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.
Some of these "cities" were never that large to begin with, and shouldn't even be included in the same grouping. I know you're including them for percentage based losses, but Flint, Gary, and Niagra Falls really have no place on this list, competing against cities over 5 times their size.
It's the top 10 cities over 100,000 population.
I get what you mean, but I did the top 10 based on above the 100k mark.
By reputation, Pittsburgh has demonstrated the most stability and improvement in its recovery from the loss of heavy industry since the 1970s, although its demographics still continue to account for continued population loss city and county wide.
A sleeper city is Buffalo, which is showing city-wide recovery, gentrification, and growth, not just in centralized areas. Latest Census estimates have shown an increase in county population, and for the first time since the 1950s stability and even slight growth in city population, a huge change from the 10k/year losses of the 70s and 80s. Of the cities listed in the poll, only Buffalo and Scranton showed an increase in the last year, although Buffalo is still down from 2010 numbers.
can you explain further about the demographics leading to population loss for pittsburgh? i still dunno how that's happening. there's many students and some young ppl there and i wonder why they don't stay in pittsburgh
Pittsburgh
St. Louis
Buffalo
Cleveland
Detroit
Everywhere else
I'm basing this on the number census tracts with middle-class ($50,000+) household income. Pittsburgh far and away wins this - it's the only city with genuinely rich areas within city limits. St. Louis has a large number of individual neighborhoods in the south/west which are middle class. Buffalo has a couple fanning north from Allentown. Cleveland has a few scattered pockets, most of which are on the city's western fringes and not actually urban. Detroit still has virtually none.
The rest of the cities on this list have no gentrification worth speaking of. Okay, Gary has Miller Beach, but it's basically a suburban neighborhood totally cut off from the rest of the city.
Detroit has middle class tracts in the Northern portion of the city west of Woodward(Sherwood Forest, University District, Palmer Woods), in the western portion(Rosedale/Grandmont-Rosedale) and I believe a couple east of Downtown(the Villages).
Buffalo essentially west of Main Street over to Allentown/Richmond Avenue is largely middle class, with maybe a tract or two in South Buffalo.
Pittsburgh
St. Louis
Buffalo
Cleveland
Detroit
Everywhere else
I'm basing this on the number census tracts with middle-class ($50,000+) household income. Pittsburgh far and away wins this - it's the only city with genuinely rich areas within city limits. St. Louis has a large number of individual neighborhoods in the south/west which are middle class. Buffalo has a couple fanning north from Allentown. Cleveland has a few scattered pockets, most of which are on the city's western fringes and not actually urban. Detroit still has virtually none.
The rest of the cities on this list have no gentrification worth speaking of. Okay, Gary has Miller Beach, but it's basically a suburban neighborhood totally cut off from the rest of the city.
Is St Louis even gentrifying/improving it's run down, abandoned neighborhoods? I have not been there in about 15 years.
They suffered a hemorrhage of population loss during this time period, and the city continues to shrink today. I'd say the 2020 population will come out around 290-295k.
There isn't any part of the City of Cleveland proper that isn't urban.
Yes, there are some large lots and small mansion-like homes in the Edgewater neighborhood, but these are not rural estates (e.g., Hunting Valley), and a few blocks away are definitely urban areas with good mass transit, such as Detroit Ave.
Cleveland's population density still is over 5,100/square mile. Some suburbs (e.g., Mentor, OH) are considered urban, despite population densities of less than 2,000/square mile (massive commercial/industrial acreage and some significant natural areas). Even the Kamm's Corner neighborhood of Cleveland has a population density of over 5,000, and it may be considered the most "suburban" of neighborhoods in Cleveland proper.
Admittedly, some Cleveland suburbs, such as Lakewood or Cleveland Hts., have greater population densities than Cleveland proper, often due to significant multi-story (high-rise in Lakewood's Gold Coast) apartment/condo districts.
I wouldn't define Kamm's Corner or Brookside as urban - more streetcar suburban, since they're dominated by single-family homes on small lots, with little in the way of multifamily or walkable retail. Regardless, they clearly aren't "gentrifer set" neighborhoods - just outer city neighborhoods which held up relatively well to white/suburban flight.
I was actually pretty surprised the median income is so low in the gentrifying parts of the city like Ohio City, Detroit Shoreway, University Circle, etc. Some of that is undoubtedly due to lower-income student types, but I really thought those areas had more yuppies.
can you explain further about the demographics leading to population loss for pittsburgh? i still dunno how that's happening. there's many students and some young ppl there and i wonder why they don't stay in pittsburgh
Compared to the other cities on the list, Pittsburgh's population decline was more driven by shrinking household size, with relatively little in the way of white flight.
The recent census estimates show the city is still declining ever-so-slightly, but it's down to a decline of 1%-2% for the decade, if that. Basically out of the city's 90 official neighborhoods, the population is growing due to an expanding population of young people in many 20 of them. In much of the remainder the population continues to shrink mildly due to falling household size (think about a low-income family moving out to the suburbs, and being replaced by a single yuppie or married couple). And most of Pittsburgh's historically black neighborhoods continue to decline rapidly, with black flight to the suburbs now in full force.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckhthankgod
Detroit has middle class tracts in the Northern portion of the city west of Woodward(Sherwood Forest, University District, Palmer Woods), in the western portion(Rosedale/Grandmont-Rosedale) and I believe a couple east of Downtown(the Villages).
Buffalo essentially west of Main Street over to Allentown/Richmond Avenue is largely middle class, with maybe a tract or two in South Buffalo.
Yeah, I didn't mean to imply they don't exist at all in Detroit. But they're very spotty, and given Detroit's small population in many census track, measurement error and/or just random variance may account for some of it. Detroit doesn't really have any sort of "corridor of wealth" like Buffalo any longer though. Maybe with another decade or two the Downtown/Midtown area will transform into that however.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jjbradleynyc
Is St Louis even gentrifying/improving it's run down, abandoned neighborhoods? I have not been there in about 15 years.
They suffered a hemorrhage of population loss during this time period, and the city continues to shrink today. I'd say the 2020 population will come out around 290-295k.
I basically think of St. Louis as two, maybe three cities. North St. Louis is a total mess. Southern St. Louis is a mixture of black and white, middle class and working class. It definitely has lots of "gentrifer" type neighborhoods like Soulard, hipster neighborhoods like Cherokee St, etc. The West End is sort of its own thing, which has always been a mix of wealthier folks and students, with more and more yuppies these days as well.
Basically, I see St. Louis as half Detroit, half Pittsburgh.
can you explain further about the demographics leading to population loss for pittsburgh? i still dunno how that's happening. there's many students and some young ppl there and i wonder why they don't stay in pittsburgh
In simple terms, a large percentage of 20-somethings left in the late 1970s and 1980s, so the echo of that is with fewer people of child bearing age the birth rate plummeted in the subsequent decades. There are still more deaths than births in Pittsburgh, and along with a decline in children per family it will still take years if not decades for natural growth to be restored.
In simple terms, a large percentage of 20-somethings left in the late 1970s and 1980s, so the echo of that is with fewer people of child bearing age the birth rate plummeted in the subsequent decades. There are still more deaths than births in Pittsburgh, and along with a decline in children per family it will still take years if not decades for natural growth to be restored.
Yeah. It should also be noted that this is one way that Pittsburgh's relatively low level of white flight has hurt it. The fertility rate gap between whites, blacks and Latinos is way less than it used to be, but it's still there. Because Pittsburgh is roughly 64.4% non-Hispanic white, 24% black, 5.5% Asian, and only 2.8% Hispanic, it means that all things considered our birth rate will be lower than Detroit, Cleveland, or St. Louis even presuming the same general age spread.
I think that it's important to realize that cities that peaked in the 40s and 50s often did so out of desperation and sacrifice, and not necessarily because they were somehow at the peak of their hey-day. People often lived in crowded conditions with multiple generations because of the back to back nature of The Depression and WWII. After WWII, the economy boomed and this allowed people to get out of their cramped & often sub-par situations. Many moved to new communities built on cities' peripheries because that's where the new product was being offered. That said, some legacy cities continued to grow. Gary, for instance, grew significantly with its peak Census year being 1960. Even by 1970, the population really hadn't dropped off that much.
Gentrification today often reduces population, even as efforts are considered successful. This is because economically advantaged singles and couples are often replacing less well off families that once occupied the homes and buildings. More money but less people are coming into many of these gentrifying cities. Of course, there is also decline in many cities also due to decay and demolition of once fully occupied neighborhoods.
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.
