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.
If household size has fallen by 30% since the peak, you'd need over 40% more households to make up the difference. This is tough without large-scale densification unless you already had big greenfield areas. (Omitting annexation of course)
Yes, this exactly. All of the most urban cities now also have below replacement birth rates, MUCH lower in some cases. And domestic migration is likely to continue to be negative unless there's a seismic shift in affordability.
Only immigration in overdrive is going to make an appreciable difference in population in any of the big urban cities in the coming years.
Buffalo is the only one of the rust belt towns with Danny chance in the next ~40 years.
As it’s growing decently while the rest are not
I fail to see why Buffalo has an outsized chance compared to the rest. Its headwinds are arguably much greater than Pittsburgh, Milwaukee, and Cleveland due to smaller metro population and a less robust corporate or knowledge sector. Out-migration from NY State is very acute across the board.
Buffalo excels most in attracting immigrants priced out of NYC, but obviously it's not a panacea.
I fail to see why Buffalo has an outsized chance compared to the rest. Its headwinds are arguably much greater than Pittsburgh, Milwaukee, and Cleveland due to smaller metro population and a less robust corporate or knowledge sector. Out-migration from NY State is very acute across the board.
Buffalo excels most in attracting immigrants priced out of NYC, but obviously it's not a panacea.
1) lower raw numbers population growth in the US isn’t super fast, a city like Chicago recovering a million people is not going to be easy even if it becomes *the top* destination in the country.
2) higher base Buffalo is at 48% of its peak population, while Cleveland is at 37% and losing people
3) like you said it’s in NYS which is investing tons of money in Buffalo in particular and it’s easier to attract immigrants with NY’s safety net but Midwest COL
Yes, this exactly. All of the most urban cities now also have below replacement birth rates, MUCH lower in some cases. And domestic migration is likely to continue to be negative unless there's a seismic shift in affordability.
Only immigration in overdrive is going to make an appreciable difference in population in any of the big urban cities in the coming years.
Right, so a better question is something to the effect of, "which city/cities have the best chance at achieving or remaining within x% of peak population."
Richmond was at 250,000 in 1970, and is at 229,000 now. Rich bottomed out at 198,000 in 2000, and has grown 15.7% since then. At the post-00 pace, it'll hit 250,000 by 2037 and realistically it'll probably clear that 250k before then, it's not gonna take 15 years for Richmond to top 250,000...
I think Richmond is important to this topic as it's developmentally historically mirrors most of the cities on this thread. It's built more like these cities, too, and often gets compared to Pittsburgh, with obvious similarities to DC and Baltimore and Philadelphia and Western NY cities as well...
Richmond's peak population is less than half the peak of any of these cities. Its peer cities in this discussion would be places like Providence, Dayton, Syracuse, and Akron. That said, its growth has been impressive and it's fared better than all of these.
I agree with the Baltimore comparison as I've always thought that Bmore was basically Norfolk + Richmond. Currently living in Philly, I don't see many similarities due to the sheer difference in size and vibrancy. Same with DC though some Richmond neighborhoods (The Fan and Museum district come to mind) do resemble DC on a street level IMO.
Buffalo is the only one of the rust belt towns with any chance in the next ~40 years.
As it’s growing decently while the rest are not
Something to consider is which of these rust belt cities has infrastructure in place today that would support their peak population.
I'm pretty sure the only city that claim they do is Chicago. I can't imagine Pittsburgh being able to support 680,000 in the 54 square mile city with two T lines and BRT, I'm guessing Buffalo would be the same or worse.
Something to consider is which of these rust belt cities has infrastructure in place today that would support their peak population.
I'm pretty sure the only city that claim they do is Chicago. I can't imagine Pittsburgh being able to support 680,000 in the 54 square mile city with two T lines and BRT, I'm guessing Buffalo would be the same or worse.
Buffalo's infrastructure could easily support its peak population. Much of the infrastructure that exists was designed and built at the time when the population was much larger than today, and with the anticipation that the population would grow well beyond its historical peak. For example, the entire metro area is currently a "20 minute city" as road and highway capacity is overbuilt for current population. Utilities and other infrastructure in the city remains in place in neighborhoods that lost housing in the last decades. While there were many individual properties that were abandoned, the neighborhoods that supported them are still in place and active.
I don't know why this wouldn't also be true to a substantial degree in other cities that lost population in the last few decades.
Housing would be the primary issue for full repopulation, not infrastructure, particularly as a smaller number of household members would require a larger number of households in order to meet peak population. Though Buffalo was fully "built out" by the 1950s, the loss of industry has opened up a large amount of land for development of housing that didn't exist in the city at the time (but the loss of housing to highways also took away other land).
Last edited by RocketSci; 10-20-2023 at 02:07 PM..
Buffalo's infrastructure could easily support its peak population. Much of the infrastructure that exists was designed and built at the time when the population was much larger than today, and with the anticipation that the population would grow well beyond its historical peak. For example, the entire metro area is currently a "20 minute city" as road and highway capacity is overbuilt for current population. Utilities and other infrastructure in the city remains in place in neighborhoods that lost housing in the last decades. While there were many individual properties that were abandoned, the neighborhoods that supported them are still in place and active.
I don't know why this wouldn't also be true to a substantial degree in other cities that lost population in the last few decades.
Housing would be the primary issue for full repopulation, not infrastructure, particularly as a smaller number of household members would require a larger number of households in order to meet peak population. Though Buffalo was fully "built out" by the 1950s, the loss of industry has opened up a large amount of land for development of housing that didn't exist in the city at the time (but the loss of housing to highways also took away other land).
I agree that lack of infrastructure isn't the issue in a lot of the Rust Belt cities. It's more about the lack of adequate housing. Buffalo, like the others, will still be held back by having swaths of vacant lots in certain areas along with having dilapidated or antiquated housing still standing.
The bigger issue for these Rust Belt areas have more to do with updating/rehabbing existing structures and infill rather than having to worry about a lack of infrastructure since all these areas were built at the core to house significantly more people then they currently do.
Thats not to say these Rust Belt cities aren't adding plenty of new units but they still have to work at filling in the gaps before you'll see any large scale repopulation. But that actually leads to an advantage that these areas do have. There is plenty of close in land to work with compared to cities/metros that either have to build up (which is more costly) or continue to build out further.
Not sure about that. Today's populace has smaller households, so far more housing would be needed. There are far more jobs per capita, so there might be a lot more commuting per household WFH notwithstanding. Retail is far more car-oriented. Electricity use is higher. And how many would drive vs. use transit or walk?
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.
