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.
here in greater DC where there are no issues with subcounty jurisdictions the above is irrelevant. Ditto for Philadelphia. and Boston.
It COULD matter in say Chicago, which is PART of Cook county. But that Cook County overall is growing faster than the outer suburbs of Chicago would seem to be newsworthy in itself.
here in greater DC where there are no issues with subcounty jurisdictions the above is irrelevant. Ditto for Philadelphia. and Boston.
It COULD matter in say Chicago, which is PART of Cook county. But that Cook County overall is growing faster than the outer suburbs of Chicago would seem to be newsworthy in itself.
Technically Boston has subcounty entities; Suffolk County contains two small cities besides Boston. But they're so small, Boston makes up about 85% of Suffolk County's population. And Suffolk is only slightly less dense than Boston itself. Suffolk County is a legal nullity anyway; it was abolished years ago.
I agree that Cook County growing faster than the outer burbs is newsworthy. But I'd wait a few years to see if the trend continues before making any conclusions.
New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-PA
City: 0.7%
Suburb: 0.4%
Difference: -0.3
Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington, PA-NJ-DE-
City: 0.5%
Suburb: 0.3%
Difference: -0.3
Though the article did say that older cities continue to see flight to the suburbs, it's interesting that at least among the top ten there is a mix of old Northeastern cities and Sun Belt cities.
There appear to be some complexities here. On the surface, the inner-city gentrification of the past twenty years or so may seem to be a positive development--it's difficult not to see the transformation of decaying landscapes plagued by poverty and crime into vibrant centers of affluence and trendy nightlife as anything but an improvement--but there is the question of what has become of the poor who lived in these neighborhoods before they became gentrified. In some cases the gentrified areas were old commercial zones such as warehouse districts and the like. In those cases, there is less reason for concern about what has become of previous residents, but in the case of yuppified, hipsterized, etc., areas that used to be ghetto residential areas, there is still the nagging question of what has become of the previous residents, who are likely still poor and now have been driven out of their communities. At least those run down neighborhoods offered their residents some stability due to the sense of community that likely developed among neighbors. Now that stability has been broken up.
Relating this concern specifically to the thread topic, consider this excerpt from the article KidPhilly linked to (post 10):
"Katherine Newman, a sociologist and dean of arts and sciences at Johns Hopkins University who chronicled the financial struggles of young adults in a recent book, said they are emerging as a new generation of renters due to stricter mortgage requirements and mounting college debt. From 2009 to 2011, just 9 percent of 29- to 34-year-olds were approved for a first-time mortgage.
'Young adults simply can't amass the down payments needed and don't have the earnings," she said. "They will be renting for a very long time.'"
This gives cause for concern about the possibility that many young people living in cities, at least partly because of their inability to afford to buy houses and the greater availability of rental property in cities, will add to the poor populations of cities, or at least increase the number of urban residents who fall short of being truly prosperous.
You don't really need statistics to be aware that inner-city gentrification is real. You need only personal observation to realize that there has been a trend toward people of affluence moving into central cities, the trend beginning in the '80's and really gaining steam in the '90's. But the '80's and '90's were prosperous decades. Now there is reason for concern that inner-city gentrification may have seen its heyday, at least for now and maybe the foreseeable future, and may be getting replaced by a phenomenon that might be described as something like "economically compelled sub-gentrification," by those from affluent suburban backgrounds who have graduated from college and now face the reality that at present a college degree is not the more or less automatic ticket to a solid paycheck that a degree has traditionally provided.
Time will tell whether this is a real trend, but put aside the city vs. 'burbs sentiment that shows up often on this forum, and I'd be a little cautious about hailing this as something positive. We need to wait and see whether the latest version of gentrification is occurring, or we're seeing the start of an expansion of poverty (or a sort of near-poverty) in the cities.
That the city of Philadelphia is growing faster than its suburbs, even if only by a little, is flabbergasting.
Not really. Philly's population only increased by 9,000 in a decade. While that's certainly better than a population decline, it does not demonstrate any type of population shift, particularly considering that most people moving to the area opt for the suburbs. The same is true of the Washington, DC metro area. The metro area as a whole has grown by 1.5 million since 1990, but the city has gained only 28,000 people since that time. The growth rate in DC is only higher than it is in the suburbs because there are fewer people in the city. An increase from 20 to 40 is obviously a much larger percentage change than an increase from 5,000,000 to 5,745,000.
Just because young, single people and a few empty nesters are moving into cities does not mean that America is undergoing some radical population shift. Especially considering that many of those currently young, single people move out of the city once they get married and pop out a few spawn.
Not really. Philly's population only increased by 9,000 in a decade. While that's certainly better than a population decline, it does not demonstrate any type of population shift, particularly considering that most people moving to the area opt for the suburbs.
Not necessarily. Population growth and in-migration aren't exactly the same thing. You could have a metro where everyone who moves into the metro area from elsewhere without children moves into the city, and then at the same rate city residents leave to the suburbs when they have children. The suburbs will have much higher population growth, but a higher proportion of those moving to the metro area move to the city.
Not really. Philly's population only increased by 9,000 in a decade. While that's certainly better than a population decline, it does not demonstrate any type of population shift, particularly considering that most people moving to the area opt for the suburbs. The same is true of the Washington, DC metro area. The metro area as a whole has grown by 1.5 million since 1990, but the city has gained only 28,000 people since that time. The growth rate in DC is only higher than it is in the suburbs because there are fewer people in the city. An increase from 20 to 40 is obviously a much larger percentage change than an increase from 5,000,000 to 5,745,000.
What exactly is your point here? AFAIK, the core city everywhere in the country makes up less than half of its MSA (usually far less than half), so unless the core city captures a hugely disproportionate share of migrants, the amount moving to the city will always be smaller in absolute numbers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BajanYankee
Just because young, single people and a few empty nesters are moving into cities does not mean that America is undergoing some radical population shift. Especially considering that many of those currently young, single people move out of the city once they get married and pop out a few spawn.
While things have worked that way over the last 65 years or so, there's no reason to assume they will stay that way indefinitely. It's not like it's the norm outside of the U.S. Admittedly, there will probably be a long period of transition as children in the city becomes a more common practice.
^^^ Actually GNutella posted a net migration chart for some cities (Philly Included) that actually showed more net migration to the city as opposed to the burbs in recent times. Will see if I can track it down or if GNutella see this post maybe he/she can
Not necessarily. Population growth and in-migration aren't exactly the same thing. You could have a metro where everyone who moves into the metro area from elsewhere without children moves into the city, and then at the same rate city residents leave to the suburbs when they have children. The suburbs will have much higher population growth, but a higher proportion of those moving to the metro area move to the city.
That's true. But if the DC area grew by 1.5 million people in 20 years, and yet the city lost only 20,000 or so during that time before experiencing a population increase, it's safe to say that most moving to the DC area are not moving into DC. And I seriously doubt that even 5 percent of those 1.5 million people lived in the District before locating in the DC burbs.
What exactly is your point here? AFAIK, the core city everywhere in the country makes up less than half of its MSA (usually far less than half), so unless the core city captures a hugely disproportionate share of migrants, the amount moving to the city will always be smaller in absolute numbers.
My point is that the higher growth rate in American cities is virtually meaningless. I usually see this fact thrown out to support the notion of a fundamental shift in settlement patterns, but what I see is very modest growth in cities with very robust growth in the suburbs. An increase of over a million people in a 20 year span, with nearly all of them moving to the suburbs, is very robust growth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by eschaton
While things have worked that way over the last 65 years or so, there's no reason to assume they will stay that way indefinitely. It's not like it's the norm outside of the U.S. Admittedly, there will probably be a long period of transition as children in the city becomes a more common practice.
There is a reason to assume that. Suburbs are getting the lion's share of families and that's not going to change any time soon.
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.
