U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S.
 [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 01-19-2011, 04:01 PM
 
Location: Austin, TX/Chicago, IL/Houston, TX/Washington, DC
10,171 posts, read 12,792,100 times
Reputation: 4047

Advertisements

Chicago has plenty of room in its city limits to house another 1.5 Million people at the minimum for the future.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-19-2011, 04:49 PM
 
Location: Vineland, NJ
8,483 posts, read 10,460,458 times
Reputation: 5397
Quote:
Originally Posted by kidphilly View Post
In looking at taking basically a 50 year growth rate and applying to the next fifty years the Philly MSA would have been about 9.7 million today if the 50 years of high growth were continued, this is basically the same reason i think applying rates to the large fastest growing MSAs today are a little suspect that far into the future. The real world eventually catches up

On HTowns number for Philly proper, I honestly would not see where the people would fit, Philly was built out when it hit 2.3 Million - that is probably about the max it would ever be given the area covered
Philly still had room in its area for population growth. Areas like Northeast Philly had a lot less population density than areas like South and North Philly. The city could have easily hit 3 million in city proper with no problem.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-19-2011, 04:55 PM
 
Location: Somewhere extremely awesome
3,024 posts, read 2,461,585 times
Reputation: 2312
Quote:
Originally Posted by DANNYY View Post
Nope, its not. In 1950, every visual I have seen of Detroit's area and boundaries, the city limits was surrounded by unincorporated land area, which if the trends and decline by flight to further spaces didn't pace up, would be apart of Detroit city limits today easily.

It cant be today, the suburbs grew to the point where they cant be annexed under any of those jurisdictions. They could have been then, when most of them were either non-existent or far to small to matter putting up a fight to remain a separate entity.

And the same thing for Chicago too. Don't know about Philadelphia, haven't seen a map of it from the 1950's to know how prominent and large its suburbs were to be annexed later on into the city or not.
I think it's highly unlikely. Detroit's population in 1950 was about 1,849,568. To get to 4.2 million would have meant more than doubling their population. The only city to come close to this was Los Angeles, which was slightly larger than Detroit in 1950 and still only has about 3.9 million today.

Detroit probably would have a ceiling of about 2.5 million or so given demographic, land use, and economic factors.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-19-2011, 05:01 PM
 
Location: Austin, TX/Chicago, IL/Houston, TX/Washington, DC
10,171 posts, read 12,792,100 times
Reputation: 4047
Quote:
Originally Posted by cbmsu01 View Post
I think it's highly unlikely. Detroit's population in 1950 was about 1,849,568. To get to 4.2 million would have meant more than doubling their population. The only city to come close to this was Los Angeles, which was slightly larger than Detroit in 1950 and still only has about 3.9 million today.

Detroit probably would have a ceiling of about 2.5 million or so given demographic, land use, and economic factors.
But didn't the original poster say what would their populations be like if they stayed at those same rates? That's what I meant to answer in particular, and completely took the industries and all that other flight and stuff into account there when saying it too. I basically pretended that it was 1949 and rates stay the same.

I am positive its population (with annexation a bit) would have been that high if the rates stayed consistently like that for the last 60 years.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-19-2011, 05:03 PM
 
Location: The City
22,331 posts, read 32,143,293 times
Reputation: 7737
Quote:
Originally Posted by HtownLove View Post
Highly doubt it. Chicago (citywise) had taken a blow in the 30's and 40's before it reached the peak in 1950.

Detroit's Boom marched on through the depression up until the 50's.

I think Both cities would be around the 4M mark, but Chicago was already wobbling before the terrible 50's got there.

Same pattern happened with Philly and Cleveland. The brakes were applied long before 1950's.

Baltimore, Like Detroit, was not hit hard until the 50's

Philly




File:Philadelphia population 1790-2004.svg - Wikimedia Commons

Not really - there was growth pretty much up through 1950 (remember WWII had impacts on growth etc in the mid 40s in all areas, also post 1950, the suburbs were subsidized via the GI Bill)

The MSA grew post that as well just slowed in rate
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-19-2011, 05:06 PM
 
Location: Up on the moon laughing down on you
18,509 posts, read 28,157,104 times
Reputation: 7598
Quote:
Originally Posted by DANNYY View Post
But didn't the original poster say what would their populations be like if they stayed at those same rates? That's what I meant to answer in particular, and completely took the industries and all that other flight and stuff into account there when saying it too. I basically pretended that it was 1949 and rates stay the same.

I am positive its population (with annexation a bit) would have been that high if the rates stayed consistently like that for the last 60 years.
That is what I got from the OP question.

That is why I estimated that Detroit and Chicago would have been around 4M.

Chicago was slowing a bit while Detroit was still on the move in 1950, that is why I think they would have met somewhere around 4M
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-19-2011, 05:10 PM
 
Location: Up on the moon laughing down on you
18,509 posts, read 28,157,104 times
Reputation: 7598
Quote:
Originally Posted by kidphilly View Post
Philly




File:Philadelphia population 1790-2004.svg - Wikimedia Commons

Not really - there was growth pretty much up through 1950 (remember WWII had impacts on growth etc in the mid 40s in all areas, also post 1950, the suburbs were subsidized via the GI Bill)

The MSA grew post that as well just slowed in rate
actually your graph helps my point. I didn't say the brakes were slammed before 1950, I said it was applied (as in you apply the brakes and slow down your rate of speed). The graph shows that around 1910, the brakes were applied and the huge arc from the 1860's was interrupted.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-19-2011, 05:18 PM
 
Location: The City
22,331 posts, read 32,143,293 times
Reputation: 7737
Quote:
Originally Posted by HtownLove View Post
actually your graph helps my point. I didn't say the brakes were slammed before 1950, I said it was applied (as in you apply the brakes and slow down your rate of speed). The graph shows that around 1910, the brakes were applied and the huge arc from the 1860's was interrupted.
Yes but at the same time there was explosive growth in the street car suburbs directly on the borders - the area was expanding for the most part beyond the city limits, Philly was mostly built out with the exception of the Far NE which is further than many close in burbs/street car suburbs which even today are at greater than 10K ppsm density. This graph even in 1910 was area limited to a great extent - the other feature from the 70's forward was a decrease in occupants per household mainly driven by number of kids per family. The MSA dynamic is proabaly better to portray the more accurate growth and leveling pattern. Also much like the economic boom today seen in a place like Houston - that was experienced in the late 1800s and early 1900s in places like Philly and Detroit as some examples...

Last edited by kidphilly; 01-19-2011 at 05:26 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-19-2011, 06:16 PM
 
Location: CT
1,215 posts, read 2,154,226 times
Reputation: 2008
How bout New York.

The peak populations for all the boroughs in the era were:

Manhattan-2,117,832 1940 (Peak, declined to 1,985,107 in 1950)
Brooklyn-2,738,175 1950 (Peak, declined to 2,627,319 in 1960)
Bronx-1,451,277 1950 (Peak, declined to 1,424,815 in 1960)
-
Queens-1,550,849 1950 (Never declined, rose to 1,809,578 in 1960)
Staten Island-191,555 1950 (Never declined, rose to 221,991 in 1960)
-
Total-7,916,963 1950

And today they are:

Manhattan-1,697,954
Brooklyn-2,567,098
Bronx-1,391,903
-
Queens-2,306,712
Staten Island-491,730
-
Total-8,455,397

All boroughs are and have been on the rise now.

Ignoring the trends and stuff, if you just took all the peak populations of all the boroughs and combined them today you'd have 9,105,726, pretty cool. What would it be if Manhattan, Brooklyn and the Bronx hadn't stopped growing for a few decades?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-19-2011, 07:43 PM
 
3,234 posts, read 7,627,024 times
Reputation: 2694
should we take into consideration that some of these places would annex more of the population kept rising like it did?
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.
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

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, 33, 34, 35 - Top