Although some of these cities lost population within the city limits the overall population of the metro areas hasn't decreased, and in some cases has increased.
@@PassionVille96 It was highly industrialized... and corporate ABANDONED it and left the mills to rot..... like that will not leave scars as if a war hit.....
The percentage of change mattered more to me. Chicago, San Fran and NY don't even notice a difference. Detroit, St Louis and Gary taking the cake in that aspect.
About New York or San Francisco the population decline has started only since 2020 (so just 3 years compared to the 2023 data). It's still impressive to see that NYC has lost more than 500k inhabitans in such a short time. But it's almost certain that these cities will not lose more than half of their populations in the future. Unlike Detroit, St. Louis, Cleveland ...
@@PassionVille96 Nothing is certain. A major earthquake could hurt terribly as it did in 2006. Still, our cities are a terrible thing to waste... yet some in our ideolloggy war abhor them and those not in the Right states. So sad in how our northern/ rustbelt cities endure so much... deindustrialization, suburbanization that took tax based along with white-flight fed by FHA loans and GI loans also and redlining city areas with minorities or high immigrants NOT to get them loans. You cannot lose so much manufacturing that built this nation.... and not yet gentrification till really the 90s and not endure lost... Add a AGING population who if with mans... moved to warmer retirement states and only hope was the influx of Latinos. Now up to a 1/3 of some cities who also lost a huge % of Black residents due to those areas jobs left just allowed to ABANDON MILLS THAT BUILT AMERICA and once retrofitted for WW2 production..... just by no long wanting to invest and pay UNION wages that built our middle-class.... after suburbs.... moved to ASIA and we created their economies.... the beast of China now we created. Now it is the SUNBELT cities and states once not desired for mills as too hot before AC FOR ALL.... remained cheap.... and up north so many gained EQUITY In homes rising cost.... taxes up to rebuild aging infrastructure, rebuilding the expressways that once the Feds built. Add yes corruption that ALWAYS Comes in and is in sunbelt cities more as one-party rule hits and skyrocketing real estate taxes in larger metros.... Infrastructure needs and it too ages. Add how families in these cities ARE MUCH SMALLER vs pre- 1960. THANK GOD GENTRIFICATION CAME to RENEW cities and add more TAX-BASE with PROFESSIONALS now even hurting as cost still rise. Only in America did we as a nation see our cities as throw-away.... make them polluted then as REGULATIONS CAME.... industry saying we will just move..... and they did. Now a president to be who says industry come back..... PLEASE STEER IT TO THE NORTH AGAIN and APPALACHIA that once also had thriving textile mills as my old hometown in PA.... It mades - mens and womens shoes, Nighware, mens shirts, dresses and all the mills JUST ABANDONED.... it too is much smaller in population. It once had unions that got them some benefits only to lose it all and still the FEAR OF UNIONS has them prefer RIGHT-TO-WORK states that had that to make it soooo much harder to UNIONIZE that they have low fear.... Only again in America do we HATTE OUR CITIES VS REVERE THEM and I hope now the FIXING WILL COME.... but will it????? Europe and the world REVERES ITS CITIES AS BASTIONS OF THEIR HISTORY... our LEGACY cities deserve better.
San Francisco's decline has been intense. It went from having some of the worst traffic in North America before 2020, during the tech boom, to being very little traffic everyday. A lot of the urban core is still largely abandoned. Its a stark contrast with rust belt cities that took decades to slowly hollow-out, San Francisco feels like it imploded. I hope they will recover, probably will be a long and difficult path back.
America is always changing. In the 70s and 80s everyone was moving to California. Now a lot of people are moving to places like Texas and Florida. After their good run-up, I wonder what state will be next to surge?
I guess the Midwest or the Rust Belt will regain population one day. If the Sun Belt is no longer more populous in the future, I don't see other alternatives.
Populations fluctuate for all kinds of reasons. Someone once told me, “when the economy is expanding & doing real well - people move into the cities. When the economy is contracting & is cooling - people move to the suburbs.” I think they are right.
USA population has soared. Rural population hasn't grown much. Many cities have shrunk. Everyone moving to the Sun Belt - Arizona, North Carolina, Texas, Florida, Georgia, etc - and to the suburbs.
Yes it's true, no metro area has lost as many inhabitants than the core city (proportionally). But for several cities that have lost a great percentage of their population, the metro area population can decline too (ex : Pittsburgh). Other case, other metro areas haven't seen their population grow for decades (ex : Detroit). And last example, it's true that some metro have managed to gain inhabitans but it's still far less than Sun Belt Cities (ex : Cincinnati).
Americans, for the most part, have no pride in their cities. It's sad that these cities have been so decimated. In the 50's and 60's they represented America's industrial might. I hope someday that everyone of these cities will experience a renaissance.
There's hope. Some cities listed regain population since 2010 (Buffalo, Cincinnati, ...). And for other cities the decline has slow down for several years, and it's possible that these cities will regain inhabitants too (Detroit, Pittsburgh, …).
@@PassionVille96Dayton lost so much NCR Standard Register GM Crysler Harrison Radiator Mead Papers Appleton Papers Cox Media Huffy Bikes Cooper Tires we at one point in time was major a guy could graduate and maintain a decent living in area without going to college and forgive me for my many post I'm just pro Dayton
Ian gone lie Milwaukee is making a huge comeback prolly one of the only midwestern cities that’s trying new methods to grow the population the skyline is growing we got a new 50 story building coming and other construction that’s happening all over the city
@@JdeC1994 that's straight up cap Milwaukee is growing the downtown area had experienced the most of the growth but as a whole the city is slowly growing
How about the population change of each metropolitans ? I am familiar with Detroit, suburbs are expanding, city center is under redevelopment, overall it looks getting nicer. when I took a public bus running on M1, Woodward Avenue, I noticed some part of the city looked troubled, however carrying traveling I could see posh residential areas in Oakland. ❤
The fairly recent all-time highs of LA and SF might appear to give hope, they don't. SF has enough housing for only about 750,000. When I lived in San Fran in 2010, many recent Chinese immigrants lived in garages, or slept in living rooms, hallways, and kitchens. There's no space to grow and businesses are leaving. LA is another city overpacked with immigrants, although there's a ton of federal money being spent on 3-story and up housing projects in California. It still has room to grow, though not in a good way. Native Californians have been leaving since the '70s.
Businesses are not leaving what are you talking about stop spreading old and fake news. San Francisco is gaining population again and there’s been a huge amount of AI companies leasing out old tech office spaces.
Not sure why the “doom-n-gloom” music was in the background. It’s simply logistics; the US interstate highway system started in the early 50’s and 3-digit spur routes didn’t follow until the early to mid 60’s! That explains the exodus for 27 of the 33 listed
I think of the stranded assets from the population losses. How can these cities continue to operate if bonds for those assets are still outstanding? With fewer property tax payers the debt burden will suck all of the financial resources leaving less money for road, bridge maintenance and schools.
The size of families in USA has dropped dramatically since 1950. So, if the number of occupied dwellings is tabulated then a different story would be revealed. I doubt, for instance, that the number of occupied housing units in Philadelphia has dropped very much.
Yes, a loss of 100k over a short time is much different for L.A. than a small city like Youngstown. If the criteria were for municipalities with peaks of at least 10,000, then cities like East St. Louis, East Cleveland and Cairo Illinois would be on it.
Yougnstown has lost 100k inhabitants in around 75 years compared to 3 years for Los Angeles. And yes, I saw there are a lot of cities (proper) that have lost more than half of their population. But in this video, I choose -50k for the limit. Otherwise it will be too complicated if the limit was -10k for example. Because I should have checked the statistics of maybe ten thousand of municipalities in the US to be sure that I didn't forget one of them, or more.
This is somewhat misleading. While some of these places are tanking in a big way, others are holding their own, as the overall metro region continues to expand, albeit slowly. I would say this about Pittsburgh, in particular.
I can guarantee the Cincinnati area lost probably 20 to 40 thousand people as a direct result of Delta dehubbing CVG airport and shutting down Comair. Chiquita, Toyota North American HQ, and several other large corporations left the Cincinnati Northern Kentucky area after that.
When you realise that LA is shrinking and not growing anymore. Damn. 😮 The DECADES of a trend to grow fast are stopped and changing. That's pretty amazing to think about.
I'm glad you state early on that this is based solely on city proper limits. This also makes the list meaningless. A city's economic power is based on it's greater metro stats. Many city's have small "city limits" but huge growth outside those limits.
Yes I understand. But a lot of cities ranked (even within city limits) are huge by size. And for some of them there are a lot of abandoned places in an urban environment (Detroit is not the sole example). And linked to that the majority of the cities in this video have a low density for a core city. In this video, the only cities that have small limits by area compared to the total urban area are San Francisco (first place for sure), then New York, Boston, Washington DC, Providence. I can add Newark too even if it's not a core city. And I hesitate to include Chicago and Philadelphia. It's 6 or maximum 8 cities compared to 33.
@@PassionVille96 Thank you for your reply. My point is the list does not speak to a cities overall economic growth as a metro stat would help identify. I'm not sure what "city limits" really tells me in todays world. It certainly doesn't speak to an urban core vitality as many cities are experiencing a renaissance that is not merely reflected in transitions in population. I work for a company where we decide where to expand on greater metro stats and an urban core's redevelopment and vitality.
The loss in population has a different case in each city. I bet that with the cities with the highest population in 1950 had post war housing shortage causing overcrowding and the 50’s freeway construction removed thousands of home in these cities.
Mostly due to everyone just moving right outside city limits in the suburbs so they can have more privacy and bigger homes. And to escape crime. the populations are still there, just not in city limits.
They would have to move to the outermost suburbs for all of that. The older first ring suburbs are higher density and have been in decline since the 1980 and 1990 Census readings.
Now do this with metro area instead and you will see that most of these places have not decreased in population overall... just white flight to nearby suburban cities to avoid providing financial support to the central city. Even Detroit metro is still growing.
What about black flight? For generations, blacks have also been moving to the suburbs. "...just white flight to nearby suburban cities to avoid providing financial support to [the You-Know-Who Crowd]."
@JdeC1994 Like I said before... Most of these places haven't decreased in overall population. Just shifting jurisdictions makes it look that way. Not every city does what NYC did with annexing the surrounding cities, counties, and towns. BTW... your ignorance is showing when you started talking about "crowds". Please think and research before speaking. Enjoying all the benefits and access of living near a major city (economic, cultural, social) without contributing by drawing a line around your clearly connected neighborhood is what I'm talking about when I used the generic term "white flight". Don't play with me or my intelligence. We are not on the same level clearly.
@@trayveonjohnson4096 You dodged my question-surprise, surprise. Again, what about black flight? For generations, black people have been fleeing their own kind, so why should white people have a guilt trip? "...by drawing a line around your clearly connected neighborhood..." Oh, brother!🙄 Here we go again with the shameless hypocrisy! Who draws "a line around" their precious "turf" the most? The You-Know-Who Crowd believes that they should be able to walk around-or even live-wherever they please. However, once they've established a place as their "turf," their attitude turns completely around. To them, in their "turf," the mere sight of a different demographic is enough to absolutely enrage them. Translation: shameless hypocrisy. The thing is, the media, the press, the movies, the TV shows, college professors, etc., all let them get away with-so they do. "We are not on the same level clearly." Yeah, I agree-eat your heart out.🙃😎
There has been significant black middle class flight to the older first ring suburbs which is now spurring white flight to the outlaying or outer ring suburbs. This is happening in most metropolitan areas.
@@neilbender3050 They certainly hit bottom first. Cores still first and gentrification neighborhoods. It merely hit these cities later vs the Boston's early and NYC and bit later but decades already a Chicago. Then the DC's and Philly's etc. Competing with sunbelt cities is still not reversing to the north... It will in the future if all America can remain one and not hate each other and our cities are just throwaway as too costly to restore as the northern ones large and small endured thru.
Cleveland is not making that much of a resurgence. It is still impoverished and in steady decline. All the recent investment has been confined to downtown.
In terms of Detroit as you always hear about it from outside the US as a poster child for urban decay etc. The car industry has been gone out of there for the best part of 50 years. That industry is subject to change at the best of times with global players involved. Did anyone ever try seriously to establish another economic model for the place, something else people could do there rather than just watch it slip away a long long time ago and just watch everything slide into ruin?
Several reasons probably......cost of living in urban areas is outrageous, crime rates, job availability, people want to live in a different place now throughout their life instead of staying in one place. Warmer places are more popular than colder ones.
Not only but it's one of the main reason. And maybe it was the first reason in the 20th century. Since 2020, the cost of living seems to be the number one problem.
This video is outdated. Detroit has reversed itself and growing again, both population and economically. Some cities in California should be at the top though. I would say San Francisco to be number one followed by California city, California which this video doesn’t bother to mention
Your not understanding anything "California city"?? Where the hell is that bro? California is full of people 39 million and growing. Don't believe what they say we just say that people are leaving so more don't come ...ha ha love the sunshine plus min. Wage is 20 an hour while the rest of the country is pulling 7.75? Wow that's 3rd world .
@@NewsNow_2050 HUH?! Milwaukee has lost population for the last SIX censuses. Last I checked, it's losing more during this decade. Last year, Chicago had 617 homicides. If Milwaukee had Chicago's population, it would've had about 800 homicides. Get your facts straight!😠
We'll see about that; don't get your hopes up too quick. Chicago's 2020 population was almost exactly the same as in 1990. About 90% of Chicago's population loss happened from 1950 -1990. What state are you from?
@@NewsNow_2050 HUH?! Milwaukee has lost population for the last SIX censuses! Last I checked, Milwaukee's population is still decreasing. Last year, Chicago had 617 homicides. If Milwaukee had the same population as Chicago, it would've had about 800 homicides.
@@NewsNow_2050 Uh, actually, Milwaukee is on a six-census-losing streak (and this decade is looking the same). As for Chicago, last year, Milwaukee's homicide rate was considerably higher than Chicago's. Get your facts straight!🧐
A lot of people in the 50's and 60's moved to the suburbs, so the metro area tells a different story. Many metro areas have stayed the same, or grown. However, cities have lost a lot of tax payers to the suburbs, and are broke
People have been moving further out from the older first ring suburbs since the 80s. What were once tiny country hamlets further out are now booming growing suburbs.
NewsNow_2050 (as of 12-9-2024): "It’s really just Chicago blood Milwaukee on the other hand is doing good" Nope. Milwaukee has lost population for the last SIX decades. Last I checked, this decade is showing more loss. As for Chicago, it had 617 homicides last year. If Milwaukee had the same population as Chicago, it would've had about 800 homicides.
Manufacturing based cities peaked in the 50s and 60s. After Clinton, these cities went into accelerated decline. What’s NYC, Chicago, San Francisco and LA’s excuse? Is it just poor government policies?
For NY, LA or SF it's mainly due to the cost of living. It's now too expensive to live there and most people have a "normal" job, so they can have a similar career in a more affordable place. For Chicago it's different, the loss has begun in the 1950s, and the reasons are: more people went to the suburbs and there were fewer jobs in the industry.
Like most sitcoms, almost all the scenes were shot in studios in Los Angeles area... But even if Scranton has lost population in the past, the city can be cool anyway. Moreover the city hasn't lost inhabitants since 2000.
Excellent commentary on all our urban centers. Guess who’s been running those cities, and I mean all of them. Something is definitely rotten here and it’s NOT in Denmark.
What city is run by republicans and crime free and booming? Blue cities are our economy. Why hasn’t red Mississippi or West Virginia or Arkansas improved under republicans?
@@bmjv77 DFW really exploded after 1960, gaining about a million every census thereafter. But Dallas hasn't been safe in my lifetime. Farther and farther out in the suburbs are ghetto and decayed now.
No worry Allen open that southern border we got young strong hard working people ready to rebuild all these cities. Just like football players in the transfer portal
@@Kenyon712 OH, GOOD GRIEF!🙄 Here we go again with that tired cliché. Dude, in the past, the Democrats completely dominated the South. Guess what! Back then, the South was also disproportionately poor. "Blue cities are our economy." Yeah, there y' go! Just look at Democratic strongholds like Detroit, Baltimore, Memphis, Newark, New Orleans, St. Louis, East St. Louis, Cleveland, East Cleveland, K.C., D.C., Philadelphia, Little Rock, Milwaukee, Oakland, Gary, Mobile, Jackson, Camden, Birmingham, Flint, Louisville, Cincinnati, Atlanta, Atlantic City, Buffalo, etc. What would we do without them?🙄
Yes and no. At least for most of the cities (or metro area) that lost inhabitants, the cost of living rising less than most of the cities that gain inhabitants. For example, a lot of cities in Texas becoming more expensive primarly due to their growing (Austin ...).
Yes, only Birmingham and Jackson have lost a lot inhabitants in the city limits (proportionnaly). And since 2020 in the south it's mainly in the SF Bay Area and in LA Area that the lost is the most important. By the way, I don't know if San Francisco is considered as the South.
The majority of them are Democrats run problems with their government methods of operations administrative state, distribution, and principals. I'm surprised you didn't include Portland Oregon is also in bad shape Portland Oregon supposedly has the highest vacancy rate. Many stores closed and have become so empty hardly anyone is walking the streets there.
@@patatebanine4278 I'm not calling you a liar. I'm calling you an ignoramus. You know as much about American cities as I do the Canadian national healthcare system (btw the game is called basketball and I happen to play it).
The 33 cities ranked by percentage lost.
33. Los Angeles : 2.00%
32. New York : 6.20%
31. San Francisco : 7.43%
30. Washington D.C. : 15.36%
29. Boston : 18.42%
28. Minneapolis : 18.52%
27. Milwaukee : 24.27%
26. Providence : 24.74%
25. Norfolk : 25.01%
24. Philadelphia : 25.15%
23. Chicago : 26.42%
22. Jackson : 29.17%
21. Toledo : 30.88%
20. Newark : 31.06 %
19. Hartford : 32.54%
18. Syracuse : 34.01%
17. Akron : 35.01%
16. Rochester : 37.66%
15. Cincinnati : 38.27%
14. Baltimore : 40.48%
13. New Orleans : 41.97%
12. Birmingham : 42.31%
11. Camden : 42.92%
10. Scranton : 47.24%
9. Dayton : 48.34%
8. Buffalo : 52.65%
7. Pittsburgh : 55.19%
6. Flint : 59.55%
5. Cleveland : 60.36%
4. Gary : 62.06%
3. Youngstown : 65.23%
2. Detroit : 65.76%
1. St. Louis : 67.12%
Thank you. The % loss is the real issue.
Thank you for all that work , saved me a lot of time.
San Francisco may even have more than stated
Although some of these cities lost population within the city limits the overall population of the metro areas hasn't decreased, and in some cases has increased.
@@brianh9358 it's called sprawl. W hite people running from b lacks
The Rust Belt/Great Lakes Region has gotten hit HARD. My goodness.
Ohio seems to be the most affected state.
@@PassionVille96 It was highly industrialized... and corporate ABANDONED it and left the mills to rot..... like that will not leave scars as if a war hit.....
Detroit had its first net-gain in decades, in the latest 2023 Census estimate.
@PassionVille96 yes we've been torn apart Dayton Ohio 937
Would you kindly upload the video about US Cities Gaining Population next please
The percentage of change mattered more to me. Chicago, San Fran and NY don't even notice a difference. Detroit, St Louis and Gary taking the cake in that aspect.
About New York or San Francisco the population decline has started only since 2020 (so just 3 years compared to the 2023 data). It's still impressive to see that NYC has lost more than 500k inhabitans in such a short time. But it's almost certain that these cities will not lose more than half of their populations in the future. Unlike Detroit, St. Louis, Cleveland ...
@@PassionVille96i think NYC population is at 8.1 million
Even here in Milwaukee we don’t notice city is always jammed up with traffic even on the weekend so it be hard to tell
@@PassionVille96 Nothing is certain. A major earthquake could hurt terribly as it did in 2006. Still, our cities are a terrible thing to waste... yet some in our ideolloggy war abhor them and those not in the Right states. So sad in how our northern/ rustbelt cities endure so much... deindustrialization, suburbanization that took tax based along with white-flight fed by FHA loans and GI loans also and redlining city areas with minorities or high immigrants NOT to get them loans.
You cannot lose so much manufacturing that built this nation.... and not yet gentrification till really the 90s and not endure lost... Add a AGING population who if with mans... moved to warmer retirement states and only hope was the influx of Latinos. Now up to a 1/3 of some cities who also lost a huge % of Black residents due to those areas jobs left just allowed to ABANDON MILLS THAT BUILT AMERICA and once retrofitted for WW2 production..... just by no long wanting to invest and pay UNION wages that built our middle-class.... after suburbs.... moved to ASIA and we created their economies.... the beast of China now we created.
Now it is the SUNBELT cities and states once not desired for mills as too hot before AC FOR ALL.... remained cheap.... and up north so many gained EQUITY In homes rising cost.... taxes up to rebuild aging infrastructure, rebuilding the expressways that once the Feds built. Add yes corruption that ALWAYS Comes in and is in sunbelt cities more as one-party rule hits and skyrocketing real estate taxes in larger metros.... Infrastructure needs and it too ages.
Add how families in these cities ARE MUCH SMALLER vs pre- 1960. THANK GOD GENTRIFICATION CAME to RENEW cities and add more TAX-BASE with PROFESSIONALS now even hurting as cost still rise.
Only in America did we as a nation see our cities as throw-away.... make them polluted then as REGULATIONS CAME.... industry saying we will just move..... and they did.
Now a president to be who says industry come back..... PLEASE STEER IT TO THE NORTH AGAIN and APPALACHIA that once also had thriving textile mills as my old hometown in PA.... It mades - mens and womens shoes, Nighware, mens shirts, dresses and all the mills JUST ABANDONED.... it too is much smaller in population. It once had unions that got them some benefits only to lose it all and still the FEAR OF UNIONS has them prefer RIGHT-TO-WORK states that had that to make it soooo much harder to UNIONIZE that they have low fear....
Only again in America do we HATTE OUR CITIES VS REVERE THEM and I hope now the FIXING WILL COME.... but will it????? Europe and the world REVERES ITS CITIES AS BASTIONS OF THEIR HISTORY... our LEGACY cities deserve better.
San Francisco's decline has been intense. It went from having some of the worst traffic in North America before 2020, during the tech boom, to being very little traffic everyday. A lot of the urban core is still largely abandoned. Its a stark contrast with rust belt cities that took decades to slowly hollow-out, San Francisco feels like it imploded. I hope they will recover, probably will be a long and difficult path back.
America is always changing. In the 70s and 80s everyone was moving to California. Now a lot of people are moving to places like Texas and Florida. After their good run-up, I wonder what state will be next to surge?
I guess the Midwest or the Rust Belt will regain population one day. If the Sun Belt is no longer more populous in the future, I don't see other alternatives.
Populations fluctuate for all kinds of reasons.
Someone once told me, “when the economy is expanding & doing real well - people move into the cities. When the economy is contracting & is cooling - people move to the suburbs.”
I think they are right.
USA population has soared. Rural population hasn't grown much. Many cities have shrunk. Everyone moving to the Sun Belt - Arizona, North Carolina, Texas, Florida, Georgia, etc - and to the suburbs.
We as a nation need to turn the suburban nightmare into the urban dream.
If you count the metropolitan aera the numbers will be differents. The population leaving cities core for the surburbs.
Cleveland and Detroit have multiple suburbs that are also losing population.
Came to the comment section looking for this one. They should’ve measured metropolitan areas instead of the city proper
I was just finna say because Milwaukee surburbs is steady growing even downtown Milwaukee is gaining population
It really made me think because most cities shrunk because of white flight or cost but the metro grew
Yes it's true, no metro area has lost as many inhabitants than the core city (proportionally). But for several cities that have lost a great percentage of their population, the metro area population can decline too (ex : Pittsburgh). Other case, other metro areas haven't seen their population grow for decades (ex : Detroit). And last example, it's true that some metro have managed to gain inhabitans but it's still far less than Sun Belt Cities (ex : Cincinnati).
Americans, for the most part, have no pride in their cities. It's sad that these cities have been so decimated. In the 50's and 60's they represented America's industrial might. I hope someday that everyone of these cities will experience a renaissance.
There's hope. Some cities listed regain population since 2010 (Buffalo, Cincinnati, ...). And for other cities the decline has slow down for several years, and it's possible that these cities will regain inhabitants too (Detroit, Pittsburgh, …).
@@PassionVille96Dayton lost so much NCR Standard Register GM Crysler Harrison Radiator Mead Papers Appleton Papers Cox Media Huffy Bikes Cooper Tires we at one point in time was major a guy could graduate and maintain a decent living in area without going to college and forgive me for my many post I'm just pro Dayton
Ian gone lie Milwaukee is making a huge comeback prolly one of the only midwestern cities that’s trying new methods to grow the population the skyline is growing we got a new 50 story building coming and other construction that’s happening all over the city
SAY WHAT?! The last SIX decades have shown a population loss for Milwaukee. Last I checked, this decade is showing more loss.
@@JdeC1994 that's straight up cap Milwaukee is growing the downtown area had experienced the most of the growth but as a whole the city is slowly growing
@@JdeC1994 that's prolly from the 2020 census
@@NewsNow_2050 The 2023 estimate said that Milwaukee lost 2.7% of its population since 2020.
MKE grew its pop in the 50s by annexing a huge chunk territory.
How about the population change of each metropolitans ? I am familiar with Detroit, suburbs are expanding, city center is under redevelopment, overall it looks getting nicer. when I took a public bus running on M1, Woodward Avenue, I noticed some part of the city looked troubled, however carrying traveling I could see posh residential areas in Oakland. ❤
Detroit is growing now. It's an awesome City
The fairly recent all-time highs of LA and SF might appear to give hope, they don't. SF has enough housing for only about 750,000. When I lived in San Fran in 2010, many recent Chinese immigrants lived in garages, or slept in living rooms, hallways, and kitchens. There's no space to grow and businesses are leaving. LA is another city overpacked with immigrants, although there's a ton of federal money being spent on 3-story and up housing projects in California. It still has room to grow, though not in a good way. Native Californians have been leaving since the '70s.
Businesses are not leaving what are you talking about stop spreading old and fake news. San Francisco is gaining population again and there’s been a huge amount of AI companies leasing out old tech office spaces.
Not sure why the “doom-n-gloom” music was in the background. It’s simply logistics; the US interstate highway system started in the early 50’s and 3-digit spur routes didn’t follow until the early to mid 60’s! That explains the exodus for 27 of the 33 listed
I think of the stranded assets from the population losses. How can these cities continue to operate if bonds for those assets are still outstanding? With fewer property tax payers the debt burden will suck all of the financial resources leaving less money for road, bridge maintenance and schools.
The size of families in USA has dropped dramatically since 1950. So, if the number of occupied dwellings is tabulated then a different story would be revealed. I doubt, for instance, that the number of occupied housing units in Philadelphia has dropped very much.
Yep. Philly has even grown over the last decade. Most years up a few down. But was built out in 1950 mostly and household size is down significantly
Yes, a loss of 100k over a short time is much different for L.A. than a small city like Youngstown. If the criteria were for municipalities with peaks of at least 10,000, then cities like East St. Louis, East Cleveland and Cairo Illinois would be on it.
Yougnstown has lost 100k inhabitants in around 75 years compared to 3 years for Los Angeles. And yes, I saw there are a lot of cities (proper) that have lost more than half of their population. But in this video, I choose -50k for the limit. Otherwise it will be too complicated if the limit was -10k for example. Because I should have checked the statistics of maybe ten thousand of municipalities in the US to be sure that I didn't forget one of them, or more.
This is somewhat misleading. While some of these places are tanking in a big way, others are holding their own, as the overall metro region continues to expand, albeit slowly. I would say this about Pittsburgh, in particular.
I can guarantee the Cincinnati area lost probably 20 to 40 thousand people as a direct result of Delta dehubbing CVG airport and shutting down Comair. Chiquita, Toyota North American HQ, and several other large corporations left the Cincinnati Northern Kentucky area after that.
When you realise that LA is shrinking and not growing anymore. Damn. 😮 The DECADES of a trend to grow fast are stopped and changing. That's pretty amazing to think about.
Shocking change in LA during the 1980s, where iron bars, razor wire, and graffiti became common even 20 miles out from downtown.
I live in the Dallas area and there's no sign here that the trend to grow fast has stopped....no sign at all.
@@TheMotz55 California was the USA star of the 20th century. Texas gonna be USA star of the 21st century. Texas taking over in many things.
@@TheMotz55 Texas is the new California regarding the people moving.
I'm glad you state early on that this is based solely on city proper limits. This also makes the list meaningless. A city's economic power is based on it's greater metro stats. Many city's have small "city limits" but huge growth outside those limits.
Yes I understand. But a lot of cities ranked (even within city limits) are huge by size. And for some of them there are a lot of abandoned places in an urban environment (Detroit is not the sole example). And linked to that the majority of the cities in this video have a low density for a core city. In this video, the only cities that have small limits by area compared to the total urban area are San Francisco (first place for sure), then New York, Boston, Washington DC, Providence. I can add Newark too even if it's not a core city. And I hesitate to include Chicago and Philadelphia. It's 6 or maximum 8 cities compared to 33.
@@PassionVille96 Thank you for your reply. My point is the list does not speak to a cities overall economic growth as a metro stat would help identify. I'm not sure what "city limits" really tells me in todays world. It certainly doesn't speak to an urban core vitality as many cities are experiencing a renaissance that is not merely reflected in transitions in population. I work for a company where we decide where to expand on greater metro stats and an urban core's redevelopment and vitality.
The loss in population has a different case in each city. I bet that with the cities with the highest population in 1950 had post war housing shortage causing overcrowding and the 50’s freeway construction removed thousands of home in these cities.
Yes there are multiple reasons. It depends on the city and on the period.
Mostly due to everyone just moving right outside city limits in the suburbs so they can have more privacy and bigger homes. And to escape crime. the populations are still there, just not in city limits.
They would have to move to the outermost suburbs for all of that. The older first ring suburbs are higher density and have been in decline since the 1980 and 1990 Census readings.
U forgot Jacksonville, Raleigh, Tallahassee, & Oakland!😮
They didn't lose population.
Raleigh is the complete opposite.
Now do this with metro area instead and you will see that most of these places have not decreased in population overall... just white flight to nearby suburban cities to avoid providing financial support to the central city. Even Detroit metro is still growing.
What about black flight? For generations, blacks have also been moving to the suburbs.
"...just white flight to nearby suburban cities to avoid providing financial support to [the You-Know-Who Crowd]."
@JdeC1994 Like I said before... Most of these places haven't decreased in overall population. Just shifting jurisdictions makes it look that way. Not every city does what NYC did with annexing the surrounding cities, counties, and towns.
BTW... your ignorance is showing when you started talking about "crowds". Please think and research before speaking. Enjoying all the benefits and access of living near a major city (economic, cultural, social) without contributing by drawing a line around your clearly connected neighborhood is what I'm talking about when I used the generic term "white flight". Don't play with me or my intelligence. We are not on the same level clearly.
@@trayveonjohnson4096 You dodged my question-surprise, surprise. Again, what about black flight? For generations, black people have been fleeing their own kind, so why should white people have a guilt trip?
"...by drawing a line around your clearly connected neighborhood..."
Oh, brother!🙄 Here we go again with the shameless hypocrisy!
Who draws "a line around" their precious "turf" the most? The You-Know-Who Crowd believes that they should be able to walk around-or even live-wherever they please. However, once they've established a place as their "turf," their attitude turns completely around. To them, in their "turf," the mere sight of a different demographic is enough to absolutely enrage them. Translation: shameless hypocrisy. The thing is, the media, the press, the movies, the TV shows, college professors, etc., all let them get away with-so they do.
"We are not on the same level clearly."
Yeah, I agree-eat your heart out.🙃😎
There has been significant black middle class flight to the older first ring suburbs which is now spurring white flight to the outlaying or outer ring suburbs. This is happening in most metropolitan areas.
@@trayveonjohnson4096 I tried to respond, but the Censorship Machine blocked me. People like you can't win a fair fight.
Most of these are my favorite cities. REAL cities, REAL people. Many are making a serious resurgence. ( Cleveland, Milwaukee,Pittsburgh, Detroit….)
@@neilbender3050 They certainly hit bottom first. Cores still first and gentrification neighborhoods. It merely hit these cities later vs the Boston's early and NYC and bit later but decades already a Chicago. Then the DC's and Philly's etc.
Competing with sunbelt cities is still not reversing to the north... It will in the future if all America can remain one and not hate each other and our cities are just throwaway as too costly to restore as the northern ones large and small endured thru.
Cleveland is not making that much of a resurgence. It is still impoverished and in steady decline. All the recent investment has been confined to downtown.
In terms of Detroit as you always hear about it from outside the US as a poster child for urban decay etc. The car industry has been gone out of there for the best part of 50 years. That industry is subject to change at the best of times with global players involved. Did anyone ever try seriously to establish another economic model for the place, something else people could do there rather than just watch it slip away a long long time ago and just watch everything slide into ruin?
The top 10 sounded like funeral music playing.
Several reasons probably......cost of living in urban areas is outrageous, crime rates, job availability, people want to live in a different place now throughout their life instead of staying in one place. Warmer places are more popular than colder ones.
I think the cost of living has become the number one reason since 2020.
Anyone else think of Risky Chrisky while watching this video?
Jobs leave people leave.
Not only but it's one of the main reason. And maybe it was the first reason in the 20th century. Since 2020, the cost of living seems to be the number one problem.
This video is outdated. Detroit has reversed itself and growing again, both population and economically. Some cities in California should be at the top though. I would say San Francisco to be number one followed by California city, California which this video doesn’t bother to mention
Dude, Detroit has lost 2/3rds of its population! The estimated increase was 1,852 people.🙄 Lipstick on a pig? Do you actually live in Detroit proper?
Your not understanding anything "California city"?? Where the hell is that bro? California is full of people 39 million and growing. Don't believe what they say we just say that people are leaving so more don't come ...ha ha love the sunshine plus min. Wage is 20 an hour while the rest of the country is pulling 7.75? Wow that's 3rd world .
Chicago metro area has increased to 9 million I believe
9.62 Million in 2020
One city's loss is another city's gain.
Chicago and most of the Midwest going downhill hard
It’s really just Chicago blood Milwaukee on the other hand is doing good
@@NewsNow_2050 HUH?! Milwaukee has lost population for the last SIX censuses. Last I checked, it's losing more during this decade.
Last year, Chicago had 617 homicides. If Milwaukee had Chicago's population, it would've had about 800 homicides. Get your facts straight!😠
We'll see about that; don't get your hopes up too quick. Chicago's 2020 population was almost exactly the same as in 1990. About 90% of Chicago's population loss happened from 1950 -1990.
What state are you from?
@@NewsNow_2050 HUH?! Milwaukee has lost population for the last SIX censuses! Last I checked, Milwaukee's population is still decreasing.
Last year, Chicago had 617 homicides. If Milwaukee had the same population as Chicago, it would've had about 800 homicides.
@@NewsNow_2050 Uh, actually, Milwaukee is on a six-census-losing streak (and this decade is looking the same).
As for Chicago, last year, Milwaukee's homicide rate was considerably higher than Chicago's. Get your facts straight!🧐
A lot of people in the 50's and 60's moved to the suburbs, so the metro area tells a different story. Many metro areas have stayed the same, or grown. However, cities have lost a lot of tax payers to the suburbs, and are broke
People have been moving further out from the older first ring suburbs since the 80s. What were once tiny country hamlets further out are now booming growing suburbs.
Where all these people gone?
Mainly to the Sunbelt. Or some people stayed in the same area but in the suburbs.
NewsNow_2050 (as of 12-9-2024): "It’s really just Chicago blood Milwaukee on the other hand is doing good"
Nope. Milwaukee has lost population for the last SIX decades. Last I checked, this decade is showing more loss.
As for Chicago, it had 617 homicides last year. If Milwaukee had the same population as Chicago, it would've had about 800 homicides.
Manufacturing based cities peaked in the 50s and 60s. After Clinton, these cities went into accelerated decline. What’s NYC, Chicago, San Francisco and LA’s excuse? Is it just poor government policies?
For NY, LA or SF it's mainly due to the cost of living. It's now too expensive to live there and most people have a "normal" job, so they can have a similar career in a more affordable place. For Chicago it's different, the loss has begun in the 1950s, and the reasons are: more people went to the suburbs and there were fewer jobs in the industry.
@ isn’t it interesting that the state and local tax policies of NYC, SF, and LA are so high as the cost of living becomes so high? ;-)
But Scranton is so cool in 'The Office.' 🤔
Like most sitcoms, almost all the scenes were shot in studios in Los Angeles area... But even if Scranton has lost population in the past, the city can be cool anyway. Moreover the city hasn't lost inhabitants since 2000.
Why are you ranking them by gross loss? The real issue is the % lost-duh!🙄
Gross loss are the real numbers. Duh!
@@r.pres.4121 Peak populations are just as real-duh!🙄
We all know what the reasons are..
Excellent commentary on all our urban centers. Guess who’s been running those cities, and I mean all of them. Something is definitely rotten here and it’s NOT in Denmark.
What city is run by republicans and crime free and booming? Blue cities are our economy. Why hasn’t red Mississippi or West Virginia or Arkansas improved under republicans?
@@Kenyon712 Dallas/Ft. Worth, Oklahoma City, Fresno, Omaha, Miami. All fairly safe and growing cities, run by Republican mayors.
@@bmjv77 DFW really exploded after 1960, gaining about a million every census thereafter. But Dallas hasn't been safe in my lifetime. Farther and farther out in the suburbs are ghetto and decayed now.
No worry Allen open that southern border we got young strong hard working people ready to rebuild all these cities. Just like football players in the transfer portal
@@Kenyon712 OH, GOOD GRIEF!🙄 Here we go again with that tired cliché. Dude, in the past, the Democrats completely dominated the South. Guess what! Back then, the South was also disproportionately poor.
"Blue cities are our economy."
Yeah, there y' go! Just look at Democratic strongholds like Detroit, Baltimore, Memphis, Newark, New Orleans, St. Louis, East St. Louis, Cleveland, East Cleveland, K.C., D.C., Philadelphia, Little Rock, Milwaukee, Oakland, Gary, Mobile, Jackson, Camden, Birmingham, Flint, Louisville, Cincinnati, Atlanta, Atlantic City, Buffalo, etc. What would we do without them?🙄
Not very comforting is it?
Yes and no. At least for most of the cities (or metro area) that lost inhabitants, the cost of living rising less than most of the cities that gain inhabitants. For example, a lot of cities in Texas becoming more expensive primarly due to their growing (Austin ...).
Almoat no cities in the South
Yes, only Birmingham and Jackson have lost a lot inhabitants in the city limits (proportionnaly). And since 2020 in the south it's mainly in the SF Bay Area and in LA Area that the lost is the most important. By the way, I don't know if San Francisco is considered as the South.
@@PassionVille96New Orleans has lost population also
Yes it's true, I completely forgot!
cities started losing people after civil rights movement
Mostly in South.
@@tomfields3682no mostly Midwest/ Great lakes region
The majority of them are Democrats run problems with their government methods of operations administrative state, distribution, and principals.
I'm surprised you didn't include Portland Oregon is also in bad shape Portland Oregon supposedly has the highest vacancy rate. Many stores closed and have become so empty hardly anyone is walking the streets there.
Portland has lost 22k inhabitants from 2020 to 2023 (-3.4%). Portland seems to follow the same trend as NYC or the SF Bay Area.
@PassionVille96 what cities or States are people moving to? You should do a video of that
The Texas metros, which are growing tremendously, all vote blue.
It's more about demographics than Democrats.
@@JdeC1994 😆
All because of baskettball people
Thanks for filling the stupid comment quota.
@greatloverofmusic1 Tell me I'm lying.
Im black canadian btw
@@patatebanine4278 I'm not calling you a liar. I'm calling you an ignoramus. You know as much about American cities as I do the Canadian national healthcare system (btw the game is called basketball and I happen to play it).
33. Los Angeles : 2.00%
You mean democrook
Urban sprawl
One of the main reason.