Declining Metro Areas

[Yuri]

Here we discuss a lot urban decline, after all, it's an US-centric forum and we have plenty of examples of urban population drops, with dramatic plunges like Detroit or St. Louis city proper.

However, when it comes to metropolitan areas, declines are either rare or very smooth or it happened at some point and the region recovery afterwards (e.g. New York, London).

So I open the thread to bring those examples and for discussing future declines or recovery. Let's start with:

Detroit



Area: 10,081 km²

Population
1910: - 709,883
1920: 1,407,111 --- 98.2%
1930: 2,292,528 --- 62.9%
1940: 2,506,530 ---- 9.3%
1950: 3,170,315 --- 26.5%
1960: 3,949,720 --- 24.6%
1970: 4,431,390 --- 12.2%
1980: 4,353,365 --- -1.8%
1990: 4,248,699 --- -2.4%
2000: 4,452,557 ---- 4.8%
2010: 4,296,250 --- -3.5%
2020: 4,392,041 ---- 2.2%

Population peak: 2000

Decline from the peak: -1.4%

Biggest decline: -4.1% (1970-1990)

Detroit, world's most well known example of urban decay, losing 2/3 of its city proper population, it's barely below its peak when we look to its metro area. And if things keep going well (and the US decides to resume immigration), they might even surpass it.

Note how fast Detroit was growing before decline, dropping from a double-digit rate to negative within one decade. Boom and bust. Although it looks a bit odd, that's not a rare phenomenon. We see it rather often.

I'll post more later and it won't be an only US list.

[Docere]

Detroit continued to grow fairly significantly until 1970. Buffalo is basically the same in population as in 1950, and dropped by 8% in the 1970s. Between 1970 and 2010, the population declined in every decade.

Buffalo-Niagara Falls

1940 959,487
1950 1,089,230 +13.5%
1960 1,306,957 +20%
1970 1,349,211 +3.2%
1980 1,242,826 -7.9%
1990 1,189,430 -4.3%
2000 1,170,116 -1.6%
2010 1,135,509 -3%
2020 1,166,902 +2.8%

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by Docere

Detroit continued to grow fairly significantly until 1970. Buffalo is basically the same in population as in 1950, and dropped by 8% in the 1970s. Between 1970 and 2010, the population declined in every decade.

Yes, Buffalo and Pittsburgh are the most emblematic cases for metro area decline as they kept losing population continuously since the 1970's and 1960's respectively. And interestingly, 2020 Census showed both growing for the first time since.

And if we look to smaller metro areas, like Scranton-Wilkes Barre, then the decline started even before, in the 1930's.

[Yuri]

Pittsburgh



Area: 9,944 km²

Population
1890: - 841,349
1900: 1,140,808 --- 35.6%
1910: 1,544,490 --- 35.4%
1920: 1,837,259 --- 19.0%
1930: 2,103,749 --- 14.5%
1940: 2,170,146 ---- 3.2%
1950: 2,310,556 ---- 6.5%
1960: 2,520,074 ---- 9.1%
1970: 2,529,186 ---- 0.4%
1980: 2,411,806 --- -4.6%
1990: 2,249,460 --- -6.7%
2000: 2,210,051 --- -1.8%
2010: 2,150,738 --- -2.7%
2020: 2,176,568 ---- 1.2%

Population peak: 1970 *

Decline from the peak: -13.6%

Largest decline: -14.7% (1970-2010)

* I use to say Pittsburgh start to decline in the 1960's. That's because the back then metro area definition didn't include Butler County. By the four-county definition, Pittsburgh peaked in 1960 with 2,405,435 falling to 2,401,245 in 1970.

Pittsburgh is the most emblematic case of a major metro area in the US. Absolute decline kicked very early and they lost population every single census, only recovering now in 2020. Note that relative decline started in the beginning of the 20th century, with its growth rates slowing down in 1930's and not rebounding on the 1940's- 1960's as happened everywhere in the US.

Unlike Detroit posted above, Pittsburgh rises way earlier (it was the US 5th largest metro area by the turn of the 20th century). In 1910, it had twice the size of Detroit. Pittsburgh was not a case of boom and bust either: their slowdown was a smooth process that happened over several decades. On the other hand, they experienced very big declines over two decades (1970's and 1980's).

And in a time the US reaches their smallest population growth ever (2010-2020), Pittsburgh, even with a very aged population (lots of deaths), resumes its growth.

[DZH22]

Originally Posted by Yuri

And in a time the US reaches their smallest population growth ever (2010-2020), Pittsburgh, even with a very aged population (lots of deaths), resumes its growth.

It wouldn't surprise me if a lot of this stat is due to the US completely botching the census during covid in 2020.

Multiple cities are challenging the census data, including my own:
https://www.boston.com/news/politics...ing-the-tally/

[Austinlee]

Originally Posted by Yuri

Pittsburgh



Area: 9,944 km²

Population
1890: - 841,349
1900: 1,140,808 --- 35.6%
1910: 1,544,490 --- 35.4%
1920: 1,837,259 --- 19.0%
1930: 2,103,749 --- 14.5%
1940: 2,170,146 ---- 3.2%
1950: 2,310,556 ---- 6.5%
1960: 2,520,074 ---- 9.1%
1970: 2,529,186 ---- 0.4%
1980: 2,411,806 --- -4.6%
1990: 2,249,460 --- -6.7%
2000: 2,210,051 --- -1.8%
2010: 2,150,738 --- -2.7%
2020: 2,176,568 ---- 1.2%

Population peak: 1970 *

Decline from the peak: -13.6%

Largest decline: -14.7% (1970-2010)

* I use to say Pittsburgh start to decline in the 1960's. That's because the back then metro area definition didn't include Butler County. By the four-county definition, Pittsburgh peaked in 1960 with 2,405,435 falling to 2,401,245 in 1970.

Pittsburgh is the most emblematic case of a major metro area in the US. Absolute decline kicked very early and they lost population every single census, only recovering now in 2020. Note that relative decline started in the beginning of the 20th century, with its growth rates slowing down in 1930's and not rebounding on the 1940's- 1960's as happened everywhere in the US.

Unlike Detroit posted above, Pittsburgh rises way earlier (it was the US 5th largest metro area by the turn of the 20th century). In 1910, it had twice the size of Detroit. Pittsburgh was not a case of boom and bust either: their slowdown was a smooth process that happened over several decades. On the other hand, they experienced very big declines over two decades (1970's and 1980's).

And in a time the US reaches their smallest population growth ever (2010-2020), Pittsburgh, even with a very aged population (lots of deaths), resumes its growth.

Where are you getting these metro numbers? Your number is missing 200k residents. (2.17m vs our current 2.37m)

The current MSA (Metropolitan Statistical Area) population of Pittsburgh should be around 2.37m as of 2020 down from a peak of 2.76m in 1960. So the Pittsburgh metro has lost 300k since 1960.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_Pittsburgh

And the CSA (Combined Statistical Area) current number is around 2.63m.
Which is ALSO currently declining.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_Pittsburgh

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by Austinlee

Where are you getting these metro numbers? Your number is missing 200k residents. (2.17m vs our current 2.37m)

The current MSA (Metropolitan Statistical Area) population of Pittsburgh should be around 2.37m as of 2020 down from a peak of 2.76m in 1960. So the Pittsburgh metro has lost 300k since 1960.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_Pittsburgh

And the CSA (Combined Statistical Area) current number is around 2.63m.
Which is ALSO currently declining.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_Pittsburgh

Allegheny, Beaver, Butler, Washington and Westmoreland.

Pittsburgh metro area was defined by the US Census Bureau as the 4 counties (minus Butler) till 1983. Then Fayette was included.

That's how the 4-county Pittsburgh grew (2020-1950):
+0,81% -3,39% -2,93% -7,35% -5,72% -0,17% +8,68%

And that's Butler County:
+5,39% +5,62% +14,52% +2,77% +15,61% +11,60% +17,80%

Since the 1950's at least, Butler was clearly a booming suburb of Pittsburgh, hence I included it.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

And that's how 5-county Pittsburgh performed (2020-2000):
+1,20% -2,68%

And the two counties of the MSA I decided to drop here:

Armstrong: -4,91% -4,77%
Fayette: -5,71% -8,10%

Pittsburgh forumers always say that all counties minus Allegheny are actually a collection of small coal towns and not Pittsburgh suburbs per se. I don't know about that, but clearly they have a case for Armstrong and Fayette. They don't behave like suburbs, but like collapsing coal counties.

That's why I decided to use the 5 counties to define "Pittsburgh metro area" here.

[Wigs]

Originally Posted by Docere

Detroit continued to grow fairly significantly until 1970. Buffalo is basically the same in population as in 1950, and dropped by 8% in the 1970s. Between 1970 and 2010, the population declined in every decade.

Buffalo-Niagara Falls

1940 959,487
1950 1,089,230 +13.5%
1960 1,306,957 +20%
1970 1,349,211 +3.2%
1980 1,242,826 -7.9%
1990 1,189,430 -4.3%
2000 1,170,116 -1.6%
2010 1,135,509 -3%
2020 1,166,902 +2.8%

yes, but BOTH the city of Buffalo and Erie County are growing again. Every inner ring suburb showed growth besides Tonawanda/Kenmore, and that was negligible.

In Buffalo, the inner city and inner suburb decline has pretty much already stopped.
Here's all of the inner ring suburbs:
° Tonawanda, pop. 72.6k (-931) 3rd largest suburb
° West Seneca, pop. 45.5k (+789)
° Cheektowaga, 89.8k (+1,651) 2nd largest suburb (Buffalo-Niagara airport, Walden Galleria-largest mall)
° Lackawanna, pop. ~20k (+1,808)
° Amherst, pop. 129.6k (+7,229) the largest suburb (UB North campus) with largest concentration of wealth is both inner and secondary ring
° City of Buffalo, pop. 278.3k (+17,039)
° Erie county is 954,236 (+35,196)

Erie County Map

Buffalo + inner ring suburbs
Buffalo 40.38
Tonawanda 18.7
Amherst 53.2
Cheektowaga 29.43
West Seneca 21.36
Lackawanna 6.55

total pop: 635,906
total sq miles (excl water): 169.62
55% of Buffalo-Niagara MSA population is in an area slightly larger than city of Detroit (138.7 sq miles)

Pop Density Buffalo + inner ring suburbs: 3,749/sq mi
City of Buffalo pop density: 6,893/sq mi

highly recommend people check out the google streetview Before/After comparisons benp did on SSC--post #1860 onward
https://www.skyscrapercity.com/threa...733630/page-93

Buffalo has 67 projects in the development pipeline.

On the East Side, nine projects are under review for a total of $57.85 million in private-sector investment. Cedarland Development Co. plans an $11.65 million renovation of the former Eckhardt department store at Broadway and Fillmore, and the company has been named developer for 37 residential and vacant parcels on Playter Street.

Of the projects tracked by the Buffalo Office of Strategic Planning, 34.3% are in the Elmwood Village and West Side; 29.9% are in North Buffalo; 13.4% are on the East Side; 9% are in the central business district; 7.5% are along the waterfront; and 6% are in South Buffalo.

The impact is being felt, said Dwayne Jones, pastor of the Mt. Aaron Baptist Church on Buffalo's East Side.

“When these projects come along, they lift the psyche of the entire neighborhood,” Jones said. “I see it in our projects along Genesee Street.”

https://www.bizjournals.com/buffalo/...nk-column.html

Perhaps the most visible sign of Buffalo’s changing fortunes are its new apartments, which turn up in empty warehouses, former municipal buildings and longtime parking lots converted into much-needed housing. In the last decade, 224 multifamily projects — encompassing 10,150 apartments, most of them rentals, the equivalent of about $3 billion in investment — have opened or are underway, according to the office of Mayor Byron W. Brown.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/03/b...-shooting.html

[Klippenstein]

Originally Posted by Wigs

yes, but BOTH the city of Buffalo and Erie County are growing again. Every inner ring suburb showed growth besides Tonawanda/Kenmore, and that was negligible.

In Buffalo, the inner city and inner suburb decline has pretty much already stopped.
Here's all of the inner ring suburbs:
° Tonawanda, pop. 72.6k (-931) 3rd largest suburb
° West Seneca, pop. 45.5k (+789)
° Cheektowaga, 89.8k (+1,651) 2nd largest suburb (Buffalo-Niagara airport, Walden Galleria-largest mall)
° Lackawanna, pop. ~20k (+1,808)
° Amherst, pop. 129.6k (+7,229) the largest suburb (UB North campus) with largest concentration of wealth is both inner and secondary ring
° City of Buffalo, pop. 278.3k (+17,039)
° Erie county is 954,236 (+35,196)

How’s Clarence doing? (That’s where I grew up.)

[benp]

Originally Posted by Klippenstein

How’s Clarence doing? (That’s where I grew up.)

Clarence, pop 32,950 (+2,277)

[Wigs]

Originally Posted by Klippenstein

How’s Clarence doing? (That’s where I grew up.)

1980 18,146 −0.1%
1990 20,041 10.4%
2000 26,123 30.3%
2010 30,673 17.4%
2020 32,950 7.4%

Still growing, wealthier than ever! Still one of the best school districts too.

There was just an article in Buffalo Business First that 11 homes have sold in Clarence for over $1M this year.
I remember when the entirety of Western NY didn't even have 5 million dollar home transactions.

A home in Clarence's Spaulding Lake subdivision was the 47th private residence in Erie County to sell for more than $1 million this year.

https://www.bizjournals.com/buffalo/...5-million.html

Whenever I see your username I'm like "is this Ken Klippenstein from twitter?"

[Yuri]

Torino



Area: 885 km²

Population
1951: - 913,742
1961: 1,292,826 --- 41.5%
1971: 1,678,022 --- 29.8%
1981: 1,706,523 ---- 1.7%
1991: 1,591,337 --- -6.7%
2001: 1,507,896 --- -5.2%
2011: 1,548,945 ---- 2.7%
2021: 1,527,041 --- -1.4%

Population peak: 1981

Decline from the peak: -10.5%

Biggest decline: -11.6% (1981-2001)

As we hardly ever leave the US, here one coming from Europe, the beautiful Turin, Italy's Detroit, Italian unification capital.

Aside being the seat of Italian auto industry, Turin shares another similarity with Detroit, which is the insane growth rate followed by stagnation/decline. The boom and bust. Decline took longer to reach Turin: it was in the 1980's as opposed to the 1970's that were tragic for the entire US North.

Turin saw a small recovery on the 2000's due mass immigration to Italy, but as Italian demographics deteriorated a lot in the recent years, Turin is back to negative.

[DCReid]

Originally Posted by Yuri

Here we discuss a lot urban decline, after all, it's an US-centric forum and we have plenty of examples of urban population drops, with dramatic plunges like Detroit or St. Louis city proper.

However, when it comes to metropolitan areas, declines are either rare or very smooth or it happened at some point and the region recovery afterwards (e.g. New York, London).

So I open the thread to bring those examples and for discussing future declines or recovery. Let's start with:

Detroit



Area: 10,081 km²

Population
1910: - 709,883
1920: 1,407,111 --- 98.2%
1930: 2,292,528 --- 62.9%
1940: 2,506,530 ---- 9.3%
1950: 3,170,315 --- 26.5%
1960: 3,949,720 --- 24.6%
1970: 4,431,390 --- 12.2%
1980: 4,353,365 --- -1.8%
1990: 4,248,699 --- -2.4%
2000: 4,452,557 ---- 4.8%
2010: 4,296,250 --- -3.5%
2020: 4,392,041 ---- 2.2%

Population peak: 2000

Decline from the peak: -1.4%

Largest decline: -3.5% (2000-2010)

Detroit, world's most well known example of urban decay, losing 2/3 of its city proper population, it's barely below its peak when we look to its metro area. And if things keep going well (and the US decides to resume immigration), they might even surpass it.

Note how fast Detroit was growing before decline, dropping from a double-digit rate to negative within one decade. Boom and bust. Although it looks a bit odd, that's not a rare phenomenon. We see it rather often.

I'll post more later and it won't be an only US list.

It's actually interesting that Detroit metro has fared better than Pittsburgh and Buffalo given the well publicized urban decay and the seemingly high dependence on one industry (autos). I wonder why - perhaps some rural Michigan people moved into the metro or simply most people leaving the city still staying in the metro and not relocating to other metros.

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by DCReid

It's actually interesting that Detroit metro has fared better than Pittsburgh and Buffalo given the well publicized urban decay and the seemingly high dependence on one industry (autos). I wonder why - perhaps some rural Michigan people moved into the metro or simply most people leaving the city still staying in the metro and not relocating to other metros.

As you quoted, I noticed an error. Detroit biggest decline was actually -4.1% (1970-1990) and not on the 2000-2010 period as posted originally.

About Detroit, the thing is the city decline was so intense and dramatic, that changes our perceptions about the big picture. Detroit metro area economy faced those Rust Belt issues, but it was not a special case. For one thing, its industrial base was more "modern" (cars) whereas Pittsburgh was "older" (steel, coal).

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Yuri

As you quoted, I noticed an error. Detroit biggest decline was actually -4.1% (1970-1990) and not on the 2000-2010 period as posted originally.

Detroit's population drop from 1970 - 1990 was in line with the NY Metro population drop during that time. In fact, NY Metro's drop in the 1970s was worse, but it experienced a rebound in the 1980s. The point here is not to say that New York is Rust Belt, but rather what constitutes Rust Belt? Chicago is also often lumped in as Rust Belt, but it did not experience a population drop during this time period, and to my understand it has never had a drop.

Originally Posted by Yuri

About Detroit, the thing is the city decline was so intense and dramatic, that changes our perceptions about the big picture. Detroit metro area economy faced those Rust Belt issues, but it was not a special case. For one thing, its industrial base was more "modern" (cars) whereas Pittsburgh was "older" (steel, coal).

Which is why we need to stop talking about Detroit's issues as just being economic. I don't think Metro Detroit's economic performance was the primary causal factor for Detroit's massive population drop. I feel that it's more likely the other way around. The social and political malfunction, which I think was the biggest factor in Detroit's decline, has been a drag on Metro Detroit's economic performance.

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Detroit's population drop from 1970 - 1990 was in line with the NY Metro population drop during that time. In fact, NY Metro's drop in the 1970s was worse, but it experienced a rebound in the 1980s. The point here is not to say that New York is Rust Belt, but rather what constitute's Rust Belt? Chicago is also often lumped in as Rust Belt, but it did not experience a population drop during this time period, and to my understand it has never had a drop.

Yes, New York decline between 1970-1980 was as big as Detroit's between 1970-1990, so way more intense in New York. Boston and Philadelphia also experienced their only decline in the 1970's as well. I intend to bring a table for NY too, to make the list less obvious. After all, if you were in the 1970's, you couldn't tell whether New York decline was only a blip or it would be there forever.

Chicago indeed never experienced a decline and today it's the city/metro area we discussed more today when it comes to stagnant/decline population. Same for Rochester, located far away from everything on NY upstate and they managed to avoid decline for all over those decades. Interestingly, both Chicago and Rochester was projected to lose population in the 2010's for the first time, but 2020 Census showed they didn't.

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Which is why we need to stop talking about Detroit's issues as just being economic. I don't think Metro Detroit's economic performance was the primary causal factor for Detroit's massive population drop. I feel that it's more likely the other way around. The social and political malfunction, which I think was the biggest factor in Detroit's decline, has been a drag on Metro Detroit's economic performance.

I've never been there, so I don't know much about it, but I guess you're spot on. With so violent urban flight that made several institutions in the city to collapse, that certainly had an economic impact on the metro area. If Detroit decline as in line with any other city in the US North, I risk to say Detroit could have an extra 1 million people in its CSA or MSA today. I assume a better economic performance, and as such, more people would stay in the region.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by DCReid

It's actually interesting that Detroit metro has fared better than Pittsburgh and Buffalo given the well publicized urban decay and the seemingly high dependence on one industry (autos). I wonder why - perhaps some rural Michigan people moved into the metro or simply most people leaving the city still staying in the metro and not relocating to other metros.

It's not really odd. The Detroit area is much wealthier and a comparatively much bigger immigration magnet. The region functions more like a Sunbelt sprawler than a typical Eastern metro. In contrast to Buffalo and Pittsburgh, the region has tons of McMansion sprawl and Edge City stuff. The auto industry has always been a huge magnet.

Buffalo and Pittsburgh are more traditional Eastern cities, and there's very little sprawl of recent vintage. Both cities have stronger city propers, with not much going on in suburbia, relatively speaking.

A lot of Detroit looks like Dallas, not just in built form, but demographics. Endless McMansions with tons of South Asians and Arabs, giant freeway-like surface arterials, megachurches, drive-thru everything, bleak, relatively treeless townships relentlessly consuming farmland. Places like Canton Township, Novi, Lyon Township, Commerce Township, Rochester Hills, etc. Kinda a Dallas-Toronto sprawl mashup, minus the Dallas Mexicans and the Toronto apartment blocks.

Pittsburgh just looks like the biggest city in Appalachia, Buffalo is basically just another Upstate city and both kinda feel frozen in place outside the healthier cores. This is a good thing, BTW. Nice to not have 100 Sams Clubs and endless McCrapBoxes.

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by Crawford

It's not really odd. The Detroit area is much wealthier and a comparatively much bigger immigration magnet. The region functions more like a Sunbelt sprawler than a typical Eastern metro. In contrast to Buffalo and Pittsburgh, the region has tons of McMansion sprawl and Edge City stuff. The auto industry has always been a huge magnet.

Buffalo and Pittsburgh are more traditional Eastern cities, and there's very little sprawl of recent vintage. Both cities have stronger city propers, with not much going on in suburbia, relatively speaking.

A lot of Detroit looks like Dallas, not just in built form, but demographics. Endless McMansions with tons of South Asians and Arabs, giant freeway-like surface arterials, megachurches, drive-thru everything, bleak, relatively treeless townships relentlessly consuming farmland. Places like Canton Township, Novi, Lyon Township, Commerce Township, Rochester Hills, etc. Kinda a Dallas-Toronto sprawl mashup, minus the Dallas Mexicans and the Toronto apartment blocks.

Pittsburgh just looks like the biggest city in Appalachia, Buffalo is basically just another Upstate city and both kinda feel frozen in place outside the healthier cores. This is a good thing, BTW. Nice to not have 100 Sams Clubs and endless McCrapBoxes.

Fun fact from the other thread, which I didn’t know until doing this: Pittsburgh was one of the first major cities in the United States where the collar communities were more populous in sum than the city itself.

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by Crawford

A lot of Detroit looks like Dallas, not just in built form, but demographics. Endless McMansions with tons of South Asians and Arabs, giant freeway-like surface arterials, megachurches, drive-thru everything, bleak, relatively treeless townships relentlessly consuming farmland. Places like Canton Township, Novi, Lyon Township, Commerce Township, Rochester Hills, etc. Kinda a Dallas-Toronto sprawl mashup, minus the Dallas Mexicans and the Toronto apartment blocks.

What's up with this lack of trees in Detroit (and Dallas)? To me US suburbs has always been associated with lots of trees on the streets, on the plots.

Originally Posted by Crawford

Pittsburgh just looks like the biggest city in Appalachia, Buffalo is basically just another Upstate city and both kinda feel frozen in place outside the healthier cores. This is a good thing, BTW. Nice to not have 100 Sams Clubs and endless McCrapBoxes.

Do you think this will change now as they're posting for the first time in decades? And this is specially challenging for them to accomplish as they both have an older population, and therefore negative natural growth. I mean, they pretty much stopped emigration and managed to attract immigrants. I'd guess we would see more "action" on the ground.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Yuri

What's up with this lack of trees in Detroit (and Dallas)? To me US suburbs has always been associated with lots of trees on the streets, on the plots.

Dallas is located in prairie land. I don't think there are a lot of native trees in that area. Older Detroit suburbs do have trees (example), but the newer Detroit suburbs are mostly converted from farmland.