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.
1. Cities which have continually posted population declines in every decade since the 1960 or 1970 census.
2. Which are also extremely unlikely to turn around from this population decline and see growth again.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deezus
Portland, Oregon. Our entire economy is based around strip clubs and food carts. Also I believe we just elected a hacky sack to City Council.
It might annoy you culturally, but any city which has nearly doubled in population since 1980 can't be seen as hopeless.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pch1013
Stockton, CA
Stockton's population has grown every single decade. Back in 1970, it had only 110,00, and it has 292,000 today. This seems pretty dynamic to me, although admittedly as a sunbelt city, much of this could have come from annexation of suburbs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amercity
Ugly architecture in buffalo? It has some of the greatest Victorian architecture in the country. Unless you aren't a fan of brick houses in general.
Huh? Buffalo isn't part of the "rowhouse belt" of the U.S. Brownstones aren't really found in Upstate NY past the Albany/Troy region. There are some detached brick Victorians, but similar to New England and much of the upper Midwest, the dominant housing style in Buffalo was wood. Even where this has stood the test of time well, it doesn't tend to look urban - it looks like suburban areas with tiny lots. Worse, wood houses were often ruined, particularly in working-class areas, as the ornate wood trim was ripped off, windows were re-sized, and aluminum siding was put up. Of course, your mileage may vary, but having grown up in the "frame belt" (Connecticut) and living now in the "brick belt," I just think the latter did urban architecture better.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sleepless in Bham
While the situation in Birmingham is challenging, its not close to hopeless.
Fact was Birmingham was a one-industry city, with racial issues at the time unlike any other city. Then comes the collapse of steel industry and white flight in the city proper in the late 60-70's. While we have a more diverse economy and better race relations, this city's past is like a large stone around its neck. When we as a city can finally accept what happened and move on, Birmingham will finally be able to compete with other cities in SE.
Also you cant overlook the bad to god-awful leadership at the city, county and state level.
I admit that Birmingham is not in as bad shape as some of the cities I listed. But it's probably in uniquely bad shape for a major city in the Southeast.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lammius
I disagree about Rochester. It's a white collar city relative to the others listed, and isn't in the same "rust belt" category. Its population has been on the decline for several decades (the metro is growing unlike Buffalo), but the city doesn't feel dead or dying or hopeless. The city has great institutions (UofR, Eastman School, etc.). The east side is a lively area of town and the wedge area is getting infused with new life. It offers a pretty high quality of life and low cost of living, so it can become a "city of choice" for people (much in the way Pittsburgh has enjoyed its recent revival).
I don't have the same optimism for Syracuse or Buffalo. That's not to say I dislike those cities, but opportunities for them to succeed are less obvious to me.
I admit the decline of Rochester hasn't been as bad as Buffalo and Syracuse. I'd put it more on the Erie level of decline, although it is of course a much larger city. I think the major stumbling block for Rochester is it needs to attract more diversity. I know there's a Latino neighborhood around Upper Falls, but generally speaking, cities outside of the sun belt only begin growing once they attract a significant number of Asian and Latino migrants.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lammius
I should add the Albany area is on a solid growth trajectory as well.
Absolutely, which is why I didn't list it. Also, Albany is under 100,000.
Quote:
Originally Posted by I'minformed2
Also...did the OP seriously just say that Upstate NY has ugly urban architecture!?!?! Have they ever seen the Rochester neighborhoods of Park Avenue, East Avenue, Highland Park, Corn Hill, Charlotte, Cobbs Hill, Ellwanger-Barry, or Browncroft? Or how about pretty much the entire northern half of the city of Buffalo? Some of the finest examples of solid turn of the century housing stock in those two cities.
Do you have streets like this in Upstate NY? It's of course subjective, but this is pretty much what I'd call the urban ideal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by detroit's own
yes because Detroit has been going through a Renaissance 100 yrs without progress, we have no neighborhoods that held up through the good bad and the ugly, as a matter of fact ALL of our neighborhoods are bombed out with no standing home, nobody in the Detroit area is doing anything to improve the city etc so yea we are pretty hopeless
As I said, I don't think that no parts of Detroit in particular can recover. I just think the amount of blight in the city is so great (and it is so much larger than other troubled cities), that nothing short of it being the next Portland would stem the decline. And there are many other, better options for the next Portland.
Quote:
Originally Posted by detroit's own
oh and what does Toledo being close to Detroit have to with Toledo's issues?
1. In general satellite cites don't appeal to those looking to relocate to a city. If you want the positives of being in a city, you look for the biggest city in a given region, not someplace an hour or two commute away. The only exceptions are "urban suburbs" like Hoboken, which have gotten trendy because the prices in NYC itself became unaffordable. But
2. The local job market sucks, which means it's highly unlikely to attract either domestic or international migrants solely looking for work who don't care about the local amenities.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Broadrippleguy
Have you been to Evansville?
Cause seriously i think i need to let Toxic Toast enlighten you on an area you clearly know nothing about.
Evansville is a very nice city and ironically its economy is actually very strong.
My brother lived in Bloomington for a decade, so most of my information on Evansville comes from him. The population has steadily declined since 1960, albeit by pretty small margins (2%-6%) each decade. I don't see how it's primed for growth again. School me if it is.
[quote=ckhthankgod;28130329]I agree with posts 9 and 10(more so). So much for no investment in Syracuse: /QUOTE]
I didn't say that Syracuse was East Saint Louis. I said I think it seems unlikely to return to population growth any time soon. Admittedly though the central part of Upstate NY doesn't show county-wide declines the same way Western NY does, so if more suburbanites can be attracted to live in the cities, they may have a bright future.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bchris02
I say maybe Memphis. I would love for there to be a turnaround in Memphis because it has so much potential, but its an extremely challenging situation. If it could overcome its obstacles, I think it would be a very attractive city if you like cities between 1 and 2 million population.
Memphis only had a 0.5% decline in population in the 2010 census, and grew by 6.5% in the 2000 census. It's definitely been somewhat stalled out compared to most sunbelt cities over the last 40 years, but it doesn't look like it has horrible trends.
[quote=eschaton;28133899]I should say to begin with, by hopeless I meant.
1. Cities which have continually posted population declines in every decade since the 1960 or 1970 census.
2. Which are also extremely unlikely to turn around from this population decline and see growth again.
It might annoy you culturally, but any city which has nearly doubled in population since 1980 can't be seen as hopeless.
Stockton's population has grown every single decade. Back in 1970, it had only 110,00, and it has 292,000 today. This seems pretty dynamic to me, although admittedly as a sunbelt city, much of this could have come from annexation of suburbs.
Huh? Buffalo isn't part of the "rowhouse belt" of the U.S. Brownstones aren't really found in Upstate NY past the Albany/Troy region. There are some detached brick Victorians, but similar to New England and much of the upper Midwest, the dominant housing style in Buffalo was wood. Even where this has stood the test of time well, it doesn't tend to look urban - it looks like suburban areas with tiny lots. Worse, wood houses were often ruined, particularly in working-class areas, as the ornate wood trim was ripped off, windows were re-sized, and aluminum siding was put up. Of course, your mileage may vary, but having grown up in the "frame belt" (Connecticut) and living now in the "brick belt," I just think the latter did urban architecture better.
I admit that Birmingham is not in as bad shape as some of the cities I listed. But it's probably in uniquely bad shape for a major city in the Southeast.
I admit the decline of Rochester hasn't been as bad as Buffalo and Syracuse. I'd put it more on the Erie level of decline, although it is of course a much larger city. I think the major stumbling block for Rochester is it needs to attract more diversity. I know there's a Latino neighborhood around Upper Falls, but generally speaking, cities outside of the sun belt only begin growing once they attract a significant number of Asian and Latino migrants.
Absolutely, which is why I didn't list it. Also, Albany is under 100,000.
Do you have streets like this in Upstate NY? It's of course subjective, but this is pretty much what I'd call the urban ideal.
As I said, I don't think that no parts of Detroit in particular can recover. I just think the amount of blight in the city is so great (and it is so much larger than other troubled cities), that nothing short of it being the next Portland would stem the decline. And there are many other, better options for the next Portland.
1. In general satellite cites don't appeal to those looking to relocate to a city. If you want the positives of being in a city, you look for the biggest city in a given region, not someplace an hour or two commute away. The only exceptions are "urban suburbs" like Hoboken, which have gotten trendy because the prices in NYC itself became unaffordable. But
2. The local job market sucks, which means it's highly unlikely to attract either domestic or international migrants solely looking for work who don't care about the local amenities.
My brother lived in Bloomington for a decade, so most of my information on Evansville comes from him. The population has steadily declined since 1960, albeit by pretty small margins (2%-6%) each decade. I don't see how it's primed for growth again. School me if it is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckhthankgod
I agree with posts 9 and 10(more so). So much for no investment in Syracuse: /QUOTE]
I didn't say that Syracuse was East Saint Louis. I said I think it seems unlikely to return to population growth any time soon. Admittedly though the central part of Upstate NY doesn't show county-wide declines the same way Western NY does, so if more suburbanites can be attracted to live in the cities, they may have a bright future.
Memphis only had a 0.5% decline in population in the 2010 census, and grew by 6.5% in the 2000 census. It's definitely been somewhat stalled out compared to most sunbelt cities over the last 40 years, but it doesn't look like it has horrible trends.
Oh, I know. I will say that the city population only declined 1% between 2000-2010 and I think Rochester actually added people between 2010-2011.
Ugly archeticutre in buffalo? It has some of the greatest victorian archectiure in the country. Unless you arent a fan of brick houses in general.
If we are talking economically many small rust belt cities have almost nothing for them. They were big enough to feel the effects of deindustralization but small enough that they have no major urban ammenties, streets, colleges
South Bend was one such city, but it houses The University of Notre Dame inside it.
A city this black experiencing population decreases is in the midst of "white flight" the suburbs around Jackson are growing, and are increasingly white towns. The city of Jackson doesn't even have a movie theatre in the city limits. The city has 1 mall which is on the verge of collapse and carries 1 anchor store with a lot of small local stores I've never even heard of.
Jackson is a city in peril, the people who do well in the area refuse to live in the city due to high crime, low property value, and poor schools. It will take a lot to turn this city around, and I don't see it happening for another decade or two.
Newark,Nj. Aboslute nothing.
But I guess its close proximity to Nyc helps the economy.
Gary,Indiana. Enough said.
Fayetteville,Nc. If it wasn't for Ft. Bragg,its just nothing.
If you read the OP's opening statement, he said not to include cities like Gary, Camden, and East St. Louis, since they are all BELOW 100,000 in population.
I think a better way to phrase this question is "Which cities face the longest road to recovery in the post-industrial economy?"
Also, I grew up and live in the South and have never seen Birmingham as a hopless or dying city. I always saw it as a growing, large, rich city.
Birmingham metro is growing, large, and overall pretty wealthy. The city of Birmingham is shrinking, nearly 80% black, and ranks as being the 9th most dangerous city in the country.
Wow....someone from Pittsburgh saying that Buffalo and Rochester have ugly housing stock. That's ironic. While your pictures from the mexican war streets and similar areas of Pitt are certainly beautiful...are you trying to say that the majority of housing in Pittsburgh looks like that? From what I've seen, while Pittsburgh does have some very beautiful architecture in many of it's neighborhoods, it also has it's fair share of streets that look like this.....
Those faded bricks and awnings don't exactly scream architectural superiority to Buff or Roch to me...especially when they have streets that look like this....
Last edited by JMT; 02-09-2013 at 06:07 AM..
Reason: PLEASE follow the rules for posting images.
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.
