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.
I didn't say they didn't continue to grow, I said they peaked. meaning that all those cities (apart from the exception I gave) peaked that year, they lost huge numbers before inching back to where they were in 1950. NY is the only one to bounce back
Yes but the regions never lost population (hanful of excpetions) and the majority of population loss within the cities was due to smaller family size and persons per dwelling. The reduction in US family size played the larger role in what you describe.
As an example Metro Philly population nearly doubled in the time since 1950 or added nearly 3 million people.
lol, all the cities lost population. every last one
Ny is the only one to top its 1950 population
I am not disputing that am saying to purely judge these cities/regions by that one statistic is shortsighted
I also offered further clarity on what the driving factor was in population loss, it was wasnt people fleeing the city it was a change in the birth rate and children per family. None of these cities had any sizable area remaining for any development by 1950, so there was no room for expansion and with diminishing family sizes the population fell.
None of these cities had any sizable area remaining for any development by 1950, so there was no room for expansion
Are you saying that density kills a city?? lol
so why is NY an outlier?
why did it continue to grow in the 70's while the others further declined?
why are 8 of the 9 growing again?
It can't simply be they ran out of room, because they are growing again.
you know as well as I do that in the 1940's suburban living became more popular than urban living and people DID leave in droves. Those cities are slowly growing back after the bleeding had stopped.
I didn't say they didn't continue to grow, I said they peaked. meaning that all those cities (apart from the exception I gave) peaked that year, they lost huge numbers before inching back to where they were in 1950. NY is the only one to bounce back
There is nothing unique about American cities losing population to their outlying areas over this period in history. In Atlanta, it happened a bit later; the city's population peaked in 1970 at about 400K, then had dropped to about 300K by 1990. The trend once again reversed itself and the city population now stands at about 540K. But over the entire period the metro population steadily grew.
why did it continue to grow in the 70's while the others further declined?
why are 8 of the 9 growing again?
It can't simply be they ran out of room, because they are growing again.
you know as well as I do that in the 1940's suburban living became more popular than urban living and people DID leave in droves. Those cities are slowly growing back after the bleeding had stopped.
No not density, lack of buildable space, market grade housing and a drop in persons per household - all had higher densities in 1950 than today with the exception of NY.
On NY, it had the biggest draw and scale. Its scale made the city more attractive to rehad and adapt/reconfigure housing and neighborhoods quicker
They are growing again because the desire for these environements and continued change in demographics, singles, marrying later, kids later if at all, desire for a more cosmoploitan lifestyle and reclamation of areas of these cities. Actually the older burbs are the areas now in worse shape, the worst of both worlds really, not in total and those closest to the borders and historically blue colar areas, mostly caused by non market grade housing and lack of jobs in the close proximity they were built to serve (these burbs were built well before 1950 btw)
And again the occupancy rates in these cities dimished much slower if at all relative to the family size, growth took place where it could further out. People went to the burbs, yes, but people also moved into the cities to take their place just with a smaller family unit. The trend is already reversing in many cities. Philadelphia for example is gaining people from it's burbs; two key segments are driving this: College Mostly Advanced Degreed 20/30/40 somethings and Empty nesters, both with high disposal income desiring a more cosmopolitan life, hence the vibrance
This is also taking place in other cities (as Lovindecator mentioned Atlanta) places like Midtown as one example are also attracting the same demographic so this is not specific to these cities but more a nationwide phenomenon.
Another example Center City Phildelphia Neighborhoods were the least impacted by the housing buble with both regards to price and growth. The faster growing are in the Philly metro in the last 4 years is center city and it reatianed more of it's peak prcie from 2007 than did any other region in the metro. There is almost no development on the fringe suburbs and exurbs while the number of new inner city developments continues to increase and has striaght through the housing crash (of which Philly was hit much less hard than almost all other major metros).
So really this is not a new phenomenon, actually some cities are just behind in this trend
Last edited by kidphilly; 08-21-2010 at 04:04 PM..
I'm amused at all of the people saying Detroit has lost its major city status.
Yeah, we all know that Detroit has lost about half of its population since 1950, the abandoned buildings, etc.
But keep in mind - the area has 4.4 million people (11th place,) and the primary census area has 5.3 million people (12th place.) The area population peaked around 2000. Plus, there are about 800,000-900,000 people living in the city of Detroit itself... which is like 15-20% of the area population.
Losing major city status is a long, slow process, which is witnessed by areas stagnating where others continue to grow. The Detroit area might face that in the future, but also keep in mind that it's a lot harder to plop down cities and watch them grow now than it was 100 years ago.
If anything, maybe Detroit will go the way of Buffalo or New Orleans, still important cities but not dominant ones, but I don't see Austin or Raleigh-Durham, for example, becoming more of major cities than Detroit in the near future.
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.
