Population loss in US Cities

[monsoon]

[Jaden]

Minneapolis, -9,998, -2.6%

What a load of crap. We have 51 different condo/loft buildings being built downtown alone, from 3 stories to 48, and that's NOT counting the 3 new ones announced last week.

Biggest residental construction boom in the cities history, so are they building empty buidlings then? As fast as a new project is announced, they sell out their units.

Doesn't exactly coincide with LOSING population.

[monsoon]

[Jaden]

Yeah, and they've never been wrong.

I'm not blaming you, I'm just saying.......

All local indications are Minneapolis is just shy of 400,000 people and the city is bringing people back IN from the suburbs.

So, I refuse to believe we are losing people, when everything around here indicates the exact opposite.

[Brickcity]

St. Louis continues to lead the pack

Maybe you should do your research before making a statment like this

"Saint Louis was the first city in the nation to aggressively challenge the latest census estimates which projected that the city lost population between 2003 and 2004. Since St. Louis challenged the numbers, other big cities, such as Baltimore and New York City, have followed suit, also resulting in projection amendments"

City has gained residents, Slay says

By EUN-KYUNG KIM

Of the Post-Dispatch

10/11/2004

St. Louis officials have convinced the Census Bureau that the city has not been losing residents faster than any other city, boasting Wednesday that it even began to see a population increase within the past year.

The city's successful challenge of census estimates released earlier this year was declared a "watershed moment for the city of St. Louis" by Mayor Francis Slay.

"After more than 50 years of losing people to the suburbs, it's great to say that the city is back and is on the move," he said Wednesday.

However, the new adjusted census figures do not confirm the growth claimed by St. Louis officials. Instead, they reflect a net loss of 150 people for the three-year period originally in question.

At issue are census estimates, which showed a drop of nearly 16,000 residents from 2000 to last year.

The annual estimates, released this year, reported the city had lost population at a faster rate than any other city its size. The figures riled City Hall and, at the time, were declared "bogus and unreliable" by the mayor.

City officials challenged the numbers, questioning the method used to calculate the 2003 estimate because it failed to include residential building permits that almost all other cities were allowed to use.

"The census did not make sense to us because of the incredible building boom that all of us know is going on in the city of St. Louis," said Slay, referring to the more than 8,000 permits issued for new or rehabilitated properties since 2000.

The city turned in its own estimates, based on a different formula approved by the census. The results show the city actually incurred a net loss of 150 people over a three-year period that ended July 1, 2003.

But Slay said that in the 16 months since then, St. Louis has actually gained residents.

"We issued more building permits last year."

Slay said the Census Bureau informed the city it won its appeal in a letter dated Oct. 14, but he sat on the news because he did not want it drowned out by coverage of the presidential elections and the Cardinals' World Series bid.

Slay said the timing of the population announcement was not influenced by the Nov. 2 vote on four proposals to change the city's charter, which would have consolidated more power in the mayor's office. The city's population loss was a frequent theme sounded by advocates of the changes, which failed overwhelmingly.

"This is a big deal," Slay said. "This had nothing to do with charter amendments. I can tell you I am always out there advocating how well the city is doing."

Slay, who supported three of the four charter changes, is expected to file for re-election soon.

The Census Bureau's reversal is more a moral victory for the city than a practical one. Federal aid, which often is based on population figures, is calculated using actual counts, not estimates.

According to earlier census estimates, the rate of decline in St. Louis topped a list of 245 other cities with 100,000 people or more. Although other cities lost more people, those losses were proportionately smaller than the 4.3 percent estimated decrease in St. Louis.

As of July 1 last year, the census calculated the city lost 15,966 residents since the national head count in 2000, which found 348,189 people living within city limits.

But, according to the adjusted census estimate, St. Louis had 348,039, a net loss of 150.

Rollin Stanley, the city's director of planning and urban design, said the city estimates its population as of this month at about 350,000, based on continued construction trends.

The Census Bureau calculates population differently for cities and counties. St. Louis is considered both. But county counts, which are done first, do not include residential housing data.

"We believe the challenged results is a more accurate representation of their population, but we don't have truth in this case, we don't have an updated count, we just have estimates," said Greg Harper, a demographer with the Census Bureau's population division.

The only way to know which set of numbers is correct is to wait for the next head count in 2010, Harper said.

"We'll see what the latest census count is and at that point, which method was closest to the truth," he said. "It's probable that the truth is somewhere in between those numbers, but we don't really have an objective way of saying that."

[urbanguy]

I'd like to add Honolulu to that population gain list!

Honolulu, 8,492, 2.3%

[monsoon]

[Cotuit]

The ones listed above as losers have not annexed their suburbs and have relatively small physical areas.

I believe we are seeing more poor families attain middle class status and move to the suburbs. These families leaving cities are being replaced by single people and childless couples. A family of 6 may vacate the city for the suburbs to be replaced by one single person.

It is not like these cities have vast swaths of vacant housing do to population decline, and in fact all are adding housing units at a good clip, some even suffer from housing shortages.

[JivecitySTL]

It's ironic that all the cool cities are losing, while all the lame-ass suburban hellholes are gaining! lol.

[M. Brown]

I think Los Angeles is gonna start loosing population soon.

[Allan]

I think Los Angeles is gonna start loosing population soon.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Los Angeles has enough immigrants going there and starting families that I don't think that will be an issue, even with the migration of whites to places like Phoenix and Las Vegas that started about 10 years ago.

[toggie]

Maybe the rest of the city isn't doing that well.

[M. Brown]

I don't see how Chicago is loosing population.

[monsoon]

[bobliocatt]

It's ironic that all the cool cities are losing, while all the lame-ass suburban hellholes are gaining!  lol.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Miami, NYC & LA are still gaining population and their just as cool, if not cooler, than most of the cities on both lists. There's a variety of reasons these places are still losing population, but most seem to be bottoming out and turning things around. In another 5 - 10 years most will probably be seeing population growth.

[JivecitySTL]

^I was really just kidding around about that. I love NY, Miami and LA.

[ShowMeKC]

I don't think people are considering that they are still using data from the 2000 census and not data from post 2000 things. They even say in several articles and websites that they get all of their estimates from data taken in 2000. That is why these cities are still losing people, because they aren't taking into account the post 2000 booms that these cities are witnessing.

Take St. Louis for one, it is having a good sized downtown boom, and is gaining plenty of people. It can't be losing people, and people have presented evidents of that.

Mineapolis definitely cannot be losing people. their downtown has gone from 15,000 people in 2000, to 40,000 in 2004.

Kansas City, while not on that list, should be on the lower portion for gains, our downtown went from 6,000 people in 2000 to 15,000 people in early 2004. Other parts of the city are also gaining tons and tons of people. We are still leading the metro area in housing permits around the city, averaging about 1,000 or more permits issued each year.

[G W North]

St. Louis' homicide rate rose more than 50% in 2004 compared to 2003. People generally don't want to raise families in cities with high murder rates, so they often leave as soon as they can afford it.

[monsoon]

[monsoon]

[ShowMeKC]

Now i remember that count by the census... I know for sure that they are wrong, i've done hundreds of checks and rechecks on data i've come up with and conclude with the same thing. Kansas City is at about 460k not 440k...

St. Louis hasn't lost people either...

The census is reliable only on actual census' they are often off on their estimates since they use information just from the last census instead of new data that had been collected.

[Twin Cities]

The US Census Bureau estimated that Minneapolis and St. Paul each lost thousands of residents each year during the 90s. Once the OFFICIAL 2000 numbers were released, everyone was surprised to see that each city grew from 1990 to 2000. The central cities each gained roughly 15,000 and the metro grew by about 430,000!!

People have to realize that there are crucial factors being left out of these estimates. First of all, the numbers don't take into consideration all the new and converted housing units that have come about since early/mid-2000 to 2003. I'm pretty sure everyone already knows about the housing boom that has been taking place in both Minneapolis and St. Paul since 2000 so there's no need to discuss it. Another factor the Census Bureau hasn't included is the number of new immigrants settling in US cities since the 2000 census.

[ShowMeKC]

^ ditto...

[monsoon]

[Twin Cities]

Growth of the CBDs fits in with these numbers because as state above, expensive condos do not serve the middle class, and low income people are being displaced by them.