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.
People are sleeping on St. Louis. It has gained nearly 11,000 new residents in the past decade while Cleveland has lost 50,000+ residents and continues to decline, Pittsburgh has lost 23,000 residents and continues to decline in population. Cities: Population Shifts from 2000-2010
I always hear about those cities and their "rebound" but I don't see how it's a rebound if the city continues to loose population.
People are sleeping on St. Louis. It has gained nearly 11,000 new residents in the past decade while Cleveland has lost 50,000+ residents and continues to decline, Pittsburgh has lost 23,000 residents and continues to decline in population. Cities: Population Shifts from 2000-2010
I always hear about those cities and their "rebound" but I don't see how it's a rebound if the city continues to loose population.
Population gain/loss isn't the only measure of a city's success.
^ but still, how can a city be considered on the rebound, when it lost (and continues loosing) such a large number of people?
Cleveland may have lost 50,000 over the span of 10 years, during some periods of economic decline ... that's 5,000 inhabitants per year, not an extraordinary or an alarming level of flight, especially when the majority of that population has shifted to the surrounding region. Cleveland's well publicized "renaissance" is now serving as a catalyst that is actually beginning to stabilize our entire metro population. Many are unaware that alot of the population losses in "Cleveland proper" were actually shifted to the sprawling adjacent suburbs and fast growing counties, and not to areas outside of the region.
Many "new comers are discovering Cleveland" ... and are pleasanty surprised at what a dynamic and modern city that Cleveland actually is. Even former residents "that did relocate away from the area", are beginning to once again "re-discover" the city. What certainly has compelled me to relocate back to the city was the incredible turnaround that I witnessed with each visit ... it's an exciting feeling to bear witness to this awesome cities very latest renaissance.
BILLIONS are being spent in the city of Cleveland on some very substancial and prolific projects ... it's this level of activity that surprises many 1st time visitors to the city ... they come here expecting a run down and haggard looking city, but instead they discover that it's nothing like the ongoing misperceptions and lies that have been perpetuated for years about the city.
Last edited by JohnDBaumgardner; 12-12-2010 at 06:02 PM..
I believe Cleveland was, until fairly recently, still a manufacturing city. So, I'm guessing that many of the people leaving are the blue-collar types. Cleveland is in the beginning of its comeback than Pittsburgh, so I think it's likely that it will continue to lose that kind of population for a little while longer.
^ but still, how can a city be considered on the rebound, when it lost (and continues loosing) such a large number of people?
perhaps paradoxically, population loss is a sign of the early stages of gentrification. A gentrified neighborhood usually has double or more residential square feet per person compared to the same neighborhood before the change (eg multi-family units are converted back to single family units).
so that is how a city could be losing population yet be on the rebound.
perhaps paradoxically, population loss is a sign of the early stages of gentrification. A gentrified neighborhood usually has double or more residential square feet per person compared to the same neighborhood before the change (eg multi-family units are converted back to single family units).
so that is how a city could be losing population yet be on the rebound.
True and like the other poster stated many of those people leaving the city are just moving into the adjacent suburbs. So, they might leave the city, but not necessarily the metro.
^ But why are Cleveland & Pittsburgh's metro areas still losing population? If most of the people leaving the city were moving to the burbs, then the whole metro wouldn't still be decling.
Quote:
Although the eight-county Cleveland-Akron metro area lost an estimated 54,000 people from 2000 through 2009, it is still the largest metro area in Ohio,
Meanwhile, over the last decade, St. Louis added 10,000 to the city, and at least 100,000 to the metro area, but still gets labeled as a dying rust belt city.
^ But why are Cleveland & Pittsburgh's metro areas still losing population? If most of the people leaving the city were moving to the burbs, then the whole metro wouldn't still be decling.
Meanwhile, over the last decade, St. Louis added 10,000 to the city, and at least 100,000 to the metro area, but still gets labeled as a dying rust belt city.
You know as well as I do, people just love to "rag" on cities like St. Louis, Buffalo, Cleveland, Detroit and Pittsburgh ... many of whom have never even stepped a foot within these grand old cities ...
It'sBS and nothing more ... just "looselips" withlittleto say, unless it's negative ... usually to prop up their own "troubled locales"
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.
