U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S. > City vs. City
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 05-25-2013, 11:57 AM
 
Location: Grand Forks, ND
274 posts, read 566,059 times
Reputation: 253

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by YIMBY View Post
There are currently over 11,000 apartment units approved and construction within the city of MPLS alone. The housing market has rebounded as well so, Minneapolis shouldn't have any problems reaching 400,000+ by 2020. St. Paul should be able to hit the 290,000 - 300,000 mark with all the projects it has underway and once the Central Corridor is complete, things will really take off for housing. I don't see Bloomington reaching 100,000 by the next Census.
The amount that are actually under construction is much smaller than that. Minneapolis needs to fix the decay in the north before significant growth can happen.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-27-2013, 09:35 AM
 
574 posts, read 843,154 times
Reputation: 466
Quote:
Originally Posted by btownboss4 View Post
I feel like these estimates are overdone, for example, Denver is estimated to have added nearly 40,000 people

This is what a city of 40,000 looks like

Holyoke, MA

this is what 40,000 people looks like

Yankee Stadium
Yep that's what a city of 40,000 looks like when its right next to a city with over 8,000,000
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-27-2013, 10:10 AM
 
7,238 posts, read 10,466,883 times
Reputation: 5563
Quote:
Originally Posted by MPLS_TC View Post
Yep that's what a city of 40,000 looks like when its right inside a city with over 8,000,000
Fixed.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-27-2013, 10:21 AM
 
178 posts, read 229,711 times
Reputation: 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maintainschaos View Post
Gee I dunno the same way it went from losing people in the 80s to gaining people in the 90s to losing people in 00s. You act as if all people lost in the 00s were in 2009, so I don't know how anyone could *fathom* that population change is dynamic. But somehow, just somehow, it has miraculously occurred before for other cities like DC and Philly AND in Chicago in the past.
That isn't true, though. Chicago has never gained population since around WWII using the decennial Census estimates. There was a recalculation in 2000, including an additional estimate beyond the count, so the 2000 numbers aren't comparable to 1990 or 2010 numbers, because they use a one-time calculation.

So, looking strictly at the actual, official Census counts, there has never been population growth in Chicago in 60 years. However, you are right that the small growth in the annual estimates could be a sign of better prospects for the future. You are also right that other cities have turned around the population losses, and Chicago can too. I would argue, however, that Chicago has a less robust economy and city than places like NYC, SF, DC, etc. so it may be tougher. But Chicago is probably around the same as Philly in terms of revitalization, so it may be possible (Philly recorded slight gains in 2000).

So could I see growth in 2010 for Chicago? Certainly. Is it guaranteed? Far from it, given the past, and given that the annual estimates are almost always massively over-estimating.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-27-2013, 10:25 AM
 
Location: Chicago(Northside)
3,719 posts, read 5,858,152 times
Reputation: 1642
Chicago will grow again, a lot of cities that were loosing population are now growing.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-27-2013, 10:40 AM
 
Location: Maryland
3,918 posts, read 5,038,758 times
Reputation: 4162
Quote:
Originally Posted by Almont1 View Post
That isn't true, though. Chicago has never gained population since around WWII using the decennial Census estimates. There was a recalculation in 2000, including an additional estimate beyond the count, so the 2000 numbers aren't comparable to 1990 or 2010 numbers, because they use a one-time calculation.

So, looking strictly at the actual, official Census counts, there has never been population growth in Chicago in 60 years. However, you are right that the small growth in the annual estimates could be a sign of better prospects for the future. You are also right that other cities have turned around the population losses, and Chicago can too. I would argue, however, that Chicago has a less robust economy and city than places like NYC, SF, DC, etc. so it may be tougher. But Chicago is probably around the same as Philly in terms of revitalization, so it may be possible (Philly recorded slight gains in 2000).

So could I see growth in 2010 for Chicago? Certainly. Is it guaranteed? Far from it, given the past, and given that the annual estimates are almost always massively over-estimating.
I don't get it...So you are saying the final numbers in 2000 were wrong? Right? Then how does that compare to 2010?

The overall point that you missed, however, is that there isn't a magical "switch" that turns population loss into gain, and it doesn't happen the second the date rolls over from one year to the next. My original response was towards the poster that didn't or doesn't realize that final census counts look at a difference of ten years in population, so it's not as if population were all the sudden lost all on Dec. 31, 2010 and then all the sudden on Jan. 1 2011 it started to increase again.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-27-2013, 11:53 AM
 
Location: Nashville/Memphis
368 posts, read 758,742 times
Reputation: 273
Excuse me ...Mr Maintainschaos....im the original poster I believe you were refering to,...your not making sense of course Chicago didnt lose 200,000 people in one day why do you keep sayin that...My original post a couple of pages back said Chicago lost 200K from year2000 to June 30 2010. According to the census

..yeah so thats 10years not one day...but THAN the census estimates now wants to say starting from July 1st Chicago is suddenly growing again..my point was what did Chicago do on July 1st to make it suddenly reverse a seeming unstoppable 10 year Or if we look at the bigger picture 60 year trend of population lost

My Greater point is that Census estimates tend to be a little off the Mark and here is a prime example


But back to Chicago....I always hear people say chicago must be growing because look at all the condos their building downtown,...thats not the problem... If you really look at it , its the south side and all the blacks leaving the south side thats really causing the population loss

So build all the condos you want until Chicago tends to that South Side....Chicago may become the 21st century Detroit
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-27-2013, 11:57 AM
 
178 posts, read 229,711 times
Reputation: 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maintainschaos View Post
I don't get it...So you are saying the final numbers in 2000 were wrong? Right? Then how does that compare to 2010?
I'm saying that the 2000 numbers can't be compared to 1990 or 2010. They used a different methodology this one time, because Congress and the Clinton administration agreed on adding population based on an estimate of missed people (homeless, undocumented, other "tough to find" populations).

Once Bush came in, and Congress turned more Republican, it was overturned, and they went back to the old way of only counting people who agreed to be counted. (the assumption is that Dems want higher population in cities because it's their constituency and Reps want the opposite, so it was a big political football).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Maintainschaos View Post
The overall point that you missed, however, is that there isn't a magical "switch" that turns population loss into gain, and it doesn't happen the second the date rolls over from one year to the next. .
Yeah, I get it. But my point is that we don't really know. We don't know if Chicago will show growth or not. It's certainly possible, but you see that the annual estimates (which tend to be vastly inflated from the decennial counts, for all cities, really) show very modest growth in Chicago compared to other major U.S. cities, so it could go either way when the "official" counts come out.

My wild guess is that Chicago will be basically unchanged in the 2010 Census. It will show very tiny growth, or very tiny decline.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-27-2013, 03:57 PM
 
Location: Arizona
3,647 posts, read 5,302,605 times
Reputation: 2229
Well at the end of the day there are WAY too many variables to say what will happen to any cities population or the city as a whole in the future. What may be going on, or relevant now, may not down the road. Could Chicago lose 500k(just a random number) people over the next ten years, absolutely but could they gain 500k, absolutely. I honestly feel that Chicago is still quite a relevant and important city in the US currently and I don't see it "disappearing" anytime soon but that can always change.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-27-2013, 04:46 PM
 
Location: The canyon (with my pistols and knife)
12,994 posts, read 17,113,637 times
Reputation: 14300
Quote:
Originally Posted by Almont1 View Post
I'm saying that the 2000 numbers can't be compared to 1990 or 2010. They used a different methodology this one time, because Congress and the Clinton administration agreed on adding population based on an estimate of missed people (homeless, undocumented, other "tough to find" populations).

Once Bush came in, and Congress turned more Republican, it was overturned, and they went back to the old way of only counting people who agreed to be counted. (the assumption is that Dems want higher population in cities because it's their constituency and Reps want the opposite, so it was a big political football).
Congress went Republican in 1994 and then went Democrat in 2006. Your argument holds no water.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S. > City vs. City
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top