Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S. > City vs. City
 [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)
 
Old 04-02-2012, 06:36 PM
 
Location: plano
7,887 posts, read 11,404,388 times
Reputation: 7798

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by barneyg View Post
I just think "coming back" means different things to different people. As someone who lived in Pittsburgh from 2005 to 2009, I can attest that the city has become a nicer place to live, even if it doesn't mean it gained population. In my mind, Pittsburgh "coming back" means the city has successfully been able to replace 10 low-paying jobs in steel mills by 6-8 high-paying jobs in health care research, biotech and robotics. It doesn't mean city limits will get back to 500k+ population. Population growth is overrated.
How would you measure coming back if not population? Avg income growth or softer measures like quality of items such as satisfaction, college grads living there, etc?

I agree an objective measure would be useful but less fun as the food fights would be lost or left to only those without datao
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-02-2012, 06:38 PM
 
11,289 posts, read 26,189,443 times
Reputation: 11355
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnhw2 View Post
How would you measure coming back if not population? Avg income growth or softer measures like quality of items such as satisfaction, college grads living there, etc?

I agree an objective measure would be useful but less fun as the food fights would be lost or left to only those without datao
Population growth doesn't have to correlate with prosperity or standards of living. People tend to think places growing the fastest have to be the best. There are tons of examples where that certainly isn't true.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-02-2012, 07:50 PM
 
7,072 posts, read 9,612,877 times
Reputation: 4531
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chicago60614 View Post
Population growth doesn't have to correlate with prosperity or standards of living. People tend to think places growing the fastest have to be the best. There are tons of examples where that certainly isn't true.

Exactly. Look at all the illegals flooding into California - population growth that is not good.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-02-2012, 08:20 PM
 
Location: plano
7,887 posts, read 11,404,388 times
Reputation: 7798
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chicago60614 View Post
Population growth doesn't have to correlate with prosperity or standards of living. People tend to think places growing the fastest have to be the best. There are tons of examples where that certainly isn't true.
Ok what does revival mean then and how do you measure it?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-02-2012, 08:45 PM
 
Location: Cleveland bound with MPLS in the rear-view
5,509 posts, read 11,872,410 times
Reputation: 2501
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chicago60614 View Post
Population growth doesn't have to correlate with prosperity or standards of living. People tend to think places growing the fastest have to be the best. There are tons of examples where that certainly isn't true.
I did a correlation coefficient on another thread that essentially disproved the theory that population growth and quality of life are correlated. You can be growing in a quality city, but for the most part, it's completely mutually exclusive (one does not predict the other).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-02-2012, 08:47 PM
 
Location: Cleveland bound with MPLS in the rear-view
5,509 posts, read 11,872,410 times
Reputation: 2501
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnhw2 View Post
Ok what does revival mean then and how do you measure it?
How about GDP and GDP growth?? It's generally the best gage when determining the health of a city.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-02-2012, 09:57 PM
 
Location: Cleveland, OH USA / formerly Chicago for 20 years
4,069 posts, read 7,315,088 times
Reputation: 3062
Quote:
Originally Posted by SirDrinksAlot View Post
Another Low IQ idiot that is a fan of parking lots, strip malls, all you can eat American Buffets, and 90s style McMansion housing plans on Cul-De-Sacs.
Of course, even rust belt cities have all those things... in the suburbs, at least.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-02-2012, 09:58 PM
 
Location: Cleveland, OH USA / formerly Chicago for 20 years
4,069 posts, read 7,315,088 times
Reputation: 3062
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gnutella View Post
What's wrong with all-you-can-eat buffets?
Aside from the relatively low-quality food, nothing.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-03-2012, 08:10 AM
 
11,289 posts, read 26,189,443 times
Reputation: 11355
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnhw2 View Post
Ok what does revival mean then and how do you measure it?
Most just based on standards of living. Being in an area where the infrastructure can handle the transportation needs, an area with good schools and leisure activity. An area with a decent GDP and per capita income, lower poverty, lower crime rates.

I grew up in Iowa, and the most I read up on places and visited them, I realized that many of our cities, although smaller, were really tops in quality of life. Excellent schools, no crime, no traffic issues, up to date infrastructure, very low unemployment, no budget issues, very low poverty, etc. This came on the heels of the 1980's which were VERY bad for the state. It sprung back, and while the cities are seeing 10% to 15% growth, people overlook it because it's not the crazy 25% to 30% in places that are really booming.

There are a lot of reasons cities around the country boom, and it isn't always because they have the best quality of life or ammenities. Lots of them are congested, have poor schools, crime issues, etc. I think too much attention is based just on population growth and not on its consequences. I've talked to older people from Phoenix and places in Texas who have been there for decades, and they weren't very happy at all with the explosive growth (relatives of mine).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-03-2012, 12:25 PM
 
Location: Cleveland bound with MPLS in the rear-view
5,509 posts, read 11,872,410 times
Reputation: 2501
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chicago60614 View Post
Most just based on standards of living. Being in an area where the infrastructure can handle the transportation needs, an area with good schools and leisure activity. An area with a decent GDP and per capita income, lower poverty, lower crime rates.

I grew up in Iowa, and the most I read up on places and visited them, I realized that many of our cities, although smaller, were really tops in quality of life. Excellent schools, no crime, no traffic issues, up to date infrastructure, very low unemployment, no budget issues, very low poverty, etc. This came on the heels of the 1980's which were VERY bad for the state. It sprung back, and while the cities are seeing 10% to 15% growth, people overlook it because it's not the crazy 25% to 30% in places that are really booming.

There are a lot of reasons cities around the country boom, and it isn't always because they have the best quality of life or ammenities. Lots of them are congested, have poor schools, crime issues, etc. I think too much attention is based just on population growth and not on its consequences. I've talked to older people from Phoenix and places in Texas who have been there for decades, and they weren't very happy at all with the explosive growth (relatives of mine).
I think that may be true in forums like these, but I don't think the average person walking down the street is lured as much by growth as they are some other more important criteria. That's not to say that growth is bad, but rather, that it's expendible compared to things like schools, safety, cost of living, jobs, etc.
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 > U.S. Forums > General U.S. > City vs. City
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - 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, 36, 37 - Top