How did American core cities survive the 90's?

Originally Posted by goat314

If I recall correctly, didn't St. Louis just break a local record for building permits issued in history? Over a billion if a recall.

i think you're thinking of this: https://www.stl.news/missouri-news-c...r-2018/150426/

not a billion permits, but a record $1.4 billion in permits for 2018.

a billion permits is a whole lotta permits...

[JManc]

Originally Posted by IWant2BeInSTL

i think you're thinking of this: https://www.stl.news/missouri-news-c...r-2018/150426/

not a billion permits, but a record $1.4 billion in permits for 2018.

a billion permits is a whole lotta permits...

If STL had a billion permits:

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Even on the density front, present-day Detroit is still slightly more densely populated than St. Louis.

Don't think this is true. Based on 2017 pop. prediction for Detroit and 2018 pop. prediction for St. Louis (so even giving St. Louis an extra year of loss) St. Louis still edges ahead of Detroit in pop. density by a few hundred/sq. mi.

[Steely Dan]

with ~60% population declines from peak, detroit and st. louis have certainly suffered some of the worst declines of any major US cities.

that said, the glaring difference that jumps out at me about about their declines is demographics. white flight was much more thorough in detroit, leaving a municipality with a non-hispanic white population of only 10%, whereas in st. louis (another big white flight victim), the non-hispanic white population currently sits at around 43%.

[eschaton]

Early this year, I decided to go back and compare 1950 census data for some rust belt cities to 2010 data in order to compare number of households rather than just population.

Change in household population is far more important in determining how blighted a city is than population change. After all, a significant proportion of municipal population decline is due to falling household size - basically less children. Declining household size can cause population decline in areas with absolutely no abandonment, as long as the number of households is stable. In contrast, if the size of households is actually increasing, it can mask how severe decline is. This was probably true in some parts of Detroit during the initial white flight era, when black families moving into the city were generally a bit larger than white families leaving (there isn't a big gap in black/white family size any longer.

Regardless, quoting from a post elsewhere.

Change in households from 1950-2010 Population decline from 1950 in parentheses

Detroit: -49.9% (-63.6%)
St. Louis: -45.8% (-63.6%)
Cleveland: -37.1% (-57.8%)
Pittsburgh: -30.4% (-55.1%)
Cincinnati: -15.4% (-40.7%)
Milwaukee: 24.1% (-6.6%)

Milwaukee is an outlier in the Rust Belt for two reasons. One, it successfully annexed many of the suburban areas in to the northwest of the city, which meant the city continued to have strong growth through the 50s, not peaking until 1960. Secondly, it revived substantial Latino immigration to its south side which slowed population losses significantly from the 1980s on. I am less sure why Cincinnati has seen relatively low levels of household decline, although it had the second-weakest overall decline in population, and started out in 1950 with relatively small households, which played a role numerically. Pittsburgh's percentage decline in households however was smaller than Cleveland, St. Louis, and Detroit.

Measured another way - the absolute decline in average people per household, Pittsburgh is #1:

Pittsburgh -1.28 per family
Cleveland -1.04
St. Louis -0.94
Cincinnati -0.90
Detroit -0.82
Milwaukee -0.75

Taking into account decline in household sizes, the following proportion of the population decline of each city was due to decline in number of households, rather than number of kids:

Detroit: 56.6%
St. Louis: 46.2%
Cleveland: 40%
Pittsburgh: 27%
Cincinnati: 18.8%
Milwaukee: N/A (household size shrunk, but the number rose).

What I learned from looking at the numbers is I should give Cinci more credit. Still, if you dig down into things it's pretty clear why Pittsburgh ended up in better shape than Cleveland, St. Louis, or Detroit. Out of the roughly 373,000 in decline, all but 100,000 or so of it is attributable to a decline in household size - less kids and more single people - rather than a decline in the number of households.

[Obadno]

Originally Posted by goat314

I find Cleveland to be much more reminiscent of a baby-Detroit than St. Louis. With that said, I think St. Louis has some serious issues for sure but this narrative that is "withering on the vine" while other Rust Belt cities are getting their act together is utter non-sense. If anything, St. Louis would be on the healthier side of the spectrum of post-industrial cities.

If I recall correctly, didn't St. Louis just break a local record for building permits issued in history? Over a billion if a recall. Cortex tech district recently recognized by Brookings as an international model, Medical District booming, tallest residential tower in city under construction, infill popping up in areas that were warzones a decade ago, National Geospatial Agency under construction in near North St. Louis, $300M dumped into riverfront revitalization, solid proposal for Metrolink expansion to North and South City. St. Louis is doing better than most people realize. Again, some REAL challenges but real opportunity as well. I have never seen this much construction in St. Louis in my lifetime.

I like to use this Brooking Institute Map to categorize regions. I think it typecast St. Louis well. Slow growth, but educated and relatively economically stable. They created the map based off of actual census and demographic data.

This map seems a bit outdated, some of the predictions didnt pan out, What does "border growth" Mean? Cities like ABQ and Tucson haven't seen any growth but the Texas Triangle has

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by eschaton

Early this year, I decided to go back and compare 1950 census data for some rust belt cities to 2010 data in order to compare number of households rather than just population.

Universities probably play a major role. Pittsburgh has a relatively small population and relatively large number of large universities, and higher education has been in nonstop boom since WW2, so it makes sense that large student populations have blunted the household decline, while Detroit would be on the other extreme (it has Wayne State, but very few residential students).

Cincy, too, has large residential student population (U of C has 45,000 students). Cleveland, Milwaukee probably don't.

And all households are not created equal. If you lose a taxpaying family and replace with a grad student, there are issues beyond raw population loss.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by IWant2BeInSTL

Don't think this is true. Based on 2017 pop. prediction for Detroit and 2018 pop. prediction for St. Louis (so even giving St. Louis an extra year of loss) St. Louis still edges ahead of Detroit in pop. density by a few hundred/sq. mi.

What you say may be the case but I used the 2010 census numbers to draw that conclusion. As of 2010, Detroit was still slightly more densely populated than StL. There were pretty dramatic differences in estimates of city populations given by the ACS in the lead up to the 2010 census, so I don't really pay attention to the estimates for anything other than an idea of whether a population is increasing or decreasing.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Cleveland, Milwaukee probably don't.

from wikipedia:

Higher education in Milwaukee, Wisconsin is dominated by the University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee on the East Side and Marquette University, located near downtown. Milwaukee is also served by Alverno College, Cardinal Stritch University, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee Area Technical College, Milwaukee Institute of Art and Design, Milwaukee School of Engineering, Mount Mary College, and Wisconsin Lutheran College, Concordia University Wisconsin, (the Mequon Campus), Lakeland College (the West Allis/Milwaukee Campus) collectively giving the city a full-time, degree seeking college student population exceeding approximately 70,000, the largest in Wisconsin.

A January 2000 study from McGill University in Montreal ranked Milwaukee 6th in a list of U.S. and Canadian cities with the highest number of college students per 100 residents.

source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colleg...s_of_Milwaukee

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

from wikipedia:

I'm not referring to college student populations, but non-local college resident households (i.e. grad students, mostly). Commuters won't count, and most undergrads won't count towards household size. In WI, those students are in Madison.

Milwaukee has a large population and no major research universities. Pittsburgh has a small population and Pitt/Carnegie Mellon are major universities that would fit the profile, so household size would be more impacted.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Crawford

I'm not referring to college student populations, but non-local college resident households (i.e. grad students, mostly).

then why did you cite University of Cincinnati's total student enrollment?



UC grad students- 10,800


by comparison, milwaukee has UWM and Marquette:

UWM grad students - 5,600

Marquette grad students - 3,600

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Universities probably play a major role. Pittsburgh has a relatively small population and relatively large number of large universities, and higher education has been in nonstop boom since WW2, so it makes sense that large student populations have blunted the household decline, while Detroit would be on the other extreme (it has Wayne State, but very few residential students).

Cincy, too, has large residential student population (U of C has 45,000 students). Cleveland, Milwaukee probably don't.

And all households are not created equal. If you lose a taxpaying family and replace with a grad student, there are issues beyond raw population loss.

There is no doubt that the universities "saved" Pittsburgh. Although lower profile than Pitt and CMU, Pittsburgh also has Duquesne, Chatham, Carlow, and Point Park University, giving the city a very high concentration of college students. In contrast Pittsburgh doesn't have an "Ann Arbor" like Detroit does. There really are no college towns worth speaking of in the Pittsburgh MSA because the core city captured all the colleges. There's a few small parochial colleges, and some of the low-tier state universities way out in the exurban fringes, but for the most part these schools are too small to give any sort of "college town vibe" to the cities and towns they are in.

[BG918]

Originally Posted by Obadno

This map seems a bit outdated, some of the predictions didnt pan out, What does "border growth" Mean? Cities like ABQ and Tucson haven't seen any growth but the Texas Triangle has

I think overall it paints an accurate picture of city trends even if they are outdated now in 2018. Besides ABQ and Tucson which others did Brookings miss the mark on?

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by Obadno

This map seems a bit outdated, some of the predictions didnt pan out, What does "border growth" Mean? Cities like ABQ and Tucson haven't seen any growth but the Texas Triangle has

My guess is it means cities whose population growth was completely reliant upon Latino (largely Mexican) immigration, but did not otherwise have dynamic economies.

[Buckeye Native 001]

For the record, none of the locals use the shorthand "UofC" when referring to the University of Cincinnati. It's UC.

I still don't know what the hell is a bearcat, though? It's either a bear or a cat. It can't be both.

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by Buckeye Native 001

For the record, none of the locals use the shorthand "UofC" when referring to the University of Cincinnati. It's UC.

I still don't know what the hell is a bearcat, though? It's either a bear or a cat. It can't be both.

[Obadno]

Originally Posted by eschaton

My guess is it means cities whose population growth was completely reliant upon Latino (largely Mexican) immigration, but did not otherwise have dynamic economies.

Well that is completely innacurate and was in 2000 as well.

[Buckeye Native 001]

Originally Posted by eschaton

Looks like the wolverine's hick cousin

[SIGSEGV]

Originally Posted by Buckeye Native 001

For the record, none of the locals use the shorthand "UofC" when referring to the University of Cincinnati. It's UC.

I still don't know what the hell is a bearcat, though? It's either a bear or a cat. It can't be both.

Indeed UofC is the university of Chicago (I should know, I work there).