What cities have shrunk most from the peak?

[balletomane]

On a related note, are there any American cities that will join "the club" of cities that have lost 50% of their population from their peak in the coming years?

I think Fort McMurray will be the Canadian contribution, but probably not until ~2050.

[ChiSoxRox]

Saginaw will perhaps be as soon as the 2016 estimates this month (May 25), but after that there's a gap. There is a slew of shrinking cities in the 40 percent range (Charleston, WV, Huntington, WV, Altoona, PA, Binghamton, NY, etc.) but none are on track to cross 50% in the next ten years.

Dayton, Scranton, and Chester, PA are the closest after Saginaw but they are all growing once again so they should all avoid the 50% mark barring a new decline.

[dave8721]

Originally Posted by toddguy

True, but mindless boosterism is hard to resist. I suspect Columbus will pass Indianapolis when the city statistics come out. Indy is basically most of Marion County, and only added about 3500 people, while Franklin(Columbus)added 14,000...Cbus has been getting about two thirds of that recently...and was only about 3500 behind. If it got half of that 14,000 then it goes ahead...will be hard not to be pleased even though it means nothing lol.



I agree there are many that are at peak or slightly above..and San Francisco and Seattle are both above their previous peak as is Portland, Toronto, Miami ...maybe others...but there are few if any that are WAY over their previous peak in the same area. I can't think of any major ones that have, say, doubled their previous peak(except LA as was mentioned)at least in the US.
For any to pass their previous high with the decline in household size is really an achievement.
Toronto would be a good example of one that has really added a lot in a small area.



Yeah I think LA is the big exception that I can think of. It was already over 400 square miles(I think) and much of the San Fernando Valley was annexed and not very developed.

Miami has increased by 77% since 1950. I can't find if the borders are the same or not, but I don't believe that have been any major annexations since then. A good chunk of that population growth occurred during the 1950's with the population stabilizing by 1970 and growth grinding to a near halt in the 70's-2000 before kicking into high gear again post 2000. Constant decent growth can add up to a big % change over 70 years.

City of Miami population added by decade
1910s: +24,100
1920s: +81,066
1930s: +61,535
1940s: +77,104
1950s: +42,412
1960s: +43,171
1970s: +11,822
1980s: +11,867
1990s: +3,922
2000s: +36,987
2010s: +41,546

Large scale Cuban migration in the late 50's early 60's helped stave off the post 1950 population stagnation that probably would have happened had it not been for the surge of immigrants. Whites abandoned the city in droves just like they did in the rest of US but they were more than replaced by waves of Cuban migrants.

[toddguy]

^^I don't think Miami has grown much in area (if at all) since 1950. Was it pretty much all developed then? It has nearly doubled in population since then.

Another one might be Santa Ana, California. It was pretty much built out by 1970, but has more than doubled to 335,000. Big hispanic population for both and large household size for Santa Ana, but not Miami.

Santa Ana: 4.37 per household.
Miami: 2.47 per household.

Not sure if Santa Ana would be considered more of a suburb of LA though....

Maybe Honolulu might qualify also-it really is crammed in there in pretty small space. More than doubled in that same census designated area since around 1950.

Among smaller cities both Spokane and Des Moines seem to have held their populations well with little annexation.

[dave8721]

Originally Posted by toddguy

^^I don't think Miami has grown much in area (if at all) since 1950. Was it pretty much all developed then? It has nearly doubled in population since then.

Another one might be Santa Ana, California. It was pretty much built out by 1970, but has more than doubled to 335,000. Big hispanic population for both and large household size for Santa Ana, but not Miami.

Santa Ana: 4.37 per household.
Miami: 2.47 per household.

Not sure if Santa Ana would be considered more of a suburb of LA though....

Maybe Honolulu might qualify also-it really is crammed in there in pretty small space. More than doubled in that same census designated area since around 1950.

Among smaller cities both Spokane and Des Moines seem to have held their populations well with little annexation.

The large wedge of City of Miami south of the Airport west of 42nd Ave was largely built out in the 1950's. Thats the only post 1950 area of the city that I can find.

[Buckeye Native 001]

Santa Ana is pretty much built out and can't really expand or annex any further (although there's a couple of unincorporated neighborhoods to the east). I think Anaheim overtook it as the largest city in Orange County after the 2010 census, and Irvine might not be too far behind.

It's an LA suburb (most people living in Orange County hate to admit that) but it's the county seat and has a small, walkable downtown It's got a little bit more of an identity than, say, Anaheim (although Anaheim is strictly Disney and sports), Tustin, Yorba Linda or Orange. There's really a night-and-day different between the beach cities (Huntington, Newport, Laguna, et cetera) and northern, inland Orange County. And then there's south Orange County, which is where what people think of stereotypical Orange County is on full display.

[toddguy]

Originally Posted by Buckeye Native 001

Santa Ana is pretty much built out and can't really expand or annex any further (although there's a couple of unincorporated neighborhoods to the east). I think Anaheim overtook it as the largest city in Orange County after the 2010 census, and Irvine might not be too far behind.

It's an LA suburb (most people living in Orange County hate to admit that) but it's the county seat and has a small, walkable downtown It's got a little bit more of an identity than, say, Anaheim (although Anaheim is strictly Disney and sports), Tustin, Yorba Linda or Orange. There's really a night-and-day different between the beach cities (Huntington, Newport, Laguna, et cetera) and northern, inland Orange County. And then there's south Orange County, which is where what people think of stereotypical Orange County is on full display.

I was in California in the 70's and I think it was pretty much built out then. I don't think it has expanded much since then in area has it? I know Anaheim annexed the Anaheim Hills area and built that up, but I think Santa Ana is still the same 27 or so square miles it was in the 70's..i think it may have densified and definitely has become majority hispanic since then. That household size is high for the US. Back then Escondido, Oceanside, etc. were small towns.

[Buckeye Native 001]

Yeah, I'm pretty sure it was about the same size when I lived in Orange County from 2002 to 2007. It's dense, for suburbia at least (and might be the "most urban" part of Orange County, but don't quote me on that) and is very much majority Latino.

There's a couple of cities that are built out ("dense suburbia" if that means anything?) such as Garden Grove, Westminster (both of which have large Vietnamese communities) and the older parts of Anaheim around Disneyland, which were nothing but orange groves sixty years ago. It's all mostly suburbia but Santa Ana (in a way that can't really be quantified) has the most-urban feel to it of all the northern, inland cities of Orange County. That might be in part to all of the governmental buildings and a couple of blocks of urbanity (Artist's Village?), which is more than what you'd get in a place like the City of Orange, which just has the traffic circle and shops around Chapman Avenue and Glassell Street (the majority of those were antique shops when I lived there, it's all hipster bars and restaurants now).

Hell, Santa Ana even tried to market itself in the mid-2000's as "Downtown Orange County" (you could see that slogan on a water tower just off the 5 between the Main Street and Grand Avenue exits), whatever the hell that meant

[pdxtex]

Originally Posted by yuriandrade

Why is that? Why there are so many cities in US that create such negative feelings in their inhabitants and visitors? I can't think of anything like that elsewhere.

*opens enormous can of worms* because...... A) we have a perpetual underclass that doesn't seem to be improving its situation much and at the same time. B) we still have a working class, white majority that is at odds with coastal elite policy makers. And working class people perpetually feel they are getting screwed at the hands of opportunists and leaders that spend their money ineffectively. i guarantee that unless the left changes their stance, and stops playing the victim, that this country will keep electing conservative leadership. C) America is really three countries. blue america, red america, and centrist purple america which makes up most of the upper midwest and parts of the east or by some estimates, 51% of the entire country. so if you don't have joe bowler's ear, you might be in trouble. D) so as centropolis said, its our brand of capitalism, isn't that far from the truth. were not very communal as a country, nor is the civic safety net very good for this reason. if you can't work, then you are mostly shit out of luck (lets not even get into our dearth of mental health treatment options) E) in conclusion,.....we have social justice policy makers who still think were living in the 1960s. centrists have come on board with social tolerance and are tired being told they are a bunch racists for simply disagreeing with liberal leadership. all of this transcends into dysfunctional urban microcosms. liberal cities full of either rich elites and poor people ringed by hostile suburbs and finally conservative state capitals at odds with the liberal big cities! America's culture is money. those that have it seem to get along with each other, those that don't have it. some are willing to work hard, others seem content living off the government.....its a mess!

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by balletomane

On a related note, are there any American cities that will join "the club" of cities that have lost 50% of their population from their peak in the coming years?

I think Fort McMurray will be the Canadian contribution, but probably not until ~2050.

If oil had stayed in the $30 range, Williston, ND might have joined Ft. McMurray. Having grown from just under 15,000 people in 2010 to just under 27,000 in 2015, it might well have sunk 50%. But companes can make money fracking the Bakken Shale at $50/barrell so Williston seems safe for now. Oil extraction from tar sands seems at the bottom of the heap or ways to get oil, though, both in terms of environmental damage and economic effiiency. So prices might have to recover a lot further to save Ft. McMurray.

[balletomane]

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

If oil had stayed in the $30 range, Williston, ND might have joined Ft. McMurray. Having grown from just under 15,000 people in 2010 to just under 27,000 in 2015, it might well have sunk 50%. But companes can make money fracking the Bakken Shale at $50/barrell so Williston seems safe for now. Oil extraction from tar sands seems at the bottom of the heap or ways to get oil, though, both in terms of environmental damage and economic effiiency. So prices might have to recover a lot further to save Ft. McMurray.

I think the Canadian oil industry needs something like $60/bbl to really be effecient and sustainable which we probably won't see until 2018. As awful as last year's fire was for the city, it's actually helping a bit during the downturn because it's created a construction boom.
I believe the city had 78,000 residents before the fire and currently has 73,500. Considering the fire destroyed about 15% of the city's infrastructure, and the effects of the downturn, a less than 10% decline in population isn't too bad.
I think the city is anticipating 1-3% growth annually over the next few years, down from about 4-7% annually before the downturn in oil prices. Positive annual growth and the need to rebuild after the fire I believe is anticipated to create 9,000 construction jobs.
Should sustain the community even if the downturn lasts longer than expected.

[The North One]

It's weird, when I think of Toronto and Chicago I view them as similar sized sister-cities, Toronto feels just as big as Chicago when you're there but they're actually very different sizes. Chicagoland has about 9.5 million people whereas Greater Toronto has 6.4 million. Even with Toronto's rapid growth it still won't be near the size of Chicago until decades from now if it continues.

[north 42]

Originally Posted by The North One

It's weird, when I think of Toronto and Chicago I view them as similar sized sister-cities, Toronto feels just as big as Chicago when you're there but they're actually very different sizes. Chicagoland has about 9.5 million people whereas Greater Toronto has 6.4 million. Even with Toronto's rapid growth it still won't be near the size of Chicago until decades from now if it continues.

The Greater Golden Horseshoe is around 9M or so now, so its close, but Chicago is still bigger than Toronto for now.

[The North One]

Originally Posted by north 42

The Greater Golden Horseshoe is around 9M or so now, so its close, but Chicago is still bigger than Toronto for now.

Hmm, that's interesting and explains a lot, how much larger is the Horseshoe by area than Chicagoland?

[north 42]

Originally Posted by The North One

Hmm, that's interesting and explains a lot, how much larger is the Horseshoe by area than Chicagoland?

I think the Golden Horseshoe and Chicagoland are close in size, and the GGH just slightly larger in area.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Horseshoe

[Steely Dan]

this is about as close to an apples to apples comparison as we're likely gonna get:

Chicago Urban Area - 8,608,208 people - 2,443 sq. miles (2010)

Greater Toronto Area - 6,417,516 people - 2,751 sq. miles (2016)



but chicago vs. toronto metro area dick-measuring taffy pulls are so very 2002.

what's ACTUALLY interesting about chicago and toronto is that the #2 and #3 skylines in north america are on the shores of some big lakes in the interior of the continent as opposed to the highly touted, much-vaunted (dare i say over-hyped?) coastal regions.

whoops, that last part should probably go in the unpopular opinions thread.

[softee]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

this is about as close to an apples to apples comparison as we're likely gonna get:

Chicago Urban Area - 8,608,208 people - 2,443 sq. miles (2010)

Greater Toronto Area - 6,417,516 people - 2,751 sq. miles (2016)



but chicago vs. toronto metro area dick-measuring taffy pulls are so very 2002.

what's ACTUALLY interesting about chicago and toronto is that the #2 and #3 skylines in north america are on the shores of some giant lakes in the interior of the continent as opposed to the highly touted, much-vaunted (dare i say over-hyped?) coastal regions.

whoops, that last sentence should probably go in the unpopular opinions thread.

I certainly don't want to bring back those old internet battles of yore, but that's not really apples to apples because it's comparing Chicago's urban area population and (strictly built-up) land area to Toronto's Greater Metropolitan area (excluding Hamilton) which includes huge swaths of undeveloped land.

Demographia's 2017 world urban areas definitions is more apples to apples IMO.

Chicago, IL-IN-WI
pop. 9,140,000
land area 6,856 (km2)
urban density (/km2) 1,300

Toronto, ON (includes Hamilton)
pop. 6,530,000
land area 2,300 (km2)
urban density (/km2) 2,800

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o..._by_population

By population and continuously built-up area, Chicago is clearly larger. The Greater Golden Horseshoe is about 9.4 million now in a similar land area to Chicagoland, but compared to Chicagoland, the GGH is much less continuously built-up. Chicagoland (pop. 9.9 million) has about 750,000 people in areas beyond the continuously built-up urban area, while the GGH (9.4 million) has over 2.8 million people beyond the continuous urban area. I doubt that those undeveloped gaps in the GGH will ever be urbanized since much of that land consists of protected greenbelt.

[Leo the Dog]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

what's ACTUALLY interesting about chicago and toronto is that the #2 and #3 skylines in north america are on the shores of some big lakes in the interior of the continent as opposed to the highly touted, much-vaunted (dare i say over-hyped?) coastal regions.

And of those two, Chicago dominates as it utilizes it's lakefront better than Toronto's. The lakefront abutting Toronto looks like a lagoon compared to Chi.

Shots fired!

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by softee

I certainly don't want to bring back those old internet battles of yore, but that's not really apples to apples because it's comparing Chicago's urban area population and (strictly built-up) land area to Toronto's Greater Metropolitan area (excluding Hamilton) which includes huge swaths of undeveloped land.

thanks for clearing that up, i was just trying to find measurements that used approximately the same land area for the two because the way that the US census bureau mashes together counties to form MSA's and CSA's WILDLY exaggerates the land area stats of US metro areas.

people read the stat that the chicago CSA is over 10,000 sq. miles in land area and they are like "OMG!!!!! that's so fucking huge! chicagoland is like the size of the moon or something!", without realizing that ~70% of that land area is literally just corn fields in a dozen surrounding sparsely-populated rural counties that send a handful of commuters into chicago to meet the bureau's commuter % threshold. the census bureau's Urban Area definition gives a profoundly more accurate picture of how big chicagoland really is in terms of where people actually live.

[Docere]

As a Torontonian, I really don't care that the GGH doesn't meet the commuting threshold (in fact that's probably a good thing). It does nothing for the stature of the city so I couldn't care less if the metro is "only" 6-7 million instead of 9 million.