Jump to content

Population loss in US Cities


monsoon

Recommended Posts

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.

I don't really understand what the Census has to gain by conceding that indeed certain cities (STL, Baltimore, NYC) had flawed estimates. Wouldn't it be a lot easier for them to just say, "Okay, you have your numbers, we have ours, let's leave it at that"?? But that's not what happened. The Census Bureau officially recanted their projections and revised them for these cities based on empirical evidence that they had not considered. Perhaps you're the one in denial just because you can't imagine certain cities truly making a comeback.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Replies 71
  • Created
  • Last Reply

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.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Oh Benny. Why can't you admit that these numbers are wrong?

Questioning the validity of something as bogus as annual population estimates doesn't mean I'm in denial. If anything, your the one in denial for thinking that annual estimates are legitimate and that the Census Bureau is the only trustworthy source for an accurate population count. As I stated before, there's plenty of information out there that proves these annual and decennial figures are off.

Also, don't be giving me that "If we can't trust them, who can we trust, you?" crap because most people, including state and city officials will tell you that annual census guesstimates are incorrect for the simple fact that it's almost impossible to keep accurate, yearly population counts. So, instead of asking me to provide more numbers and proof, why don't you read up on the many issues concerning the census. Otherwise, go f*ck yourself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Downtown population "booms" should not be interpreted as city population booms. For every condo/apt building going up/converted in a city's downtown, more people flee to the burbs etc out of other city neighborhoods. It is a shame, but that is reality. Some high growth metros have reversed the trend of losing populations - Atlanta's metro has grown so fast for so long, that those seeking short commutes and actual city amenities have decided to move in and the city population finally went up again the 90s...

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.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Minneapolis + St. Paul population change between 2000 and 2003

+ 312

http://www.metrocouncil.org/metroarea/2003...ldEstimates.pdf

so now am I now allowed to act as if estimates are facts and say that YOU are in denial? I provided a magical mystical GUESS by a respected body just like all of you. does this give me the PRIVILEGE to be arrogant and condescending?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That estimate provided by the local metro council shows a population loss for Minneapolis over the 3 years after the last census.  So indeed we do have another source which says that Minneapolis is suffering from an exodus from the city to elsewhere.  Lacking any proof to the contrary, I would say this is definitive. 

So what is wrong in Minneapolis that is causing this?  Crime, Bad Schools, High Taxes, Job losses.    This is surprising considering that it sits in the middle of a relatively high growth area for the Mid-West.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Minneapolis AND St. Paul sit at the center of a fast growing region, you alluded to this in an earlier post, I can quote it if you don't remember. if you would like to take back what you implied earlier because it is no longer advantageous to your argument, we could recenter this conversation to the successes of St. Paul ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sure the census #'s will change, as they always do. This another reason why you all are jumping the gun too fast.

All the information you provided is circumstantial, btw. There is no evidence that anything you said is entirely correct. I am not in denial about anything, I would love to see cities come back, but a lot aren't (D.C., Baltimore, Detroit).

You guys still want me to believe you over the census, not happening, so stop trying.

This is the second forum I have been told to f*ck myself on, and for what? Saying you're in denial? Saying that you are wrong? Please, grow up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Twin Cities, you have provided no information at all to prove your point.

toggie, you still make no sense. Adding 312 people according to a source doesn't prove your point. As I said, census #'s will change. What makes your source more credible than the census? The fact that it is local? I think not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

monsoon, so are you suggesting that the US Census is correct?

They aren't correct, and that has been proven, by STL and I've proven them wrong for Kansas City. I even asked the local Census people in KC, they don't do the census estimates. They directed me to the national census people for the estimates.

Haven't I also said that the census uses the numbers from the 2000 census to estimate each year? They do not use numbers that are post 2000 census. Therefore, they are very incorrect.

Remember, they were wrong on St. Louis, they were wrong on Kansas City. And they were even wrong on Chicago in the 90s.

You cannot trust the census for anything, especially since they use information that is based BEFORE a lot of these cities' booms began.

Like I said, how can Minneapolis lose people, when their downtown grew from 15,000 in the year 2000, to 40,000 people in mid 2004? Answer that question, that is a gain of 25,000 people, how can Minneapolis LOSE more than 25,000 people when the entire city is in this boom?

Go check out the census' website yourself, there is a page that does say that the estimates and projections are based off of the 2000 census data. Don't you think it is very very innacurate to use information based on a census that was taken before the city and housing booms began?

Kansas City housing permits since Jan. 2001 to Sept. 2004: 9,439 (that is 19k people to 23k gained, since most were occupied according to the Housing Department in City Hall)

Kansas City downtown units since Jan. 2000 to Jan. 2004: 5,000-6,000 (a gain of 9,000 people occured)

so far that is a gain from 28k to 32k people in the city. I have also looked at the in/out migration charts, which were a little outdated for 2004. They showed that only the East Side of Kansas City is losing people, and it was only losing people in the single digit percentiles.

Which means, Kansas City didn't lose more people than we gained.

According to the data i have reviewed (which was all from City Hall and Economic Dev. Corporation of KC) Kansas City will have gained from 20,000 people to 25,000 people from 2000 to 2004.

Giving Kansas City a population of over 460,000 people.

But that isn't considering deaths and births, which would still keep the number between 455,000 and 460,0000.

As you see, I also have proved the Census to be wrong, now you have two cities, Kansas City, and St. Louis that have turned out to have different numbers from the census' first estimates.

Would anyone like to estimate Minneapolis' population using POST 2000 census information? :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Twin Cities, you have provided no information at all to prove your point.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I mentioned the FACT that the Census Bureau was off during their annual estimates for both Minneapolis and St. Paul during the 90s. I listed some factors that aren't taken into account for annual estimates. I also posted an article that proved the annual census is a joke. We shouldn't have to provide a link for every response posted. There's plenty of information on the Internet regarding the inaccuracies of population estimates so do a quick search or visit the Census Bureau's web site. If you want to believe the estimates are accurate, that's fine. But don't say some of us are wrong for questioning the guesstimates, especially when you're the one expressing confidence in a government agency that has been proven wrong several times.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

there are other numbers for them to work from, like when I estimated. The in/out migrations, the deaths/births, housing permits issued, downtown lofts and units built and occupied, etc... (I used more sources when I did that, but i'm not gonna list them all since i have forgotten some of them)

I can tell you one thing, they can't estimate the population for Kansas City based on the 2000 census. Our housing and downtown booms didn't begin until 2001.

Like I showed, it is not accurate to use numbers from a census that occured just before a housing/loft boom begins.

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.