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.
What we have learned throughout the decades is that having a growing or thriving core city is essential to the overall growth and reputation of a metropolitan area. If the core city is in continuous decline, it will indirectly effect the suburbs overall growth potential in regards to bringing in people who are not from that particular metro area.
.
Except that this is not true. Sometimes the core city growth is tied to the well being of theregion and sometimes not.
Look at Detroit Metro . During most of its decline and especially during the worst of its decline, the metro area was booming. Growing and dominating most of the rest of the country economically.
Look at Orange County California. During the massive decline of its major city (Santa Ana) the rest of Orange County grew like mad and became something like the 8th (or 18th - it had an 8 in it) largest economy in the world. It was also at the time the most popular place to move to.
Other examples: Los Angeles, Dallas; Atlanta. All had metro areas that boomed while the city was in decline.
In nearly all of the examples, the city later caught up with its metro area, reversed the decline and crated even more growth. In some the opposite happened. during Detroit's recent regeneration, the metro area was basically stagnant.
Except that this is not true. Sometimes the core city growth is tied to the well being of theregion and sometimes not.
Look at Detroit Metro . During most of its decline and especially during the worst of its decline, the metro area was booming. Growing and dominating most of the rest of the country economically.
Look at Orange County California. During the massive decline of its major city (Santa Ana) the rest of Orange County grew like mad and became something like the 8th (or 18th - it had an 8 in it) largest economy in the world. It was also at the time the most popular place to move to.
Other examples: Los Angeles, Dallas; Atlanta. All had metro areas that boomed while the city was in decline.
In nearly all of the examples, the city later caught up with its metro area, reversed the decline and crated even more growth. In some the opposite happened. during Detroit's recent regeneration, the metro area was basically stagnant.
Cities like LA, Dallas, and Atlanta are all growing and have been growing in population for decades. Also Orange County is part of the Los Angeles metro area.
Cities like LA, Dallas, and Atlanta are all growing and have been growing in population for decades. Also Orange County is part of the Los Angeles metro area.
Numbers of people is not the determiner of the health of a city. If you had visited those cities twenty years ago, you would know they were in decline. Growth in population does not mean a city is doing well nor does reduction in population mean the city is not doing well. Detroit is a good example of this once again. The past eight years have been an astounding turnaround for Detroit. However it is likely the net population continued to decline and may well continue to decline for some years to come. There are excess areas that cannot be managed and are not restorable which will have to empty out over time. That does not mean the city is not doing well, it only means it is changing.
In the 1980s New York City was undoubtedly growing, but there can be no real argument that it was declining. To understand the health of a City you really have to get way from the keyboard and get out there and see things for yourself. Relying solely on statistics, especially when you rely only on one statistic, will mislead you.
No. Orange county is its own metro area. It was once basically a bedroom community for LA but that has not been true for several decades. It takes 1.5 - 2.5 hours to get from Orange County to LA in the morning or back in the evenings. Orange county has its own economy. LA could disappear and Orange County would continue to roar. By the way, the population count in Santa Ana may well have continued to grow. People there are living as much as eight persons to a bedroom. As many as 50 people in a 3000 s.f. home. However that population increase does not mean the city is healthy or improving. It was definitely declining regardless of whether the population count was going up or down, while Orange County generally was exploding in growth, QOL, and economic well being. Incidentally, Los Angeles was also in decline during this time (80s - 90s). Again possibly not in population, but the city was unquestionably in death throes. Office towers were being mothballed, hotels shut down, nearly everyone homeless people and coyotes moved out of downtown. After 6, the city was empty and dead. Schools went to hell. Stores moved out, restaurants closed. Theaters shut down. When I rode the subway at night, I was frequently the only person on the train, or one of less than a dozen. Still, during all this OC boomed.
Population statistics do not really tell much of the story.
Except that this is not true. Sometimes the core city growth is tied to the well being of theregion and sometimes not.
Look at Detroit Metro . During most of its decline and especially during the worst of its decline, the metro area was booming. Growing and dominating most of the rest of the country economically.
Except that this is not true.
Perhaps the wealthier suburbs, such as Bloomfield Hills and Birmingham weren't noticeably affected by the decline, but older suburbs, like Sterling Heights, and even solidly middle/upper-middle class ones, like Farmington Hills, certainly were. Our subdivision in the Twelve Mile & Farmington Road area went into a rapid and steep downturn, with countless abandoned homes.
Many of us who were fortunate enough to keep our jobs and not be forced to foreclose nevertheless saw our nice, well-maintained middle-class homes plunge in value until we had underwater mortgages. There were tens of thousands of us in that predicament. Thousands of other suburbanites weren't so lucky. They lost their jobs and couldn't find anything else anywhere in Michigan. We knew people who found more stable and promising job opportunities out of state, but reluctantly had to decline those opportunities because they couldn't sell their homes.
My former husband, an engineer with two master's degrees, worked for 3 different auto suppliers in the metro area during the 14 years we lived in Farmington Hills. He lost the first when his employer, without warning, laid off most of his department in January, 2004. We were incredibly lucky, because found a job 3 months later. The next two companies, though, both faced possible bankruptcy within 2 or 3 years.A headhunter finally called with a very good offer that brought us to Nashville, but we had to accept a significant loss on our home when we sold it, as did many other people.
I'm not sure how you can say the Metro area was "booming" during the recession. It certainly wasn't. As someone who didn't grow up in Michigan, I personally have never seen anything like the decline I witnessed in Metro Detroit, starting around 2002 until we left in 2011.
Numbers of people is not the determiner of the health of a city. If you had visited those cities twenty years ago, you would know they were in decline. Growth in population does not mean a city is doing well nor does reduction in population mean the city is not doing well. Detroit is a good example of this once again. The past eight years have been an astounding turnaround for Detroit. However it is likely the net population continued to decline and may well continue to decline for some years to come. There are excess areas that cannot be managed and are not restorable which will have to empty out over time. That does not mean the city is not doing well, it only means it is changing.
In the 1980s New York City was undoubtedly growing, but there can be no real argument that it was declining. To understand the health of a City you really have to get way from the keyboard and get out there and see things for yourself. Relying solely on statistics, especially when you rely only on one statistic, will mislead you.
No. Orange county is its own metro area. It was once basically a bedroom community for LA but that has not been true for several decades. It takes 1.5 - 2.5 hours to get from Orange County to LA in the morning or back in the evenings. Orange county has its own economy. LA could disappear and Orange County would continue to roar. By the way, the population count in Santa Ana may well have continued to grow. People there are living as much as eight persons to a bedroom. As many as 50 people in a 3000 s.f. home. However that population increase does not mean the city is healthy or improving. It was definitely declining regardless of whether the population count was going up or down, while Orange County generally was exploding in growth, QOL, and economic well being. Incidentally, Los Angeles was also in decline during this time (80s - 90s). Again possibly not in population, but the city was unquestionably in death throes. Office towers were being mothballed, hotels shut down, nearly everyone homeless people and coyotes moved out of downtown. After 6, the city was empty and dead. Schools went to hell. Stores moved out, restaurants closed. Theaters shut down. When I rode the subway at night, I was frequently the only person on the train, or one of less than a dozen. Still, during all this OC boomed.
Population statistics do not really tell much of the story.
Cities like LA and New York have never declined as severely or continuously as places like Detroit, Cleveland, etc. Also Orange county is not its own metro so your argument falls apart. You say don't primarily rely on statistics but I prefer facts over feelings. Detroit may have small pockets in the city that are improving but that doesn't change the fact that it's been a city in decline for over 60 years now and metro area is feeling the negative effects of that.
Again I think you are missing the point. If the core city in a metro area has been in continuous decline, time has proven that it will have a negative impact on the population's growth potential for the surrounding areas within the metro area. My hometown of Philadelphia was a perfect example of that. The city suffered from 50+ years of population declined that would later go on to hurt the population growth in many of its suburbs but the city turned around and started growing and the metro area benefited more positively in population as a whole.
The official population count for the region should, in theory, be up since 2010.
The economy and the amount of jobs in the region is much better than they were 10 years ago which was in the midst of the deep recession and depth of the auto industry restructuring.
That said, there are several factors that are shaping the population numbers:
- The general trend of moving to more urbanized area from rural areas (e.g., migration from smaller, less prosperous towns throughout the state to the metro region that has far more job opportunities)
- Changing household dynamics; more single-person households and/or single-parent,
- Families having fewer children
- Immigration
There are general trends that shape the population numbers and have to be put into context with broader socioeconomic trends. This isn't the 1950s were every house on the block has 3.5 children and a dog.
That said, population itself isn't the end-all, be-all determining metric to assess the health of a region. It helps give an order of magnitude to the size of a city but it all has to be in the proper context. Also, people don't necessarily decide where to live based solely on population.
1. The Top bolded statements:
What does this have to do with the 50-year population stagnation in the Detroit Metro Area? Hasn't these same factors affected all other metro areas in the United States? Yet all but the Detroit Area has grown in the past 50 years (except maybe the Pittsburgh Area). Even the Cincy Metro Area has grown by 450,000 (or 25%) from 1970 to 2010.
2. The bottom bolded statement:
Of course people are not deciding to move here solely because of the 50 years of no population increase. That is not what the Philly Poster was saying. His statement is below, please read:
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwillyfromphilly
What we have learned throughout the decades is that having a growing or thriving core city is essential to the overall growth and reputation of a metropolitan area. If the core city is in continuous decline, it will indirectly effect the suburbs overall growth potential in regards to bringing in people who are not from that particular metro area.
When people are deciding to relocate to a suburb in a metropolitan area, many will take into account the proximity of their suburb to the core city of the metro area. Even the people who want to live in an affluent or wealthy suburb also want the option of being able to go to the city and enjoy all of its urban amenities.
It's one of the reasons why metropolitan areas like Detroit and Cleveland are declining in population despite having plenty of wealthy and affluent suburbs surrounding them.
Except that this is not true. Sometimes the core city growth is tied to the well being of theregion and sometimes not.
Look at Detroit Metro . During most of its decline and especially during the worst of its decline, the metro area was booming. Growing and dominating most of the rest of the country economically.
Look at Orange County California. During the massive decline of its major city (Santa Ana) the rest of Orange County grew like mad and became something like the 8th (or 18th - it had an 8 in it) largest economy in the world. It was also at the time the most popular place to move to.
Other examples: Los Angeles, Dallas; Atlanta. All had metro areas that boomed while the city was in decline.
In nearly all of the examples, the city later caught up with its metro area, reversed the decline and crated even more growth. In some the opposite happened. during Detroit's recent regeneration, the metro area was basically stagnant.
Why do you keep bringing up Santa Ana? 95% of America has never even heard of it. It's land area is the size of Southfield. It is an irrelevant place compared to real cities like Seattle, Kansas City, or San Antonio. It is just an older city within the LA region. It was not an economic engine/center of that region IMO. It looks like it basically serves somewhat the same role as Pontiac does within the Metro Detroit Area.
Also, looking at the population stats, that Santa Ana grew every decade except the 2000-2010 decade. Its population grew by 700% from 1950 to 2000. You say population increase doesn't matter. Well, it does...because it indicates jobs are increasing in the area. If there are no jobs, people are not moving there.
Lastly, only during Detroit's decline from 1950-1970 did the metro area grow. The city's population fell by 300,000 in that time, while the metro area grew by about 1 million. However, since 1970, the metro area has grown by ZERO, while the city has declined by another 900,000.
(Also, how can you even say that the metro area was "booming" when the city, which makes up a large percentage of the metro area, was in sharp decline. Maybe you should have said the suburbs were booming, not the "metro")
Last edited by usroute10; 12-19-2019 at 06:14 AM..
What does this have to do with the 50-year population stagnation in the Detroit Metro Area? Hasn't these same factors affected all other metro areas in the United States? Yet all but the Detroit Area has grown in the past 50 years (except maybe the Pittsburgh Area). Even the Cincy Metro Area has grown by 450,000 (or 25%) from 1970 to 2010.
2. The bottom bolded statement:
Of course people are not deciding to move here solely because of the 50 years of no population increase. That is not what the Philly Poster was saying. His statement is below, please read:
The Detroit metro area has grown significantly in population in the past 50 years.
The 1970 population of the Detroit MSA was 4,490,902
The estimated 2018 population is 4,326,442
Really? Many of today's crowded suburbs were villages in 1970.
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.
