Cities Losing People After '90s Influx

[Storebought]

A Washington Post article that argues that cities have lost population because they are miserable places to start families.

But new Census Bureau estimates to be released today show many cities slipping again. More than two dozen large cities that had been growing a decade ago are shrinking. Fast-growing suburbs with service-sector jobs and more affordable housing are attracting thousands of foreign-born residents who in the past would have started out in the city.

The list of former gainers that have lost population since 2000 include Boston, Chicago, Minneapolis and San Francisco.

[ilikeverin]

Why did you bold 'Minneapolis'

[Storebought]

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.

[ilikeverin]

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.

Ah

Oh well, unlike him I like the 'burbs, and am content with the suburb of Minneapolis I live in

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

The case with Minneapolis is probably the white flight factor since the crime and all that has actually gone down in the past couple years.

I don't care what families think though, I just know Minneapolis is a hell of a lot more interesting than the rows of cookie cutter suburbs it has.

[angus]

only slightly related, but interesting.

http://nytimes.com/2005/06/30/national/30census.html

and click on the multimedia graphic for a look at Manifest Destiny. 

I suppose families are back "in" nowadays.  I know when I was single, and extending my adolescence far into my 30s, I was drawn like a moth to the bright lights.  Like a moron to shiny objects.  I enjoyed the noise, pollution, ease of connection, and veritable buffet of flesh and booze and what-have-you to be found in the downtown cores of most cities, and generally tended to find a spot very near downtown everywhere I lived till recently.  Nowadays, I'm a tad fonder of the 'burbs.  I still feel a bit choked when I stare out on mile after mile of white-washed, 2-car, 1.9-offspring, cookie-cutter bourgeoisie, but the mind-numbing ennui makes me feel warm and safe.  Well, that, and the city doesn't seem to agree with my wife.  The boy seems to like it though.  Just at home on the subway as in the living room.  And given that families, and "family values" are back in this decade, it's not surprising that cookie-cutter bourgoisie is back in vogue as well.

[muon2]

I suspect that the outflow of established families isn't much different than in decades past. I do know that it is much more common to see immigrants now move directly to the suburbs, without the time in the city first. This applies to immigrants from all areas of the world. That leaves smaller households in the central cities, so they are losing population.

[opebo]

American suburbs are also horrible places to start a family.  Then again starting a family is a horrible thing to do anywhere, except perhaps in a palace with wet-nurses and a large staff of servants.

Ask yourself, is reproducing really worth the commute?

[Hatman 🍁]

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

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

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.

[bgwah]

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

Yes. 2005 numbers released by the Washington State goverment show that Seattle suburbs such as Bellevue, Kirkland, and Mercer Island are losing population, but the county still grew by 20,000 people over the last year.

However, it's not that families are leaving, it's that kids are graduating and leaving while their parents stay there and have no more kids. Those cities have no more land left to annex and therefore will have to wait for elderly couples to leave or die so a  new family can replace them.

[Beet]

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

Yes. 2005 numbers released by the Washington State goverment show that Seattle suburbs such as Bellevue, Kirkland, and Mercer Island are losing population, but the county still grew by 20,000 people over the last year.

However, it's not that families are leaving, it's that kids are graduating and leaving while their parents stay there and have no more kids. Those cities have no more land left to annex and therefore will have to wait for elderly couples to leave or die so a  new family can replace them.

The Cleveland suburbs have been losing people since the 1980s.

[Storebought]

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

The New Orleans suburbs Metairie and Kenner have been losing population for some time.

Jefferson Parish has been overbuilt, and much of it resembles NJ or Long Island. People are moving out to bigger homes and less overcrowded subdivisions in St Tammany

[angus]

Ask yourself, is reproducing really worth the commute?

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

[danwxman]

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.

[dazzleman]

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.

Bingo.

[dazzleman]

only slightly related, but interesting.

http://nytimes.com/2005/06/30/national/30census.html

and click on the multimedia graphic for a look at Manifest Destiny. 

I suppose families are back "in" nowadays.  I know when I was single, and extending my adolescence far into my 30s, I was drawn like a moth to the bright lights.  Like a moron to shiny objects.  I enjoyed the noise, pollution, ease of connection, and veritable buffet of flesh and booze and what-have-you to be found in the downtown cores of most cities, and generally tended to find a spot very near downtown everywhere I lived till recently.  Nowadays, I'm a tad fonder of the 'burbs.  I still feel a bit choked when I stare out on mile after mile of white-washed, 2-car, 1.9-offspring, cookie-cutter bourgeoisie, but the mind-numbing ennui makes me feel warm and safe.  Well, that, and the city doesn't seem to agree with my wife.  The boy seems to like it though.  Just at home on the subway as in the living room.  And given that families, and "family values" are back in this decade, it's not surprising that cookie-cutter bourgoisie is back in vogue as well.

Your characterization of suburbs make you sound like BRTD, man.  Don't you realize that what you describe is no more true of all suburbs than it would be to describe every neighborhood of every city as a crime-ridden slum.

What IS largely true is that cities have bad school systems.  That, more than anything, is what drives families out.  Even many good neighborhoods in cities do not offer decent schooling options, and that is a killer for people with kids.

[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.

Bingo.

So families leave cities because of people like me in them? That's fine, it just means that the cities are full of people like me instead, which makes them much better, less Republicans and less people who whine about strip clubs.

[dazzleman]

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.

Bingo.

So families leave cities because of people like me in them? That's fine, it just means that the cities are full of people like me instead, which makes them much better, less Republicans and less people who whine about strip clubs.

No, it makes them s**tholes....

[muon2]

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

Yes. 2005 numbers released by the Washington State goverment show that Seattle suburbs such as Bellevue, Kirkland, and Mercer Island are losing population, but the county still grew by 20,000 people over the last year.

However, it's not that families are leaving, it's that kids are graduating and leaving while their parents stay there and have no more kids. Those cities have no more land left to annex and therefore will have to wait for elderly couples to leave or die so a  new family can replace them.

That's often true. In my city we had a lot of housing built in the 50's through 70's. The original owners became empty nest households. Then, in the early 1990's they gave way to the next generation of families. The result was the sudden need for a new school building in an area that apparently had no new housing.

[dazzleman]

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

Yes. 2005 numbers released by the Washington State goverment show that Seattle suburbs such as Bellevue, Kirkland, and Mercer Island are losing population, but the county still grew by 20,000 people over the last year.

However, it's not that families are leaving, it's that kids are graduating and leaving while their parents stay there and have no more kids. Those cities have no more land left to annex and therefore will have to wait for elderly couples to leave or die so a  new family can replace them.

That's often true. In my city we had a lot of housing built in the 50's through 70's. The original owners became empty nest households. Then, in the early 1990's they gave way to the next generation of families. The result was the sudden need for a new school building in an area that apparently had no new housing.

This is happening in the suburbs too. 

What you are saying obscures the reality that middle class families generally don't like to raise kids in cities because of the poor quality of public education.  For the previous generation, the public schools either were not as bad, or the parents sent their kids to (in the past) relatively inexpensive Catholic schools.  Today, the public schools have deteriorated further in cities, and Catholic schools or other private schools have become prohibitively expensive, so today's generation of parents generally opts to get out of the cities when it comes time for their kids to go to school.

[muon2]

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

Yes. 2005 numbers released by the Washington State goverment show that Seattle suburbs such as Bellevue, Kirkland, and Mercer Island are losing population, but the county still grew by 20,000 people over the last year.

However, it's not that families are leaving, it's that kids are graduating and leaving while their parents stay there and have no more kids. Those cities have no more land left to annex and therefore will have to wait for elderly couples to leave or die so a  new family can replace them.

That's often true. In my city we had a lot of housing built in the 50's through 70's. The original owners became empty nest households. Then, in the early 1990's they gave way to the next generation of families. The result was the sudden need for a new school building in an area that apparently had no new housing.

This is happening in the suburbs too. 

What you are saying obscures the reality that middle class families generally don't like to raise kids in cities because of the poor quality of public education.  For the previous generation, the public schools either were not as bad, or the parents sent their kids to (in the past) relatively inexpensive Catholic schools.  Today, the public schools have deteriorated further in cities, and Catholic schools or other private schools have become prohibitively expensive, so today's generation of parents generally opts to get out of the cities when it comes time for their kids to go to school.

In our case the city was built as an exurb 150 years ago for the railrods. It's a suburb now by virtue of the growth around it. And we are now embracing that new growth as well.

In our city we find that our small public school district can be excellent, but is burdened by state mandates to deal with ESL families and parents who don't see the need for investment in their children's education at home. We are fortunate to still have a core of concerned parents to create some excellence despite the factors that would weigh against our local schools.

[12th Doctor]

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.

[angus]

only slightly related, but interesting.

http://nytimes.com/2005/06/30/national/30census.html

and click on the multimedia graphic for a look at Manifest Destiny. 

I suppose families are back "in" nowadays.  I know when I was single, and extending my adolescence far into my 30s, I was drawn like a moth to the bright lights.  Like a moron to shiny objects.  I enjoyed the noise, pollution, ease of connection, and veritable buffet of flesh and booze and what-have-you to be found in the downtown cores of most cities, and generally tended to find a spot very near downtown everywhere I lived till recently.  Nowadays, I'm a tad fonder of the 'burbs.  I still feel a bit choked when I stare out on mile after mile of white-washed, 2-car, 1.9-offspring, cookie-cutter bourgeoisie, but the mind-numbing ennui makes me feel warm and safe.  Well, that, and the city doesn't seem to agree with my wife.  The boy seems to like it though.  Just at home on the subway as in the living room.  And given that families, and "family values" are back in this decade, it's not surprising that cookie-cutter bourgoisie is back in vogue as well.

Your characterization of suburbs make you sound like BRTD, man.  Don't you realize that what you describe is no more true of all suburbs than it would be to describe every neighborhood of every city as a crime-ridden slum.

What IS largely true is that cities have bad school systems.  That, more than anything, is what drives families out.  Even many good neighborhoods in cities do not offer decent schooling options, and that is a killer for people with kids.

ouch.  jeez, I better go back and look at what I said...  ah, was it the "I'm a tad fonder of the 'burbs" line that made me sound like BRTD, or maybe the "mind numbing ennui that makes me feel warm and safe" that does?  I doubt he'd say either one of those things.  Look, man, I'm loving it.  I'm looking out the window right now at Germantown, MD.  White, two-story houses with well manicured lawns.  American flags flapping in the wind at about every third one.  And from my vantage point I can see 3 men mowing 3 lawns.  Enjoying the holiday their own way.  Inside, my wife is napping with my infant son, secure, far away from the city and the paranoia of smells, sounds, and possible terrorist attacks.  Two daughters of this family using grown-up words, speaking english better than their parents, and showing me photos of dinosaurs and naming them.  Correctly.  Something they learned at their excellent suburban school, no doubt.  You don't hear me complaining.  Only observing.  Hardly BRTD.

[minionofmidas]

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

Yes. 2005 numbers released by the Washington State goverment show that Seattle suburbs such as Bellevue, Kirkland, and Mercer Island are losing population, but the county still grew by 20,000 people over the last year.

However, it's not that families are leaving, it's that kids are graduating and leaving while their parents stay there and have no more kids. Those cities have no more land left to annex and therefore will have to wait for elderly couples to leave or die so a  new family can replace them.

That's often true. In my city we had a lot of housing built in the 50's through 70's. The original owners became empty nest households. Then, in the early 1990's they gave way to the next generation of families. The result was the sudden need for a new school building in an area that apparently had no new housing.

This is happening in the suburbs too. 

Yeah, that's very much a normal phenomenon. Observable wherever all the houses are the same age (and less than 60 years old). Most new housing developments' population peaks just a couple of years after completion.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It's not (just) the schools. Part of it is the people who attend them. And that's not just racism either, it's good ole primal instinct. You want your kid to be well connected? Send it to a private or at least a suburban school. Don't have him hang around and make friends with kids whose dads are in jail for smoking crack. He might become like em otherwise.

Did I mention that I grew up in an area (and attended public school) that is about 30% immigrant in overall population, but 60% so among those under 18?
That's because it's a beautiful inner city area, mostly (but not exclusively) 19th and early 20th century houses, not posh, not really poor either, good shops in walking distance, literally crawling with pubs. Lots of students living there. Also, quite a number of yuppies. And immigrants with their families. And also some German working class families, mostly on the eastern end of the area, in the 1920s housing projects blocks.
But when those students and yuppies found families, most of them move out. Well, not all of them. My parents stayed. And I thank them for it.