Population migration patterns: US cities Americans are abandoning

Started by bing101, July 05, 2018, 08:55:03 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Flint1979

Quote from: sparker on July 07, 2018, 04:14:44 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on July 07, 2018, 04:05:28 PM
I don't see where Houston is losing population. I haven't been in Houston in a few years but from the first time I was ever there to the last time I was there with several other trips in between that city has grown with people quite a bit. It's by far the most extensive of the top 5 or 10 cities in the country at 600 square miles and just over 2.3 million people. In fact Greater Houston went from about 4 million people in 2000 to over 6 million people now.

Sugar Land, The Woodlands, Baytown and Conroe are all pretty populated too. Houston is a huge city and to think that it's losing population doesn't seem right.

Since Houston is actively attempting to increase density in the city core, you're probably correct -- we'll just have to compare the future 2020 census tract figures with the 2015 "midterm" estimates.  But historically the suburbs have outpaced the central city in terms of rates of growth since the early '50's.  All that being said, the Houston area overall has grown significantly faster than the national average and, despite the recent weather-related incidents, will likely continue to do so, but possibly at a somewhat slower pace.  Because of the most flood-related damage in the lower-lying areas, expect some gains in the northern perimeter (possibly along the Toll 249 corridor) that features higher altitudes.
The thing with Houston though is it's so big in land area that most of the area that is still within the city limits would be the suburbs in almost any other city.


sparker

Los Angeles, with 450+ square miles, also incorporates suburbs (e.g.: the San Fernando Valley) within its city limits; only part of that square mileage features the density of more vertically-oriented cities (S.F., NYC, etc.).  That pattern has repeated itself in almost every city that has expanded its incorporated boundaries; some, like Houston, Dallas, OKC, and others located on relatively benign topography have displayed this tendency.  It seems to depend upon local political structure and habit; some central cities have elected to stay within their traditional boundaries and let peripheral growth be the parvenu of separate entities (surrounding counties or newer incorporated cities or townships).  Of course, this can and does vary from state to state; different rules are established in each governing how such matters are handled.  Pretty easy to discern on a RmcN atlas; core cities that have themselves expanded by territorial annexation are a solid yellow-orange mass, while those dominated by separate suburbs are a pastel patchwork!   

Flint1979

If they are suburbs they don't count towards the cities population or land area. Detroit has Highland Park and Hamtramck which are totally surrounded by the city of Detroit except for the small part where they border each other. It's the same for Los Angeles with Beverly Hills, Santa Monica, Culver City, West Hollywood, Inglewood, San Fernando and so on can't think if there are anymore out there. The San Fernando Valley is just that, a valley it's not a city or anything else so it's not a suburb and the part of the valley that is within L.A. city limits is considered the city of L.A. but places like Glendale, Burbank, San Fernando, Hidden Hills, Agoura Hills and Calabasas are all suburbs of L.A.

sparker

Quote from: Flint1979 on July 08, 2018, 05:03:15 PM
If they are suburbs they don't count towards the cities population or land area. Detroit has Highland Park and Hamtramck which are totally surrounded by the city of Detroit except for the small part where they border each other. It's the same for Los Angeles with Beverly Hills, Santa Monica, Culver City, West Hollywood, Inglewood, San Fernando and so on can't think if there are anymore out there. The San Fernando Valley is just that, a valley it's not a city or anything else so it's not a suburb and the part of the valley that is within L.A. city limits is considered the city of L.A. but places like Glendale, Burbank, San Fernando, Hidden Hills, Agoura Hills and Calabasas are all suburbs of L.A.

For purposes of some funding distribution and census data, the specific jurisdiction indeed is a relevant factor; I was born & raised in Glendale, so I'm more than accustomed to the vagaries of close-in suburbs.  But more and more data is being collected on a regional basis and decisions regarding policy and priorities shifted to MPO's.  The result is that some decisions affecting regional amenities such as transportation/transit, air quality, resource management, and so forth are being made by these omnibus agencies.  Now it's true that some MPO's are chartered with the intent of having the force of law behind their decisions (greater PDX Metro is one of the older and original examples of such), while others can render decisions but depend upon enforcement by the specific jurisdictions within their area.  Of course it varies from metro area to metro area -- but nationwide more and more are adopting the MPO approach for the purposes of both data accumulation and administration, since pressing regional issues tend not to respect city limits but spill over into adjoining jurisdictions.  Such an approach often ameliorates localized NIMBY issues that can paralyze decisions within a particular city or town (they rarely go completely away!), sometimes to the point that some form of approach to a problem becomes possible in the larger arena.  Obviously, the concept is to encourage regional solutions to regional problems rather than simply attempt to compile an aggregate of the willing (which can result in an ineffective "patchwork" with localized "dead zones").  The approach has its adherents and detractors; the former generally fed-up with inaction, while the latter often concerned about loss of local autonomy and priorities.  It tends to be relatively effective where there isn't a history of intraregional animosity; otherwise it's often considered an imposition from without.  But given the instances of metro growth across the country, it's an approach that likely will be utilized more often than not down the line.       

DTComposer

Quote from: Flint1979 on July 08, 2018, 05:03:15 PM
If they are suburbs they don't count towards the cities population or land area. Detroit has Highland Park and Hamtramck which are totally surrounded by the city of Detroit except for the small part where they border each other. It's the same for Los Angeles with Beverly Hills, Santa Monica, Culver City, West Hollywood, Inglewood, San Fernando and so on can't think if there are anymore out there. The San Fernando Valley is just that, a valley it's not a city or anything else so it's not a suburb and the part of the valley that is within L.A. city limits is considered the city of L.A. but places like Glendale, Burbank, San Fernando, Hidden Hills, Agoura Hills and Calabasas are all suburbs of L.A.

It seems like you're mixing the concepts of "suburb" vs. "suburban."

In my mind, "suburb" is a legally definable city/town/etc. that is separate from the central city, but within the same urban area. This city may have a well-defined downtown, even to the point where it would function as a central city itself in a different context. Using Los Angeles as the example, you could point to Glendale, Pasadena, Long Beach and others. Or you might have smaller cities with more neighborhood-oriented (but still well-defined) downtowns, like Alhambra, Torrance, Monrovia. OR you might have cities that have little to no discernible downtown/CBD, like Gardena or Monterey Park (or their downtown has declined to the point where it functions as little more than a series of strip malls).

"Suburban" is a style of density/development that is generally medium to low-density, and whose retail/business components are designed with the automobile in mind (strip malls (er...lifestyle centers), office parks, etc. - all with large parking lots). There's no (so far as I know) official definition of or threshold between suburban vs. urban, but "suburban" development can happen in the central city (i.e., San Fernando Valley) as well as the suburbs themselves. In fact, I would argue that nearly every central city has more "suburban" than "urban" development within their city limits - the exceptions being New York, Boston, Philadelphia, San Francisco, and a handful of others.

On the flip side, there are many high-density neighborhoods with well-defined downtowns or CBDs that are part of a larger city but not part of the "central" or "core" city (often times they are once-independent cities that have been subsumed by the larger city). In Los Angeles, this might include Westwood, San Pedro, North Hollywood, etc.

webny99

Basically, it seems like "Americans" is being defined a little too narrowly...

ET21

Quote from: webny99 on July 10, 2018, 10:38:38 PM
Basically, it seems like "Americans" is being defined a little too narrowly...

Or more of "Let's wait until census data comes out"
The local weatherman, trust me I can be 99.9% right!
"Show where you're going, without forgetting where you're from"

Clinched:
IL: I-88, I-180, I-190, I-290, I-294, I-355, IL-390
IN: I-80, I-94
SD: I-190
WI: I-90, I-94
MI: I-94, I-196
MN: I-90



Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.