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.
So what cities would be list as stagnant/declining? I would assume there's really a fairly small number of cities that are truely stagnant/declining.
I mean Chicago had its peak population back in 1950 - but I certainly wouldn't call the city stagnant, let alone declining. Most of the population loss came from people deflating out from within the city limits to the newer suburbs. Then of course the fact that the number of people per household today is quite a bit lower than in the past, while the physical size of our living areas is quite a bit larger. Chicago has built tens of thousands of new housing units in the past 10 years, but most of those were replacing older run down units. 200 new highrises in the city during the past 10 years, infrastructure improvements, rebuilds, new parks, etc. Many neighborhoods are in much better shape than they were 20-30 years ago, but they have less people.
There are a lot of older cities that are in the same boat - regardless that their populations have been fairly static, going +/- by 10-20% since WWII.
I would think Detroit, Youngstown, Flint, maybe Cleveland would classify as stagnant and declining.
What are other ones? What exactly is the criteria for stagnant?
I happen to enjoy the cheap cost of livng , and relatively free flowing roadways, and the excess infrastructure that comes with living in a city that has lost over 1/4th of its population in the past 50+ years. The only major drawbacks are the lack of jobs (other than demolition work) and the high crime, but thats why we have the suburbs. I've never been to the boomtowns of Atlanta, Houston, Pheonix etc. Obviously the econcomies are strong in these cities, which is why they are groing so fast. My question is would you rather live in a city thats filling in, or clearing out.
I'd much rather live live in a city that is growing and attracting jobs and has an excellent overall quality of life over a place that isn't. If that wasn't important to me, I'd pick up and move to Detroit tomorrow!
So these cities will fail because they arent designed like NYC?
They have excellent economies, offer low housing costs, boast good lifestyles, etc. Not to mention Texas wont ever really be in trouble because our economy is based on natural resources and energy (green and other). What do you call Los Angeles? Its transit isnt any better than Dallas or Atlanta's. It has sprawled the same way, yet it will never fail either.
The notion that sunbelt cities will fail because they arent like the Northeast is stupid.
Bulls**t. They have excellent economies, offer low housing costs, boast good lifestyles, etc. Not to mention Texas wont ever really be in trouble because our economy is based on natural resources and energy (green and other). What do you call Los Angeles? Its transit isnt any better than Dallas or Atlanta's. It has sprawled the same way, yet it will never fail either.
With all due respect, statistics seem to imply that these cities have not sprawled like Los Angeles. The Houston, Dallas and Atlanta all have MSAs that are larger than 8,300 square miles. Los Angeles' MSA is 4,850. If it could spread, I'm sure it would (and I believe the CSA does), but physically Los Angeles is blocked in by mountains which prevents the contiguous spread from the central city. The other cities don't have this natural wall...so theoretically their borders could double or triple.
Los Angeles' rail transit is hideous (though expanding), but from what I've heard they do have a good bus system. Can the same be said about the other cities?
johnatl mentioned the "rapid densification" of these cities...while you mentioned low housing costs. Density and low housing costs definitely do not go together. Since the rapid growth of these cities has been helped by the extremely low housing costs, how do you two think densification will affect future growth in cities like Atl, Hou, Dal, Phx? Some of the predictions for future populations in these cities is off the charts and at times assumes a constant rate of growth. Do you think these cities will actually be able to grow at a constant rate once COL begins to rise? Or do you think we're going to start seeing MSAs that begin to top 15,000 square miles?
So what cities would be list as stagnant/declining? I would assume there's really a fairly small number of cities that are truely stagnant/declining.
I mean Chicago had its peak population back in 1950 - but I certainly wouldn't call the city stagnant, let alone declining. Most of the population loss came from people deflating out from within the city limits to the newer suburbs. Then of course the fact that the number of people per household today is quite a bit lower than in the past, while the physical size of our living areas is quite a bit larger. Chicago has built tens of thousands of new housing units in the past 10 years, but most of those were replacing older run down units. 200 new highrises in the city during the past 10 years, infrastructure improvements, rebuilds, new parks, etc. Many neighborhoods are in much better shape than they were 20-30 years ago, but they have less people.
There are a lot of older cities that are in the same boat - regardless that their populations have been fairly static, going +/- by 10-20% since WWII.
I would think Detroit, Youngstown, Flint, maybe Cleveland would classify as stagnant and declining.
What are other ones? What exactly is the criteria for stagnant?
I think the reason that Chicago didn't suffer the same way that Detroit did is the fact that Chicago is pretty much the financial center of the midwest and has a stronger economy than the other midwest cities. Detroit only had the auto industry and the other cities such as Cleveland, St. Louis, Gary, Indiana etc. only had steel mills and other manufacturing jobs. When those plants shut down, coupled with "white flight," their economies began to nosedive.
All cities go thorugh an ebb and flow. 50-100 years ago, Northeastern cities grew by leaps and bounds in ways that sunbelt cities can't fathom. The institutions created during that tremendous growth of the 19th and 20th centuries in Northern cites are still paying dividends. Are they growing as fast today as sunbelt no...are they losing populations, not every city.
Cities like Detroit, Cleveland and Pittsburgh "failed" or came close because they existed to serve one industry, whether the automobile, or steel. This is what happens when you put all your eggs in one basket. Cities like Boston, NYC, Chicago, some extent Philly, DC/Baltimore prosper because of the strength of a highly diversified economy, the propect for growth and equity, and the abilty to attract people who can contribute a lot to the local society, whether as a high paying job or skilled labor. This process is very cyclical and supports itself.
Sunbelt cities are based just on that, the SUN. When did these cities start growing....when the air conditioner became affordable in the 1950's. The infrastructure (built, economic, implied) and institutions are built on weaker foundations, it's "there" because it has to be there, nothing about those cities in organic.
Northern cities have weathered all sorts of crises, because their footing is there. The most recent housing/mortgage crisis began in these sunbelt cities...they over built for the means of the greater population and it spread to other cities, like a ripple.
It is predicted that in the coming years, more "established" cities will see tremendous growth simply because thay offer affordibilty, comfort, highly diversified economies, and livability.
As sunbelt cities age, and they will, the lack of livabilty, transportation, dense housing, high paying-high growth jobs, will move people away. Today people live there because it's cheap, the cost of a dollar might go further...but what value is it, when you give up viable security.
I just graduated college with a master's, for example, I know I could move to Texas/Florida/Georgia for cheap, but I know I give up a lot of personal security and protection to make a life there rather that a place like New England/New York where I know a can have a very secure job and a very high standard of life.
With all due respect, statistics seem to imply that these cities have not sprawled like Los Angeles. The Houston, Dallas and Atlanta all have MSAs that are larger than 8,300 square miles. Los Angeles' MSA is 4,850. If it could spread, I'm sure it would (and I believe the CSA does), but physically Los Angeles is blocked in by mountains which prevents the contiguous spread from the central city. The other cities don't have this natural wall...so theoretically their borders could double or triple.
Los Angeles' rail transit is hideous (though expanding), but from what I've heard they do have a good bus system. Can the same be said about the other cities?
johnatl mentioned the "rapid densification" of these cities...while you mentioned low housing costs. Density and low housing costs definitely do not go together. Since the rapid growth of these cities has been helped by the extremely low housing costs, how do you two think densification will affect future growth in cities like Atl, Hou, Dal, Phx? Some of the predictions for future populations in these cities is off the charts and at times assumes a constant rate of growth. Do you think these cities will actually be able to grow at a constant rate once COL begins to rise? Or do you think we're going to start seeing MSAs that begin to top 15,000 square miles?
The MSA measurement is a big misleading for LA. Most of the people who are moving are going out to the IE (San Bernadino and Riverside counties). While most of these counties are uninhabited because they are so large, LA has moved out that direction. So, yes I believe that LA is sprawling the same as the other sunbelt cities. What we are seeing in Dallas is business centers popping up in the suburbs. Even Frisco has an area of a few 20 story buildings now.
Remember that people move here because its not dense. If they wanted that type of living, there are other options for that.
Sunbelt cities are based just on that, the SUN. When did these cities start growing....when the air conditioner became affordable in the 1950's. The infrastructure (built, economic, implied) and institutions are built on weaker foundations, it's "there" because it has to be there, nothing about those cities in organic.
It is predicted that in the coming years, more "established" cities will see tremendous growth simply because thay offer affordibilty, comfort, highly diversified economies, and livability.
Im sorry, but youre dead wrong.
Texas' economy is based on oil, natural resourses, and energy. Those are things that are NOT big up north that people will need. So no, Texas is actually very very stable.
Texas' economy is based on oil, natural resourses, and energy. Those are things that are NOT big up north that people will need. So no, Texas is actually very very stable.
Yeah...natural resources are very very very FINITE...including oil. Its price changes everyday, based on the commodities market...based in New York oddly enough.
Btw....green energy will be local, no one will import wind power from 1000 miles away or solar, or water, or wishes for that matter. One day in the future, probably the not too distant future, every region of the world will be responsible for their own energy.
All the other cities mentioned, I'll also inlcude PNW cities of Seattle and Portland, SFB and Los Angeles have incredibly diverified economies. That's my point. Their stabilty is secure, sunbelt cities will need to rethink their buisness plan, if you will.
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.
