Was the 80s the peak of the suburban era and the nadir of cities in the US?

[mhays]

Yes, the same area. It's almost entirely second-generation infill.

[iheartthed]

Should probably also include San Francisco as a legacy city:

1970s loss: -5.1%
1990-2020 growth: 20.7%

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

and that's for the same consistent 84 sq. mile land area, right? (ie. no "growth" through annexation).

that's extremely impressive population growth for a fixed-boundary US city over the past 30 years.

it's at the opposite end of the spectrum from a city like detroit. in fact, seattle just passed detroit for city proper population in census 2020.

I believe so. Seattle last annexed in 1978, and I agree: the growth is impressive.

http://clerk.ci.seattle.wa.us/~F_arc...annex_list.htm

[dave8721]

Originally Posted by mhays

I edited the table to add Seattle, for homer purposes.

Miami's population added 83,693 from 1990-2020 for only a 23.3% increase. Seattle grew almost twice as fast as Miami. I'm sure that would suprise most people.

[UrbanImpact]

Originally Posted by dave8721

Miami's population added 83,693 from 1990-2020 for only a 23.3% increase. Seattle grew almost twice as fast as Miami. I'm sure that would suprise most people.

However the City of Miami has only 36 sq miles of land area while Seattle has 84 sq miles

[mhays]

Why would that matter since we're talking percentage?

[ChiSoxRox]

Here's the list of all cities that had peaked over 250k that were down 10% from their historical high at the 1980 Census, 30 cities and 3 NYC boroughs for comparison:

St Louis, MO -47.03% from its (1950) peak
Manhattan -38.74%
Buffalo, NY -38.31%
Providence, RI -38.15%
Pittsburgh, PA -37.36%
Cleveland, OH -37.27%
Detroit, MI -34.94%
Boston, MA -29.75%
Jersey City, NJ -29.42%
Minneapolis, MN -28.90%
Rochester, NY -27.29%
Dayton, OH -26.22%
Newark, NJ -25.57%
Louisville, KY -23.54%
Cincinnati, OH -23.52%
The Bronx -20.57%
Washington, DC -20.43%
Brooklyn -18.52%
Philadelphia, PA -18.51%
Akron, OH -18.31%
Baltimore, MD -17.16%
Chicago, IL -17.01%
Birmingham, AL -16.57%
Milwaukee, WI -14.18%
Atlanta, GA -14.14%
Saint Paul, MN -13.78%
Norfolk, VA -13.30%
San Francisco, CA -12.43%
Oakland, CA -11.76%
Kansas City, MO -11.62%
Seattle, WA -11.35%
New Orleans, LA -11.16%
New York, NY -10.43%

In the current 2020 Census, this list has shrunk to 22 cities. Toledo is the only new entry (annexation means a 1970 peak), meaning 9 of the 30 cities in 1980 have recovered to get back near or even surpass their historical highs.

Detroit, MI -65.45%
St Louis, MO -64.80%
Cleveland, OH -59.27%
Pittsburgh, PA -55.24%
Buffalo, NY -52.02%
Dayton, OH -47.53%
Birmingham, AL -41.11%
New Orleans, LA -38.81%
Cincinnati, OH -38.63%
Baltimore, MD -38.33%
Rochester, NY -36.44%
Akron, OH -34.40%
Newark, NJ -29.57%
Toledo, OH -29.43%
Manhattan -27.33%
Providence, RI -24.68%
Chicago, IL -24.15%
Norfolk, VA -22.71%
Philadelphia, PA -22.58%
Milwaukee, WI -22.14%
Minneapolis, MN -17.59%
Boston, MA -15.70%
Washington, DC -14.04%

[Steely Dan]

Miami's average density increase 1990 - 2020:

9,960 ppsm -> 12,284 ppsm | +2,324 ppsm (+23.3%)




Seattle's average density increase 1990 - 2020:

6,146 ppsm -> 8,774 ppsm | +2,628 ppsm (+42.8%)



Both cities have densified impressively over the past 30 years, Seattle a bit moreso, but that's largely due to starting from a much lower base.

[mhays]

That's true.

Densities would be closer if you cut Seattle to a similar size however.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by mhays

Densities would be closer if you cut Seattle to a similar size however.

True.

Small land area "boutique" cities always love to tout their density numbers.

The best way to compare densities in the most apples to apples way is metro area weighted density.

Chisoxrox already did just that for 2020 MSAs in the CB thread, and miami still does really well because it has so little ultra-low density sprawl bleed (ie. what I call "country sprawl").

[Docere]

[deleted]

[memph]

Household size decreases probably accounted for much of the 1970s population loss though. There was definitely a decline in occupied households in many cities in the 60s and 70s, but I think the 80s might've been worse?

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by memph

Household size decreases probably accounted for much of the 1970s population loss though. There was definitely a decline in occupied households in many cities in the 60s and 70s, but I think the 80s might've been worse?

yes, the 70s saw a steep decline in average US household size (i think the steepest on record).

absolute shit-tons of baby-boomer 20-somethings moving out of their parent's homes for the first time, along with a skyrocketing divorce rate splitting up millions of households.

average household size, nationwide, went from 3.14 in 1970 to 2.76 in 1980, a -12.1% drop.

when we compare that drop to the population loss of legacy cities in the '70s, we can see which ones "over-performed" against the average household size decrease.

the cities at the top of the list below were seeing very real losses of actual households over the decade.



1970s population loss in legacy cities:

St. Louis: -27.1%*
Cleveland: -23.6%*
Buffalo: -22.7%*
Detroit: -20.5%
Pittsburgh: -18.5%*
DC: -15.6%*
Cincinnati: -14.8%*
Minneapolis: -14.6%*
Philly: -13.4%*
Baltimore: -13.1%*
Boston: -12.2%
Milwaukee: -11.3%*
Chicago: -10.7%*
NYC: -10.4%*

(*) signifies worst decade on record thus far

[Docere]

I'd say it was the 1970s. Almost every city proper declined in the 1970s, except for very large cities that were largely postwar development.

Even the city of Toronto (pre-amalgamation city proper) saw a 20% decline. But this wasn't because the city had deteriorated. Interestingly the city core got wealthier. This was the heyday of the urban reform movement and a new generation of professionals were embracing city living (they were called "whitepainters").

In 1960, the Annex was sort of an old bourgeois neighborhood down on its luck and filled with university students and rooming houses and Cabbagetown was filled with low income homeowners. By 1980, both the Annex and Cabbagetown were quite desirable. The Annex, near the University of Toronto, attracted university faculty and writers. Cabbagetown had been "discovered" by professionals who fixed up the old houses and was now known for its Victorian housing stock.

[Rail Claimore]

The Nadir of most US cities was the 70's, but I would say the peak of suburbia was the 2000's. Even though cities were on the mend for 20 years by that point, suburbia was still growing, and starting to mature as far as culture, diversity, and amenities.

I think when we think of the 80's as peak suburbia, we think of it in terms of pop culture more than anything else.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Rail Claimore

I would say the peak of suburbia was the 2000's. Even though cities were on the mend for 20 years by that point, suburbia was still growing, and starting to mature as far as culture, diversity, and amenities.

for chicagoland, not including the MASSIVE initial sprawl explosion in the immediate post-wat period, i think "suburbia" peaked in the 90s, at least going by the numbers.

yeah, there was still solid growth in the burbs in the '00s, but you could also sense that change was in the air with stalled-out housing developments in the exurbs starting to become more noticeable and some of the surplus malls began closing. and then, of course, after the forclousre crisis, the bottom truly fell out for chicago suburbia in the 2010s.



here are the "city vs. da burbs" population growth figures for chicagoland from the past 7 decades.

the "suburbs" category here is county-consistent for all decades and i eliminated dekalb, grundy, newton, and jasper counties from the MSA because even though they now meet the CB's commuter threshold for MSA inclusion, their developmental links to greater chicagoland are extremely tenuous to non-existent, and none of them grow directly from the outward pressure of the great sprawl bubble.



1960:

city: -70,558 (−1.9%)
suburbs: +1,309,725 (+63.8%)



1970:

city: -183,447 (−5.2%)
suburbs: +1,027,436 (+30.6%)



1980:

city: -361,885 (−10.7%)
suburbs: +512,024 (+11.7%)



1990:

city: -221,346 (−7.4%)
suburbs: +347,898 (+7.1%)



2000:

city: +112,290 (+4.0%)
suburbs: +781,617 (+14.9%)



2010:

city: -200,418 (−6.9%)
suburbs: +531,375 (+8.8%)



2020:

city: +50,790 (+1.9%)
suburbs: +109,851 (+1.7%)

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

for chicagoland, not including the MASSIVE initial sprawl explosion in the immediate post-wat period, i think "suburbia" peaked in the 90s, at least going by the numbers.

yeah, there was still solid growth in the burbs in the '00s, but you could also sense that change was in the air with stalled-out housing developments in the exurbs starting to become more noticeable and some of the surplus malls began closing. and then, of course, after the forclousre crisis, the bottom truly fell out for chicago suburbia in the 2010s.



here are the "city vs. da burbs" population growth figures for chicagoland from the past 7 decades.

the "suburbs" category here is county-consistent for all decades and i eliminated dekalb, grundy, newton, and jasper counties from the MSA because even though they now meet the CB's commuter threshold for MSA inclusion, their developmental links to greater chicagoland are extremely tenuous to non-existent, and none of them grow directly from the outward pressure of the great sprawl bubble.



1960:

city: -70,558 (−1.9%)
suburbs: +1,309,725 (+63.8%)



1970:

city: -183,447 (−5.2%)
suburbs: +1,027,436 (+30.6%)



1980:

city: -361,885 (−10.7%)
suburbs: +512,024 (+11.7%)



1990:

city: -221,346 (−7.4%)
suburbs: +347,898 (+7.1%)



2000:

city: +112,290 (+4.0%)
suburbs: +781,617 (+14.9%)



2010:

city: -200,418 (−6.9%)
suburbs: +531,375 (+8.8%)



2020:

city: +50,790 (+1.9%)
suburbs: +109,851 (+1.7%)

2010's was historical for the US as we have cities growing faster than suburbs for the first time in history. Hence, suburbs golden age ended in the 2000's. They're done for good.

About Chicago, I remember back in the day when I was putting together the 2000 Census numbers. It grew insanely. Almost 1 million people added. Such stark contrast with 21th century Chicago.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Yuri

About Chicago, I remember back in the day when I was putting together the 2000 Census numbers. It grew insanely. Almost 1 million people added.

yeah, the 90s were a real anomaly decade for chicagoland.

fusing the city and suburbs figures on my list above, here's how overall numerical growth went by decade:


1960: +1,239,167

1970: +843,989

1980: +150,139

1990: +126,552

2000: +893,907

2010: +330,957

2020: +160,641



so, 21st century chicagoland is just settling back into the slow-growth model the area was in back in the '70s/'80s, after an explosive outlier '90s.

Originally Posted by Yuri

Such stark contrast with 21th century Chicago.

and that's not a necessarily a bad thing.

the one thing that chicagoland absolutely does not need any more of is low density sprawl.

2,000 sq. miles of it is WAY more than enough.

since chicagoland/IL won't curtail sprawl through policy, the only thing we have left to fight it with is low population growth.

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

so, 21st century chicagoland is just settling back into the slow-growth model the area was in back in the '70s/'80s, after an explosive outlier '90s.

The 1990's were a great decade, and not only for Chicago, but for so many metro areas.

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

and that's not a necessarily a bad thing.

the one thing that chicagoland absolutely does not need any more of is low density sprawl.

2,000 sq. miles of it is WAY more than enough.

since chicagoland/IL won't curtail sprawl through policy, the only thing we have left to fight it with is low population growth.

Yeah, but I'd like to see Chicago growing like Toronto or at least like Minneapolis. That would certainly increase their weight in the US and worldwide. It's such a special city, one of the greatest of the 20th century.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Yuri

Yeah, but I'd like to see Chicago growing like Toronto or at least like Minneapolis.

chicago growing like toronto is not going to happen anytime soon.

not only does toronto get like 10x more immigrants, it's also a metro area that actually enacts measures to curtail sprawl and "force" denser development.

if free-for-all chicagoland had the population growth of metro toronto over the past 5 decades or so, the sprawl would probably stretch west to the fucking mississippi river by now .


minneapolis is a much more realistic target to shoot for.

but again, without toronto-style controls in place, more people in chicagoland will just mean more mind-numbing sprawl (a big problem in the twin cities as well).