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)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 11-03-2017, 01:01 PM
 
2,167 posts, read 1,469,647 times
Reputation: 2176

Advertisements

People are a little too concerned about raw populations on here. The more important numbers for cities are the workforce and income numbers. Most population declines are merely the result of people having fewer children in the past 20 or so years than in previous eras. It might be more cause for concern in the very long term but not in the shorter term.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-03-2017, 03:38 PM
 
Location: Cbus
1,721 posts, read 1,407,271 times
Reputation: 2093
Quote:
Originally Posted by _Buster View Post
People are a little too concerned about raw populations on here. The more important numbers for cities are the workforce and income numbers. Most population declines are merely the result of people having fewer children in the past 20 or so years than in previous eras. It might be more cause for concern in the very long term but not in the shorter term.
It appears most of the bleeding out has stopped for the major rust belt cities anyway. We are seeing much smaller declines and population stabilization.

For example,

2010 to 2016 population change (based on U.S. Census estimates)

Detroit: -5.7%
Cleveland: -2.8%
Buffalo: -2.0%
Pittsbugh: -.07%
Dayton: -.07%

In comparison to the 2000 to 2010 changes (based on U.S. census)

Detroit: -25.0%
Cleveland:-17.1%
Dayton: -14.8%
Buffalo: -10.7%
Pittsburgh: -8.6%
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-06-2017, 03:59 PM
 
387 posts, read 369,144 times
Reputation: 294
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buckeye614 View Post
It appears most of the bleeding out has stopped for the major rust belt cities anyway. We are seeing much smaller declines and population stabilization.

For example,

2010 to 2016 population change (based on U.S. Census estimates)

Detroit: -5.7%
Cleveland: -2.8%
Buffalo: -2.0%
Pittsbugh: -.07%
Dayton: -.07%

In comparison to the 2000 to 2010 changes (based on U.S. census)

Detroit: -25.0%
Cleveland:-17.1%
Dayton: -14.8%
Buffalo: -10.7%
Pittsburgh: -8.6%
Will as it stands out there could certainly be hope for population rebound in the Rust Belt, at some point in the future. But if population decline continues then the Rust Belt cities could become ghost towns, especially the ones you named above.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-07-2017, 08:52 AM
 
11,179 posts, read 22,400,541 times
Reputation: 10933
Quote:
Originally Posted by TPetty View Post
Will as it stands out there could certainly be hope for population rebound in the Rust Belt, at some point in the future. But if population decline continues then the Rust Belt cities could become ghost towns, especially the ones you named above.
Those cities don't have large footprints and today still have a higher population per square mile than a large number of sunbelt and newer cities. They're not ghost towns. The suburban areas that completely surround them have all for the most part grown constantly as well and in many cases have 80%+ of the metro population anyway.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-07-2017, 09:02 AM
 
11,179 posts, read 22,400,541 times
Reputation: 10933
Quote:
Originally Posted by TPetty View Post
Um, Wayne County (where Detroit lies) has actually lost population itself.
Since Detroit started to lose population in 1950 Wayne County has still grown by a total of 490,000 people, mostly in the 1950's and 1960's.

Since the 1970's when Wayne County was essentially built out and the growth in new housing moved to all the collar counties it has lost around 6% of it's suburban population of 1,150,000. Most of that is all younger families moving to newer collar counties and out of Wayne County, not really abandonment or decay. Wayne County has smaller household sizes and an older population.

My husband is from suburban Wayne County so I go back a lot. It's not prospering and growing like weeds, it's fairly stale seeing how it was built in the 1950's and 1960's and the housing doesn't mesh with what modern young families want - but it's still perfectly fine. It's typical of post-war suburban housing you see in many other areas. There are pockets of definite decay like Inkster.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-07-2017, 09:17 AM
 
Location: Pittsburgh
3,145 posts, read 2,834,294 times
Reputation: 2858
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buckeye614 View Post
It appears most of the bleeding out has stopped for the major rust belt cities anyway. We are seeing much smaller declines and population stabilization.

For example,

2010 to 2016 population change (based on U.S. Census estimates)

Detroit: -5.7%
Cleveland: -2.8%
Buffalo: -2.0%
Pittsbugh: -.07%
Dayton: -.07%

In comparison to the 2000 to 2010 changes (based on U.S. census)

Detroit: -25.0%
Cleveland:-17.1%
Dayton: -14.8%
Buffalo: -10.7%
Pittsburgh: -8.6%

Pittsburgh has seen a decline in population since 2013/14 so those numbers don't tell the whole story.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-07-2017, 10:57 AM
 
Location: Boston Metrowest (via the Philly area)
4,465 posts, read 7,535,383 times
Reputation: 4363
Quote:
Originally Posted by _Buster View Post
People are a little too concerned about raw populations on here. The more important numbers for cities are the workforce and income numbers. Most population declines are merely the result of people having fewer children in the past 20 or so years than in previous eras. It might be more cause for concern in the very long term but not in the shorter term.
This is 100% on point. In addition, not all growth is "good" growth. Many fast-growing areas are not growing in a sustainable fashion or have economies that are largely based on industries with little wage growth or upward mobility potential.

Which States Have the Most Economic Mobility? | TIME.com
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-10-2017, 09:59 AM
 
387 posts, read 369,144 times
Reputation: 294
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chicago60614 View Post
Since Detroit started to lose population in 1950 Wayne County has still grown by a total of 490,000 people, mostly in the 1950's and 1960's.

Since the 1970's when Wayne County was essentially built out and the growth in new housing moved to all the collar counties it has lost around 6% of it's suburban population of 1,150,000. Most of that is all younger families moving to newer collar counties and out of Wayne County, not really abandonment or decay. Wayne County has smaller household sizes and an older population.

My husband is from suburban Wayne County so I go back a lot. It's not prospering and growing like weeds, it's fairly stale seeing how it was built in the 1950's and 1960's and the housing doesn't mesh with what modern young families want - but it's still perfectly fine. It's typical of post-war suburban housing you see in many other areas. There are pockets of definite decay like Inkster.
But the fact remains that Wayne County has lost population.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-10-2017, 10:28 AM
 
3,967 posts, read 3,503,651 times
Reputation: 6384
Quote:
Originally Posted by TPetty View Post
But the fact remains that Wayne County has lost population.
The other 4 counties surrounding it have not. What does it mean?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-10-2017, 10:28 AM
 
387 posts, read 369,144 times
Reputation: 294
Quote:
Originally Posted by _Buster View Post
People are a little too concerned about raw populations on here. The more important numbers for cities are the workforce and income numbers. Most population declines are merely the result of people having fewer children in the past 20 or so years than in previous eras. It might be more cause for concern in the very long term but not in the shorter term.
Will if you look at all the Sun Belt cities, such as Los Angeles, Phoenix, Houston, Miami, Dallas, Las Vegas, and even Myrtle Beach youíll see that their populations are thriving. They keep gaining more and more population. So as it stands out people in the younger generations are more attracted to the Sun Belt cities than the Rust Belt cities. Why the Rust Belt cities are declining, that could be because people in the younger generations donít want to live in them.
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.
Similar Threads
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 · Bug Bounty

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