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.
Many cities suffered population declines after the 1950s as a result of multiple factors. Some cities suffered significant decline while others have managed to recover to a certain extent. New York City's population peaked in 1970, and then surpassed that peak in by the turn of the millennium. The Bronx also recently surpassed its previous peak in the 2020 census while Brooklyn came close. Manhattan's population today is still around 700K less than its 1910 peak. The most famous example of a city that's suffered population decline is Detroit which is a third of the population it was in 1950. There are plenty of other examples of this across the midwest and northeast. Which city do you think has the best chance of surpassing their previous peak population within city limits within the next 50 years?
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)
DC, then Boston. Both are ~130k shy of their peak populations (800k) and have a good shot at hitting that within the next 2-3 decades so long as come cataclysm event doesn't happen and or the economy stays healthy.
Philly, Baltimore, St. Louis, Cleveland & Detroit etc... have a lost to much population at this point. You'd need a historic nationwide migration reversal or outside mass immigration for them to regain their numbers
After DC and Boston, Milwaukee is closest, but the migration trends needed to make it happen just don't seem in the works. Milwaukee would have to become more like the twin cities to even have a chance.
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)
I agree the order of likliehood is DC, Boston, and then Philly. I imagine DC is well on its way to achieving or surpassing its peak population. While I agree that of the major Northeast Corridor cities, Baltimore would struggle the most, it is a bit dramatic to say it is a total disaster. While certainly not my favorite city, it has some appealing neighborhoods like Fells Point and Inner Harbor. As long as Under Armor, T. Rowe Price, and Johns Hopkins don't up and leave, there will be long-lasting vitality for Baltimore.
Many of those Midwestern cities are very far off from peak, yes, but Milwaukee is actually just over 75% of its peak population. I don't know that there are many tailwinds for growth in the near future, and I see that it was losing population even before the pandemic. But, it stands out amongst the other Midwestern cities mentioned in the thread.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joakim3
DC, then Boston. Both are ~130k shy of their peak populations (800k) and have a good shot at hitting that within the next 2-3 decades so long as come cataclysm event doesn't happen and or the economy stays healthy.
Philly, Baltimore, St. Louis, Cleveland & Detroit etc... have a lost to much population at this point. You'd need a historic nationwide migration reversal or outside mass immigration for them to regain their numbers
Philly is just over 75% of its peak population. It is not in the ballpark with the other cities you mentioned thereafter. Philadelphia is more on-par with a city like Boston which is at about 81% of peak population. Those other cities are around or under 50%.
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.
10 Detroit - never happening. Already plummeting from its peak of 1.850 million in 1950, the city will keep "right sizing" in terms of population and decline will continue. I'd estimate it to bottom out at roughly 450k in the next 50 years.
9 Cleveland - the population decline continues. The city is not bleeding as badly as it was, but population still a far cry from its peak of 914,000. I'd say the city drops to 300-320k, or less, in 50 years.
8 Buffalo - not shredding people as badly as it was, drop has stabilized. Population may slightly increase (a few thousand here or there) but by no means will it get close to where it was at its peak.
7 Milwaukee - slight drops will probably continue. The city is not losing at a fast clip, but drops may continue, and in 50 years, could go to 500k-ish.
6 Baltimore - the city will probably continue slowly losing population. In 50 years, similar to Milwaukee at around 500k or so. It may fall as low as 450k or so.
5 Pittsburgh - this city could actually see a slight uptick in the next couple of decades due to strong white collar job integration, gentrification and overall economic growth. I could see it gaining up to around 325-350k, from roughly 302k now. Nowhere near its peak though.
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.
**Bonus city is Cincinnati, OH. Cincinnati hit its peak of roughly 503,000 in 1950. It currently has roughly 310,000 people, and has been slightly growing lately. I would predict the city to keep growing a bit, steadily, and possibly even grow to 350,000 in 50 years. Interesting one to watch!
Last edited by jjbradleynyc; 08-12-2023 at 11:48 AM..
Big issue for Milwaukee, Philly and Chicago is although they are much closer to their peak populations they are also a much bigger portion of their metro area. Which makes those raw number growth more difficult. Which is why I wouldn’t put Chicago measurably above St Louis or whatever cause a change in metro distribution rather than metro growth could get St Louis or something halfway there. While Chicago is almost a full 30% of the metro population.
Philly is just over 75% of its peak population. It is not in the ballpark with the other cities you mentioned thereafter. Philadelphia is more on-par with a city like Boston which is at about 81% of peak population. Those other cities are around or under 50%.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by btownboss4
Big issue for Milwaukee, Philly and Chicago is although they are much closer to their peak populations they are also a much bigger portion of their metro area. Which makes those raw number growth more difficult. Which is why I wouldn’t put Chicago measurably above St Louis or whatever cause a change in metro distribution rather than metro growth could get St Louis or something halfway there. While Chicago is almost a full 30% of the metro population.
This, and then some.
Last edited by Joakim3; 08-12-2023 at 12:50 PM..
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.
