Jump to content

Population loss in US Cities


monsoon

Recommended Posts


  • Replies 71
  • Created
  • Last Reply

All these numbers are very arbitrary, the only fair way to assess this (outside of which city government coffers have less tax base) is the Metro stats and division lines that the US Census uses. Pittsburgh is 55 square miles NYC is 108 sq. miles Jax is close to 100 sq. miles so the only fair way to measure "a city" is by measuring the whole metro area as determined by the US Census. If you measure that Pittsburgh followed by Buffalo are the two worst cities in in-migration. You need a measuring standard with these things, LA has hollywood in their city but Pittsburgh doesn't have Sewickley in theres. LA has this hood but not that hood Pittsburgh does include a comparable hood but the city limit line leaves out the comparable LA includes. US Census stats (while debatable) is the closest thing we have to included the East St. Louis's and Uniondales and Long Beach's.

Call me tired or whatever but these debates on city stats just makes me mad, they are so very arbitrary on just so many levels. US Census Metro stats are the only way to truly compare apples to apples.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ugh, the SF Bay Area is just like these cities; I dunno how many ppl moved out but I guess it's 100,000 or more. The tough economic times and the scarcity of jobs has forced ppl to move to a different metro to look for another job. 230,000 jobs have been lost in Silicon Valley and that plays a part in the loss of population. Bay Area has also a housing crunch and that wards off potential buyers of homes here. I think it will take some time to make up the lost population and job numbers in the Bay Area. Meanwhile, the population in the region directly east (Central Valley), has soared due to our loss.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.  Metro growth has nothing to do with the growth of the city.  However if the metro is growing and the city is not, then it suggests the area is suffering from sprawl.  Again this fits the theory the middle class is leaving the areas in red above and why grow is much slower than the construction of a few buildings would suggest.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

that doesn't make sense, why would 300 units of housing built on a vacant lot displace people? 90% of the construction we are talking about in Minneapolis is being put in areas where no housing existed before, it isn't displacing anybody.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like toggie just said (hey tog, it's FSUVike from TCS) ;) , NOBODY was living where these condo's are being built. So how is it driving anybody away? Ghosts? People who exist only in somebody's imagination?

These projects are bringing people to area's where people did not previously live!

How hard is this to understand?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

These projects are bringing people to area's where people did not previously live!

How hard is this to understand?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well where did these people live before? Did they move from other parts of the city? As cities like Minneapolis gentrify, the lower classes become middle class. Poorer people often live in extended families in single units, as they move up economically, those people disperse to their own units, same number of people, in more housing units.

Minneapolis may well be growing, but costruction of housing units for the middle and upper middle class does not always directly equate to population growth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^ Obviously you don't know where any of these projects are being built or about the demographics of downtown Minneapolis. For example, many new units have been built or rehabbed in or near the warehouse district, which hasn't driven out anyone. One tower is being built by the convention center and downtown office towers; one is being built by high-rise apartments that currently have overpriced units; the two towers that are about to start construction near the new Elliot Park condo tower are near a college campus, a homeless shelter and a hospital. You have to understand that developers aren't coming in to lower class neighborhoods and pushing people out. Are there projects currently under construction or proposed for the downtown area? Yes. Drive down Franklin Ave. and you will see plenty of new units being constructed at affordable prices. The neigborhoods along Franklin are full of diversity, in both race and income levels and because of that, developers wouldn't dare come in and build expensive 30-story highrises.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LOL!! Those are guesstimates. That's all they are.

monsoon how many times does someone have to explain to you that crucial factors are being left out these estimates? I don't think it's too hard to understand.

You and I both know these numbers are complete b.s., especially when the Census Bureau releases a report stating that their estimates for St. Louis were way off. Try explaining that one. Also explain to me how the Census Bureau was so off on all their estimates throughout the 90s. The Bureau said cities like Chicago, Minneapolis, St. Paul, K.C., and others were all losing population. All cities actually gained population without annexing it. So, please explain how these guesstimates could be wrong. If you can't, then it's pointless having this discussion with you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's a prime example why people, including monsoon, shouldn't pay too much attention to these guestimates.

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. :rofl:

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."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As far as the #s go, yeah they are not perfect but as Metro said they are the best source we have, of course they need to be looked at critically and taken with the understanding that there very well might be a margin of error. Census #s though not perfect always is the measuring stick (until they are amended) that you need to acknowledge. As far as the city vs. city I just see that debate as apples and oranges (it has its place as far as the urban/suburban angle and comparing city governments etc.) the true comparsion in my mind when taking the whole scope of a city is the metrostats the census puts out.

In this discussion though (comparing city/suburb and city growth as a way to measure tax base) city vs. city is a stat to look at.

Interested in hearing how these numbers are affecting your city. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well where did these people live before? Did they move from other parts of the city? As cities like Minneapolis gentrify, the lower classes become middle class. Poorer people often live in extended families in single units, as they move up economically, those people disperse to their own units, same number of people, in more housing units.

Minneapolis may well be growing, but costruction of housing units for the middle and upper middle class does not always directly equate to population growth.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

what about the thousands of affordable housing units built since 2000? are they empty?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Twin Cities, you're in denial. Please stop it. The Twin Cities lost population, so did Boston, so did St. Louis. I really don't think it is that surprising. The Census IS our best source for information like this. If we can't trust them, who can we trust, you? I think not.

Find me numbers to prove your point, otherwise, stop trashing this thread with your nonsense.

toggie, it is definitely possible thatmany new units haven't filled or older ones have been abandoned. Massachusetts lost population as a state, while new housing units increased.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

STL has already proven it, Do you find it strange that Downtown minneapolis has gone from 15k ppl in 2000 to 40k ppl now, without the rest of the city growing?

KC hasn't lost ppl and i've posted proof of it too many times to count. Quit being so pessimistic and quit trusting the census bureau so much, they can and have made mistakes. They always will...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So the question remains, what are these cities doing so wrong that is driving people out of the city itself?  Is it crime, high costs/taxes, bad schools, no jobs?  These are usually the reasons that people leave.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think in many cases it is affordability. How many times have I said now in this thread that the middle class is leaving the city for the relatively less expensive suburbs? We especially have many immigrants who came to our cities in the 80s and 90s and were poor. Many of them have reached the middle-class and are leaving the cities to pursue the middle-class American dream with the yard and the two cars and dog. The cities are more and more being populated by Yuppies and Guppies and Dinks. Same number of houses, or even more houses, but less people per unit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, not all parts of our cities are gentrifiying. Here in Miami the ghettos are emptying fast. Manufacturing jobs that once populated the area are gone and those that can leave do. They're going to old inner ring suburbs and smaller towns leaving the rotting apartment bulidings and homes behind vacant. Once thriving commercial districts here are now ghosttowns.

Also, If the rest of the US is anything like Miami then suburban growth still outpaces urban growth. Miami is undergoing one of the greatest urban condo booms in the country, but the suburbs is growing by 3 or 4 times the size.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.