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 find it interesting that everyone is so down on Buffalo unlike Hartford, Rochester, Cleveland and Pittsburgh its metro is gaining population and the city has lost the 2nd least (-2,800) after Rochester (-2,500)since 2010.
The city of St. Louis has a strong chance of hitting 300,000 in the near future, but it also has a better shot at rebounding than other Midwestern cities like Detroit and Cleveland. It already has momentum, and its larger MSA has performed better than Detroit's and Cleveland's historically, but a city/county merger would give the city resources it's sorely been lacking in terms of boosting its momentum. It would also bring an end to city vs county fighting and fragmentation in terms of pursuing new projects.
The city of St. Louis has a strong chance of hitting 300,000 in the near future, but it also has a better shot at rebounding than other Midwestern cities like Detroit and Cleveland. It already has momentum, and its larger MSA has performed better than Detroit's and Cleveland's historically, but a city/county merger would give the city resources it's sorely been lacking in terms of boosting its momentum. It would also bring an end to city vs county fighting and fragmentation in terms of pursuing new projects.
Metro Detroit is much larger than greater St. Louis, by like 1.5 million people. Not sure about your statement that it has performed better historically either. Detroit’s economy has always been larger than St. Louis’s. Maybe it wasn’t the case at the turn of the 20th century, but I’d love to know when it has anytime in the last 100 years. You can compare St. Louis’s numbers, both population and economy, to Cleveland, but not Detroit.
Metro Detroit is much larger than greater St. Louis, by like 1.5 million people. Not sure about your statement that it has performed better historically either. Detroit’s economy has always been larger than St. Louis’s. Maybe it wasn’t the case at the turn of the 20th century, but I’d love to know when it has anytime in the last 100 years. You can compare St. Louis’s numbers, both population and economy, to Cleveland, but not Detroit.
What I was implying was health rather than overall size. Detroit's MSA peaked in size in 1970, and it's had several decades of population decline since then. Cleveland's MSA has performed even worse as it also peaked in 1970, but it has experienced longer periods of population decline that continue to this day. Metro St. Louis' growth has slowed to a trickle post-recession, but the metro area is still at an all time high in terms of population, and the metro has only suffered one decade of overall population decline, which turned around by 1990.
I find it interesting that everyone is so down on Buffalo unlike Hartford, Rochester, Cleveland and Pittsburgh its metro is gaining population and the city has lost the 2nd least (-2,800) after Rochester (-2,500)since 2010.
Agree. Buffalo, contrary to earlier comments, had the slowest rate of decrease of the Great Lakes Rust Belt cities between 2010 and the 2017 estimate. Buffalo was also the only one of these cities to show a population increase (albeit small) in the last Census estimate (258,612 total, +149 or +0.06%).
Just looking at the Great Lakes Rust Belt cities, based on changes since 2010, and projecting same rate of gain/loss thru 2020 if changes continue at the current rate:
St. Louis - 304,054 (-4.77% since 2010)
Pittsburgh - 300,994 (-1.54%)
Buffalo - 257,456 (-1.47%)
Detroit - 655,673 (-8.14%)
Cleveland - 380,683 (-4.06%)
Rochester - 206,966 (-1.71%)
Based on current demographics, trends, and rate of change, I think St. Louis, Detroit, Cleveland, and Pittsburgh are likely to hit their "milestone" before the other cities. Too soon to tell if and when the other cities will fall that low, if ever.
Detroit by 2021
St. Louis by 2023
Pittsburgh by 2023
Cleveland by 2024
Rochester by 2040
Buffalo by 2040
Baltimore ?
Hartford ?
Last edited by RocketSci; 03-10-2019 at 04:11 PM..
Agree. Buffalo, contrary to earlier comments, had the slowest rate of decrease of the Great Lakes Rust Belt cities between 2010 and the 2017 estimate. Buffalo was also the only one of these cities to show a population increase (albeit small) in the last Census estimate (258,612 total, +149 or +0.06%).
Just looking at the Great Lakes Rust Belt cities, based on changes since 2010, and projecting same rate of gain/loss thru 2020 if changes continue at the current rate:
St. Louis - 304,054 (-4.77% since 2010)
Pittsburgh - 300,994 (-1.54%)
Buffalo - 257,456 (-1.47%)
Detroit - 655,673 (-8.14%)
Cleveland - 380,683 (-4.06%)
Rochester - 206,966 (-1.71%)
Based on current demographics, trends, and rate of change, I think St. Louis, Detroit, Cleveland, and Pittsburgh are likely to hit their "milestone" before the other cities. Too soon to tell if and when the other cities will fall that low, if ever.
Detroit by 2021
St. Louis by 2023
Pittsburgh by 2023
Cleveland by 2024
Rochester by 2040
Buffalo by 2040
Baltimore ?
Hartford ?
Where are those estimates from? Looking at the American Fact Finder one-year estimates, it's showing different numbers. Anyway, I'm hardy taking the estimates as concrete evidence of anything. But looking at them, seems like the population changes are anything but linear.
Cleveland: It shows the city lost 5,775 people in the two years between 2010 and 2012 (-2,887 per year). But since 2012, it has lost a combined total of -5,371 (or -895 a year). Being in the area, that sounds about right as the city started gaining some real momentum around 2015 and a lot of data I've seen in various places is showing the city is now experience a small gain in population.
Detroit: This one is weird because from 2010-2016, the city lost a total of 40,948 people (-6,824 a year ... and the lowest one-year change was -3,157). Suddenly, the 2017 numbers show a population gain of 274 people. No doubt the population loss is slowing, and I'm interesting in seeing if the 2018 estimates show another gain.
St. Louis: The one-year estimates show a loss of -1,325 from 2010 to 2011, but then two years (2011 and 2012) where it posted small population gains totaling 878 people (439 a year). But since then, the numbers have gone down hill, showing a loss of 9,790 from 2013-17 (-2,447 a year).
Pittsburgh: The estimates show a significant gain of 1,794 people (.59 percent) between 2010 and 2011. But since then, it's been six straight years of losses totaling -5,084 (-847 per year).
Buffalo: This is the opposite of Pittsburgh. From 2010-2016, estimates show a decline every year totaling a loss of -4,544 (-757 a year). But from 2016 to 2017, it shows a big jump to a 1,684 gain (.66 percent). Like Detroit, it'll be interesting to see what the 2018 estimates show.
Rochester: This is another interesting one. From 2010 to 2015 the estimates show just a total loss of 591 people (-118 per year). But the last two years, it shows a loss of -1,759 (-879 a year).
Baltimore: Again, another interesting one. From 2010 to 2011, it shows a loss of -1,468. But then from 2012 to 2014, a gain of 3,330 (1,100 per year). But from 2015 to 2017, estimates have it posting big losses totaling -11,145 (-3,715 a year). That seems way to big of swings to me.
It'll be interesting to see the 2018 numbers. But just by looking at some of the trends within years, I would say:
1. It doesn't look like Cleveland will fall to 375,000 any time soon, especially if the 2018 estimates come in positive.
2. Detroit is a ????. Was the 2017 number an anomaly. If the 2018 numbers come in even close, I would say that Detroit is looking at being a decade out from potentially falling to 650,000 (that's too far out to project).
3. St. Louis may be in some danger of eventually falling below 300,000 if it posts another year of significant losses. But, even then it likely won't be by the 2020 census.
4. For Pittsburgh, if those 2010 to 2011 numbers were an aberration and the last six years of losses are more in line ... and it is a much whiter city than the others (low birth rates), with an older population and it has a very small Hispanic population (fastest growing group) ... it looks like it will fall below 300,000 by the 2020 census, despite all its gains in college-educated techies.
5. Even if Buffalo's gains in 2017 end up being an anomaly, even looking at the numbers from 2010-2016, it would be a decade out from falling to 250,000. I think Buffalo is safe. And Buffalo, Cleveland and Rochester all could see a boost in the coming estimates from the post Maria Puerto Rican migration.
6. Rochester, like Buffalo, is more than a decade away even at current trends.
7. I don't know what to make of Baltimore's numbers. But it has showed significant losses the past three years, and if that continues in 2018, then I would say the city may be in danger of falling below 600,000 by the 2020 census.
Overall, how I would rank it in order of most to least likely for now:
1. Pittsburgh (it is the closest in pure numbers to falling to its mark)
2. Baltimore
3. St. Louis
4. Detroit (only because it has the most total population to lose to reach its mark, and the 2017 numbers were positive)
5. Cleveland
6. Rochester
7. Buffalo
8. Hartford (didn't mention it, but it's safe).
Last edited by ClevelandBrown; 03-12-2019 at 01:09 AM..
Where are those estimates from? Looking at the American Fact Finder one-year estimates, it's showing different numbers. Anyway, I'm hardy taking the estimates as concrete evidence of anything. But looking at them, seems like the population changes are anything but linear.
Cleveland: It shows the city lost 5,775 people in the two years between 2010 and 2012 (-2,887 per year). But since 2012, it has lost a combined total of -5,371 (or -895 a year). Being in the area, that sounds about right as the city started gaining some real momentum around 2015 and a lot of data I've seen in various places is showing the city is now experience a small gain in population.
Detroit: This one is weird because from 2010-2016, the city lost a total of 40,948 people (-6,824 a year ... and the lowest one-year change was -3,157). Suddenly, the 2017 numbers show a population gain of 274 people. No doubt the population loss is slowing, and I'm interesting in seeing if the 2018 estimates show another gain.
St. Louis: The one-year estimates show a loss of -1,325 from 2010 to 2011, but then two years (2011 and 2012) where it posted small population gains totaling 878 people (439 a year). But since then, the numbers have gone down hill, showing a loss of 9,790 from 2013-17 (-2,447 a year).
Pittsburgh: The estimates show a significant gain of 1,794 people (.59 percent) between 2010 and 2011. But since then, it's been six straight years of losses totaling -5,084 (-847 per year).
Buffalo: This is the opposite of Pittsburgh. From 2010-2016, estimates show a decline every year totaling a loss of -4,544 (-757 a year). But from 2016 to 2017, it shows a big jump to a 1,684 gain (.66 percent). Like Detroit, it'll be interesting to see what the 2018 estimates show.
Rochester: This is another interesting one. From 2010 to 2015 the estimates show just a total loss of 591 people (-118 per year). But the last two years, it shows a loss of -1,759 (-879 a year).
Baltimore: Again, another interesting one. From 2010 to 2011, it shows a loss of -1,468. But then from 2012 to 2014, a gain of 3,330 (1,100 per year). But from 2015 to 2017, estimates have it posting big losses totaling -11,145 (-3,715 a year). That seems way to big of swings to me.
It'll be interesting to see the 2018 numbers. But just by looking at some of the trends within years, I would say:
1. It doesn't look like Cleveland will fall to 375,000 any time soon, especially if the 2018 estimates come in positive.
2. Detroit is a ????. Was the 2017 number an anomaly. If the 2018 numbers come in even close, I would say that Detroit is looking at being a decade out from potentially falling to 650,000 (that's too far out to project).
3. St. Louis may be in some danger of eventually falling below 300,000 if it posts another year of significant losses. But, even then it likely won't be by the 2020 census.
4. For Pittsburgh, if those 2010 to 2011 numbers were an aberration and the last six years of losses are more in line ... and it is a much whiter city than the others (low birth rates), with an older population and it has a very small Hispanic population (fastest growing group) ... it looks like it will fall below 300,000 by the 2020 census, despite all its gains in college-educated techies.
5. Even if Buffalo's gains in 2017 end up being an anomaly, even looking at the numbers from 2010-2016, it would be a decade out from falling to 250,000. I think Buffalo is safe. And Buffalo, Cleveland and Rochester all could see a boost in the coming estimates from the post Maria Puerto Rican migration.
6. Rochester, like Buffalo, is more than a decade away even at current trends.
7. I don't know what to make of Baltimore's numbers. But it has showed significant losses the past three years, and if that continues in 2018, then I would say the city may be in danger of falling below 600,000 by the 2020 census.
Overall, how I would rank it in order of most to least likely for now:
1. Pittsburgh (it is the closest in pure numbers to falling to its mark)
2. Baltimore
3. St. Louis
4. Detroit (only because it has the most total population to lose to reach its mark, and the 2017 numbers were positive)
5. Cleveland
6. Rochester
7. Buffalo
8. Hartford (didn't mention it, but it's safe).
I would be careful in taking year to year estimates as a trend. For example Everett, MA grew by 11.5% from 2010-2016 and lost 100 people from 2016-2017. I highly doubt it was an actual loss it was more of an adjustment.
Also remember that the 2009/2010 estimates overestimated a lot of Rust Belt cities. Cleveland was overestimated by 35,000, Detroit by 190,000.
Also remember that the 2009/2010 estimates overestimated a lot of Rust Belt cities. Cleveland was overestimated by 35,000, Detroit by 190,000.
I'd also be careful to weigh those over-estimates in current conditions. The great recession had a heavier impact on these cities and the census bureau's estimates formulas couldn't account for the acceleration in trends fast enough. Conditions going into this census are the exact opposite, there's a chance they could even be under estimated.
I'd also be careful to weigh those over-estimates in current conditions. The great recession had a heavier impact on these cities and the census bureau's estimates formulas couldn't account for the acceleration in trends fast enough. Conditions going into this census are the exact opposite, there's a chance they could even be under estimated.
The census also has trouble with abandonments too.
Where are those estimates from? Looking at the American Fact Finder one-year estimates, it's showing different numbers. Anyway, I'm hardy taking the estimates as concrete evidence of anything. But looking at them, seems like the population changes are anything but linear.
To calculate my 2020 estimates, I took the total change between 2010 and the 2017 estimate, determined an average change per year, and then projected the same rate of change through 2020. This is a very rough guess, probably low for some cities and high for others.
I used the Census Bureau's Population Estimates Program to get yearly estimates, but the American Community Survey (ACS) also produces population estimates that show different numbers.
Based on estimates, the rate of drop from 2010 to 2020 is much, much lower than previous decades (Detroit lost 24% between 2000 and 2010), so all of these estimates can still be significantly different than the actual 2020 count.
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.
