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.
Akron, Dayton and Toledo have definitely declined in the last 25 years, starting in the 70's and really picking up speed in the 1980's . However, they no longer seem to be bleeding population at the same rate as before.
For example, from 2000 - 2010
Dayton lost 14.8% of its population
Akron lost 8.3% of its population
Toledo lost 8.4% of it's population
However, the estimates show from 2010-2015
Dayton lost .7%
Toledo lost 2.6%
Akron lost .8%
We will have to wait and see but it seems Ohio's urban areas as whole are on the upswing (besides Youngstown).
Are you excluding Youngstown only based on population estimates?
I honestly didn't think Detroit was much of a city prior to the auto industry's boom, pre-1900 anyways.
Detroit was already the 13th largest city in the country in 1900. Twenty short years later it was 4th, exploding in population from 286,000 to over 993,000.
Quote:
I find it very interesting that cities in the South are now repeating some of the same mistakes that fell cities in the North, by not only taking on major car factories and other industrial plants that require low-skill labor, but also INCENTIVISING the companies to move out of the Midwest (but not to other countries).
Then you would be wrong. Most of the new plants are outside of the major cities in the region.
Atlanta used to have 3 auto plants. They've all closed over the last 20 years, and I don't see any mistakes being made here as far as the economy goes. We are exploding in growth, and have one of the most diversified economies in the entire country.
So many of your posts seem to come across as you wishing for the for the South to fail. Don't hold your breath, the region has been growing since the end of WWII.
I agree with this. Most of the Chicagoans I know who have moved from Chicago are black. My husband is black and from Chicago and left in the late 90s and it was primarily an economic move.
All of the black Chicagoans I know are from the south side and all of them are educated and professional as well. My husband and his family members who moved away all work(ed) in professional fields before and after leaving Chicago. A majority of them felt that they did not have any advancement opportunities in their fields due to promotions and employment are based a lot on "who you know" there according to them. A very good friend of mine was one of those people who you should "know" and she also moved away due to a transfer/promotion that moved her to the metro Atlanta area. She is black and lived on the south side as well and made over 6 figures in Chicago. She said she wanted to leave just for a change of scenery as she could have stayed in Chicago. She also wanted to get away from the snowy/cold winters.
This isn't a phenomenon that is unique to Chicago. The black exodus from the North and California back to the South has been fairly well-documented and is actually more pronounced in the Northeast than it is in the Midwest. However, the Northeast sees quite a bit of African and Afro-Caribbean immigration so the "African American" populations are still high in many cities, including New York. In coastal California, black populations are being replaced primarily by white gentrifiers, as is the case in San Francisco, or by immigrant populations, as is the case of Los Angeles, though both trends occur in both cities. Chicago, while still a large immigrant center, receives nowhere near the levels that large coastal cities see, and gentrification trends have centered recently around primarily Hispanic and/or Eastern European neighborhoods to the west of the urban core (though some gentrification has occurred on the "near south" neighborhoods). But to a large extent, the neighborhoods blacks are leaving are not being replaced by other groups, which significantly contributes to the population loss in Chicago.
I wish I could disagree, but I can't. St. Louis' most fatal flaw is its cliquishness and parochialism. Community only extends to the end of the subdivision and within the inside of the local parish church. "Where did you go to high school?"
The thing is though that cliquey behavior and regionalism isn't out of the ordinary. What's vexing about St. Louis is that St. Louis isn't the entity holding the cards, the County is. It's the complete opposite of a region like Chicagoland where Chicago takes from its own suburbs in order to better the city. Similar regionalism, but Chicago holds the cards and gets what it wants. Neither place is like Twin Cities, which actually is a region that works together, especially when it comes to things like taxes across the region.
Although looking at the building boom going on in St. Louis proper (by Midwestern standards), it appears that St. Louis might finally be getting its act together without the help of the County anyway. The same can be said of the city's attempt to get the north/south MetroLink without the help of the County. If the County doesn't want to play, then there's no reason to wait for them to change their mind.
Detroit was already the 13th largest city in the country in 1900. Twenty short years later it was 4th, exploding in population from 286,000 to over 993,000.
Then you would be wrong. Most of the new plants are outside of the major cities in the region.
Atlanta used to have 3 auto plants. They've all closed over the last 20 years, and I don't see any mistakes being made here as far as the economy goes. We are exploding in growth, and have one of the most diversified economies in the entire country.
So many of your posts seem to come across as you wishing for the for the South to fail. Don't hold your breath, the region has been growing since the end of WWII.
A lot of people on this forum hope to god the South stops booming. For some reason, they're alright with every other region but the South growing and booming. Envy and jealousy maybe? Who knows.
Most of Atlanta's growth comes from the Professional and Business Services...its not a blue collar metro area how people on here like to think so it's not really making the same mistakes as the Midwest as all. I'd say if anything Atlanta has been following Chicago's path during it's boomtimes.
This thread was created half a decade ago and from after a half century of pretty heavy losses to midwest coties (and northern industrial cities in general). In these short five years, census estimates seem to show that the cities in this area, from medium to major sized ones, have virtually all turned a corner in regards to population loss, coming down from double digit losses to much smaller losses or to minor gains.
1. Missouri is colder in winter than Texas is hot during summer.
2. Missouri's cities are nearly as hot during summer as Texas cities are (on average), but aren't nearly as warm during winter.
3. Nowhere in Missouri like the Gulf Coast.
1. Right
2. Exceptionally wrong
3. Right but so what? The gulf coast is unremarkable.
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.
