Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

BigCityAttitude

Northeastern growth

25 posts in this topic

I know there are some growing, but more or less most cities are losing population. What comes as a surprise to me is many cities are growing taller, yet losing population, like Chicago and Philadelphia. Not sure where I'm going with this thread. I guess I just wanna know which cities are growing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Providence is growing, it is now the second largest city in New England.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It may surprise you, but most southern cities grow because of growing their physical boundaries through annexation.

Atlanta, the fastest growing metro in all of the southeast (not including Florida) has abysmal city population growth, yet has towers going up.

There are plenty of misconceptions about growth to go around.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you ask that question in terms of city limits, then heckles is right. But you can't deny the fact that the South is growing. But you must consider that xities don't just stop at the city limits.

I think over time the North will stop losing population. It will just take time to come to an equilibrium.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think older dense cities, in general and regardless of location, continue to see a decline in their population numbers due to the shrinking US average family household size from years past. Many of the older overpopulated cities, like Detroit, Buffalo, etc. have also taken a large hit because their economies, at the time, were not diversified enough to survive the troubles of the auto and steel manufacturing industries.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Many of the older overpopulated cities, like Detroit, Buffalo, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most of the large notrthern metros are growing and have been growing for decades. Buffalo abnd Pit are two major metros that have been shrinking. the population of northern states has also been rising in almost every case. The south is growing faster in many states. the cites at the centers of growth have vastly increased their metro pop.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


It may surprise you, but most southern cities grow because of growing their physical boundaries through annexation.

Atlanta, the fastest growing metro in all of the southeast (not including Florida) has abysmal city population growth, yet has towers going up. 

There are plenty of misconceptions about growth to go around.

Atlanta's population is actually growing, and much of it is a product of those towers going up. It's seeing a return of growth that it hasn't seen since I believe the 50s. This is WITHOUT the benefit of annexation. Atlanta made up 1/10th of the growth in 2002 and makes up 1/10th of the metro population. So it's about on par with the growth of the region. 2002 Metro Atlanta gained 80,600 residents in the core 10 counties, the city gained 8,900 residents according the ARC.

The population numbers are still pretty low for the size (in sq mi) that Atlanta is, but please don't make it sound like Atlanta isn't growing and wouldn't be growing without annexation, because that's not true. There are other, fast grow southern cities that you could make the example of your point with, but Atlanta isn't one of them... this time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you ask that question in terms of city limits, then heckles is right. But you can't deny the fact that the South is growing. But you must consider that xities don't just stop at the city limits.

I think over time the North will stop losing population. It will just take time to come to an equilibrium.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Spartan, with all do respect, I know the south generally is growing faster.

But you just fed into the misconception that the north is not growing.

New York City's metro grew by 1.7 million - the fastest growth of any metro in the nation.

Boston's metro grew nearly 500,000.

Philly nearly 300,000.

DC grew by over 700,000 if I remember correctly.

Chicago grew by almost 1 million in the metro area.

Detroit even grew over 200,000, and its considered to be one of the least desirable cities.

Sure, Pittsburgh and Buffalo actually lost - I think they are the only two metros to have posted a real loss however.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not to get us off on a tangent but I think if we are looking at this as "retention" and "desirablity" then you need to factor in that NYC, Philly, Detroit, and Chicago have lost native population in the last few decades . . . growth in Detroit and NYC i know for sure is only due to foreign immigration Detriot primarly mid-east and NYC from everywhere pretty much. They are growing but this is not the same type of growth that Atlanta or Dallas or Las Vegas is experiencing, primarly Americans moving there for better jobs. Every city has foreign immigration even Buffalo and Pittsburgh has some but if you factored out foreign immigration Dallas, Las Vegas and Atlanta would post gains NYC and Detroit and I suspect Chicago and Philly and maybe Boston would not. The strain on the economy and the dynamics of the economy when the only growth is foreign immigration produces a different result then the growth the sunbelt cities--albeit with some big doses of foreign immigration but with interstate immigration as well--get.

Immigrants have turned NYC around, even Guiliani sings their praises but for long term economic gain and to keep up with the Atlantas and LAs the northern cities need to attract and retain native born Americans as well.

As for Pittsburgh and Buffalo both cities are looking at consolidation sometimes its the vast array of municipalities that were created for metros of larger populations and to sustain giant factories then the suburban service economy of today. Pittsburgh has also had an additional county added to its metroplex by the Census department so another 73,000 or so will be added to the metro area of the steel city. Pittsburgh and Buffalo and Cincinnati have gotten shafted some believe by the Census department for "shrinking" their natural metroplexes, not including areas that consider themselves part of metro Buffalo Pittsburgh or Cincinnati, I know in Pittsburgh's case there are folks in the area that get the Pittsburgh paper, listen to Pittsburgh radio, watch Pittsburgh TV, use the Pittsburgh airport as their "departing" airport but are a county or two seperated from the Census definition of "Metro Pittsburgh" Stubenville, OH, East Liverpool, OH, Morgantown, WV, Wheeling WV, New Castle, PA, Johnstown PA among others have complained about that. Does that mean we would be "growing" probably not the underlying problem is still there, we need high tech and service industry growth in the rust belt again, Cleveland and Detroit growing is great but they are not keeping up with Atlanta or Dallas at all. Growth is really a zero sum game, if Atlanta grows somebody else doesnt grow, at least in this era when American citizens arent having more then 2.3 babies and having negative population growth (only relying on immigration for true growth numbers).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A great resource to look up migration, immigration, and other statistics is http://www.censusscope.org/

They take census 2000 data that is sometimes hard to extract and put it in easy to understand documents you can easily pull up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

monsoon,

amen to that! There are some great thinkers out there that believe cities should be "metropolitan" in scope, i know that pulls in some Orwellian themes, but if you consider for thousands of years either you were in the city or the country/wilderness, the roman empire even renassaince england and italy, either you were in Venice or you were out of "civilization" either you were in London or you were out in the countryside. The term "suburb" didn't come into existence until the late 1880s or 1890s, until that time you were either in the city or you weren't. If you consider that NYC or LA have as many people in congress directly and solely representing their city as a South Dakota or Wyoming then there is a problem with democracy and a little orwellian megalopolis where everything from trenton to hartford to albany is NYC is better then our present alternative!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Rhode Island works much like a city-state (infact "the city-state" is one of our nicknames). Rhode Island's size means that Providence weilds a vast amount of influence on Smith Hill. And much of the state outside of Providence is considered urbanized. The Providence Metro area has a larger population than the state because it spills over into Massachusetts. We have our urban/suburban/rural disputes, but not nearly as much as other cities. Everyone in Rhode Island has a vested interest in the health of Providence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why this is happening I don't know.  In Chicago for instance, one would think that it should be gaining in population when in fact is losing large numbers of people and continues to do so.  This despite the construction of new towers downtown.    Philly & Detroit are other places that come to mind where this is happening.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It's really not that tough to figure out why Northern cities continue to lose population. The crime sucks, the schools suck, the parking sucks, the houses are falling apart. Why would you want to live there? The new projects going up in downtowns are NOT for lower-middle and working class familes. You think a family living in an old rowhouse in North Philly can afford to move into the sparkling new towers along the river in Center City? You've got to be kidding me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's really not that tough to figure out why Northern cities continue to lose population.  The crime sucks, the schools suck, the parking sucks, the houses are falling apart.  Why would you want to live there?  The new projects going up in downtowns are NOT for lower-middle and working class familes.  You think a family living in an old rowhouse in North Philly can afford to move into the sparkling new towers along the river in Center City?  You've got to be kidding me.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

But "old time" cities such as Chicago, New York and San Francisco are seeing prosperity still. Its all about taxbase, jobbase and smart economic thinking, if you think that you can make it big in a Cleveland or Pittsburgh then that city can't help from being a hub of commerce.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Many east coast cities metro's are growing. NYC, Boston, DC, Balt, Portland ME, Providence are all in better shape than they were in 1970.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Immigration has certainly been significant for keeping populations increasing in the Northeast. Regarding Pittsburgh, having suffered the losses that it did in the 70s and 80s, the 90s were too soon to rebound. The city has moved on and in the long run will be fine. In fact, while the region lost 150,000 residents in the from 95-2000, it gained 100,000. So yeah, there was a net loss, but the area is creating jobs and attracting people. Just not enough to overcome the longering effects of decades of loss. The challenge for mid size cities like Pittsburgh is that they are not on peoples' radar to go to, but when they happen to end in such cities, they are pleasantly surprised.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was digging through my files and I came accross this population change map for the Northeast. I made this a while back.

lab2-nepop.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Immigration has certainly been significant for keeping populations increasing in the Northeast.  Regarding Pittsburgh, having suffered the losses that it did in the 70s and 80s, the 90s were too soon to rebound.  The city has moved on and in the long run will be fine.  In fact, while the region lost 150,000 residents in the from 95-2000, it gained 100,000.  So yeah, there was a net loss, but the area is creating jobs and attracting people.  Just not enough to overcome the longering effects of decades of loss.  The challenge for mid size cities like Pittsburgh is that they are not on peoples' radar to go to, but when they happen to end in such cities, they are pleasantly surprised.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

First of all my apologies to BigCityAttitude. I didn't mean to chose a name so close to yours. Second I disagree with this post. I like Pittsburgh, I really do. I think in many ways it is the most informally friendly city in the country. It's got a great history and is full of quirky little surprises of all sorts. That being said, Pittsburgh, the entire Tri State area in fact is a basket case. "Creating jobs and attracting people." That statement is hard to justify when the population has been on a downward slide for four decades or more. Not just the city. The Pittsburgh metro area population actually peaked in 1960. The latest recession and the city of Pittsburgh's current budget mess have not helped matters. The "Rust Belt" cities have been struggling for a long time. Pittsburgh and Buffalo continue to struggle the most.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes Pittsburgh and Buffalo continue to struggle more than most. However, as bad as it is, jobs are being created. These jobs just aren't enough to stem the build up of decades of slow growth, resulting in an older population. With a such a older population, many will die a pace more significant than most metros. Folks moving in can't make the loss yet. As I stated above metro Pittsburgh lost 150,000 jobs in the second ha;f of the 90s, which is bad. The region also gained 100,000 at the same time, which is good, but not good enough for a metro of that size to grow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.