Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
John, you are absolutely correct. But does/will healthcare and tourism match the huge economic output that manufacturing was for Cleveland during its heyday?
The Cleveland Clinic already employs 40,000. I know that number still has a ways to go, but it really is awesome to see how it has not only expanded in the booming University Circle, but new places are going up left and right in the Cleveland metro area too. And that is just the Cleveland Clinic, not to mention University Hospitals.
The population of the United States has increased steadily by roughly 2.5 million people every year since World War II...............There are some cities, however, that have experienced such severe hardship and decline that their populations have actually decreased significantly
1. New Orleans
Population: 354,850
Population Change 2000-2009: -128,813
Population Percent Change 2000-2009: -26.63%
Home Vacancy: 21.5% 2. Flint, Mich.
Population: 111,475
Population Change 2000-2009: -13,266
Population Percent Change 2000-2009: -10.63%
Home Vacancy: 18% 3. Cleveland
Population: 431,369
Population Change 2000-2009: -45,205
Population Percent Change 2000-2009: -9.49%
Home Vacancy: 17.5% 4. Buffalo, N.Y.
Population: 270,240
Population Change 2000-2009: -21,970
Population Percent Change 2000-2009: -7.52%
Home Vacancy: 17.2% 5. Dayton, Ohio
Population: 153,843
Population Change 2000-2009: -11,961
Population Percent Change 2000-2009: -7.21%
Home Vacancy: 18.9% 6. Pittsburgh
Population: 311,647
Population Change 2000-2009: -22,056
Population Percent Change 2000-2009: -6.61%
Home Vacancy: 14.1% 7. Rochester, N.Y.
Population: 207,294
Population Change 2000-2009: -12,180
Population Percent Change 2000-2009: -5.55%
Home Vacancy: 15.3% us-cities-running-out-of-people: Personal Finance News from Yahoo! Finance
These figures are for cities and not metros so in some cases they are misleading.
Most of those metros (plus Detroit) have also lost population, though the decline has been far more slight than in the city proper. A few of them have remained stable or shown slight growth.
New Orleans certainly has some serious, serious issues, and the process of working through those issues seems to be more protracted and lackadasical than one would think to be wise, but it still should be noted that the Katrina situation is an exceptional set of circumstances which deviates from the overall trend. New Orleans had been losing population, but not in the way that was caused by the storm. With the exception of San Francisco, 1906, no major American city had ever gone through anything like that. The only real modern correlatives of New Orleans would be Kobe, Japan (the mid 1990s quake, which killed more than 2000 people), or Darwin, NT, Australia (very nearly completely destroyed by a cat-5 hurricane on Christmas morning, 1974 - it was around 6 years before the city recovered it's population and was substantially rebuilt).
Interestingly, the plains states have a number of cities that have done quite well, growthwise. This has been at the severe expense of smaller towns in the same states - places like Omaha and Fargo have boomed, while the rural parts of those states are studded with ghost towns, or entire counties in Nebraska with populations falling into the low hundreds.
[quote=JohnDBaumgardner;17239042]What do you mean by saying "correction"? My statement concerning Cleveland is absolutely accurate ... and not having any relation to St. Louis, so what is this about a "correction"??
[color=blue][/
Your statement did indeed have relation to St Louis! Read it again:
"Cleveland has shred a sizable level of population in the last decade, something that is common amongst many Midwestern cities that include Chicago, Detroit and St Louis."
Your statement lists cities, along with Cleveland, that lost population in the previous decade, and St Louis is named.....but St Louis did not lose population from 2000 to the present. That's why I said "correction".
The population of the United States has increased steadily by roughly 2.5 million people every year since World War II...............There are some cities, however, that have experienced such severe hardship and decline that their populations have actually decreased significantly
1. New Orleans
Population: 354,850
Population Change 2000-2009: -128,813
Population Percent Change 2000-2009: -26.63%
Home Vacancy: 21.5% 2. Flint, Mich.
Population: 111,475
Population Change 2000-2009: -13,266
Population Percent Change 2000-2009: -10.63%
Home Vacancy: 18% 3. Cleveland
Population: 431,369
Population Change 2000-2009: -45,205
Population Percent Change 2000-2009: -9.49%
Home Vacancy: 17.5% 4. Buffalo, N.Y.
Population: 270,240
Population Change 2000-2009: -21,970
Population Percent Change 2000-2009: -7.52%
Home Vacancy: 17.2% 5. Dayton, Ohio
Population: 153,843
Population Change 2000-2009: -11,961
Population Percent Change 2000-2009: -7.21%
Home Vacancy: 18.9% 6. Pittsburgh
Population: 311,647
Population Change 2000-2009: -22,056
Population Percent Change 2000-2009: -6.61%
Home Vacancy: 14.1% 7. Rochester, N.Y.
Population: 207,294
Population Change 2000-2009: -12,180
Population Percent Change 2000-2009: -5.55%
Home Vacancy: 15.3% us-cities-running-out-of-people: Personal Finance News from Yahoo! Finance
These figures are for cities and not metros so in some cases they are misleading.
NOLA: Katrina was to blame, its population is showing healthy growth as of today
Flint: agreed as everyone else. High crime, bad economy caused the population drop
Cleveland: Yes, they did lose population, but they are going through a new growth period like St. Louis
Buffalo: Like Flint, but to a lesser extent, also a lot of state aid goes to NYC, ignoring Buffalo
Dayton: I'm not as familiar with this place so... no comment
Pittsburgh: Declining industry like other former factory places. Though its improving
Rochestor: once again, I don't have as much information on this city, but probably in the same dilemma as Buffalo
Well, it's certainly going to become a much more different city from the 'bottom on up', as Cleveland continues it's latest transformation and renaissance.
Heavy manufacturing, factories and the auto industry helped to create and shape Cleveland into an industrial 'GOLIATH" during it's early developmental and 'booming' years ... Now, healthcare, tourism and biosciences are beginning to fill in the massive cracks that were left in this important cities bedrock ... the very foundation on which Cleveland exists!
I see a much brighter future ahead in Cleveland ... there are not too many cities left out there with the vast amenities, infrastructure, cultural endowments and an enviable cost of living that are comparable to that of Cleveland.
Cleveland isn't going to 'turn the corner' ... IT ALREADY HAS!
Glad to hear of new jobs in Cleveland, but my point is that the average health care or tourism job is not as well paid as the average manufacturing job pre-1980. Med techs make less than UAW assemblers, unit supervisors make less than union steelworkers. I am doubtful that health care or tourism will provide the same level of employment to the Rust Belt cities than their old manufacturing economies did.
NOLA: Katrina was to blame, its population is showing healthy growth as of today
Flint: agreed as everyone else. High crime, bad economy caused the population drop Cleveland: Yes, they did lose population, but they are going through a new growth period like St. Louis
Buffalo: Like Flint, but to a lesser extent, also a lot of state aid goes to NYC, ignoring Buffalo
Dayton: I'm not as familiar with this place so... no comment
Pittsburgh: Declining industry like other former factory places. Though its improving
Rochestor: once again, I don't have as much information on this city, but probably in the same dilemma as Buffalo
How? Cleveland lost 50,000 people in the past decade, while St. Louis gained 10,000. People really need to stop puting these 2 cities in the same setence.
How? Cleveland lost 50,000 people in the past decade, while St. Louis gained 10,000. People really need to stop puting these 2 cities in the same setence.
Do you know anything about Cleveland? You sound so bad when you mention things like this. You probaly have never been to Cleveland or Pittsburgh (which I have seen you bash the two just because they have lost population), which yes, have declined in population, but have reinvested in the cities like many other cities haven't. Completely different from what they were back in the 80s. Sorry, but some of the worst urban decay and urban praries I have seen were in St. Louis... aka the northside, competing with Detroit. I stuck up for St. Louis in the St. Louis forum, but I will call posters out when they have BS like this.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
[/
