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 05-23-2017, 12:00 PM
 
Location: Seattle WA, USA
3,929 posts, read 2,213,027 times
Reputation: 2610

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by grega94 View Post
What are the three largest cities in your state over the course of it's history? Here is my state of Washington

1860
1. Seattle: 188 | 2. N/A | 3. N/A
1870
1. Walla Walla: 1,394 | 2. Olympia: 1,203 | 3. Seattle: 1,107
1880
1. Walla Walla: 3,588 | 2. Seattle: 3,533 | 3. Vancouver: 1,722
1890 (Washington is now a state)
1. Seattle: 42,837 | Tacoma: 36,006 | 3. Spokane: 19,922
1900
1. Seattle: 80,671 | 2. Tacoma: 37,714 | 3. Spokane: 36,848
1910
1. Seattle: 237,194| 2. Spokane: 104,402 | 3. Tacoma: 83,743
1920
1. Seattle: 315,312 | 2. Spokane: 104,437 | 3. Tacoma: 96,965
1930
1. Seattle: 365,583 | 2. Spokane: 115,514 | 3. Tacoma: 106,817
1940
1. Seattle: 368,302 | 2. Spokane: 122,001 | 3. Tacoma: 109,408
1950
1. Seattle: 467,591 | 2. Spokane: 161,721 | 3. Tacoma: 143,673
1960
1. Seattle: 557,087 | 2. Spokane: 181,608 | 3. Tacoma: 147,979
1970
1. Seattle: 530,831 | 2. Spokane: 170,516 | 3. Tacoma: 154,407
1980
1. Seattle: 493,846 | 2. Spokane: 171,300 | 3. Tacoma: 158,501
1990
1. Seattle: 516,259 | 2. Spokane: 177,196 | 3. Tacoma: 176,664
2000
1. Seattle: 563,374 | 2. Spokane: 195,629 | 3. Tacoma: 193,556
2010
1. Seattle: 608,660 | 2. Spokane: 208,916 | 3. Tacoma: 198,397
2015
1. Seattle: 686,800 | 2. Spokane: 213,272 | 3. Tacoma: 207,948

* There are cities that are older than Seattle but I can't find data that goes back that far.

Cities by date of incorporation
Port Townsend: 1851
Stelacoom: 1854
Vancouver: 1857
Olympia: 1859
Walla Walla: 1862
Seattle: 1869

It's interesting to note that Tacoma almost overtook Spokane in 1990, Tacoma was only 532 behind, but then Spokane has pulled away again and the difference is now 5,324. I thought that Tacoma would easily become #2 again, but it seems that the two will battle it out for another decade or so, but Tacoma is growing about twice as fast as Spokane so it's still possible that Tacoma will take #2 by 2020.
Here is a graph representing the data up above

Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-23-2017, 01:07 PM
 
Location: South Beach and DT Raleigh
11,810 posts, read 18,796,055 times
Reputation: 11136
Here's the list of the top five NC cities since the 1940 Census and their ranking relative to each other in each subsequent Census plus the latest numbers from 2015. I have only listed the 1940 populations and the latest Census estimates + their growth rate since 1940 (mostly out of laziness). Charlotte has remained the largest city but all others end at a different ranking than they started in 1940. Green indicates a move up in the ranking decade to decade and red indicates a drop in ranking.

1940:
  1. Charlotte: 100,899
  2. Winston-Salem: 79,815
  3. Durham: 60,195
  4. Greensboro: 59,319
  5. Asheville: 51,310
Raleigh: 46,879

1950:
  1. Charlotte
  2. Winston-Salem
  3. Greensboro
  4. Durham
  5. Raleigh

1960:
  1. Charlotte
  2. Greensboro
  3. Winston-Salem
  4. Raleigh
  5. Durham

1970:
  1. Charlotte
  2. Greensboro
  3. Winston-Salem
  4. Raleigh
  5. Durham

1980:
  1. Charlotte
  2. Greensboro
  3. Raleigh
  4. Winston-Salem
  5. Durham

1990:
  1. Charlotte
  2. Raleigh
  3. Greensboro
  4. Winston-Salem
  5. Durham

2000:
  1. Charlotte
  2. Raleigh
  3. Greensboro
  4. Winston-Salem
  5. Durham

2010:
  1. Charlotte
  2. Raleigh
  3. Greensboro
  4. Winston-Salem
  5. Durham

2015:
  1. Charlotte: 827,097 +820%
  2. Raleigh: 451,066 +962%
  3. Greensboro: 285,342 +481%
  4. Durham: 257,636 +428%
  5. Winston-Salem: +302%

FWIW, Asheville (#5 in 1940) has dropped to NC's 11th most populated city.
Special note: Cary, NC's 7th largest city & suburb of Raleigh has grown 14,000% to 159,769 since 1940 when it was nowhere on the radar as a town of 1,141.

Last edited by rnc2mbfl; 05-23-2017 at 01:37 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-23-2017, 01:57 PM
 
Location: Oklahoma City
742 posts, read 719,916 times
Reputation: 795
Quote:
Originally Posted by grega94 View Post
That looks interesting, it seems that Tulsa almost became #1 between 1960 and 1980, do you know what was happening during that time period? why was Tulsa growing so fast, and why did it slow down?
Probably because of the oil boom of the late 1970s and early 80s, followed by a bust starting in the mid-80s.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-23-2017, 02:57 PM
 
Location: NYntarctica
11,435 posts, read 6,398,275 times
Reputation: 4340
2015:
NYC - 8,550,405
Buffalo - 258,071
Rochester - 209,802

2010:
NYC - 8,175,133
Buffalo - 261,310
Rochester - 210,565

2000:
NYC - 8,008,288
Buffalo - 292,648
Rochester - 219,773

1990:
NYC - 7,322,564
Buffalo - 328,123
Rochester - 231,636

1980:
NYC - 7,071,639
Buffalo - 357,780
Rochester - 241,741

1970:
NYC - 7,894,862
Buffalo - 462,768
Rochester - 296,233

1960:
NYC - 7,781,984
Buffalo - 532,759
Rochester - 318,611

1950:
NYC - 7,891,957
Buffalo - 580,132
Rochester - 332,488

1940:
NYC - 7,454,995
Buffalo - 575,901
Rochester - 324,975

1930:
NYC - 6,930,446
Buffalo - 573,076
Rochester - 328,132

1920:
NYC - 5,620,048
Buffalo - 506,775
Rochester - 295,750

1910:
NYC - 4,766,883
Buffalo - 423,715
Rochester - 218,149


1900:
NYC - 3,437,202
Buffalo - 352,387
Rochester - 162,608
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-23-2017, 03:04 PM
 
Location: Oklahoma
6,847 posts, read 6,183,900 times
Reputation: 6126
Quote:
Originally Posted by KayneMo View Post
Probably because of the oil boom of the late 1970s and early 80s, followed by a bust starting in the mid-80s.
White flight to the suburbs in Tulsa slowed growth as well. That started in the 1970s.

Last edited by eddie gein; 05-23-2017 at 03:51 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-23-2017, 03:12 PM
 
Location: Albuquerque, NM
706 posts, read 513,188 times
Reputation: 407
New Mexico:

Albuquerque has been the largest city since the state was admitted to the union in 1912 (47th).
The next largest are: Las Cruces, Rio Rancho (ABQ Metro), Santa Fe, Roswell, and Farmington.

Albuquerque Historical population:

1910: 11,200

1920:
15,157

1930:
26,570

1940:
35,449

1950:
98,815

1960:
201,000

1970:
244,501

1980:
332,336

1990:
386,988

2000:
448,607

2010:
545,847

2016 Estimate:
561,247
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-26-2017, 02:30 PM
 
Location: Colorado Springs
3,080 posts, read 2,113,124 times
Reputation: 3582
Quote:
Originally Posted by grega94 View Post
1860
1. Denver: 4,749 | 2. Golden: 1,014 | 3. N/A
1870
1. Denver: 4,759 | 2. Georgetown: 802 | 3. Golden: 587
1880 (Colorado is now a state.)
1. Denver: 35,629 | 2. Colorado Springs: 4,226 | 3. Georgetown: 3,294
1890
1. Denver: 106,713 | 2. Colorado Springs: 11,140 | 3. Boulder: 3,330
1900
1. Denver: 133,859 | 2. Colorado Springs: 21,085 | 3. Boulder: 6,150
1910
1. Denver: 213,381 | 2. Colorado Springs: 29,078 | 3. Boulder: 9,539
1920
1. Denver: 256,491 | 2. Colorado Springs: 30,105 | 3. Boulder: 11,006
1930
1. Denver: 287,861 | 2. Colorado Springs: 33,237 | 3. Fort Collins: 11,489
1940
1. Denver: 322,412 | 2. Colorado Springs: 36,789 | 3. Boulder: 12,958
1950
1. Denver: 415,765 | 2. Colorado Springs: 45,472 | 3. Boulder: 19,999
1960
1. Denver: 493,887 | 2. Colorado Springs: 70,194 | 3. Aurora: 48,548
1970
1. Denver: 514,678 | 2. Colorado Springs: 135,517 | 3. Aurora: 74,974
1980
1. Denver: 492,686 | 2. Colorado Springs: 215,105 | 3. Aurora: 158,588
1990
1. Denver: 467,610 | 2. Colorado Springs: 281,140 | Aurora: 222,103
2000
1. Denver: 554,636 | 2. Colorado Springs: 360,890 | Aurora: 276,393
2010
1. Denver: 600,158 | 2. Colorado Springs: 416,427 | Aurora: 325,078
2015/2016
1. Denver: 693,060 | 2. Colorado Springs: 456,568 | Aurora: 359,407

Seems like Denver and Colorado Springs cemented their positions early on and most likely will remain for the foreseeable future, however it seems that third spot has swapped around quite often, but Aurora has cemented its self into third and I doubt anyone else will catch up.
In 1860, there were between 1000-1500 people in each of Colorado City, Laurette, and Tarryall. There were around of 3000 in California Gulch. California Gulch, Laurette, and Tarryall which would shrink to a few hundred persons or disappear altogether as the gold ran out and the Civil War started. The territorial capital started in Colorado City before moving next to Golden and then on to Denver.

By 1870 California Gulch was filling back up and turned into Leadville in 1874. During this time, it was bigger than Denver and would remain so until 1880. There was much debate about the location of the state capital in 1876 between Leadville and Denver as Leadville was bigger, more productive, and more cosmopolitan at the time. It also was rougher, rowdier, had more murders and crime, and was exceedingly difficult to get to. Denver , while bypassed by the transcontinental railroad in Cheyenne, quickly remedied the situation with their own Union Pacific spur and several independent lines to secure its spot as capital.

In 1880, Leadville was bigger than Colo Spgs at 14,820.

In 1890, Pueblo was bigger than Colo Spgs at 24,558. In fact, it wasn't until 1970 that Colo Spgs was able to take over the number two spot from Pueblo, 135,517 to 97,774. So in 8 decades you have the wrong #2.

In 1900, Cripple Creek was larger than Boulder at 10,147.

In 1910 Trinidad was larger than Boulder at 10,204.

Last edited by TCHP; 05-26-2017 at 03:00 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-26-2017, 03:47 PM
 
Location: Seattle WA, USA
3,929 posts, read 2,213,027 times
Reputation: 2610
Quote:
Originally Posted by TCHP View Post
In 1860, there were between 1000-1500 people in each of Colorado City, Laurette, and Tarryall. There were around of 3000 in California Gulch. California Gulch, Laurette, and Tarryall which would shrink to a few hundred persons or disappear altogether as the gold ran out and the Civil War started. The territorial capital started in Colorado City before moving next to Golden and then on to Denver.

By 1870 California Gulch was filling back up and turned into Leadville in 1874. During this time, it was bigger than Denver and would remain so until 1880. There was much debate about the location of the state capital in 1876 between Leadville and Denver as Leadville was bigger, more productive, and more cosmopolitan at the time. It also was rougher, rowdier, had more murders and crime, and was exceedingly difficult to get to. Denver , while bypassed by the transcontinental railroad in Cheyenne, quickly remedied the situation with their own Union Pacific spur and several independent lines to secure its spot as capital.

In 1880, Leadville was bigger than Colo Spgs at 14,820.

In 1890, Pueblo was bigger than Colo Spgs at 24,558. In fact, it wasn't until 1970 that Colo Spgs was able to take over the number two spot from Pueblo, 135,517 to 97,774. So in 8 decades you have the wrong #2.

In 1900, Cripple Creek was larger than Boulder at 10,147.

In 1910 Trinidad was larger than Boulder at 10,204.
Thanks for the corrections
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-26-2017, 08:27 PM
 
Location: Michigan
4,571 posts, read 7,031,553 times
Reputation: 3599
Detroit has always been Michigan's largest (and oldest) city and will be that way for a while even if the city continues to decline.

However, Michigan's other cities have been duking it out trying to breach 200,000. Grand Rapids so far is the closest to making the break. Flint made an attempt in the 60s but then fell under 100,000 some decades later. Warren, a suburb adjacent to Detroit, made a beeline for 200K but chickened out at the last minute. Post-war growth moved on to newer suburbs like Sterling Heights which may have topped Warren as Detroit's most populous suburb as well as the state's third largest city.

Ann Arbor and Lansing are competing for the 120K spot. Both anchored by strong colleges and both frequented by the current Governor of Michigan (lives in Downtown Ann Arbor, works in Lansing). Though Ann Arbor is limited by strong NIMBYism and inadequate infrastructure. Lansing still has a strong backbone in manufacturing which doesn't have a certain future. Still, if Ann Arbor can managed just a few more dozen high rises to spite the poor Townies, they may just break 125K.




Here's the data scaled to Detroit's population.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-26-2017, 09:38 PM
 
1,186 posts, read 874,675 times
Reputation: 1847
1850:
1. San Francisco 34,776
2. Sacramento 6,820
3. Los Angeles 1,610
4. Monterey 1,092
5. -----------

1860:
1. San Francisco 56,802
2. Sacramento 13,785
3. Los Angeles 4,385
4. Stockton 3,879
5. Oakland 1,543

1870:
1. San Francisco 149,473
2. Sacramento 16,283
3. Oakland 10,500
4. Stockton 10,066
5. San Jose 9,089

1880:
1. San Francisco 233,959
2. Oakland 34,555
3. Sacramento 21,420
4. San Jose 12,567
5. Los Angeles 11,183

1890:
1. San Francisco 298,997
2. Los Angeles 50,395
3. Oakland 48,682
4. Sacramento 26,386
5. San Jose 18,060

1900:
1. San Francisco 342,782
2. Los Angeles 102,479
3. Oakland 66,960
4. Sacramento 29,282
5. San Jose 21,500

1910:
1. San Francisco 416,912
2. Los Angeles 319,198
3. Oakland 150,174
4. Sacramento 44,696
5. Berkeley 40,434

1920:
1. Los Angeles 576,673
2. San Francisco 506,676
3. Oakland 216,261
4. San Diego 74,683
5. Sacramento 65,908

1930:
1. Los Angeles 1,238,048
2. San Francisco 634,394
3. Oakland 284,063
4. San Diego 147,995
5. Long Beach 142,032

1940:
1. Los Angeles 1,504,277
2. San Francisco 634,536
3. Oakland 302,163
4. San Diego 203,341
5. Long Beach 164,271

1950:
1. Los Angeles 1,970,358
2. San Francisco 775,357
3. Oakland 384,575
4. San Diego 334,387
5. Long Beach 250,767

1960:
1. Los Angeles 2,479,015
2. San Francisco 740,316
3. San Diego 573,224
4. Oakland 367,548
5. Long Beach 344,168

1970:
1. Los Angeles 2,816,061
2. San Francisco 715,674
3. San Diego 696,769
4. San Jose 445,779
5. Oakland 361,561

1980:
1. Los Angeles 2,966,850
2. San Diego 875,538
3. San Francisco 678,974
4. San Jose 629,442
5. Long Beach 361,334

1990:
1. Los Angeles 3,485,398
2. San Diego 1,110,549
3. San Jose 782,248
4. San Francisco 723,959
5. Long Beach 429,433

2000:
1. Los Angeles 3,694,820
2. San Diego 1,223,400
3. San Jose 894,943
4. San Francisco 776,733
5. Long Beach 461,522

2010:
1. Los Angeles 3,792,621
2. San Diego 1,307,402
3. San Jose 945,942
4. San Francisco 805,235
5. Fresno 494,665

2016 (Census Estimate):
1. Los Angeles 3,976,322
2. San Diego 1,406,630
3. San Jose 1,025,350
4. San Francisco 870,887
5. Fresno 522,053

Last edited by Texamichiforniasota; 05-26-2017 at 10:07 PM..
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