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.
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.
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.
Philly being such a huge part of its MSA kept its population up. Maybe 1/4 of the city I’d postwar suburban sprawl. Which grew post 1950. Meaning it’s kind of like Milwaukee Moreso than Boston As a result it’s a huge raw number but a smaller percentage. Plus Metro Philly has been growing slower than metro Boston up until 2021 (which I basycally am ignoring population estimates until 2024).
An advantage Boston has is growth in the Seaport, Eastie, Fenway or the South End can really power the city close to 800,000 with only moderate growth needed in like Dorchester or Rosindale or Hyde Park which makes up most of the city. 135,000 is much easier to squeeze out into hip neighborhoods than 554,000. Because the actual urban cores are the same size.
Like if Boston just went hard into YIMBY land it would probably cause people to pick the South End over Malden or Uphams corner over Porter Sq. While that in net helps Boston. In Philly that in net doesn’t help Philly cause that’s someone chosing one Philly neighborhood over another.
I guess on the flip side if like the mayors of Malden and Medford decided to go full YIMBY it could siphon “Boston” growth away from the city proper. And I suppose Philly and Chicago doesn’t really have urban competition within their metro like Boston does
You’re not going to fully regain 1950s level of populations in cities unless a lot of high-rise residential construction is built. In those days, families still lived in cities en masse, and people had a lot more children than they do now. The majority of people moving into cities now, besides immigrants, are singles and childless couples who don’t have to worry about school districts.
Philly being such a huge part of its MSA kept its population up. Maybe 1/4 of the city I’d postwar suburban sprawl. Which grew post 1950. Meaning it’s kind of like Milwaukee Moreso than Boston As a result it’s a huge raw number but a smaller percentage. Plus Metro Philly has been growing slower than metro Boston up until 2021 (which I basycally am ignoring population estimates until 2024).
An advantage Boston has is growth in the Seaport, Eastie, Fenway or the South End can really power the city close to 800,000 with only moderate growth needed in like Dorchester or Rosindale or Hyde Park which makes up most of the city. 135,000 is much easier to squeeze out into hip neighborhoods than 554,000. Because the actual urban cores are the same size.
Like if Boston just went hard into YIMBY land it would probably cause people to pick the South End over Malden or Uphams corner over Porter Sq. While that in net helps Boston. In Philly that in net doesn’t help Philly cause that’s someone chosing one Philly neighborhood over another.
I guess on the flip side if like the mayors of Malden and Medford decided to go full YIMBY it could siphon “Boston” growth away from the city proper. And I suppose Philly and Chicago doesn’t really have urban competition within their metro like Boston does
Only Far Northeast Philadelphia is anything close to "postwar suburban sprawl." The Far Northeast is not 1/4 of Philadelphia. Regardless, my point, which was simply percent of current population relative to peak population, still stands. I ranked Boston as higher in likelihood than Philadelphia for a reason.
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 suppose I should've said "well below 280,000." I think I mistyped--sorry about that.
Here is the link that estimates the 2023 population to be approximately 279,000.
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.
I do think Philadelphia has a strong case to grow. Good, dense bones and well laid out infrastructure to support a 2-2.5 million in-city population. It's not nearly as pricey as Boston, DC or New York, and has the same excellent location close to all amenities, that those cities have.
As for Chicago, yeah, it could either stay relatively steady, or start to decline. I don't think it will grow very much, but if it does, it will be a modest increase in the range of 50-100k increase, over 50 years. The downtown area and surrounding neighborhoods (for the most part) are very dynamic and doing super well, but many areas of the city are seeing very high crime, and struggling a lot more.
Also, the state of Illinois tax issues are a big problem for any future Chicago residents to understand, if they are purchasing real estate, and just paying in-state income taxes.
Baltimore should grow so much more than it has: amazing coastal location with a gorgeous harbor, moderate 4 season climate, excellent location to tons of beaches, mountains and other large cities. I'd love to see a boom happen for Baltimore.
Coming off of 2 decades of basically Depression + wartime, a lot of legacy cities were more or less still operating in the pre-suburban flight times in 1950. Once the suburbia machine really got cranked up around the country, it was all she wrote for many in terms of peak population. It wouldn't surprise me if actual peak population for many of them was actually right after the end of WW2. When GIs came home, and the post war boom began, the dispersing of population began. During the Depression and WW2, there were many more multi-generational households as tough times forced the hands of many. I suspect that's particularly true for recent immigrant households in legacy industrial cities. It's also true that families had more children back then too, and even without multi-generations under one roof the household size was larger.
Much of the urban growth and gentrification happening today is for childless couples, singles, and empty nesters. What today is a cool renovated apartment for a professional couple was likely a cramped tenement apartment for a family of 5 back then.
The only way that any of these cities will recover to their peak population (assuming that they don't physically expand) is through new denser residential developments and towers. If hybrid work is here to stay and the office market gets consolidated to a smaller overall footprint, that can provide an opportunity for dense residential construction to happen.
Coming off of 2 decades of basically Depression + wartime, a lot of legacy cities were more or less still operating in the pre-suburban flight times in 1950. Once the suburbia machine really got cranked up around the country, it was all she wrote for many in terms of peak population. It wouldn't surprise me if actual peak population for many of them was actually right after the end of WW2. When GIs came home, and the post war boom began, the dispersing of population began. During the Depression and WW2, there were many more multi-generational households as tough times forced the hands of many. I suspect that's particularly true for recent immigrant households in legacy industrial cities. It's also true that families had more children back then too, and even without multi-generations under one roof the household size was larger.
Much of the urban growth and gentrification happening today is for childless couples, singles, and empty nesters. What today is a cool renovated apartment for a professional couple was likely a cramped tenement apartment for a family of 5 back then.
The only way that any of these cities will recover to their peak population (assuming that they don't physically expand) is through new denser residential developments and towers. If hybrid work is here to stay and the office market gets consolidated to a smaller overall footprint, that can provide an opportunity for dense residential construction to happen.
I wonder what the fate of the hollowed out neighborhoods like Chicago’s southside and Detroit outside of downtown might be? Is the only way for them to get filled up again for there to be another immigration boom like mentioned? That’s kinda how the Bronx regained its population.
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.
Cities grow and shrink often simultaneously in different parts of the city so that's not unique to Philly.
Baltimore's is just as patchy as Philly, but it posted net loss.
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.
