HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #161  
Old Posted May 10, 2017, 1:58 AM
LMich's Avatar
LMich LMich is offline
Midwest Moderator - Editor
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Big Mitten
Posts: 30,172
Quote:
Originally Posted by NorthernDancer View Post
There's no way it increased 20% in three years. If it increased it was probably by a few hundred people.
Are you talking about central Detroit? A study found late last year that the population of Midtown, alone, has gone from 14,550 at the 2010 Census to an estimated 20,600 as of late last year. What we'll find at the 2020 Census I do not know, but it thousands not hundreds. They can't building housing quickly enough and it's been thousands of units in Midtown, alone. I don't think people from the outside understand the scope and scale of the redevelopment in the inner-city. This isn't some blind boosterism.
__________________
Where the trees are the right height
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #162  
Old Posted May 10, 2017, 8:02 AM
NorthernDancer NorthernDancer is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 584
Quote:
Originally Posted by LMich View Post
Are you talking about central Detroit? A study found late last year that the population of Midtown, alone, has gone from 14,550 at the 2010 Census to an estimated 20,600 as of late last year. What we'll find at the 2020 Census I do not know, but it thousands not hundreds. They can't building housing quickly enough and it's been thousands of units in Midtown, alone. I don't think people from the outside understand the scope and scale of the redevelopment in the inner-city. This isn't some blind boosterism.
Is what you are saying actually supported by census tract estimates from the annual American Community Survey? That's done every year, not just once a decade.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #163  
Old Posted May 10, 2017, 11:08 AM
Crawford Crawford is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NYC/Polanco, DF
Posts: 13,443
Quote:
Originally Posted by LMich View Post
Are you talking about central Detroit? A study found late last year that the population of Midtown, alone, has gone from 14,550 at the 2010 Census to an estimated 20,600 as of late last year.
Per the U.S. Census there has been barely any housing construction in Detroit over the last few years.

I doubt there are "thousands" of new units for the entire city, over the last 30 years, to say nothing of downtown recently.

Of course, there could still be robust population growth absent new units, but this would assume that people are crowding into existing units. That sounds extremely unlikely unless we're talking some immigrant wave or extreme Hong Kong-style housing market.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #164  
Old Posted May 10, 2017, 1:40 PM
eschaton eschaton is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 1,444
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crawford View Post
Per the U.S. Census there has been barely any housing construction in Detroit over the last few years.

I doubt there are "thousands" of new units for the entire city, over the last 30 years, to say nothing of downtown recently.

Of course, there could still be robust population growth absent new units, but this would assume that people are crowding into existing units. That sounds extremely unlikely unless we're talking some immigrant wave or extreme Hong Kong-style housing market.
American Community Survey numbers down at the Census tract level can be wildly inaccurate. The census only counts units if a city bothers to report the numbers to the Census, which many cities fail to do with any regularity.

Here in Pittsburgh, there's an old warehouse area (the Strip District) which had only around 600 people in 2010. The census still reports the population in the 600-700 range. This is absolutely wrong, because since 2010 the neighborhood has had over 400 apartment units added (with more to come), along with three different condo buildings which have somewhere in the range of 110 units in total (some of these could be absentee/investors of course).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #165  
Old Posted May 11, 2017, 1:03 AM
animatedmartian's Avatar
animatedmartian animatedmartian is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 2,357
Quote:
Originally Posted by NorthernDancer View Post
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NorthernDancer View Post
There's no way it increased 20% in three years. If it increased it was probably by a few hundred people.
Keep in mind this area has predominately non-residential uses. The residential population is only 35,000 but the employment population is upwards of 135,0000; 66,000 in the CBD, and 59,000 in Midtown.

With this in mind, there was a housing incentive put in place for employees who did not already live in Downtown or Midtown to make the move. From 2011 to 2014, the incentives managed to attracted more than 1500 new residents into the area (that number rose to 2500 by 2016). That doesn't include housing built by Wayne State to house an increasing number of students who are choosing to live on-campus.

In 2016 alone, something like 1,600 new units were built. Which by the way, doesn't include renovated properties. Close to 2,000 units were renovated between 2010 and 2014 (there were 1200 new units in the same time period).

So in about a 4 year time period, the greater downtown Detroit area saw about 3200 new residences maintaining a 98% occupancy rate for that whole time. Assuming maybe only 1 and a half people move into a new/renovated unit and assuming 98% get occupied, you can still get about 4,000 new residents. 1,000 new residents per year isn't that hard to achieve.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #166  
Old Posted May 11, 2017, 2:08 AM
PoshSteve's Avatar
PoshSteve PoshSteve is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Cleveland OH!
Posts: 122
Quote:
Originally Posted by balletomane View Post
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.
Most of the large cities in Russia have rebounded (the national population is growing again too btw). The rural areas and smaller cities and towns have declined severely though. After the turmoil of the 90's, where the country was essentially third world, migration patterns began to resemble those of a developing African country, where the largest city attracted migrants from the countryside, and large numbers from the other former Soviet states. Moscow increased from 8.9M in 1998 to 12.2M in 2015 (estimated at 15M or so today if you count undocumented residents). All of the other largest cities declined in the 90's, but have been growing again lately, with many reaching new highs. Nizhny Novgorod is the only notable exception, posting continued decline ever since 1989, declining from 1.44M to 1.25M today. It went from the third largest city in Russia to being fifth now behind Moscow, St Petersburg, Novosibirsk and Yekaterinburg.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #167  
Old Posted May 11, 2017, 2:13 AM
balletomane balletomane is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 367
Is Detroit the only city in world history to lose 1 million people or more?
There are probably some ancient cities (like Ancient Rome) that grew to quite a large size of around 1 million, but Detroit I assume is the only city to ever lose over 1 million people.

Chicago would maybe join it in the 2020 census if it loses about 100,000 residents. The US Census Bureau has estimated that the City of Chicago has grown slightly from the 2010 census, but the estimates aren't always correct, especially with shrinking cities. Detroit is evidence of this when its 2009 population estimate was 822,000, only for the 2010 census to reveal a population 100,000 less than that.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #168  
Old Posted May 11, 2017, 2:25 AM
PoshSteve's Avatar
PoshSteve PoshSteve is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Cleveland OH!
Posts: 122
Quote:
Originally Posted by balletomane View Post
Is Detroit the only city in world history to lose 1 million people or more?
There are probably some ancient cities (like Ancient Rome) that grew to quite a large size of around 1 million, but Detroit I assume is the only city to ever lose over 1 million people.

Chicago would maybe join it in the 2020 census if it loses about 100,000 residents. The US Census Bureau has estimated that the City of Chicago has grown slightly from the 2010 census, but the estimates aren't always correct, especially with shrinking cities. Detroit is evidence of this when its 2009 population estimate was 822,000, only for the 2010 census to reveal a population 100,000 less than that.
During the Siege of Leningrad in WWII, that city went from just over 3M in 1939 to 550k by 1944. Kiev was close, going from 980k in 1940 to 180k in 1943. I'm sure there were other cities in Asia in WWII that were similar, but I dont know off hand.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #169  
Old Posted May 11, 2017, 10:58 AM
Crawford Crawford is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NYC/Polanco, DF
Posts: 13,443
In Germany, Berlin, Leipzig and Dresden are almost certainly smaller than in past years. I imagine the same is true for most of the Ruhr cities.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #170  
Old Posted May 11, 2017, 2:01 PM
MonkeyRonin's Avatar
MonkeyRonin MonkeyRonin is offline
¥ ¥ ¥
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Toronto
Posts: 5,660
Quote:
Originally Posted by balletomane View Post
Is Detroit the only city in world history to lose 1 million people or more?
There are probably some ancient cities (like Ancient Rome) that grew to quite a large size of around 1 million, but Detroit I assume is the only city to ever lose over 1 million people.

As per Muppet's post earlier in the thread, London peaked at 8.7 million in 1939 and fell to as low as 6.4 million in the 1980s. It's since rebounded though and is now at its new peak population - but that period remains probably the biggest non-wartime population loss ever seen.
__________________
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #171  
Old Posted May 12, 2017, 12:01 AM
niwell's Avatar
niwell niwell is offline
you go on ahead
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Parkdale, Toronto
Posts: 7,246
London is an interesting case - although there certainly was a fair amount of decay there was a concerted effort in the post-war years to "decentralize" the metro area and decrease the population within the greenbelt. 1939 London at 8.7 million was probably a much more overcrowded place than the 2017 version. Though certainly more affordable...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #172  
Old Posted May 12, 2017, 12:09 AM
balletomane balletomane is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 367
I'm not sure if Venice has been mentioned yet, but hasn't the historic city declined from about 175,000 in 1950 to 55,000 today?
If so, that's probably the largest decrease for a modern city that peaked over 100,000 that is still declining, about a 70% decline.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #173  
Old Posted May 12, 2017, 12:34 AM
Shawn Shawn is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Tokyo
Posts: 4,495
Quote:
Originally Posted by balletomane View Post
Is Detroit the only city in world history to lose 1 million people or more?
There are probably some ancient cities (like Ancient Rome) that grew to quite a large size of around 1 million, but Detroit I assume is the only city to ever lose over 1 million people.
You're right about Rome - it went from about 1.2 million around 200 CE to about 35,000 after the Gothic War (~540 CE).
__________________
“You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your informed opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant.”
Harlan Ellison
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #174  
Old Posted May 12, 2017, 1:10 AM
Crawford Crawford is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NYC/Polanco, DF
Posts: 13,443
Quote:
Originally Posted by balletomane View Post
I'm not sure if Venice has been mentioned yet, but hasn't the historic city declined from about 175,000 in 1950 to 55,000 today?
If so, that's probably the largest decrease for a modern city that peaked over 100,000 that is still declining, about a 70% decline.
The historic core has shrunk big-time, but I think the city overall has grown. The majority of Venetians live in modern districts on the mainland.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #175  
Old Posted May 12, 2017, 11:16 AM
balletomane balletomane is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 367
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crawford View Post
The historic core has shrunk big-time, but I think the city overall has grown. The majority of Venetians live in modern districts on the mainland.
According to Venipedia,
http://www.venipedia.org/wiki/index....e=Demographics

The municipality peaked at 368,000 in 1968.
In 2014 it was estimated at 265,000.
Not as notable a decline as the historic core, but it will likely keep falling.
I think wealthy foreigners are buying properties in Venice as a vacation home, pushing prices up and Venetians out of the city.
On top of that, historic Venice is slowly sinking, so unless some engineering marvel can save an entire island, by 2050, there might not be much left of the city.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #176  
Old Posted May 12, 2017, 1:45 PM
eschaton eschaton is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 1,444
Quote:
Originally Posted by balletomane View Post
On top of that, historic Venice is slowly sinking, so unless some engineering marvel can save an entire island, by 2050, there might not be much left of the city.
The subsidence slowed down dramatically once they stopped pumping up groundwater from beneath the city. It's only sinking at a rate of 1-2 millimeters per year now. Sea level rise will hurt it long before subsidence.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #177  
Old Posted May 12, 2017, 2:20 PM
Leo the Dog's Avatar
Leo the Dog Leo the Dog is offline
registered user
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: The Lower-48
Posts: 4,782
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crawford View Post
In Germany, Berlin, Leipzig and Dresden are almost certainly smaller than in past years. I imagine the same is true for most of the Ruhr cities.
Yeah I was looking at cities that experienced war/conflict which brought me to Berlin. Not sure how they're measuring the population, but it appears that Berlin is still below it's peak population of 1939.

1939: 4,338,756
2010: 3,460,725

I wonder how large of a drop of Japanese and Chinese cities we'll see this century.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #178  
Old Posted May 12, 2017, 3:34 PM
mhays mhays is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 15,516
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crawford View Post
Per the U.S. Census there has been barely any housing construction in Detroit over the last few years.

I doubt there are "thousands" of new units for the entire city, over the last 30 years, to say nothing of downtown recently.

Of course, there could still be robust population growth absent new units, but this would assume that people are crowding into existing units. That sounds extremely unlikely unless we're talking some immigrant wave or extreme Hong Kong-style housing market.
Sometimes you seem to limit options to the ones you think of in the first few seconds.

Detroit has had a lot of vacant housing. (You can look that up!) Filling empty units can do quite a bit.

I don't know how large that effect has been in Midtown but I bet it's a substantial percentage of its growth.

It's also a factor in many other cities' 2010 vs. 2017 statuses. Vacancy rates were often huge in 2010.
__________________
"Everyday" as one word just means "ordinary." "Every day" as two words is about frequency.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #179  
Old Posted May 12, 2017, 3:38 PM
ChargerCarl's Avatar
ChargerCarl ChargerCarl is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Los Angeles/San Francisco
Posts: 2,195
Quote:
Originally Posted by balletomane View Post
Is Detroit the only city in world history to lose 1 million people or more?
There are probably some ancient cities (like Ancient Rome) that grew to quite a large size of around 1 million, but Detroit I assume is the only city to ever lose over 1 million people.

Chicago would maybe join it in the 2020 census if it loses about 100,000 residents. The US Census Bureau has estimated that the City of Chicago has grown slightly from the 2010 census, but the estimates aren't always correct, especially with shrinking cities. Detroit is evidence of this when its 2009 population estimate was 822,000, only for the 2010 census to reveal a population 100,000 less than that.
How many people has Aleppo in Syria lost? They could be over a million.
__________________
This Machine Kills NIMBYs
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #180  
Old Posted May 13, 2017, 1:31 AM
balletomane balletomane is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 367
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChargerCarl View Post
How many people has Aleppo in Syria lost? They could be over a million.
I think Aleppo has only lost ~500,000, which seems surprisingly low considering the turmoil of the last 6 years.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:45 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.