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.
Plus many Southern cities lost a lot of population in their cores. Atlanta's core lost about as much as Philadelphia's or Chicago's, cities that are distinctly better off than Detroit but still not on the level of Boston or NYC.
New Orleans lost a fair bit too, and I suspect so did Birmingham and Memphis. Meanwhile Minneapolis which has the worst winters of probably any major American city is one of the Northern Midwestern cities that probably fared best.
Obviously racial issues and the history of certain industries were a factor too.
Weather may have correlated somewhat to the amount of suburban growth a city experienced but the correlation to what happened in the core seems rather weak.
I think the poster meant weather caused a lot of people to leave the north for the sunbelt.
Plus many Southern cities lost a lot of population in their cores. Atlanta's core lost about as much as Philadelphia's or Chicago's, cities that are distinctly better off than Detroit but still not on the level of Boston or NYC.
New Orleans lost a fair bit too, and I suspect so did Birmingham and Memphis. Meanwhile Minneapolis which has the worst winters of probably any major American city is one of the Northern Midwestern cities that probably fared best.
Obviously racial issues and the history of certain industries were a factor too.
Weather may have correlated somewhat to the amount of suburban growth a city experienced but the correlation to what happened in the core seems rather weak.
I think the poster meant weather caused a lot of people to leave the north for the sunbelt.
The whole theory does not really compute. While pollution may be one of the factors that causes urban to be less desirable I doubt very much it is a driving factor. I was close to participants in the great run to LI in the 50s...they went from Queens and outer reaches of NYC on to the green lawns of LI. They really were not suffering from anything though in the city.
Detroit clearly is a different problem. Detroit population peaks in 1950. But Detroit's black population does not peak until 1990. The white flight began in the 50s and continued at roughly the same rate until recent times. Black flight does not start until after 1990. This tends as well to remove any credence from Detroit crashing do to mismanagement. May be a minor factor but Detroit started down way before a Black majority.
Another example of pollution impact might be Pasadena. That area is very high on the pollution side due to natural geography. In the 60's and 70's the worst pollution in the LA basin. Yet Pasadena survived it all and remained a high end and desirable town. And it still has close to the worst pollution in the basin.
I suspect pollution has a relatively minor role unless it gets very bad. Folk complain but live with it.
The 1970 population of The Minneapolis-St Paul Metropolitan Statistical Area was 1,874,612.
The 2013 official population estimate is 3,459,146.
I guess an increase of nearly 46% could qualify as barely changing.
According to my link, it was 2,026,947 in 1970, and 3,390,431 in 2013. Look at the domestic migration numbers on my link-negative from 2002-2010, small increases in 2011 and 2012, and a fairly large increase in 2013.
The US increased about 56% in that time frame. Minneapolis did not increase at the same rate as the US.
According to my link, it was 2,026,947 in 1970, and 3,390,431 in 2013. Look at the domestic migration numbers on my link-negative from 2002-2010, small increases in 2011 and 2012, and a fairly large increase in 2013.
The US increased about 56% in that time frame. Minneapolis did not increase at the same rate as the US.
46% is nowhere near barely grown though, it's still high for a Midwestern / Northeastern metro. I would have assumed that was high in general if I hadn't known the US overall rate. Compare to Boston (19%), New York City (13%), and of course Buffalo (-16%). I suspect there's no large metro in the Midwest or Northeast that grew as fast (no, not counting DC).
The net domestic migration appears to be positive overall, unlike most of the region.
According to my link, it was 2,026,947 in 1970, and 3,390,431 in 2013. Look at the domestic migration numbers on my link-negative from 2002-2010, small increases in 2011 and 2012, and a fairly large increase in 2013.
The US increased about 56% in that time frame. Minneapolis did not increase at the same rate as the US.
Population grwoth has been mostly spawned by newer growing metros (mostly sunbelt) fueled by higher birth rates and lots of mexican immigrants. US migration is a small portion of most growth in places
there is a maturity curve which even the growers will eventually mature into. Huge immigrant and transplant metros historically like NYC and LA were more immune but even they today grow at lessort rate than the national average
Pittsburgh (just one example believe your home town) isn't bleeding as mush as it isn't breeding if that makes sense
46% is nowhere near barely grown though, it's still high for a Midwestern / Northeastern metro. I would have assumed that was high in general if I hadn't known the US overall rate. Compare to Boston (19%), New York City (13%), and of course Buffalo (-16%). I suspect there's no large metro in the Midwest or Northeast that grew as fast (no, not counting DC).
The net domestic migration appears to be positive overall, unlike most of the region.
Positive overall? It was negative for 9 years, then weakly positive for two, then a little more positive last year when 3 counties were added to the MSA, which also artificially inflated their growth percentage.
Just looking at a few midwestern cities, Columbus, Ohio has grown more percentage-wise, and has had a positive domestic migration rate for every year. Indianapolis has also had a positive growth and positive domestic migration. Omaha's growth has been about the same as Minne's, also way more positive domestic migration.
Three counties were added to Minneapolis' MSA in 2013, which also artificially inflated their growth percentage.
According to my link, it was 2,026,947 in 1970, and 3,390,431 in 2013. Look at the domestic migration numbers on my link-negative from 2002-2010, small increases in 2011 and 2012, and a fairly large increase in 2013.
The US increased about 56% in that time frame. Minneapolis did not increase at the same rate as the US.
The US Census Bureau reports a 1970 US population of 203,392,031, and a 2013 estimated population of 316,148,990. This would constitute a 43 year growth rate of just under 36%.
There really are two basic sets of growth patterns in US cities. Cities in The Northeast and Midwest are older, often historically-industrial cities, which tend to have reached a growth plateau near the middle of The Twentieth Century. Some are losing population and some are gaining in small percentages. Only two large cities (over 1 million in 1970) from these combined regions have outgrown The US as a whole: Washington and Minneapolis. Cities in the South and West are younger cities which have yet to stabilize. These cities are growing much faster, sometimes to the point of straining their urban infrastructures.
Minneapolis obviously isn't growing as quickly as many cities on the South and West. However, it is beating the US growth rate substantially. In fact, among large cold-weather cities, it is by far the fastest growing, so using the city as a symbolic poster child for hemorrhaging populations among Northern cities is absolutely ludicrous.
While you frequently make your distaste for Minneapolis clear, at least do the math before the bashing.
The US Census Bureau reports a 1970 US population of 203,392,031, and a 2013 estimated population of 316,148,990. This would constitute a 43 year growth rate of just under 36%.
There really are two basic sets of growth patterns in US cities. Cities in The Northeast and Midwest are older, often historically-industrial cities, which tend to have reached a growth plateau near the middle of The Twentieth Century. Some are losing population and some are gaining in small percentages. Only two large cities (over 1 million in 1970) from these combined regions have outgrown The US as a whole: Washington and Minneapolis. Cities in the South and West are younger cities which have yet to stabilize. These cities are growing much faster, sometimes to the point of straining their urban infrastructures.
Minneapolis obviously isn't growing as quickly as many cities on the South and West. However, it is beating the US growth rate substantially. In fact, among large cold-weather cities, it is by far the fastest growing, so using the city as a symbolic poster child for hemorrhaging populations among Northern cities is absolutely ludicrous.
While you frequently make your distaste for Minneapolis clear, at least do the math before the bashing.
What distaste? Who's bashing? Is it bashing to say Minneapolis has a harsh winter? No, it's the truth! Heck, it's colder in Minneapolis in the winter than it is in Moscow! Nor did I say "hemorrhaging". Please show some stats that Minneapolis has outgrown the US as a whole.
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.
