USA TODAY article: Inner-city boom over?

[Fiddlerontheruf]

Big-city booms now look like blips
By Larry Copeland and Barbara Hansen, USA TODAY
The urban renaissance that reinvigorated many of the nation's cities in the 1990s has faded since 2000, according to Census population estimates out Thursday. (Related story: Inner-city resurgences cool)
Thirty-six of the USA's 251 current largest cities lost population in the 1990s, but 68 have declined this decade. Among them are Chicago and Boston, two cities that were often described as turnaround stories in the 1990s. Scores of other cities — including Phoenix, Austin and Denver — are still growing but at slower rates. (Full list: Slowest-to-fastest growing | Alphabetical)

If trends from 2000-04 continue through 2010, nearly three-fourths of cities that have populations above 100,000 would fare worse this decade than in the 1990s, says demographer William Frey of the Brookings Institution in Washington, D.C.

"The late '90s may have represented a blip that led many people to the conclusion that (older) cities were coming back, and they were going to regain their primacy," says Joel Kotkin, author of the 2005 book The City: A Global History and senior fellow at the New America Foundation, a Washington think tank. "But what we're seeing is growth of some smaller cities."

BIG 10 CHANGES
San Jose bumped Detroit to become the 10th-largest city. Population changes of the biggest U.S. cities from 2000 to 2004:
City 2004 pop. Change
New York 8,104,079 1.2%
Los Angeles 3,845,541 4.1%
Chicago 2,862,244 -1.2%
Houston 2,012,626 2.8%
Philadelphia 1,470,151 -3.1%
Phoenix 1,418,041 7.3%
San Diego 1,263,756 3.3%
San Antonio 1,236,249 7.4%
Dallas 1,210,393 1.8%
San Jose 904,522 1.0%
Source: Census Bureau July 1, 2004, estimates






Nobody is predicting the kinds of population declines that ravaged large cities in the 1970s, but the population estimates from July 1, 2004, dim the lofty expectations of urban revival raised by the gains of the late 1990s.

Key factors in the leveling off in growth:

• High housing costs in cosmopolitan cities that have almost no vacant land for construction. Smaller, less glamorous places have plenty of room to grow.

"Boston and San Francisco are two cities that continue to do very well economically and continue to be considered very attractive places to live," says Chris Hoene, research manager at the National League of Cities. "Their population declines could be driven by the sheer cost of living there, and housing costs in particular."

• Changes in immigration patterns. "In the beginning and middle of the 1990s, cities were bargains, not just for the fabled yuppies but for immigrants looking to establish themselves in the United States," says Robert Lang, director of the Metropolitan Institute at Virginia Tech.

As cities tried to attract the "creative class" of singles, gays and childless couples, "they might have priced themselves out of the reach of these immigrants," Lang says. "An increasingly larger share of immigration is benefiting older suburbs rather than central cities."

Big cities that are continuing to grow — including Houston, Charlotte, Los Angeles, Phoenix and Fort Worth — are attracting large numbers of immigrants because of relatively low housing costs and diversified economies, Kotkin says.

[Phoenix Ashes]

Don't believe it.

Go to Chicago and you see building going on everywhere, particularly downtown. If they're losing population, they have an odd way of showing it. Ditto San Francisco and Boston. The reason cities are pricey has to do with their rarity. America is full of cheap places that look cheap and are not valued. You know. Phoenix, Houston, Jacksonville. Granted, there's a virtue in that, but one you don't aspire to it unless you're looking for some kind of self-justification.

USA Today is a McPaper which would probably prefer America look like a strip mall by a freeway on-ramp.

[chicagogeorge]

Throughout the 90's the census bureau consistently predicted tripple digit losses for the city of Chicago. Guess what? In 2000 the city actually gained 125,000 people from 1990. The census has estimated a drop of 37,000 since 2000. Also Cook County has said to have lost 50,000.
It is true that Chicago is in the middle of a housing boom. They can't build condo's fast enough in before they're sold out. However, most newcomers who are buying up these new construction condos are singles, empty nesters, or Yuppies couples usually with small families.
Chicago's tax base is rising. Property taxes have gone up in many communities, in the city, and throughout Cook County. This has driven lower socio -economic groups to less expensive outer- ring suburban counties like McHenry, northern Lake county, Kane, and Will........ Even with all the inner city redevelopement that's occuring, there is an equal or greater number of sprawl developement occuring on the suburban fringe of Chicago. There is really nothing in the way to stop developers from buying up the worlds richest farmland and dumping a mall or a bland subdivision on it. There are no geographical obstacles like mountains or deserts.

The Greater Chicago metro area had 9.2 million people in 2000. Today it is estimated at 9.6 million. By 2010, my prediction is that Chicago's population will probably be about where it was in 2000, that is at around 2.9 million give or take 50,000. The Greater Chicago area will pass the 10 million mark.

[Furiine]

Here's the list of the cities in order of growth rates over the past 4 years.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/...low-cities.htm

Something that was brought up at a local online forum was how the suburbs are either growing fast or becoming engulfed by the ills of the city. In other words, Baltimore declined during the same period the suburbs were rising. Now we're in a new century and the reverse seems to be happening in some areas.

Baltimore: July 1, 2004: 636,251
Baltimore: July 1, 2003: 643,304
Baltimore: July 1, 2002: 636,141

Is it just me, or do the numbers not jive? Ok, so the city rapidly increases over 2003 and then rapidly declines again for 2004. Seems like the Census Bureau is either cooking the books or playing their trump card on the city.

[chicagogeorge]

^
The reason why you can't put to much faith in these yearly "estimate" numbers. The Census Bureau population estimates are based on birth and death records, building permits, Internal Revenue Service, migration data and other information. The larger the cities the more difficult it is to track people. We will just have to wait for the census in 2010.

[Furiine]

Actually, I think Baltimore's case is very similar to that of Chicago's. There are hundreds of condo and housing developments either under construction or in planning stages and they're being sold out at quick rates. The majority of the people are former suburbanites whose children are beyond college or the young tech-savvy populous. Shrinking population isn't just reflective of abandonment though, however it does leave an ugly stain. Shifting demographics surely play a role. There are also illegal immigrants to consider, something I'm worried isn't being included in the census numbers since, well, they don't legally live here. These days, I think a 5-year census count would be more ideal.

[cjfjapan]

Consider the source--every story is riddled with "USA"--it should be the nation's toilet paper, and i don't mean for reading.

[The Urban Politician]

Originally Posted by Fiddlerontheruf

Big cities that are continuing to grow — including Houston, Charlotte, Los Angeles, Phoenix and Fort Worth — are attracting large numbers of immigrants because of relatively low housing costs and diversified economies, Kotkin says.

^Since when does LA have a low housing cost? Since when do many Northeastern cities not have diversified economies?

You're right, USA today is a McPaper meant to turn Americans into overweight zombies surrounded by garage doors and pavement...

[Skanky the Boricuo]

Bullshit. The urban rennaissance has only just begun in cities and towns big and small all across the United States. This is nothing more than lazy journalism. They google up a few notoriously innacurate census estimates and think they have an entire movement pinned down, when all they'd have to do to learn otherwise is step outside the door in whatever city they are in.

[Vulcan]

The USA Today article places too much emphasis on population growth as a reflection of urban vitality. It is not that simple. Population decline is not necessarily a bad reflection of a city's economic success. For example, my neighborhood located in historic Birmingham, Alabama has experienced dramatic population decline over the last few decades, but has (at the same time) increased dramatically in household income. Birmingham's central core is experiencing a massive renaissance. Several turn of the century skyscrapers are currently being restored into residential condos. Several historical buildings have already been converted. However, accroding to the Census, Birmingham is among the fastest declining cities in the nation.

I live in a historic 1920s neighborhood near the CBD of Birmingham. Twenty years ago, many of the homes in my neighborhood were occupied by the "typical" nuclear household unit - Mom and Dad, three kids and a dog. The Dad most likely worked in the nearby steel factory and earned blue-collar wages. Today, the typical household unit is a single upwardly mobile professional without children, whom most likely works at the nearby medical center or is a banker working in the large financial district downtown.

You can't equate simply the loss of population for city decline. Consider the following:

1) Median Age: Most older cities have an older median age. The newer suburban cities have a lower median age, thus higher birth rate. Much of the population increase in the newer suburban areas is from birth rate. On the other hand, much of the population decline in the older established cities is from the transition of the household unit (hence - a four to five member household unit being replaced with a single professional or retired empty nester).

2) Geography: The older established cities can't develop new "suburban type" if they are land locked. Birmingham is completely surrounded by newer suburban cities.

3) Urban evolution: The established cities are experiencing a natural urban evolution process, which results in population decline over time. The new suburban growth cities will experience the same fate in 20 years.

4) Consumer taste: Most Americans are conditioned to live in cheap low density (auto-driven) suburban development and will not consider living in the character - rich high density neighborhoods. The artsy professional that will choose to live in the older historic neighborhoods is far out-numbered by the "suburban mentality" demographic.

[cwilson758]

"Big cities that are continuing to grow — including Houston, Charlotte, Los Angeles, Phoenix and Fort Worth — are attracting large numbers of immigrants because of relatively low housing costs and diversified economies, Kotkin says."

Ummm...Can you say "Annexation?"

[ap_gyde]

Minneapolis has gained back all of its downtown population lost since WWII, the first city to accomplish that. And there are 6000 more condo units in the pipeline. There is an existing population at or above 30,000, depending on the borders you use. 40,000+ apears likely by 2015.

Our condo pipeline:
http://skywaynews.net/content/curren.../condo_map.pdf
Article on downtown population:
http://skywaynews.net/articles/2005/...ews/news01.txt

Keep in mind this is just downtown. There are big infill projects throughut the city, adding density to previously neglected commercial corridors. I would imagine in Minneapolis outside of downtown there are another 1-2,000 more units planned for the next couple of years.

[LosAngelesSportsFan]

Originally Posted by The Urban Politician

^Since when does LA have a low housing cost? Since when do many Northeastern cities not have diversified economies?

You're right, USA today is a McPaper meant to turn Americans into overweight zombies surrounded by garage doors and pavement...

Kotkin is an Idiot. Simple as that. I dont think i have heard anything smart come out of his mouth, ever, yet all these newspapers go to him for Smart answers towards urbanity.

[chicagogeorge]

^
I agree but you have to admit that inncer city revival still has to compete with suburban spawl develpement. The main issue when it comes to keeping people in a city or moving out into the suburbs is usually money. If a city like SF becomes to expensive then people will move to the more inexpensive suburbs. Even immigrant groups today sometimes bypass the city and move into suburbia.

[samsonyuen]

Maybe the boom is going in cycles. Once the condos and developments are finished and people move in, the population growth rates will go back up.

[LosAngelesSportsFan]

Originally Posted by chicagogeorge

^
I agree but you have to admit that inncer city revival still has to compete with suburban spawl develpement. The main issue when it comes to keeping people in a city or moving out into the suburbs is usually money. If a city like SF becomes to expensive then people will move to the more inexpensive suburbs. Even immigrant groups today sometimes bypass the city and move into suburbia.

You're right about that.

[chicagogeorge]

I am astounded by Phoenix's growth rate. I really think that in 5 years, it will be the 5th largest city in the U.S. It may reach 1.7 million by 2010. It's metro may even top 4 million. With it's current rate of growth it may even surpass a steadily growing Houston by 2020. However, I don't know how long that kind of growth rate will last, especially with Phoenix lying smack in the middle of a desert (same with Las Vegas). On the other hand, L.A. is also growing rapidly, and in my opinion, the city will top 4 million by 2010, and it's metro will probably hit 18.5 to 19 million.

[kavok]

The problem is simple. While the "downtowns" of cities are seeing growth, the rest of the city continues to suffer. People dont want to live in the central city, outside of downtown, for a number of reasons. (i.e. worse schools, poorer services, higher taxes, etc). I mean, do people really want to live in rowhouses 3 miles out from downtown, send their kids to inner city schools, and have no public transportation other than buses? Most say no.

You can say all you want about cities like Phoenix and Las Vegas and how their cities are doing so much better than a Detroit or Cleveland. But in truth the trend is really no different. Both are sprwaling, it just happens that in the former cities the city limit boundry is still on the urban fringe.

The only real differences are that Pheonix and Vegas are "new" enough that most of the cities houses have not had time to age 40 years (to the point people dont want to live in them) and that their boundries have not been locked in entirely by suburbs. Sure their metro areas are growing at a faster "rate" but the pattern of growth between the metro areas themselves is realy no different for any American city... which is still, and always has been, lots and lots of sprawl.

Once the newness wears off in a decade or so, Phoenix, San Jose, etc will all face the same decline that the Midwestern cities are now.

[LosAngelesSportsFan]

Originally Posted by chicagogeorge

I am astounded by Phoenix's growth rate. I really think that in 5 years, it will be the 5th largest city in the U.S. It may reach 1.7 million by 2010. It's metro may even top 4 million. With it's current rate of growth it may even surpass a steadily growing Houston by 2020. However, I don't know how long that kind of growth rate will last, especially with Phoenix lying smack in the middle of a desert (same with Las Vegas). On the other hand, L.A. is also growing rapidly, and in my opinion, the city will top 4 million by 2010, and it's metro will probably hit 18.5 to 19 million.

Actually LA will be at 4 million in the next month or two, and the metro is now at 18 million.

[Jasonhouse]

Somebody called USA Today a 'McPaper'!

Classic!