U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Covid-19 Information Page
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Urban Planning
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 08-02-2010, 03:02 AM
 
Location: The Lakes
2,372 posts, read 4,646,764 times
Reputation: 1139

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Boston14 View Post
Detroit
Detroit is down, but not out.

It's finally going to receive growth-spurring public trans, as well as the fact that it received over 4700 jobs just in July.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-02-2010, 08:15 AM
 
Location: East Boston, MA
9,617 posts, read 17,611,663 times
Reputation: 11297
Anyone using a decreasing city proper population as evidence to support that a city is "dying." Needs to re evaluate. Gentrification is often a MAJOR reason a city or neighborhood population decreases. Wealthier residents want more space so they convert two units to one, multi-families to single families, etc. Poorer residents also move out as they can no longer afford it. To the contrary, shrinking populations can often mean a city is improving.

Metro populations are a much more accurate measure. Often times, a metro can grow while a city shrinks. This is common and still supports a growing city even if the city population itself is shrinking.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-03-2010, 09:52 PM
 
721 posts, read 2,431,144 times
Reputation: 258
Quote:
Originally Posted by tvdxer View Post
I wouldn't exactly say that. It's lost population, and the 1980's were really bleak, but it's hardly "dead" by any standards.
Duluth is actually doing well thank you. A 70 million dollar airport is being built, a new arena downtown for the College Hockey team is being constructed at $80 million. New cinemas, bars, clubs are opening in downtown along with old buildings being refurbished into loft style housing.

Unemployment is around 6-7% a bit lower than the national average and housing has not declined as sharply as other places. It is not thriving, but it is holding its own a lot better than the 1980's when unemployment was at 20% and the city dropped from 107,000 to 87,000 by 2000 when it stabalized in the 90's.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-03-2010, 10:04 PM
 
Location: Michaux State Forest
1,276 posts, read 3,130,791 times
Reputation: 1428
Quote:
Originally Posted by JR_C View Post
With the exception of Centralia, Pa, have any of the cities mentioned above "died?" They are losing population, and are economically distressed. But, when I think of a dead city, or a city that has died, I think of a ghost town or a place where no people live.
I don't know if this has already been mentioned but, like Centralia, Picher, OK is also a dead town. It was once a thriving mining town but the whole downtown began to cave into the empty, water filled mines beneath the city. The state of OK was beginning to relocate everyone when a massive tornado came through and destroyed what little was left. It looks so sad, especially for the ppl who grew up there and called it home.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-03-2010, 10:29 PM
 
Location: Virginia
8,553 posts, read 13,529,761 times
Reputation: 4179
Quote:
Originally Posted by costello_musicman View Post
Poor Youngtown, Ohio. Still has some great features,

But it went from 170,000 from 1930's -1960's to present day 70,000.

Steel mills closing hurt the town the most.
The great features include some very nice art deco "skyscrapers".

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=173049

Last edited by tgbwc; 08-03-2010 at 10:39 PM.. Reason: added link to a thread
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-03-2010, 10:36 PM
 
Location: Virginia
8,553 posts, read 13,529,761 times
Reputation: 4179
A couple of places that come to mind are in the area where my wife grew up. Places like Oil City, PA and Titusville, PA. Oil played a huge part in the development of that region. Oil City was once the headquarters of Pennzoil, Quaker State, and Wolf's Head. They all moved out in the 90's. The pop. of Oil City was just over 11,500 ten years ago.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-04-2010, 10:06 AM
 
Location: The Port City is rising.
8,874 posts, read 11,310,469 times
Reputation: 2575
"Gentrification is often a MAJOR reason a city or neighborhood population decreases. Wealthier residents want more space so they convert two units to one, multi-families to single families, etc."

Its true that gentrification can mean the reduction in density in particular blocks, but in the most intensely gentrified cities like NY and DC that phenom is accompanied by the construction of newer housing at greater heights and higher densities. I doubt gentrification accounts for declining pop in even the stronger cities mentioned here (Baltimore, Chicago, etc)

A fortiori its not what accounts for decline in places like Detroit, Utica, etc, etc
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-04-2010, 05:14 PM
 
Location: East Boston, MA
9,617 posts, read 17,611,663 times
Reputation: 11297
Quote:
Originally Posted by brooklynborndad View Post

Its true that gentrification can mean the reduction in density in particular blocks, but in the most intensely gentrified cities like NY and DC that phenom is accompanied by the construction of newer housing at greater heights and higher densities. I doubt gentrification accounts for declining pop in even the stronger cities mentioned here (Baltimore, Chicago, etc)

A fortiori its not what accounts for decline in places like Detroit, Utica, etc, etc
Of course. Still, short term drops in population can often be accredited to gentrification. Right now, Portland Maine is losing people yet the city city is gentrifying and old neighborhoods are improving. The construction of new housing hasn't caught up to the gentrification of certain neighborhoods which is why the city is still posting losses in population. Soon, the new housing will turn around that statistic and reflect the improvement of the city as a whole.

Also, in many neighborhoods gentrification is accompanied by minimal new housing construction. In Boston's North and South Ends, there aren't so many housing units being built but the neighborhoods are either gentrifying or are fully gentrified. Most are historic structures being renovated to accommodate wealthier residents. That generally means more space for fewer people. The new housing that IS being built is generally aimed at the higher end clientèle who demand more space than the lower income residents before them. In a historic neighborhood that's almost fully built out, new housing covers the same footprint as the old structure that was there before it in most cases. The difference is that the newer housing crams fewer high-income residents into the same amount of space.

It's absolutely not what accounts for the decline in many cities (perhaps most). Still, a declining population is not at all the only measure of a "dying" city and in many cases is a misleading statistic.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-05-2010, 01:23 PM
 
Location: The Port City is rising.
8,874 posts, read 11,310,469 times
Reputation: 2575
Quote:
Originally Posted by lrfox View Post
Of course. Still, short term drops in population can often be accredited to gentrification. Right now, Portland Maine is losing people yet the city city is gentrifying and old neighborhoods are improving. The construction of new housing hasn't caught up to the gentrification of certain neighborhoods which is why the city is still posting losses in population. Soon, the new housing will turn around that statistic and reflect the improvement of the city as a whole.

Also, in many neighborhoods gentrification is accompanied by minimal new housing construction. In Boston's North and South Ends, there aren't so many housing units being built but the neighborhoods are either gentrifying or are fully gentrified. Most are historic structures being renovated to accommodate wealthier residents. That generally means more space for fewer people. The new housing that IS being built is generally aimed at the higher end clientèle who demand more space than the lower income residents before them. In a historic neighborhood that's almost fully built out, new housing covers the same footprint as the old structure that was there before it in most cases. The difference is that the newer housing crams fewer high-income residents into the same amount of space.

It's absolutely not what accounts for the decline in many cities (perhaps most). Still, a declining population is not at all the only measure of a "dying" city and in many cases is a misleading statistic.
just off the top of my head, some of the new housing in Boston has been built on the wharves and in other areas that previously had Zero residential population.

I can see that in a small place, with A. Very limited possibilities for new higher density development b. stability outside the gentrification areas that one could see population decline in the absence of general decline. But every rule has odd exceptions. I would suggest that if you took 10 cities at random from the list of cities with population declines over 20% from peak (for any given size range) you would find at least 9 of them were cases of real decline, where gentrification either didnt happen at all, or the gentrified neighborhoods did not experience as severe a decline in population as the city overall (if any), or where the gentrification nabes are too small relative to the large dynamics to matter.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-05-2010, 01:27 PM
 
Location: The Port City is rising.
8,874 posts, read 11,310,469 times
Reputation: 2575
for a more typical case than Boston, look at DC. you will find, I think, that the highest growth rates are in the previously gentrified areas of NW (already have small family sizes, poor folks long gone, dominant drivers are new construction and rising rents leading to MORE persons per unit, as more people take roommates, etc) THEN the newly gentrified areas (where greater sq ft per person is offset by new construction) and that the declines are mostly in areas untouched by gentrification.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Urban Planning

All times are GMT -6.

¬© 2005-2021, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top