US cities whose population has declined since the 1950s or later

[Jim856796]

You know, I'm not sure why Pittsburgh lost half its population. I haven't seen any vacant buildings in its downtown arena or any derelict neighbourhoods anyway in the city. I think Pittsburgh's population needs to stop declining.

[urbanjim]

^Um, you waited 9 months to post the thought-provoking phrase "I think Pittsburgh's population needs to stop declining" ??? Wow, it took a long time to think that one out!

[nerdly_dood]

Perhaps the other jim isn't familiar with the concept of a "dead thread"...?

[Manitopiaaa]

I hope Suburbia diminishes and people once again enter these cities and become good neighbors in building a better community, rather than isolating oneself from other socioeconomic groups.

[dtzeigler]

I wonder what Houston's population would look like if they kept their orignal political boundary.

[chicagogeorge]

Between 1990 and 2000 the city of Chicago posted it's first population gain since 1950, growing by som 120,000 (officially, though probably more).

I was inclined to believe that Chicago would top 3 million agian (something it hasn't done officially since 1980) by 2010. However, since 2000, the city has undergone major demographic changes, along with much increased taxes and other cost of living expenses. This has driven many lower socioeconimic families to more affordable suburbs such as Joliet, Aurora, Waukegan, Elgin..... Gentrification has replaced some of the losses, but being that young urban professionals have smaller families or are childless, their may be a net loss in population. By most estimates the African American population is Chicago is falling, as more and more middle income Blacks move to the suburbs. I guess it all depends how much growth the Hispanic community has registered in Chicago since 2000. If the Hispanic population sees similar numerical growth between 2000 and 2010 as it did between 1990-2000 (that is about 200,000), I would be inclined to think that the 2010 census will put Chicago's population somewhere near where it was in 2000. That is between 2.8 and 2.9 million. Essentially flat. If the Hispanic population growth rate has been stiffled a bit mainly caused by population movement into affordable suburbs, I wouldn't be surprised to see the census put Chicago's population slightly under 2.8 million.....

[alexis91]

San Juan, Puerto Rico porpulation was 463,242 in 1970; and 434,374 in 2000.

The metro area population is ascending since ever.

[bayviews]

Originally Posted by chicagogeorge

Between 1990 and 2000 the city of Chicago posted it's first population gain since 1950, growing by som 120,000 (officially, though probably more).

I was inclined to believe that Chicago would top 3 million agian (something it hasn't done officially since 1980) by 2010. However, since 2000, the city has undergone major demographic changes, along with much increased taxes and other cost of living expenses. This has driven many lower socioeconimic families to more affordable suburbs such as Joliet, Aurora, Waukegan, Elgin..... Gentrification has replaced some of the losses, but being that young urban professionals have smaller families or are childless, their may be a net loss in population. By most estimates the African American population is Chicago is falling, as more and more middle income Blacks move to the suburbs. I guess it all depends how much growth the Hispanic community has registered in Chicago since 2000. If the Hispanic population sees similar numerical growth between 2000 and 2010 as it did between 1990-2000 (that is about 200,000), I would be inclined to think that the 2010 census will put Chicago's population somewhere near where it was in 2000. That is between 2.8 and 2.9 million. Essentially flat. If the Hispanic population growth rate has been stiffled a bit mainly caused by population movement into affordable suburbs, I wouldn't be surprised to see the census put Chicago's population slightly under 2.8 million.....

Agree, given the current economic environment, Chicago would be doing well to hold its population even at 2.8 million.

The 12 extended family members & boarders working as construction workers & cooks from Jalisco & Zacatecas are replaced by 6 struggling artists, musicians, & students, who give way to a yuppie couple with one kid, who sells to a hedge fund manager. And now, he's thinking of taking off for Bermuda.

Maybe an extreme case, but that's why the transformation from immigration to gentrification often caps the population rebound.

[chicagogeorge]

Originally Posted by bayviews

Agree, given the current economic environment, Chicago would be doing well to hold its population even at 2.8 million.

That's what the census estimates seem to indicate. We are holding between 2.8 and 2.9 million....

The 12 extended family members & boarders working as construction workers & cooks from Jalisco & Zacatecas are replaced by 6 struggling artists, musicians, & students, who give way to a yuppie couple with one kid, who sells to a hedge fund manager. And now, he's thinking of taking off for Bermuda.

Maybe an extreme case, but that's why the transformation from immigration to gentrification often caps the population rebound.

On the other hand, HUGE tracts of the Lower West and South Sides including the formerly Irish/Polish Southwest Side around Midway Airport are now seeing overcrowing schools thanks to an exploding Hispanic population. The "Black" Southside is seeing the biggest population loss.

It is the area of the Near West Side and the Near South Side (in other words just West and just South of the Loop) which has been gentrified heavily. The Northside seems to be seeing a bit of everything. Hispanic growth, Gentrification, and also Asian and African American growth.

Maybe what were are seeing in CHicago (which we did not see 20 years ago) is a general browning of the entire metropolitan area and not just the inner city itself. If the Hispanic growth rate has remained the same as it did between 1990-2000 then I am pretty confident that Chicago's population in 2010 will be between 2.8-2.9 million, somewhere near it's 2000 levels. If however enough Hispanics have been siphoned off to cheaper outer suburbs, than Chicago's population may be closer to what it was in 1990.


Here is a recent article from the CHicago SUn Times

Chicago area population jumps
Recommend Comments

March 18, 2009

FROM ASSOCIATED PRESS
WASHINGTON — Strapped by the nation’s economic crisis, fewer Americans are migrating to Sun Belt hot spots in Nevada, Arizona and Florida, instead staying put for now in traditional big cities.

Census data released Thursday highlight a U.S. population somewhat locked in place by the severe housing downturn and economic recession, even before the impact of rippling job layoffs after last September’s financial meltdown.

The population figures as of July 2008 show growth slowdowns in once-booming metropolitan areas such as Atlanta, Las Vegas, Phoenix and Tampa, due mostly to a rapid clip of mortgage foreclosures as well as frozen lines of credit that made it harder for out-of-staters to move in.

As a result, rust-belt metro areas such as Buffalo, N.Y., Pittsburgh and Cleveland stanched some population losses, and Boston, Los Angeles and New York saw gains.

Chicago's metro area (MSA)population jumped by 72,771 in a year, to more than 9.5 million. The area includes Joliet and Naperville.

Well-to-do exurbs around Washington D.C. saw growth declines as people weary of costly commutes moved closer to federal jobs in the nation’s capital.

“It’s the bursting of a ’migration bubble,”’ said William H. Frey, a demographer at the Brookings Institution think tank who analyzed the numbers. “Places that popped up in migration growth in the superheated housing markets earlier in the decade are now just as quickly losing their steam.”

“It’s the constraint of not being able to buy or sell a home that is keeping people from moving long distances,” he said.

The latest population trends come as state and local governments are deciding where to pour billions of dollars in federal stimulus money to develop schools, roads, bridges and other infrastructure. The nation’s decennial head count, used to apportion House seats and redraw congressional districts, also is fast approaching.

Las Vegas, known for its warm climate and wide spaces, had its smallest annual population gain in nearly 20 years.

Despite its pricier housing market, San Francisco was back to its heyday growth of the 1990s, having formerly shriveled when the tech boom went bust in 2000.

Economists explain that because housing in San Francisco was so expensive for so many years, only the wealthy were able to buy. As a result, the area was less affected by mortgage foreclosures than other cities.

San Francisco’s tech industry also has been slower to lose jobs so far in the current recession, but officials aren’t sure how long that will hold up given California’s double-digit unemployment.

California had the biggest net loss from people moving to other states. The declines in its interior regions put it at risk of losing a House seat. Los Angeles had major gains, but partly at the expense of Riverside, a sprawling exurb nearby.

In the months ahead, jobs are expected to be a growing factor in U.S. migration.

The population in the nation’s distressed counties, or areas with unemployment rates of 6 percent or higher in 2007, grew by 0.3 percent, compared to a 1.2 percent growth rate in areas with relatively low unemployment.

The overall nationwide growth rate was 0.9 percent, according to the Population Reference Bureau.

In Michigan, where the struggles of the auto industry led to the nation’s highest unemployment rate, 60 of the state’s 83 counties lost population. Florida and Rhode Island are facing similar pressures.

Despite slowing migration, the South and West continued to account for the most growth from 2007 to 2008.

Raleigh-Cary, N.C., and Austin-Round Rock, Texas, were the nation’s fastest-growing metro areas, registering growth rates of 4.3 percent and 3.8 percent, respectively. Both high-tech centers, the two metros are also sites of major college campuses that helped cushion them from the housing slowdown.

Other findings:

—Metros registering the biggest numerical gains were Dallas-Fort Worth and Houston. Despite housing slowdowns in 2008, Phoenix and Atlanta ranked third and fourth in growth, respectively, followed by Los Angeles.

—The New Orleans area grew 2 percent to more than 1.1 million, still lagging its pre-Hurricane Katrina level of 1.3 million. St. Bernard Parish and neighboring Orleans Parish were the nation’s first and third fastest-growing counties.

—The Washington D.C. region was among the top 10 numerical gainers, due partly to federal government jobs. Far-flung D.C. exurbs such as Virginia’s Loudoun and Prince William counties had flat or declining growth, victims of the housing bubble and a spike in gas prices.

—Out of the nation’s 100 fastest-growing counties, the majority were in Texas (19), Georgia (14), North Carolina (11) or Utah (nine).

The census estimates used local records of births and deaths, Internal Revenue Service records of people moving within the United States, and census statistics on immigrants. The estimates were for both counties and metropolitan areas, which generally include cities and surrounding suburbs.

http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/1...031809.article

[urbanjim]

My city, St Louis, is perhaps the poster child of dramatic population loss. The city's population hit a high of 857K in 1950, but had fallen as low as 348K by 2000. That's a decrease of 60 percent, which is undoubtedly the highest percentage loss of population that any major American city has experienced.
The population has since stabilized, but the city is now only the 52'nd largest in the nation.

The list of reasons for this loss are the same as for any other older, industry-based, "rust belt" city. We all know them well, so I won't expand upon that.

But in addition to those factors, St Louis is also bound by a physical limitation that most other American cities are not: It absolutely cannot expand its boundaries by any means.
This harkens back to a fateful decision made in 1876 by the city's forefathers, when the city chose to separate itself from St Louis County and become an "independent city". The city would never again be able to annex land, and remains a mere 61.9 square miles. (Across the state, Kansas City, MO, doesn't have such a limitation and has grown to 318 square miles.)

Here's a fact: If the City of St Louis would have not separated itself from St Louis County, and had instead consolidated the city and county (as cities such as Indy and Nashville have done), St Louis would currently contain 1.35 million people (per 2007 census)... and it would be the seventh most populous city in the nation, right after Philadelphia!

[hudkina]

If Detroit could annex just its inner-ring suburbs (those developed between the 1920's and 1950's), it would have a population of over 2 million people in less than 350 sq. mi. In other words it would be about the same size as Dallas, but it would have 800,000 more people.

[Dank City]

Originally Posted by urbanjim

But in addition to those factors, St Louis is also bound by a physical limitation that most other American cities are not: It absolutely cannot expand its boundaries by any means.
This harkens back to a fateful decision made in 1876 by the city's forefathers, when the city chose to separate itself from St Louis County and become an "independent city". The city would never again be able to annex land, and remains a mere 61.9 square miles. (Across the state, Kansas City, MO, doesn't have such a limitation and has grown to 318 square miles.)

D.C. and Baltimore have the exact same problem...
I think Boston is also in this category among a few others?
At this point the inner ring suburbs, at least in DC and to a small extent in Baltimore, are densifying to levels of inner city urban as illustrated by Friendship Village, MD being the densest incorporated place in the United States. These places certainly warrant annexation into the central city, but can't due to outdated government practices.

[Jim856796]

To Hudkina: Detroit should have thought about annexing Highland Park and Hamtramck since they are completely surrounded by the city. They also should have annexed Dearborn, Harper Woods, Grosse Pointe, Grosse Pointe Woods, and the other three towns east of Detroit with the words "Grosse Pointe" in their names.

And the primary reason why the populations of a few American cities which are a lot higher than today's populations was probably because of the high number of slums within those cities' boundaries. Mostly all of those slums have been cleared by the present day for redevelopment projects. Also, some of the downtown areas of those cities were old and shabby, like Minneapolis and St. Paul.

And one more thing: Cleaveland used to be the most populated city in the state of Ohio until the 1980s, but now Columbus, the capital of Ohio, holds that distinction. What do you want me to do, fit 1,000,000 people into Cleveland's city limits?

[urbanjim]

Originally Posted by Dank City

D.C. and Baltimore have the exact same problem...
I think Boston is also in this category among a few others?
At this point the inner ring suburbs, at least in DC and to a small extent in Baltimore, are densifying to levels of inner city urban as illustrated by Friendship Village, MD being the densest incorporated place in the United States. These places certainly warrant annexation into the central city, but can't due to outdated government practices.

That's right, Baltimore is good example of an independent city (not part of any county) which can't expand its boundaries. Carson City, Nevada is another one. There are 39 other such cities, all located in the state of Virginia. I think all seven of the Hampton Roads cities are independent.

The city of Washington is in a class all its own. It's coexistant with the District of Columbia, and therefore cannot expand beyond the district's boundaries into any state. So Washington definitely has the same growth limitations that the independent cities do.

Boston isn't an independent city. It's part of Suffolk County.
The main reason Boston hasn't expanded its borders is that it's surrounded by other municipalities. But the city still has the potential to expand. For example, if the bordering city of Chelsea decided to unincorporate, Boston could feasibly annex its 2.5 square miles. (Although I seriously doubt that such a thing would occur.)

[Dank City]

Originally Posted by urbanjim

The city of Washington is in a class all its own. It's coexistant with the District of Columbia, and therefore cannot expand beyond the district's boundaries into any state. So Washington definitely has the same growth limitations that the independent cities do.

This is why retrocession is such a good idea!

[Pilliod Njaim]

And one more thing: Cleaveland used to be the most populated city in the state of Ohio until the 1980s, but now Columbus, the capital of Ohio, holds that distinction. What do you want me to do, fit 1,000,000 people into Cleveland's city limits?

Yes. It'd return to its former glory. That population density would be quite manageable and still less than cities like San Francisco.

If Cleveland got back to 1 million people, it'd be a incredible city.
If Toledo got back to 400,000 people, it'd be an incredible city.
If Buffalo got back to 500,000 people, it'd be an incredible city.
If Cincinnati got back to 500,000 people, it'd be an incredible city.
If Detroit got back to 2 million people, it'd be an incredible city.
If Pittsburgh got back to 600,000 people, it'd be an incredible city.
It St. Louis got back to 800,000 people, it'd be an incredible city.

All these industrial cities were dense, functionally urban, and glorious places. If they can return to their peak populations, they will be great again. And quite honestly, most of them do have good locations and lots of potential (particularly the rail hubs and Great Lakes ports).

[hudkina]

To get back to those numbers, those cities would have to build hundreds of high-rises. For example, even if Detroit had the same number of housing units today that it had in the 1950s, its population would only be around 1.5 million instead of 2 million. Household sizes are much smaller today than they were 60 years ago.

[urbanjim]

^Detroit never reached 2 million. At it's peak in 1950, it had 1.85 million.

In the case of St Louis, I don't think we'll see 800,000 people living in the city ever again. That was a different era; in 1950, the city was THE economic hub of the region. The suburbs in St Louis County and St Charles County contained only about a half million people.
Today, the city must increasingly compete as a business center with suburban areas such as Clayton and the I-270 corridor. The suburbs of St Louis County and St Charles County now contain 1.35 million people. Sprawl has impacted the city just as it has most other large cities. Luring large numbers of suburbanites back into the city ain't happenin'.

In my observation, none of the big cities that reached a population peak in 1950, and then lost a significant portion of their population, have managed to return to their 1950 population figure. Perhaps a city can only have one true heyday.

As far as my city...I'd be content if the population of St Louis would continue to stabilize, as it has done since the year 2000. And I'd be elated if we could return to our 1980 population of about a half million!

[hudkina]

Detroit peaked at about 2 million in the early 1950's.

[JivecitySTL]

At its peak, St. Louis actually had about 860,000. At that time, the city was significantly more densely populated than Chicago is today. Unfortunately, I think those days are behind us. I think 500,000 is doable in the next 30-40 years, but cities are just different today.