NewGeography.com blogs

The Providence (RI) metropolitan area was one of the slowest growing in the 2000 to 2010 period, according to counts just released by the Census Bureau. Providence grew 1.1 percent, from 1,583,000 to 1,601,000. The historical core municipality, the city of Providence gained 2.5 percent, from 174,000 to 178,000 and grew faster than the suburbs, like neighboring Boston. The city of Providence reached its population peak in 1940, at 254,000.

Even so, the suburbs attracted 75 percent of the metropolitan area growth.

What defines the American Dream? A new poll by Big Builder reveals that one answer to this enduring question may be home ownership. A major portion of the American population (59%) believes that they are living the American Dream. Respondents distinguished owning a home as the second most important factor of the American Dream, just behind raising a family.

Another statistic in this poll seem to suggest that this trend may be more stifled as the younger generation of Americans (18-29 year olds) come to the crucial decision of buying a home. Still, 49% see home ownership as a “sound investment,” while 49% of this age group call it “too risky.” Perhaps the effect of the weak economy has been especially evident in this age group.

Some interesting contradictions also arise in these statistics. For instance, 58% of those who believe the housing crisis is a chronic problem also recommend buying a home. Furthermore, 75% of respondents claim to not have benefited from any federal program to assist in ownership (such as mortgage interest deduction), yet 71% confessed to taking the deduction. The pollsters have considered that perhaps the government’s assistance in home ownership may be unclear for many Americans.

A final statistic worth mentioning is that 58% of Americans believe that fulfilling the American Dream is influenced mostly by their own skills and hard work than by the current state of the economy. The ubiquitous American Dream still runs on hard work and the pressing notion of owning a home, it would seem.

The historical core municipality of the Detroit metropolitan area, the city of Detroit, continued its steep population decline between 2000 and 2010. The new census count indicates that the city dropped to 733,000 residents, from 951,000 in 2000. This drop of 25 percent was the largest in any census period since 1950, when the city peaked at a population of 1,850,000. Even so, the percentage decline from 1950 of 61.4 percent remains less than that of city of St. Louis, which has experienced the steepest population decline of any municipality that has reached 500,000 population in modern times (62.7 percent).

The decline did not extend to the suburbs, which gained a modest 2.3 percent between 2000 and 2010. Suburban growth has also been substantial since 1950, with 2.2 million new residents added.

However, the suburban growth was not enough to erase the impact of the city of Detroit decline. The Detroit metropolitan area fell from 4,452,000 in 2000 to 4,296,000 in 2010, a loss of 3.6 percent. The loss was the greatest among major metropolitan areas reporting up to this time. Nonetheless, even with the huge city of Detroit loss, the Detroit metropolitan area has grown more than 30 percent and more than 1,000,000 people.

The new 2010 census results for the Boston metropolitan area show the historical core municipality, the city of Boston, increasing its population at a greater rate than that of its suburbs. Thus far, Boston is the only historical core municipality with essentially the same boundaries as in 1950 that has experienced a growth rate greater than the suburbs in the 2000 to 2010 period. Boston grew from 589,000 to 617,000, an increase of 4.8 percent. Even so, the city remained more than 20 percent below its historic peak of 801,000 in 1950. Further, even with its faster growth, the city of Boston captured only 18 percent of the metropolitan area growth between 2000 and 2010. The city of Boston contains 14 percent of the metropolitan area population.

By comparison, the suburbs grew 3.5 percent and accounted for 82 percent of the metropolitan area growth.

Overall, the Boston metropolitan area, which stretches from Massachusetts into New Hampshire grew from 4,391,000 to 4,552,000, for a growth rate of 3.7 percent, approximately one-third of the national growth rate between 2000 and 2010. This growth rate is the same as in Los Angeles and Milwaukee, which were the slowest growing major metropolitan areas (population over 1,000,000) reporting so far, with the exception of Cleveland, Detroit and Pittsburgh, which lost population.

Boston retains its position as the nation’s 10th largest metropolitan area, having passed losing Detroit and been passed by Atlanta.

The historical core municipality of the Cincinnati metropolitan area, the city of  Cincinnati, continued its population loss string stretching back to the 1970 census and dropped below 300,000 population for the first time since the 1890 census.  The city peaked at 504,000 in 1950.

In 2010, the census counted 297,000 residents, down 10 percent from the 2000 figure of 331,000. The city of Cincinnati has essentially the same borders (city limits) as in 1950. Hamilton County, which is the core county and includes the city of Cincinnati lost 43,000 people, with a net loss of 9,000 in the portions outside the city.  

All growth was in the suburbs, which grew at a rate of 9 percent. The fastest growing counties were Boone in Kentucky at 38 percent and Warren in Ohio at 34 percent. Combined, these two counties captured more than two-thirds of the metropolitan area growth.

The Cincinnati metropolitan area, which stretches from Ohio into Kentucky and Indiana grew 6 percent, from 2,010,000 to 2,130,000.