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.
I notice on city data, that money people have this circle jerk mentality on raw population numbers, especially when a city increases in population vs. a city that looses population. I am using Chicago and Las Vegas in my example because they are at the opposite ends of the spectrum, but this would apply to any city.
Do people on this site really think that Population Increase = Good and Population Loss = Bad?
Since 1990 Las Vegas has had an increase in population of >100%, while Chicago has lost ~90,000 people since 1990 or ~2.9% of it's population, yet Chicago continues to attract well educated/high earning professionals, and Las Vegas sturggles to keep these individuals.
Several people on this site proclaim "Density, Density is decreasing!!", as if dividing the arbitrary borders of land area by population automatically determines how urban a city is, or how much it is growing or dying.
Just a couple of questions:
1. At what point does WHO is moving to a city become more important than HOW MANY are moving in?
2. is population growth ALWAYS a good thing? If Manhattan increased it's population to 3 million, would users on this side get a hard on for that?
3. Would Chicago instantly become more urban if it's boundaries were shrunk to 40 sq miles, and stats showed it had a density of 23k ppsm?
I am born and raised in Chicago, but moved to New York City and then Washington DC, and when I returned to Chicago this year after being away for 6 years, It was clear to me that Chicago is thriving like it has never thrived in my lifetime. Are there issues in poor neighborhoods? for sure, but "Global CHicago" is thriving like never before. People I know in Vegas often tell me how their city is heading in the opposite direction, not to knock on Vegas, but is raw population growth always good?
Location: Pittsburgh (via Chicago, via Pittsburgh)
3,887 posts, read 5,517,350 times
Reputation: 3107
you are very correct in that people take this whole 'population' issue way too simply. it is very multi-factorial. And like you said, WHO is moving where can be as important as HOW MANY are moving where. When cities change demographically, it is a slow moving process. The census may lag a few years as to what is actually happening CURRENTLY in the city. The last 10 years may have been a huge transition period for these cities and the population will slowly follow that (both numerically and demographically). Types of jobs change (many young tech startups are moving into the Loop just over the past year), family demographics change, etc. There is certainly no lag in residential high rise construction in Chicago right now, and the city is as lively as ever. That being said, Chicago has some SERIOUS issues when it comes to the poor neighborhoods and crime in those areas as well as funding for inner city education. But like population, fixing these problems will take trial, error, and time. Some stat thrown out about poverty or crime over the last 5 years in X neighborhood may be thrown out tomorrow and gawked at, but TODAY that neighborhood could be heading in a better direction. It's all about focusing on improvement as a whole, not being upset because in 1950 Chicago had a much larger population (although one would argue living in Chicago today would be a whole lot more desirable). This is true for MANY cities in this country and not just these two.
PS- Get out there and voice your opinion, vote, and make yourself heard. Nothing changes when people think their words don't matter.
There is a group of NIMBYs in Hollywood that try to block any and all new development from happening based on the guise that "Hollywood is losing population" and "people hate high density! They are all moving away". They also like to point out that the census tracts around the Red Line subway stations have plummeted in population.
Of course they are completely missing (or purposefully omitting) the fact that gentrification causes household sizes to drop, and therefore the population will go down. Anybody with eyeballs knows that Hollywood has improved drastically since its nadir in the 80s / 90s, even though the population has dropped. Yet many "activists" (I prefer the term obstructionists) who dislike our new mayor Eric Garcetti (used to be Hollywood city councilman) will constantly cite that Hollywood has declined during his term, which is incredibly laughable. It's a shame these are the types of people most involved in local politics.
I have no idea if this is the case in Chicago, most likely is in gentrifying neighborhoods. But your general premise is correct, a reduction in population does not necessarily mean a city is in decline.
There is a group of NIMBYs in Hollywood that try to block any and all new development from happening based on the guise that "Hollywood is losing population" and "people hate high density! They are all moving away". They also like to point out that the census tracts around the Red Line subway stations have plummeted in population.
Of course they are completely missing (or purposefully omitting) the fact that gentrification causes household sizes to drop, and therefore the population will go down.
I have no idea if this is the case in Chicago, most likely is in gentrifying neighborhoods. But your general premise is correct, a reduction in population does not necessarily mean a city is in decline.
Exactly. I would wager that Hollywood is near an all time high in Tax base, and number of units, despite any population loss it may be seeing.
Paris and Manhattan must also be way past their prime as both are significantly down from their peak population.
Paris and Manhattan must also be way past their prime as both are significantly down from their peak population.
Paris and Manhattan are growing, though, and have been growing for many decades.
Yes, they're down from their peak population, but that's because they used to be filled with poor families with 10 kids jam-packed into tenements.
That isn't what's happening with population loss in American cities right now. Detroit isn't losing population because family sizes are smaller, or because masses of poor immigrants are being replaced by the wealthy.
If you look at American cities losing population, you will see that the % poverty isn't declining over time. So it isn't a Paris or Manhattan-type situation (and, again, both places have been gaining population for longer than most of us have been alive).
Paris and Manhattan are growing, though, and have been growing for many decades.
Yes, they're down from their peak population, but that's because they used to be filled with poor families with 10 kids jam-packed into tenements.
That isn't what's happening with population loss in American cities right now. Detroit isn't losing population because family sizes are smaller, or because masses of poor immigrants are being replaced by the wealthy.
If you look at American cities losing population, you will see that the % poverty isn't declining over time. So it isn't a Paris or Manhattan-type situation (and, again, both places have been gaining population for longer than most of us have been alive).
Believe it or not, it is not "one-size-fits-all". Some cities are seeing population loss due to gentrification, and some are seeing it due to decline.
I would say that if the overall city is losing population, it might not be a great sign because it means the city is losing some tax base to the surrounding suburbs. For example, isn't the Detroit metro area still growing, while the city itself plummeted in population?
Believe it or not, it is not "one-size-fits-all". Some cities are seeing population loss due to gentrification, and some are seeing it due to decline.
I would say that if the overall city is losing population, it might not be a great sign because it means the city is losing some tax base to the surrounding suburbs. For example, isn't the Detroit metro area still growing, while the city itself plummeted in population?
The Detroit Metro Area is shrinking in population as well, though not at the same rate as the city proper.
Well in the 2000's the Detroit suburbs gained about 100,000 while the city lost 200,000 - so it was a net loss. I believe the past few years the suburbs have been gaining faster than the city is losing, so it's a net gain.
The suburbs have always gained between 100,000 to 600,000 people per decade since the 1960's. It's just offset by city losses that makes the metro as a whole stagnant. Very differnet growth rates in different areas.
Paris and Manhattan are growing, though, and have been growing for many decades.
Yes, they're down from their peak population, but that's because they used to be filled with poor families with 10 kids jam-packed into tenements.
That isn't what's happening with population loss in American cities right now. Detroit isn't losing population because family sizes are smaller, or because masses of poor immigrants are being replaced by the wealthy.
If you look at American cities losing population, you will see that the % poverty isn't declining over time. So it isn't a Paris or Manhattan-type situation (and, again, both places have been gaining population for longer than most of us have been alive).
The point I was trying to make using Manhattan and Paris, is that they are CLEARLY not on the decline, and in the case of Manhattan, is thriving more than it ever has, despite a population loss. Obviously Chicago is dealing with more issues than Manhattan, which is only 22 sq miles, but the fact remains Chicago, for the most part, is a healthy city. The majority of Chicago's residence live in safe, stable, and dense neighborhoods.
Many people on this site do nothing more than look at change in population between census counts to determine how thriving a city is, which is ridiculous in my opinion.
The point I was trying to make using Manhattan and Paris, is that they are CLEARLY not on the decline, and in the case of Manhattan, is thriving more than it ever has, despite a population loss. Obviously Chicago is dealing with more issues than Manhattan, which is only 22 sq miles, but the fact remains Chicago, for the most part, is a healthy city. The majority of Chicago's residence live in safe, stable, and dense neighborhoods.
Many people on this site do nothing more than look at change in population between census counts to determine how thriving a city is, which is ridiculous in my opinion.
Not to mention that, if I recall correctly, the first actual increase in population in Paris since the 40s was in the late 2000s so, if anything, Paris is more similar to Chicago in this regard than it is to Manhattan, which recorded its first population turnabout in the 90s.
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.
