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.
Location: Live:Downtown Phoenix, AZ/Work:Greater Los Angeles, CA
27,606 posts, read 14,596,838 times
Reputation: 9169
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moddedintegra56
Fresno is the 5th largest city in CA
as for population growth:
2000 427,652 20.7%
2010 494,665 15.7%
Est. 2015 520,052 [48] 5.1%
U.S. Decennial Census[49]
neighboring clovis adds an easy another 100K population.
Southern San Joaquin County seems to be gaining population as well (Tracy, Lathrop and Manteca) and Stockton seems ok from the last time I was there this summer
Metro is losing population as well. Lost over 10,000 people in the last year. City proper lost population and the state of Illinois lost population. There is no way to sugar coat this.
Its not just Indiana that bashes Illinois. Every state in America does it especially the border states. Wisconsin, Iowa, Missouri, Kentucky and Indiana are going to continue to poach from Illinois.
Heck even Texas was just up in Illinois a couple weeks ago on a job hunting mission.
LOL @ thinking an ESTIMATED loss of 10k from a metro of over 8mil is decline. First informals, it's an estimate, not an actual senses. Secondly, that's a change of less than two-tenths of a percent. That is well within the margin of error.
LOL @ thinking an ESTIMATED loss of 10k from a metro of over 8mil is decline. First informals, it's an estimate, not an actual senses. Secondly, that's a change of less than two-tenths of a percent. That is well within the margin of error.
Decline is more prevalent in older cities. There are the few good city core wealthy neighborhoods that everyone wants to live in while the rest of the city declines. The suburbs in Ohio, PA, and NY are booming. People have realized that city living isn't all that. The trend of working in the city but living in the burbs is back. The suburbs are safer, cost less, offer more property, have better schools, it's easier to get around, etc. On top of that, high end restaurants and breweries are opening in the burbs. Suburbs are having farmers markets and festivals. There is no reason to go into the city.
BOOMING, Ohio, PA and NY state!? Check the last 3 U.S. Census. All three states have a net OUT-migration and have lost Congressional seats.
Philly had a huge outflow not only in the City proper but metro area but the last 7-8 years, things have changed for the better with crime down and its cost of living is favorable to that of D.C. to the south and NYC to the north.
Baltimore is bad. Buffalo is bad. Chicago has incurred a net loss the last 25 years of about 300,000 residents, some moving to the suburbs. Any reference to loss of residents in sunbelt cities reflects outliers in terms of growth and likely residents moving within the state rather than leaving the region as has been seen in the Midwest, and the states northeast of the Carolinas.
"Local new-home sales rose more than 27 percent in the third quarter, putting builders on track for their second-best year of the post-bust era, according to new data.
For the first three quarters of 2016, new-home sales are up 9.2 percent in the Chicago area compared with the same period last year,"
Philly had a huge outflow not only in the City proper but metro area but the last 7-8 years, things have changed for the better with crime down and its cost of living is favorable to that of D.C. to the south and NYC to the north.
Baltimore is bad. Buffalo is bad. Chicago has incurred a net loss the last 25 years of about 300,000 residents, some moving to the suburbs. Any reference to loss of residents in sunbelt cities reflects outliers in terms of growth and likely residents moving within the state rather than leaving the region as has been seen in the Midwest, and the states northeast of the Carolinas.
Philadelphia did decline in the city from about 1950 to early 2000's. About 2007-2008 was it's first population uptick, and it has been growing in population ever since.
The surrounding metro area however, has never declined in population. Not sure where you got that information from.
Philly had a huge outflow not only in the City proper but metro area but the last 7-8 years, things have changed for the better with crime down and its cost of living is favorable to that of D.C. to the south and NYC to the north.
Baltimore is bad. Buffalo is bad. Chicago has incurred a net loss the last 25 years of about 300,000 residents, some moving to the suburbs. Any reference to loss of residents in sunbelt cities reflects outliers in terms of growth and likely residents moving within the state rather than leaving the region as has been seen in the Midwest, and the states northeast of the Carolinas.
There's many sunbelt cities that experienced population loss in their cores though, even as their suburbs have been booming. At least from 2000 to 2010, there isn't any data that I can find for post 2010 estimates at the census tract/neighbourhood level. Jacksonville, Phoenix, Atlanta and Las Vegas are all examples of cities that experienced relatively significant population loss in their inner cities in the 00s.
So did cities like Memphis, Jackson, Birmingham and of course New Orleans, but I think most people would not be surprised by that.
Well yes but Decline and Prosperity doesn't simply always equal Population Change.
I've certainly lived and visited places before where the population was increasing, but so was the problems of blight, inequality and poverty in those areas.
Likewise I've lived in areas like the north lakefront of Chicago that is tens of thousands of people below its population peak, but is far more prosperous, wealthy and "on the up and up" than it was when it was at peak population.
Many times decline moves in tandem with population change as people leave places that are seeing their standards of living decline, but at the same time household sizes change, housing sizes increase and housing unit density declines many times as prosperity improves.
A great deal of Chicago's population loss is the loss of its under-18 population. That made up 63% of the total population loss from 2000 to 2010.
2010-2015: 27,283 housing units constructed within the city.
The city is at an all-time high in the number of actual housing units, but the population itself is almost 1,000,000 below it's all-time high because people in the city don't have children like they used to. The family size has gone down greatly.
It's all relative. Regardless, areas of the city are in sharp decline, areas that house around 1/3 or so of the population in total, roughly.
People just seem to get caught up that Population Growth = Prosperity.
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.
