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.
St. Louis: 315,685/856,796 - 37% of peak and shrinking marginally.
Chicago: 2,720,546/3,620,962 - 75% of peak and growing marginally.
Philly: 1,567,442/2,071,605 - 76% of peak and growing moderately.
Cleveland: 388,072/914,808 - 42% of peak and shrinking moderately.
Detroit: 677,116/1,849,568 - 37% of peak and shrinking moderately.
Pittsburgh: 304,391/676,806 - 45% of peak and shrinking marginally.
Baltimore: 621,849/949,708 - 65% of peak and growing marginally.
Going by this (census stats from wikipedia, just assuming they are pretty accurate) I'd say, in terms of population rebound, Philadelphia stands pretty high above the rest. The worst off still looks to be Detroit. St. Louis and Cleveland aren't looking so good either. Baltimore, Pittsburgh and Chicago look to be turning a corner. St. Louis, Cleveland, and Detroit will likely continue to lose population for another decade, save for some dramatic shifts. But the good news for them is that they are now losing population at the slowest rate in half a century, so that is a good thing (though it still sounds kinda bad).
Now I suppose some of this could be misleading. I am not sure how many of these cities annexed more towns to gain population in the interim since their peaks (1950). This could certainly skew things a bit and make it not exactly apples to apples. It also ignores (or could ignore) who the people are who come and go. For example, gaining in population isn't necessarily always "good" if you are just bringing a whole bunch of people in on welfare or expensive government jobs or things like that. You might have fewer people moving to say Pittsburgh, but they might be highly skilled and very productive. Hard to say. So population is a good indicator of relative city health but not always the end all be all.
Regardless though, to answer the immediate question, it seems Philadelphia is definitely the most likely candidate.
Good job on the legwork.
It definitely looks like Philly has the best shot, especially when you consider its location in the middle of the Bos-Wash corridor and the relatively inexpensive COL for a big East Coast city.
All of these cities would have to build a lot of new housing. With smaller households, the population will never be close to the peak, wheb households were much larger. More housing units have to be built.
Very true. There are many neighborhoods in Chicago, for example, which are doing very well from an economic perspective but are well of their population peaks. Those now affluent neighborhoods were, back at Chicago's population peak, places where you simply were packing as many factory workers + their large families into the area as you could possibly squeeze in. I'm all for density but in, some cases lower population count isn't nessesaarily an indicator of decline, especially when it's in large part due to a wealthier population simply consuming more square feet per capita.
One poster child for this, especially now, is Lincoln Park. You're seeing developers knock over 2 to 4 flats (sometimes more than one if they can find contiguous lots) to build multi-million dollar homes. Not terrible for the tax base (especially considering fewer people = fewer service needs) but doesn't help you win population growth contests.
On the flip side, you do have the Transit Oriented Development ordinance where the City is allowing greater density for larger multi-family residential developmenta near El stations.
Fun and somewhat related fact. Chicago currently has the highest number of residential construction cranes in operation in the country (second highest total crane count(including commercial buildings) to Seattle). The Chicago appartment boom is relatively recent with most of the activity still under construction. Condo construction is also starting to finally pick up. Will be interesting over the next few years to see if that can help move the city from nearly negligible population growth to something more robust. My bet is no by population but if you were to look at the total number of households you'll see healthy growth (Unless the state of Illinois's inability to manage its finances becomes an even larger burden than it already is / the state simply never gets the political will to pass a sensible budget. Then all bets may be off).
So many major US cities in the Northeast and Mid-West reached peak population in 1950 or 1960 and have since declined. Some have since reversed the trend and are on the way back up. Which city is most likely to capture its former glory?
As a Philadelphian? I'm surprised Philly is listed under a thread TO COMPARE RUST-BELT CITIES?
Threads had ---> Philly posters fight tooth and nail to declare it ----> NOT a Rust-Belt city. But ALL applaud Philly and other post-industrial cities gaining new life today.
Quote:
Originally Posted by STLgasm
None of the above.
Chicago is not growing, it's shrinking.
Chicago's Core has been booming as it originally was never highly residential. Today it is. But its growth struggles to replace the largest group leaving the city of African-Americans from its South and West sides.
Cities are seeing differing levels in changes in its demographics. Chicago's GLOBAL status and BOOMING CORE. Bodes well for its maintaining its Stature till its changing population GAINS AND LOSSES fall more on the side in gaining population again. But it overall becomes more wealthy in gaps that increasingly puts stress on its middle-class and aging population as it is Nationally.
Quote:
Originally Posted by IrishIllini
The greater Chicago area posted a loss of about 15k I believe. The City of Chicago is estimated to have grown, even if marginally.
None of them. Family size, American values and the amount of available housing stock will prevent this.
Smaller family sizes would probably be a benefit for the urban Midwest. When people have fewer children, they put less emphasis on space and more on amenities/things to do. The urban Midwest is built to satisfy that demand. The sprawling metros of the sunbelt? Not so much. Look at Chicago's core. 50+ residential projects under construction right now.
Smaller family sizes would probably be a benefit for the urban Midwest. When people have fewer children, they put less emphasis on space and more on amenities/things to do. The urban Midwest is built to satisfy that demand. The sprawling metros of the sunbelt? Not so much. Look at Chicago's core. 50+ residential projects under construction right now.
You must have meant something different, as 50+ projects doesn't drop jaws. 5,000 projects, or 50+ hi-rises, on the other hand....
Smaller family sizes would probably be a benefit for the urban Midwest. When people have fewer children, they put less emphasis on space and more on amenities/things to do. The urban Midwest is built to satisfy that demand. The sprawling metros of the sunbelt? Not so much. Look at Chicago's core. 50+ residential projects under construction right now.
And yet, the demand is high in those metros as well.
Smaller family sizes would probably be a benefit for the urban Midwest. When people have fewer children, they put less emphasis on space and more on amenities/things to do. The urban Midwest is built to satisfy that demand. The sprawling metros of the sunbelt? Not so much. Look at Chicago's core. 50+ residential projects under construction right now.
Seeing as people continue to flow into those Sunbelt metros, I would say they are building to satisfy demand. Only difference is that there is more demand in the Sunbelt than the Midwest.
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.
