U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S. > City vs. City
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 02-01-2013, 12:44 AM
 
Location: London, United Kingdom
6,114 posts, read 6,633,518 times
Reputation: 6686

Advertisements

I skipped 1640-1850, I wanted to start in the decade where the likes of Chicago & Los Angeles started making their debut in top 20. I'll bold the cities that remained (top 10 then to top 10 now). In red will be all new comers from 1850 to 2010. Oh and also, from 1970 point onwards the metropolitan land area stays the exact same for all decades starting in 1970. So that's what their populations 1970 to present day would look like with the land boundaries they have today.

This thread also took me a while to put together. Please, enjoy and share thoughts!

1850:
01. New York: 650,000
02. Philadelphia: 405,000
03. Boston: 308,000

04. Baltimore: 179,000
05. Cincinnati: 133,000
06. New Orleans: 123,000
07. Albany: 107,000
08. Saint Louis: 95,000
09. Pittsburgh: 86,000
10. Buffalo: 80,000
......
17. Chicago: 40,000 (Chicago's first appearance in the top 20)

1860:
01. New York: 1,143,000
02. Philadelphia: 608,000
03. Boston: 374,000
04. Baltimore: 221,000
05. Cincinnati: 192,000
06. Saint Louis: 176,000
07. New Orleans: 172,000
08. Chicago: 123,000
09. Albany: 116,000
10. Pittsburgh: 93,000

1870:
01. New York: 1,687,000
02. Philadelphia: 747,000
03. Boston: 501,000
04. Saint Louis: 345,000
05. Chicago: 324,000
06. Baltimore: 283,000
07. Cincinnati: 257,000
08. New Orleans: 196,000
09. Pittsburgh: 170,000
10. Albany: 157,000

1880:
01. New York: 2,234,000
02. Philadelphia: 949,000
03. Boston: 658,000
04. Chicago: 543,000
05. Saint Louis: 386,000
06. Baltimore: 353,000
07. Cincinnati: 307,000
08. Pittsburgh: 265,000
09. San Francisco: 236,000
10. New Orleans: 219,000

1890:
01. New York: 2,977,000
02. Philadelphia: 1,180,000
03. Chicago: 1,141,000
04. Boston: 818,000
05. Saint Louis: 490,000
06. Baltimore: 453,000
07. Pittsburgh: 396,000
08. Cincinnati: 344,000
09. Minneapolis: 305,000
10. San Francisco: 302,000

1900:
01. New York: 4,266,000
02. Chicago: 1,759,000
03. Philadelphia: 1,454,000
04. Boston: 1,009,000
05. Saint Louis: 626,000
06. Pittsburgh: 532,000
07. Baltimore: 532,000
08. Cleveland: 396,000
09. Cincinnati: 379,000
10. San Francisco: 375,000

1910:
01. New York: 6,021,000
02. Chicago: 2,283,000
03. Philadelphia: 1,746,000
04. Boston: 1,213,000
05. Saint Louis: 760,000
06. Pittsburgh: 655,000
07. San Francisco: 604,000
08. Baltimore: 589,000
09. Cleveland: 580,000
10. Minneapolis: 526,000
.....
15. Los Angeles: 374,000

1920:
01. New York: 7,041,000
02. Chicago: 2,859,000
03. Philadelphia: 2,072,000
04. Boston: 1,366,000
05. Detroit: 1,070,000
06. Saint Louis: 859,000
07. Cleveland: 834,000
08. Pittsburgh: 775,000
09. San Francisco: 771,000
10. Baltimore: 753,000
.....
11. Los Angeles: 682,000

1930:
01. New York: 8,667,000
02. Chicago: 3,718,000
03. Philadelphia: 2,264,000
04. Detroit: 1,721,000
05. Los Angeles: 1,617,000
06. Boston: 1,479,000
07. San Francisco: 996,000
08. Cleveland: 976,000
09. Pittsburgh: 960,000
10. Saint Louis: 950,000
......
17. Washington: 527,000

1940:
01. New York: 10,135,000 (becoming the world's first megacity in the process)
02. Chicago: 4,210,000
03. Philadelphia: 2,538,000
04. Los Angeles: 2,268,000
05. Detroit: 2,041,000
06. Boston: 1,746,000
07. San Francisco: 1,156,000
08. Pittsburgh: 1,134,000
09. Saint Louis: 1,102,000
10. Cleveland: 1,079,000
......
13. Washington: 800,000

1950:
01. New York: 12,604,000
02. Chicago: 5,208,000
03. Los Angeles: 4,250,000
04. Philadelphia: 3,297,000
05. Detroit: 2,884,000
06. Boston: 2,301,000
07. San Francisco: 2,131,000
08. Saint Louis: 1,541,000
09. Cleveland: 1,425,000
10. Pittsburgh: 1,400,000
.....
11. Washington: 1,287,000

1960:
01. New York: 14,437,000
02. Los Angeles: 6,805,000
03. Chicago: 6,377,000
04. Philadelphia: 4,419,000
05. Detroit: 3,750,000
06. San Francisco: 2,607,000
07. Boston: 2,501,000
08. Pittsburgh: 2,105,000
09. Washington: 1,905,000
10. Saint Louis: 1,864,000
....
12. Dallas: 1,435,000
15. Miami: 1,173,000
17. Houston: 1,140,000

1970:
01. New York: 17,068,000
02. Los Angeles: 8,463,000
03. Chicago: 7,882,000
04. Philadelphia: 5,323,000
05. Detroit: 4,435,000
06. Boston: 3,919,000
07. San Francisco: 3,109,000
08. Washington: 3,142,000
09. Pittsburgh: 2,759,000
10. Saint Louis: 2,551,000
.....
11. Dallas: 2,424,000
14. Miami: 2,236,000
16. Houston: 2,201,000
20. Atlanta: 1,840,000

1980:
01. New York: 16,363,000
02. Los Angeles: 9,410,000
03. Chicago: 8,052,000
04. Philadelphia: 5,239,000
05. Detroit: 4,435,000
06. Boston: 3,938,000
07. Washington: 3,398,000
08. San Francisco: 3,250,000
09. Miami: 3,220,000
10. Houston: 3,147,000
.......
11. Dallas: 3,017,000
15. Atlanta: 2,326,000

1990:
01. New York: 16,863,000
02. Los Angeles: 11,273,000
03. Chicago: 8,181,000
04. Philadelphia: 5,435,000
05. Detroit: 4,353,000
06. Boston: 4,133,000
07. Washington: 4,122,000
08. Miami: 4,056,000
09. Dallas: 3,989,000
10. Houston: 3,767,000
.......
12. Atlanta: 3,068,000

2000:
01. New York: 18,323,000
02. Los Angeles: 12,365,000
03. Chicago: 9,098,000
04. Philadelphia: 5,687,000
05. Dallas: 5,161,000
06. Miami: 5,007,000
07. Washington: 4,796,000
08. Houston: 4,715,000
09. Detroit: 4,452,000
10. Boston: 4,391,000
.....
11. Atlanta: 4,247,000

2010:
01. New York: 18,897,109
02. Los Angeles: 12,828,000
03. Chicago: 9,461,000
04. Dallas: 6,371,000

05. Philadelphia: 5,965,000
06. Houston: 5,946,000
07. Washington: 5,582,000
08. Miami: 5,564,000
09. Atlanta: 5,268,000

10. Boston: 4,552,000

Present day (last available estimation):
01. New York: 19,128,707
02. Los Angeles: 13,046,718
03. Chicago: 9,559,207
04. Dallas: 6,725,448
05. Houston: 6,281,135
06. Philadelphia: 6,029,312
07. Washington: 5,845,430
08. Miami: 5,771,842
09. Atlanta: 5,488,101
10. Boston: 4,631,177
.....
13. Phoenix: 4,376,947

Last edited by Facts Kill Rhetoric; 02-01-2013 at 02:07 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-01-2013, 12:48 AM
 
11,763 posts, read 16,480,974 times
Reputation: 3025
Good post, DANNY.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-01-2013, 08:18 AM
 
Location: Philadelphia
11,573 posts, read 8,748,461 times
Reputation: 7700
Excellent info Valentro!

Los Angeles gained about 1 Million people every decade from 1920 onward?!

New York lost over 700,000 people from 1970-1980 only to gain almost 2 Million from 1990-2000?!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-01-2013, 08:25 AM
 
1,015 posts, read 1,375,973 times
Reputation: 736
Valentro, how did you calculate metropolitan area populations, beyond the central cities, for the earlier years? If I'm remembering correctly, the Census didn't start publishing metro area populations until 1920 or 1930.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-01-2013, 08:35 AM
 
Location: In the heights
16,499 posts, read 18,839,315 times
Reputation: 8078
Have you taken a look at: Historical Metropolitan Populations of the United States - Peakbagger.com
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-01-2013, 08:45 AM
 
4,765 posts, read 4,751,972 times
Reputation: 2061
Los Angeles did not come into the picture until 1930. I guess the car, railways and planes made that place much more accessible, and people everywhere who wanted to enjoy the weather and natural beauty could finally get there. Plus that coincides with the rise of Detroit, the motor city.

Chicago did not come into the picture until around 1890. Both NYC and Chicago exploded from that point on. I wonder what caused that. I know NYC was getting a whole influx of euro immigrants, but what about Chicago.

Boston and Philly had steady growth up until 1930. I guess with advent of transportation technology, any that could must have tried to leave those two cities or went elsewhere.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-01-2013, 08:51 AM
 
Location: Philadelphia
11,573 posts, read 8,748,461 times
Reputation: 7700
Quote:
Originally Posted by OyCrumbler View Post
^ That graph is so cool. Can't rep you again though.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-01-2013, 09:00 AM
 
Location: Raleigh, NC
1,384 posts, read 1,992,310 times
Reputation: 1233
Great post! Studying that really shows the different waves of growth in our country. Northeast, to the midwest, to the west coast, to the south.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-01-2013, 09:46 AM
 
Location: the ass of nowhere (the midwest)
501 posts, read 540,251 times
Reputation: 461
Quote:
Originally Posted by NJ Brazen_3133 View Post
Los Angeles did not come into the picture until 1930. I guess the car, railways and planes made that place much more accessible, and people everywhere who wanted to enjoy the weather and natural beauty could finally get there. Plus that coincides with the rise of Detroit, the motor city.

Chicago did not come into the picture until around 1890. Both NYC and Chicago exploded from that point on. I wonder what caused that. I know NYC was getting a whole influx of euro immigrants, but what about Chicago.

Boston and Philly had steady growth up until 1930. I guess with advent of transportation technology, any that could must have tried to leave those two cities or went elsewhere.
Chicago was getting a big influx of whites (mostly Czeck and Polish) around 1890. Good job opportunities in a booming industrial city with good geographical location.

Chicago got a massive southern black influx from 1915-1930, a large mexican influx in the 90s/00s and is now getting more asian immigration (Korean, Chinese, Indian, Filipino) than mexican/hispanic or european. There are now actually 2 chinatowns (1 is unofficial) in the city. It'll be the asians that'll put it over the top to "mega-city" status.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-01-2013, 10:26 AM
 
10,664 posts, read 20,247,250 times
Reputation: 9766
Quote:
Originally Posted by NJ Brazen_3133 View Post
Los Angeles did not come into the picture until 1930. I guess the car, railways and planes made that place much more accessible, and people everywhere who wanted to enjoy the weather and natural beauty could finally get there. Plus that coincides with the rise of Detroit, the motor city.

Chicago did not come into the picture until around 1890. Both NYC and Chicago exploded from that point on. I wonder what caused that. I know NYC was getting a whole influx of euro immigrants, but what about Chicago.

Boston and Philly had steady growth up until 1930. I guess with advent of transportation technology, any that could must have tried to leave those two cities or went elsewhere.
The Midwest exploded from the mid/late 1800's through the 1950's/1960's with manufacturing, agriculture, population growth. Chicago was hands down the transportation hub of the country, and was the main outlet for everything coming from the east and everything going off to the west into the new areas of the USA at that point. It was kinda the "outpost" for a long time for all areas to the west and south - like St Louis in the early 1800's with steamboats. Once railroads came and they all centered on Chicago, it took over from St. Louis which thrived in steamboats on the Mississippi. Look what railroads did to the USA, probably the most overlooked and biggest reasons for the USA's amazing climb from the 1870's through the 1920's. Chicago was the heartbeat of all that.

With the transportation came the industry and the people to work those jobs. Process all the livestock and products coming from the Midwest to the population centers out east, and get goods and people from the east and transport them to the Midwest.

By the 1950's and the advent of interstates and the sending of industry overseas, you can easily see how that impacted Chicago. The metro area barely grew by a few hundred thousand people over the course of 20 years. By the 1990's though the city had basically shed off a large part of the industry and replaced it as a tech and white collar/finance hub. Then you see the basically 1 million growth over the 1990's, and the growth in the 2000's which was actually impacted quite a bit by the reverse migration of african americans. Chicago lost 200,000 peope in the city during the 2000's, and 180,000 of those were black people.

At this point the metro went from explosive growth to decline to modest growth/stability. Aside from financial issues due to unions/pensions/state corruption, the metro area is quite stable and healthy. It's not a boom city, but it doesn't have to be. I've noticed that people tend to think if you're not pulling Dallas or Phoenix growth all the time then something's "wrong".
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S. > City vs. City

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2017, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32 - Top