[wjfox2004]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financetopics/financialcrisis/5516536/US-cities-may-have-to-be-bulldozed-in-order-to-survive.html


US cities may have to be bulldozed in order to survive

Dozens of US cities may have entire neighbourhoods bulldozed as part of drastic "shrink to survive" proposals being considered by the Obama administration to tackle economic decline.

By Tom Leonard in Flint, Michigan
Published: 6:30PM BST 12 Jun 2009


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multimedia/archive/01423/bulldozer_house_1423077c.jpg
The US government is looking at expanding a pioneering scheme in Flint, one of the poorest US cities,
which involves razing entire districts and returning the land to nature


The government looking at expanding a pioneering scheme in Flint, one of the poorest US cities, which involves razing entire districts and returning the land to nature.

Local politicians believe the city must contract by as much as 40 per cent, concentrating the dwindling population and local services into a more viable area.

The radical experiment is the brainchild of Dan Kildee, treasurer of Genesee County, which includes Flint.

Having outlined his strategy to Barack Obama during the election campaign, Mr Kildee has now been approached by the US government and a group of charities who want him to apply what he has learnt to the rest of the country.

Mr Kildee said he will concentrate on 50 cities, identified in a recent study by the Brookings Institution, an influential Washington think-tank, as potentially needing to shrink substantially to cope with their declining fortunes.

Most are former industrial cities in the "rust belt" of America's Mid-West and North East. They include Detroit, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Baltimore and Memphis.

In Detroit, shattered by the woes of the US car industry, there are already plans to split it into a collection of small urban centres separated from each other by countryside.

"The real question is not whether these cities shrink – we're all shrinking – but whether we let it happen in a destructive or sustainable way," said Mr Kildee. "Decline is a fact of life in Flint. Resisting it is like resisting gravity."

Karina Pallagst, director of the Shrinking Cities in a Global Perspective programme at the University of California, Berkeley, said there was "both a cultural and political taboo" about admitting decline in America.

"Places like Flint have hit rock bottom. They're at the point where it's better to start knocking a lot of buildings down," she said.

Flint, sixty miles north of Detroit, was the original home of General Motors. The car giant once employed 79,000 local people but that figure has shrunk to around 8,000.

Unemployment is now approaching 20 per cent and the total population has almost halved to 110,000.

The exodus – particularly of young people – coupled with the consequent collapse in property prices, has left street after street in sections of the city almost entirely abandoned.

In the city centre, the once grand Durant Hotel – named after William Durant, GM's founder – is a symbol of the city's decline, said Mr Kildee. The large building has been empty since 1973, roughly when Flint's decline began.

Regarded as a model city in the motor industry's boom years, Flint may once again be emulated, though for very different reasons.

But Mr Kildee, who has lived there nearly all his life, said he had first to overcome a deeply ingrained American cultural mindset that "big is good" and that cities should sprawl – Flint covers 34 square miles.

He said: "The obsession with growth is sadly a very American thing. Across the US, there's an assumption that all development is good, that if communities are growing they are successful. If they're shrinking, they're failing."

But some Flint dustcarts are collecting just one rubbish bag a week, roads are decaying, police are very understaffed and there were simply too few people to pay for services, he said.

If the city didn't downsize it will eventually go bankrupt, he added.

Flint's recovery efforts have been helped by a new state law passed a few years ago which allowed local governments to buy up empty properties very cheaply.

They could then knock them down or sell them on to owners who will occupy them. The city wants to specialise in health and education services, both areas which cannot easily be relocated abroad.

The local authority has restored the city's attractive but formerly deserted centre but has pulled down 1,100 abandoned homes in outlying areas.

Mr Kildee estimated another 3,000 needed to be demolished, although the city boundaries will remain the same.

Already, some streets peter out into woods or meadows, no trace remaining of the homes that once stood there.

Choosing which areas to knock down will be delicate but many of them were already obvious, he said.

The city is buying up houses in more affluent areas to offer people in neighbourhoods it wants to demolish. Nobody will be forced to move, said Mr Kildee.

"Much of the land will be given back to nature. People will enjoy living near a forest or meadow," he said.

Mr Kildee acknowledged that some fellow Americans considered his solution "defeatist" but he insisted it was "no more defeatist than pruning an overgrown tree so it can bear fruit again".

[robk1982]

In the city centre, the once grand Durant Hotel – named after William Durant, GM's founder – is a symbol of the city's decline, said Mr Kildee. The large building has been empty since 1973, roughly when Flint's decline began.

Too bad they omit the part about The Durant currently being renovated into housing for some of Flint's 20,000+ college students.


And even worse, they don't mention Youngstown (the city where this idea has actually been put into practice, and where Kildee got it from) at all in this article

[Ditchdigger]

Mr Kildee said he will concentrate on 50 cities, identified in a recent study by the Brookings Institution, an influential Washington think-tank, as potentially needing to shrink substantially to cope with their declining fortunes.

Most are former industrial cities in the "rust belt" of America's Mid-West and North East. They include Detroit, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Baltimore and Memphis.

Would that be the same Pittsburgh that was chosen to host the G-20 this September, as an example of a rust belt city with non-declining fortunes? :hmmm:

[JDRCRASH]

Less inventory = Less options to buy, and therefore, lessening of price decreases

Why not? As radical as it sounds, could it work? Besides, i'm sure we could put those materials to other uses.

[nature's calling]

Some of these areas that are mostly uninhabited receive city services. When the population has been cut in half, so has their tax base. It's pretty expensive to maintain all of that.

This is a very unfortunate thing to do. This is usually one of those last resort decisions.

[hudkina]

Pittsburgh is still losing population and jobs both in the central city as well as the metro area. It is still very much a part of the "declining rust belt city" group, even if it is beginning to differentiate itself a little bit from the others.

In Detroit, shattered by the woes of the US car industry, there are already plans to split it into a collection of small urban centres separated from each other by countryside.

I love how they took a visionist proposal that has absolutely no current plans of happening and turned it into something that sounds as if it is being instituted.

[sopas ej]

Less inventory = Less options to buy, and therefore, lower prices

Why not? As radical as it sounds, could it work? Besides, i'm sure we could put those materials to other uses.

That seems to counter the "supply and demand" rule that we all learned as youngsters.

[sopas ej]

Pittsburgh is still losing population and jobs both in the central city as well as the metro area. It is still very much a part of the "declining rust belt city" group, even if it is beginning to differentiate itself a little bit from the others.



I love how they took a visionist proposal that has absolutely no current plans of happening and turned it into something that sounds as if it is being instituted.

Yeah, and I love how they used a stock photo of a single home demolition. Talk about yellow journalism. Tsk, tsk, UK Telegraph!

[JMancuso]

i'd support this. there are just some areas that have zero chance of coming back.

[JordanL]

Less inventory = Less options to buy, and therefore, lower prices

Why not? As radical as it sounds, could it work? Besides, i'm sure we could put those materials to other uses.

Ummm... no less inventory raises prices... thus why having so many houses on the market right now has caused them to crater.

[edmontonenthusiast]

robk1982 is right about Youngstown (I posted an article here. (http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=169881)) but I am glad other Rust belt cities are looking into this very innovative idea.

This would be a great way to bring back life to these spread out Rust belt cities, and enhance sustainability. I love how they're recreating nature, much much so an improvement over suburbia.

But I don't get why they lumped Philadelphia in with the other rusty cities, it's not loosing population (not from what I know) and is a stable city. Pittsburgh isn't doing too bad either from what I've heard, and I think Detroit still has a chance to go back to it's former glory - but it can't be dependant on 1 industry. The American/Canadian (Windsor, Hamilton, Niagara) Rustbelt is a lesson for the other areas to not be dependant on 1 industry.

But I'm glad they're looking into innovative ideas. That Detroit one sounds interesting, but hudkina said there isn't too much to it.

[JMancuso]

the rust belt isn't not going to turn around without some pretty revolutionary changes which might result in a few years of uncomfortable transition and further decline before things improve.

[volguus zildrohar]

robk1982 is right about Youngstown (I posted an article here. (http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=169881)) but I am glad other Rust belt cities are looking into this very innovative idea.

This would be a great way to bring back life to these spread out Rust belt cities, and enhance sustainability. I love how they're recreating nature, much much so an improvement over suburbia.

But I don't get why they lumped Philadelphia in with the other rusty cities, it's not loosing population (not from what I know) and is a stable city. Pittsburgh isn't doing too bad either from what I've heard, and I think Detroit still has a chance to go back to it's former glory - but it can't be dependant on 1 industry. The American/Canadian (Windsor, Hamilton, Niagara) Rustbelt is a lesson for the other areas to not be dependant on 1 industry.

But I'm glad they're looking into innovative ideas. That Detroit one sounds interesting, but hudkina said there isn't too much to it.

Philadelphia has lost 25% of its population since 1950. There aren't endless acres of abandoned homes or lots such as I saw in Detroit but there are parts of this city where you'll find abandoned blocks. I'm not entirely sure if applying this plan to Philadelphia would be as effective as advertised. Much of what is abandoned/underused here now is former industrial land - shipyards, warehouse areas - essentially brownfields. There are very few empty residential swaths though there are many underutilized ones. I've thought that such areas would one day be an ideal location for beginning a upgrade of the city's housing stock. Much of the housing stock that exists in the city's poorer neighborhoods is woefully obsolete. If the market ever allowed for new construction in some of these parts of town that aren't necessarily so close to current hot neighborhoods I think an effect like that would spillover to some degree to other parts of the city that could use it.

[urbanlife]

I definitely support the idea of shrinking the size of cities that are shrinking. Re-introducing nature back into cities could be a good thing, much better than having large amounts of vacant housing.

[mhays]

Philadelphia has lost 25% of its population since 1950. There aren't endless acres of abandoned homes or lots such as I saw in Detroit but there are parts of this city where you'll find abandoned blocks. I'm not entirely sure if applying this plan to Philadelphia would be as effective as advertised. Much of what is abandoned/underused here now is former industrial land - shipyards, warehouse areas - essentially brownfields. There are very few empty residential swaths though there are many underutilized ones. I've thought that such areas would one day be an ideal location for beginning a upgrade of the city's housing stock. Much of the housing stock that exists in the city's poorer neighborhoods is woefully obsolete. If the market ever allowed for new construction in some of these parts of town that aren't necessarily so close to current hot neighborhoods I think an effect like that would spillover to some degree to other parts of the city that could use it.

That sort of drop sounds like smaller households, not fewer units.

[cwd22]

Hey look it's the broken window fallacy!

[Shantytown Architect]

I think it'd be great if we turned these 'excess' homes into homes for poor families.

[ChiMIchael]

I think it'd be great if we turned these 'excess' homes into homes for poor families.
^^^ I agree.

I think this is a good idea because I could help get these areas out of the red. But if still makes me uneasy just cuz it will only tell ousiders teh greatness of those cities are ancient tales that they mihgt tell their grandchild and that is where it will stay. It's virtually a white flag.

On the other hand. It can be seen as some type of bankruptcy/fresh start. The cities downsize some, and when things start looking up. It'll re-expand accordingly.

[JordanL]

^^^ I agree.

I think this is a good idea because I could help get these areas out of the red. But if still makes me uneasy just cuz it will only tell ousiders teh greatness of those cities are ancient tales that they mihgt tell their grandchild and that is where it will stay. It's virtually a white flag.

On the other hand. It can be seen as some type of bankruptcy/fresh start. The cities downsize some, and when things start looking up. It'll re-expand accordingly.

What exactly are those poor families going to do with housing 10 miles from any job centers that are only accesible by motor vehicles?

[ChiMIchael]

What exactly are those poor families going to do with housing 10 miles from any job centers that are only accesible by motor vehicles?
Expanding Transit????
But I doubt that's a priority or it seem a burden i their eyes.

[Drewcifer]

The problem is that in many of these cities there aren't enough people, poor or otherwise to fill these houses.

An endgame example of this issue is Elmira, New York which has the highest property taxes in New York because they don't have the population base to support their infrastructure. While Elmira's problems began with deindustrialization the property taxes that have resulted from it are preventing any kind of meaningful rebound. This idea would probably do wonders for cities in that position.

[Crawford]

.

But I don't get why they lumped Philadelphia in with the other rusty cities, it's not loosing population (not from what I know) and is a stable city. Pittsburgh isn't doing too bad either from what I've heard, and I think Detroit still has a chance to go back to it's former glory.

Philly, Pittsburgh and Detroit are all loosing population. The 2008 Census numbers came out in April, and they all posted losses. There is no indication that any of these three cities have stabilizing populations.

It is true that they are very different cities with unique challenges, but they are all shrinking.

[edmontonenthusiast]

^Yeah I know. I said 'from what I know', and I didn't look anywhere, I just wrote the post, and then the next post and me actually looking at it showed I was wrong. But even compared to Pittsburgh it's not declining near as much. It is only loosing around 4%. Maybe stable was a bad word.

The truth is, I can see the two Pennsylvania cities starting to re grow soon. They look like they have so much potential and have diversified greatly with high tech, healthcare, and tourism opposed to the dying industries as much. Detroit still seems based though on the old industries of now-failing companies, so it might take a little longer for it to go back positive.

[JDRCRASH]

Ummm... no less inventory raises prices... thus why having so many houses on the market right now has caused them to crater.

I know; I meant a lessening of price declines. Just because we burn off more inventory fat doesn't necessarily mean that prices will automatically go up again. Rather, the collapse will be more cushioned.

[hudkina]

They look like they have so much potential and have diversified greatly with high tech, healthcare, and tourism opposed to the dying industries as much. Detroit still seems based though on the old industries of now-failing companies, so it might take a little longer for it to go back positive.

That's because the media likes to paint Detroit in that light. While the auto industry is still a major driver in the metro economy, it has increasingly moved more to the engineering and design aspect than the manufacturing. The region is home to one of the largest concentrations of high tech R&D jobs in the nation. Even the foreign manufacturers (e.g. Toyota, Hyundai, Nissan, etc.) have design and technical centers in the metro area. For example, the Toyota Venza was designed in Metro Detroit by Metro Detroiters...

The region and state is also a growing player in alternative energies. Hemlock Semiconductor Corp. is one of the largest producers of the silicon used in solar panels. GM has plans to build the first plant in the U.S. producing lithium ion battery packs for use in cars. There's also a growing industry related to the production of wind turbines.

[LMich]

US cities may have to be bulldozed in order to survive

Entire American cities are going to have to be bulldozed?!

Man, I love the Telegraph. What an awesome title.

[ChiMIchael]

error

[ChiMIchael]

Philly, Pittsburgh and Detroit are all loosing population. The 2008 Census numbers came out in April, and they all posted losses. There is no indication that any of these three cities have stabilizing populations.

It is true that they are very different cities with unique challenges, but they are all shrinking.
Do you have a link to the census #s.
I'm very curious to see them.

[LMich]

The 2008 city numbers don't come out until next month, I believe. It was the county numbers that came out a few months ago for last year.

[miketoronto]

What has to happen is not for the cities to shrink, but the suburbs to shrink.

It is a stupid idea to shrink an inner city, and have swaths of vacant land or countryside, and than growing suburbs a mile away.

If these regions want to fix their problems, then start moving the growth that is taking place in the suburbs into the city. Have laws that greenfield land on the urban fringe can't be used till the inner city land has been used to say 80%, etc.

[edmontonenthusiast]

Aren't they shrinking the whole metro area as a whole? That's how i interpreted it.

[LMich]

No.

[edmontonenthusiast]

Doesn't mean metro areas can't work together with something like this. Otherwise no city would have a transit system outside of the city proper. And to me it makes more sense that way, maybe these ideas should be used with thinking caps, as the suburbs should be the first to go.

[LMich]

That sounds great and all, but it's rather naive. Maybe, you simply don't know how most metro areas work in this country, and that would explain that.

[leftopolis]

That sounds great and all, but it's rather naive. Maybe, you simply don't know how most metro areas work in this country, and that would explain that.

Evidently I'm naive, too, and I also don't know how most metros work in this country(and I'm not even Canadian). LMich...being condescending and vague, doesn't explain anything. If you had a point, I'm curious to know what it is.

[Zerton]

So are we talking about bulldozing suburban houses (as pictured) or century old row houses?

[PhillyRising]

Philly, Pittsburgh and Detroit are all loosing population. The 2008 Census numbers came out in April, and they all posted losses. There is no indication that any of these three cities have stabilizing populations.

It is true that they are very different cities with unique challenges, but they are all shrinking.

If Philly would actually challenge those numbers like other cities have...I bet our numbers would go up. I believe Philadelphia has been undercounted for years/

[miketoronto]

These plans for the people who were asking does not cover the metro area of the cities, but rather just the core inner city.
So what would happen is the inner city would shrink and there would be large swaths of vacant land befor hitting populated suburbs.

As I said, this does not make sense.

The issue with these cities, are that the regions for the most part are growing. Flints suburbs are growing, etc.

So just direct that growth back to the inner city, saying land in the core city must be used before land on the fringe, etc.

But clearing out the city and leaving vacant land is not the answer, when you are still growing on the urban fringe.

Address the issues as to why people do not want to live in the inner city, and fix them so people will move in.

[ItsConanOBrien]

This is certainly a complicated issue. I can't commit to saying I support if fully or don't support it fully. It's an interesting debate anyhow.


They talked about this contracting cities issue in a recent Kunstler-Cast episode:

http://kunstlercast.com/shows/KunstlerCast_64_Contracting_Cities_and_Urban_Chickens.html

[miketoronto]

If Philly would actually challenge those numbers like other cities have...I bet our numbers would go up. I believe Philadelphia has been undercounted for years/

Philly and Pittsburgh have the same problem where the downtown and close in neighbourhoods to downtown are growing, while the outter areas are still bleeding people.

I am not sure if Philly has grown yet. There is such an issue with crime and decay in the Southwest and North East, plus the wage taxes, etc. That is driving a ton of people to continue to leave.

[10023]

Less inventory = Less options to buy, and therefore, lower prices

Why not? As radical as it sounds, could it work? Besides, i'm sure we could put those materials to other uses.

I think you mean "higher prices", but of course that's the idea.

[EastSideHBG]

The truth is, I can see the two Pennsylvania cities starting to re grow soon. They look like they have so much potential and have diversified greatly with high tech, healthcare, and tourism opposed to the dying industries as much. Detroit still seems based though on the old industries of now-failing companies, so it might take a little longer for it to go back positive.
Philly (and to a lesser extent, Pittsburgh; not really a fair comparison size-wise, though) are horribly ran, period. The governments keep shooting themselves in the foot w/ their tax plans and the way they run business; there is FAR too much competition in the surrounding 'burbs for that. Most people in the cities would not mind paying higher taxes when needed *IF* they saw some return for their money. Sadly, they do not. Bloated city governments, horribly ran schools...the list goes on and on.

[Reverberation]

Philly (and to a lesser extent, Pittsburgh; not really a fair comparison size-wise, though) are horribly ran, period. The governments keep shooting themselves in the foot w/ their tax plans and the way they run business; there is FAR too much competition in the surrounding 'burbs for that. Most people in the cities would not mind paying higher taxes when needed *IF* they saw some return for their money. Sadly, they do not. Bloated city governments, horribly ran schools...the list goes on and on.

That is very interesting. My opinion on that, as a "neo-con" is that it is a result of a large bureaucratic city government trying to compete with smaller faster and leaner suburban governments. The city government is generally slower, less efficient, and more expensive to run. Because of that, I favor a decentralized city government where "district governments" run their own areas and the city itself only handles things like transportation and building codes.
It spurs competition among urban districts and allows them to focus on their own needs without waiting for a city government with too much on its plate.

[seaskyfan]

That is very interesting. My opinion on that, as a "neo-con" is that it is a result of a large bureaucratic city government trying to compete with smaller faster and leaner suburban governments. The city government is generally slower, less efficient, and more expensive to run. Because of that, I favor a decentralized city government where "district governments" run their own areas and the city itself only handles things like transportation and building codes.
It spurs competition among urban districts and allows them to focus on their own needs without waiting for a city government with too much on its plate.

I get this intellectually but haven't seen it in practice. There are some suburban governments (typically in smaller, more affluent suburbs) where the government is "faster and leaner" but I think those are the exceptions. My experience in the Boston area (where everything is a city or town) was that some of the smaller governments were among the most bloated and corrupt, but received less scrutiny based on their size and relative unimportance in the metro.

[Attrill]

What exactly are those poor families going to do with housing 10 miles from any job centers that are only accesible by motor vehicles?


I completely agree - except I think 10 miles is a very optimistic estimate in the areas they are mainly concerned with. 100 to 200 is more likely in an area like Flint. These are houses that in most instances are in need of major work, located far from any employment opportunities. Combine that with the fact that many people on welfare lack basic life skills and just giving these houses away to people in need would be foolish.

Also, I don't think the density in these areas is ANYWHERE near the levels it would have to be to support public transit. The density isn't even there to financially support roads, sewers, and basic municipal services.

I do think areas like Philadelphia and Pittsburgh need to be approached in a different way - they, like any US city, have pockets that have greatly declined while the city overall is generally healthy. That is very different than the problems faced by smaller cities and towns in the rust belt.

[edmontonenthusiast]

Philly (and to a lesser extent, Pittsburgh; not really a fair comparison size-wise, though) are horribly ran, period. The governments keep shooting themselves in the foot w/ their tax plans and the way they run business; there is FAR too much competition in the surrounding 'burbs for that. Most people in the cities would not mind paying higher taxes when needed *IF* they saw some return for their money. Sadly, they do not. Bloated city governments, horribly ran schools...the list goes on and on.

That's quite interesting. I didn't know that - but that's quite sad really. I mean just looking at these cities, they have so much potential. Hopefully things turn for the better.

[JDRCRASH]

I think you mean "higher prices", but of course that's the idea.

As I said previously, I meant a lessening of price declines. So yes, that is what I mean.

[miketoronto]

Pittsburgh is actually pretty healthy. Its downtown core and surrounding areas next to downtown are continuning to grow employment and population, etc. Infact Pittsburgh's inner city has a very large % of regional employment and has become a model of how to change an economy from industry to the service sector.
Studies have showen that downtown Pittsburgh is going to continue to grow as an employment destination and residential place, etc. There are many suburbs of Pittsburgh that are actually the ones that need the help and have fully fallen into decay from the loss of industry.

I really do not fear for Pittsburgh much.

Now Philly is a whole other story. While Central Pittsburgh is growing and maintaining importance as the centre of the region, downtown Philly and the inner core has continued to lose business and market share to the suburbs.
Philly is losing out way more than Pittsburgh.

Philly also has crime issues that must be addressed. In Pittsburgh you do not get the feeling of being worried about your safety. That is a big plus.
Anyway neither Philly or Pittsburgh needs to abandon large swaths of their inner city, as both cities have maintained large populations in all sectors of their inner cities.

[edmontonenthusiast]

Miketoronto,

You said that Pittsburgh's central areas were growing, I was just looking on Wiki, and between 1990 and 2000, the neighbourhoods I checked were declining. I know that those stats are nearly 10 yrs old, so I'm going to say they're outdated, but I'm wondering how much have they grown?

Also, maybe a little bit off topic, but are the (non coll/university) schools in Pittsburgh and Philly proper good? I've heard many US cities have terrible schools (K-12) in the city proper.

[miketoronto]

According to recent studies done for the Pittsburgh Transit Improvment plans, they have colour coded maps of where areas are growing and declining.

Central Pittsburgh(downtown and neighbourhoods right next to downtown) are growing. These are new stats. Pittsburgh does not seem to have large swaths of vacant neighbourhoods like other rust belt cities. In many cases the decline in pop is smaller house sizes. The only neighbourhood that seems to really look bad is the Hill District.
After that it seems it is the old suburbs that had steel mills that really are down and out and losing out big.
Pittsburgh really is one of the most healthy rust belt cities you will find. Its not perfect, but it does do well and seems to be on the right track.

I have no idea what the schools are like. Probably not that good since inner city schools are a big issue in the US.

But Pittsburgh should in no way be clumped in with Flint.

Pittsburgh also seems to have a better relationship with its suburbs, unlike places like Philly or Detroit, where the suburbs wish the core city would just be nuked out. Pittsburgh people seem to be proud of the city even if they live in the burbs. They don't act like the city is some hellish place to avoid.

[edmontonenthusiast]

Thanks! Yeah, what I've seen of pictures, or even heard of, Pittsburgh's neighbourhoods do not seem that bad, maybe slightly gritty, but not abandoned and full of character.

What do you mean by old suburbs? Like streetcar suburbs or the 1920s suburbs, such as Shadyside (Pittsburgh)?

Makes sense about the schools, Portland is the only one I've heard where the urban schools are good. But maybe someone who lives there can clarify. It's too bad, I love old brick schools (edmonton has some nice ones), and It's nice seeing kids grow up in a real community rather than a stale suburb.

THANKS!

edit: where is that map?

[seaskyfan]

Makes sense about the schools, Portland is the only one I've heard where the urban schools are good. But maybe someone who lives there can clarify. It's too bad, I love old brick schools (edmonton has some nice ones), and It's nice seeing kids grow up in a real community rather than a stale suburb.

THANKS!

edit: where is that map?

Seattle schools are pretty good. It does vary somewhat by neighborhood but the majority of my friends and neighbors send their kids to the public schools. I currently live near one of the hot elementary schools and it seems like everyone on the street has a young kid.

[edmontonenthusiast]

Yeah but arent the Junior High Schools and High Schools usually the problems? (Could be wrong)

[Spocket]

I've been waiting to hear about this sort of thing for a very long time. It's really quite obvious that sooner or later the razing of entire urban sections was (and is) inevitable in North America.

Canada is a little better off but not by much. Our shared problem though is that our cities are built on a continuous-growth model. We really should be freezing all physical expansion of cities and building them up. That's no secret of course but for cities that are already over-extended physically , contraction is the only option (which isn't a well-known option)

[edmontonenthusiast]

Canada's urban neighbourhoods never experienced the decay the American ones had after WWII, instead cities actually built in them. That's why a lot of Canadian skylines are a lot bigger than US ones of similar size. Some of them had higher unemployment, poverty, etc. but never as worse as the US.

The only place I can see the razing of entire neighbourhood is in Canada's rust belt - what I consider south of Toronto in Ontario, but i know it is more varied than that. It's more Windsor, St. Catherines, Niagara Falls, and Hamilton.

[liat91]

According to recent studies done for the Pittsburgh Transit Improvment plans, they have colour coded maps of where areas are growing and declining.

Central Pittsburgh(downtown and neighbourhoods right next to downtown) are growing. These are new stats. Pittsburgh does not seem to have large swaths of vacant neighbourhoods like other rust belt cities. In many cases the decline in pop is smaller house sizes. The only neighbourhood that seems to really look bad is the Hill District.
After that it seems it is the old suburbs that had steel mills that really are down and out and losing out big.
Pittsburgh really is one of the most healthy rust belt cities you will find. Its not perfect, but it does do well and seems to be on the right track.

I have no idea what the schools are like. Probably not that good since inner city schools are a big issue in the US.

But Pittsburgh should in no way be clumped in with Flint.

Pittsburgh also seems to have a better relationship with its suburbs, unlike places like Philly or Detroit, where the suburbs wish the core city would just be nuked out. Pittsburgh people seem to be proud of the city even if they live in the burbs. They don't act like the city is some hellish place to avoid.


LOL. So true. We should come out with a list of which metros suburbs want their core cities to be vaporized and which ones do not.

[sabino86]

[/B]


LOL. So true. We should come out with a list of which metros suburbs want their core cities to be vaporized and which ones do not.

Put Atlanta at or near the top of that list... :(

[leftopolis]

There's definitely a distinction that needs to be made between places like Flint, vs Pittsburgh, Philly...Part of the reason they're not in the same situation, is related to size: Flint and it's metro are much smaller in size, so there isn't that much wiggle room when in decline.

As a local example for me that I'm familiar with: San Francisco. It's population peaked in the early '50s, then dropped, went up and down, then finally surpassed the peak 50 years later around 2000/2001. It's now around 10% above that peak from over a half century ago. The whole time that the city was in decline, the suburbs continued to grow--some slowly, some more rapidly. Point being, the metro had several million people and with size comes diversity. Secondly, it is possible for cities to experience a reinvigoration, even after decades of decline--it's just more likely when the surrounding metro is significant.

[hudkina]

I do think areas like Philadelphia and Pittsburgh need to be approached in a different way - they, like any US city, have pockets that have greatly declined while the city overall is generally healthy. That is very different than the problems faced by smaller cities and towns in the rust belt.

The problem isn't necessarily that Flint is "poor"; it too has a mixture of wealth and poverty like any American city. The poverty rate and median income in the Flint area isn't vastly different from a city like Pittsburgh, and is actually pretty close to the United States as a whole. In 2000, the U.S. had a median income of $41,994 and a poverty rate of 12.4%.

Median Household Income (2000):
Genesee County (Flint) - $41,951
Allegheny County (Pittsburgh) - $38,329

Poverty Rate (2000):
Allegheny County (Pittsburgh) - 11.1%
Genesee County (Flint) - 13.1%

The problem with Flint is that the city ballooned from less than 50,000 in the early 1900's to 200,000 by the mid-1950's on the back of GM alone. Thousands upon thousands of small, cheap tract housing was built to accomodate the constant stream of families arriving daily for work in the auto plants.

Beginning in the 50's and 60's, Flint saw its population plateau and eventually begin to decline as the suburban movement hit the area. While the loss in population strained the city's budget it wasn't a major blow. However, by the 70's and 80's GM started shedding tens of thousands of the jobs on which the city depended. The area began a more precipitous decline both in population as well as economically. The loss in jobs was a major factor in the increase of crime and poverty, while the severe drop in tax-money caused city services and educational quality to decline. The middle class, which had already begun heading to the suburbs saw the exodus increase even more. By the 1980's, even Genesee County was losing population.

While the city has lost about 40% of its 1960 population "peak", the county has fared better. The proximity to the major job centers in Detroit's northern suburbs has helped alleviate the loss in manufacturing jobs in the area. In fact, Genesee County's population is only about 5% less than its 1980 peak.

Today as GM's presence in the city continues to dwindle, there is absolutely no reason to have as much housing infrastructure as it did in the past. Instead of taking a laissez faire approach to the decline, the city needs to be proactive. Instead of having two neighborhoods pockmarked with abandoned housing and empty lots, the city should try to focus its attention on the one neighborhood and eventually return the second neighborhood to nature. That way the first neighborhood is more vibrant and will likely get better city services. There's also the added benefit of having nature close at hand.

[leftopolis]

Great explanation, hudkina. It inspired me to check out some population figures, and I agree with your conclusion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flint,_Michigan


Historical populations
Census Pop. %±
1860 2,950 —
1870 5,386 82.6%
1880 8,409 56.1%
1890 9,803 16.6%
1900 13,103 33.7%
1910 38,550 194.2%
1920 91,599 137.6%
1930 156,492 70.8%
1940 151,543 −3.2%
1950 163,413 7.8%
1960 196,940 20.5%
1970 193,317 −1.8%
1980 159,611 −17.4%
1990 140,761 −11.8%
2000 124,943 −11.2%
Est. 2007 114,662 −8.2%

[relnahe]

MikeToronto, your Philly bashing (and other miketorontoisms) has become so redundant that I swear you must cut and paste your old messages.

First off a handful of other cities, including Pittsburgh, in PA had higher murder ratios then Philadelphia last year.

Second, Center City is third in population amongst American downtowns and has one of the lowest office vacancies of all the major cities in our fair country.

While the economy is not the greatest here right now, where is it not bad? Most, not all, cities are under going similar things. I moved here from western NY (lived in Buffalo & Rochester) and the economy is FAR better here and guess what? I meet transplants here all the time from western NY & western PA who say the same thing as me! Why are these transplants not staying in Buffalo or Pittsburgh but coming to this city by your logic? What about all of the transplants from the midwest or No. Cal I see as well?



Pittsburgh also seems to have a better relationship with its suburbs, unlike places like Philly or Detroit, where the suburbs wish the core city would just be nuked out. Pittsburgh people seem to be proud of the city even if they live in the burbs. They don't act like the city is some hellish place to avoid.

I can't speak for Detroit, but one reason certain suburbs have better relationships with their cities then others often has to do with size. Smaller cities often have better relationships with the suburbs because its much closer to the center of town. Philadelphia is an island unto itself by many residents here. Philadelphia, which is its own city and county, has a population density at nearly 11,000 per sq mile in the entire county. We are not a metropolitian area where the whole city and 2/3rds of its suburbs are all in one county. While I'm sure many suburbanites write off a number of places in this city most are aware there are great places in town. Some of the wealthiest zip codes in this metro lie in that "core city" where the suburbs wish would be "nuked out" in your most humble of opinions. I remember being annoyed when looking at schools in Indiana and the Chicago area about 8 years. A few moron suburbanites who thought that Chicago was some sort of "no mans land" outside of the loop. Obviously these people do not know their own backyard if in the year 2001 that is what they're thinking. The point I'm making is that exists in many places unfortunately.

I'm sure you'll respond with your repetitive King Of Prussia mall-love, a place in my 4 years of living here have gladly never been to.

[seaskyfan]

Yeah but arent the Junior High Schools and High Schools usually the problems? (Could be wrong)

They're pretty good as well. Some of the better ones are in nicer neighborhoods and some of the ones in poorer neighborhoods are having some challenges, but generally the system is pretty good and most folks send their kids to the public schools from K-12.

[Crawford]

I do think areas like Philadelphia and Pittsburgh need to be approached in a different way - they, like any US city, have pockets that have greatly declined while the city overall is generally healthy. That is very different than the problems faced by smaller cities and towns in the rust belt.

People keep making this same claim in this thread, but there is aboslutely no evidence of this. If anything, I think it could be argued that Detroit is somewhat healthier than Pittsburgh.

Pittsburgh's population losses are actually greater than those of Detroit. This is a fact, and no amount of anecdotes changes this.

Metropolitan Pittsburgh's population has had constant, uninterrupted population losses for 40 years now. In contrast, metro Detroit has grown in most years.

The fact is that metro Detroit, despite all its ills, has grown (slightly) in population since 2000, while metro Pittsburgh, despite all it's accolades, has shrunk in population since 2000.

Philly is different than Pittsburgh and Detroit in that it's overall population losses are considerably less, but it also has huge suburban swaths in the Northeast and in places like Roxborough that have masked the population decline.

If you look only in pre-sprawl era Philly, the population losses are probably not too far off from either Detroit or Pittsburgh.

The other big difference, of course, is that Center City Philly is healthy and thriving, but this initiative is not dealing with city cores, but the neglected neighborhoods between the core and the suburban fringe.

[PhillyRising]

The other big difference, of course, is that Center City Philly is healthy and thriving, but this initiative is not dealing with city cores, but the neglected neighborhoods between the core and the suburban fringe.

Philadelphia has been tearing down abandoned and neglected properties for some time. It was about one of the few things John Street did right while in the mayor's office.

Miketoronto, The city is in much better shape today than it was 25 years ago. There are plenty of empty office building all over Montgomery and Chester counties and I don't see companies fleeing the city to fill them anytime soon. I've lived here longer than your cousin and I remember how dowdy and rundown Philadelphia looked when I was in high school in the early 80's. I can walk you all over the Center City and show you countless buildings that were vacant or abandoned in the 90's that are in use today.

[miketoronto]

I never said Philly was a hellish place. I think it is a great city. But at the same time I do not think it is bad to be critical and bring up the issues that must be addressed. There is no need to get upset about it.

Centre City Philly is better yes than even a decade ago. But there are large parts of the city that need serious help. And while Centre City may have cleaned up, it is still losing out to the suburbs in a big way. Even reports by the Centre City Corportation point out this fact.

Philly has a lot of cleaning up to do in government, in the actual city, and in relationships with its suburbs. I don't think it is bashing to say that.

As for the Detroit populations. Metro Detroit has grown, declined, and grown, and the population today is no larger than it was in 1960. Infact since about the 1960's, Detroit's Metro pop has gone up and down and has never surpassed its peak.

[DBR96A]

People keep making this same claim in this thread, but there is aboslutely no evidence of this. If anything, I think it could be argued that Detroit is somewhat healthier than Pittsburgh.

Pittsburgh's population losses are actually greater than those of Detroit. This is a fact, and no amount of anecdotes changes this.

Metropolitan Pittsburgh's population has had constant, uninterrupted population losses for 40 years now. In contrast, metro Detroit has grown in most years.

The devil is in the details. The reasons for population decline in the Pittsburgh area during the 1990s and 2000s are entirely different than the reasons during the 1970s and 1980s. In the 1970s and 1980s, it was the decimation of the steel industry and the entire "Baby Boomer" generation being effectively wiped out and forced to move elsewhere. In the 1990s and 2000s, it's been due to an extremely low birth rate (the Baby Boomers had their kids elsewhere), an above-average death rate (those who had tenure kept their jobs the longest, and they're all old now), and a relative lack of international immigration (immigration to the U.S. from Asia and Latin America largely coincided with Pittsburgh's economic collapse). The good news is, the birth rate is increasing, the death rate is decreasing, and the immigrant population has been more noticeable in the area since 2000, and is finally approaching a critical mass. You gotta restart somewhere.

Another difference between Pittsburgh and Detroit: the steel industry in this country ceased to be relevant around 1980, while the auto industry remains, and will remain, relevant. Then there's the fact that metro Detroit's job losses have been largely cyclical until recently, meaning that jobs left when times were bad, but came back when times were good. On the other hand, Pittsburgh's job losses were structural the whole way, meaning that once they left, they would never come back. By 1990, Pittsburgh had to go back to the drawing board, square one, etc. Detroit has had a lot more time to adjust than Pittsburgh ever did, and the fact that Detroit has been larger than Pittsburgh since either became a major U.S. city has insulated them better.

Then there's city and regional politics. Pittsburgh still has some problems to deal with (potential city pension fund bomb, an Allegheny County political map that resembles a baseball's imprint in a car's windshield, etc.), but at least the city's leaders are somewhat in touch with their constituents, and the county realizes the city's importance. I know nothing about Detroit's regional politics, but I do know that the city's politicians love to "keep it real." No wonder Ford is based in Dearborn and Chrysler is based in Auburn Hills. Keepin'-it-real politics has precluded any chance for Detroit proper to turn itself around. Meanwhile, Pittsburgh proper may soon reach an inflection point after two decades of hard work.

[miketoronto]

Pittsburgh while not perfect is doing some things right, and you can see it if you visit. You don't get that down and out feeling in Pittsburgh like other rust belt cities have.
You hop on a bus or T train in Pittsburgh and you actually see middle class people of all races. Intact neighbourhoods, growing downtown, etc.

It just has a totally different vibe that it has come through the bad times and is going to rise even more.

[hudkina]

I do know that the city's politicians love to "keep it real." No wonder Ford is based in Dearborn and Chrysler is based in Auburn Hills. Keepin'-it-real politics has precluded any chance for Detroit proper to turn itself around. Meanwhile, Pittsburgh proper may soon reach an inflection point after two decades of hard work.

Kilpatrick has been out of office for about nine months. The mayor of Detroit is Dave Bing, who is a respected business man (and former NBA player). He's actually got a much better reputation with the suburbs and though he's only been in office for a little over a month, he's got some serious plans lined up to lower taxes and make the city more desirable to business.

Also, I'm not sure why you had to comment on Ford and Chrysler. Ford is in Dearborn because that is the hometown of Henry Ford and where he built his largest auto plant. Ford has been headquartered in Dearborn since at least the 1920's. Before moving to its technical center in Auburn Hills in the 90's, Chrysler was headquartered in the city of Highland Park where it had been headquarted since the company was founded in 1925. GM is the only company that was headquartered in Detroit, and despite recent alarmist rumors that the company might move to its tech center in Warren, they have officially come out and said they would not do that.

So I'm not sure how that has anything to do with Detroit politics of the last decade or two or politicians who like to "keep it real."

[mhays]

This is just a theory, but it makes sense to me. When Pittsburgh shrinks and tears stuff down, it doesn't look like vacant lots...it looks like forested hills, hillsides, ravines, and valleys. Where half the houses are missing and some are vacant, Pittsburgh still has...mojo. Maybe it's in my head.

[hudkina]

As for the Detroit populations. Metro Detroit has grown, declined, and grown, and the population today is no larger than it was in 1960. Infact since about the 1960's, Detroit's Metro pop has gone up and down and has never surpassed its peak.

Huh? While the metro area dipped slighty in the 70's and more considerably in the 80's, it made up for all of that decline and more in the 90's.

1920 - 1,619,414
1930 - 2,622,184 - +61.9%
1940 - 2,873,904 - +9.6%
1950 - 3,651,550 - +27.1%
1960 - 4,597,593 - +25.9%
1970 - 5,228,313 - +13.7%
1980 - 5,203,269 - -0.5%
1990 - 5,095,695 - -2.1%
2000 - 5,357,421 - +5.1%

While the Census Bureau had predicted population increases up until 2006, they've now begun predicting population declines each year. Granted, even with the supposed decline in recent years, the 2008 estimate is still about even with the 2000 count, and certainly much higher than the 1960's...

[miketoronto]

Your stats are for the extennded Metropolitan Statistical Area of Detroit. The actual Metro Detroit MSA is only at about 4.4 million and has changed very little since the 60's.

The Extended MSA has infact grown. But the actual Detroit Metro Area has stagnated since the late 60's, if you look up the pop figures.
Metro Detroit 1970 pop: 4,490,902
Metro Detroit 2008 pop: 4,425,110
The pop went down a hundred thousand or more in the 80's, then rebounded, and now is declining again.

[Crawford]

Mike, this is true, but then why would a stagnant metro look to a declining metro as a "model"? It makes no sense.

And metro Detroit has only been stagnant if you start counting from 40 years back. If you count from the 1990's or the 00's, there is some growth. In contrast, there has never been growth in Pittsburgh, but everyone is saying it's a "model".

Don't get me wrong, Pittsburgh does some things right that Detroit does wrong, but overall, it does not appear to be more of a success.

[edmontonenthusiast]

Guess that means the exurbs are the main source of growth in Detroit, while the rest is stable or declining.

[Crawford]

Guess that means the exurbs are the main source of growth in Detroit, while the rest is stable or declining.

This is true. I think (in contrast to Pittsburgh) Detroit has developed vast exurban growth zones (places like Macomb Township) in recent decades.

The only inner areas that have shown growth have immigration: Southwest Detroit (Mexican), Hamtramck (Bangladeshi) and Dearborn (Arabic).

[edmontonenthusiast]

So I guess Pittsburgh is stabilizing it's urban neighbourhoods, whereas Detroit is sprawling?

[Crawford]

I would say that both cities have declining inner neighborhoods, but Detroit has more sprawl.

There is no Census evidence that Pittsburgh's inner neighborhoods are doing better population-wise than those of Detroit.

In fact, Pittsburgh's city proper and inner suburbs have had higher proportional population losses than Detroit and its inner suburbs.

I would say that Pittsburgh city proper has a somewhat higher proportion of yuppie and upper class neighborhoods than Detroit city proper, but I don't think the difference is that huge. Northwest Detroit has lots of money, but it isn't the type that would get noted on SSP (almost completely black, and suburban in building type and values, as opposed to Pittsburgh's more urban, postcollegiate prosperous neighborhoods).

[Attrill]

The problem isn't necessarily that Flint is "poor"; it too has a mixture of wealth and poverty like any American city. The poverty rate and median income in the Flint area isn't vastly different from a city like Pittsburgh, and is actually pretty close to the United States as a whole. In 2000, the U.S. had a median income of $41,994 and a poverty rate of 12.4%.....


The problem with Flint is that the city ballooned from less than 50,000 in the early 1900's to 200,000 by the mid-1950's on the back of GM alone. Thousands upon thousands of small, cheap tract housing was built to accomodate the constant stream of families arriving daily for work in the auto plants....

I think we are in agreement on this. My post was in direct response to the idea of giving abandoned houses away to poor people as a solution to the problem. I was not bringing poverty into it on my own.

I think the problem is an oversupply of housing and an undersupply of jobs, not poverty levels. The job base in Detroit and Flint has shrunk dramatically, and the population has dropped dramatically since the peaks of 1960-70. What is being proposed is to concentrate the population to make more efficient use of city services. Flint is MUCH more spread out than Philadelphia or Pittsburgh, and obviously has much more to gain financially from a planned concentration of population (and it would have to happen on an entirely different scale than in Philly or Pitt).

[Attrill]

People keep making this same claim in this thread, but there is aboslutely no evidence of this. If anything, I think it could be argued that Detroit is somewhat healthier than Pittsburgh.

Pittsburgh's population losses are actually greater than those of Detroit. This is a fact, and no amount of anecdotes changes this.

Metropolitan Pittsburgh's population has had constant, uninterrupted population losses for 40 years now. In contrast, metro Detroit has grown in most years.

The fact is that metro Detroit, despite all its ills, has grown (slightly) in population since 2000, while metro Pittsburgh, despite all it's accolades, has shrunk in population since 2000.

Philly is different than Pittsburgh and Detroit in that it's overall population losses are considerably less, but it also has huge suburban swaths in the Northeast and in places like Roxborough that have masked the population decline.

If you look only in pre-sprawl era Philly, the population losses are probably not too far off from either Detroit or Pittsburgh.

The other big difference, of course, is that Center City Philly is healthy and thriving, but this initiative is not dealing with city cores, but the neglected neighborhoods between the core and the suburban fringe.

Metro areas have almost nothing to do with this idea. Any contraction of developed areas will have to happen on a municipal level. The Federal Government may offer grants based on regional planning, but at the end of the day it will be the municipalities themselves that make the decision to move forward with it. Center city Philly thriving was exactly my point as to why it needs to be looked at in a different way as Flint or other small/medium sized rust belt cities.

Detroit and Flint proper are both more than twice the geographical size of Pittsburgh proper, and since the main concept here is reducing geographical distribution of residents to reduce city costs I don't think total population numbers (whether metro or proper) can be realistically compared - especially when you figure in how much of Pittsburgh is too hilly to be built on.

I am not making ANY argument that one city is healthier than another, far from it. I'm just saying that this idea seems to be much more applicable to cities that sprawl more, and has some spot applications that could work in denser cities.

[LMich]

Detroit and Flint proper are both more than twice the geographical size of Pittsburgh proper...

Do you mean both, combined, or both, individually? Flint is 33 or so square miles like a great deal of Michigan cities. Only Detroit, Battle Creek, and Grand Rapids are over 40 square miles in Michigan.

[DBR96A]

Mike, this is true, but then why would a stagnant metro look to a declining metro as a "model"? It makes no sense.

And metro Detroit has only been stagnant if you start counting from 40 years back. If you count from the 1990's or the 00's, there is some growth. In contrast, there has never been growth in Pittsburgh, but everyone is saying it's a "model".

Don't get me wrong, Pittsburgh does some things right that Detroit does wrong, but overall, it does not appear to be more of a success.

There has been job growth in the Pittsburgh region. Total non-farm employment peaked in the region in 1979 before the collapse of the steel industry. The region passed its 1979 peak in 2001, and passed its 2001 peak in 2008. There have been job losses in the region since December, but the vast majority of them have been in outlying counties like Beaver, Westmoreland and Fayette. Allegheny County has been stable in terms of job growth, and continues to post gains while all other counties (except Butler) are losing jobs to various degrees. That's significant because it shows that the core of the metro is resisting the same negative economic forces affecting much of the rest of the country. In other words, the core is in decent shape.

Like I said, the only reasons population growth in the region has remained negative is because of an extremely low birth rate, a relatively high death rate, and a lack of international immigration until recently. I forgot to mention that gross domestic outmigration is low compared to other major cities, but gross domestic inmigration is even lower. The prevailing population trends have very little to do with job growth; in fact, there was a big job fair at the University of Pittsburgh back in April in an attempt for employers to fill about 22,000 job vacancies in the region. Employers complained that they were having tremendous difficulty filling the jobs with qualified people (they must have been pretty good jobs), and when they expanded their search nationwide, nobody wanted to move to Pittsburgh, so they set up stands at the University of Pittsburgh's job fair.

[JordanL]

Do you mean both, combined, or both, individually? Flint is 33 or so square miles like a great deal of Michigan cities. Only Detroit, Battle Creek, and Grand Rapids are over 40 square miles in Michigan.

Flint: 34.1 sq mi

Detroit: 143.0 sq mi
Detroit Metro: 3,913 sq mi

Pittsburgh: 58.3 sq mi
Pittsburgh Metro: 5,343 sq mi

As we can see, Flint is far smaller than Pittsburgh, and Pittsburgh's metro area is over 1000 sq mi larger than Detroit.

[hudkina]

The Extended MSA has infact grown. But the actual Detroit Metro Area has stagnated since the late 60's, if you look up the pop figures.
Metro Detroit 1970 pop: 4,490,902
Metro Detroit 2008 pop: 4,425,110
The pop went down a hundred thousand or more in the 80's, then rebounded, and now is declining again.

Where are you getting your numbers?

Even the MSA has grown:

1920 - 1,407,111
1930 - 2,292,528 - +62.9%
1940 - 2,506,530 - +9.3%
1950 - 3,170,315 - +26.5%
1960 - 3,949,720 - +24.6%
1970 - 4,431,390 - +12.2%
1980 - 4,353,413 - -1.8%
1990 - 4,248,699 - -2.4%
2000 - 4,452,588 - +4.8%

And while the Census Bureau estimates show a dip from the 2004 high of 4,499,091, I don't think it is nearly as severe. The Census Bureau is notoriously inaccurate when it comes to Census estimates, and I wouldn't be surprised if the 2010 data still shows a modest bump from the 2000 numbers.

Guess that means the exurbs are the main source of growth in Detroit, while the rest is stable or declining.

Like just about every American city, the driving force of Detroit's growth is new suburban development on the fringe. Even in Pittsburgh that is very much the case. The only difference is that the suburban growth on Pittsburgh's fringe doesn't even remotely make up for the massive population losses in the center of the metro area.

So I guess Pittsburgh is stabilizing it's urban neighbourhoods, whereas Detroit is sprawling?

No. The entire Pittsburgh metropolitan area continues to lose thousands of people every year, while Detroit is able to maintain its population, if it isn't growing. Both cities are actively improving their central cities.

I would say that Pittsburgh city proper has a somewhat higher proportion of yuppie and upper class neighborhoods than Detroit city proper, but I don't think the difference is that huge. Northwest Detroit has lots of money, but it isn't the type that would get noted on SSP (almost completely black, and suburban in building type and values, as opposed to Pittsburgh's more urban, postcollegiate prosperous neighborhoods).

It helped that Pittsburgh didn't really have the massive racial polarization that affected Detroit and many other cities. While the city proper does have far more wealth than many people on this site give it credit for, the "white, yuppie, trust fund" crowd is definitely centered in the neighborhoods outside of the central city. Granted, I would say that the suburban hot spots like Birmingham, Royal Oak, Ferndale, Dearborn, Wyandotte, etc. are just as urban as the comparable neighborhoods in Pittsburgh. And even though Detroit's Midtown neighborhood is still on the bubble, it is starting to come around.

Flint is MUCH more spread out than Philadelphia or Pittsburgh, and obviously has much more to gain financially from a planned concentration of population (and it would have to happen on an entirely different scale than in Philly or Pitt).

Flint is a different kind of city then Pittsburgh and especially Philadelphia. A better comparison would be some of the other Rust Belt cities in Pennsylvania such as Scranton or Allentown.

Detroit and Flint proper are both more than twice the geographical size of Pittsburgh proper, and since the main concept here is reducing geographical distribution of residents to reduce city costs I don't think total population numbers (whether metro or proper) can be realistically compared - especially when you figure in how much of Pittsburgh is too hilly to be built on.

Actually it's Pittsburgh that is nearly twice the size of Flint. Flint is only about 34 sq. mi., while Pittsburgh comes in at around 56 sq. mi. Also, while Detroit might be more than twice the size of Pittsburgh, it has nearly 3x the population. Detroit proper has a much higher population density than Pittsburgh, despite having such massive boundaries.

[LMich]

There has been job growth in the Pittsburgh region. Total non-farm employment peaked in the region in 1979 before the collapse of the steel industry. The region passed its 1979 peak in 2001, and passed its 2001 peak in 2008. There have been job losses in the region since December, but the vast majority of them have been in outlying counties like Beaver, Westmoreland and Fayette. Allegheny County has been stable in terms of job growth, and continues to post gains while all other counties (except Butler) are losing jobs to various degrees. That's significant because it shows that the core of the metro is resisting the same negative economic forces affecting much of the rest of the country. In other words, the core is in decent shape.

Not to get this thread too much further off topic, but as this is actually a very good point. Though, from the numbers I've been able to find (http://recenter.tamu.edu/data/empm/MT423830.html), the Burgh's employment base for 2008 is pretty much exactly the same size it was in 1999. In comparison, Detroit's has fallen since the year 2000 and is basically the same size it was in 1990. It's why I'm amazed that metro Detroit has even been able to keep as many people as it has given the job losses. The sheer loss of jobs should have precluded any kind of population gain earlier in the decade, but they didn't.

BTW, as long as folks are simply correcting incorrect facts or spotty opinions, this kind of comparison won't be banned. Let's just make sure we keep this as civil as it's been going, and steer this back into the subject of the thread. As long as this doesn't become a city vs. city bashfest, this is fine.

[PhillyRising]

Pittsburgh while not perfect is doing some things right, and you can see it if you visit.

When was the last time you actually set foot in Philadelphia? Not bashing you...just curious.

[JackStraw]

Pittsburgh's metro population loss is to hard to explain. The two of you trying to conclude that Pittsburgh is not doing well because of population loss are trying to explain something more difficult from obtaining a simple fact you get off the internet. There are more explanations than simple facts, and you both are very far from seeming knowledable on this metro region. Crawford, Have you actually ever been to Pittsburgh, or do you just study the metro from simple statistics you get from the internet?

One can't fully describe metro regions, or understand the issues with population statistics unless they actually travel to the cities.

[miketoronto]

I was in Philly a couple years ago, and I am due for another visit.
But I also visited Pittsburgh years ago and then two years ago and then just a month or so ago. And even when I visited Pitt for the first time over 10 years ago it still had that feeling that they were better off.

There are just differences in each city and no city is better than the other, but some are reviving better than others.

Pittsburgh is the only rustbelt city I have been to where you step foot on public transit and you don't get the feeling "everyone is poor". Instead you get the feeling of diversity and see a mix of everyone including a very large dose of middle class people and actually very well off people. And it transends race, with very professional looking white and black people on all the different services I rode there.

You don't get that in other rust belt cities, where you know everyone on the bus is down and out for the most part.

Pittsburgh just seems to really have risen to the challenge. And last I heard their metro pop was growing. Because the transit improvment study is forcasting growth.

[JackStraw]

What do you mean by old suburbs? Like streetcar suburbs or the 1920s suburbs, such as Shadyside (Pittsburgh)?



Shadyside is far from a suburb man. It is a vibrant inner city neighborhood developed mainly in the 1880s.

Anyways, I read through this thread, because there always seems to be some thread about the rust belt on here. Most of the times they end up with "bull dozer" in the article, and this one has it in the title! Also, everytime they end up with Pittsburgh being a large topic in the thread, and everytime there is one or two people trying to conclude more about the city from simple population facts, and everytime they seem to not fully be aware of what all those statistics mean. Take Lawrenceville, a struggling Pittsburgh neighorhood in the 1980s. Then it had a larger population, however now it is vibrant, coming back with art galleries, restuarants, etc. However, somebody in Canada that never has been here would conclude that it is dying from the stats they see on wikipedia, when they are more than just wrong. Shifting from a industrial giant to a mid-size livable city is going to take drawbacks. Going from rowhomes that use to be filled with a Irish Catholic family stuffed with 10 kids to two hipsters is going to shift population stats. Even my neighborhoods is losing population according to census figures, but if you come to Squirrel Hill, you would not even think of it.

The who American ideology is grow, grow, grow. Boom, boom, boom! I want a small and steady growth in this city, and I feel that it will eventually start in a few years. Our average age among residents has largely equaled out to the rest of the nation, as DBR said, our birth rate is finally coming back, and our death rate is starting to slow down. Our outer immigration rate is lowering also.

[JackStraw]

People keep making this same claim in this thread, but there is aboslutely no evidence of this. If anything, I think it could be argued that Detroit is somewhat healthier than Pittsburgh.

Pittsburgh's population losses are actually greater than those of Detroit. This is a fact, and no amount of anecdotes changes this.

Metropolitan Pittsburgh's population has had constant, uninterrupted population losses for 40 years now. In contrast, metro Detroit has grown in most years.

The fact is that metro Detroit, despite all its ills, has grown (slightly) in population since 2000, while metro Pittsburgh, despite all it's accolades, has shrunk in population since 2000.

Philly is different than Pittsburgh and Detroit in that it's overall population losses are considerably less, but it also has huge suburban swaths in the Northeast and in places like Roxborough that have masked the population decline.

If you look only in pre-sprawl era Philly, the population losses are probably not too far off from either Detroit or Pittsburgh.

The other big difference, of course, is that Center City Philly is healthy and thriving, but this initiative is not dealing with city cores, but the neglected neighborhoods between the core and the suburban fringe.


Jesus man. There is a lot more things that conclude on how a city is doing than just population growth. Take a look at Pittsburgh's job growth, take a look at average salery growth, etc. There is actually a lot of evidence on what he has said too. He is right that majority of Pittsburgh is very well intact, vibrant, but has small pockets of decay within the city. You keep trying to explain how metro regions are doing on nothing but population. Like population growth dictates everything. Sure it is a good tool to look at a regional area, but in Pittsburgh's case it is not the best. The city has largely shifted to white collar jobs, has become a hub for education, diversified it's economy, but lost population. It could have not not diversified, had a large percentage of a uneducated workforce, and had its population shift slightly. I would choose the first option. I want growth again in this metro, and it will happen shortley. Steady and slow is the way to go.

To sum it up; quit trying to conclude things from a simple fact. Facts can be interpreted in many ways, and skewed as one wants. It doesn't tell the whole story of what is or has happened.

[lawfin]

Less inventory = Less options to buy, and therefore, lower prices


Umm..what??

[lawfin]

Where are you getting your numbers?

Even the MSA has grown:

1920 - 1,407,111
1930 - 2,292,528 - +62.9%
1940 - 2,506,530 - +9.3%
1950 - 3,170,315 - +26.5%
1960 - 3,949,720 - +24.6%
1970 - 4,431,390 - +12.2%
1980 - 4,353,413 - -1.8%
1990 - 4,248,699 - -2.4%
2000 - 4,452,588 - +4.8%

And while the Census Bureau estimates show a dip from the 2004 high of 4,499,091, I don't think it is nearly as severe. The Census Bureau is notoriously inaccurate when it comes to Census estimates, and I wouldn't be surprised if the 2010 data still shows a modest bump from the 2000 numbers.



It seems most boosters always decry the inaccuracy of the CB when it estimates a decline; however this flaw is never mentioned if the estimate is postive

[edmontonenthusiast]

[QUOTE=JackStraw;4306987]Shadyside is far from a suburb man. It is a vibrant inner city neighborhood developed mainly in the 1880s.

(...)[QUOTE]

Sorry I just meant an older urban neighbourhood, I know they're not suburbs in the modern sense, but they're often called streetcar suburbs or due to the massive growth in the 20s, 1920s suburbs, although not as much as streetcar suburbs. Shadyside was just an example of an older Pittsburgh neighbourhood I guess.

[hudkina]

It seems most boosters always decry the inaccuracy of the CB when it estimates a decline; however this flaw is never mentioned if the estimate is postive

If you knew anything about the Census Bureau's track record, you'd understand why. The Census Bureau ALWAYS underestimates older, slow-growing, minority/immigrant-dominated cities. The model that the Census Bureau uses demands that new housing be constructed for any population growth to occur. It also assumes that a certain percentage of older housing is demolished, which hurts many of the oldest cities.

[navyweaxguy]

Ok, jeez we know that Detroit and other rustbelt cities have issues. What other cities did they list in that 50?

[Lecom]

Supply and demand. If you got too much merch on your store's shelves, you need to get rid of it. If there's too much housing stock that sits empty and taxes the infrastructure...

Either way, the headline's dumb.

[JMancuso]

isn't metro detroit actually pretty healthy?

[hudkina]

Suburban Detroit is very healthy. For most "negative" stats, the city proper as well as a few other cities drag the overall numbers down.

[Crawford]

Suburban Detroit is very healthy. For most "negative" stats, the city proper as well as a few other cities drag the overall numbers down.

I wouldn't go quite that far. Suburban Detroit hasn't been doing too well the last few years.

Even places like Oakland County have been struggling, at least relative to past performance.

[10023]

Suburban Detroit is very healthy. For most "negative" stats, the city proper as well as a few other cities drag the overall numbers down.

I thought the Pointes were in (relative) decline at this point, etc.?

[sharkfood]

That sort of drop sounds like smaller households, not fewer units.

Nope. Fewer units. Philadelphia has lost as many 60,000 structures, around 10% of its total residential structures.

Incidentally, Philadelphia has an extremely high number of residential structures relative to its population. Its population of 1.5 million lives in about 600,000 structures, whereas the New York's 8 million live in 900,000 structures.

[Crawford]

I thought the Pointes were in (relative) decline at this point, etc.?

They are, but they're not where the money's at anyways.

The big money in Michigan is in Bloomfield Hills and Birmingham, on the other side of the metro area. Grosse Pointe, while still nice, doesn't have much big money nowadays.

Bloomfield Hills is one of the wealthiest towns in the country, and isn't going down anytime soon.

Most top executives live in Bloomfield (including those of GM, Ford and Chrysler), and there are billionaires like Alfred Taubman, who splits time between Bloomfield and Fifth Ave. in New York, and Roger Penske of Penske Automotive (new Saturn owner).