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 01-10-2014, 06:42 PM
 
229 posts, read 248,367 times
Reputation: 251

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
"Reward suburbia", LOL! And no, I'm not about to "suffer" any inconvenience I don't have to for some philosophical kick! We've discussed the FHA before. You may do a search.
What are you saying? Are you disagreeing with me?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
Your list of shrinking cities is not impressive. Many cities are growing.
Phoenix that is apparently growing fast is not a city for all but couple of its blocks. SLC, Denver, Las Vegas and everything post 1960s too. I don't know what kind of benefits they get from being designated as a 'city' but they don't fit any of the characteristics of a real city...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-10-2014, 06:55 PM
Status: "Summer!" (set 15 days ago)
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
86,981 posts, read 102,540,351 times
Reputation: 33045
Quote:
Originally Posted by im_a_lawyer View Post
What are you saying? Are you disagreeing with me?



Phoenix that is apparently growing fast is not a city for all but couple of its blocks. SLC, Denver, Las Vegas and everything post 1960s too. I don't know what kind of benefits they get from being designated as a 'city' but they don't fit any of the characteristics of a real city...
I'm disagreeing that people should be expected to "suffer" inconveniences to live in the city. If the city can't provide what people want, they have every right to go to the burbs.

You know, it's funny. Everything post 60s? The population of the US in 1970 was 203,000,000. Now it's 316,000,000. That is a gain of >50%! Where is everyone supposed to live, if new housing isn't built?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-10-2014, 07:37 PM
 
229 posts, read 248,367 times
Reputation: 251
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
I'm disagreeing that people should be expected to "suffer" inconveniences to live in the city. If the city can't provide what people want, they have every right to go to the burbs.
Under the current government policies, suburban lifestyle is at an advantage. Is that fair? No. Then let's change it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
You know, it's funny. Everything post 60s? The population of the US in 1970 was 203,000,000. Now it's 316,000,000. That is a gain of >50%! Where is everyone supposed to live, if new housing isn't built?
Obviously new housing had to be built... the problem is how drastically different the new cities and communities are and it's all for the worst.

Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-10-2014, 08:53 PM
 
1,264 posts, read 2,150,324 times
Reputation: 1430
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
Yes. The shrinking cities is shrank compared to peak population, small gains in the last decade don't make up for a general decline. But population decline stats aren't that informative. A number of European cities including some that good press among "urbanists" show large declines as well:

population loss from peak

Paris: -21% [peaked in 1954]
Barcelona: -12% [peaked in 1979, Spain urbanized late]
Copenhagen: -27% [peaked in 1950]
Milan: -22% [peaked in 1971]
Manchester: -41% [peaked in 1930]
City of Paris peak population was in 1921 according census.
The city population was rather stagnant until the 1950 when it really began to decline until the 2000's when the population started to grow again.
Today, the city is 23% less populated than in 1921.
In 1999 at the at lowest after the peak the city of Paris was 27% less populated than in 1921.

1906: 2 763 393
1911: 2 888 110
1921: 2 906 472
1926: 2 871 429
1931: 2 891 020
1936: 2 829 746
1946: 2 725 374
1954: 2 850 189
1962: 2 790 091
1968: 2 590 771
1975: 2 299 830
1982: 2 176 243
1990: 2 152 423
1999: 2 125 246
2006: 2 181 371
2009: 2 234 105
2010: 2 243 833

The City of Paris is less populated than a century ago.
Anyway Paris city limits being very tiny (smaller than S.F), it distorts the comparison.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-10-2014, 08:57 PM
 
Location: southern california
55,644 posts, read 74,585,953 times
Reputation: 48138
i cant speak for all of europe its a big place but in france, which i know, if you can you get a little car you do it. the metro and trains are full of thugs esp in the suburbs. do i want that here? i dont think so. my own town has become infested with thugs hopping off the trolley to loiter in the town without paying for anything and getting into trouble. they never pay on the trolley either. trust me if you get mugged here, he is not in a car.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-11-2014, 08:06 AM
 
Location: Thunder Bay, ON
2,610 posts, read 3,759,792 times
Reputation: 1616
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
Some population loss comes from decreased family size over the years.
True, most of Toronto's inner city neighbourhoods lost 20-40% of their population despite still being relatively intact. The main reason Toronto (pre 1998 city limits) is not less populated than in 1940/1950 is a lot of highrise construction since that time.

Still, there are a lot of cities that experienced growth within their city limits mainly because their city limits are very extensive and experienced greenfield development, but where the inner neighbourhoods still lost population (in bold below).

Here's population lost of the inner core (~20% by population) of various metropolitan areas. These are approximate numbers since they depend on how you draw the boundary, but I tried to draw them in a way that takes in the older neighbourhoods closer to downtown.

Metros over 1million with greater than 5% population loss in inner core from 2000 to 2010.

Detroit: -23.1%
Birmingham: -16.1%
Buffalo: -11.7%
Memphis: -10.0% (city proper was -0.5%)
Indianapolis: -9.1%
St. Louis: -8.1%
Pittsburgh: -8.1%
Jacksonville: -7.7%
Kansas City: -7.1%
Baltimore: -5.9%

Cities I haven't calculated but probably still had significant losses (>5%): Chicago, Cleveland, New Orleans, Cincinnati.

Now metros over 1 million with greater than 5% gain.

Seattle: +8.0%
Portland: +7.9%
Washington: +6.9%

I haven't calculated NYC, Boston, Miami, San Diego and a couple others but I don't expect them to have greater than 5% growth in their inner cores.

Mind you, I think a lot of cities have experienced a turn around since then, with much faster growth since 2010 than between 2000 and 2010. Of course, it's only been a couple of years so it's not very strong evidence of a long term trend.

Last edited by memph; 01-11-2014 at 09:16 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-11-2014, 08:26 AM
Status: "Summer!" (set 15 days ago)
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
86,981 posts, read 102,540,351 times
Reputation: 33045
Quote:
Originally Posted by im_a_lawyer View Post
Under the current government policies, suburban lifestyle is at an advantage. Is that fair? No. Then let's change it.



Obviously new housing had to be built... the problem is how drastically different the new cities and communities are and it's all for the worst.
Tell me how the suburban lifestyle is at an advantage.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-11-2014, 09:56 AM
 
Location: South Park, San Diego
4,934 posts, read 7,589,851 times
Reputation: 9255
Quote:
Originally Posted by im_a_lawyer View Post
Under the current government policies, suburban lifestyle is at an advantage. Is that fair? No. Then let's change it.



Obviously new housing had to be built... the problem is how drastically different the new cities and communities are and it's all for the worst.
Egads! Where is that, suburban Denver? What a spaghetti mess of a place to live with in. Sadly, this is not unusual planning or development.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-11-2014, 10:26 AM
 
38,085 posts, read 14,885,535 times
Reputation: 24522
All over the country, progressive city planning departments are looking at "walkable urban" areas.

Our town has designated three such areas and is already developing one that will have shops, restaurants, businesses... all within a central area anchored by a park.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-11-2014, 10:30 AM
 
38,085 posts, read 14,885,535 times
Reputation: 24522
We are perfectly willing to spend tax dollars subsidizing roads, bridges, Highway Patrol, airports -- underwriting infrastructure and operation of flying and driving.

But underwrite the cost of buses and light rail? Heaven forbid. Why it's socialism to use tax dollars to underwrite transportation systems that will be used by the poor folk to get to their service industry jobs.

Unless, of course, commuting becomes too big of a headache and the well-to-do start demanding light rail trains to get them to work. Then it's a horse of a different color.
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