Will Boston ever re-pass SF and/or DC? (rates, largest, compared)

[Boston Shudra]

First off, I'm not even sure that re-pass is even a real word, but I couldn't think of any other word to use.

Well anyway, I was looking through the "American City Tiers (My Version)" thread and I noticed that a lot of people (maybe half) were putting Washington DC and San Francisco on a tier above Boston. And I thought "well that's wierd." They're all similar sized cities with similar economic and cultural importance, and they're designed in similar ways so that they all have rather low dense centers surrounded by large and populous metro areas. So why, exactly, would anyone put SF and DC ahead of Boston?

Then I realized "well DC and SF do have larger metros and do have larger GDPs and do seem to typically get more immigration and media coverage than Boston and also have things that put them ahead of Boston like DC's subway or SF's 200,000 more people."

But why is this true? For the first 200 - 300 years of this country's history Boston was much larger than SF and DC. It was second in density to New York and one of the country's strongest and most influential cities. However it seems that in the last 50 years or so Boston seems to have lost its competitive edge and both SF and DC have pulled ahead of it.

For example, here are historical city populations [estimates] (curtousy of Wikipedia ):

year - Boston population | SF population | DC population

1860 - 177,840 | 56,802 | 75,080
1870 - 250,526 | 149,473 | 131,700
1880 - 362,839 | 233,959 | 177,624
1890 - 448,447 | 298,997 | 230,392
1900 - 560,892 | 342,782 | 278,718
1910 - 670,585 | 416,912 | 331,069
1920 - 748,060 | 506,676 | 437,571
1930 - 781,788 | 634,394 | 486,869
1940 - 770,816 | 634,536 | 663,091
1950 - 801,444 | 775,357 | 802,178
1960 - 697,197 | 740,316 | 763,956
1970 - 641,071 | 715,674 | 756,150
1980 - 562,994 | 678,974 | 638,333
1990 - 574,283 | 732,959 | 606,900
2000 - 589,141 | 776,733 | 527,059
2010 - 617,594 | 805,235 | 601,723

Metro area is also a large component (as metro DC is currently the largest despite the fact that the city pop is the smallest), but I don't know where to get that info.

As you can see, Boston was much larger than SF or DC for a very long time.
Then 1960 hit, and Boston spiraled down to being the smallest of the three cities.
.....

Now to the point.

My question (to those of you who care) is... (italic = personal response)

Do you think Boston will ever pull ahead again and surpass DC and SF in population & relevance? Why?

I personally can't really find an answer to this question. On one hand I want to say "no way" because SF and DC are currently powerhouses in the US and aren't showing any signs of slowing down. On the other hand, I might say "maybe" because Boston is still anout 200,000 people short of its max population and because, like DC and SF, it also has a lot going for it in terms of economics and whatnot. The COL is so high at this point, that I think one can assume that Boston is in very high demand now. Therefore if the city build a lot more housing Boston's population would significantly rise.

[Fastphilly]

All three are about even IMO, the only thing that sets Washington and San Francisco slightly above Boston is tourism. Washington and San Francisco seem to have more interest from foreign visitors as well. The iconic buildings and museums in Washington or the Golden Gate Bridge, Cable Cars and the beauty of San Francisco is tough for most cities to compete with.

[the resident09]

DC's population is already at 632,000 my guess is 700,000 by 2020 is more than realistic.

Washington, D.C. - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

[btownboss4]

Originally Posted by the resident09

DC's population is already at 632,000 my guess is 700,000 by 2020 is more than realistic.

Washington, D.C. - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Those estimates aré one year newer than the latest for every other city in the US so you really can't use it for comparisons.

[the resident09]

Originally Posted by btownboss4

Those estimates aré one year newer than the latest for every other city in the US so you really can't use it for comparisons.

So your saying DC won't be at 700,000 by 2020?

[tmac9wr]

Originally Posted by the resident09

So your saying DC won't be at 700,000 by 2020?

Maybe it will...but that would take a huge jump. You're talking over 16% growth in a decade (100,000) residents. I'm not saying DC definitely isn't 632k this year...but the "estimates" have been off with pretty regular consistency...I remember the estimate for Houston was off by like 200,000 or so one time. Again, not saying it isn't accurate, or that DC can't do it...but it shouldn't necessarily be assumed.

Anyways, regarding the OP, I believe Boston's a step or two behind them in regards to importance. If you're talking simply the cities themselves, then I believe it's hard to distinguish a clear winner among the three...but what pushes DC and SF ahead of Boston in the larger scheme of things is that both SF and DC are located directly next to other major cities in Baltimore and San Jose. I think San Jose helps SF more than Baltimore does DC.

SF itself is a very important city. It's a leader in finance, technology, healthcare, etc...but the additional help it receives from San Jose/Silicon Valley are what really gives it that extra boost and what makes it such a global powerhouse.

DC gets a good amount of help from Baltimore from things like Legg Mason and Johns Hopkins, but the thing that separates DC is the fact that it's the seat of the Federal Government. This puts DC at a distinct advantage over every other city in the country since it is built with federal funds and the main industry of the city more/less cannot shrink. I'd prefer not to jump into this bit any further since I've seen far too many neverending arguments about this...let's just say the government gives DC a huge advantage.

In the end, the difference between Boston and SF and DC isn't all that large, but I would put DC and SF ahead of it. If you're taking into account city propers-only, then I think they're all pretty much equal.

[MPLS_TC]

Dc won't have 700,000 residents in the next 7 years

[Boston Shudra]

Originally Posted by tmac9wr

Anyways, regarding the OP, I believe Boston's a step or two behind them in regards to importance.

Yes, I realize that. (Though I'd also say that Boston has Providence to DC's Baltimore and SF's San Jose).

My question was whether or not Boston will ever be more important than them in the future, because historically it was more important than the other two for a very long time.

[Fastphilly]

Originally Posted by iAMtheVVALRUS

Yes, I realize that. (Though I'd also say that Boston has Providence to DC's Baltimore and SF's San Jose).

My question was whether or not Boston will ever be more important than them in the future, because historically it was more important than the other two for a very long time.

The other Northeastern metros will cannibalize Boston with future business ventures since it has close proximity to those locations. Boston's lack of a variety of non-stop international flights compared to NY, DC and SF will hinder Boston's luring power for companies with strong international business ties. Business travelers despise connections to far flung locations.

[Malloric]

DC will outgrow it in population and is already of greater import. San Francisco is finally growing although it's still incredibly anti-development but unlike DC (also anti-development) doesn't really have anywhere to grow without lifting zoning constrictions.