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 09-08-2014, 05:27 PM
 
Location: Lakewood OH
21,699 posts, read 23,664,674 times
Reputation: 35449

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by mjlo View Post
What a great thread, this is one of my favorite subjects.

I really don't think pollution was the primary motivator for the decline of the American city from the 1950s -1990s. I really think it was the mass production of the automobile and the economic ability of the masses to be able to attain them that was the core issue. Pre-1950s people really had to live in cities, they were attracted by better paying jobs and a better life. You had to live close to where you worked because transportation options were limited. Hence why older cities are so much more dense. Things like pollution were more a part of life, that and I don't think we became fully educated to such things until the 60's and 70s.

Suburbs were cheaper, quieter and more convenient. Couple that with the implementation of the Eisenhower interstate system and you have the invention of the American commuter. No I'd say pollution, crime, racial tensions, traffic, and inconvenience all played a role. On top of that you reached the pinnacle of the Manufacturing economy and the slow transition to a more knowledge based sustainable economy. That hit industrial centers even harder as it became cheaper to outsource low education jobs to areas with cheaper labor, i.e. the American South/3rd world.

As a student of this I often hear Detroit get lumped in with the other industrial centers. I feel the situation in Detroit is unique to Cleveland, Pittsburgh, Buffalo etc. If you research it I imagine others would agree. Detroit was destroyed by inept leadership at the city, regional, and state level. More so than anything economic.
Having lived through those times I agree with this statement and believe it is the major cause of mass migration to the suburbs. As a kid in the fifties I remember so many of my parents' friends moving to the 'burbs because housing was cheap. It was just more economical for most people and also their was more space and newer schools for their kids.

An even bigger reason is that in the suburbs, housing was actually available. You have to factor in the tremendous housing shortage in the cities after WWII that caused the huge migration to the suburbs and the generous government loans to veterans that allowed those who otherwise could not have afforded the cost of a house. Newly built highways, shopping malls and lowering costs of auto prices added to the attractiveness of the suburbs. They were the place to be for young families and most of all they were affordable.

In those days, people didn't think all that much about the polluting coal burning buildings or auto emissions as reasons to move. It was also to fulfill the great American dream of homeownership which would have been unattainable within the city limits.

The automobile becoming within the reach of all, made suburban life within reach for all also possible.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-08-2014, 05:47 PM
nei 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
45,988 posts, read 41,967,271 times
Reputation: 14805
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
Positive overall? It was negative for 9 years, then weakly positive for two, then a little more positive last year when 3 counties were added to the MSA, which also artificially inflated their growth percentage.
Overall since 1990 from the link, it was positive. Twelve years is only some of the years listed.

Edit: Interestingly the San Jose metro (Silicon Valley) has had a consistent negative domestic out-migration in the last twenty years.

Quote:
Just looking at a few midwestern cities, Columbus, Ohio has grown more percentage-wise, and has had a positive domestic migration rate for every year. Indianapolis has also had a positive growth and positive domestic migration. Omaha's growth has been about the same as Minne's, also way more positive domestic migration.
Three counties were added to Minneapolis' MSA in 2013, which also artificially inflated their growth percentage.
Ok, it's not the fastest growing Northeast / Midwestern metro, but its is one of the faster ones. Columbus and Indianapolis are also smaller and I've seen them described as "sunbelt-like" in growth patterns. It doesn't seem like Minneapolis' harsh winters have had much of an impact on its growth rate, in any case. Another map shows how it stands out, compared to the Great Lakes / Northeast:



(change in industrial jobs by metro —*1954 to 2002)

File:Total mfctrg jobs change 54-02.png - Wikimedia Commons

Last edited by nei; 09-08-2014 at 06:51 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-08-2014, 05:48 PM
nei 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
45,988 posts, read 41,967,271 times
Reputation: 14805
Quote:
Originally Posted by Minervah View Post
An even bigger reason is that in the suburbs, housing was actually available. You have to factor in the tremendous housing shortage in the cities after WWII that caused the huge migration to the suburbs and the generous government loans to veterans that allowed those who otherwise could not have afforded the cost of a house.
Although, if it was just unavailable housing, that doesn't sound like decline a declining place would have had housing opening up.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-08-2014, 05:52 PM
Status: "Summer!" (set 19 days ago)
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
87,002 posts, read 102,592,596 times
Reputation: 33059
Columbus and Indy are hardly in the sunbelt. And considering Champaign County, IL is shown in green, a high percentage increase in industrial jobs doesn't mean much.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-08-2014, 05:53 PM
 
Location: Minneapolis
2,532 posts, read 2,497,942 times
Reputation: 4250
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
What distaste? Who's bashing? Is it bashing to say Minneapolis has a harsh winter? No, it's the truth! Heck, it's colder in Minneapolis in the winter than it is in Moscow! Nor did I say "hemorrhaging". Please show some stats that Minneapolis has outgrown the US as a whole.
No one is denying that it doesn't gets cold here. The point is that it doesn't seem to be a particularly significant issue for the large numbers of people who come here.

Just so we're dealing with the same numbers, these are the official census bureau figures:

1970 US: 203,392,031
2013 US: 316,148,990
1970 Minneapolis Metro: 2,026,715
2013 Minneapolis Metro: 3,459,146

You can double-check my math, but these are the percentage changes I calculate from the census bureau numbers.

US forty-three year change: 55.4%
Minneapolis Metro forty-three year change: 70.7%
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-08-2014, 05:56 PM
nei 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
45,988 posts, read 41,967,271 times
Reputation: 14805
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
Columbus and Indy are hardly in the sunbelt. And considering Champaign County, IL is shown in green, a high percentage increase in industrial jobs doesn't mean much.
Obviously, that's why I said "sunbelt-like" not "sunbelt", and I'm just copying the phrase. As for Champaign County, my guess is that it started from a very small base as it was a college area with little industry.

Anyway, for Northeastern standards, Minneapolis growth rate is very high.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-08-2014, 06:39 PM
 
Location: Youngstown, Oh.
4,896 posts, read 7,657,858 times
Reputation: 4508
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
Ok, it's not the fastest growing Northeast / Midwestern metro, but its is one of the faster ones. Columbus and Indianapolis are also smaller and I've seen them described as "sunbelt-like" in growth patterns. It doesn't seem like Minneapolis' harsh winters have had much of an impact on its growth rate, in any case. Another map shows how it stands out, compared to the Great Lakes / Northeast:
I'd hardly call myself a Columbus expert, but my impression of Columbus is this: If it hadn't annexed much of its surroundings, it would be just another small Midwest city, surrounded by newer suburbs. But, someone in Columbus had the foresight to annex that land, so those suburbs--that would have been built anyway--were built within Columbus city limits.

I've read other posts--by urban enthusiasts much more interested in this stuff than I am--that the population within Columbus' 1950 city limits has declined, like many other Midwest/Great Lakes cities. (nothing so severe as Youngstown or Cleveland, though)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-08-2014, 06:58 PM
nei 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
45,988 posts, read 41,967,271 times
Reputation: 14805
Quote:
Originally Posted by JR_C View Post
I'd hardly call myself a Columbus expert, but my impression of Columbus is this: If it hadn't annexed much of its surroundings, it would be just another small Midwest city, surrounded by newer suburbs. But, someone in Columbus had the foresight to annex that land, so those suburbs--that would have been built anyway--were built within Columbus city limits.

I've read other posts--by urban enthusiasts much more interested in this stuff than I am--that the population within Columbus' 1950 city limits has declined, like many other Midwest/Great Lakes cities. (nothing so severe as Youngstown or Cleveland, though)
Memph has done a rather thorough study on this. Even in many actual sunbelt cities, the old parts of the cities declined heavily*. However, outside the old part the growth rate was very high, the opposite of Northeastern cities where recent population growth is sluggish.

*The biggest exception is Los Angeles, where the core grew at a fast clip:

What U.S. city is most like Los Angeles?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-08-2014, 06:59 PM
 
3,961 posts, read 3,492,098 times
Reputation: 6361
Quote:
Originally Posted by JR_C View Post
I'd hardly call myself a Columbus expert, but my impression of Columbus is this: If it hadn't annexed much of its surroundings, it would be just another small Midwest city, surrounded by newer suburbs. But, someone in Columbus had the foresight to annex that land, so those suburbs--that would have been built anyway--were built within Columbus city limits.

I've read other posts--by urban enthusiasts much more interested in this stuff than I am--that the population within Columbus' 1950 city limits has declined, like many other Midwest/Great Lakes cities. (nothing so severe as Youngstown or Cleveland, though)
In reference to metros, does Columbus annexing those areas have any impact on its metro area growing to 2 million people?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-08-2014, 07:02 PM
 
3,961 posts, read 3,492,098 times
Reputation: 6361
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
Memph has done a rather thorough study on this. Even in many actual sunbelt cities, the old parts of the cities declined heavily*. However, outside the old part the growth rate was very high, the opposite of Northeastern cities where recent population growth is sluggish.

*The biggest exception is Los Angeles, where the core grew at a fast clip:

What U.S. city is most like Los Angeles?
The sunbelt cities that are old enough to have gone through the industrial revolution like the Northeastern cities experienced decentralization i.e. Memphis, New Orleans, Birmingham to a small exent Atlanta. It's the sunbelt cities that started experiencing growth during the age of the automobile that never have, i.e. Phoenix, Houston, Vegas, Tampa ect. There are a few cities that have experienced steady growth without population decline like Miami, but that was never and industrial center that I am aware of.
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