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.
this is HUGE. We've argued about the cultural shift in the DC forums - a skeptic of the shift pointed out that A. DC though finally growing, was still growing more slowly than the suburbs in the DC area and B. in cities like Philly and Chicago, touted for their core revivals, the center city OVERALL was still declining in population. This led to long arguments about the meaning of the core, the value of political boundaries, etc.
That growth in the center cities of the DC area are growing significantly FASTER than the suburbs is a big change. That the center cities of Philly and Chicago, POLITICALLY defined, not just the cores or downtowns, are growing (bearing in mind there could be data problems) is huge.
That the city of Philadelphia is growing faster than its suburbs, even if only by a little, is flabbergasting.
Actually agree, and the little is huge
While things do point this direction I will be curious to see what happens when the economy truly picks back up nationwide if this trend continues. I can say with relative certainty that suburban development (expansion of exurbs) basically stopped around here during the economic crash and real estate crash.
Though the central part of Philly added more new residents and more new development projects (was basically the only place in the metro that continued to build in any significant fashion over the last 3 years or so)
So am curious if the trend continues as the economy more stabilizes and funds for development become available
DC was the insolated bubble (from the economic standpoint), and showed a similar trend (faster city vs burbs)but also promoted smarter growth than other places so am not totally sure how to extroplate the DC trend to other places, but the data support what the feel on the street is/was.
On the whole though the dynamic is changes, even if small scale, this does appear to be a bit of dynamic shift, while not wholesale to me is some quantitative evidence it seemed to be felt in many cities. Though will still hold out on some non economic depressed numbers
But I agree with you unlike Katiana, who seems to dismiss (as fluff) this seems to be a tangible shift (and to me huge in that respect), albeit marginal percentage in real terms is reversal of decades of more one sided suburban flow
I should note population isn't the best measure, but households.
Let's look at Pittsburgh. From 1950 to 2010, the population declined by 55%. However, the number of households only declined by 29%. Basically half of the loss was due to the shrink in family sizes.
This means, for example, Pittsburgh would only need an additional 56,000 households to get back to 1950 levels. With today's smaller families, this would only be a bit over 100,000 people. With 425,000 people today, Pittsburgh would be as functionally full as it was with 675,000 people in 1950. To surpass 425,000, we'd need to not only rehab old properties and fill in missing teeth, but actually demolish functional residential neighborhoods to build at higher densities - which isn't likely. I'd guess similar models are true for many core cities.
The corollary of this is that in many gentrifying areas, the household size of new migrants is smaller (typically singletons or couples without children) than those leaving (married couples with or without children, or single mothers with kids). So areas in the process of gentrification can both shrink and fill up at the same time. This probably means the growth of many cities is more impressive than it seems.
Many of our cities showed spikes in population between 2010-2011.
NYC showed a whopping ~58,000 increase
LA showed an increase of ~24,000
Chicago showed an increase of ~10,000
Houston with a very impressive ~37,000
Philly with ~10,000 increase
DC was the insolated bubble (from the economic standpoint), and showed a similar trend (faster city vs burbs)but also promoted smarter growth than other places so am not totally sure how to extroplate the DC trend to other places, but the data support what the feel on the street is/was.
Smart growth policies are quite inconsistent here. Arlington is the most smart growth jurisdiction. DC which should promote dense growth, has a substantial anti-gentrification anti-densification backlash, and some of the suburbs (Prince William, Stafford, Loudoun, Charles) continue to promote traditional suburban growth mostly. In fairfax and Montgomery suburban smart growth policies (not visible in this data anyway) elicit a fair amount of conflict.
Smart growth policies are quite inconsistent here. Arlington is the most smart growth jurisdiction. DC which should promote dense growth, has a substantial anti-gentrification anti-densification backlash, and some of the suburbs (Prince William, Stafford, Loudoun, Charles) continue to promote traditional suburban growth mostly. In fairfax and Montgomery suburban smart growth policies (not visible in this data anyway) elicit a fair amount of conflict.
That may be true, though on the whole DC is ahead of the curve on this
Still on the whole this seems like shift, will be curious to see how much is mitogated when the economy and real estate markets straightens out
Am curious of the impacts of the Silver Line in Fairfax longer term
That may be true, though on the whole DC is ahead of the curve on this
Still on the whole this seems like shift, will be curious to see how much is mitogated when the economy and real estate markets straightens out
Am curious of the impacts of the Silver Line in Fairfax longer term
I guess my point is that the changed in metro DC cannot be attributed only to smart growth policies - whether those policies involve limits on sprawl, or to urban policies to get out of the way of densification. To some considerable degree the momentum in parts of the District proper is overcoming continued limits on densification (the height limit, the as yet unreformed 1950s era zoing code, the failurre to advance the development of the McMillan site or Reservation 13, etc) OTOH the ball park and riverfront BID, the NOMA infill station and BID, have contributed to change.
I guess my point is that the changed in metro DC cannot be attributed only to smart growth policies - whether those policies involve limits on sprawl, or to urban policies to get out of the way of densification. To some considerable degree the momentum in parts of the District proper is overcoming continued limits on densification (the height limit, the as yet unreformed 1950s era zoing code, the failurre to advance the development of the McMillan site or Reservation 13, etc) OTOH the ball park and riverfront BID, the NOMA infill station and BID, have contributed to change.
understood
regardless the DC development both within and outside the city itself was pretty amazing
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.
