Re:‘China’s Manhattan’ Borrowed Heavily, but the People Have...
by britch on Thursday April 11, 2019 @05:54PM
(#19639658)
I take your point, abandoned is too far.
As I understand it: it's a bad sign if a city is not growing. If a city's population is steady, but the countries population is increasing that means people are leaving the city. It at least indicates a lack of growth which can be a marker of a weak economy.
Abandoned is too far, but I think it's true that many of these cities are in some form of decline from their historical peak.
Re:‘China’s Manhattan’ Borrowed Heavily, but the People Have...
by aglavine on Friday April 12, 2019 @10:54AM
(#19645274)
"it's a bad sign if a city is not growing" is something taken as true by many people, but I think it is absolutely arbitrary. Maybe the opposite is true for some cities. Other metrics as land value (San Francisco is the obvious example) and media income must be taken into account.
I guess there are people out there that thinks that cities have a healthy population limit and growing beyond that can harm environment around.
Cincinnati's population has expanded since 2010.
Pittsburgh and Cleveland have both had stable population numbers the last decade. The declines have been very small over that time. As with Cincinnati they did suffer drops for a couple of decades in the past. They're not being abandoned.
Detroit is losing 0.004% per year at this point. There's a reasonable chance the worst is over for Detroit.
Chicago is not being abandoned at all, that's particularly incorrect. Their population has been stable for 30 years, it has seen a small 70k decline (less than 3% decline over three decades doesn't get you in the lesser extent abandoned category at all).