About

AssembleMe is an information science blog written by Julius Schorzman that frequently sways off-topic.

Julius is the CEO of the Google Ventures backed company DailyCred. DailyCred makes working with OAuth super duper simple.

To view some of my old projects, visit Shopobot or CodeCodex.

You can follow me on Twitter if you really want to @schorzman.

Search
Contact Me
This form does not yet contain any fields.
    « Monday Morning Coffee Visual Aids | Main | Scatterplot of Religion and Crime Shows Slight Correlation »
    Thursday
    Apr132006

    New York City charts

    INFO VISUALIZATION: Here are some charts I created for the New York City Demographics page on Wikipedia. For your viewing pleasure.

    Key:


    • New York City
    • The Bronx
    • Brooklyn
    • Manhattan
    • Queens
    • Staten Island

    Percentage EDIT: Rate of New York City borough population growth, decade over decade.

    New York City population, total and by borough, from 1900 to 2000. Figures in millions.

    New York City population, total and by borough, from 1790 to 1890. Figures in millions.

    New York City borough population from 1790 to 2000. Figures in millions.

    New York City population, total and by borough, from 1790 to 2000. Figures in millions.

    References (60)

    References allow you to track sources for this article, as well as articles that were written in response to this article.

    Reader Comments (10)

    what's the purple line?

    April 17, 2006 | Unregistered Commentered

    im assuming staten island?

    April 17, 2006 | Unregistered CommenterAnonymous

    How can boroughs be over 100% on the "Percentage of NYC population growth" chart when no other boroughs are losing population (e.g., Brooklyn @ 175% around 1850, the Bronx in 1910)?

    My naive understanding of the stat would say that the boroughs should sum up to 100% on this chart.

    April 17, 2006 | Unregistered CommenterTim Dierks

    i'm guessing it is because it looks at the previous periods and not at the boroughs as a whole (so Brooklyn @ 175% in 1850, is a 175% growth in Brooklyn compared to the previous year)

    April 17, 2006 | Unregistered CommenterAnonymous

    Interesting, though not entirely surprising. I think it would be even more interesting to plot the demographics of the immigrant nationalities over time.

    Never the less, Tufte would be proud. ;)

    April 17, 2006 | Unregistered CommenterScott

    First, how hte heck can you confuse the 100%+ groeth rates? Did you not read the chart?
    Secondly, the colros are too close.
    Third, you should set it up so that clicking on one burrough's name inn the list shows only that burrough's linei n the graph in order to make it easier on color-blind readers.
    Last, I do not think a line and percent growth is the right way to express this. Should be figures with total burrough size., with a line for the percent growth (like showing both the velocity and aceleration of a particle).
    Good try though, interesting subject matter.

    April 17, 2006 | Unregistered CommenterAnonymous

    Those graphs look nice. What software did you use? Also, where did you get the data?

    April 23, 2006 | Unregistered CommenterAnonymous

    It's Staten Iland?

    July 3, 2009 | Unregistered CommenterFlyoffacliff

    ... Is purple

    July 3, 2009 | Unregistered CommenterFlyoffacliff

    Well guys if you can do it so much better do it your self... but still i think u accedently used 175% (even though its possible 100 people ---> 375)
    good work dude :D

    April 5, 2010 | Unregistered Commenteryorkyjunior

    PostPost a New Comment

    Enter your information below to add a new comment.

    My response is on my own website »
    Author Email (optional):
    Author URL (optional):
    Post:
     
    Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>