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.
There are a lot of cities out their that are still struggling overall, but have revitalizing downtown cores. These cities generally have growing young professional populations in the walkable downtown (and adjacent residential areas), but continue to lose population in the outer historically working class neighborhoods. Although, this is less than ideal. These cities are becoming more attractive and interesting as the most urban and walkable areas revitalize.
Among cities over 250k, which stagnant cities have the strongest central core booms?
Location: Watching half my country turn into Gilead
3,530 posts, read 4,177,862 times
Reputation: 2925
Quote:
Originally Posted by jpdivola
There are a lot of cities out their that are still struggling overall, but have revitalizing downtown cores. These cities generally have growing young professional populations in the walkable downtown (and adjacent residential areas), but continue to lose population in the outer historically working class neighborhoods. Although, this is less than ideal. These cities are becoming more attractive and interesting as the most urban and walkable areas revitalize.
Among cities over 250k, which stagnant cities have the strongest central core booms?
When you say 'city', are we including metro area populations as well? I'm assuming it's the latter, but correct me if I'm wrong. The easy, obvious choices for this thread would be the larger Rust Belt cities (Buffalo, Cleveland, Pittsburgh, etc). but I think if the threshold of 250K includes metropolitan populations, we can get way more diverse answers that aren't immediately obvious. My city of Wilmington, Delaware definitely qualifies, but I can think of even less obvious answers (Montgomery, Alabama for example) that won't make the 250K cut-off on city population alone.
When you say 'city', are we including metro area populations as well? I'm assuming it's the latter, but correct me if I'm wrong. The easy, obvious choices for this thread would be the larger Rust Belt cities (Buffalo, Cleveland, Pittsburgh, etc). but I think if the threshold of 250K includes metropolitan populations, we can get way more diverse answers that aren't immediately obvious. My city of Wilmington, Delaware definitely qualifies, but I can think of even less obvious answers (Montgomery, Alabama for example) that won't make the 250K cut-off on city population alone.
qworldorder, Can you explain what's going on in Wilmington? I used to live in Lewes and commuted to Newark some days for study, and Philadelphia other days for sporting events, the zoo, and so on. I was in Wilmington a few times for this and that, but didn't learn much about the city. I thought it was a little dead when I visited, that's it. I'm used to cities, so I didn't go, "Oh, no! It's dangerous here!" But sleepy? Yeah, it looked that way to me. Not a lot of people on the street, not a lot of places to go. What's it like now?
Detroits DT renaissance has been spectacular to watch over the past half decade, it looks and feels completely different.
Thousands of new offices and office workers as corporate headquarters have moved in, and most of the empty skyscrapers are now either renovated or have plans for renovation.
Lots of new, high end retail and restaurants and bars have opened up, bringing with it lots of foot traffic, both day and night.
New hockey arena with a 45 square block residential and commercial developement currently under construction.
Residential occupancy rates are at record low levels and rents and property values have risen drastically. New highrises residential towers are now being planned.
Suburbanites are discovering the DT once again, seeing it as cool now, as opposed to scary and abandoned.
I don't think many people from outside the area realize the scope of Detroit's comeback, but it's real and keeps getting stronger, just like the city's financial situation. Still lots of room for improvement, but it's finally moving in the right direction!
Location: Watching half my country turn into Gilead
3,530 posts, read 4,177,862 times
Reputation: 2925
Quote:
Originally Posted by unwillingphoenician
qworldorder, Can you explain what's going on in Wilmington? I used to live in Lewes and commuted to Newark some days for study, and Philadelphia other days for sporting events, the zoo, and so on. I was in Wilmington a few times for this and that, but didn't learn much about the city. I thought it was a little dead when I visited, that's it. I'm used to cities, so I didn't go, "Oh, no! It's dangerous here!" But sleepy? Yeah, it looked that way to me. Not a lot of people on the street, not a lot of places to go. What's it like now?
Yea, no problem. Wilmington is definitely starting to revitalize, with most of it essentially taking place along Market Street and The Riverfront. Market Street has a slew of new lofts and lofts under construction right now--the same story with restaurants. A lot of these properties are reconverted historic buildings--the Residences at Rodney Square for example are in the former Delaware Trust Building. There's even a small innovation corridor that people are hoping can take off.
And the Riverfront is the real cornerstone of Wilmington's comeback. The past 10-15 years have seen the area transformed into a trendy urban area (connected to Market Street via 'LOMA' or Lower Market St). This is all small scale, given Delaware's small population to begin with, but it is happening, in spite of all the 'Murder Town USA' stuff. Out of the smaller, troubled cities in the region (Wilmington, Chester, Camden, Trenton, AC), Wilmington has probably seen the most investment and has the brightest future. We've finally gained population these past couple of years, and there's a real sense that this time it will stick. I think they just announced more SEPTA trips to Philly, as a sign of the growing push to make Wilmington 'happen'. There's still a lot of crime issues (essentially confined to 4-5 poor neighborhoods), but it's counterbalanced by all of the Market Street and Riverfront development (imo), along with Trolley Square's and Little Italy's increased popularity.
Given Wilmington's great location, excellent transportation links to the rest of the Northeast, banking/finance presence, cheaper price, and highly urban/walkable nature (72 walkscore, higher than Baltimore or Toronto), it's only a matter of time that the city really takes off. The only thing holding it back is the crime stigma, in my opinion. If the city can get that under control (and Jada Pinkett Smith's new ABC show Murder Town doesn't kill the city's reputation completely), I can see Wilmington making a huge comeback. Certain neighborhoods (Trolley Square, The Riverfront, Market St) are not very sleepy anymore (by Delaware standards). Think Main Street in Newark on Friday and Saturday nights when school is in session for a good idea of activity (maybe slightly less vibrant). It's still early in its revitalization, but it's definitely in Stage 2 at this point (imo).
Pittsburgh - for a city that on paper doesn't appear to be "growing," at least not as fast as similarly-sized peers, the growth and revitalization of the core and abutting communities is nothing short of impressive. I think it wins here. I would argue that part of the reason for the odd statistical reality of stagnation is that Pitt is undergoing demographic changes, particularly with the age of residents.
Pittsburgh - for a city that on paper doesn't appear to be "growing," at least not as fast as similarly-sized peers, the growth and revitalization of the core and abutting communities is nothing short of impressive. I think it wins here. I would argue that part of the reason for the odd statistical reality of stagnation is that Pitt is undergoing demographic changes, particularly with the age of residents.
The "demographic transition" is true on a metro-wide basis, and even probably a county-wide basis, but it's no longer really true in the City of Pittsburgh, which actually now has an average age which is on the younger side for a major city (33.2).
There are reasons to think that recent projections which show the city population being stagnant are not true. IIRC, the census estimates are based on the number of new housing units which are built. But the City of Pittsburgh didn't actually submit any information on new units to the Census from 2007 through to 2013, even though new apartment buildings were clearly being built during that era.
Still, presuming the population really is essentially stagnant now (which is a big step forward from the historic population decreases) there are a few things to keep in mind.
1. Pittsburgh doesn't have a lot of ghetto for a rust belt city, but those ghettos are rapidly emptying out. The quarter or so of neighborhoods which are most blighted in Pittsburgh mostly saw population declines in the range of 20%-30% last decade. In some cases this was due to the closure of housing projects, but in others it was just natural abandonment.
2. It still remains pretty typical for unfashionable neighborhoods which are not considered "in decline" in Pittsburgh to lose around 6%-8% of their population every 10 years. Because these neighborhoods don't have much, if any, blight or abandonment, this seems to be due entirely to the falling average household size.
3. Even some gentrifying neighborhoods see population declines when there is little to no new construction in the neighborhood. Allegheny West is a great example of this. Back in 1950 there were 3,300 people there, now there are less than 500, but it is a highly desirable area. Basically it was full of historic Victorian housing which was subdivided into apartments, which were bought by people and restored. Hence multiple-unit buildings were converted back into single-family houses, which often housed two empty nesters, or even a single person. On a more limited example, South Side saw a population decline in the 1990s before growing in the 2000s, and now trendy Lawrenceville shrunk in the 2000s (it is probably growing now). In both cases multi-generational families were pushed out by young singles, which tends to depress population density until market demand rises enough for infill construction.
3. Even some gentrifying neighborhoods see population declines when there is little to no new construction in the neighborhood. Allegheny West is a great example of this. Back in 1950 there were 3,300 people there, now there are less than 500, but it is a highly desirable area. Basically it was full of historic Victorian housing which was subdivided into apartments, which were bought by people and restored. Hence multiple-unit buildings were converted back into single-family houses, which often housed two empty nesters, or even a single person. On a more limited example, South Side saw a population decline in the 1990s before growing in the 2000s, and now trendy Lawrenceville shrunk in the 2000s (it is probably growing now). In both cases multi-generational families were pushed out by young singles, which tends to depress population density until market demand rises enough for infill construction.
I have been functioning under the impression that Pittsburgh must be having infill construction, based on the way it is discussed here. I am sure you are referring to certain neighborhoods not experiencing infill. Or is the revitalization of Pittsburgh by and large through the renovation of existing structures, and not infill?
I have been functioning under the impression that Pittsburgh must be having infill construction, based on the way it is discussed here. I am sure you are referring to certain neighborhoods not experiencing infill. Or is the revitalization of Pittsburgh by and large through the renovation of existing structures, and not infill?
Pittsburgh is of course experiencing infill construction. But South Side (as I noted) was mostly gentrifying during the 1990s without much new construction, which only began taking off in a big way in the 2000s when more industrial properties towards the river were redeveloped. More recently Lawrenceville has become the hip neighborhood, but the neighborhood was rowhouses and almost entirely intact when it started gentrifying. The few vacant lots are now almost all filled in with new single-family houses. Only two (relatively small) apartment buildings have been built in the last decade however, but another four (including one quite sizable one) which are now being built. The 2000s was just too early in the gentrification process to see a population gain, but then 2010s will surely see one.
In general though, the new big apartment buildings are in other parts of the city, like the Strip District, East Liberty, or Oakland. Places which had a lot of big vacant industrial/commercial lots are a lot easier to build high-density housing in than existing dense residential neighborhoods.
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.
