1950 Rust Belt vs. 1950 Northeast corridor (better, compared, bigger, populations)

[Losfrisco]

Which region was more powerful and dominant in 1950, the year arguably both regions were at the summit of their power?

This (probably) wouldn't be a serious poll today, but it looks like it certainly would have been in 1950.

RUST BELT:

Buffalo (1950 pop. 580,000)

Pittsburgh (1950 pop. 676,000)

Cleveland (1950 pop. 914,000)

Cincinnati (1950 pop. 504,000)

Detroit (1950 pop. 1,850,000)

Milwaukee (1950 pop. 637,000)

Chicago (1950 pop. 3,620,000)

St. Louis (1950 pop. 857,000)

vs.

NORTHEAST:

Boston (1950 pop. 801,400)

New York City (1950 pop. 7,892,000)

Philadelphia (1950 pop. 2,072,000)

Baltimore (1950 pop. 950,000)

Washington D.C. (1950 pop 802,178)

Providence (1950 pop. 248,000)

Newark (1950 pop. 439,000)

Hartford (1950 pop. 177,000)

[KodeBlue]

NYC is the only city to exceed their 1950s population. Cleveland was pretty impressive too. Baltimore's population loss isn't as bad as I thought compared to Midwestern cities

[Losfrisco]

Originally Posted by KodeBlue

NYC is the only city to exceed their 1950s population. Cleveland was pretty impressive too. Baltimore's population loss isn't as bad as I thought compared to Midwestern cities

Milwaukee peaked in 1960 before only a gradual loss.

[GeoffD]

At the summit of their power in 1950? Boston is now a global city. Philly Center City has seen a huge amount of growth. Metro DC has exploded all around the beltway. The Northeast Corridor and the West Coast are the dominant part of the US economy.

[Enean]

Originally Posted by GeoffD

At the summit of their power in 1950? Boston is now a global city. Philly Center City has seen a huge amount of growth. Metro DC has exploded all around the beltway. The Northeast Corridor and the West Coast are the dominant part of the US economy.

Is that what the question was?

[Losfrisco]

Originally Posted by GeoffD

At the summit of their power in 1950? Boston is now a global city. Philly Center City has seen a huge amount of growth. Metro DC has exploded all around the beltway. The Northeast Corridor and the West Coast are the dominant part of the US economy.

We are comparing the status of the two regions in 1950, when many of the cities were at peak population and influence.

The Pittsburgh and Detroit of 1950 make the San Francisco and Seattle of today look like a giant "cool story bro."

Philly, Baltimore and Boston had larger populations and I"m assuming bigger influence then as well. New York gained population but did it gain influence?

Los Angeles would have probably been comparable to Detroit or Philly in 1950, but I don't think there is a case to be made for the west seriously competing with the rust belt or NE in 1950.

[btownboss4]

If I had the choice between 1950 and 2020 Cleveland I’d pick 2020. Fewer people but much healthier/cleaner.

[Losfrisco]

Originally Posted by btownboss4

If I had the choice between 1950 and 2020 Cleveland I’d pick 2020. Fewer people but much healthier/cleaner.

Same could be said about Pittsburgh but I'd rather have the lets all make some money free for all of 1950 than today's Phd's only Pittsburgh. The city looks much better now but QOL was way higher then.

[TheLawMan]

Originally Posted by Losfrisco

The city looks much better now but QOL was way higher then.

Quality of life was way higher when you couldn't walk outside in a white shirt without it turning brown from pollution?

[ckhthankgod]

You could also add cities such as Indianapolis, Rochester, Syracuse, Dayton, Toledo and Akron. All were bigger than Hartford and most of them were similar to, give or take, to Providence in population at the time.

https://www.census.gov/population/ww...0027/tab18.txt