Today's major cities population 100 years ago (rates, places, populations, Atlanta)

[HtownLove]

I have been seing a lot of cencus projection threads speculating on what the population of the current top ten cities will be in 10, 20, 50 or 100 years.

But I know the numbers and growth can't just be extrapolated to come up with a number 100 years from now. SO I went back 100 years to see what the current top ten's population was 100 years ago. Wow!!!

6 Of the Current top ten were not even in the top 50 back then and 3 cities were not even in the top 100. The top 3 has hardly changed.

Cities like Houston grew by over 3000%


Rank Now| Rank Then |Population| area /sq. mile) Density
-------------------------------------------------------------
1. 1 New York city, NY ....4,766,883 286.8 16,621
2. 17 Los Angeles city, CA..... 319,198 99.2 3,218
3. 2 Chicago city, IL......... 2,185,283 185.1 11,806
4. 68 Houston city, TX......... 78,800 17.4 4,529
6. 3 Philadelphia city, PA....1,549,008 130.2 11,897
7. 54 San Antonio city, TX..... 96,614 35.8 2,699
8. 58 Dallas city, TX.......... 92,104 16.2 5,685


These Cities were among the top 100 cities 100 years ago:
5. Phoenix 11,314
8. San Diego 39,578
10. San Jose 28,946



Top 10 100 years ago:

1 New York city, NY ...... 4,766,883 286.8 16,621
2 Chicago city, IL......... 2,185,283 185.1 11,806
3 Philadelphia city, PA.... 1,549,008 130.2 11,897
4 St. Louis city, MO....... 687,029 61.4 11,189
5 Boston city, MA.......... 670,585 41.1 16,316
6 Cleveland city, OH....... 560,663 45.6 12,295
7 Baltimore city, MD....... 558,485 30.1 18,554
8 Pittsburgh city, PA .... 533,905 41.4 12,896
9 Detroit city, MI......... 465,766 40.8 11,416
10 Buffalo city, NY......... 423,715 38.7 10,949


Honorable mentions:

11 San Francisco city, CA... 416,912 46.5 8,966
12 Milwaukee city, WI....... 373,857 22.8 16,397
13 Cincinnati city, OH...... 363,591 49.8 7,301
15 New Orleans city, LA..... 339,075 196.0 1,730
16 Washington city, DC...... 331,069 60.0 5,518
18 Minneapolis city, MN..... 301,408 50.1 6,016
26 St. Paul city, MN........ 214,744 52.2 4,114
31 Atlanta city, GA......... 154,839 25.7 6,025
32 Oakland city, CA......... 150,174 45.7 3,286
38 Scranton city, PA........ 129,867 19.3 6,729
75 Fort Worth city, TX...... 73,312 17.5 4,189
95 Jacksonville city, FL.... 57,699 9.3 6,204




I found out that the only thing that you can fairly count on is NY being number 1

You can't just multiply by current trends. Heck Philly has about the same number of people now that it did back then.


Sorry Kiphilly they didn't have metro statictics so no use in making arguments for metro growth. This is about cities.

[eek]

Originally Posted by HtownLove

I found out that the only thing that you can fairly count on is NY being number 1

heh.

[Torresdale]

What are we arguing here?

[HtownLove]

well eek, Boise Idaho might give it a run for its money.

[HtownLove]

Originally Posted by Torresdale

What are we arguing here?

read the top part and the bottom, if you can.

look at how many top ... cities in ...years threads that are out there with people multiplying current population by current rates of growth for x number of tears

[kidphilly]

Originally Posted by HtownLove

read the top part and the bottom, if you can.

look at how many top ... cities in ...years threads that are out there with people multiplying current population by current rates of growth for x number of tears

Yes that would be shortsighted, unless you can continue to annex, even at the metro level astonomical growth rates typically last less than 40 or 50 years.

[Torresdale]

Originally Posted by HtownLove

read the top part and the bottom, if you can.

If I can? Oh, burn. Are you suggesting I'm illiterate because I can't see why this is posted in the city vs city thread?

look at how many top ... cities in ...years threads that are out there with people multiplying current population by current rates of growth for x number of tears

Maybe I am illiterate because this looks like gibberish to me. I think a comma should be in there somewhere and what do "tears" have to do with anything?

[HtownLove]

calm down . Phillies are always getting worked up over nothing.

Geez. just because Philly's population is the same as it was 100 years ago doesn't mean you have to get all upset.

It is in the city vs city forum because it is comparing different cities then and now like zillions of other city threads do.

If you don't like it you don't have to read it. Move on hun.

[HtownLove]

Originally Posted by kidphilly

Yes that would be shortsighted, unless you can continue to annex, even at the metro level astonomical growth rates typically last less than 40 or 50 years.

yeah, I can understand the thread that guesstimate for 20-25 years. But the ones that estimate the population in 100 years and give places such as Phoenix populations of 15M is just crazy.

[kidphilly]

Originally Posted by HtownLove

calm down . Phillies are always getting worked up over nothing.

Geez. just because Philly's population is the same as it was 100 years ago doesn't mean you have to get all upset.

It is in the city vs city forum because it is comparing different cities then and now like zillions of other city threads do.

If you don't like it you don't have to read it. Move on hun.

We like our number, that's why we kept it, we just don't like anyone elses number