Cities Losing People After '90s Influx

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Why did you capitalize 'Minneapolis'

Because *someone* who constantly extols the virtues of that city is, in fact, demonstrating the major reason why families w/ kids are leaving the place.

I guess that woul dbe refering to me.  Oh well, I still have faith in the area and Minnesota as a whole.

ha ha, um, no. I thought it would've been blatantly obvious to everyone here. I actually knew why Minneapolis was bolded after only the first post, to give a hint

[Cubby]

I don't believe these figures. The census data tends to under-report people in the cities. In the 90's, they estimated much larger losses in hundreds of cities then actually occured, and they estimated a loss in Chicago...which actually gained population.

You're absolutely right. I remember the Census Bureau said that New York City would have about 7.5 million in people in 2000, it ended up with exactly 8 Million! How do you miss 500,000 people?

Their bad judgement extends to Connecticut too. For the entire 1990's they said we were having a population loss, then the numbers in 2000 show that every county gained population, and we had grown by 120,000 (only DC, ND, WV and PA grew at a slower rate though )

I don't expect them to be right all the time, but the Bureau has made some terrible judgements in recent years. Another example- in 1999 they said the USA had 273 million people, the official numbers next year showed 281 million. Thats a spectacular miscalculation.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I don't believe these figures. The census data tends to under-report people in the cities. In the 90's, they estimated much larger losses in hundreds of cities then actually occured, and they estimated a loss in Chicago...which actually gained population.

You're absolutely right. I remember the Census Bureau said that New York City would have about 7.5 million in people in 2000, it ended up with exactly 8 Million! How do you miss 500,000 people?

Their bad judgement extends to Connecticut too. For the entire 1990's they said we were having a population loss, then the numbers in 2000 show that every county gained population, and we had grown by 120,000 (only DC, ND, WV and PA grew at a slower rate though )

I don't expect them to be right all the time, but the Bureau has made some terrible judgements in recent years. Another example- in 1999 they said the USA had 273 million people, the official numbers next year showed 281 million. Thats a spectacular miscalculation.

The 2000 census counted a higher percentage of people than the 1990 census. However, a lot of people weren't counted, and big cities got screwed when the Republicans and Bush adminstration blocked apportionment, redistricting based upon that data, or even releasing the data. I guess they like not counting poor minorities in big cities.

[muon2]

I don't believe these figures. The census data tends to under-report people in the cities. In the 90's, they estimated much larger losses in hundreds of cities then actually occured, and they estimated a loss in Chicago...which actually gained population.

You're absolutely right. I remember the Census Bureau said that New York City would have about 7.5 million in people in 2000, it ended up with exactly 8 Million! How do you miss 500,000 people?

Their bad judgement extends to Connecticut too. For the entire 1990's they said we were having a population loss, then the numbers in 2000 show that every county gained population, and we had grown by 120,000 (only DC, ND, WV and PA grew at a slower rate though )

I don't expect them to be right all the time, but the Bureau has made some terrible judgements in recent years. Another example- in 1999 they said the USA had 273 million people, the official numbers next year showed 281 million. Thats a spectacular miscalculation.

The 2000 census counted a higher percentage of people than the 1990 census. However, a lot of people weren't counted, and big cities got screwed when the Republicans and Bush adminstration blocked apportionment, redistricting based upon that data, or even releasing the data. I guess they like not counting poor minorities in big cities.

The Supreme Court blocked the use of that data for apportionment on Jan 25, 1999. Bush had nothing to do with it. Don't confuse that with the release of data for states to use for their own districting questions. That was indeed a Census Bureau decision made by April 1, 2001 during Bush's Administration.

[Cashcow]

I am interested to know if there are any suburbs losing people

Heboken, NJ has far fewer people than the maximum it ever had.  Of course it's an inner suburb. However, if you take a liberal view of what an outer suburb is, you can find some areas thare are declining. Upstate NY would be a good place to look.

Hoboken is NOT a suburb. It is very urban and essentially part of Jersey City. It's also a miserable place to live, as with most of North Jersey.

[muon2]

I am interested to know if there are any suburbs losing people

Heboken, NJ has far fewer people than the maximum it ever had.  Of course it's an inner suburb. However, if you take a liberal view of what an outer suburb is, you can find some areas thare are declining. Upstate NY would be a good place to look.

Hoboken is NOT a suburb. It is very urban and essentially part of Jersey City. It's also a miserable place to live, as with most of North Jersey.

It is and it isn't. You've hit on an important idea. Our definition of suburb has become dated. Technically it still means any community not contained in the central city. A century ago, as suburbs urbanized, they became annexed to the central city. With a few exceptions (eg. Indianapolis, Louisville), central cities don't annex near suburbs anymore.

Even so, the inner municipalties in many areas were founded over 100 years ago. They have aged to the point where they have many of the same qualities as the adjacent parts of the central city. You could call them "urban suburbs", though "inner ring surburbs" is the usual term.

[Storebought]

I am interested to know if there are any suburbs losing people

Heboken, NJ has far fewer people than the maximum it ever had.  Of course it's an inner suburb. However, if you take a liberal view of what an outer suburb is, you can find some areas thare are declining. Upstate NY would be a good place to look.

Hoboken is NOT a suburb. It is very urban and essentially part of Jersey City. It's also a miserable place to live, as with most of North Jersey.

It is and it isn't. You've hit on an important idea. Our definition of suburb has become dated. Technically it still means any community not contained in the central city. A century ago, as suburbs urbanized, they became annexed to the central city. With a few exceptions (eg. Indianapolis, Louisville), central cities don't annex near suburbs anymore.

Even so, the inner municipalties in many areas were founded over 100 years ago. They have aged to the point where they have many of the same qualities as the adjacent parts of the central city. You could call them "urban suburbs", though "inner ring surburbs" is the usual term.

In Hoboken's case, that town is basically as old as New York City is. Same goes for Newark, founded by Puritans in 1660s, and Paterson, the brainchild of Alex Hamilton in 1790-something.

[muon2]

I am interested to know if there are any suburbs losing people

Heboken, NJ has far fewer people than the maximum it ever had.  Of course it's an inner suburb. However, if you take a liberal view of what an outer suburb is, you can find some areas thare are declining. Upstate NY would be a good place to look.

Hoboken is NOT a suburb. It is very urban and essentially part of Jersey City. It's also a miserable place to live, as with most of North Jersey.

It is and it isn't. You've hit on an important idea. Our definition of suburb has become dated. Technically it still means any community not contained in the central city. A century ago, as suburbs urbanized, they became annexed to the central city. With a few exceptions (eg. Indianapolis, Louisville), central cities don't annex near suburbs anymore.

Even so, the inner municipalties in many areas were founded over 100 years ago. They have aged to the point where they have many of the same qualities as the adjacent parts of the central city. You could call them "urban suburbs", though "inner ring surburbs" is the usual term.

In Hoboken's case, that town is basically as old as New York City is. Same goes for Newark, founded by Puritans in 1660s, and Paterson, the brainchild of Alex Hamilton in 1790-something.

Newark has the advantage of being considered a separate urban center. I've never heard it called a suburb.

[bgwah]

Those are census estimates and they have been known to make mistakes.

There is a reason so many cities are losing people. In more than a few cities, people will see dozens of new condominium buildings being constructed (buildings on parking lots or much larger than the buildings they replaced) and will naturally assume that the city's population is rising. However, all of these housing units are targeted to rich retirees, dinks, and empty nesters. There has been no real effort in the United States to make city-living more appealing to families. An apartment complex full of poor families will be destroyed for a condo highrise, but the spacious luxury condos do not house as many people as small apartments for lower income families. Families are still leaving the city, and the suburbs are still viewed as the ideal place to raise a family.

Residential highrises with units large enough to comfortably raise a family (1500 - 2500 square feet) and have a cost (depending on the city, probably $250,000-$500,000) that can compete with new houses in the exurbs cannot be profitably built. It may be possible to construct a building at a low enough price, but because most cities do not have enough land zoned for this type of construction, it is not possible. It just can't be done when only a little bit of land (usually the downtown) can have this type of building built, and when there isn't much land left anyway, driving up the cost of the land to the tens of millions. There aren't many of these buildings being built, and there is more demand than there is supply, driving up the cost for a large apartment unit to the millions.

If families are really going to consider moving to the city, the first step is make it so an apartment with the same square footage as your typical suburban house doesn't cost ten times as much! Infact, they should be cheaper. Add the lure of being able to walk to most of your basic needs and destinations and the probablity of being near mass transit will eliminate the need for two or more vehicles, a signifcant cost burden.

That and of course making sure inner city schools (or where ever construction like this is taking place) can compete with the suburban schools.

Hmm, that was a long post.

[A18]

Ask yourself, is reproducing really worth the commute?

LOL.  I's sworn off dignifying your posts, but that really is a good line.

Um, how?

[minionofmidas]

I don't believe these figures. The census data tends to under-report people in the cities. In the 90's, they estimated much larger losses in hundreds of cities then actually occured, and they estimated a loss in Chicago...which actually gained population.

You're absolutely right. I remember the Census Bureau said that New York City would have about 7.5 million in people in 2000, it ended up with exactly 8 Million! How do you miss 500,000 people?

Their bad judgement extends to Connecticut too. For the entire 1990's they said we were having a population loss, then the numbers in 2000 show that every county gained population, and we had grown by 120,000 (only DC, ND, WV and PA grew at a slower rate though )

I don't expect them to be right all the time, but the Bureau has made some terrible judgements in recent years. Another example- in 1999 they said the USA had 273 million people, the official numbers next year showed 281 million. Thats a spectacular miscalculation.

The 2000 census counted a higher percentage of people than the 1990 census. However, a lot of people weren't counted, and big cities got screwed when the Republicans and Bush adminstration blocked apportionment, redistricting based upon that data, or even releasing the data. I guess they like not counting poor minorities in big cities.

The Supreme Court blocked the use of that data for apportionment on Jan 25, 1999. Bush had nothing to do with it. Don't confuse that with the release of data for states to use for their own districting questions. That was indeed a Census Bureau decision made by April 1, 2001 during Bush's Administration.

The Census Bureau concluded that, unlike in 1990, they got it right, and to try an estimate of how many people were "really" there was not worth it - they'd already counted virtually everybody.

[Cubby]

I don't believe these figures. The census data tends to under-report people in the cities. In the 90's, they estimated much larger losses in hundreds of cities then actually occured, and they estimated a loss in Chicago...which actually gained population.

You're absolutely right. I remember the Census Bureau said that New York City would have about 7.5 million in people in 2000, it ended up with exactly 8 Million! How do you miss 500,000 people?

Their bad judgement extends to Connecticut too. For the entire 1990's they said we were having a population loss, then the numbers in 2000 show that every county gained population, and we had grown by 120,000 (only DC, ND, WV and PA grew at a slower rate though )

I don't expect them to be right all the time, but the Bureau has made some terrible judgements in recent years. Another example- in 1999 they said the USA had 273 million people, the official numbers next year showed 281 million. Thats a spectacular miscalculation.

The 2000 census counted a higher percentage of people than the 1990 census. However, a lot of people weren't counted, and big cities got screwed when the Republicans and Bush adminstration blocked apportionment, redistricting based upon that data, or even releasing the data. I guess they like not counting poor minorities in big cities.

Your last sentence is absolutely right. But Muon is also right that the Supreme Court decision came during the Clinton years (Although it was still the same Rehnquist Court at that time, with 7 of its members appointed by Republicans).

Census data can be depressing. How can a place like Mesa, Aurora or Plano have so many people? They are supposedly suburbs yet they have 200,000 even 300,000 people! That really shows the migration to the sunbelt. New England (Population 14 Million) has only one city with over 200,000: Boston. We're actually becoming more rural since small towns away from cities are the only ones with any available land left to build on.

[dazzleman]

The whole purpose of the census is to get a real count of people, rather than rely on estimates that can be politicized. 

To use estimates rather than actual census results would be like using polling data rather than actual votes to elect government officials to office.  Polls, like estimates, can be manipulated, and the purpose of the census is to avoid this.

If the cities are getting screwed, all they need do is get their residents to answer the census.  If an area loses political clout because many of its residents are too lazy and dysfunctional to turn in a single form, then so be it.  Filling out a census form is hardly an onerous requirement, especially if there's supposedly such a great benefit for doing so, and such terrible consequences for not doing so.

I don't believe the cities are getting "screwed" in any case.  Their worst problems are self-inflicted, and can't be solved by outsiders, so in that sense, their supposed inability to force through programs that they support makes little difference, since they won't work anyway.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

The whole purpose of the census is to get a real count of people, rather than rely on estimates that can be politicized. 

To use estimates rather than actual census results would be like using polling data rather than actual votes to elect government officials to office.  Polls, like estimates, can be manipulated, and the purpose of the census is to avoid this.

If the cities are getting screwed, all they need do is get their residents to answer the census.  If an area loses political clout because many of its residents are too lazy and dysfunctional to turn in a single form, then so be it.  Filling out a census form is hardly an onerous requirement, especially if there's supposedly such a great benefit for doing so, and such terrible consequences for not doing so.

I don't believe the cities are getting "screwed" in any case.  Their worst problems are self-inflicted, and can't be solved by outsiders, so in that sense, their supposed inability to force through programs that they support makes little difference, since they won't work anyway.

Exactly. Some of the comments in this thread are paranoid in the extreme... as an aside I always find it amusing when people complain about census results

[minionofmidas]

The whole purpose of the census is to get a real count of people, rather than rely on estimates that can be politicized. 

To use estimates rather than actual census results would be like using polling data rather than actual votes to elect government officials to office.  Polls, like estimates, can be manipulated, and the purpose of the census is to avoid this.

If the cities are getting screwed, all they need do is get their residents to answer the census.  If an area loses political clout because many of its residents are too lazy and dysfunctional to turn in a single form, then so be it.  Filling out a census form is hardly an onerous requirement, especially if there's supposedly such a great benefit for doing so, and such terrible consequences for not doing so.

I don't believe the cities are getting "screwed" in any case.  Their worst problems are self-inflicted, and can't be solved by outsiders, so in that sense, their supposed inability to force through programs that they support makes little difference, since they won't work anyway.

Exactly. Some of the comments in this thread are paranoid in the extreme... as an aside I always find it amusing when people complain about census results

Er...the 1990 Census was weirdly flawed in the big cities, as the Census Bureau itself admitted...(the 2000 Census seems to have avoided these problems, though.)

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Unfortunately, so can be elections, and censuses. The history books are full of em.