U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S.
 [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 06-01-2013, 09:07 PM
 
Location: South Beach and DT Raleigh
11,810 posts, read 18,796,055 times
Reputation: 11136

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by ManoftheNorth View Post
The reasons these cities have lost population are varied, but the most important factors would be:

3) Changes in household sizes, so that a house in Chicago that might have had a large immigrant family with many children living in it in 1940 might now have a childless Yuppie couple
^This.

Most US cities that are gentrifying are doing so on this sort of model. Space that once housed 6 people with one working class income now houses 1 or 2 professionals with much deeper pockets. The infusion of money that this sort of gentrification brings allows cities to become more financially stable as the RE values and local spending contribute to the tax base while reducing the burdens of the city itself on infrastructure like schools because there are less children than decades past. The trick for these cities to stay healthy is to find a way to retain these yuppies in the event that they have kids. They must balance the infrastructure investments like schools and not close too many as to cause young families to leave. On the other hand, they can't keep too many open and drain the city of money. It's a tight rope walk.

I see the young family dynamic playing out in Miami right now. When I moved into my high rise in 2002, hardly a kid was to be found. Now there are over 40 kids in the building and these young families are staying because the infrastructure for them does exist.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-01-2013, 10:45 PM
 
Location: St. Louis
1,221 posts, read 2,273,908 times
Reputation: 770
Quote:
Originally Posted by rnc2mbfl View Post
^This.

Most US cities that are gentrifying are doing so on this sort of model. Space that once housed 6 people with one working class income now houses 1 or 2 professionals with much deeper pockets. The infusion of money that this sort of gentrification brings allows cities to become more financially stable as the RE values and local spending contribute to the tax base while reducing the burdens of the city itself on infrastructure like schools because there are less children than decades past. The trick for these cities to stay healthy is to find a way to retain these yuppies in the event that they have kids. They must balance the infrastructure investments like schools and not close too many as to cause young families to leave. On the other hand, they can't keep too many open and drain the city of money. It's a tight rope walk.

I see the young family dynamic playing out in Miami right now. When I moved into my high rise in 2002, hardly a kid was to be found. Now there are over 40 kids in the building and these young families are staying because the infrastructure for them does exist.
This is true. Most of the most popular neighborhoods in St. Louis are actually still losing population but it's only because they're rehabbing 4-family flats into 2-families and rehabbing 2-families into single family homes. So while the population is declining (which looks bad on paper), the demographics of the neighborhoods are trending more middle and upper-middle class and the tax base is getting wealthier. This usually happens alongside an increase in small neighborhood businesses and other economic development. Population loss is initially a product of gentrification, but eventually I see no reason why these areas won't start gaining population once again.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-02-2013, 07:06 PM
 
9,378 posts, read 9,534,811 times
Reputation: 5786
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dawn10am View Post
This is true. Most of the most popular neighborhoods in St. Louis are actually still losing population but it's only because they're rehabbing 4-family flats into 2-families and rehabbing 2-families into single family homes. So while the population is declining (which looks bad on paper), the demographics of the neighborhoods are trending more middle and upper-middle class and the tax base is getting wealthier. This usually happens alongside an increase in small neighborhood businesses and other economic development. Population loss is initially a product of gentrification, but eventually I see no reason why these areas won't start gaining population once again.
Quote:
Originally Posted by btownboss4 View Post
If you use Atlanta's 1950s borders, it lost a ton of people, even Atlanta is below peak.
IN fact, from 1970-2000 Atlanta lost 80,000 people, by 2010 it was still down 16% from peak. No one ever says Atlanta is fading.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-02-2013, 09:05 PM
 
7,238 posts, read 10,891,939 times
Reputation: 5583
Quote:
Originally Posted by btownboss4 View Post
IN fact, from 1970-2000 Atlanta lost 80,000 people, by 2010 it was still down 16% from peak. No one ever says Atlanta is fading.
That's because in the grand scheme of things, only losing 11% of your peak population isn't a big deal.

Now on the other hand, losing 2/3 of your peak population like Detroit, St. Louis and Cleveland IS a big deal (and between the three, Detroit had it worse considering that it has infrastructure on par with a city the size of Philadelphia to still maintain). Huge portions of these towns have faded away.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-04-2013, 11:53 PM
 
Location: Sydney, Australia
138 posts, read 196,804 times
Reputation: 61
I keep hearing about urban farming plans becoming the future of Detroit. I wonder if that will ever happen and how it will change the city.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-05-2013, 11:02 AM
 
Location: San Diego
939 posts, read 2,829,194 times
Reputation: 438
Here's an easy answer...

Rust belt cities lost millions of manufacturing jobs since the 1950's. Without jobs, people move to where there are jobs. Further, a lack of opportunity leads to deviant behavior, which is what these rust belt cities have experienced. That's precisely what caused 'white flight'. As American roads began to expand and as the international highway system reinvented automobile transportation in our nation, people headed for the suburbs and out to the south and the west on these high speed corridors. As rust belt cities recover from manufacturing job losses and reposition and diversity their economies, people will move back. Several rust belt cities are currently gentrifying their urban cores as they add new growth industries and new high rise residential towers. With that comes improved infrastructure as municipal revenue naturally increases.
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.
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

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