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.
In reference to metros, does Columbus annexing those areas have any impact on its metro area growing to 2 million people?
I don't know. It's entirely possible that if Columbus had not annexed, it would be a city of 350k in the middle of a metro that would still be 2 million.
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)
I've always thought that might be true of Indianapolis also. The city doubled in area with Unigov in 1970s.
Anyway, yes, densities of new areas were decreasing well before 1950. Nor is this trend limited to the US. A swath of London, especially in the North, built from about 1910 to 1940 was marketed as a suburban escape from the crowded city. Dense for American suburban standards, but less dense and more suburban than the old row home neighborhoods of London:
Although, if it was just unavailable housing, that doesn't sound like decline — a declining place would have had housing opening up.
No, it wasn't just unavailable housing but that was a big contribution and it's a decline if the population isn't replaced. Once the migration from city to suburb began going strong, there were openings in housing that went begging. The large apartment building in which my family first lived in Chicago was torn down some time after we moved from the neighborhood. The owners just couldn't keep it filled and so it was just more economical to demolish it and use the land for something else. People moving out doesn't necessarily mean people moving in to replace them.
Many of those who moved to the suburbs didn't have housing to begin with. Often soldiers returning from the war found themselves and their families having to live with their parents because they couldn't find a place of their own. Sometimes they had to live in tiny apartments because they couldn't find ones large enough for their families. My family had to do that. We were five people in a tiny three room apartment because my parents couldn't find anything else larger for us for years.
Remember, this was the beginning of the so-called baby boom and the huge spike in the population growth of the 1950's and 60's. There just were not enough houses in many cities to be had and apartments were often too small, too costly or did not allow kids. The suburbs offered relief from all of this but the relocation to the suburbs did not create any kind of substantial available new housing openings in the city where there were none to begin with.
It was not just unavailable housing in the city that drew people to the suburbs. But it was one good reason. People looked toward the suburbs who might have not thought of them in previous years. These young people just starting out with their new families would have traditionally settled in the city neighborhoods of their parents as many generations did before them. If they moved at all it would have been a move to what would have been considered a "better" neighborhood but continue to remain in the city. This was the traditional way for young families just starting out prior to the popularity and availability of post war suburban housing.
This trend took people away from the city. The migration to the suburbs was great and the cities continued to lose their populations as the suburbs became a more popular place to raise children and more accessible. Just from my observation from what I witnessed over the decades I would venture to say that the main reason people moved from city to suburb was because of the suburbs themselves and what they had to offer young families. It was so much more than the cities could offer them at the time and a very different kind of life that just appealed to people back when suburban living was a novelty.
I've always thought that might be true of Indianapolis also. The city doubled in area with Unigov in 1970s.
They both lost a fair bit of population in their cores, Center Township is at -58% from 1950-2010 and currently at about the same population as 1895...
Detroit clearly is a different problem. Detroit population peaks in 1950. But Detroit's black population does not peak until 1990. The white flight began in the 50s and continued at roughly the same rate until recent times. Black flight does not start until after 1990. This tends as well to remove any credence from Detroit crashing do to mismanagement. May be a minor factor but Detroit started down way before a Black majority.
Yes, you are so right that Detroit had a unique situation, but there is more to it. Yes, The City of Detroit's population peaked in 1950 at 3 million, now down to 700,000, but the METRO Detroit population is around 4.5 million today:
So really, the population simply shifted out of the city limits. Why? The race riots of July 1967. The lawlessness and destruction permanently freaked out the white working class, who promptly moved to the suburbs, even though some continued to work in the City (and still do). My grandmother lived there then, and I witnessed the rapid change in racial demographics.
Coleman Young, Detroit's first black mayor, wrote in 1994 about the riots:
"The heaviest casualty, however, was the city. Detroit's losses went a hell of a lot deeper than the immediate toll of lives and buildings. The riot put Detroit on the fast track to economic desolation, mugging the city and making off with incalculable value in jobs, earnings taxes, corporate taxes, retail dollars, sales taxes, mortgages, interest, property taxes, development dollars, investment dollars, tourism dollars, and plain damn money. The money was carried out in the pockets of the businesses and the white people who fled as fast as they could. The white exodus from Detroit had been prodigiously steady prior to the riot, totaling twenty-two thousand in 1966, but afterwards it was frantic. In 1967, with less than half the year remaining after the summer explosion—the outward population migration reached sixty-seven thousand. In 1968 the figure hit eighty-thousand, followed by forty-six thousand in 1969."
Yes, you are so right that Detroit had a unique situation, but there is more to it. Yes, The City of Detroit's population peaked in 1950 at 3 million, now down to 700,000, but the METRO Detroit population is around 4.5 million today:
So really, the population simply shifted out of the city limits. Why? The race riots of July 1967. The lawlessness and destruction permanently freaked out the white working class, who promptly moved to the suburbs, even though some continued to work in the City (and still do). My grandmother lived there then, and I witnessed the rapid change in racial demographics.
Coleman Young, Detroit's first black mayor, wrote in 1994 about the riots:
"The heaviest casualty, however, was the city. Detroit's losses went a hell of a lot deeper than the immediate toll of lives and buildings. The riot put Detroit on the fast track to economic desolation, mugging the city and making off with incalculable value in jobs, earnings taxes, corporate taxes, retail dollars, sales taxes, mortgages, interest, property taxes, development dollars, investment dollars, tourism dollars, and plain damn money. The money was carried out in the pockets of the businesses and the white people who fled as fast as they could. The white exodus from Detroit had been prodigiously steady prior to the riot, totaling twenty-two thousand in 1966, but afterwards it was frantic. In 1967, with less than half the year remaining after the summer explosion—the outward population migration reached sixty-seven thousand. In 1968 the figure hit eighty-thousand, followed by forty-six thousand in 1969."
The white exodus from Detroit started in the 1950s and did not change a whole lot after the riots. The 50s dropped 360,000 the 60s about the same and 400,000 in the 70s.
Certainly there was panic moves in the time frame after the riots but the bigger picture was a continuing trend since 1950. Said another way the Detroit white population was down by 40% before the riots.
The white exodus from Detroit started in the 1950s and did not change a whole lot after the riots. The 50s dropped 360,000 the 60s about the same and 400,000 in the 70s.
Certainly there was panic moves in the time frame after the riots but the bigger picture was a continuing trend since 1950. Said another way the Detroit white population was down by 40% before the riots.
Every major industrial city experienced white flight during the rise of suburbia. By the 1990s that trend started to reverse with those cities and regions working together. Cities became more attractive and once blighted neighborhoods started to come back. Many of those cities started to gain population again, even Chicago. Detroit itself had it's smallest population decline of the era (did that have anything to do with Dennis Archer being mayor?) Cities that didn't slow that trend, Cleveland, Buffalo, and Pittsburgh also were experiencing population declines at the regional level. The Detroit area was still growing. Why were places like Chicago, Seattle and New York able to rebound? What was different in Detroit?
They both lost a fair bit of population in their cores, Center Township is at -58% from 1950-2010 and currently at about the same population as 1895...
Many of those who moved to the suburbs didn't have housing to begin with. Often soldiers returning from the war found themselves and their families having to live with their parents because they couldn't find a place of their own. Sometimes they had to live in tiny apartments because they couldn't find ones large enough for their families. My family had to do that. We were five people in a tiny three room apartment because my parents couldn't find anything else larger for us for years.
Remember, this was the beginning of the so-called baby boom and the huge spike in the population growth of the 1950's and 60's. There just were not enough houses in many cities to be had and apartments were often too small, too costly or did not allow kids. The suburbs offered relief from all of this but the relocation to the suburbs did not create any kind of substantial available new housing openings in the city where there were none to begin with.
It was not just unavailable housing in the city that drew people to the suburbs. But it was one good reason.
This trend took people away from the city. The migration to the suburbs was great and the cities continued to lose their populations as the suburbs became a more popular place to raise children and more accessible. Just from my observation from what I witnessed over the decades I would venture to say that the main reason people moved from city to suburb was because of the suburbs themselves and what they had to offer young families. It was so much more than the cities could offer them at the time and a very different kind of life that just appealed to people back when suburban living was a novelty.
Yeap, that was an factor. During the depression and WWII there was little housing built and little renovation. So there wasn’t much available housing in the city and much of it was not up to modern standards. Sure there was plenty to rent but not if you wanted to buy.
In addition before the 1950ies the 30 year fixed home loan was non-existent and only 40% of the population owned homes. In the 1920ies home loans worked on an 5 year cycle where after 5 years you would either have to refinance what was left on the loan or pay it off. If you could not the bank repossessed your house. This kind of loan created major problems when the depression hit as millions could not either refinance(due to temporary loss of job or the bank being unwilling to risk it) or pay off the balloon payment. The new deal put in place policies that helped make longer fixed terms available and Eisenhower expanded it.
With the GI bill, an roaring economy and money saved during WWII(there simply was not much to buy then) the housing market was set to roar. A much larger segment of the populace could own homes and the burbs had the space in which to build them quickly and cheaply.
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.
