Some new data must be out.  According to the St. Louis paper, the city's population was down 8%. 

AL MO NV UT are out= http://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/

Some new data must be out.  According to the St. Louis paper, the city's population was down 8%. 

 

Sad, I thought St. Louis hit bottom. Percentage-wise, its 50-year losses were worse than Detroit. I've got an increasingly bad feeling about Ohio's urban numbers...

 

It could just end up being more of the same losses in the central cities. :| With that said, it's only a matter of time until people move back to the cities in mass. The public school systems will reform (they have to) and gas prices are only going up from here. Those are two forces that will push Ohio towards urbanizing again. There also will come a point when voters can no longer subsidize all the sprawl infrastructure. Highways have reached the limits of subsidization. They could end up like the state's Amtrak system (constant cuts, big cities being cut off from each other, etc.)

By next census St. Louis could be under 300,000. That is sad. And Chicago under 2,500,000. Im getting scared for our numbers. I wonder how long till they come out.

 

All this while places like Phoenix are still growing. What a shame

Even growing cities are coming in with slower growth than expected (the Pacific NW) and yeah the midwest towns to report have all come in under the previous estimates. I think the Chicago story will be more widespread - decent growth at the very center (but weakened by the fact gentrification driven by childless families does nothing for demographic shrinking), but the postwar edge of the cities were in freefall over the last decade. The growth was in the better parts of the distant 'burbs.

Link to the Post-Dispatch story:

 

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/metro/article_a1434d74-4046-11e0-8ae8-0017a4a78c22.html

 

I think the Chicago story will be more widespread - decent growth at the very center (but weakened by the fact gentrification driven by childless families does nothing for demographic shrinking), but the postwar edge of the cities were in freefall over the last decade. The growth was in the better parts of the distant 'burbs.

 

Sounds like the same story I expect the Cleveland census numbers to tell

Link to the Post-Dispatch story:

 

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/metro/article_a1434d74-4046-11e0-8ae8-0017a4a78c22.html

 

 

Wow, from that story, KC grew by 4.1%.

Link to the Post-Dispatch story:

 

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/metro/article_a1434d74-4046-11e0-8ae8-0017a4a78c22.html

 

 

Wow, from that story, KC grew by 4.1%.

 

Shows how wrong Wikipedia can be.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kansas_City,_Missouri

 

Population 507,336 up 14.9%

Why does it seems that cities are under-counted and suburbs over-counted? Something is not equal.

The only over count you might get in the suburbs would be college students away at college who happened to get counted at home (though the census bureau tries to mitigate that), instead the suburbs are more effective at getting a truer count. Cities have a greater transient population which are much harder to nail down. The other possibility is that the anti-immigrant environment may hurt cities w/ large illegal populations (and potentially places w/ crazy-ass Glenn Beck fans), though the housing market collapse may have sent many of the migrant workers back on the road.

By next census St. Louis could be under 300,000. That is sad. And Chicago under 2,500,000. Im getting scared for our numbers. I wonder how long till they come out.

 

All this while places like Phoenix are still growing. What a shame

 

It makes one wonder, what are we doing wrong that they're doing right?

(and potentially places w/ crazy-ass Glenn Beck fans)

 

What would Glenn Beck have to do with the census?

 

@@@@

 

I think the interesting thing will be when they have the age cohorts in and the tract-level info in. 

 

I've been playing around with cohort data from the 1990 and 2000 census.  Here is a shocker.

 

For the city of Dayton, for the cohort that was ages 50 through 59 in 1990 and 60-69 in 2000, the population dropped 24.5%.  Nearly a quarter.

 

...and for the cohort that was ages 60 through 69 in 1990 and 70-79 in 2000, the population dropped a whopping 54.3%!

 

And for the cohort that was aged 70 throuh 74 in 1990 and 80-84 in 2000, the population dropped 53.4%. 

 

Again, I suspect mortality is coming into play here, but maybe people are moving off to nursing homes, too?

And these drops in later life, also, perhaps,  implies a big exodus from the city by people moving into their retirement years.

 

For the rest of the cohorts, for the city of Dayton, between 1990 and 2000:

For children moving into the teen years between 1990 and 2000, a drop of 14.5%

 

For teenages moving into their twenties between 1990 and 2000, an increase of 14.6%, so Dayton city has attracted some young adults.  The growth of UD perhaps, and revival of inner city living?  Or just a younger population overall?  One has to drill down to  tract-level data to find out.

 

Then the declines start:

 

For people in their 20s in 1990 moving into their 30s by 2000:  drop by 24%

 

For 30 somethings ageing into their 40s:  drop by 19.6%

 

For 40somethings aging into their 50s: drop by 13.4%

 

...then the declines accelerate, as noted above.

 

What does this have to do with the 2010 census?  By combining the 1990 and 2000 with the 2010 numbers we'll have a good picture on how age cohorts are affected by city and suburban population shifts.  Particularly the 1950s and 1960s era suburbs, maybe the 1970s ones, too.

 

 

 

Beck and other looney-wingers were whinging about the census as an undue intrusion into our privacy. A couple of politicians even claimed they wouldn't fill out the forms before walking those comment back.

Even growing cities are coming in with slower growth than expected (the Pacific NW) and yeah the midwest towns to report have all come in under the previous estimates. I think the Chicago story will be more widespread - decent growth at the very center (but weakened by the fact gentrification driven by childless families does nothing for demographic shrinking), but the postwar edge of the cities were in freefall over the last decade. The growth was in the better parts of the distant 'burbs.

 

Not all Midwest cities have come in under estimates. 

 

Indianapolis

2009 Estimate: 807,584

2010 Census: 829,718

 

Des Moines

2009 Estimate: 200,538

2010 Census: 203,433

 

Most of the Midwest has not been released yet, so it's hard to come up with conclusions as to how the rest will turn out. 

^ Those cities were already growing. The estimates seem to be higher then the actual population for shrinking cities. We will see what happens. Hopefully the estimates for Ohio are low

^ Those cities were already growing. The estimates seem to be higher then the actual population for shrinking cities. We will see what happens. Hopefully the estimates for Ohio are low

 

Yeah, but besides Chicago and St. Louis, those are the only two that have come out so far for major cities.  I guess some would include KC, but I consider it to be more Plains.  Plus, Chicago, St. Louis, and KC's estimates all had them growing, but only KC actually grew, and not as much as the estimates had.  So really, estimates have been pretty terrible.  That's why it's a little hard to predict how Ohio will go.  I'd be concerned that Cleveland, Dayton, etc are losing people faster, and Columbus maybe not growing as fast as estimates have.  Then again, it could be the opposite and Cleveland has stopped the loss and Columbus is growing faster than estimates. 

Columbus had 3,200 vacant homes in 2006, mainly in the inner-city. We now have 6,100, meaning our urban core has seen neglected neighborhoods now double their number of abandonded properties and may now take twice as much work to turn around. That's what happens when you pretend these huge neighborhoods like Linden and the Near South (east of Parsons) aren't a problem that needs some serious attention. Our urban core has likely lost more people overall than it has gained. These areas could be on their way to being assets for the city, but instead they're still being left to deteriote to the point of no return and mainly serve as a paradise for criminals to hang out in and ply their trade.

St. Louis was one of the leaders in challenging census estimates (like 6 times this decade). The pre-challenged estimate was pretty much spot-on.

Where to the estimates come from?

The census uses birth and death records along w/ other bits of data (some migration data, parts of the Community survey I think, and the like) to figure out estimates between censuses.

Columbus had 3,200 vacant homes in 2006, mainly in the inner-city. We now have 6,100, meaning our urban core has seen neglected neighborhoods now double their number of abandonded properties and may now take twice as much work to turn around. That's what happens when you pretend these huge neighborhoods like Linden and the Near South (east of Parsons) aren't a problem that needs some serious attention. Our urban core has likely lost more people overall than it has gained. These areas could be on their way to being assets for the city, but instead they're still being left to deteriote to the point of no return and mainly serve as a paradise for criminals to hang out in and ply their trade.

 

I'm not sure that I would agree that this is the city's fault.  I think it has far more to do with one of the worst economies in decades.  This kind of thing hit every city in the country, not just Columbus.  People who were already struggling are usually first to be hit.  And given that Columbus has such a large area, people who left certain neighborhoods may not have necessarily left the city limits, so I doubt this plays too much in population.  Especially considering that Columbus has had most of its growth from international immigration and not domestic, but even domestic, people came from areas that have been doing far worse than we have.  Northeast Ohio is one of Columbus' biggest feeder areas.  Guess we'll find out by April 1st. 

Just an FYI,

 

Ohio will be released next week.

^ Thanks! I cant wait! Sort of...

 

Hopefully things aren't that ugly, Im predicting massive gains in all of our major cities  :drunk:

Well I know it goes without saying but it will be a matter of where people are leaving the city, rather than how many. If we lose thousands of people from our poorest neighborhoods, that might mean that they were able to improve their life and move to a better suburb. If not, it still might be beneficial for them. Cleveland cannot afford to pay for the entire region's impoverished population. If the regions's impoverished families become more disperesed throughout the metro, it would help all parties. Most suburbs are in a far better position to offer services (except for mass transit) than the city, and are often closer to jobs these days.

Columbus had 3,200 vacant homes in 2006, mainly in the inner-city. We now have 6,100, meaning our urban core has seen neglected neighborhoods now double their number of abandonded properties and may now take twice as much work to turn around. That's what happens when you pretend these huge neighborhoods like Linden and the Near South (east of Parsons) aren't a problem that needs some serious attention. Our urban core has likely lost more people overall than it has gained. These areas could be on their way to being assets for the city, but instead they're still being left to deteriote to the point of no return and mainly serve as a paradise for criminals to hang out in and ply their trade.

 

I'm not sure that I would agree that this is the city's fault.  I think it has far more to do with one of the worst economies in decades.  This kind of thing hit every city in the country, not just Columbus.  People who were already struggling are usually first to be hit.  And given that Columbus has such a large area, people who left certain neighborhoods may not have necessarily left the city limits, so I doubt this plays too much in population.  Especially considering that Columbus has had most of its growth from international immigration and not domestic, but even domestic, people came from areas that have been doing far worse than we have.  Northeast Ohio is one of Columbus' biggest feeder areas.  Guess we'll find out by April 1st. 

 

I don't buy the economy argument for the simple reason that the city is spending money that could be directed to these areas, but instead is spent out in the sprawling 270 region. Over $16 million is being spent on one stretch of Hilliard-Rome road to add traffic lanes and is in progress. These lanes are not going to add development since the area has already been developed in typical strip-mall fashion. Contrast that to February of 2010 where the city gave the entire neighborhood of Linden a mere $28,000 towards revitalization efforts. Money is not the issue with Columbus, but priorities. The city government does not want to do their part to help stabilize these forgotten urban neighborhoods and officials will give you BS responses about the glaring disparity between investment in already heavily invested areas vs. areas that haven't seen anything comparable for several decades. It's no wonder that while the city leaves these neighborhoods to rot that more and more people who can move out do. I'm hoping the census will show what the city of Columbus likes to ignore by always citing the population within city limits, which is a huge area that is all suburban.

Columbus had 3,200 vacant homes in 2006, mainly in the inner-city. We now have 6,100, meaning our urban core has seen neglected neighborhoods now double their number of abandonded properties and may now take twice as much work to turn around. That's what happens when you pretend these huge neighborhoods like Linden and the Near South (east of Parsons) aren't a problem that needs some serious attention. Our urban core has likely lost more people overall than it has gained. These areas could be on their way to being assets for the city, but instead they're still being left to deteriote to the point of no return and mainly serve as a paradise for criminals to hang out in and ply their trade.

 

I'm not sure that I would agree that this is the city's fault.  I think it has far more to do with one of the worst economies in decades.  This kind of thing hit every city in the country, not just Columbus.  People who were already struggling are usually first to be hit.  And given that Columbus has such a large area, people who left certain neighborhoods may not have necessarily left the city limits, so I doubt this plays too much in population.  Especially considering that Columbus has had most of its growth from international immigration and not domestic, but even domestic, people came from areas that have been doing far worse than we have.  Northeast Ohio is one of Columbus' biggest feeder areas.  Guess we'll find out by April 1st. 

 

I don't buy the economy argument for the simple reason that the city is spending money that could be directed to these areas, but instead is spent out in the sprawling 270 region. Over $16 million is being spent on one stretch of Hilliard-Rome road to add traffic lanes and is in progress. These lanes are not going to add development since the area has already been developed in typical strip-mall fashion. Contrast that to February of 2010 where the city gave the entire neighborhood of Linden a mere $28,000 towards revitalization efforts. Money is not the issue with Columbus, but priorities. The city government does not want to do their part to help stabilize these forgotten urban neighborhoods and officials will give you BS responses about the glaring disparity between investment in already heavily invested areas vs. areas that haven't seen anything comparable for several decades. It's no wonder that while the city leaves these neighborhoods to rot that more and more people who can move out do. I'm hoping the census will show what the city of Columbus likes to ignore by always citing the population within city limits, which is a huge area that is all suburban.

 

Unless you are giving money directly to pay their mortgages, I'm not sure that I understand how spending money on revitalization translates directly to people staying employed or keeping their homes.  The city may or may not have all their priorities right, but I just don't see the increase in vacant housing as a Columbus-specific issue, or how the economy is not largely responsible.  And didn't they just announce a plan to spend millions on this very issue?   

 

And aren't all cities listed by population in their incorporated limits?  The average land area of the top 50 largest cities in the US is about 200 square miles.  The land area of Columbus is about 210 sq/miles, so the city is pretty much average in size.  Some, of course, are much smaller, particularly older Eastern cities like Boston that were unable to annex.  But then some, like Houston, are 3x the size of Columbus. 

The quality of the infrastructure in much of the east side is poor. Putting in higher quality roads with curbs and sidewalks would be a place to start. Expanding infrastructure investment in the business districts could help as well.

The quality of the infrastructure in much of the east side is poor. Putting in higher quality roads with curbs and sidewalks would be a place to start. Expanding infrastructure investment in the business districts could help as well.

 

That will help possibly help repopulate those areas, but I was talking about why those houses went empty to begin with.  If you consider that those were probably low-income people, they would've been the first to be hit by the economy.  Gentrifciation is a whole different animal. 

I'm curious as to what people expect from Toledo. Its population seems to act like a yo-yo over extended periods of time. I'm guessing that it will be down in the 2010 census, but that the greater demand for its port over this decade will have it back to 2000 levels by the end of the decade.

I'm expecting Cleveland to lose a minimum of 50,000 this time around.  St Clair/Superior, Hough, Glenville, Fairfax, Mt Pleasant, Union Miles, and Slavic Village were all hit tremendously hard during the foreclosure crisis.  Some of the neighborhoods have lost so much of their existing housing stock that some areas are much more RURAL now than urban with vast amounts of open land, but with no demand to build (for a number of reasons). 

 

The good news is that the city and region are finally positioning themselves for growth- so if I were to have a crystal ball, I would predict that this may be the last census where Cleveland loses population.  Some may disagree due to the past 60 years of decline, but still realistic IMO.

     

^I agree.  I also agree with Mokbubble's comments above.  For Cleveland, it's not how many you lose, but who and from where.  I actually predict it gained some in terms of upper class and upper middle class, but the losses in the lower middle class and lower class are going to easily drown those numbers out when looking at the raw census figures.  But, on the other hand, that is exactly what the City needs..... more productive residents, less burdens.

^^I agree. The last decade was pretty rough for the city and region. The foreclosure crisis, two recessions, and the bottoming-out of our manufacturing base really hurt the region. However, I think we are now positioned to see some growth over the next decade or so.

I'm curious as to what people expect from Toledo. Its population seems to act like a yo-yo over extended periods of time. I'm guessing that it will be down in the 2010 census, but that the greater demand for its port over this decade will have it back to 2000 levels by the end of the decade.

 

Toledo is going to be way down. It had the worst job and income losses in Ohio (and almost the worst in the country), so enough said. Not many people want to live in a place with such downward mobility (not to mention weak nightlife). I don't buy the census estimate revision saying the city has 316k. More than likely it slipped below 300k. Abandonment has skyrocketed in some neighborhoods and the loss of homes in west-central and south side Toledo was pretty dramatic (though that might have kept the city's housing vacancy rate in check). My estimate? Toledo will be near 285k, a loss of about 30,000 people. I also think nearly every suburb lost people except Perrysburg. The MSA probably slipped from 670k down to about 640k, maybe slightly more. The CSA may be down to 700k. Northwest Ohio was just destroyed by the "recession" (it is a depression in Northwest Ohio/Southeast Michigan, and it was that way before the national recession too). What's happening in this part of the country is not the same as what's happening in other parts of the country. Most of America is going from first world to second world (depending on gas prices). In Detroit and Toledo, we might be talking first world to third world.

 

With that said, I also think population will level off. The city's economy went through all its gut-wrenching layoffs, so while it's still a tough place to find a good job, it's not as bad as two or three years ago. If solar takes off, I really think there will be some recovery in Toledo, maybe even population growth. Shipping and rail will recover too if the economic heat of the past five months keeps up. Toledo is also seeing lots of hiring in marketing, retail, and food service. I'd say that's a good sign. People are landing some pretty good $10 an hour jobs.

I'm not sure I agree with everyone's thinking that Cleveland will lose people because of the foreclosure issue.  I mean, when your house forecloses in a bad neighborhood it's not as if you get to move to the suburbs or another part of the country.  Where does everyone think these people skipped off to?  Avon Lake, Charlotte, Austin?  You have fewer options and less mobility when a house forecloses.  It's more likely that they end up in public housing no?

I do think we will lose near 50,000, though...

Toledo was a big surprise in the 2000 census, when nobody expected it to stay about 300k then. Toledoans are a stubborn bunch I guess.

^It was a shocker in 2000, and I hope it is a shocker again this time. I just think the situation is very different given the job and income losses. Physically, the slums are much thinner. West-Central Toledo has areas that aren't even comparable to five years ago. I've seen some entire blocks become arson victims. If you just did a pictorial of Junction Avenue or Nebraska Avenue (and their connecting streets) from 2000 to 2010, it's not going to be pretty. Arsons were heavy in the South End and East Toledo too, though not entire city blocks. This loss of physical Toledo makes me believe there was population loss (despite the census challenges). I just don't see people sticking it out given how bad Toledo's job market has become (talking more lowball offers on pay than anything else). There just isn't the upward mobility that keeps people happy and optimistic. I'm seeing people leave in droves for greener pastures. It's much bigger than the standard Rust Belt exodus I saw as a child (certainly more than the 1990's when I was a kid).

 

To Toledo's credit, it has avoided shrinking cities models of wholesale clearance, but there are now some neighborhoods that are reaching the point where it could become inevitable. Toledo didn't really have many urban prairies in 2000 (especially compared to its Rust Belt brethren). Today, I'm guessing about 10%-15% of the city is urban prairie, with the majority of that concentrated in West-Central Toledo and former industrial areas in the North and South sides. Keep in mind lots of functioning manufacturers shuttered their doors for the last time over the past decade. Toledo has lost about 30% of its manufacturing jobs since 2000. Those laid off workers aren't expecting to be called back. It's just a much more dire situation. If they are sticking around, it might be because they have no money to move.

 

We're just going to have to wait and see. I hope I'm wrong on this one. As a city, Toledo has a lot of assets and a good location.

The County estimates were released today- http://www.census.gov/popest/counties/tables/CO-PEST2010-totals.csv

 

Hamilton is up 10k, Franklin up 9k, Cuyahoga down 13k

Since I expect to see at least that much growth inthe outlying counties, particularly Medina, the Cleveland metro might not take as big a hit, if any, as some had predicted.

The County estimates were released today- http://www.census.gov/popest/counties/tables/CO-PEST2010-totals.csv

 

Hamilton is up 10k, Franklin up 9k, Cuyahoga down 13k

 

Just for clarification, these are the 2010 population estimates, not the 2010 census count, correct?

 

And not to be a downer, but I'd check your math for Cuyahoga County again...I think you may be off by a factor of 10  :cry:

Correct.

The County estimates were released today- http://www.census.gov/popest/counties/tables/CO-PEST2010-totals.csv

 

Hamilton is up 10k, Franklin up 9k, Cuyahoga down 13k

 

Just for clarification, these are the 2010 population estimates, not the 2010 census count, correct?

 

And not to be a downer, but I'd check your math for Cuyahoga County again...I think you may be off by a factor of 10  :cry:

 

Apparently you are correct. The estimate for Cuyahoga is down 124,533

I know these are just estimates, but it's really encouraging to see Hamilton County not losing people any more!  Can that 124,000 really be right for Cuyahoga!? That seems like an incredibly large number for a county that's already seen substantial population loss. 

^Not that surprising... the 2001 recession hit Cuyahoga County hard- I think we lost 85,000+ jobs during that recession in this county alone, which weren't quickly recovered.

 

These numbers won't be nice to digest for Cleveland.  I'm hoping it's a wake up call to the residents, politicians, and the business community though again, I think we've turned a corner.

The last decade was rough. People forget the region was hammered during the 2001 reccesion. Think of all the manufacturing jobs we lost in the first half of the decade (close to 100K in Cuyahoga alone). Our manufacturing base bottomed out sometime last decade. When you lose 100K jobs in one recession, you can expect to see population loss. Also, the foreclosure crisis really hurt the local economy. However, in my opinion, we've turned the corner. We've finally moved away from our dependence on manufacturing. The area has developed a reputation as a national healthcare hub. We've also seen a tremendous amount of investment in the city over the last couple years. This last decade here reminds me of the 1980's in Pittsburgh. Pittsburgh saw the complete collapse of the steel industry and Cleveland witnessed the collapse of it's last steel mill and many other manufacturers. (http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/09076/955926-334.stm) Granted, it wasn't as rough here, but there are similarities. 

The County estimates were released today- http://www.census.gov/popest/counties/tables/CO-PEST2010-totals.csv

 

Hamilton is up 10k, Franklin up 9k, Cuyahoga down 13k

Those estimates are very encouraging in Hamilton County and Lucas County (shockingly up over 5k). They are very discouraging in Montgomery County (down nearly 30k) and Mahoning County (down over 20k).

Cuyahoga's jobs have moved to the edges of the county, and into the collar counties, at a rapid clip.  The city's east side is in free-fall and has been for most of the decade.  That number's not at all surprising to me.  And I don't think we're turning the corner yet either.

^In terms of reliance on manufacturing, don't you think we've turned the corner? That doesn't necessarily mean we will see immediate job growth, but the overall economy is less dependent on manufacturing now than it was 20 years ago. That's what I meant by "turning the corner."  I know there are a lot or problems, but we've transtioned pretty quickly. Even if this transition isn't complete, at least we're moving in the right direction.

^In terms of reliance on manufacturing, don't you think we've turned the corner? That doesn't necessarily mean we will see immediate job growth, but the overall economy is less dependent on manufacturing now than it was 20 years ago. That's what I meant by "turning the corner."

 

Those who were screwed by the loss of manufacturing jobs largely remain screwed.  Growth in new sectors is a drop in the bucket compared to what was lost.  A significant part of that growth is well outside the city, and people working in those growth sectors are still choosing to live out there, even when their jobs are in the city.

^That may be true, but how do you fix that? You're talking about very complicated problems.  How do we replace decent-paying blue collar jobs and how do we discourage sprawl? You're talking about the deep structural changes that aren't going to be remedied in 5 years. Also, our new growth may be a drop in the bucket, but we're talking about a short window here. If we hit bottom at the beginning of the decade, isn't it encouraging we've  already found new growth areas?