The Movement from the suburbs to cities (or not) (metro, Baltimore, suburban)
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.
I came across this webpage earlier today, and it reminded me some of the discussions (arguments?) on whether there has been a movement back to the cities in this forum.
Shows a shift, though all the cities used as examples had a net population movement towards their suburbs. Since most (if not all) of the example recorded a population gain in the last decade, it means the cities had to of either grown from immigrants, or migrants from the US but from a different metro area.
Well, we're Boomers, and we [I]did[/I]move closer in
Well, we're Boomers, and we didmove closer in, back in '04. We gained about 1/2 hour commute time morning and evening if using the car, and an hour each way if using the bus. We can walk to two of the busiest bus routes in town, drug store, grocery store, churches, library, Post Office, park with dog park, senior center, jr college, restaurants, you name it, we can walk. We also bought a little bigger, so we can do the extended family/multigenerational/Golden Girls scene if necessary. We searched, and narrowed down the location. We moved from further out in an inner-ring suburb, to a location closer toward the downtown, but still in the same school district.
I don't really care enough to look for evidence to back this up, but it seems self-evident to me that cities were simply over-counted in the 2000 census and in reality, lost people at roughly the same rate in the 2000s that they did in the 1990s. I don't and never did believe the number of people moving back into the cities is offsetting the number of people moving out, but I definitely don't buy what the Census shows: rapid acceleration in exodus from cities starting in 2000. It just doesn't jibe with anything -- housing data, school enrollment data, even the general feel of the cities on the streets.
I don't really care enough to look for evidence to back this up, but it seems self-evident to me that cities were simply over-counted in the 2000 census and in reality, lost people at roughly the same rate in the 2000s that they did in the 1990s. I don't and never did believe the number of people moving back into the cities is offsetting the number of people moving out, but I definitely don't buy what the Census shows: rapid acceleration in exodus from cities starting in 2000. It just doesn't jibe with anything -- housing data, school enrollment data, even the general feel of the cities on the streets.
Lots of attention here in the last 10 years has been lavished on improving destitute or otherwise undesirable neighborhoods into places worth visiting and living - for young professionals, DINKs, etc. Meanwhile, with these groups not flocking and overpopulating the suburbs, middle class families saw their chance to make a break for the suburban counties (lower taxes, better schools, less crime, etc etc). Thus, though most would say Baltimore has improved tremendously in the last decade, we still lost about 3.6% of our population since the 2000 census. The result is that the in-city middle class neighborhoods suffer, though that seems to be of little concern to the "little darlings" the planners covet nor the politicians.
However the real estate market has really put a damper on the the "jump ship for the suburbs when the kid turns 3" escape plan that has been favored for years here. So charter schools, parental involvement, etc has improved the state of education in some areas, and continues to do so.
Will be interesting to see where building takes place after the real estate market recovers nationally, my bet is still on the burbs moreso with some additional focus in the cores of older cities.
I'm surprised University City didn't grow more. Did Philadelphia become whiter?
Philly on the whole became less white and black (more black flight today than any other group) and more hispanic and asian.
Whites and asians are driving the core growth. Asian families and white younger with no kids and empty nesters as a generalization of what is driving the core.
Though nabe by nabe that will differ.
U City has a large encachment (a microcosm of things on the city as a whole if you will) based on the above map. Powelton Village West and areas west of say 42nd street are in the process of regentrifying and may see more absolute growth in the coming decade. Especially the area just Northwest of Drexel
Drexel has large redevelopment plans as does Temple in North Philly (two areas that will likely be next for the turn around) But further north like Frankford and Logan will likely see more decline and it will likely creep further into the far Northeast.
Philly is growing again from the core out (1800 all over again of sorts)
On the outflow to the burbs. Exurban development on the PA and NJ basically grounded to a halt in 2005. Center city was by far the strongest market through the real estate bust (though Philly as usual didnt have the plummet of many cities overall as it typically lags on the upside (Philly has a tradionally very stable economy, usually not too hot or cold in a relative sense)
I don't and never did believe the number of people moving back into the cities is offsetting the number of people moving out, but I definitely don't buy what the Census shows: rapid acceleration in exodus from cities starting in 2000. It just doesn't jibe with anything -- housing data, school enrollment data, even the general feel of the cities on the streets.
My link shows the opposite; a gradual deceleration in the movement from cities to suburb, though still a movement.
It might be a natural thing for a city to have a net migration to the suburbs if the city is a magnet for immigrants and young people.
scroll down for the "New York City" section; though it probably applies to many major cities.
Quote:
After a time in NYC, if [immigrants] move on then, bang, they are domestic out migrants. On the domestic ledger that’s 0 in, 1 out, a clear net loss, but not the whole story...Also, it’s noted that NYC takes in lots of young people, but many leave when they get married and have kids..Two young singles move to NYC, marry, have two kids. When those kids reach school age, they move to the suburbs. That’s 2 in, 4 out, a net loss of 2 people.
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.
Well, we're Boomers, and we [I]did[/I]move closer in
