountains-in that part of the state commonly referred to as Southern California. Yet most of coastal Southern California is already highly urbanized, and there is relatively little vacant land available for new development. More recently, slow-growth policies in Northern California and declining developable land supplies in Southern California are squeezing ever more of the state's population growth into the San Joaquin Valley.

How future Californians will occupy the landscape is also unclear. Over the last fifty years, the state's population has grown increasingly urban. Today, nearly 95 percent of Californians live in metropolitan areas, mostly at densities less than ten persons per acre. Recent growth patterns have strongly favored locations near freeways, most of which where built in the 1950s and 1960s. With few new freeways on the planning horizon, how will California's future growth organize itself in space? By national standards, California's large urban areas are already reasonably dense, and economic theory suggests that densities should increase further as California's urban regions continue to grow. In practice, densities have been rising in some urban counties, but falling in others.

These are important issues as California plans its long-term future. Will California have enough land of the appropriate types and in the right locations to accommodate its projected population growth? Will future population growth consume ever-greater amounts of irreplaceable resource lands and habitat? Will jobs continue decentralizing, pushing out the boundaries of metropolitan areas? Will development densities be sufficient to support mass transit, or will future Californians be stuck in perpetual gridlock? Will urban and resort and recreational growth in the Sierra Nevada and Trinity Mountain regions lead to the over-fragmentation of precious natural habitat? How much water will be needed by California's future industries, farms, and residents, and where will that water be stored? Where should future highway, transit, and high-speed rail facilities and rights-of-way be located? Most of all, how much will all this growth cost, both economically, and in terms of changes in California's quality of life?

Clearly, the more precise our current understanding of how and where California is likely to grow, the sooner and more inexpensively appropriate lands can be acquired for purposes of conservation, recreation, and future facility siting. Similarly, the more clearly future urbanization patterns can be anticipated, the greater our collective ability to undertake sound city, metropolitan, rural, and bioregional planning.

Consider two scenarios for the year 2100. In the first, California's population would grow to 80 million persons and would occupy the landscape at an average density of eight persons per acre, the current statewide urban average. Under this scenario, and assuming that 10% percent of California's future population growth would occur through infill-that is, on existing urban land-California's expanding urban population would consume an additional 5.06 million acres of currently undeveloped land. As an alternative, assume the share of infill development were increased to 30%, and that new population were accommodated at a density of about 12 persons per acre-which is the current average density of the City of Los Angeles. Under this second scenario, California's urban population would consume an additional 2.6 million acres of currently undeveloped land. While both scenarios accommodate the same amount of population growth and generate large increments of additional urban development-indeed, some might say even the second scenario allows far too much growth and development-the second scenario is far kinder to California's unique natural landscape.

This report presents the results of a series of baseline population and urban growth projections for California's 38 urban counties through the year 2100. Presented in map and table form, these projections are based on extrapolations of current population trends and recent urban development trends. The next section, titled Approach, outlines the methodology and data used to develop the various projections. The following section, Baseline Scenario, reviews the projections themselves. A final section, entitled Baseline Impacts, quantitatively assesses the impacts of the baseline projections on wetland, hillside, farmland and habitat loss.

Urban environments are unique because fragments of natural or semi-natural habitat are embedded within a potentially permeable matrix of human-dominated areas, creating increased landscape and, potentially, habitat heterogeneity. In addition, urban areas can provide diet subsidies for wildlife species in the form of fruiting ornamental plants, trash, and domestic animals. Ecological opportunity in the forms of habitat and food heterogeneity are thought to be important mechanisms in maintaining individual specialization. Identifying which contexts, traits, and mechanisms determine the success or failure of individuals within an urban wildlife population could potentially provide predictions about which populations may succeed in human-dominated landscapes and which may experience local extinction. We used both scat and stable isotope analysis of whiskers to investigate the degree to which coyotes (Canis latrans) utilized anthropogenic subsidies and exhibited individual diet specialization across the urban-rural gradient in southern California. Land use surrounding scat and isotope sample locations was also evaluated to determine the effect of land cover on diet. Human food constituted a significant portion of urban coyote diet (22% of scats, 38% of diet estimated by stable isotope analysis). Domestic cats (Felis catus) and ornamental fruit and seeds were also important items in urban coyote diets. Consumption of anthropogenic items decreased with decreasing urbanization. In suburban areas, seasonality influenced the frequency of occurrence of anthropogenic subsidies with increased consumption in the dry season. The amount of altered open space (areas such as golf courses, cemeteries, and landscaped parks) nearby had a negative effect on the consumption of anthropogenic items in both urban and suburban areas. Contrary to our hypothesis, urban coyotes displayed reduced between-individual variation compared to suburban and rural coyotes. It is possible that the core urban areas of cities are so densely developed and subsidized that wildlife inhabiting these areas actually have reduced ecological opportunity. Suburban animals had the broadest isotopic niches and maintained similar individual specialization to rural coyotes. Wildlife in suburban areas still have access to relatively undisturbed natural areas while being able to take advantage of anthropogenic subsidies in neighboring residential areas. Therefore, areas with intermediate urban development may be associated with increased ecological opportunity and specialization.

Feature layer generated from running the Enrich layer solution. California Incorporated Cities were enrichedThis feature class was updated from our 2012 city boundary GIS data by extracting city boundaries from Tax Area Services Section (TASS) of the California Board of Equalization 2013/2014 data release. The city boundary lines were digitized to match available county parcel base information provided from TASS in the format of CAD DWG layers and/or the Tax Rate Area (TRA) maps in PDF file. TIGER/Line Parcel data and ESRI Basemap imagery were used as reference layers. Additional 3 nautical mile offshore polygons were digitized for the coastal cities located from south of San Francisco to the Mexican border according to TRA maps. We keep the offshore polygons separate from their city boundaries on the lands, and put “3 nautical mile offshore” label in the attribute “Notes” for those polygons. The attributes include 2010 United States Census population and land area information, the city incorporated dates and web links are listed as well. This GIS version of California City boundaries is intended for general reference, planning, and study purposes only and does not represent official property boundary determinations.

In 2020, about 82.66 percent of the total population in the United States lived in cities and urban areas. As the United States was one of the earliest nations to industrialize, it has had a comparatively high rate of urbanization over the past two centuries. The urban population became larger than the rural population during the 1910s, and by the middle of the century it is expected that almost 90 percent of the population will live in an urban setting. Regional development of urbanization in the U.S. The United States began to urbanize on a larger scale in the 1830s, as technological advancements reduced the labor demand in agriculture, and as European migration began to rise. One major difference between early urbanization in the U.S. and other industrializing economies, such as the UK or Germany, was population distribution. Throughout the 1800s, the Northeastern U.S. became the most industrious and urban region of the country, as this was the main point of arrival for migrants. Disparities in industrialization and urbanization was a key contributor to the Union's victory in the Civil War, not only due to population sizes, but also through production capabilities and transport infrastructure. The Northeast's population reached an urban majority in the 1870s, whereas this did not occur in the South until the 1950s. As more people moved westward in the late 1800s, not only did their population growth increase, but the share of the urban population also rose, with an urban majority established in both the West and Midwest regions in the 1910s. The West would eventually become the most urbanized region in the 1960s, and over 90 percent of the West's population is urbanized today. Urbanization today New York City is the most populous city in the United States, with a population of 8.3 million, while California has the largest urban population of any state. California also has the highest urbanization rate, although the District of Columbia is considered 100 percent urban. Only four U.S. states still have a rural majority, these are Maine, Mississippi, Montana, and West Virginia.

The 2015 cartographic boundary shapefiles are simplified representations of selected geographic areas from the U.S. Census Bureau's Master Address File / Topologically Integrated Geographic Encoding and Referencing (MAF/TIGER) Database (MTDB). These boundary files are specifically designed for small-scale thematic mapping. When possible, generalization is performed with the intent to maintain the hierarchical relationships among geographies and to maintain the alignment of geographies within a file set for a given year. Geographic areas may not align with the same areas from another year. Some geographies are available as nation-based files while others are available only as state-based files. The records in this file allow users to map the parts of Urban Areas that overlap a particular county. After each decennial census, the Census Bureau delineates urban areas that represent densely developed territory, encompassing residential, commercial, and other nonresidential urban land uses. In general, this territory consists of areas of high population density and urban land use resulting in a representation of the "urban footprint." There are two types of urban areas: urbanized areas (UAs) that contain 50,000 or more people and urban clusters (UCs) that contain at least 2,500 people, but fewer than 50,000 people (except in the U.S. Virgin Islands and Guam which each contain urban clusters with populations greater than 50,000). Each urban area is identified by a 5-character numeric census code that may contain leading zeroes. The primary legal divisions of most states are termed counties. In Louisiana, these divisions are known as parishes. In Alaska, which has no counties, the equivalent entities are the organized boroughs, city and boroughs, municipalities, and for the unorganized area, census areas. The latter are delineated cooperatively for statistical purposes by the State of Alaska and the Census Bureau. In four states (Maryland, Missouri, Nevada, and Virginia), there are one or more incorporated places that are independent of any county organization and thus constitute primary divisions of their states. These incorporated places are known as independent cities and are treated as equivalent entities for purposes of data presentation. The District of Columbia and Guam have no primary divisions, and each area is considered an equivalent entity for purposes of data presentation. The Census Bureau treats the following entities as equivalents of counties for purposes of data presentation: Municipios in Puerto Rico, Districts and Islands in American Samoa, Municipalities in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and Islands in the U.S. Virgin Islands. The entire area of the United States, Puerto Rico, and the Island Areas is covered by counties or equivalent entities. The boundaries for counties and equivalent entities are as of January 1, 2010.

This map shows four of these densely populated areas are in California. The San Francisco-Oakland and San Jose Urban Areas rank second and third, respectively. That the New York Metropolitan area ranks fifth on this list shows that this density ranking is greatly affected by the nature of the land area designated as urban. Census Urban Areas comprise an urban core and associated suburbs. California's urban and suburban areas are more uniform in density when compared to New York's urban core and suburban periphery which have vastly different densities. Delano ranks fourth because it has a very small land area and its population is augmented by two large California State Prisons housing 10,000 inmates.

Summary File 3 contains sample data, which is the information compiled from the questions asked of a sample of all people and housing units in the United States. Population items include basic population totals as well as counts for the following characteristics: urban and rural, households and families, marital status, grandparents as caregivers, language and ability to speak English, ancestry, place of birth, citizenship status, year of entry, migration, place of work, journey to work (commuting), school enrollment and educational attainment, veteran status, disability, employment status, industry, occupation, class of worker, income, and poverty status. Housing items include basic housing totals and counts for urban and rural, number of rooms, number of bedrooms, year moved into unit, household size and occupants per room, units in structure, year structure built, heating fuel, telephone service, plumbing and kitchen facilities, vehicles available, value of home, and monthly rent and shelter costs. The Summary File 3 population tables are identified with a "P" prefix and the housing tables are identified with an "H," followed by a sequential number. The "P" and "H" tables are shown for the block group and higher level geography, while the "PCT" and "HCT" tables are shown for the census tract and higher level geography. There are 16 "P" tables, 15 "PCT" tables, and 20 "HCT" tables that bear an alphabetic suffix on the table number, indicating that they are repeated for nine major race and Hispanic or Latino groups. There are 484 population tables and 329 housing tables for a total of 813 unique tables.

The 2019 cartographic boundary shapefiles are simplified representations of selected geographic areas from the U.S. Census Bureau's Master Address File / Topologically Integrated Geographic Encoding and Referencing (MAF/TIGER) Database (MTDB). These boundary files are specifically designed for small-scale thematic mapping. When possible, generalization is performed with the intent to maintain the hierarchical relationships among geographies and to maintain the alignment of geographies within a file set for a given year. Geographic areas may not align with the same areas from another year. Some geographies are available as nation-based files while others are available only as state-based files. The records in this file allow users to map the parts of Urban Areas that overlap a particular county. After each decennial census, the Census Bureau delineates urban areas that represent densely developed territory, encompassing residential, commercial, and other nonresidential urban land uses. In general, this territory consists of areas of high population density and urban land use resulting in a representation of the ""urban footprint."" There are two types of urban areas: urbanized areas (UAs) that contain 50,000 or more people and urban clusters (UCs) that contain at least 2,500 people, but fewer than 50,000 people (except in the U.S. Virgin Islands and Guam which each contain urban clusters with populations greater than 50,000). Each urban area is identified by a 5-character numeric census code that may contain leading zeroes. The primary legal divisions of most states are termed counties. In Louisiana, these divisions are known as parishes. In Alaska, which has no counties, the equivalent entities are the organized boroughs, city and boroughs, municipalities, and for the unorganized area, census areas. The latter are delineated cooperatively for statistical purposes by the State of Alaska and the Census Bureau. In four states (Maryland, Missouri, Nevada, and Virginia), there are one or more incorporated places that are independent of any county organization and thus constitute primary divisions of their states. These incorporated places are known as independent cities and are treated as equivalent entities for purposes of data presentation. The District of Columbia and Guam have no primary divisions, and each area is considered an equivalent entity for purposes of data presentation. The Census Bureau treats the following entities as equivalents of counties for purposes of data presentation: Municipios in Puerto Rico, Districts and Islands in American Samoa, Municipalities in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and Islands in the U.S. Virgin Islands. The entire area of the United States, Puerto Rico, and the Island Areas is covered by counties or equivalent entities. The generalized boundaries for counties and equivalent entities are as of January 1, 2010.

Canada CA: Urban Population Growth data was reported at 3.067 % in 2023. This records an increase from the previous number of 1.933 % for 2022. Canada CA: Urban Population Growth data is updated yearly, averaging 1.319 % from Dec 1961 (Median) to 2023, with 63 observations. The data reached an all-time high of 3.523 % in 1971 and a record low of 0.665 % in 2021. Canada CA: Urban Population Growth data remains active status in CEIC and is reported by World Bank. The data is categorized under Global Database’s Canada – Table CA.World Bank.WDI: Population and Urbanization Statistics. Urban population refers to people living in urban areas as defined by national statistical offices. It is calculated using World Bank population estimates and urban ratios from the United Nations World Urbanization Prospects.;World Bank staff estimates based on the United Nations Population Division's World Urbanization Prospects: 2018 Revision.;Weighted average;

2017 TIGER/Line® Shapefiles: Urban Areas

The statistic depicts the availability of a list of wireline technologies in rural as compared to urban areas of California. In 83.5 percent of the urban areas in California, DSL was available in 2011.

This resource is a member of a series. The TIGER/Line shapefiles and related database files (.dbf) are an extract of selected geographic and cartographic information from the U.S. Census Bureau's Master Address File / Topologically Integrated Geographic Encoding and Referencing (MAF/TIGER) System (MTS). The MTS represents a seamless national file with no overlaps or gaps between parts, however, each TIGER/Line shapefile is designed to stand alone as an independent data set, or they can be combined to cover the entire nation. Block groups are clusters of blocks within the same census tract. Each census tract contains at least one block group, and are uniquely numbered within census tracts. Block groups have a valid code range of 0 through 9. They also have the same first digit of their 4-digit census block number from the same decennial census. For example, tabulation blocks numbered 3001, 3002, 3003,.., 3999 within census tract 1210.02 are also within block group 3 within that census tract. Block groups coded 0 are intended to only include water area, no land area, and they are generally in territorial seas, coastal water, and Great Lakes water areas. Block groups generally contain between 600 and 3,000 people. A block group usually covers a contiguous area but never crosses county or census tract boundaries. They may, however, cross the boundaries of other geographic entities like county subdivisions, places, urban areas, voting districts, congressional districts, and American Indian / Alaska Native / Native Hawaiian areas. The block group boundaries in this release are those that were delineated as part of the Census Bureau's Participant Statistical Areas Program (PSAP) for the 2020 Census.

Built-Up Areas are man-made land cover features, ranging from small hamlets at rural cross roads to large cities.

Additional Documentation

Built-up Area - Data Description (PDF) Built-Up Area - Documentation (Word)

Status Completed: production of the data has been completed Maintenance and Update Frequency As needed: data is updated as deemed necessary Contact Ian Smyth, Ian.Smyth@ontario.ca

Canada CA: Population in Largest City: as % of Urban Population data was reported at 19.375 % in 2024. This records a decrease from the previous number of 19.412 % for 2023. Canada CA: Population in Largest City: as % of Urban Population data is updated yearly, averaging 18.225 % from Dec 1960 (Median) to 2024, with 65 observations. The data reached an all-time high of 20.227 % in 2016 and a record low of 15.854 % in 1976. Canada CA: Population in Largest City: as % of Urban Population data remains active status in CEIC and is reported by World Bank. The data is categorized under Global Database’s Canada – Table CA.World Bank.WDI: Population and Urbanization Statistics. Population in largest city is the percentage of a country's urban population living in that country's largest metropolitan area.;United Nations, World Urbanization Prospects.;Weighted average;

The TIGER/Line Files are shapefiles and related database files (.dbf) that are an extract of selected geographic and cartographic information from the U.S. Census Bureau's Master Address File / Topologically Integrated Geographic Encoding and Referencing (MAF/TIGER) Database (MTDB). The MTDB represents a seamless national file with no overlaps or gaps between parts, however, each TIGER/Line File is designed to stand alone as an independent data set, or they can be combined to cover the entire nation. After each decennial census, the Census Bureau delineates urban areas that represent densely developed territory, encompassing residential, commercial, and other nonresidential urban land uses. In general, this territory consists of areas of high population density and urban land use resulting in a representation of the "urban footprint." There are two types of urban areas: urbanized areas (UAs) that contain 50,000 or more people and urban clusters (UCs) that contain at least 2,500 people, but fewer than 50,000 people (except in the U.S. Virgin Islands and Guam which each contain urban clusters with populations greater than 50,000). Each urban area is identified by a 5-character numeric census code that may contain leading zeroes.