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 11-11-2017, 10:18 PM
 
Location: Washington State desert
5,569 posts, read 3,713,342 times
Reputation: 4156

Advertisements

I found this site that offers decades of metro populations. One that stuck out was 1920, as we are approaching 100 years from that census.

Here is how it looked almost 100 years ago: (x1000)

1. New York 7041
2. Chicago 2859
3. Philadelphia 2072
4. Boston 1366
5. Detroit 1071
6. St. Louis 859
7. Cleveland 834
8. Pittsburgh 775
9. San Francisco 771
10. Baltimore 753
11. Los Angeles 682
12. Minneapolis 626
13. Buffalo 539
14. Milwaukee 478
15. Cincinnati 470
16. Washington 467
17. Kansas City 455
18. New Orleans 393
19. Seattle 334
20. Indianapolis 323

Compare to 2010: (x1000)

Rank Metro Area Pop
1. New York 20009
2. Los Angeles 15750
3. Chicago 9023
4. San Francisco 6828
5. Philadelphia 6003
6. Dallas 5685
7. Miami 5513
8. Houston 5382
9. Atlanta 4743
10. Washington 4697
11. Boston 4407
12. Detroit 4160
13. Phoenix 3863
14. Seattle 3446
15. San Diego 2985
16. Denver 2716
17. Minneapolis 2651
18. Baltimore 2497
19. Tampa 2442
20. St. Louis 2246

Biggest winners: Los Angeles #11 to #2, San Francisco #9 to #4, Dallas --to #6, Miami --to #7, Houston --to #8, Atlanta --to #9

Biggest losers: St. Louis #6 to #20, Cleveland #7 to --, Detroit #5 to #12, Pittsburgh #8 to --, Baltimore #10 to #18.

Source: Historical Metropolitan Populations of the United States - Peakbagger.com

Last edited by pnwguy2; 11-11-2017 at 10:30 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-12-2017, 01:13 AM
 
1,831 posts, read 1,256,952 times
Reputation: 1823
Your biggest winners and biggest losers list seems off. Wouldn't climbing from not even ranked to number six, rank improvement by at least fourteen, be more impressive than climbing from ninth to fourth? Or falling from eight to not even ranked, rank decline by at least twelve, worse than falling from fifth to twelfth?

Also, the 2010 list, which seems to come purely from "#4: Metropolitan Area and Urbanized Area U.S. Census data from 1950-2010," makes no sense and it seems the person is just putting numbers together to cement what he views as the "hierarchy" of metro populations. I cannot understand, at all, why the ranking would be San Francisco-Philadelphia-Dallas-Miami-Houston-Atlanta-Washington-Boston. San Francisco is basically the Bay Area, Philadelphia has this bloated UA and metro, pushing it past the urban agglomeration of Dallas-Fort Worth at over six million people in 2010, while Boston and Washington are little more than just the UAs of those cities despite actually having recognized urban agglomerations which would also make them notably above Philadelphia, even this bloated version.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-12-2017, 07:01 AM
 
Location: Zurich, Switzerland/ Piedmont, CA
32,382 posts, read 55,214,514 times
Reputation: 15477
Quote:
Originally Posted by Parhe View Post
Your biggest winners and biggest losers list seems off. Wouldn't climbing from not even ranked to number six, rank improvement by at least fourteen, be more impressive than climbing from ninth to fourth? Or falling from eight to not even ranked, rank decline by at least twelve, worse than falling from fifth to twelfth?

Also, the 2010 list, which seems to come purely from "#4: Metropolitan Area and Urbanized Area U.S. Census data from 1950-2010," makes no sense and it seems the person is just putting numbers together to cement what he views as the "hierarchy" of metro populations. I cannot understand, at all, why the ranking would be San Francisco-Philadelphia-Dallas-Miami-Houston-Atlanta-Washington-Boston. San Francisco is basically the Bay Area, Philadelphia has this bloated UA and metro, pushing it past the urban agglomeration of Dallas-Fort Worth at over six million people in 2010, while Boston and Washington are little more than just the UAs of those cities despite actually having recognized urban agglomerations which would also make them notably above Philadelphia, even this bloated version.
Yeah.

If he's going to create his own metro borders, then it's rather dishonest to not apply the same criteria to all areas.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-12-2017, 07:49 AM
 
Location: Seattle WA, USA
3,956 posts, read 2,225,857 times
Reputation: 2629
It's crazy to think that if NYC had stagnated and it's population was frozen, it would be the 3rd largest city in the US.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-12-2017, 11:24 AM
 
Location: Dallas, Texas
2,971 posts, read 4,348,953 times
Reputation: 2010
The 2010 numbers don't seem right. DFW had 6,426,214 at the 2010 census.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-12-2017, 04:13 PM
 
Location: Washington State desert
5,569 posts, read 3,713,342 times
Reputation: 4156
Quote:
Originally Posted by 18Montclair View Post
Yeah.

If he's going to create his own metro borders, then it's rather dishonest to not apply the same criteria to all areas.
I didn't create anything here. I only provided the source. But, yes, in 1920 I would suspect the definitions were not as standardized as they are today.

As for my winner/losers, I was looking at the list from top to bottom. Was not pretending it to be scientific. I just thought the list was interesting. BTW, you can compare other decades on the link I provided.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-12-2017, 05:58 PM
 
Location: Zurich, Switzerland/ Piedmont, CA
32,382 posts, read 55,214,514 times
Reputation: 15477
Quote:
Originally Posted by pnwguy2 View Post
I didn't create anything here. I only provided the source. But, yes, in 1920 I would suspect the definitions were not as standardized as they are today.

As for my winner/losers, I was looking at the list from top to bottom. Was not pretending it to be scientific. I just thought the list was interesting. BTW, you can compare other decades on the link I provided.
Haha I was referring to your source.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-12-2017, 06:12 PM
 
Location: Washington State desert
5,569 posts, read 3,713,342 times
Reputation: 4156
Point taken. As I mentioned, in 1920 I think definitions of "greater" (name your city), were probably very subjective and can't be used for anything except a rough estimate. But still pretty fascinating to see how the rankings have changed over the decades. Says a lot about population movement in the past century.

Last edited by pnwguy2; 11-12-2017 at 06:23 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-13-2017, 05:40 AM
 
Location: Reno, NV
1,559 posts, read 720,474 times
Reputation: 2008
Interesting that Seattle and San Francisco, which I think of as very hot places to be right now, have actually fallen on the list.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-13-2017, 06:51 AM
 
29,947 posts, read 27,424,696 times
Reputation: 18534
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheTimidBlueBars View Post
Interesting that Seattle and San Francisco, which I think of as very hot places to be right now, have actually fallen on the list.
Not Seattle. And it's hard for me to think of San Francisco apart from the greater Bay Area.
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