Cities That LOST Population (2014-2015) (live, place, highest, taxes)
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.
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.
So why aren't the suburbs of other major cities experiencing the same? Chicago isn't the only metro with older and mature suburbs yet it seems to be dominant in population loss. Obviously the metro is losing people, as is the city, as is the state. There is no way of sugar coating it.
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.
Yes, we have nothing better at this time... I'm not disputing that at this time but their gathering of data & their interpretation of it are not infallible. That is, however beyond dispute.
I learned that via some drastically innacurate estimates the U.S. Bureau of the Census had out during the course of that last full decade; estimates which proved to be far off from the actual 2010 counts.
Those "far off" estimates included some places that I was following very closely and ranged from a city of over 400,000 on down to a town of less than 5,000 population. So, the bureau's inaccuracy ranged widely in terms of the subject population size.
Since then, in terms of the estimates put out by the bureau, I've never taken anything as being more than just an estimate & certainly not as "gospel".
And, as I wrote earlier here about the Omaha estimate, I find that people can be too fixed on and enamored,with, for lack of a better term, the 1 year changes seen in census estimates.
So why aren't the suburbs of other major cities experiencing the same? Chicago isn't the only metro with older and mature suburbs yet it seems to be dominant in population loss. Obviously the metro is losing people, as is the city, as is the state. There is no way of sugar coating it.
Please reread my initial post. I never said that the Chicago metro wasn't losing population. I pointed out that many Illinois cities on the list (14 out of 21 to be exact) were older & mature Chicago suburbs. In fact, through the last few decades several of them have had periods of large population loss that make the very recent estimates of loss seem small by comparison. Look at their generally large 1970's era losses in particular.
A closer examination of what the trend is for the various cities is what I suggested. That's not "sugar coating" anything.
And a thorough look at the list will reveal that there are indeed numerous older & mature suburbs of other cities (in particular note the cities near LA) found there. Metro Chicago is hardly unique in that trend.
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.
Yeah but the data on Omaha has already been debunked as inaccurate, didn't you read the thread? Now that the veracity of the OP's data has been called into question, someone should probably check all the other cities' data for errors. However I'm a bit too lazy at the moment.
I was told this site got data from the census bureau. Might have been wrong. Sorry, I just went onto the official census bureau website and I found that their info is different on Omaha than the site I used. Sorry for the misunderstanding Omaha!
I was told this site got data from the census bureau. Might have been wrong. Sorry, I just went onto the official census bureau website and I found that their info is different on Omaha than the site I used. Sorry for the misunderstanding Omaha!
That information on Omaha, as we've previously stated, is not accurate and NOT from the US Census.. So it also calls into question the validity of your entire list. You can go straight to the US Census web site and get the valid listing of cities that gained or lost city populations per the 2014 to 2015 estimates..
Omaha is one of the fastest-growing large municipalities in the Midwest, and possibly the country. I was also stunned to see it not only on the list, but near the top. It will probably be hitting 500K before 2030 (and maybe well before then).
What happened to Omaha in the first years of the decade to cause it to have an initial significant jump? Was there an annexation or adjustment to the Census data? I'm curious because it looks like a one time event that pushed the city population significantly before settling into a modest growth model since.
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
