Darn statistics – what about the numbers I cited – they are apparently from 2005 … either way, I think that the gist of the numbers is sufficient – people don’t seem to be flocking to cities anymore for a variety of reasons, lack of affordable housing being a primary one.

Not only are the perennial losers — Baltimore, Philadelphia, Cleveland and Detroit — continuing to empty out, but some of our arguably most attractive cities, like Boston, San Francisco, Minneapolis and Chicago, have lost population since 2000.

I know the high cost of housing is one of the downsides of San Francisco, Boston and possibly Chicago (although from other news articles I’ve read Chicago isn’t losing population).

Does this sound like he is describing Charlottesville?

Given the growing challenge posed by the emerging boomtowns as well as the suburbs and exurbs, wannabe “hip cool” cities need to realize they can’t thrive merely as amusement parks for the rich, the nomadic young and tourists. To remain both vital and economically relevant, they must remain anchored by a large middle class, and by families and businesses that feel safe and committed to the urban place.

If you lived here twenty five years ago as I did, you’d have to say “yes it does sound like Cville.”

And the fact is as it was then, they can survive as amusement parks for the rich. Because after the rich discovered how wonderful places like Cville were, and decided to move in, their being here helped change the economy by replacing traditional jobs with the service industry jobs that made it the amusement park for the rich that it’s become.

And locals that didn’t want to work in the new service industry economy, as employees or business owners, moved away as they became priced out of the area.

Cville is even more of an “amusement park” now than it was 25 years ago. And it’s still not close to going bust.