Traditional Legacy Cities vs New Rising Cities (map, comparison, Chicago)

[Western Urbanite]

Originally Posted by _OT

This is way oversimplified.
I would divide it into four classes of cities.

Legacy, prosperous cities:
New York City
Chicago
San Francisco
Boston
Washington DC
Philadelphia
etc.

Legacy Cities:
Cleveland
Pittsburgh
Baltimore
St Louis
New Orleans
Detroit
Birmingham
Cincinnati
Milwaukee
etc

New Urban Cities:
Los Angeles
Miami
Salt Lake City
Denver
Seattle
Portland
Minneapolis
San Diego
Sacramento
etc.

New Suburban/Urban Cities:
Nashville
Charlotte
Austin
Raleigh
Phoenix
Las Vegas
Dallas
Houston
Atlanta
Orlando
San Jose
etc

This is great.

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by Katarina Witt

Denver does not fit any of those categories.

Denver is a mature city with residual Sun Belt characteristics. It has strong domestic migration rates. City limits (as you have noted) are fixed at this point, but there is still undeveloped land (such as in Stapleton) which has yet to be built out. Still, most of the population growth is likely from denser infill in the core. It, along with a few other western cities (like Seattle and Portland) are likely the only cities which fall into this model. Most trendy/gentrifying cities actually see a greater outflux of domestic migrants due to their high costs - it's just that the people leaving tend to be more working class than the people coming in.

Originally Posted by Katarina Witt

You think LA has undeveloped land within the city limits, or the ability to annex new land for development?

LA is surely a mature city. If it wasn't for immigration and natural population growth, LA would have a shrinking population. There are small unincorporated zones bordering LA (most notably East LA, which has 126,000+ people) but LA has shown no interest in absorbing them.

[DTXman34]

Originally Posted by eschaton

Denver is a mature city with residual Sun Belt characteristics. It has strong domestic migration rates. City limits (as you have noted) are fixed at this point, but there is still undeveloped land (such as in Stapleton) which has yet to be built out. Still, most of the population growth is likely from denser infill in the core. It, along with a few other western cities (like Seattle and Portland) are likely the only cities which fall into this model. Most trendy/gentrifying cities actually see a greater outflux of domestic migrants due to their high costs - it's just that the people leaving tend to be more working class than the people coming in.

In Texas, I think these definitions are a little trickier. Houston, San Antonio, and Fort Worth have been annexing, although Houston has also witnessed more urban core growth than the other two. In Austin and Dallas, there hasn't been any annexation in a long time. Dallas in particular is hemmed in by its suburbs and is experiencing growth within its city limits (both the central urban core and northern parts of the city).

[Katarina Witt]

Originally Posted by eschaton

Denver is a mature city with residual Sun Belt characteristics. It has strong domestic migration rates. City limits (as you have noted) are fixed at this point, but there is still undeveloped land (such as in Stapleton) which has yet to be built out. Still, most of the population growth is likely from denser infill in the core. It, along with a few other western cities (like Seattle and Portland) are likely the only cities which fall into this model. Most trendy/gentrifying cities actually see a greater outflux of domestic migrants due to their high costs - it's just that the people leaving tend to be more working class than the people coming in.



LA is surely a mature city. If it wasn't for immigration and natural population growth, LA would have a shrinking population. There are small unincorporated zones bordering LA (most notably East LA, which has 126,000+ people) but LA has shown no interest in absorbing them.

Stapleton is pretty well built out. Maybe you meant Denver International Airport? That's the only open land in the city, and that was the one large annexation since the Poundstone Amendment in 1974. Denver has been a "rising" city since the 1950s, more than 60 years now. Please don't compare us to Portland. We're not nuts. We fluoridate our water (I say "we" although I no longer live in the city) and can keep our schools open.

[grega94]

Originally Posted by Drewcifer

I was thinking along the same lines and was going to post some data that was sliced up a bit differently but made the same basic point. I think the important part is that WWII is the cut off. If a place was a significant city before then, chances are very good that it has a fair amount of old school fabric that was laid down before cars took over. The charts you posted then give us this list:

New York
Chicago
Philly
St Louis
Boston
Baltimore
Cleveland
Buffalo
San Francisco
Cincinnati
Pittsburgh
New Orleans
Detroit
Milwaukee
Washington DC
Newark
Jersey City
Louisville
Minneapolis
Providence
Los Angeles
Kansas City
Seattle
Indianapolis

Those were all top 20 cities between 1900 and 1940. I think that works pretty well as a list of America's urban legacy cities. You could probably add Oakland and St Paul as well since they were important second cities even back then. Obviously there are a few that don't fit the stereotype, but that is more a matter of the stereotype being wrong - they have the bones to be there.

Here is a list of cities that at least showed up at least once in the top 30 largest cities from 1940 - 1890

City………………….. | Avg | 40 | 30 | 20 | 10 | 00 | 90 |
New York, NY……. | 1- | 1- | 1- | 1- | 1- | 1- | 1- |
Chicago, IL………… | 2- | 2- | 2- | 2- | 2- | 2- | 2- |
Philadelphia, PA.. | 3- | 3- | 3- | 3- | 3- | 3- | 3- |
Brooklyn, NY…….. | 4- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | 4- |
St. Louis, MO…….. | 6- | 8- | 7- | 6- | 4- | 4- | 5- |
Cleveland, OH…… | 7- | 6- | 6- | 5- | 6- | 7- | 10 |
Boston, MA………. | 7- | 9- | 9- | 7- | 5- | 5- | 6- |
Baltimore, MD….. | 7- | 7- | 8- | 8- | 7- | 6- | 7- |
Detroit, MI………… | 8- | 4- | 4- | 4- | 9- | 13- | 15 |
Pittsburgh, PA…… | 10 | 10 | 10 | 9- | 8- | 11 | 13 |
San Francisco, CA. | 11 | 12 | 11 | 12 | 11 | 9- | 8- |
Buffalo, NY……….. | 11 | 14 | 13 | 11 | 10 | 8- | 11 |
Milwaukee, WI…. | 13 | 13 | 12 | 13 | 12 | 14 | 16 |
Cincinnati, OH…… | 14 | 17 | 17 | 16 | 13 | 10 | 9 |
Washington, DC… | 14 | 11 | 14 | 14 | 16 | 15 | 14 |
New Orleans, LA.. | 15 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 15 | 12 | 12 |
Newark, NJ……….. | 16 | 18 | 18 | 15 | 14 | 16 | 17 |
Minneapolis, MN. | 17 | 16 | 15 | 18 | 18 | 19 | 18 |
Kansas City, MO… | 21 | 19 | 19 | 19 | 20 | 22 | 24 |
Jersey City, NJ…… | 22 | 30 | 23 | 22 | 19 | 17 | 19 |
Los Angeles, CA… | 22 | 5- | 5- | 10 | 17 | 36 | 57 |
Indianapolis, IN… | 22 | 20 | 21 | 21 | 22 | 21 | 27 |
Rochester, NY…… | 23 | 23 | 22 | 22 | 25 | 24 | 22 |
Louisville, KY……. | 23 | 25 | 24 | 29 | 24 | 18 | 20 |
Denver, CO……….. | 26 | 24 | 29 | 25 | 27 | 25 | 26 |
Allegheny, PA…… | 28 | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- |27 | 28 |
St. Paul, MN……… | 28 | 33 | 31 | 30 | 26 | 23 | 23 |
Providence, RI….. | 28 | 37 | 37 | 27 | 23 | 20 | 25 |
Columbus, OH…… | 28 | 26 | 28 | 28 | 29 | 28 | 30 |
Toledo, OH……….. | 30 | 34 | 27 | 26 | 30 | 26 | 34 |
Seattle, WA………. | 34 | 22 | 20 | 20 | 21 | 48 | 70 |
Portland, OR……… | 35 | 27 | 25 | 24 | 28 | 42 | 61 |
Atlanta, GA……….. | 35 | 28 | 32 | 33 | 31 | 43 | 42 |
Omaha, NE………… | 35 | 39 | 39 | 34 | 41 | 35 | 21 |
Syracuse, NY……… | 36 | 41 | 40 | 37 | 34 | 30 | 31 |
Worcester, MA…. | 36 | 44 | 42 | 35 | 33 | 29 | 33 |
Oakland, CA……… | 40 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 56 | 60 |
Houston, TX………. | 49 | 21 | 26 | 45 | 68 | 85 | -- |
Albany, NY………… | 51 | 65 | 64 | 60 | 50 | 40 | 29 |

[polo89]

Originally Posted by eschaton

I think cities can be divided into essentially three groups.

Mature cities are cities which have fixed municipal boundaries and which experience negative domestic migration. However, the total population continues to grow because of both natural population growth as well as international immigration. In some cases they have been transformed heavily by gentrification, but almost always the level of young professionals moving in is less than the outflow of domestic migrants outwards.

Legacy cities have fixed borders and negative domestic migration, but they are also either stagnant or declining in terms of population. This is due to a combination of relatively little immigration (virtually every legacy city has relatively small Latino and Asian populations) along with lower levels of gentrification. Legacy cities, if they economically revitalize enough, can become mature cities (see DC).

Sunbelt cities have mostly open borders - either undeveloped land within city limits waiting for new subdivisions, or the ability to annex new land for development. As a result, they can continue to see pretty strong growth just from suburban growth. Over time, sunbelt cities can turn into mature cities if their borders are essentially closed off by incorporated suburbs (this happened to Miami and Atlanta).

Great analysis. Especially pointing out that DC transformed from a Legacy city, to a Mature city.

[Losfrisco]

Originally Posted by FirebirdCamaro1220

San Francisco is a legacy city, it was always "the city" in California until about the 80's when Los Angeles took off and became more urban

Los Angeles has never lost population in a census, had left San Francisco in the dust population wise in by 1920, had the largest interurban rail system in the world by 1925, Olympics twice, etc. Los Angeles has been urban since the 1880's.

[FirebirdCamaro1220]

Originally Posted by Losfrisco

Los Angeles has never lost population in a census, had left San Francisco in the dust population wise in by 1920, had the largest interurban rail system in the world by 1925, Olympics twice, etc. Los Angeles has been urban since the 1880's.

I'm talking in terms of money, and Industry. Los Angeles became a major player like the Bay Area by the late 70's early 80's. But before then, the Bay Area was where the money and Industry were, as well as culture and education (Stanford, Berkeley etc). Look at all the music that came out of the Bay Area back in the 60's, like Credence and Jefferson Airplane among others, culturally significant bands. Even when thrash metal took off in the 80's, the Bay Area produced more and usually better bands than Los Angeles (Slayer and Megadeth being the best two out of LA)

[Losfrisco]

Originally Posted by FirebirdCamaro1220

I'm talking in terms of money, and Industry. Los Angeles became a major player like the Bay Area by the late 70's early 80's. But before then, the Bay Area was where the money and Industry were, as well as culture and education (Stanford, Berkeley etc). Look at all the music that came out of the Bay Area back in the 60's, like Credence and Jefferson Airplane among others, culturally significant bands. Even when thrash metal took off in the 80's, the Bay Area produced more and usually better bands than Los Angeles (Slayer and Megadeth being the best two out of LA)

Okay, so oil, aircraft production, and the consolidation of the majority of the world's film studios by 1910 isn't being a major player in money and industry? I noticed you subbed out "San Francisco" for "Bay Area" for this comparison. Sure, if you combine an entire geographic region spanning multiple cities and counties, yes then "San Francisco" can give Los Angeles a run for its money.

[rnc2mbfl]

Originally Posted by CitiesinUSA

Why has Atlanta's core (Relatively) shrunken so much. It was one of the 35 most populated cities consistently for some time in the mid-late 1900s, and even as recently as 2009 estimates, it had over 540k people (there's some dispute that the 2010 population for Atlanta was underrepresented, and that in reality Atlanta's population was really around 530k in 2010, rather than the 420k or so in the census. That would make sense, as I always felt Atlanta was denser than the numbers showed).

Gentrification in most cities has usually meant smaller, more wealthy households than the ones that they replace.