Kolek planning to go pro
What you're describing isn't the downfall of cities, though. It's the evolution of cities. And that's something that's been happening since a bunch of Sumerians got together and decided they were tired of walking so much.
And yet they are growing, including the Chicago metro area.
Just because you keep saying it does not make it correct ...https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-census-update-2023-20230518-i2de6f6oy5gsba3ahzgv2by2hq-story.htmlPeople constantly come and go, but new estimates from the U.S. Census Bureau show that Chicago lost about 81,000 people, or just under 3% of its population, from 2020 to 2022. Despite the decline, the city retained its position as the nation’s third most populous city, after New York City and Los Angeles, in 2022. Houston was ranked fourth.Chicago’s population as of July 1, 2022, was estimated at 2,665,039, with changes calculated from the estimated base of April 1, 2020.
People have been forecasting the downfall of cities for a long time. Heisey will just be the latest in a long-line of people to be wrong about it.
And that's before Brandon Johnson!!!!!
Perfect post by a guy with the name "semantics" in his handle. "Downfall" means nothing. For instance, Chicago's population was 3.6 million in 1970, and 2.6 million today. So, by one definition, the loss of 1 million in 50 years makes the "downfall" a historical statement of fact. It is not an opinion, anymore.But since it is an open-ended meaningless statement, as long as there is a geographic area called A city" the expert of semantics can claim this statement is wrong.
LOL, this is rich. Coming from a guy who cites population figures from "a city" without seemingly understanding how cities work and operate.I think I would make a great living as a futurist. All I would have to do is come to Scoop to see what Heisey is saying...and predict the opposite. I'd be rich beyond my wildest dreams.
Go for it!
Nah. It would require to read too many of your posts.
lazy
Okay, is your definition of downfall the total elimination? Because then we're just having a ridiculous argument.If you're okay with it, arbiter, we can change downfall to decline.
From the story above.Most of these cities never had more than 1 million in population. This is factually incorrect.——The 10 most populous cities — those with more than 1 million residents at the start of the pandemic — did the best, with nine out of 10 showing demographic improvement. (Only Philadelphia did not.) The turnarounds spanned the country, with the largest in San Francisco, Seattle, Nashville, Boston, New York City, San Jose, Dallas and Milwaukee, according to an analysis of the data by William Frey, a senior demographer at the Brookings Institution.
The problem is your reading comprehension. The article states the 10 most populous cities did the best. Those 10 cities are not listed in the portion posted by MU82, but they would be NYC, LA, Chicago, Houston, Phoenix, Philadelphia, San Antonio, San Diego, Dallas, and San Jose.Many of the cities listed (San Fran, Seattle, Nashville, Boston, Milwaukee) were between 500,000 and 1,000,000. It's clear from what was posted. Try reading it again.
Declines in poorer neighborhoods.