[Chicago2020]

Census: Industrial cities shrinking

Decades of population shift to South and West have reduced some manufacturing centers by half

By Stephen Ohlemacher
Associated Press

WASHINGTON -- Phoenix has overtaken Philadelphia as the nation's fifth-largest city, underscoring decades of population losses in America's big industrial centers.

The nation's population has nearly doubled since 1950 -- adding about 150 million people. But of the 20 largest cities at midcentury, all but four have shrunk, some by a lot.

Detroit, Cleveland, Pittsburgh, St. Louis and Buffalo, N.Y., have lost more than half their population in the past half-century.
Philadelphia lost nearly a third of its residents, slipping to about 1.4 million people in 2006.

City officials, however, have vowed to rebound.

"Philadelphia is not going to disappear," said Gary Jastrzab, deputy executive director of the city planning commission. "We have a good quality of life here. We have major universities, major health facilities and a very active pharmaceutical industry."

The Census Bureau is releasing 2006 population estimates for U.S. cities today.

Phoenix was barely in the top 100 cities in 1950 -- it ranked 99th, with about 107,000 people. Last year, it had 1.5 million.

Phoenix added 43,000 people from 2005 to 2006, more than any other city, according to the Census Bureau estimates. It was followed by San Antonio; Fort Worth, Texas; Houston; and North Las Vegas, Nev.

New Orleans, which is still struggling to rebuild after Hurricane Katrina, lost the most people, about 228,000. The Census Bureau estimated the city's population at 223,400 in 2006, a little less than half its size before the storm.

Americans have been migrating south and west for decades in search of better job opportunities and warmer climates. They also have been moving to the suburbs and beyond, in search of bigger yards and houses, lower crime rates and better schools.

[Chicago2020]

Joliet's growth spurt still tops in state

By Darnell Little
Tribune staff reporter
Published June 28, 2007

For the third consecutive year, Joliet was the fastest-growing city in Illinois and remained one of the fastest-growing in the country, while Chicago continued to lose population, according to new U.S. census estimates set to be released Thursday.

Joliet added more than 35,000 people between 2000 and 2006, more than any other city in the state. Joliet's one-year population jump of 6,500 residents between 2005 and 2006 also was tops in the state and was the 12th-highest growth rate of cities of 100,000 or more in the country. Joliet's estimated population for 2006 was 142,702.

Of the 25 fastest-growing large cities in the nation, Joliet is the only one not in the South or the West.

Other Illinois towns showing significant growth since 2000 are Aurora, Plainfield, Romeoville, Naperville and Huntley.

A substantial amount of the population increase in these outer suburbs is due to migration from Chicago and Cook County as families seek jobs, better schools and more attractive housing, said Kenneth Johnson, a sociology professor at Loyola University. "This outward sprawl of the population is happening all over the country as domestic migrants are seeking out these suburban edge cities," Johnson said.

Meanwhile, Chicago lost around 63,000 residents from 2000 to 2006. The city's estimated population was 2,833,321 for 2006.

According to many demographers, older urban centers like Chicago continue to lose population as people of childbearing age leave the city for the suburbs and as immigrants chase jobs that are rapidly flowing away from the inner cities.

Chicago's loss was just 2 percent of its 2000 population.

[LMich]

A few surprises to me, for this 2006 population estimate release was the census showing Indy proper (a rather large area) to have only grown .5%, and very large and agglamated Louisville/Jefferson County to have actually slightly declined.

In my state, it wasn't a surprise to see Detroit down to 871,000. That's about what the local statistic burea put it at at around the same time last year.

Midwest 'Shrinking' Cities 2006: Population, population % +/- 2000 to 2006, population % +/- 2005 to 2006

Chicago: 2,833,321, -2.2% (-0.3%)
Detroit: 871,121, -8.4% (-1.4%)
Milwaukee: 573,358, -4.05% (-0.5%)
Cleveland: 444,313, -6.9% (-1.4%)
Minneapolis: 372,833, -2.6% (0%)
St. Louis: 347,181, -0.3% (-1.5%)

Someone can finish the list if they'd like: http://www.census.gov/popest/estimates.php

[LMich]

It looks as if Detroit will finally fight the Census like countless other cities have done with success. I'm not so sure if I balk at the estimate, but it certainly couldn't hurt the city to get the most accurate count possible.

Link (http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070628/METRO/706280409)

Detroit balks at census tally, fights to be in top 10

June 28, 2007

Mike Wilkinson / The Detroit News

Detroit officials intend to fight the U.S. Census Bureau over its latest population figures, saying the perception of a never-ending downward spiral doesn't reflect the reality of new housing and new residents.

"We're absolutely going to challenge the census numbers," mayoral spokesman Matt Allen said. "We believe it is significantly off."

The Census Bureau estimates, to be released this morning, indicate Detroit lost another 12,000 people between July 2005 and July 2006, putting the city's population around 871,000. The Census Bureau estimates the city has lost nearly 77,000 since 2000.

But over the past several years, the city has led the region in housing starts and a number of buildings have been converted to lofts, and Allen said that adds up to between 5 percent and 10 percent more people than the Census Bureau estimates. If the city's challenge is successful and the city gained 7 percent, it could regain a spot in the Top 10, a lofty perch from which the city fell in 2004. With nearly 930,000 people, San Jose, Calif., is currently No. 10 in the list of biggest cities.

A Detroit victory might cause some hard feelings, however. The bureau would then adjust the population by removing people from other municipalities in Wayne County because the overall county number remains constant.

"I think they should challenge it," said Kurt Metzger, director of research for the United Way for Southeastern Michigan. "It's a strange process in many ways."

Metzger said Census Bureau methodology penalizes older cities by automatically assuming a loss of older housing stock, triggering statistical population drops. Detroit finds itself fighting the same pattern as many other Michigan and other Rust Belt cities. Warren, Lansing and Flint joined Detroit among the top 50 biggest losers in population. So, too, did Chicago, Philadelphia, Cleveland, Pittsburgh and Buffalo.

Only New Orleans, wracked by Hurricane Katrina in 2005, lost more people than Detroit.

Meanwhile, according to the U.N. Population Fund report released Wednesday, more than half the world's population, 3.3 billion people, will for the first time live in towns and cities by next year.

While census estimates for counties are based on birth, death and migration records, the estimates for cities, villages and townships are based on housing units.

Although they have no impact on funding, the estimates are used as barometers of success or failure. But they create an important perception -- and one that Detroit wants to contest. "Businesses may be less likely to choose a community that is losing population," Metzger said.

[Nunavuter]

Detroit officials intend to fight the U.S. Census Bureau over its latest population figures, saying the perception of a never-ending downward spiral doesn't reflect the reality of new housing and new residents.

"We're absolutely going to challenge the census numbers," mayoral spokesman Matt Allen said. "We believe it is significantly off."

I'll leave this paragraph to speak for itself.

Detroit is reduced to fighting with Census officials.

'nuff said.

LMich, I understand you want her to stay on life support. But your lady is dead.

She is not coming back in our lifetime.

Time to move on.

[flar]

^^That's a little rash, Detroit has improved a lot since the 70's and 80's

[miketoronto]

The article does not really make much sense though. Cities like Philly have not shrunk if you count their metropolitan population.

Phoenix for example is not larger then Philly. Metro Philly is larger then Metro Phoenix, and if Philly covered as much land as Phoenix does, it would be growing to.

Inner City Phoenix has probably lost just as much people for example % wise as the eastern cities. The population loss is just masked by annexing suburbs.

So really none of the cities are shrinking. The population has shifted to outlying areas, but not are totally losing.

[Crawford]

Detroit officials intend to fight the U.S. Census Bureau over its latest population figures, saying the perception of a never-ending downward spiral doesn't reflect the reality of new housing and new residents.

"We're absolutely going to challenge the census numbers," mayoral spokesman Matt Allen said. "We believe it is significantly off."

I'll leave this paragraph to speak for itself.

Detroit is reduced to fighting with Census officials.

'nuff said.

LMich, I understand you want her to stay on life support. But your lady is dead.

She is not coming back in our lifetime.

Time to move on.

Um, why do you assume that Census estimates are infalliable?

All the Census does is plug a bunch of variables into a standard nationwide formula. The variables include automobile registration (WTF?), school enrollment, data from professional movers, immigration and energy usage. The formula has been found to favor suburbs and rural areas, and found to penalize urban areas, immigrant centers and heavily minority jurisdictions. Remember that these are rough estimates, not actual counts, which are only conducted in the decennial Census.

The Census estimates for NYC in the 1990's were found to be off by 500,000 (!) in the 2000 Census. I guarantee that the 2010 Census will have some surprises.

As for Detroit's estimate, honestly I would be surprised if it is growing. I don't think Detroit has enough gentrifcation + immigration to offset middle-class flight. In the future, perhaps, but not yet.

[Crawford]

The article does not really make much sense though. Cities like Philly have not shrunk if you count their metropolitan population.

Phoenix for example is not larger then Philly. Metro Philly is larger then Metro Phoenix, and if Philly covered as much land as Phoenix does, it would be growing to.

Inner City Phoenix has probably lost just as much people for example % wise as the eastern cities. The population loss is just masked by annexing suburbs.

So really none of the cities are shrinking. The population has shifted to outlying areas, but not are totally losing.

Yes, this is correct. I guarantee the exact same thing is happening in Austin, Fort Worth, Charlotte and the other boomers. They are no different, except they have room to sprawl.

The Journal of Housing Policy Debate had an article on Nashville, and looked at pre-annexation and post-annexation growth. It showed that inner-city Nashville had shrunk by half, just like the Rust Belt laggards, while the fringe had explosive growth which masked the decline.

The growth in the Sunbelt isn't in the primary cities. It is in the vast sprawl on the fringe, some of which still occurs within city limits.

[Don B.]

The article does not really make much sense though. Cities like Philly have not shrunk if you count their metropolitan population.

Phoenix for example is not larger then Philly. Metro Philly is larger then Metro Phoenix, and if Philly covered as much land as Phoenix does, it would be growing to.

Inner City Phoenix has probably lost just as much people for example % wise as the eastern cities. The population loss is just masked by annexing suburbs.

So really none of the cities are shrinking. The population has shifted to outlying areas, but not are totally losing.

Mike, I think you are a good guy and all, but you know not what you speak of.

There has has been a few (literally, like three) zip codes in Phoenix that have lost population, mostly because of expansion of Sky Harbor or the destruction of slums for large sports venues. By and large, Phoenix inner city zip codes are densifying rapidly because of illegal and legal immigration. There is some white flight, but those people are being replaced with immigrants from Latin America. Phoenix is more than 40% hispanic now and may be over 50% by the 2010 census. I did a study last year using census tract and zip code data since 1950, and carved out an inner city area of Phoenix covering 132 square miles. Had Phoenix not changed those city limits, this is what the numbers would have looked like:

1950: 213,000
1960: 275,000
1970: 334,000
1980: 376,000
1990: 432,000
2000: 478,000
2007: 503,000

So, there has been no comparable population loss in Phoenix.

--don

[Don B.]

A lesson with respect to percentage growth numbers. Folks, if your community is not growing by at least 0.7 percent per year (7% per decade), then you are likely losing population. It is called natural increase, the difference between births and deaths in a given population. Natural increase does not account for immigration. For example, cities like New York are still losing population. The residents are still fleeing the city. It's immigrants that are driving what little population growth there is there. In Phoenix, at least half of our growth is coming from Latin America now (maybe more).

But, the bottom line is that in a given fixed population (where no one moves in or out and no land annexations occur), then natural increase would result in 7% growth per decade. If it is less than that, then either people aren't having children (less likely) or people are moving out (far more likely).

I first learned about natural increase in the 1970s, when I was about ten years old. Kansas City's city population had increased from 475,000 in 1960 to 507,000 in 1970 and I thought that was a good thing. Then I read an in depth article which talked about the inner city neighborhoods in Kansas City losing huge amounts of population, and the only reason why the city didn't lose population is because of massive land annexations during the 1960s that expanded Kansas City's land area to 316 square miles.

Sure enough, it was right. In the 1970s, K.C. annexed no additional land, and the 1980 census revealed 448,000 people, a rather large loss. I was devastated. :)

--don

[Crawford]

Don, can you source your claims? What you are saying makes no intuitive sense, and has nothing to do with immigration.

Even LA, with far more immigrants, has fewer people in a number of Census Tracts. I would be shocked if Phoenix were radically different from every other city in the U.S. and Europe.

You are saying, for instance, that the areas immediately south of downtown Phoenix have more people now than in 1950, even though it is obvious that the area has seen better days and has many, many vacant residential sites. That doesn't make sense.

[the urban politician]

The growth in the Sunbelt isn't in the primary cities. It is in the vast sprawl on the fringe, some of which still occurs within city limits.


^ I believe that this statement basically defines this discrepency to the fullest, and ends any need to further discuss the delusion of the 'shrinking' north east, as far as I"m concerned. It's a myth, nothing more.

Essentially every single "dying old industrial city" has been undergoing metro growth since they started "shrinking". I see no evidence of shrinking. The central city/suburb line creates this arbitrary distinction which is outdated, IMO, and it's unfortunate that so many people still use this to define the health and size of a city when we all know that most people live in suburbia now.

[Nunavuter]

Um, why do you assume that Census estimates are infalliable?



I don't. But consider this:

Chicago also lost people. Despite new residential projects.

Ditto, Toronto had the lousiest rate of growth in 30 years. (less than 60,000 people since 2001).

But you don't see these cities fighting the Census.

Detroit is in decline. Even healthy cities need to be proactive to hold onto population. This isn't a personal opinion, empirical evidence supports me.

[AccraGhana]

Detroit’s rate of population decline should, in theory, slow down. Why? The reason being is that the primary demographic that was responsible for the decline is Caucasians and there is not a large percentage of Caucasians left in the city. The city had gained in black population up until early 2000 and with upwards of 80% of the population being African American, the population should stabilize at around 800,000. Also, poor people seem to drive population growth around the world and in America and unfortunately Detroit has a lot of poor people.

The only thing that could change this is if the region becomes less racially segregated and blacks start feeling more comfortable and accepting living in suburban areas. Many inner ring suburbs that blacks have not traditionally seen favorable to them could possibly see a large influx of black Detroiters seeking safer environs and better schools. If more “Southfields” are born then black flight from the city would continue the population hemorrhage of the city.

On a side note, I think city rankings are passé. They really serve no constructive purpose other than government appropriations. When it comes to economics, what matters is the Marketing area or metropolitan area. These comparisons are like the agrarian era based school system with summer vacation. They really are just holdover from bygone eras that really only amount to the force of habit. There was a time, back before suburbanization and exurbia that “the city”, represented well over half an areas population. Hence, comparing cities was then essentially the equivalent of comparing metro areas as the vast majority of people lived in the city. Today, only about 20 – 25% of metropolitan or consolidated metropolitan area population comes from principle cities proper. To note that Indianapolis is nearly twice as large as Atlanta means what when nearly half of metro Indianapolis population comes from its principle city while less than 20% of Metro Atlanta’s 5 million reside in the city proper.

[Nunavuter]

A lesson with respect to percentage growth For example, cities like New York are still losing population. The residents are still fleeing the city. It's immigrants that are driving what little population growth there is there.
--don

DonB, NYC is larger now than it ever was. It surpassed its 1950 population in 2000.

NYC drifted down to under 7.2 million in 1980. It is currently sitting at around 8.1 million.

(I only count the five boroughs here)

That is 900,000 people. Or roughly a city the size of Detroit added to the NYC population.

NYC is healthy. Even if it just stands still it is a powerhouse.

[Crawford]

A lesson with respect to percentage growth numbers. Folks, if your community is not growing by at least 0.7 percent per year (7% per decade), then you are likely losing population. It is called natural increase, the difference between births and deaths in a given population. Natural increase does not account for immigration. For example, cities like New York are still losing population. The residents are still fleeing the city. It's immigrants that are driving what little population growth there is there. In Phoenix, at least half of our growth is coming from Latin America now (maybe more).

But, the bottom line is that in a given fixed population (where no one moves in or out and no land annexations occur), then natural increase would result in 7% growth per decade. If it is less than that, then either people aren't having children (less likely) or people are moving out (far more likely).

I first learned about natural increase in the 1970s, when I was about ten years old. Kansas City's city population had increased from 475,000 in 1960 to 507,000 in 1970 and I thought that was a good thing. Then I read an in depth article which talked about the inner city neighborhoods in Kansas City losing huge amounts of population, and the only reason why the city didn't lose population is because of massive land annexations during the 1960s that expanded Kansas City's land area to 316 square miles.

Sure enough, it was right. In the 1970s, K.C. annexed no additional land, and the 1980 census revealed 448,000 people, a rather large loss. I was devastated. :)

--don

Don, I'm sorry, but now I am more certain than ever that your initial post is false.;)

This entire post is basically all wrong. New York City is not losing population. In fact, it has gained more population than even Phoenix in recent years, despite not annexing anything since 1898. Has Phoenix annexed anything since 1898?:) Maybe it needs to annex the entire state of Arizona, so it can better keep up with what you claim is "little population growth" in NYC.

NYC is experiencing net DOMESTIC migration, which is true of EVERY high-cost major metro in the United States. Even formerly fast-growing places like South Florida (not just Dade, but even Broward and Palm Beach counties) suburban DC (even Northern VA), Orange County, CA, Seattle, Portland and many others have net DOMESTIC migration. Native-born Americans of modest means want to live in their government-subsidized (mortgages and highways), sprawltastic cheapo locations, so if you are expensive, the domestics with more limited financial resources and job opportunities will flee. Those that are less sensitive to price increases and more tolerant of urban living will stay.

These same areas are the biggest immigrant centers, which is why they are growing, despite net DOMESTIC migration that has been a fact of life for decades. NYC has actually had net domestic migration for basically its entire existence. Phoenix will have it soon enough, if it doesn't already.

As prices and immigraion rise, the American fantasy of cheapo living will lead to much slower growth in Phoenix. Take a look at Census trends in and around Southern California. Whats happening in LA County, Orange County, San Diego County? In terms of recent Census estimates, they look no different than the Northeast, because they are expensive, have little land, and are filled with NIMBYs. As always, Phoenix will follow the lead of SoCal. Assuming home prices rise and immigration continues, in a few years the older parts of metro Phoenix will have little growth.

[Crawford]

I don't. But consider this:

Chicago also lost people. Despite new residential projects.

Ditto, Toronto had the lousiest rate of growth in 30 years. (less than 60,000 people since 2001).

But you don't see these cities fighting the Census.

Detroit is in decline. Even healthy cities need to be proactive to hold onto population. This isn't a personal opinion, empirical evidence supports me.

I think we generally agree. I don't think Detroit is growing. My point is that the Census annual estimates are notoriously bad. There are probably some cities that are growing that are shown by the Census to be shrinking. Perhaps DC, perhaps Boston, perhaps Chicago. We won't know until 2010.

Successful challenges to the Census can result in more money, so they make sense. One wacky result of a successful challenge is that one victory forces a city to challenge every subsequent year, because the Census will still plug in its wacky nationwide formula the following year.

Example (this keeps happening in NYC): Census reports that NYC is barely growing, city successfull challenges, but the following year the Census uses its same old methodology to predict population, which guarantees little growth.

For instance, let's say NYC is estimated at 8.2 million. The city successfully challenges and the estimate is revised to 8.25 million. The following year, the Census will use 8.25 million as the previous year's population, but will use the same formula that generated the 8.2 million population to predict the new population. Unless a city is showing Sunbelt-style growth, the successful challenge will actually hurt the city's growth estimates for the following year, which pretty much guarantees that the Census will report little growth. It's a never-ending cycle.

[Don B.]

7% per decade natural increase on a population base of 8 million equals an increase of about 560,000 people per decade. If New York City has maintained this pace since 1950, then I will stand corrected.

By the way, 7% per decade natural increase is for a western civilized society like the United States in Stage III of development. Stage IV societies, like Japan, Italy and Germany, have even lower rates of natural increase.

I read this years ago (probably in an encyclopedia or almanac, since this was pre-internet) but I've got to leave for work, so I can't locate a source for you right now.

As for Phoenix growing slower, I can only hope. 3% annual growth is not sustainable.

Crawford, I'm not referring to areas just south of downtown Phoenix. 132 square miles covers most of the central city from Baseline to Dunlap and from 51st Avenue on the west to 44th Street on the east.

--don

[Nunavuter]

NYC thrives because it is the vortex of American Civilization.

If NYC falters, so does the USA.

It really is that simple. You can't compare NYC to any other city in North America. It's in its own league.

[Evergrey]

A Detroit victory might cause some hard feelings, however. The bureau would then adjust the population by removing people from other municipalities in Wayne County because the overall county number remains constant.

...

Metzger said Census Bureau methodology penalizes older cities by automatically assuming a loss of older housing stock, triggering statistical population drops. Detroit finds itself fighting the same pattern as many other Michigan and other Rust Belt cities. Warren, Lansing and Flint joined Detroit among the top 50 biggest losers in population. So, too, did Chicago, Philadelphia, Cleveland, Pittsburgh and Buffalo.

...

While census estimates for counties are based on birth, death and migration records, the estimates for cities, villages and townships are based on housing units.

These are the problems I have with these Census Estimates and Revisions.

1. If a municipality wins a challenge of the estimates and gains population... its county population remains the same... and neighboring municipalities have to "sacrifice" people. It really makes no sense to me. For an accurate count... the entire county would need to be re-estimated. but that leads to...

2. Differing methodologies for county and municipal level. How can these municipal estimate revisions even be calculated if they are basically shifting around numbers within a county... and that county's number that they're reallocating was determined by a different methodology?

3. I tend to prefer the methodology of migration and natural increase over housing units. However, if a municipality has stagnant housing unit growth... an automatic population decline will most likely occur due to the national trend of shrinking household size.

[Evergrey]

following up on my rant about census estimate revisions...

Cincinnati has been a unique case recently. The Census Estimates claimed it was just about the fastest shrinking major city in America for most of the decade... which probably prompted a lot of anger and embarassment in that city resulting in them challenging the results. Last year, the Census Bureau revised that estimate and gave Cincinnati a population number that was even higher than the Census 2000 figure, giving Cincinnati an "illusion" of growth. This year's Estimate is even a couple thousand higher than last year's revision. However, Census Estimates still peg Cincy's county of Hamilton as a severe population loser, shrinking about 6k this past year and over 40k since 2000. Additionally, the Census Estimates have shifted the 822,000 county residents around from suburban municipalities, which now incur greater losses allegedly, to the city of Cincinnati. All trends that have persisted in America suggest that it is extremely unlikely for the core urban city of Cincinnati to grow while its surrounding county declines so rapidly. Additionally, just about every other "peer" northern city that is constrained to small geographic area (under 100 sq. miles like Cleveland, Pittsburgh, St. Louis, Baltimore, Boston, etc.) has lost population according to Estimates (including St. Louis at -1.5% since last year... after they previously "successfully" challenged estimates the year before). Perhaps Hamilton County is also growing despite the estimation of steep decline... I don't know... I just think it's impossible to really take these estimates as hard facts. They are so fraught with error.

I don't blame cities like Cincinnati for challenging the Census and I really do hope these great old urban cores do have higher populations and start to grow... Cincinnati has some fantastic in-tact urban neighborhoods that in a normal society would prove to be a great draw...

but I have serious doubts about the Census Bureau's methods for estimations and especially the curious system for revised estimates after challenges.

[Steely Dan]

I don't. But consider this:

Chicago also lost people. Despite new residential projects.


the census bureau is FAR from infallible, and they've also proven themselves extremely incapable of estimating chicago's population in the past. in the decade of the 1990s, the bureau estimated that the city of chicago lost ~100,000, but low and behold, when they actually did a proper census and counted the people, they found that not only had the city not declined by ~100,000 people, but that it had in fact grown by ~100,000 people, a swing of ~200,000 people from their "estimates". 200,000 human beings that were somehow invisible to the mighty census bureau estimating machine.

let's wait and see what the truth is in 2010. maybe chicago will have shrunk, maybe it will have grown, maybe it will be stagnant, but one thing is infallible above all others: just because the census bureau estimates that chicago is shrinking does not neccessarily make it so.

[ginsan2]

Detroit officials intend to fight the U.S. Census Bureau over its latest population figures, saying the perception of a never-ending downward spiral doesn't reflect the reality of new housing and new residents.

"We're absolutely going to challenge the census numbers," mayoral spokesman Matt Allen said. "We believe it is significantly off."

I'll leave this paragraph to speak for itself.

Detroit is reduced to fighting with Census officials.

'nuff said.

LMich, I understand you want her to stay on life support. But your lady is dead.

She is not coming back in our lifetime.

Time to move on.

:haha: I think I've said as much multiple times, but I wasn't quite so, ah, crass.

[DecoJim]

:haha: I think I've said as much multiple times, but I wasn't quite so, ah, crass.
Are you suggesting that Detroit be closed down and the 870,000+ people relocated?
Both of you can give up and move to suburban Phoenix for all I care.
There are some who think the city is worth saving.

Detroit is not dead and it won't die. Its population may or may not have bottomed out but eventually it will rebound when people and business take advantage of the riverfront location and existing infrastructure (including direct links to Canada). Currently the riverfront is being redevolped and several prominent buildings are being restored such as the Book Cadillac. To generalize somewhat, there are now two Detroit's: 1) the downtown and midtown which is revitalizing, and 2) the outer neighborhoods which continue to decline.

[PhillyRising]

A lesson with respect to percentage growth numbers. Folks, if your community is not growing by at least 0.7 percent per year (7% per decade), then you are likely losing population. It is called natural increase, the difference between births and deaths in a given population. Natural increase does not account for immigration. For example, cities like New York are still losing population. The residents are still fleeing the city. It's immigrants that are driving what little population growth there is there. In Phoenix, at least half of our growth is coming from Latin America now (maybe more).

But, the bottom line is that in a given fixed population (where no one moves in or out and no land annexations occur), then natural increase would result in 7% growth per decade. If it is less than that, then either people aren't having children (less likely) or people are moving out (far more likely).

I first learned about natural increase in the 1970s, when I was about ten years old. Kansas City's city population had increased from 475,000 in 1960 to 507,000 in 1970 and I thought that was a good thing. Then I read an in depth article which talked about the inner city neighborhoods in Kansas City losing huge amounts of population, and the only reason why the city didn't lose population is because of massive land annexations during the 1960s that expanded Kansas City's land area to 316 square miles.

Sure enough, it was right. In the 1970s, K.C. annexed no additional land, and the 1980 census revealed 448,000 people, a rather large loss. I was devastated. :)

--don

Philadelphia didn't start to show huge declines until after the last parts of the city in the Northeast were fully developed in the late 50's and early 60's. Center City and it's surrounding neighborhoods....which are now booming again today....had been losing population for years when the city was showing population gains.

[AccraGhana]

Are you suggesting that Detroit be closed down and the 870,000+ people relocated?
Both of you can give up and move to suburban Phoenix for all I care.
There are some who think the city is worth saving.

Detroit is not dead and it won't die. Its population may or may not have bottomed out but eventually it will rebound when people and business take advantage of the riverfront location and existing infrastructure (including direct links to Canada). Currently the riverfront is being redevolped and several prominent buildings are being restored such as the Book Cadillac. To generalize somewhat, there are now two Detroit's: 1) the downtown and midtown which is revitalizing, and 2) the outer neighborhoods which continue to decline.

In the long term water, fresh water, will be almost like Oil. Michigan is right in the Middle of one of the worlds largest fresh water reserves......The Great Lakes. Michigan is down...but it is not out and Detroit will rebound to over 1 million people in the next 20 years or so. Why? Because Peak Oil is going to change urban paradigms and "Central Living" in higher density will forced urban as rationing and conservation become big issues. Detroit just needs to get its Mass Transit act together soon.

[Crawford]

Philadelphia didn't start to show huge declines until after the last parts of the city in the Northeast were fully developed in the late 50's and early 60's. Center City and it's surrounding neighborhoods....which are now booming again today....had been losing population for years when the city was showing population gains.

Correct, and the same trends are manifested in Phoenix.

http://wpcarey.asu.edu/seidman/ccpr/PDFs/density.pdf

This Brookings Report on Phoenix population density shows that Phoenix is gradually experiencing a "hollowing-out" of its center, while the fringe areas boom. See the maps on pages 6 through 8.

[Don B.]

^ Incorrect. I quote from the report itself:

"Between 1990 and 1995, population density rose in central Phoenix. A sharp decline in vacancy rates was a major factor in the turnaround, though the vacancy rate decline only matched that of the entire metro area."

Also note that their central city data is tiny: It defines the area as a three mile radius of downtown Phoenix, which implies to me a circle six miles wide. Pi r squared yields a land area of about 28 square miles - this is a tiny area, much smaller than Phoenix's land area in 1960 and smaller than my 132 square mile sample area I used for my study last year.

Population of this core 28 square miles:
1970: 130,591
1980: 111,911
1990: 103,544
2000: 113,223

Most rustbelt cities would give their left nut to have this mild of a population loss, and a 28 square mile sample of the worst neighborhoods in Phoenix is not a representative sample of how most of central Phoenix is doing.

--don

[ginsan2]

Are you suggesting that Detroit be closed down and the 870,000+ people relocated?
Both of you can give up and move to suburban Phoenix for all I care.
There are some who think the city is worth saving.

Detroit is not dead and it won't die. Its population may or may not have bottomed out but eventually it will rebound when people and business take advantage of the riverfront location and existing infrastructure (including direct links to Canada). Currently the riverfront is being redevolped and several prominent buildings are being restored such as the Book Cadillac. To generalize somewhat, there are now two Detroit's: 1) the downtown and midtown which is revitalizing, and 2) the outer neighborhoods which continue to decline.

Honey. Honey. It's gone. It's not revitalizing. It's not coming back. This isn't a 'let's pour salt on the wound' but Detroit is gone. I know the riverfront is being redeveloped and for some reason people are building apartments there, but it's not going to stop the rapid decline.

I'd like to move to suburban Phoenix. I like the desert :)

I really want to know on what grounds Detroit plans to contest the Census figures. "Please tell us you're wrong" is the best figure I can come up with, but does anyone seriously believe that Detroit isn't losing population? Census figures, yes, are often wrong or inaccurate, but... It's Detroit. There's just no way it's gaining population.

In the long term water, fresh water, will be almost like Oil. Michigan is right in the Middle of one of the worlds largest fresh water reserves......The Great Lakes. Michigan is down...but it is not out and Detroit will rebound to over 1 million people in the next 20 years or so. Why? Because Peak Oil is going to change urban paradigms and "Central Living" in higher density will forced urban as rationing and conservation become big issues. Detroit just needs to get its Mass Transit act together soon.

I think desalinization is going to prove to be by far cheaper than treating fresh water-- especially when you spread the mixed costs over so much population. It's just a matter of actually having to do it; it would certainly make for a better option than digging for the stuff.

[Jeff_in_Dayton]

An interesting thing in some of the Dayton metro stats on this, is that an affluent inner-ring suburb had a higher population loss rate (in %) than the city of Dayton itself, which apparenlty has lost around 5-6%.

Dayton and its surrounding county both lost in the 2000 count and have been losing in the estimates. There is no talk about forcing a recount, as everyone here can see the decline in population, via declining retail, dying shopping centers, and so forth....this is in the suburbs, the city is already dead.

Dayton hasnt bottomed out as some big expected factory closings havent happened yet. Yet this rate of slow growth & decline has been going on for at least 30 years or more, since 1970...the big decades of city population decline was in the 1960s and 1970s, with lower rates of loss in the 80s & 90s. The suburbs stagnated in the 70s, grew a bit in the 80s, and stagnated again in the 90s, with actuall losses in the core county in the 1990s.

So this metro area is dying a slow death.

[Evergrey]

An interesting thing in some of the Dayton metro stats on this, is that an affluent inner-ring suburb had a higher population loss rate (in %) than the city of Dayton itself, which apparenlty has lost around 5-6%.

That's not that uncommon. Older upper-crust suburbs that are geographically small usually have little to no new housing construction and are therefore subject to the "law of shrinking househole size". I would assume this suburb's problem is not abandonment, vacancy or out-migration of families... but a case of homeowners growing older and their kids moving out.... and stagnant housing growth because the municipality is "built out" (even if it's built out at a rather low density due to large lots and greenspace)

[Nunavuter]

Wait a second... the Census guys are just guesstimating these figures using formulas rather than sampling areas? That's not what I had been thinking of at all. See, I thought it was like the mid-decade mini-census that is completed in Canada in years ending in a six.

So Detroit and other cities get estimated lower, and will lose federal money that is based on population, resulting in service cuts. Too much is riding on these counts to just make them up.

Oh...and about one of my prior posts...it is a bit flippant.

Note to self: don't post with six beers in you.

[LMich]

Detroit officials intend to fight the U.S. Census Bureau over its latest population figures, saying the perception of a never-ending downward spiral doesn't reflect the reality of new housing and new residents.

"We're absolutely going to challenge the census numbers," mayoral spokesman Matt Allen said. "We believe it is significantly off."

I'll leave this paragraph to speak for itself.

Detroit is reduced to fighting with Census officials.

'nuff said.

LMich, I understand you want her to stay on life support. But your lady is dead.

She is not coming back in our lifetime.

Time to move on.

What an incredibly stupid post for a number of reasons. First, you assume that Detroit is the first and only city to have ever challegened the United States Census Bureau, and on poorly calculated estimates at that (i.e. only taking into account housing units). Some cities, in fact, regularly and successfully challenge these fallible estimates.

Secondly, you seem to be implying or assuming that I believe that Detroit is growing, when I ever so clearly said I wouldn't doubt for a minute if the estimates happen to be true.

The thing is that, perhaps, the city may not be losing as many people as the Census estimates, which has been the case with a plethora of other U.S. cities that have challenged census estimates and counts, alike, and have won back some population for appropriation when the census comes around. I'm not sure what kind of land you live in, but these numbers aren't just some inconsequential and silly numbers. It is incumbent upon any city to gets the most accurate count possible, and it's about time Detroit challenged these numbers.

I'm not sure if your just a rash thinker or a troll, but either way, perhaps you should start thinking about your posts, more, before you submit them revealing your very real and true feelings and bias towards and against particular cities. It is one thing to argue that the numbers are more likely right than not along objective lines, but the whole "your city is dead" ect, ect, reveal what you really think about particular cities. I'm tired of these incessent hit jobs under the guise of 'realism'.

EDIT: I see you JUST posted as I was posting, but I hope my point remains to stop being so rash and nonchalant about issues as serious as these numbers.

[Steely Dan]

Wait a second... the Census guys are just guesstimating these figures using formulas?

yes, that's exactly what these "estimates" are, so only a fool doesn't take them with a significant grain of salt given previous gross errors in estimation by the census bureau, such as the chicago example from last decade i mentioned earlier in this thread.

[SuburbanNation]

^ Incorrect. I quote from the report itself:
Most rustbelt cities would give their left nut to have this mild of a population loss, and a 28 square mile sample of the worst neighborhoods in Phoenix is not a representative sample of how most of central Phoenix is doing.

--don

i wouldn't give my left nut to have whats there, however.

[ginsan2]

I'd like to know the demographics of the people leaving places like Chicago-- perhaps this is a good thing for the city? Or others that are losing population? It sounds horribly elitist but, perhaps, maybe those leaving are the poor and uneducated? That does mean good things for most cities.

[arbeiter]

[QUOTE=Crawford;2923147]Yes, this is correct. I guarantee the exact same thing is happening in Austin, Fort Worth, Charlotte and the other boomers. They are no different, except they have room to sprawl. /QUOTE]

Not the case with Austin, pretty much every neighborhood continues to show an uptick. And with 25,000 supposed to move into downtown by '20...

although austin is really just a big town so it's not in the realm of comparison. it has all of 7 or 8 old factories.

[SuburbanNation]

[QUOTE=Crawford;2923147]Yes, this is correct. I guarantee the exact same thing is happening in Austin, Fort Worth, Charlotte and the other boomers. They are no different, except they have room to sprawl. /QUOTE]

Not the case with Austin, pretty much every neighborhood continues to show an uptick. And with 25,000 supposed to move into downtown by '20...

although austin is really just a big town so it's not in the realm of comparison. it has all of 7 or 8 old factories.

austin is even above the boomers, clocking in as a "fad tier" city.

[Crawford]

Wait a second... the Census guys are just guesstimating these figures using formulas rather than sampling areas? That's not what I had been thinking of at all. See, I thought it was like the mid-decade mini-census that is completed in Canada in years ending in a six.

So Detroit and other cities get estimated lower, and will lose federal money that is based on population, resulting in service cuts. Too much is riding on these counts to just make them up.

Oh...and about one of my prior posts...it is a bit flippant.

Note to self: don't post with six beers in you.

Yes, there is no sampling. The annual American Community Survey (a completely different estimate) has sampling.

For the annual Census estimates they take the previous year's estimate and enter all sorts of demographic variables into a formula, which pisses people off because, while the formula might work for typcial American communities, many of the variables are not reliable indicators of growth in urban areas.

[Crawford]

I'd like to know the demographics of the people leaving places like Chicago-- perhaps this is a good thing for the city? Or others that are losing population? It sounds horribly elitist but, perhaps, maybe those leaving are the poor and uneducated? That does mean good things for most cities.

I would say this is ocurring to some extent. It is well-known that DC is become richer and whiter. The exact same thing is occuring in Manhattan.

In Brooklyn, since 2000, the black population has been declining and the white population has been rising. Note that there previously has NEVER been a recorded decline in the black population, and the white population had been declining since the 1950's.

The black population outmigration is actually much more significant than reported, because there is still very heavy immigrant black inmigration to Brooklyn from the West Indies and Africa (I would think that "native" African Americans are now outnumbered by West Indians in Brooklyn. They now have apparent majorities in all black Brooklyn neighborhoods except for Bed Stuy and parts of Brownsville/East New York, though the latter is changing as we speak).

While I have no stats to back up my beliefs, it "appears" that West Indians are generally more upwardly mobile than "native" African Americans, so this could be construed as a net economic positive, though a city should certainly be welcome to all people.

I think Chicago might have similar trends. African Americans have been leaving the South Side for adjacent South Side suburbs. I don't know the extent of this "flight", or whether Chicago's AA population is declining.

[Crawford]

What an incredibly stupid post for a number of reasons. First, you assume that Detroit is the first and only city to have ever challegened the United States Census Bureau, and on poorly calculated estimates at that (i.e. only taking into account housing units). Some cities, in fact, regularly and successfully challenge these fallible estimates.

Secondly, you seem to be implying or assuming that I believe that Detroit is growing, when I ever so clearly said I wouldn't doubt for a minute if the estimates happen to be true.

The thing is that, perhaps, the city may not be losing as many people as the Census estimates, which has been the case with a plethora of other U.S. cities that have challenged census estimates and counts, alike, and have won back some population for appropriation when the census comes around. I'm not sure what kind of land you live in, but these numbers aren't just some inconsequential and silly numbers. It is incumbent upon any city to gets the most accurate count possible, and it's about time Detroit challenged these numbers.

I'm not sure if your just a rash thinker or a troll, but either way, perhaps you should start thinking about your posts, more, before you submit them revealing your very real and true feelings and bias towards and against particular cities. It is one thing to argue that the numbers are more likely right than not along objective lines, but the whole "your city is dead" ect, ect, reveal what you really think about particular cities. I'm tired of these incessent hit jobs under the guise of 'realism'.

EDIT: I see you JUST posted as I was posting, but I hope my point remains to stop being so rash and nonchalant about issues as serious as these numbers.

Agreed, it can't hurt to try. Places like Detroit have many people that aren't counted, either because they are living at the margins of society and/or don't want to be counted.

Detroit is A Tale of Two Cities. Downtown, the riverfront and midtown are experiencing the same reviatlization as other cities. The rest of the city, even the middle-class areas, are admittedly facing some huge obstacles to improvement.

[PhillyRising]

Honey. Honey. It's gone. It's not revitalizing. It's not coming back. This isn't a 'let's pour salt on the wound' but Detroit is gone. I know the riverfront is being redeveloped and for some reason people are building apartments there, but it's not going to stop the rapid decline.

I'd like to move to suburban Phoenix. I like the desert :)



Why is Detroit gone? Because negative people like you say it is? It's not gone...it just needs to be fixed and the ways some things are done there need to changed. Go live in your souless, cookie cutter, suburban Phoenix development and call back in a couple of decades when the decay begins to set in down there.

[Steely Dan]

I'd like to know the demographics of the people leaving places like Chicago-- perhaps this is a good thing for the city? Or others that are losing population? It sounds horribly elitist but, perhaps, maybe those leaving are the poor and uneducated? That does mean good things for most cities.

how can you even speculate on the demographics of people leaving chicago when we don't even know if chicago is losing population in the first place?

these are questions that can only be answered after the 2010 census is completed. it's a rather pointless endeavor to explore them at this point because we just don't have any data.

[ATXboom]

SuburbanNation... "Fad" Tier... interesting term I have not heard used.

Where did you get that??

When I read that without further info I assume a fad that will wear off... any trend can certainly stop, change or wear off... however the metro growth rate of Austin has been consistent for the past 80 years. The MSA doubles every 20 years... now that the city is to a noticeable size it may recieve more attention but the population growth is not a fad.

What may be a fad is the downtown residential building boom with well over 30 good sized high-rises going up. That will not continue at that pace for the next 20 years.

[DecoJim]

I think desalinization is going to prove to be by far cheaper than treating fresh water-- especially when you spread the mixed costs over so much population. It's just a matter of actually having to do it; it would certainly make for a better option than digging for the stuff.
I see that LMich took care of your other statements.

Water desalination currently costs at least TWO TIMES more than treated fresh water.
http://pubs.acs.org/subscribe/journals/esthag-w/2006/may/tech/pp_desalination.html
The reason almost 2/3 of the desalination plants in the Middle East is because it is not price competitive unless no other option is available. While it is possible that costs can decrease due to improved technology in the future, rising energy costs could counter that trend.

In the Great Lakes Region the cost disparity is most likely even greater. The Detroit water sytem gets its water from pipes that extend five miles into Lake Huron. This lake's water is relatively clean and requires little treatment.

[Jeff_in_Dayton]

That's not that uncommon. Older upper-crust suburbs that are geographically small usually have little to no new housing construction and are therefore subject to the "law of shrinking househole size". I would assume this suburb's problem is not abandonment, vacancy or out-migration of families... but a case of homeowners growing older and their kids moving out.... and stagnant housing growth because the municipality is "built out" (even if it's built out at a rather low density due to large lots and greenspace)

Yes, demographics has a lot to do with the suburban declines in population, but there is outmigration as well. Oakwood is pretty much declining because of lack of young familys and empty nesters, but some suburbs are declining because of outmigration. One is seeing an uptick in vacancy, and houses staying longer on the market or converting to rentals.

The filtering effect is hitting Dayton city as its at the bottom of the market. Dayton will probaby be like Detroit in 10 or 15 years, with a lot more abandonments and tear downs. You are even seeing this in some suburbs now, too.

[MNMike]

Every time a thread like this comes up I have to point out how those census estimates usually are way off. The estimates for minneapolis before the 2000 census were saying the city had lost nearly 15,000 people in the 90s...when the 2000 census came out, it turned out the city had actually gained nearly 15,000 people. So it was off by 30,000(didn't the same thing happen in St. Louis?). I am pretty sure it will be the same in 2010, local estimates put Minneapolis back up near 400,000 by then. I REALLY doubt the city is losing population. Those estimates always irritate me...sorry to interrupt other discussions, just had to put my 2 cents in about the census estimates.

[The Agonist]

Yes, this is correct. I guarantee the exact same thing is happening in Austin, Fort Worth, Charlotte and the other boomers. They are no different, except they have room to sprawl.

The Journal of Housing Policy Debate had an article on Nashville, and looked at pre-annexation and post-annexation growth. It showed that inner-city Nashville had shrunk by half, just like the Rust Belt laggards, while the fringe had explosive growth which masked the decline.

The growth in the Sunbelt isn't in the primary cities. It is in the vast sprawl on the fringe, some of which still occurs within city limits.


And so what if the growth is in the fringe or the city limits? WHo gives a fuck. Is the basic premise not still correct, that far more people are to the South and West than moving to the NE and Midwest?

[ginsan2]

how can you even speculate on the demographics of people leaving chicago when we don't even know if chicago is losing population in the first place?

these are questions that can only be answered after the 2010 census is completed. it's a rather pointless endeavor to explore them at this point because we just don't have any data.
See, the verb I conjugated was "I wonder". This verb, in the English language, generally indicates that the speaker is uncertain of a future event or an event that is transpiring at present time, and is therefore speculating about any number of potential present variables without committing themselves to any definitive statement of fact.

Perhaps you were confused by the lack of a present subjunctive.

I see that LMich took care of your other statements.

Water desalination currently costs at least TWO TIMES more than treated fresh water.
http://pubs.acs.org/subscribe/journals/esthag-w/2006/may/tech/pp_desalination.html
The reason almost 2/3 of the desalination plants in the Middle East is because it is not price competitive unless no other option is available. While it is possible that costs can decrease due to improved technology in the future, rising energy costs could counter that trend.

In the Great Lakes Region the cost disparity is most likely even greater. The Detroit water sytem gets its water from pipes that extend five miles into Lake Huron. This lake's water is relatively clean and requires little treatment.
Because you appear to be numerically challenged, let me iterate with an example:
Spreading costs over a greater population means lower per unit costs as economies of scale are achieved, etc.

Because you HAVE to have water, because you cannot live without it, and because water companies are natural monopolies regulated in part by the government, we can assume standard prices across the board and a quantifiable amount of demand.

City A has 2 million people. City B has 5 million people. City A is surrounded by , theoretically, an endless amount of freshwater. City B, for the first example, has no fresh water at all-- it is situated in a desert next to an ocean.

Let's assume there is no IRS and, therefore, each and every single cost
of the water departments for Cities A and B are accrued into the master operating cost. Let's say that the total costs of operating expenses, salaries, equipment, debt, building and maintaining sewer lines, actually providing and treating water, etc, is $2,000,000 for A and $4,000,000 for B. B must desalinate, while A only has to treat its fresh water at a minimum level. This is in line with the article, which suggests that desalinization is almost exactly twice as expensive.

For A,

Total cost of $2,000,000/Total population of 2,000,000=$1/gallon/person (or any unit you want to use)

For B,

Total cost of $4,000,000/Total population of 5,000,000=$.80.

The difference isn't vast, but the point is that per unit, total fixed and variable costs become cheaper when spread over a larger population, without regards to capacity.

If technology improves, cost becomes even cheaper.

What's interesting to point out is that abandoned and blighted cities, like Detroit, do not experience material reductions in costs-- maintenance must still exist because until all the buildings are destroyed, water MUST be provided and maintained unless condemned. Sun-belt sprawlers would gain a large advantage because a booming population means that the relatively inexpensive extension costs mean less and less as they do not grow as quickly as the denominator level of activity.

This means, in short, that although perhaps initially expensive, the sunbelt would become even more livable and sustainable the larger it grows ;) Unlike the Great Lakes, which are seeing lower levels every year, the oceans aren't going anywhere anytime soon. Especially not with melting polar ice caps, so from a cost accounting viewpoint, sprawl and global warming are really fantastic things :tup:

[ATLksuGUY]

Industrial cities shrinking? thank china.

[Crawford]

And so what if the growth is in the fringe or the city limits? WHo gives a fuck. Is the basic premise not still correct, that far more people are to the South and West than moving to the NE and Midwest?

The basic premise is true to some extent, but this thread is about "Industrial Cities Shrinking" not "Sunbelt growing faster than Rustbelt" and we are talking about cities, not regions. The fact is that (with a few exceptions) growing cities largely owe their population numbers to annexation and room for sprawl.

The real trend is not from the NE and Midwest to the Sunbelt; it is from expensive areas to cheap areas. Expensive areas in the Sunbelt now have the exact same migration profile as expensive areas in the Northeast.

With the exception of some economically distressed areas of the Rustbelt, migration appears to be economic rather than geographic.

[fleonzo]

I can't understand why people in the "Rustbelt" and in the Northeast that see year after year declines in population (with few exceptions) don't GET IT!!!

People blame the weather as the major factor as if people just discovered now that it's warmer down south....no the main reason for the decline in these industrial regions is simple: It's becasue of the UNIONS! They're still building cars in this country but by Toyota, Hundai, Nissan, BMW, Mercedes,..where? In NON-UNION friendly states in the south! The more the Unions keep leeching of the system like in NY/NJ/OH/PA/ MI you'll continue to see declines...becuase the state governments (both political parties in these states: NY, NJ, OH,PA, etc...) keep giving these outrages pension liabilities that then turn into higher taxes to its residents. The difference between here and that in Europe and the old USSR is that people can pick up and move to FL, AZ, TX, etc...and not deal with it! The fact that the weather is warmer is a bonus! More would've stayed if the overall cost of living would have remained lower (i.e. state income taxes, property taxes,...) AND there were more blue collared jobs. This would be the case if the State CITIZENS (not politicans) would have had the nerve to confront the Unions long ago (30 yrs ago) and made their states competitive with the Southern and Western States. "Toyota...don't build your plant down there....we have people here who already know how to build cars....oh wait we can't....the unions won't let us!" Goodbye jobs, goodbye residents.......!

[boden]

To me city population means nothing. For example the city of Boston is relatively small in population....but the SMSA is larger than Toronto's. City boundries are arbitrary.
To say that Phoenix is the fifth largest city may be technically correct, but in reality Philadelphia is MUCH larger.
SMSA figures are what matter most.

[LMich]

That point has already been made (and is made every time these numbers come up), but doesn't change the fact Southern and Southwestern metros are still growing faster than other regional counterparts, for the most part. And, IMO, the only number that really matters as it balance both metro and urban definition is the one for Urbanized Areas that only come out every 10 years.

That said, I think local and national media do the public a huge disservice when reporting these estimates as if they are population counts, which they are not. Sometime, the papers and station are more interested in the headline for their bottom line " City X is Booming!" or "City Y population plummets!", and offer no context. In fact, I wrote my local paper about their reporting of the numbers the other day, missrepresenting the estimates as if they are legitimate population counts. What it turns into is a self-fulfilling prophecy. The more you hype up the numbers as the signs of a successful, healthy city, the better chance it turns out that that will eventually be the case. The more you hype up the city numbers as signs of decline, and social diseases, the better chance it turns out that that will eventually be the case for that city. I don't think many people get how damaging or helpful just the misrepresentation of these numbers can be for an area.

In fact, I've noticed in a number of newspapers with declining populations, or thought to be declining populations, whenever they do stories of population the particular articles almost are written with a morbid sense of glee and the article reads more like a "of course, the population of City X is dropping as fast as it is!" instead of writing about the subject objectively and providing the proper context.