A little more than half of America’s incorporated cities collectively lost 2.7 million residents between 2020 and 2023, according to estimates released by the Census Bureau earlier this week. New York City alone lost almost 500,000 residents, or 5.5 percent of its population, while the next 20 biggest losers together lost about half a million people.
Moving day. Photo by James Fee.
The biggest losers, other than New York City, were Chicago (-78,877), Los Angeles (-74,934), San Francisco (-61,530), Philadelphia (-50,142), San Jose (-39,664), and Portland (-22,846). San Francisco’s population slightly recovered between 2022 and 2023, but most major cities that have lost population have seen declines in every year from 2020 to 2023.
Out of 19,484 incorporated cities, population fell in 10,691, while the population of 8,049 cities collectively grew by 3.95 million people. (Some 744 small towns saw no change in population.) Of the cities that grew, the biggest growth was recorded by San Antonio (56,038), Fort Worth (54,866), Port St. Lucie (38,206), Phoenix (37,611), and Charlotte (35,559).
All of these cities are in the Sunbelt. The top 27 growing cities were all Sunbelt cities. The most growth recorded by a non-Sunbelt City was in Seattle, which gained 14,513 residents. A total of 84 of the top 100 growing cities were in the Sunbelt; five more were in Utah, which some analysts include in the Sunbelt.
People moved for several reasons, including better climate, more affordable housing, and lower taxes. An aversion to dense populations may play a role: nearly three-fourths of the top losing cities have densities well above average while nearly all of the top gaining cities, up to Seattle, have below-average densities. However, the Census Bureau has not yet published 2020 density data for individual cities so a more detailed analysis of the density factor isn’t possible.
The linked table only goes to Illinois.
Real history of Cities; Large population centers and large populations in general tend to be horrible. People think it is this glamorous lifestyle full of excitement and fun.premodern cities were small, walled-in urban centers in which the wealthiest institutions and people were clustered at the center and servant/worker/slave castes orbited them. With infrequent social improvements every century or two.
Consumer choice changed as soon as people were given the option to move out of dense cities. The idea people were suddenly herded out of cities against their will was false. The subsidies that built suburbia applied equally to building urban areas. Urban planners initially rejected the idea of urban freeways, still population declines. Once huge swathes become uninhabited, they had the land they needed with few holdovers to do so and those freeways served purpose attempt to attract suburban commuters back into urban down town and business districts.
An aversion to dense populations may play a role”
Or … Urban land prices and Biden-flation made living in the city uneconomical. Despite all arguments Cities subsidize suburbs, Largely suburbs are paid by county taxes especially areas where there are no LARGE cities. if the Benefits of urban population density exist, New York’ MTA wouldn’t need a Automotive congestion fee as financial aid to bail out it’s subway.
Or an aversion to crime and degeneracy and crappy public service.
San Francisco organized entire small army to clean the city up in lieu visitation from China’s Winnie Pooh Dictator. They tossed out social rif raf, steamed the sidewalks free of shit and wiped down all the surfaces, it took 4 days to clean up 10 years worth social policy failure; proof they had all the resources, time and money to do it, They just didn’t want to.
They made the city presentable for a Chinese dictator.
Their own citizens? Fuq em.
I don’t blame them; they pander what their voter base demands. Free stuff keep from rioting, social disorder.
In the current state of things you can’t have ‘passive spaces.’ Too many people are circulating who are violent, ill cultured or emotionally disturbed or just plain socially incompatible. You can either have Nice, quaint urban city streets with cafes, sitting places which tend to have unwritten code social standing and manners…. Or you divert your resources babysitting the demographics who constitute majority our crime/social degradation, You cant have both….
A total of 84 of the top 100 growing cities were in the Sunbelt; five more were in Utah, which some analysts include in the Sunbelt.
It’s tough. Far southern Utah is part of the Mojave Desert but the fastest growing Utah counties were in the north, which doesn’t have typical Sunbelt weather. Ditto Reno, NV.
The Census Bureau has an interactive US map Percent Change in Population for the Largest Cities or Towns: July 1, 2022, to July 1, 2023. Being familiar with the different factors in my state of Colorado only, I can’t make out any definite patterns. Greely was the fastest growing city by far, probably because of housing prices but being in a geographic bowl it has some of the coldest winter days on the Front Range. Pueblo shrank the most; it also has low housing prices but the one of highest crime rates in the state. Neither city is particularly dense.
Moving away from high cost, corrupt, and dysfunctional areas.
Does not mean folks prefer cul-de-sacs, strip malls, arterial/collector routes, large scale single use zoning, etc…
We have limited choice in planning.
I’m pretty sure the alternatives are everything they moved away from. People actually do like cut-de-sacs. Almost no one wants a store adjoining their house. It’s why rents are lower for apartments above ground floor apartments in Manhattan.
ground floor **storefronts**
How do you know that?
Many historic areas sell for premium?
You can get quiet streets without dead end streets.
“An aversion to dense populations may play a role”
AP never has to quantify or give evidence for an aversion to dense populations. It’s just a vibe that floats around, evident to all with the proper “sixth sense”.
“An aversion to dense populations may play a role”
Q. Why does no one live in dense cities anymore?
A. They are too crowded. An aversion to dense populations may also play a role.
At it’s peak
Chariot (Owned by Ford) was carrying 7,000 people a day, on it’s modest fleet 100 Vans thru Bay Area. Barely 5% BART’s total but a significant amount to say least, better than 7,000 individual cars.
Meaning a fleet of 2,500 vans could potentially move BART’ 158K daily riders.
Jitneys remained in service in San Francisco well into the mid 1970s…..when BART was conceived in the late 60s fear of jitneys.. was a modest forethought. But jitneys saw their first restrictions…. by late 70s had largely been phased out. Their return in 2010s by Fords. Chariot services….. agency was once again regulated to death.Government cronyism 101: if it competes against us it must go.
Government oppression of other, smaller governments continues, as states forces cities to stop forcing people from building housing: Colorado passes the first real transit-oriented development bill – cities must allow 40 homes per acre on average in 1/2 mile of transit.
https://www.denverpost.com/2024/05/20/colorado-jared-polis-zoning-land-use-reform-laws-housing/
Thank you for that link, Jane. I got around the paywall here. Colorado is emulating the housing failures of the big, blue states via central planning:
“What we have seen over many decades is that without strong enforcement, local governments will tend to dilly-dally,” [the faculty director of New York University’s Furman Center for Real Estate and Urban Policy and a former deputy mayor of New York City Vickie] Been added. “And they’ll be somewhat reluctant to step up and do what they’re supposed to do.
“[Do] what they’re supposed to do” means ignore their constituencies and obey the state.
“Now the real work begins,” Been said. “But often it’s natural for both the legislature and the advocates to be like, ‘OK, we’re exhausted, we won. Mission accomplished.’ … But you can’t ever really say, ‘OK, we’re done.’ You’ve got to keep watching.
Sounds a lot like how the old GDR’s Ministry for State Security (Stasi) worked.
The transit-density law was the centerpiece of the legislative package. It will require local government officials to set zoning goals allowing more housing density in transit-rich areas, generally within set distances of rail stations and higher-frequency bus routes.
That’s very good for my financial outlook. I own a 100-year-old single story duplex just a block and a half away from a bus stop on the highest frequency bus route in my city. The houses in my neighborhood typically sell for $1.5M so scrap-offs of single family houses to build high-end, three story duplexes, triplexes, and quadplexes will become rampant as they are just a few blocks away from me. Each of those townhomes sell for $1.5M each. I imagine I’ll make out like a bandit just selling the land after those new high density zoning laws take effect. Then I can take all that cash and move to a state that hasn’t been Californicated.
Again, thanks for the heads up. Now I need to put my personal planner hat on.
Sad news from Half Moon Bay, California, as a local community that desired to preserve their small-town way of life, is forced to allow undesirables to live in a crowded third-world slum building, invading and destroying an innocent community’s happiness:
https://www.kqed.org/news/11986281/half-moon-bay-farmworker-housing-gains-approval-after-push-by-newsom