What cities have shrunk most from the peak?

[The North One]

Originally Posted by Crawford

There is no zip code that is directly coterminous with downtown Detroit, and the Census doesn't even collect wealth data by zip code. So this probably isn't true.

He's referring to this: http://www.mlive.com/news/index.ssf/.../post_107.html

Reported by 2014 tax returns. The average income of Downtown residents was $142,000.

[Docere]

What is Flint doing on that list?

[balletomane]

Liverpool and Manchester could serve as role models for how things could be done correctly for those American cities that have shrunk significantly.
Sure, the socioeconomic climates of each country is/are different, but the theme of de-industrialization played a major role in all of these cities shrinking populations.

Liverpool peaked at 846,000 in 1931, declined to 439,000 in 2001 and has increased to 479,000 as of 2015.

Manchester peaked at 766,000 in 1931, declined to 422,000 in 2001 and has boomed to 530,000 as of 2015.

[The North One]

Originally Posted by Docere

What is Flint doing on that list?

The downtown area is extremely small so I guess UofM Flint administrators are skewing the numbers?

Downtown Flint has actually been doing pretty good recently despite the water crisis. But 2014 was before the water crisis, so there's that to consider.

[skyfan]

Originally Posted by Crawford

We're talking neighborhoods, not downtown. Every big city downtown is at least passably desirable these days.

And there are only something like 5,000 people living downtown, in a region of over 5 million. It's essentially irrelevant, in terms of how people live.


There is no zip code that is directly coterminous with downtown Detroit, and the Census doesn't even collect wealth data by zip code. So this probably isn't true.

That's I said greater downtown I meant neighborhoods like Midtown, Corktown, Woodbridge,etc.

[Docere]

But if you look at Greater Downtown Detroit (7 square miles), the numbers are less impressive:

http://detroitsevenpointtwo.com/reso...ull-Report.pdf

Per capita income is $20,216.

[NorthernDancer]

Originally Posted by Docere

But if you look at Greater Downtown Detroit (7 square miles), the numbers are less impressive:

http://detroitsevenpointtwo.com/reso...ull-Report.pdf

Per capita income is $20,216.

Greater Downtown Detroit is 7.2 SQ. MI. in area. There are 36,550 people or 5,076 people per SQ. MI.

That's not even a particularly high density by suburban standards, never mind the inner-city of the core city of a major metro area.

[The North One]

Originally Posted by NorthernDancer

That's not even a particularly high density by suburban standards, never mind the inner-city of the core city of a major metro area.

The report is from 2013.

[NorthernDancer]

Originally Posted by The North One

The report is from 2013.

I doubt the population is much higher now.

[Docere]

If we make the generous assumption that the population increased about 20% or 44,000, the population density increases to 6000 per square mile.

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by The North One

He's referring to this: http://www.mlive.com/news/index.ssf/.../post_107.html

Reported by 2014 tax returns. The average income of Downtown residents was $142,000.

But if you look at the number of taxpayers reporting above $100,000 in income, it's relatively low (18%) - lower than anywhere on the list but Downtown Flint. Some of this is undoubtedly because there are more single filers and less married couples than the suburban zips listed. But Detroit's numbers are clearly swung upward due to a small number of very high earners and business partnerships - which can be seen as 62% of all reported income was from investments in the zip code. If you didn't take them into account, and looked at median reported taxable income, you would have a much lower number.

[The North One]

^^^
I agree that the numbers are skewed I was just providing the source of info.

Which is obviously why downtown Flint is on there when in reality it's nowhere near the wealthiest places in Michigan.

[NorthernDancer]

Originally Posted by Docere

If we make the generous assumption that the population increased about 20% or 44,000, the population density increases to 6000 per square mile.

There's no way it increased 20% in three years. If it increased it was probably by a few hundred people.

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by balletomane

Liverpool and Manchester could serve as role models for how things could be done correctly for those American cities that have shrunk significantly.
Sure, the socioeconomic climates of each country is/are different, but the theme of de-industrialization played a major role in all of these cities shrinking populations.

Liverpool peaked at 846,000 in 1931, declined to 439,000 in 2001 and has increased to 479,000 as of 2015.

Manchester peaked at 766,000 in 1931, declined to 422,000 in 2001 and has boomed to 530,000 as of 2015.

What about the urban areas? I don't think they have shrunk. I guess it's only Pittsburgh, Buffalo and Genoa. Maybe Glasgow, but it's hard to find detailed data on that.

[balletomane]

Originally Posted by yuriandrade

What about the urban areas? I don't think they have shrunk. I guess it's only Pittsburgh, Buffalo and Genoa. Maybe Glasgow, but it's hard to find detailed data on that.

Manchester went through a period of small decline in its urban area, however its now larger than any point in its history. Liverpool I'm assuming is a similar story.

What's the story with Glasgow? De-industrialization too? It peaked at 1.1 million in the 1930's and is now at 615,000.

[Docere]

Originally Posted by NorthernDancer

There's no way it increased 20% in three years. If it increased it was probably by a few hundred people.

I agree. Again, making an extremely generous assumption in order to show "the 2013 data is out of date and tells us nothing" falls flat even with that assumption.

[ChiSoxRox]

Originally Posted by yuriandrade

What about the urban areas? I don't think they have shrunk. I guess it's only Pittsburgh, Buffalo and Genoa. Maybe Glasgow, but it's hard to find detailed data on that.

Shouldn't Cleveland be there as well? Including Akron and Canton, it's still more than 5% off its peak.

Also, maybe something in Japan? I know the megacities are the only growing parts of Japan but perhaps a smaller metro like Nagano or Sendai is shrinking.

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by ChiSoxRox

Shouldn't Cleveland be there as well? Including Akron and Canton, it's still more than 5% off its peak.

Also, maybe something in Japan? I know the megacities are the only growing parts of Japan but perhaps a smaller metro like Nagano or Sendai is shrinking.

I was thinking of continuous decline. Those three lost population every single decade since 1960-1970. Cleveland peaked in 1970, fell to recover in the 1990's to fall again. Also, they lost much more population than Cleveland.

I thought of Montevideo too, but considering their suburbs growth (Canelones department), they didn't experience losses, but are pretty much stagnant since the 1960's. The brightside for them is that Argentina and Uruguay made their demographic transition as early as Europe, and their TFR stop declining ever since. They had for decades the lowest TFR in Latin America by far. Now they have the one of the highest. A bit like France.

[Crawford]

What about major metros in Eastern Europe and Russia? Most of these countries have had significant population losses. It would be very odd if no metro had losses.

Kiev, for example. The population of Ukraine is down like 20% from historical high. How could Kiev not have population losses, and if not, how could secondary metros not have population losses?

[balletomane]

Originally Posted by Crawford

What about major metros in Eastern Europe and Russia? Most of these countries have had significant population losses. It would be very odd if no metro had losses.

Kiev, for example. The population of Ukraine is down like 20% from historical high. How could Kiev not have population losses, and if not, how could secondary metros not have population losses?

In the case of those Eastern European countries, most of the population decline has been rural and in smaller cities. Most major cities have been stagnant or declined by about 10% at most.