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 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.
In many cases, the shift in cities which caused the decline was not that the city became unfashionable. It was that the "growth envelope" passed beyond city limits and it became politically impossible to annex suburbs. The reason Milwaukee isn't on this list, for example, is because it successfully annexed much of the northwestern quadrant of the county in the 1950s, putting off its peak until the 1960 census. I also know for Pittsburgh in particular that if it wasn't for some of the latest-annexed suburbs (which came into the city mostly in the 20s and early 30s) the period of decline would have started a few decades earlier.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rnc2mbfl
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.
Gentrification initially reduces population, as low-income families make way for 1-2 person households with no kids. However, if zoning permits it, once real estate values climb high enough new-construction infill will take place. Standalone infill houses are seldom enough to make up for declining household size, but 1-2 big modern apartment projects generally are.
There are still more deaths than births in Pittsburgh,
This is why it bugs me when I read posts where someone says: neener, neener, Pittsburgh population is still declining.
I figure it's because so many steel workers took early retirement when the plants closed and now they are passing away. Not that the city is becoming less desirable. When a senior household goes from 2 to 1 because of a death that reduces the household size as well.
This is why it bugs me when I read posts where someone says: neener, neener, Pittsburgh population is still declining.
I figure it's because so many steel workers took early retirement when the plants closed and now they are passing away. Not that the city is becoming less desirable. When a senior household goes from 2 to 1 because of a death that reduces the household size as well.
To be fair, it's unclear why the City of Pittsburgh's population in particular is declining (if it still is) because the census doesn't release data on natural population growth/decline on anything below the county level. It does seem like the number of children has declined slightly from 2010 to 2018 though - maybe by around 2,000, which would suggest the birth rate continues to fall - not surprising considering it is falling nationally. There is no way to track the death rate at all using census data - not even for the actual census years.
Boston lost 30% of its population between 1950-1980. It’s a legitimate Rust Belt city, but thanks to its coastal location, and the fact that it anchors a region, it was able to make the turnaround sooner and more robustly.
There’s also the stability of public sector jobs and businesses that can survive off of people occupying those jobs (restaurants) that comes from being the state capital.
Another aspect might be that Boston with its prized historic core was able to fend off the making of freeways cutting through it better.
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.
That’s great to hear about Buffalo (and Scranton)! I hope it’s a sign of a coming and accelerating trend. New York State would do great to have multiple parts thriving.
I’ve visited the city a couple times and was impressed by Allentown and Elmwood Village and the Albright-Knox Gallery of Art. Downtown had some good bones, but it was obvious that it was a bit emptied out and there was quite a bit of building demolition for parking lots. I went into the main library on one of my visits and marvelled at old pictures of the city where its streets seemed to be bursting at the seams with all that activity. I hope a growing Buffalo makes it easier to qualify for future transit funds for its light rail system.
Boston lost 30% of its population between 1950-1980. It’s a legitimate Rust Belt city, but thanks to its coastal location, and the fact that it anchors a region, it was able to make the turnaround sooner and more robustly.
Actually, much of the Boston area's textile industry decamped for the Southeastern US starting in the Great Depression. The difference for the region, if not the city itself at first, was that computer firms started springing up along the new beltway around the city and its closer-in suburbs, Mass. Route 128, in the mid- to late 1950s - these being the spawn of MIT. They helped cushion the blow for the region, and eventually the city caught up with its region.
Quote:
Originally Posted by eschaton
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 "white flight" Pittsburgh experienced was not due to any Great Migration of blacks to it - for some reason, the migrants from the Southeast in the 1920s passed Pittsburgh by - but rather it was a flight triggered by the departure of most of the region's good-paying jobs in the steel industry. That's why Pittsburgh's metropolitan population began its decline in the 1970s, at a time when the suburbs of every other Rust Belt city mentioned in this discussion save Buffalo continued to grow.
Quote:
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.
The Brookings Institution labeled Philadelphia "Bostroit" in a paper its Metropolitan Policy Program produced in the 1990s assessing the city's current condition and future prospects.
Of course, Philly isn't on this list becasue, for all the caterwauling about its population loss since 1950, it lost only 25 percent of its peak population. Its growth curve has turned positive too, largely on the backs of immigrants from abroad, without whom many of the cities that gained population in the 1980s and '90s would have gained far fewer residents or even lost population because net domestic migration remains outward from our large core cities, every one of them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by eschaton
In many cases, the shift in cities which caused the decline was not that the city became unfashionable. It was that the "growth envelope" passed beyond city limits and it became politically impossible to annex suburbs. The reason Milwaukee isn't on this list, for example, is because it successfully annexed much of the northwestern quadrant of the county in the 1950s, putting off its peak until the 1960 census. I also know for Pittsburgh in particular that if it wasn't for some of the latest-annexed suburbs (which came into the city mostly in the 20s and early 30s) the period of decline would have started a few decades earlier.
Kansas City also annexed hundreds of square miles of corn and soybeans in the slightly more than three decades from 1946 to about 1983. As this farmland started sprouting houses, the city's population continued to grow until it reached its peak of just over 500,000 in 1970. Its decline has been smaller and shorter than those of its peers: it lost only about 55,000 of its peak population and is now within 20,000 of it again.
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.
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.
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.
Actually, much of the Boston area's textile industry decamped for the Southeastern US starting in the Great Depression. The difference for the region, if not the city itself at first, was that computer firms started springing up along the new beltway around the city and its closer-in suburbs, Mass. Route 128, in the mid- to late 1950s - these being the spawn of MIT. They helped cushion the blow for the region, and eventually the city caught up with its region.
That's actually another way that Boston and Pittsburgh are a lot alike. In both metros, a lot of the factories were distributed outside of the core city through scores of satellite cities and mill towns. This meant Boston/Pittsburgh proper could have a bit more of a white collar focus. It also meant that as industry scaled up in size/scope, you didn't see as many cases where most of downtown fringe neighborhoods were essentially wiped out for industrial development.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarketStEl
The "white flight" Pittsburgh experienced was not due to any Great Migration of blacks to it - for some reason, the migrants from the Southeast in the 1920s passed Pittsburgh by - but rather it was a flight triggered by the departure of most of the region's good-paying jobs in the steel industry. That's why Pittsburgh's metropolitan population began its decline in the 1970s, at a time when the suburbs of every other Rust Belt city mentioned in this discussion save Buffalo continued to grow.
I use white flight in a very restrictive manner. I don't think it's white flight merely if white people leave a city - whether for the suburbs or out of the metro. It's only white flight if they're leaving their neighborhood because it's becoming more nonwhite. Hence a "white flight" neighborhood is one which used to be majority white and became black (or Hispanic), but not a white neighborhood which has seen 50% population decline but remained pretty much demographically the same.
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.
1) Ohio City is much larger than the gentrifying area west of West 25th St. and north of Lorain Ave. and south of Detroit Ave. E.g., it includes several high-rise public housing projects east of West 25th St. and north of Detroit Ave. Sections south of Lorain Ave. are much less prosperous, although some new construction is spilling over into that area.
I couldn't get the household income function in the above map to work.
2) The age of the data-set that you used could be important. Ohio City housing prices have soared since the Great Recession. Household incomes likely will reflect this higher housing prices in the 2020 census.
Use the search engine in the above link for an historical look at Ohio City real estate prices, where the median has increased from $69,500 in 2007 to $107,000 in 2016. Median prices would have been significantly higher if only the gentrifying area was considered.
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.
