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.
Sure. There is more to a city's and it's metro's vitality than weather it is shrinking or growing.
Many southern and western cities that are growing are doing so by being able to annex the surrounding sprawl. These cities appear to be more vibrant and growing than Eastern and Great Lakes cities, but when you look at the metros as a whole, it is not so. Most Eastern and Great Lakes cities have been land locked their suburbs for 50 years or more and thus can only grow in population by becoming more dense as apposed to annexing new land. To add to it, many of the more vibrant of these older cities are seeing a lot of gentrification of their core neighborhoods where large old home that were originally single family but had become multi-family housing as Americans moved to the suburbs, are now seeing moving back into those homes and converting them back to single family residents. Naturally with less people living in the same house and with out any room to build new homes, you will see a drop in the number of residents in those neighborhoods - perfect example of how a vibrant city can show it's population dropping (Chicago).
Classic example:
Huntsville, AL ....growth rate of 13.8%....population of 180,105 (2010)....in a city of 210 sq miles.......metro of only 435,737. In a nut shell, this city is a giant, low density, suburb.............current unemployment rate 5.3%
Compare to Grand Rapids, MI (similar central city size) population 188,040 (2010).....growth rate -4.9%......the city's sq miles = 45.27......but the metro is 1,027,703 and had a +2.04% growth rate over all. ..........current unemployment rate 3.9%
Given the choice of the which of the two to live in, then I would take Grand Rapids hands down.
Huntsville is a suburb of where exactly? The nearest larger cities are Birmingham and Nashville which are both two hours away.
Huntsville is a suburb of where exactly? The nearest larger cities are Birmingham and Nashville which are both two hours away.
I did not say that it was a suburb, but that it's density more resembled a suburb.
210 sq miles with only 180k people is very low density. In other words, it has the same density as typical suburbia.
I did not say that it was a suburb, but that it's density more resembled a suburb.
210 sq miles with only 180k people is very low density. In other words, it has the same density as typical suburbia.
A good way to gauge whether or not the population decline is due to the lack of jobs or something else is to look at the unemployment rate for the area (in relative terms to other cities and/or states). If the rate is better than average for the nation as a whole then go for it; if not you might reconsider unless you're retired or have a job lined up to begin with.
I've lived happily in Pittsburgh for ten years now, a city which lost over half its population since 1950. That said, it's estimated the city actually bottomed out around 2007, and has been growing slowly since. We'll see when the 2010 census comes out.
Pittsburgh shrunk for fairly idiosyncratic reasons however. Compared to other rust-belt cities it had a much higher drop in average household size. As a result, despite the city losing 370,000 people from its peak, if it gained another 110,000 people, the number of households in the city would be equal to 1950 - meaning in a certain sense the city would be "full" again. In addition, in more recent decades the drop in metro population has mostly been due to negative population growth. The older than average population has meant births outweigh deaths here, which canceled out the positive net migration the region as a whole now has.
It would depend on the economy I guess. Chicago is doing lackluster in population growth, the state is doing even worse. That said, I think it's a good thing at the end of the day to boost the economy from the dumps faster than if the state had been adding more people along with the jobs. Jobs have been coming back quick the past two years and people are still leaving. It's healing the economy faster as long as those jobs keep coming by bringing in money and reducing the number on unemployment from 502,000 a few years ago to 280,000 now.
Also the components of population change. The city of Chicago lost 200,000 people from 2000 to 2010, but 114,000 of those, or 57% were one demographic group, black people between ages 0-19. Not really a huge impact economically. The other big change was the loss of 50,000 elderly white people, or another 25% of the population drop. So 82% of the population drop involved people who are basically not an active contributing part of the economy. They're dependents.
Average Number of Jobs in Chicago Metro:
2011: +52,000
2012: +40,000
2013: +47,000
2014: +98,000 Total: +237,000
It includes the suburbs as well for the decline in population. The population is approximately 305K and it's in the northeast. It is considered a very dreary city with unfavorable weather. I am unsure of the reason for the decline. Housing prices are very reasonable in certain areas but take a while to sell. I'd be uncertain to buy for this reason. I guess for the long run, it may not be bad. The unemployment rate isn't too bad and the crime is average. I had the same feelings as Eric but I guess reading the other posts, there are other things to factor. Westernwilly came up with a good point. How long is it going to take for an area to be gentrified is the question if that's the case. I am not against an up and coming area either. It still brings me back, if people are leaving, there must be a reason?
The first small city in the northeast with a declining metro population that gets gentrified will be the first.
It includes the suburbs as well for the decline in population. The population is approximately 305K and it's in the northeast. It is considered a very dreary city with unfavorable weather. I am unsure of the reason for the decline. Housing prices are very reasonable in certain areas but take a while to sell. I'd be uncertain to buy for this reason. I guess for the long run, it may not be bad. The unemployment rate isn't too bad and the crime is average. I had the same feelings as Eric but I guess reading the other posts, there are other things to factor. Westernwilly came up with a good point. How long is it going to take for an area to be gentrified is the question if that's the case. I am not against an up and coming area either. It still brings me back, if people are leaving, there must be a reason?
Didn't see this before. You're clearly talking about Pittsburgh. There's no other city with a population of around 305,000 in the Northeast. I don't really find it that dreary here however.
What I always tell people who consider moving to Pittsburgh is this. If you want to live in a nice, reasonably safe, historic urban city, for a fraction of the price of the Northeast Corridor, it can't be beat. Pittsburgh's gentrified considerably over the last ten years (particularly the entire East End of the city), but there's still tons of housing which is very affordable by national standards.
If you want to live out in suburbia though, you'll be disappointed. Pittsburgh has a handful of charming suburbs. Really, it's so few that if someone says they want to live in a nice suburb with transit access and a walkable business district, there's really only six options.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SyraBrian
The first small city in the northeast with a declining metro population that gets gentrified will be the first.
I'm not even sure what this comment means. Particularly because Pittsburgh has a shrinking metro population, but is clearly gentrifying.
It includes the suburbs as well for the decline in population. The population is approximately 305K and it's in the northeast. It is considered a very dreary city with unfavorable weather. I am unsure of the reason for the decline. Housing prices are very reasonable in certain areas but take a while to sell. I'd be uncertain to buy for this reason. I guess for the long run, it may not be bad. The unemployment rate isn't too bad and the crime is average. I had the same feelings as Eric but I guess reading the other posts, there are other things to factor. Westernwilly came up with a good point. How long is it going to take for an area to be gentrified is the question if that's the case. I am not against an up and coming area either. It still brings me back, if people are leaving, there must be a reason?
Given the city population and other info, it could only be 1 city.
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.
