U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Urban Planning
 [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 12-01-2011, 08:05 PM
nei nei started this thread nei won $500 in our forum's Most Engaging Poster Contest - Thirteenth Edition (Jan-Feb 2015). 

Over $104,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum and additional contests are planned
 
Location: Long Island / NYC
45,992 posts, read 42,037,172 times
Reputation: 14811

Advertisements

I came across this webpage earlier today, and it reminded me some of the discussions (arguments?) on whether there has been a movement back to the cities in this forum.

Back to the City? | Newgeography.com

Shows a shift, though all the cities used as examples had a net population movement towards their suburbs. Since most (if not all) of the example recorded a population gain in the last decade, it means the cities had to of either grown from immigrants, or migrants from the US but from a different metro area.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-01-2011, 08:27 PM
 
8,328 posts, read 14,575,764 times
Reputation: 4048
New Geography is Joel Kotkin territory...very pro-suburb/anti-city/anti-transit stuff. Basically the Fox News of the urban planning world.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-01-2011, 08:38 PM
nei nei started this thread nei won $500 in our forum's Most Engaging Poster Contest - Thirteenth Edition (Jan-Feb 2015). 

Over $104,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum and additional contests are planned
 
Location: Long Island / NYC
45,992 posts, read 42,037,172 times
Reputation: 14811
I know what NewGeography is, but it's not written by Joel Kotkin. The author also writes for the Urbanophile, which seems like an interesting blog.

Regardless of who wrote it or where it is, the post is mostly numbers from the census.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-01-2011, 09:15 PM
 
1,592 posts, read 587,704 times
Reputation: 3402
Smile Well, we're Boomers, and we [I]did[/I]move closer in

Well, we're Boomers, and we didmove closer in, back in '04. We gained about 1/2 hour commute time morning and evening if using the car, and an hour each way if using the bus. We can walk to two of the busiest bus routes in town, drug store, grocery store, churches, library, Post Office, park with dog park, senior center, jr college, restaurants, you name it, we can walk. We also bought a little bigger, so we can do the extended family/multigenerational/Golden Girls scene if necessary. We searched, and narrowed down the location. We moved from further out in an inner-ring suburb, to a location closer toward the downtown, but still in the same school district.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-02-2011, 12:29 PM
 
Location: Cleveland
2,243 posts, read 3,466,459 times
Reputation: 3101
I don't really care enough to look for evidence to back this up, but it seems self-evident to me that cities were simply over-counted in the 2000 census and in reality, lost people at roughly the same rate in the 2000s that they did in the 1990s. I don't and never did believe the number of people moving back into the cities is offsetting the number of people moving out, but I definitely don't buy what the Census shows: rapid acceleration in exodus from cities starting in 2000. It just doesn't jibe with anything -- housing data, school enrollment data, even the general feel of the cities on the streets.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-02-2011, 02:51 PM
 
Location: North Baltimore ----> Seattle
6,473 posts, read 11,112,325 times
Reputation: 3117
Quote:
Originally Posted by tribecavsbrowns View Post
I don't really care enough to look for evidence to back this up, but it seems self-evident to me that cities were simply over-counted in the 2000 census and in reality, lost people at roughly the same rate in the 2000s that they did in the 1990s. I don't and never did believe the number of people moving back into the cities is offsetting the number of people moving out, but I definitely don't buy what the Census shows: rapid acceleration in exodus from cities starting in 2000. It just doesn't jibe with anything -- housing data, school enrollment data, even the general feel of the cities on the streets.
Lots of attention here in the last 10 years has been lavished on improving destitute or otherwise undesirable neighborhoods into places worth visiting and living - for young professionals, DINKs, etc. Meanwhile, with these groups not flocking and overpopulating the suburbs, middle class families saw their chance to make a break for the suburban counties (lower taxes, better schools, less crime, etc etc). Thus, though most would say Baltimore has improved tremendously in the last decade, we still lost about 3.6% of our population since the 2000 census. The result is that the in-city middle class neighborhoods suffer, though that seems to be of little concern to the "little darlings" the planners covet nor the politicians.

However the real estate market has really put a damper on the the "jump ship for the suburbs when the kid turns 3" escape plan that has been favored for years here. So charter schools, parental involvement, etc has improved the state of education in some areas, and continues to do so.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-02-2011, 02:58 PM
 
Location: The City
22,341 posts, read 32,197,706 times
Reputation: 7744
It isnt an either or but to Hands ups point it is probably more neighborhood by neighborhood

Some stats on Philly nabes growers and decliners (Philly reversed a 60 year trend of losses, probably around 2005)










The 2010 Census | Philly

Also another interesting article

Center City gets younger - Philly.com

Will be interesting to see where building takes place after the real estate market recovers nationally, my bet is still on the burbs moreso with some additional focus in the cores of older cities.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-02-2011, 03:13 PM
nei nei started this thread nei won $500 in our forum's Most Engaging Poster Contest - Thirteenth Edition (Jan-Feb 2015). 

Over $104,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum and additional contests are planned
 
Location: Long Island / NYC
45,992 posts, read 42,037,172 times
Reputation: 14811
Quote:
Originally Posted by kidphilly View Post
It isnt an either or but to Hands ups point it is probably more neighborhood by neighborhood

Some stats on Philly nabes growers and decliners (Philly reversed a 60 year trend of losses, probably around 2005)
I'm surprised University City didn't grow more. Did Philadelphia become whiter?

From the link I posted, Philadelphia did the best out of the listed cities in stopping its outflux to the burbs.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-02-2011, 03:18 PM
 
Location: The City
22,341 posts, read 32,197,706 times
Reputation: 7744
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
I'm surprised University City didn't grow more. Did Philadelphia become whiter?

Philly on the whole became less white and black (more black flight today than any other group) and more hispanic and asian.

Whites and asians are driving the core growth. Asian families and white younger with no kids and empty nesters as a generalization of what is driving the core.

Though nabe by nabe that will differ.

U City has a large encachment (a microcosm of things on the city as a whole if you will) based on the above map. Powelton Village West and areas west of say 42nd street are in the process of regentrifying and may see more absolute growth in the coming decade. Especially the area just Northwest of Drexel

Drexel has large redevelopment plans as does Temple in North Philly (two areas that will likely be next for the turn around) But further north like Frankford and Logan will likely see more decline and it will likely creep further into the far Northeast.

Philly is growing again from the core out (1800 all over again of sorts)


On the outflow to the burbs. Exurban development on the PA and NJ basically grounded to a halt in 2005. Center city was by far the strongest market through the real estate bust (though Philly as usual didnt have the plummet of many cities overall as it typically lags on the upside (Philly has a tradionally very stable economy, usually not too hot or cold in a relative sense)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-02-2011, 03:23 PM
nei nei started this thread nei won $500 in our forum's Most Engaging Poster Contest - Thirteenth Edition (Jan-Feb 2015). 

Over $104,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum and additional contests are planned
 
Location: Long Island / NYC
45,992 posts, read 42,037,172 times
Reputation: 14811
Quote:
Originally Posted by tribecavsbrowns View Post
I don't and never did believe the number of people moving back into the cities is offsetting the number of people moving out, but I definitely don't buy what the Census shows: rapid acceleration in exodus from cities starting in 2000. It just doesn't jibe with anything -- housing data, school enrollment data, even the general feel of the cities on the streets.
My link shows the opposite; a gradual deceleration in the movement from cities to suburb, though still a movement.

It might be a natural thing for a city to have a net migration to the suburbs if the city is a magnet for immigrants and young people.

The Urbanophile Ľ Blog Archive Ľ Replay: Migration Matters

scroll down for the "New York City" section; though it probably applies to many major cities.

Quote:
After a time in NYC, if [immigrants] move on then, bang, they are domestic out migrants. On the domestic ledger thatís 0 in, 1 out, a clear net loss, but not the whole story...Also, itís noted that NYC takes in lots of young people, but many leave when they get married and have kids..Two young singles move to NYC, marry, have two kids. When those kids reach school age, they move to the suburbs. Thatís 2 in, 4 out, a net loss of 2 people.
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 > General Forums > Urban Planning
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