Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That makes sense since Omaha's growth numbers from 2010-2014 were pretty impressive. I follow Raleigh and Miami pretty closely and Omaha is in that grouping of cities based on size. Whether it fell in population or only grew slightly, I was pretty surprised to see that relative to the other years in the decade. Are you sure that you didn't mean bearish across the board, not bullish?
Yes sorry I meant bearish. My fingers and my brain are disconnected tonight.
Estimates are just estimates. This year they were more bullish across the bored. I'd wager it's more of a correction from previous years I wouldn't put too much stock into it.
My thoughts exactly as far as Omaha is concerned.
Sometimes we take these yearly changes too much to heart & view them through a perspective akin to them being "the gospel".
My thoughts exactly as far as Omaha is concerned.
Sometimes we take these yearly changes too much to heart & view them through a perspective akin to them being "the gospel".
Well, they are "the gospel", at least in terms of year-over-year estimates.
There is no better data source than the Census. There isn't anything remotely close in terms of data quality and resources.
The majority of the Illinois population losers in the list are older & mature suburbs of Chicago.
Some of them lost very significant numbers of residents years ago as in the 1970's when the baby boom generation of kids left what was once the new suburban fringe & housing units became "empty nest" units. Examples would be Skokie, Arlington Heights, etc.
Those now older suburbs have seen their populations basically stabilize in the subsequent decades.
To be honest, metro Chicago has had a lot of company across the country in that decades-long population trend in it's maturing suburbs.
To be honest, metro Chicago has had a lot of company across the country in that decades-long population trend in it's maturing suburbs.
That's not what the data indicates.
Illinois has a very large number of cities on this list. Other older metros with "mature suburbs" don't seem to have the same degree of population loss.
Illinois has a very large number of cities on this list. Other older metros with "mature suburbs" don't seem to have the same degree of population loss.
Look again, my friend. 21 Illinois cities of over 50,000 population are on the list.
Including Chicago, 7 of them are "central cities" of a metro, although I'd hardly classify Normal, Il. as a central city but rather as a small university city.
The other 14 Illinois cities on the list are indeed older, mature suburbs of Chicago as I said
So, at a "14 to 7" counting ratio, I stand by my fact-based statement that said "most" of the Illinois cities on the list are...
As for the decades-long emptying out then stabilization process I cited, many suburbs of New York city, Boston, Minneapolis/St. Paul, Milwaukee, etc... have gone through that trend.
To effectively note the trend, one must look at the population data decade by decade going back to and including the 1970's & coming forward.
The list cited here in this thread even also includes older, established suburbs of LA that are similarly in the midst of that maturation process of change.
Looking only at the list's 1 year estimated population changes does not readily reveal that trend that I wrote about.
Look again, my friend. 21 Illinois cities of over 50,000 population are on the list.
Including Chicago, 7 of them are "central cities" of a metro, although I'd hardly classify Normal, Il. as a central city but rather as a small university city.
The other 14 Illinois cities on the list are indeed older, mature suburbs of Chicago as I said
So, at a "14 to 7" counting ratio, I stand by my fact-based statement that said "most" of the Illinois cities on the list are...
Again, you're contradicting yourself.
As you state, there are 21 Illinois cities on the list, which is far more than in other states. You claimed that Illinois had similar trends as other states, when the opposite is true.
Illinois is the big outlier, with population losses in many older suburbs, while other states don't have such a situation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by atler8
As for the decades-long emptying out then stabilization process I cited, many suburbs of New York city, Boston, Minneapolis/St. Paul, Milwaukee, etc... have gone through that trend.
Wrong. These cities don't have many suburbs on this list. It's Chicago alone, basically. In these other metros, there is no such trend.
Illinois has the worst population loss of any state. Chicago has the worst population loss of any metro. Therefore, it isn't surprising that Chicago and Illinois have many cities with population loss.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
cities that LOST...
