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.
I would like to introduce the data and study shown below that somebody else provided on another forum. This is the pre-war (1940) population of the 20 largest U.S. metros, and consequently, the 20 largest cities in terms of pre-war housing stock and pre-suburbia (as we know it today) urbanity.
I think it offers a good starting point when discussing the feeling of "urban-ness" between cities, particularly those that may not have the population to support high metro marks or density statistics, yet feel very urban nonetheless (e.g. STL, BUF or CLE).
Enjoy!
1. New York ----- 10,135,000
2. Chicago ------- 4,210,000
3. Philadelphia ---- 2,538,000
4. Los Angeles ---- 2,268,000
5. Detroit --------- 2,041,000
6. Boston --------- 1,746,000
7. San Francisco -- 1,156,000
8. Pittsburgh ------ 1,134,000
9. St. Louis ------- 1,102,000
10. Cleveland ----- 1,079,000
Interesting list. This really shows the effect suburbanization has had on the more historic cities. Some of them I don't know if that many people in the urban core could work in 2012. Could you cram 1.1 million people in SF city limits with 2012 living standards?
"Film Noir Urbanism"...the US city in the 1940s...before the big time warp into "modern times".
@@@@
Interesting to see Houston was already pretty big back then. Aeriels Ive seen of their downtown makes it look like blocks and blocks of stuff was torn down to make way for parking lots.
I'm a bit familiar with Cleveland and if you look at old pix of the city you'll see it seemed "bigger" back in those days, too.
I think you cant avoid thinking of the planned mass demolitions and restructuring that went along with urban renewal and then the more random, piecmeal demolition that happened via abandonment.
I would like to introduce the data and study shown below that somebody else provided on another forum. This is the pre-war (1940) population of the 20 largest U.S. metros, and consequently, the 20 largest cities in terms of pre-war housing stock and pre-suburbia (as we know it today) urbanity.
I think it offers a good starting point when discussing the feeling of "urban-ness" between cities, particularly those that may not have the population to support high metro marks or density statistics, yet feel very urban nonetheless (e.g. STL, BUF or CLE).
Enjoy!
1. New York ----- 10,135,000
2. Chicago ------- 4,210,000
3. Philadelphia ---- 2,538,000
4. Los Angeles ---- 2,268,000
5. Detroit --------- 2,041,000
6. Boston --------- 1,746,000
7. San Francisco -- 1,156,000
8. Pittsburgh ------ 1,134,000
9. St. Louis ------- 1,102,000
10. Cleveland ----- 1,079,000
Interesting list. This really shows the effect suburbanization has had on the more historic cities. Some of them I don't know if that many people in the urban core could work in 2012. Could you cram 1.1 million people in SF city limits with 2012 living standards?
I think the population pertains to the metro.
Edit: I know see it pertains to city limits, Chicago, Baltimore, Cleveland, Pitts and St. Louis are the most impressive
Last edited by the Instigator; 12-28-2012 at 12:55 PM..
In 1940 you probably didnt have a lot of suburbia as we know it today. You might have seen early versions of automobile-oriented suburbia, but much of the built environment would have been perhaps denser & more traditional...at that time newer housing being bungalows or that cape code/tudor cottage thing that was getting popular in the 1930s. The concept of auto-oriented retail, such as supermarkets, would have been fairly new, too....
Interesting list. This really shows the effect suburbanization has had on the more historic cities. Some of them I don't know if that many people in the urban core could work in 2012. Could you cram 1.1 million people in SF city limits with 2012 living standards?
Most definitely, see Chicago and NYC. SF will not build upwards like them though.
Pittsburgh #23
Cleveland #29
Buffalo #50
Milwaukee #40
Kansas City #30
Cincinnatti #28
New Orleans #47
Cities added to TOP 20
Dallas #4
Miami #8
Atlanta #9
Riverside #12
Phoenix #14
San Diego #17
Tampa #18
Cities that have remained in TOP 20
New York #1
Los Angeles #2
Chicago #3
Houston #5
Philadelphia #6
Washington #7
Boston #10
San Francisco #11
Detroit #13
Seattle #15
Minneapolis #16
St. Loius #19
Baltimore #20
Buffalo has fallen the furthest.
Dallas has grown the most.
Whoaa! Am I seeing things or was Boston at 1.7 million in 1940! If this is true then Boston takes the cake
It's urban area, not city limits. The only cities that topped 1m within city limits that are on that list are New York, Chicago, Philadelphia, Los Angeles, Detroit and Houston.
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.
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.
