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.
Most are rust belt cities. First that come to mind are Toledo, Cleveland, Youngstown, Rockford, Flint, Detroit, Erie, Buffalo (has just started turning around), and Utica.
I wouldn't say most of these are in "serious" decline, at least metro-wise. Detroit's metro is stagnant, Cleveland's is shrinking very slowly and Buffalo is growing very slowly. Flint, Rockford, Utica, and Youngstown are the only cities on that list in "serious" decline.
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.
Suburbs aren't necessarily more affordable than nicer city neighborhoods in these areas though. Suburban and rural villages can have some amenities including walkability to where they have their own scene, but you are likely to go into the city for more amenities.
I also don't know if all of the suburbs in these areas are "booming", as it will depend on the suburban area.
I wouldn't say most of these are in "serious" decline, at least metro-wise. Detroit's metro is stagnant, Cleveland's is shrinking very slowly and Buffalo is growing very slowly. Flint, Rockford, Utica, and Youngstown are the only cities on that list in "serious" decline.
Detroit is arguably not stagnant given the revitalization efforts (and results) being seen downtown. Perhaps in terms of overall numbers but in the midst of a demographic shift that's often the case, and certainly not a negative.
Detroit is arguably not stagnant given the revitalization efforts (and results) being seen downtown. Perhaps in terms of overall numbers but in the midst of a demographic shift that's often the case, and certainly not a negative.
Agreed...a demographic shift isn't always a negative. Chicago has experienced a huge demographic shift, as well. A viable city will always be able to reinvent itself. If a population loss is incurred during this process, that's not necessarily a negative, either. Everyone seems willing to pounce, as (I guess), bigger is always better. I don't agree.
People tout about Chicago but outside of a few neighborhoods the city is still declining. I've read the decline has reached suburbs as well with older people moving away and taking their younger relatives with them.
People tout about Chicago but outside of a few neighborhoods the city is still declining. I've read the decline has reached suburbs as well with older people moving away and taking their younger relatives with them.
Downtown is growing, though, and that's my favorite part of the city.
Most are rust belt cities. First that come to mind are Toledo, Cleveland, Youngstown, Rockford, Flint, Detroit, Erie, Buffalo (has just started turning around), and Utica.
I'm not sure if most rust belt cities are declining. I would think that many of them such as Detroit have hit rock bottom but are now starting to revitalize. I'm am talking about cities that are declining, not cities that have already declined and are now starting to get back.
Detroit is arguably not stagnant given the revitalization efforts (and results) being seen downtown. Perhaps in terms of overall numbers but in the midst of a demographic shift that's often the case, and certainly not a negative.
Exactly. Detroit is declining statistics-wise, but the rate of decline is rapidly decreasing, and may turn the decline into an increase soon enough. I'm in the same camp as you in that I believe Detroit has hit its inflection point-the decline will soon end, if it hasn't already.
People tout about Chicago but outside of a few neighborhoods the city is still declining. I've read the decline has reached suburbs as well with older people moving away and taking their younger relatives with them.
There's no decline in Chicago. Home sales are up.
"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,"
Flint, MI is the largest city to have a decrease in population 2010-2015.
Do you mean the largest city to lose population or the city with the largest population decrease? Either way, I don't think it's Flint. It's population dropped nearly 5% to under 100,000 which is bad but not the worst. That award goes to Detroit which has lost nearly 50,000 people and an overall lose of just over 5%. Detroit is being hollowed out and urban farms are taking over certain neighborhoods. The issue is trying to convince people to buy homes there. I don't think you'll find buyers interested in buying a home in a neighborhood filled with boarded up vacant properties left and right. Some neighborhoods are decent but not in many parts of the city. You can find a nicer home in the suburbs and that's what people would rather look for.
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.