SkyscraperCity banner

1 - 20 of 112 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,554 Posts
Discussion Starter #1 (Edited)
Big Cities See Resurgence in Population Growth
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: July 1, 2009

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2009/07/01/us/AP-US-City-Population.html?scp=20&sq=chicago&st=nyt

Excerpt:

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Reversing a decade-long trend, many of America's largest cities are now growing more quickly than the rest of the nation, yet another sign of an economic crisis that is making it harder for people to move.

Census data released Wednesday highlight a city resurgence in coastal regions and areas of the Midwest and Northeast, due to a housing crunch, recession and higher gas prices that have slowed migration to far-flung suburbs and residential hotspots in the South and West.

The 2008 population figures show New York and Chicago made gains from higher births, while Philadelphia stanched population losses from earlier in the decade. Also showing rebounds were industrial centers in Minneapolis and St. Paul, Minn., Columbus, Ohio, and Lincoln, Neb., with economies focused on finance, health care, information technology or education. Detroit, with its ailing auto industry, declined.

Los Angeles, San Francisco, Seattle and Portland, Ore., all on the West Coast, registered growth, boosted partly by foreign-born immigrants who moved into and stayed in gateway cities. In contrast, former hotspot areas in Nevada and Arizona had significant slowdowns, as well as inland regions in California.

''Cities are showing a continued vitality as hubs of activity even as some suburban and exurban areas go through tough times,'' said William H. Frey, a demographer at the Brookings Institution. ''It emphasizes the buoyancy of large established cities with diverse economies and populations.'' ...

...Census estimates show:

--The 10 largest cities grew about 1 percent from the previous year, buoyed by sharp gains in Chicago and fewer losses in Philadelphia, compared to 0.9 percent for other cities. For much of the decade, the big cities had grown at roughly 0.5 percent -- half the rate for elsewhere in the U.S.

--New York continued to be the nation's most populous city, with 8.4 million residents. Los Angeles ranked second at 3.8 million. Rounding out the top 10 were Chicago, Houston, Phoenix, Philadelphia, San Antonio, Dallas, San Diego and San Jose, Calif.

--For metropolitan areas greater than 1 million people, the growth rates of cities grew 1 percent, compared to 1.1 percent for suburbs. In 2001, city growth was half the rate for suburbs -- 0.8 percent for cities compared to 1.6 percent for suburbs.

--New Orleans was the fastest-growing city in 2008, rising 8.2 percent from the previous year. Still, its population of 311,853 residents lagged its pre-Hurricane Katrina level of 484,674 in 2000. The city's population dipped in 2006 to 210,768.

--Four of the 10 fastest-growing large cities were in Texas: Round Rock, McKinney, Killeen and Fort Worth. North Carolina had two cities in the top 10, Cary and Raleigh; California also had two, Roseville and Irvine. Gilbert, Ariz., also was on the list. ...
 

·
Margela Schurkel
Joined
·
1,792 Posts
That doesn't surprise me. The population of Tokyo stagnated for 20 years and after that has started to grow again since 1995. This was because the costs for real estate went down so that more people could afford living in Tokyo, and no longer needed to live in the suburbs.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
442 Posts
That doesn't surprise me. The population of Tokyo stagnated for 20 years and after that has started to grow again since 1995. This was because the costs for real estate went down so that more people could afford living in Tokyo, and no longer needed to live in the suburbs.

Is it the end of sururbia-culture worldwide?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,837 Posts
new law in casablanca morocco no more sprawl
built better smarter inner city neighboorhoods
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
24,834 Posts
That doesn't surprise me. The population of Tokyo stagnated for 20 years and after that has started to grow again since 1995. This was because the costs for real estate went down so that more people could afford living in Tokyo, and no longer needed to live in the suburbs.
I think prices are falling in many big cities around the world. Fortunately we'll see population growth in many of them.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,805 Posts
I think we can link it to the recent article saying that americans are leaving huge houses to go living in smaller houses more close of facilities and easier to maintain financially...
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
26,321 Posts
This is because it is harder to move (harder to sell the house) and the economic conditions in some, not all, of the former hotspots like Florida, Arizona, or Nevada are as bad if not worse than in the colder cities and states. Inter-state migration is declining, I barely know anyone moving out of here anymore...nowhere to go. The entire US is in an economic rut, even the Sunbelt.

As for the population of the cities, I think that they are higher, and we will find out the truth during the census next year. All of this is just estimates.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,687 Posts
Even Detroit's decline is a lot smaller than it was in previous years.

The city only lost 0.5% of it's population between 2007 and 2008, according to Census Estimates.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,544 Posts
Even Detroit's decline is a lot smaller than it was in previous years.

The city only lost 0.5% of it's population between 2007 and 2008, according to Census Estimates.
What's your point, the city has already lost a huge number of population. :eek:hno:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,687 Posts
Or rather those who "wanted" to relocate. The city has lost most of its non-hispanic White population and has even begun to lose its Black population, but a lot of the loss is offset by the growing number of Hispanics on the city's Southwest Side as well as an increasing number of Middle Eastern and Asian (particularly Bengladeshi) Immigrants.

I know that everyone on SkyscraperCity thinks every last square inch of Detroit is an abandoned wasteland where only the poorest people on the planet dwell, but in reality there is a relatively large middle class. While the latest economic recession hasn't helped, there is still a huge chunk of middle-class people who choose to call the city home.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,837 Posts
west side and east side are the real bad parts of detroit ( east side is worst )
what about other bad parts ?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,687 Posts
The "west side and east side" basically encompasses the entire city. They are both areas with stretches of wealth and poverty.

The Lower East Side (the area south of I-94 stretching from just East of the Greater Downtown area to the Grosse Pointe border) is probably the area most synonymous with the typical view of "abandoned" Detroit. The Far East Side which basically sits to the North of Mack Ave and West of Conner St is more suburban in nature and includes a large number of middle-class residents. A few of the nicer neighborhoods are in the Morningside-East English Village-Balduck Park area.

The Near West Side (which is the older area east of Livernois Ave) isn't as "abandoned" as the Lower East Side, but it has major problems with crime and poverty. The West Side past Livernois is more suburban in nature. A few areas such as Brightmoor (which originally consisted of cheap, tract housing for the working-class) have become largely abandoned. However, quite a few neighborhoods on the west side are full of modest brick bungalows with well-kept yards that you would mistake for any older suburban area in the U.S. Some such as the Grandmont Rosedale and University Commons have quite a bit of wealth in the area.

The West Side (west of Livernois) had a population of 382,598 in 2000. The median household income in the U.S. as a whole was about $42,000 at the time of Census 2000. The median income for the West Side was somewhere between $35,000 and $40,000.

To compare a few other cities with populations near 385,000:
Miami - $23,483 - 56.1% above $20,000.
St. Louis - $27,156 - 53.5% above $25,000.
Pittsburgh - $28,588 - 55.3% above $25,000.
Atlanta - $34,770 - 55.7% above $30,000.
Minneapolis - $37,974 - 54.1% above $35,000.
Omaha - $40,006 - 50.0% above $40,000.

Judging by the percentages here and the fact that 50.2% of households on Detroit's West Side made at least $35,000, I would guess that the median household income was somewhere around $35,500. So basically the median income of Detroit's West Side was higher than Miami, St. Louis, Pittsburgh, and Atlanta, and was a little less than Minneapolis and Omaha.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,837 Posts
cool thanks for that interesting info I always keep an open mind about the planet we live on
 
1 - 20 of 112 Posts
Top