Started By
Message
What the heck happened to New Orleans???
Posted on 6/29/26 at 9:35 am
Posted on 6/29/26 at 9:35 am
… to cause it to not just stop growing… but absolutely purge population?
There are only 6 United States metro areas that have lost at least 100,000 residents and at least 10% of their population from the peak census year (using today’s metro area designations):
-25% Scranton, -196,605 people
Scranton peaked in 1930 (!) and has been on a major decline ever since.
-21% Youngstown, -112,325 people
Youngstown peaked in 1970.
-19% New Orleans, -222,082 people
New Orleans peaked at the time of thr 1980 census count
-16% Pittsburgh, -459,941 people
Pittsburgh peaked in 1960
-14% Buffalo, -193,558 people
Buffalo peaked in 1970
-10% Cleveland, -253,499 people
Cleveland peaked in 1970
Five of these six depressed metros are Midwest steel towns who lost factories and saw jobs shipped off to other areas. New Orleans is the only outlier here.
And before you say crime, that can’t be the sole cause. Memphis has just as much crime and its population is only down 4,000 people from peak. Same with Chicago…. It’s only down 15k from peak.
Also… it can’t be blamed on Katrina either…
The current counties in the New Orleans metro collectively lost 52,000 people between 1980 and 1990. The slide started way before Katrina, though Katrina definitely exacerbated the problem.
If you go back to the late 1970s / early 1980s, what caused the decline to begin?
Also this isn’t white flight. These population totals count the suburbs.
There are only 6 United States metro areas that have lost at least 100,000 residents and at least 10% of their population from the peak census year (using today’s metro area designations):
-25% Scranton, -196,605 people
Scranton peaked in 1930 (!) and has been on a major decline ever since.
-21% Youngstown, -112,325 people
Youngstown peaked in 1970.
-19% New Orleans, -222,082 people
New Orleans peaked at the time of thr 1980 census count
-16% Pittsburgh, -459,941 people
Pittsburgh peaked in 1960
-14% Buffalo, -193,558 people
Buffalo peaked in 1970
-10% Cleveland, -253,499 people
Cleveland peaked in 1970
Five of these six depressed metros are Midwest steel towns who lost factories and saw jobs shipped off to other areas. New Orleans is the only outlier here.
And before you say crime, that can’t be the sole cause. Memphis has just as much crime and its population is only down 4,000 people from peak. Same with Chicago…. It’s only down 15k from peak.
Also… it can’t be blamed on Katrina either…
The current counties in the New Orleans metro collectively lost 52,000 people between 1980 and 1990. The slide started way before Katrina, though Katrina definitely exacerbated the problem.
If you go back to the late 1970s / early 1980s, what caused the decline to begin?
Also this isn’t white flight. These population totals count the suburbs.
4
Posted on 6/29/26 at 10:36 am to AUTiger789
quote:
Also… it can’t be blamed on Katrina either…
Yes, it can. The downfall of New Orleans and Louisiana as a whole directly matches the rise of Houston and Texas. Katrina was the nail in the coffin. After Katrina, all the big oil companies permanently moved to Houston and haven't looked back.
New Orleans used to also be a major port city, but now everything just goes to Houston. New Orleans has had terrible leadership since the 1960s, crime steadily rose from then, and then Katrina forced the last major industry to leave the city. It's a place that peaked 100 years ago and has been steadily falling since, but unless you have lived there, you do not understand the total destruction Katrina left in its wake. It physically and mentally destroyed the city
This post was edited on 6/29/26 at 11:05 am
Posted on 6/29/26 at 10:39 am to AUTiger789
quote:
Also… it can’t be blamed on Katrina either…
That is the reason.
Posted on 6/29/26 at 10:50 am to VFL67
quote:
unless you have lived there, you do not understand the total destruction Katrina left in its wake. It physicsally and mentally destroyed the city
Very well said. I would add that the emotional impact was far worse than the physical or mental. The people from New Orleans were/are very proud of their culture and history. Katrina pretty much wiped a bunch of that away. It was total devistation to the city and the city may very well never recover from it.
Posted on 6/29/26 at 11:15 am to TigerLunatik
The fact that New Orleans even semi-bounced back from Katrina is very impressive. Imagine if Disney World had been put on the Northshore instead of Orlando, like it was supposed to, and if Katrina had not happened. Everything would be different
Posted on 6/29/26 at 1:05 pm to VFL67
No offense but your reply makes no sense.
You start off by saying it can be blamed on Katrina. But then go on about how the city peaked "100 years ago", has had bad leadership "since the 1960s", while mentioning crime and losing port market share to Houston as reasons for the decline. All of that was way before Katrina.
Houston itself did nothing to hurt New Orleans. A region the size of the South can have multiple large ports without one dropping off. Boston and Philly didn't suffer a catastrophic decline because New York happened to grow so big.
I agree that the decline of New Orleans started close to 100 years ago. But why? What specific policies / decisions caused a city to fall off so badly.
You start off by saying it can be blamed on Katrina. But then go on about how the city peaked "100 years ago", has had bad leadership "since the 1960s", while mentioning crime and losing port market share to Houston as reasons for the decline. All of that was way before Katrina.
Houston itself did nothing to hurt New Orleans. A region the size of the South can have multiple large ports without one dropping off. Boston and Philly didn't suffer a catastrophic decline because New York happened to grow so big.
I agree that the decline of New Orleans started close to 100 years ago. But why? What specific policies / decisions caused a city to fall off so badly.
This post was edited on 6/29/26 at 1:12 pm
Posted on 6/29/26 at 1:11 pm to TigerLunatik
quote:
That is the reason.
But it's not the reason New Orleans lost almost 5% of its metro population between 1980 and 1990.
The 1+ million metros to lose population in the 1980s were Pittsburgh, Detroit, Cleveland, Buffalo, and New Orleans.
This had nothing to do with Katrina.
Posted on 6/29/26 at 1:41 pm to AUTiger789
You know the reason
Men squirt sperm into women they just met, then the men run for the hills. The product of their sperm grow up with no father, and the ensuing crime runs people out of the city
Men squirt sperm into women they just met, then the men run for the hills. The product of their sperm grow up with no father, and the ensuing crime runs people out of the city
Posted on 6/29/26 at 1:43 pm to State Bird
too lazy to put a condom on or pull out
Posted on 6/29/26 at 2:46 pm to AUTiger789
Democrats and a certain shade of Democrats in particular.
Posted on 6/29/26 at 2:53 pm to AUTiger789
Have you met the leadership in NOLA?
Posted on 6/29/26 at 2:57 pm to AUTiger789
Katrin was the watershed moment. It was the straw that broke the camel's back. The city had been in decline for decades due to corrupt leadership and the loss of industry. Katrina highlighted that this is why every major company left for good after it.
Yes, it did, and it still does.
New Orleans was the dominant oil and gas city in the country, then it became Houston.
New Orleans had the number one port in the Gulf South, then it became Houston.
New Orleans had the number 1 hospital in the Gulf South (Charity) and was the healthcare center of the Gulf South, then it became MD Anderson in Houston.
Houston also became the number 1 relocation destination for Nola refugees post-Katrina. Most LSU grads move to Texas to work rather than stay in LA and move to NOLA because there is no major industry there. Houston basically cannibalized NOLA because Texas had less corrupt leadership, and it had land area to grow. New Orleans had nowhere to expand, and its livable areas aren't even that good, as Katrina highlighted.
You are talking about the most densely populated area of the country. The Gulf South is not a densely populated region, and any growth has been attracted to Texas or Western Florida.
They also have a history of corrupt leadership. Walt Disney loved Nola and wanted to put Disney World there, but local politicians wanted so much money that he got mad and chose rural Florida, and now Orlando is massive. Hell Ray Nagin literally went to jail for pocketing Katrina funds.
New Orleans could be in better shape if it weren't for the terrible leadership they keep electing. However, they have had unfortunate stuff happen too, like Hurricane Katrina, which put them further in the hole. Houston provided the obviously better alternative. It's a better geographical location and in a better, politically run state
quote:
Houston itself did nothing to hurt New Orleans.
Yes, it did, and it still does.
New Orleans was the dominant oil and gas city in the country, then it became Houston.
New Orleans had the number one port in the Gulf South, then it became Houston.
New Orleans had the number 1 hospital in the Gulf South (Charity) and was the healthcare center of the Gulf South, then it became MD Anderson in Houston.
Houston also became the number 1 relocation destination for Nola refugees post-Katrina. Most LSU grads move to Texas to work rather than stay in LA and move to NOLA because there is no major industry there. Houston basically cannibalized NOLA because Texas had less corrupt leadership, and it had land area to grow. New Orleans had nowhere to expand, and its livable areas aren't even that good, as Katrina highlighted.
quote:
Boston and Philly didn't suffer a catastrophic decline because New York happened to grow so big.
You are talking about the most densely populated area of the country. The Gulf South is not a densely populated region, and any growth has been attracted to Texas or Western Florida.
quote:
I agree that the decline of New Orleans started close to 100 years ago. But why? What specific policies / decisions caused a city to fall off so badly.
They also have a history of corrupt leadership. Walt Disney loved Nola and wanted to put Disney World there, but local politicians wanted so much money that he got mad and chose rural Florida, and now Orlando is massive. Hell Ray Nagin literally went to jail for pocketing Katrina funds.
New Orleans could be in better shape if it weren't for the terrible leadership they keep electing. However, they have had unfortunate stuff happen too, like Hurricane Katrina, which put them further in the hole. Houston provided the obviously better alternative. It's a better geographical location and in a better, politically run state
This post was edited on 6/29/26 at 3:01 pm
Posted on 6/29/26 at 4:10 pm to VFL67
quote:
Katrin was the watershed moment. It was the straw that broke the camel's back.
No doubt about that, but for a region to decline the way that New Orleans has... especially when you consider the major decline started 30 years pre-Katrina, there's got to be a deeper rooted problem.
quote:
The city had been in decline for decades due to corrupt leadership and the loss of industry.
The thing is, New Orleans was doing just fine from about 1940 through 1980. If you look the Deep South (today's metro boundaries... take out the periphery areas like Texas, Oklahoma, Florida, Virginia, etc), here's their growth from 1940 through 1980:
MSA Net Nominal Growth 1940-1980:
+1,419,00 Atlanta
+585,000 New Orleans
+538,000 Charlotte
+478,000 Louisville
+431,000 Memphis
+429,000 Nashville
+272,000 Birmingham
+262,000 Charleston
+258,000 Knoxville
+246,000 Greenville
+198,000 Raleigh
Even if you look at the growth on a percentage basis, New Orleans grew 96% between 1940 and 1980, out-pacing Louisville (84%), Charlotte (83%), Nashville (80%), Knoxville (71%), Memphis (70%), Birmingham (41%), etc.
By most metrics, New Orleans was doing just fine up through the late 1970s.
quote:
Yes, it did, and it still does.
You're not getting what I'm saying. Cities compete all the time, and often one of those competing cities gains a very strong upper hand.... that doesn't mean the other one just falls off the map.
No one is arguing that Houston hasn't far exceeded New Orleans in every category the past 70+ years. But just because one city gets an exceptional medical center doesn't mean the other city has to fall off the cliff. Just because one city expands their port to be the premier port of the region doesn't mean the other city has to experience absolute population collapse.
Nashville is beating the tar out of Memphis nowadays and the diaspora of Memphis people who've bounced over to Nashville is off the charts. This started in earnest in about 1970.
In 1970, metro Memphis was +166,000 people larger than metro Nashville. By 1980, that gap had narrowed to just +80,000. By 1990, Memphis had just +4,000 more people. Flash forward to today, and metro Nashville is +860,000 compared to metro Memphis. Just an absolute bloodbath.
But just because Nashville started kicking Memphis' butt in every metric didn't mean Memphis rolled over and decided to die. Sure Nashville has outgrown Memphis by a net of well over a million people since 1970... but Memphis has still grown. In fact, Memphis has grown by over 382,000 people during that time frame. That's one of the most sluggish increases of any major Southern metro during that time frame, but it still decisively grew.
Houston to New Orleans has been much the same. But unlike Memphis who still found a way to muster growth while losing out to Nashville everyday, New Orleans has collapsed. New Orleans has LOST 222,000 people since 1980.... and a big chunk of that loss came prior to Katrina.
quote:
The Gulf South is not a densely populated region, and any growth has been attracted to Texas or Western Florida.
Not true. Yes Houston and Tampa have seen the most explosive growth, but metro Baton Rouge is +275,000 (+45%) since 1980. Pensacola is +255,000 (+88%) since 1980. Mobile+Baldwin County, AL is +236,000 (+53%) since 1980.
Metro NOLA is down over 200,000 in the same time period.
All of these areas also saw steady growth 1980-2000 (pre-Katrina), while New Orleans lost 50k people before Katrina ever hit.
quote:
They also have a history of corrupt leadership.
Birmingham and Memphis could say the same thing but neither are in population freefall.
My question boils down to this: What happened in the late 1970s and up through the 1980s and early 1990s to set off this doom loop of population freefall that no other metro in the nation outside the industrial belt of the Midwest experienced?
Lots of cities have crime. Lots of cities have corruption. For all the folks insinuating it has to do with race, what makes NOLA any different than Birmingham, Memphis, or even Atlanta?
I don't know the answer to these questions but it seems like someone should write a book and research this decline because it's literally unprecedented in US history.
This post was edited on 6/29/26 at 4:14 pm
Posted on 6/29/26 at 4:15 pm to AUTiger789
Jeez what are you wanting to hear? I live in New Orleans and have had family roots here for decades and I am telling you what the problem is yet you want to disagree with everything I am saying and you dont even live here. I am not sugar coating how terrible our leadership has been or how bad the general mindset is of the locals here but you just want to argue about everything. Go ask Chat GPT if you want an answer and not a current residents opinion.
Posted on 6/29/26 at 5:41 pm to VFL67
quote:
Jeez what are you wanting to hear?
Look I'm not trying to say you are wrong. You obviously have way more knowledge of the history of the region. But boiler plate explanations like "Katrina" or "crime" "the port" just don't explain the level of decline nor the timeline of when the decline originated. Obviously those things are major factors, but it still doesn't explain the full story.
I mean heck New Orleans still has TWO of the top 5 ports in America in terms of cargo tonnage (three of the Top 12) so it's not like the port disappeared entirely. And having those ports along with tourism is a boom that cities like Birmingham, Detroit, Memphis, and St Louis would kill to have.
I live in Birmingham and can tell you what we've gotten wrong. We too have racial issues that have set us back... probably even more so than New Orleans... horrific city leadership and corruption (Jefferson County had the largest bankruptcy of any county in US history in 2011).. and we too have had a rival (Atlanta) kick us in the teeth now for 70+ years to the point it's no longer a rivalry.
The city of Birmingham has lost 42% of its population since 1960. But the difference is the region as a whole has continued to grow.
Detroit, Memphis, Birmingham, St Louis, etc have all gone by the same playbook. Somehow New Orleans has been different despite most of the same problems.
Metairie (majority white and upper middle class) lost 11% of its population from 1980-2000... before Katrina hit.
Most every major city that has suffered white flight and population collapse of the inner city is surrounded by suburbs that have grown extensively as a result.
Somehow New Orleans is the exception to that rule and it's the only major metro outside the rust belt that has experienced that.
I'm not necessarily expecting an answer since the answer is obviously nuanced and probably unknown in total. Yes people who live in NOLA are experts on that city... but that doesn't make them experts on all these other cities to definitively say why their set of problems is unique and different than all the others.
I don't know the answer because I've not lived in NOLA. But people who live in NOLA aren't experts on Detroit or Memphis to be able to definitively say why those metros have grown while theirs has not.
I honestly think no one knows the true answer and we may never truly know. Yes everyone has theories and all those theories are no doubt major parts of the story.
But from 1980-2004, 99.9% of the major cities in decline in this country at least had suburbs that were expanding. New Orleans is the exception. I've still not seen a data-backed answer that explains why other cities with crime and corruption didn't start purging people but only New Orleans did... even the suburbs. That's the main difference, and crime, corruption, and lack of leadership are not unique.
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News