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)
 
Old 08-18-2015, 05:22 PM
 
Location: California → Tennessee → Ohio
1,399 posts, read 2,266,091 times
Reputation: 914

Advertisements

Something cool I just found.

Metropolitan Dispersion: 1950-2012 | Newgeography.com

Fastest Growing Cities since 1950
1. Las Vegas
2. Orlando
3. Riverside
4. Phoenix
5. Charlotte
6. Miami
7. Austin
8. Dallas
9. Raleigh
10. Atlanta

Slowest Growing Cities since 1950
1. Buffalo
2. Pittsburgh
3. Cleveland
4. Detroit
5. New York
6. Philadelphia
7. St Louis
8. Chicago
9. New Orleans
10. Milwaukee
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-18-2015, 06:26 PM
 
1,495 posts, read 1,505,547 times
Reputation: 615
Is that consistently slow growth? New Orleans I feel like might have a pass on this one considering Katrina
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-18-2015, 09:36 PM
 
Location: LA, CA/ In This Time and Place
5,433 posts, read 3,475,490 times
Reputation: 5062
Not surprising at all.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-19-2015, 03:01 AM
 
Location: Yakima WA
4,367 posts, read 4,562,153 times
Reputation: 3797
None are surprising but I am still impressed at myself for predicting Buffalo would top the slow growing (or fastest declining) list. It used to be considered a major city. The entire rust belt took a big hit of course.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-19-2015, 06:24 AM
 
Location: Cleveland
3,169 posts, read 3,811,870 times
Reputation: 2458
Notice that cities like New York, Philadelphia, and Chicago are on that slowest growth list as well. Slow growth does not necessarily mean the area is declining, or not doing well. These older cities are just more established, and at their healthy equilibrium regarding population. Even the rust belt cities have had pretty stable Metro area populations since the '50s.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-19-2015, 06:51 AM
 
3,908 posts, read 3,429,662 times
Reputation: 6235
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cleverfield View Post
Notice that cities like New York, Philadelphia, and Chicago are on that slowest growth list as well. Slow growth does not necessarily mean the area is declining, or not doing well. These older cities are just more established, and at their healthy equilibrium regarding population. Even the rust belt cities have had pretty stable Metro area populations since the '50s.
The New York Metro area also gained 6.5 million residents in that time, as if it gave birth to a city the size of Dallas. Growth rates are relative when you're population is that big. The mean growth rate for the cities on that list is about 250%. If NYC grew at that rate it'd have more people than CA and be the largest urbanized area on the planet.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-19-2015, 08:01 AM
 
Location: The Springs
1,766 posts, read 2,114,696 times
Reputation: 1842
Quote:
Originally Posted by mjlo View Post
The New York Metro area also gained 6.5 million residents in that time, as if it gave birth to a city the size of Dallas. Growth rates are relative when you're population is that big. The mean growth rate for the cities on that list is about 250%. If NYC grew at that rate it'd have more people than CA and be the largest urbanized area on the planet.
Exactly. Girth hath its advantages.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-19-2015, 08:56 AM
 
1,807 posts, read 2,517,439 times
Reputation: 1499
Quote:
Originally Posted by ColaClemsonFan11 View Post
Is that consistently slow growth? New Orleans I feel like might have a pass on this one considering Katrina
I'm sure Katrina did not help, but New Orleans was not known for its breakneck growth before Katrina. The city was already declining, and the metro had probably flat-lined (although I could be wrong).

It would be interesting to see where most of the people displaced by Katrina went, long-term. My impression is that most ended up in metro New Orleans, which means that the hurricane probably would not have affected the metro's growth much at all.

But I do know that many ended up in Shreveport and Baton Rouge, as well as Houston, and seemed to migrate up the Mississippi, as well (there were a number of Katrina refugees who ended up in Minneapolis immediately after the storm, and I suspect the same is true for Memphis and St. Louis).

I also realize that many have moved back to the city, as well...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-19-2015, 09:08 AM
 
3,908 posts, read 3,429,662 times
Reputation: 6235
The hurricane had an immediate impact on the metro population. I can't find any historical figures but I want to say the NOLA metro pop was over 1.3 million before 2005. It sits at about 1.25 right now.
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

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