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.
The difference is stagnation due to housing costs has a very direct and straightforward solution. It takes one good administration at the state *or* Local level to significantly change things.
Here's the thing, though. It's not just about supply, because developers still have to turn a profit on the cost of land, material and labor, which are also well above the national average in cities like Boston. That's a big reason why new construction can't go below a certain cost threshold, no matter how many units are built.
Essentially, unless states like MA move forward with MASSIVE amounts of directly subsidized housing, which would end up a being huge chunk of any budget, literally nothing will improve.
Yes. Development costs set the baseline for costs.
Public policy can influence that in some key ways -- reduced fees, no parking requirements, upzoning so developable land is cheaper per new unit, eaisier entitlements, easier building codes (safety but less of the rest)....
Here's the thing, though. It's not just about supply, because developers still have to turn a profit on the cost of land, material and labor, which are also well above the national average in cities like Boston. That's a big reason why new construction can't go below a certain cost threshold, no matter how many units are built.
Essentially, unless states like MA move forward with MASSIVE amounts of directly subsidized housing, which would end up a being huge chunk of any budget, literally nothing will improve.
Land Cost isn’t really a factor if you can put 8 units instead of 1 on a plot of land. In addition legal fights leading to development add a big cost.
Minneapolis has had no rent growth in 6 years due to upzoning and cutting parking minimums. And that’s with over 20% inflation since then.
Just look at DC. It basically flatlined since 2013. When it was in the same situation as Boston.
Out of the poll choices, here is my estimation of their ranking, in terms of chances--
11 St Louis - will only continue losing population. Hard to believe this city had 856,000+ in 1950. Already having plummeted, with a population well below 275k--it could go as low as 200k in 50 years (or less?!). Best chance for a boost is to combine with the county, but probably not happening any time soon.
Not sure where you get your numbers, STL is not “well below 275k”, it’s probably around 285k now and that could easily reverse and tick back up over 300k in the not too distant future. Housing construction continues at a rapid clip. Cities ebb and flow, and yeah, St. Louis has been in precipitous decline since 1950, but not at any consistent rate. Don’t count STL out, it has a LOT of resiliency and plenty of institutional muscle to ensure it will not be fading into oblivion anytime soon.
Peak population years 1920-50, city living would have been more sought after to be near corporate jobs (in which the cities that lost the most people were the biggest powerhouses), mass transit in most of these places would have been more sophisticated then than it is now, also bigger household sizes as another poster astutely mentioned.
Can anyone think of a scenario where Chicago's population would increase by 900,000? I can't.
Not sure where you get your numbers, STL is not “well below 275k”, it’s probably around 285k now and that could easily reverse and tick back up over 300k in the not too distant future. Housing construction continues at a rapid clip. Cities ebb and flow, and yeah, St. Louis has been in precipitous decline since 1950, but not at any consistent rate. Don’t count STL out, it has a LOT of resiliency and plenty of institutional muscle to ensure it will not be fading into oblivion anytime soon.
I'm not doubting you for one second, but which cities do you consider to not be resilient in comparison to St. Louis?
DC, then Boston, then Philly, then that’s pretty much it. The other cities are either a total disaster (Baltimore) or just too far from their peak populations (St Louis, Cleveland, Detroit)
Yeah why is Baltimore such a nightmare? I dont even live in the east coast but it's just got such a bad reputation. Are all the things said about the city true and if so then how did it become this way?
What’s different this time around is the work-from-home revolution and a changed world left in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic — the same sort of cultural and technological shift that instilled the D.C. Height Act in the first place.
Downtown DC Goal
-Add 15,000 new people by 2028
-Total Downtown DC population of 100,000 by 2040
Last edited by MDAllstar; 08-13-2023 at 06:50 AM..
Out of the poll choices, here is my estimation of their ranking, in terms of chances--
[My cut]
4 Chicago - the city is relatively steady, but will see a slow loss of population continue, I think. I would guess in 50 years, it will be around 2.550 to 2.650 million. A far cry from its peak of 3,620,000 in 1950, though.
3 Philadelphia - could see a continued increase in the city population, as folks move here for less costly inner city real estate. A cheaper option to New York. A surge in population, pushing it near, or past its peak of 2,071,000 in 1950, could happen.
2 Boston - increasing gentrification, strong economic job opportunity and a surge in desirability could increase its
population past its peak of 801,000, in 50 years. Sitting at roughly 660k now, not super far off. We shall see.
1 Washington, DC - strongest case of the options listed. DC has done a great job at inner city development infill, and the population is growing, sitting at roughly 690,000 people, today. It is a much safer city today, and I could see it passing its population peak of 802,000 from 1950, in the next 20 years or so.
This is a good ranking, and you provided logical rationale for each placement. 1-4 make total sense. I think Chicago could go a number of ways, depending on political and economic dynamics in the next decade. Regaining one million residents would be a huge feat to which the city is nowhere near achieving. But at the same time, Chicago is in no immediate danger of losing its spot as the Midwest's economic and cultural hub, something that will give it long-lasting vitality.
If Philadelphia cuts the red tape to doing business in the city, gets serious about reducing wage taxes, and fixes its crime PR+reality issue, we really would be well positioned to intake Northeastern urbanites priced out of the other big cities. (Former) Governor Wolf got the ball rolling in making the state more competitive for business, and now our city needs to work with that momentum.
I think Pittsburgh, Baltimore, and Milwaukee all could make a case for spot #5. Baltimore is presently struggling the most with its public image, but it also is well positioned in the Northeast Corridor with quick access to DC.
Even longer-term, I think other posters had good points about how climate change may have a stronger impact on the vitality of cities. Climate change will usher in many unknowns. The more northern latitude of these legacy cities could make these cities more favorable in the future.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joakim3
Using 2020 census
DC - 84%
Boston - 81%
Milwaukee - 77%
Philly 75%
Chicago - 74%
Baltimore - 62%
Buffalo - 46%
Pittsburgh - 44%
Cleveland - 40%
St. Louis - 35%
Detroit - 34%
DC & Boston are the only cities with unilateral growth throughout the entire city, not just downtown. The only reason Philly and Chicago don't have net population loss like Baltimore is their downtowns are substantially larger robust and slightly offset the exodus of low income people moving out.
This, and then some.
I think this proves my point, no? Philadelphia is closer to Boston than it is most of the Midwestern cities mentioned in the thread. And it isn't just Center City that has experienced recent growth. Between 2016 and 2021, Olde Kensington, Germantown, and Walnut Hill all experienced substantial growth. These neighborhoods are certainly not in Center City.
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.
