Tuesday, December 15, 2015

Alive and Well

The city of Rochester's population loss is well-documented and often cited as evidence for the region's supposed decline.  As a consequence, Rochester has occasionally landed itself on lists identifying America's "dying" cities.  Ignored is the fact that the city represents less than 20 percent of the region, and the metro area continues to exhibit slow growth.  Also ignored is the fact that many of America's great cities have experienced a decline in population since the middle of the 20th century.  Rochester naysayers might be disappointed to note a few surprising examples of cities which experienced significant population loss between 1950 and 2010:

  • Chicago: A 1950 population of 3,620,962 had dropped to 2,695,598 in 2010.
  • Philadelphia: A 1950 population of 2,071,605 had dropped to 1,526,006 in 2010.
  • Washington, DC: A 1950 population of 802,178 had dropped to 601,723 in 2010.
  • Boston: A 1950 population of 801,444 had dropped to 617,594 in 2010.
  • Minneapolis: A 1950 population of 521,718 had dropped to 382,578 in 2010.
It should be noted that the above cities are now in the process of repopulation.  Of course, Rochester is free to follow suit. 

2 comments:

  1. I work with a transplant who is from a different country and he asked me about this in a concerned manner recently. He wanted to know why Rochester had lost so much of its population and why it was dying. I had to explain to him that whomever was telling him that was misleading him and I explained how the entire country had experienced a decline in the urban centers where people had migrated to the suburbs. He was shocked to learn that contrary to what he was told, that the Rochester metro had actually grown quite nicely from it's city population peak of the 1950's.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I really like the place,they have chosen some really good colours, I would love to go there but i can't due to the distance.

    ReplyDelete