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 07-29-2009, 06:23 PM
 
2,506 posts, read 7,957,484 times
Reputation: 834

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by ladarron View Post
Washington, DC in 1950 the population peaked at 802,178 now the population is 591,833 the population increased 3.5%.

Philadelphia in 1950 the population peaked at 2,071,605 now the population is 1,447,395 the population is still decreasing.

Baltimore in 1950 the population peaked at 949,708 now the population is 637,455 the population is still decreasing.

Detroit in 1950 the population peaked at 1,849,568 now the population is
912,062 the population is still decreasing.

Chicago in 1950 the the population peaked at 3,620,962 now the population is 2,853,114 the population is still decreasing.

Cleveland in 1950 the population peaked at 914,808 now the population is 438,042 the population is still decreasing.

New Orleans in 1960 the population peaked at 627,525 now the population is 311,583 the population is still decreasing.

Pittsburgh in 1950 the population peaked at 676,806 now the population is 334,563 the population is still decreasing.

Buffalo in 1950 the population peaked at 580,132 now the population is 276,059 the population is still decreasing.
Umm...
Chicago's populaton is stagnant at worst, most estimates have it growing. New Orleans population was declining before the storm, but it is actually growing fairly well right now. The N.O economy right now is one of the strongest in the country. I also question Pgh.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-29-2009, 06:33 PM
 
Location: Earth
17,444 posts, read 25,267,188 times
Reputation: 7370
Quote:
Originally Posted by Minnehahapolitan View Post
Umm...
Chicago's populaton is stagnant at worst, most estimates have it growing. New Orleans population was declining before the storm, but it is actually growing fairly well right now. The N.O economy right now is one of the strongest in the country. I also question Pgh.
Pittsburgh's actually doing OK - because it never experienced the housing bubble and didn't have any growth in population, it's been spared the worst effects of the current economic nightmare. In fact, there is talk of the Eastern Rust Belt (Pittsburgh, Buffalo, Rochester) making a comeback, due to having more water resources than the Sunbelt (which will probably be affected in the long term by the current Little Depression just like the Rustbelt was affected by the Reagan Recession). OTOH the Western Rust Belt (Cleveland, Detroit, etc.) seems to be in permanent decline.

NOLA's doing better because of all the post-Katrina reconstruction money which has kept unemployment down, as well as the smaller population meaning that more jobs are available (hasn't helped with crime, though).

As for a truly dead city: no one's mentioned Flint, MI yet.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-29-2009, 06:34 PM
 
Location: Youngstown, Oh.
5,031 posts, read 8,120,252 times
Reputation: 4805
Something else to think about with that kind of population decline is that, in 1950, most households were filled with people: Mom, Dad, a couple kids, and maybe even a grandparent. Now, those same households often consist of empty nesters, young single people, or couples w/o kids. (because everyone knows that you must move to the suburbs when you have kids in the U.S.) Some might even argue that many of these cities were overcrowded in 1950.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-29-2009, 08:48 PM
 
6,046 posts, read 14,663,162 times
Reputation: 3738
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas R. View Post
Blytheville, Arkansas population reportedly went from a peak of 24,800 in 1970 to 16,105 in 2008. The unemployment rate and murder rate appears to be high. (Actor George Hamilton, of the famous/infamous tan, was from Blytheville)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA - ARKANSAS : urban population
//www.city-data.com/city/Blytheville-Arkansas.html
Speaking of AR, ever been to Helena? There's a ghost town for ya! Similar to Cairo, but not that bad.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-29-2009, 08:50 PM
 
6,046 posts, read 14,663,162 times
Reputation: 3738
Quote:
Originally Posted by That-Guy View Post
Columbus is doing very well, too.
As are Minneapolis and St. Paul.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-29-2009, 08:54 PM
 
6,046 posts, read 14,663,162 times
Reputation: 3738
Quote:
Originally Posted by majoun View Post
Pittsburgh's actually doing OK - because it never experienced the housing bubble and didn't have any growth in population, it's been spared the worst effects of the current economic nightmare. In fact, there is talk of the Eastern Rust Belt (Pittsburgh, Buffalo, Rochester) making a comeback, due to having more water resources than the Sunbelt (which will probably be affected in the long term by the current Little Depression just like the Rustbelt was affected by the Reagan Recession). OTOH the Western Rust Belt (Cleveland, Detroit, etc.) seems to be in permanent decline.

NOLA's doing better because of all the post-Katrina reconstruction money which has kept unemployment down, as well as the smaller population meaning that more jobs are available (hasn't helped with crime, though).

As for a truly dead city: no one's mentioned Flint, MI yet.
Google Picher, OK. Interesting case study.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-29-2009, 09:00 PM
 
6,046 posts, read 14,663,162 times
Reputation: 3738
Quote:
Originally Posted by JR_C View Post
Something else to think about with that kind of population decline is that, in 1950, most households were filled with people: Mom, Dad, a couple kids, and maybe even a grandparent. Now, those same households often consist of empty nesters, young single people, or couples w/o kids. (because everyone knows that you must move to the suburbs when you have kids in the U.S.) Some might even argue that many of these cities were overcrowded in 1950.
You raise some good points. In addition, there were no urban freeways. When they were built in the 50s, 60s and 70s, they demolished entire neighborhoods. Also, the federal "slum clearance" programs of the 50s and 60s destroyed lots of housing. In downtown Minneapolis, the Gateway District housed about 40,000 people, mostly transient workers and alcoholics in less than 1 square mile. Today, the area is a sprawl of parking lots, bland non-residential commercial architecture and parking garages. Don't know the population, but I'd guess way less than 1,000 now.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-29-2009, 09:49 PM
 
Location: Lower East Side, Milwaukee, WI
2,945 posts, read 4,391,750 times
Reputation: 1113
Quote:
Originally Posted by bhj867 View Post
True, albeit most of those are university towns. Aurora and Joliet are stabilized on the shirt tails of Chicago. When it comes to good old fashioned industry and jobs alot of these cities are still suffering.
That's because there is no such thing as "good old fashioned industry" anymore. The US doesn't make anything anymore and outsourced all of its manufacturing jobs, first to Mexico, then to China. I'm not sure what the powers that be expect people in the Upper Midwest and Northeast to do in the coming decades. I guess we're all just supposed to move to Dallas or Charlotte and work in the service industry.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-29-2009, 10:33 PM
 
Location: Lower East Side, Milwaukee, WI
2,945 posts, read 4,391,750 times
Reputation: 1113
Quote:
Originally Posted by majoun View Post
Pittsburgh's actually doing OK - because it never experienced the housing bubble and didn't have any growth in population, it's been spared the worst effects of the current economic nightmare. In fact, there is talk of the Eastern Rust Belt (Pittsburgh, Buffalo, Rochester) making a comeback, due to having more water resources than the Sunbelt (which will probably be affected in the long term by the current Little Depression just like the Rustbelt was affected by the Reagan Recession). OTOH the Western Rust Belt (Cleveland, Detroit, etc.) seems to be in permanent decline.

NOLA's doing better because of all the post-Katrina reconstruction money which has kept unemployment down, as well as the smaller population meaning that more jobs are available (hasn't helped with crime, though).

As for a truly dead city: no one's mentioned Flint, MI yet.
How do you figure the "Eastern Rust Belt" cities of Pittsburgh, Buffalo, and Rochester are poised for a big come back, when all three have seen their populations decline over the last decade? Milwaukee, on the other hand, is the only Rust Belt city that has managed to add to its population.

Pittsburgh - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
2000 - 334,563
2006 - 312,819

Buffalo, New York - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
2000 - 292,648
2008 - 276,059

Rochester, New York - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
2000 - 219,773
2008 - 206,886

Milwaukee - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
2000 - 596,974
2008 - 604,477

Great Lakes WATER Institute
"From its dockside site in the port of Milwaukee, the WATER Institute represents the only major aquatic research institution located on Lake Michigan and the largest U.S. institution of its kind in the Great Lakes region."
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-30-2009, 03:29 PM
 
767 posts, read 1,890,677 times
Reputation: 515
East St. Louis is pretty much dead and gone. Although it was never a huge city, the population was pushing 100,000 in the early 1960s. It was also a major manufacturing and meat packing center. Today, the population MIGHT be 25,000 and, to my knowledge, there is no industry left in town. It also boasts the highest violent crime rate in the country. It makes alot of these other declining cities look like one big party.
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
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2020, 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