U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Urban Planning
 [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)
 
Old 03-14-2014, 02:47 PM
 
Location: Vallejo
14,072 posts, read 16,098,416 times
Reputation: 12647

Advertisements

64/36 in 1950, and 75/25 in 1990 is what my link says.

But I was talking about absolute numbers. 61 million in 1990 and 54 million in 1950. There were more people in rural America (at least in 1990), so it's not like the increase in urban % is because of people moving from urban areas to suburban areas (suburban being classified as urban by the census). Some may have, but they were more than offset by people moving to rural areas.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-14-2014, 02:52 PM
nei nei won $500 in our forum's Most Engaging Poster Contest - Thirteenth Edition (Jan-Feb 2015). 

Over $104,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum and additional contests are planned
 
Location: Long Island / NYC
45,989 posts, read 42,008,719 times
Reputation: 14810
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malloric View Post
64/36 in 1950, and 75/25 in 1990 is what my link says.

But I was talking about absolute numbers. 61 million in 1990 and 54 million in 1950. There were more people in rural America (at least in 1990), so it's not like the increase in urban % is because of people moving from urban areas to suburban areas (suburban being classified as urban by the census). Some may have, but they were more than offset by people moving to rural areas.
Not sure if that follows, you could assume that with natural increase ruralwould have grown at the same rate as urban. So a smaller rural % could mean some rural to urban migration even with a larger absolute rural population. Or more immigration to urban than rural.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-14-2014, 02:55 PM
Status: "Summer!" (set 23 days ago)
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
87,016 posts, read 102,649,686 times
Reputation: 33082
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malloric View Post
64/36 in 1950, and 75/25 in 1990 is what my link says.

But I was talking about absolute numbers. 61 million in 1990 and 54 million in 1950. There were more people in rural America (at least in 1990), so it's not like the increase in urban % is because of people moving from urban areas to suburban areas (suburban being classified as urban by the census). Some may have, but they were more than offset by people moving to rural areas.
I got to thinking later you probably meant numerically. However, I am not aware of any "move to the rural areas" movement. I do know in the early 80s, it was hip to move to small towns on the edges of metro areas, such as Louisville, CO where we moved back then, but then the small towns got bigger! A friend of mine did that in the DC area as well. So yeah, a movement of two, LOL! But really, lots of people did that here, moved to Louisville (pop ~5000 in 1980, now close to 20,000) and several other former small towns nearby. People were doing that in Champaign, IL too, moving to little farm towns. The little town where we lived near Champaign, St. Joseph, had 1600 people in the mid-70s, now has ~3600.

Last edited by Katarina Witt; 03-14-2014 at 03:05 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-14-2014, 03:03 PM
nei nei won $500 in our forum's Most Engaging Poster Contest - Thirteenth Edition (Jan-Feb 2015). 

Over $104,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum and additional contests are planned
 
Location: Long Island / NYC
45,989 posts, read 42,008,719 times
Reputation: 14810
A lot of rural Western Massachusetts got a population increase from an increase in popularity of living in rural areas recently. Ditto with Vermont. Take a look at the population of these towns:

Worthington, Massachusetts - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Lowest population in 1950, now three times bigger, as big as it was in 1850! Similar pattern in nearby Conway:

Conway, Massachusetts - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Marshall Field, founder of the Chicago deparment store was born here. He funded a fancy looking library:



Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-14-2014, 03:31 PM
nei nei won $500 in our forum's Most Engaging Poster Contest - Thirteenth Edition (Jan-Feb 2015). 

Over $104,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum and additional contests are planned
 
Location: Long Island / NYC
45,989 posts, read 42,008,719 times
Reputation: 14810
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
Every state was different. The midwest and rust belt were more affected by the depression than other parts of the country. My grandfather was a carpenter, and he basically never worked again after the Depression gained a hold and was ruined financially.
However, you can't make the generalization NO housing built in the 30s in the country. Here's an old stat I posted:

Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post

Off topic, but a common statement on the forum is not much housing was built in the 1930s. This is not true of the NY metro (numbers exclude NJ and CT) where roughly the same number of housing units were constructed in the 30s and 20s and 40s. Ditto with San Francisco , which has slightly more in the 30s than the 20s while the 40s had 50% more.
However, this counts existing housing, not how much was built then, but for both those locations the 30s was not a decade of no housing.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-14-2014, 03:49 PM
 
Location: Vallejo
14,072 posts, read 16,098,416 times
Reputation: 12647
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
I got to thinking later you probably meant numerically. However, I am not aware of any "move to the rural areas" movement. I do know in the early 80s, it was hip to move to small towns on the edges of metro areas, such as Louisville, CO where we moved back then, but then the small towns got bigger! A friend of mine did that in the DC area as well. So yeah, a movement of two, LOL! But really, lots of people did that here, moved to Louisville (pop ~5000 in 1980, now close to 20,000) and several other former small towns nearby. People were doing that in Champaign, IL too, moving to little farm towns. The little town where we lived near Champaign, St. Joseph, had 1600 people in the mid-70s, now has ~3600.
People are constantly moving into the high-risk wildfire areas in California. Then they whinge about being asked to pay to fund Calfire
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-14-2014, 03:51 PM
 
Location: Crooklyn, New York
28,266 posts, read 26,263,727 times
Reputation: 11726
Interesting blog entry that ties in a bit to the article I posted in the OP.

Why do we care about mode share? | City Notes

Quote:
But if what really matters is service levels and access – if what we’re trying to accomplish is giving everyone a level of service where transit is a viable option, for reasons outlined here – then why not just measure that directly? Why not have widely-disseminated statistics about the percentage of people in every metropolitan region who can walk to a transit stop? Or make a bigger deal about the number of people who can reach some given percentage of metro area jobs via transit in a reasonable time frame? I almost never see those numbers in urbanist conversations, and to the extent that I do, they’re sort of ghettoized into the “social justice” urbanist subculture.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-14-2014, 03:56 PM
 
Location: Vallejo
14,072 posts, read 16,098,416 times
Reputation: 12647
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
Not sure if that follows, you could assume that with natural increase ruralwould have grown at the same rate as urban. So a smaller rural % could mean some rural to urban migration even with a larger absolute rural population. Or more immigration to urban than rural.
Natural decline rate, you mean. Western countries have negative natural growth rates for the most part. They have immigration driving population growth. Without that, they'd mostly be in decline, the US included.

We would be far below replacement birth rate, like most of Europe is, without the influx of Hispanic population which tended (although that is now declining) to have large families. We were down to a fertility rate of 1.6 in the '70s, bounced back up to 1.9 while much of Europe is down around 1.5.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-14-2014, 04:04 PM
Status: "Summer!" (set 23 days ago)
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
87,016 posts, read 102,649,686 times
Reputation: 33082
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
However, you can't make the generalization NO housing built in the 30s in the country. Here's an old stat I posted:



However, this counts existing housing, not how much was built then, but for both those locations the 30s was not a decade of no housing.
God! What I said was not meant to be taken totally literally. When I complain about people making wild generalizations about suburbs, the response is "Oh, it was just a figure of speech. S/he didn't really mean it literally". However, the one time I say that, I get jumped on.

See this chart. Note how housing starts dropped during the 1930s. Note a small uptick in the early 1940s, as wburg stated. Note drop again until the end of the war. Note huge increase in 1950. Note that housing starts have NEVER dropped to the level they were in the depths of the Depression, not even in 2008.
Moderator cut: link removed, linking to competitor sites is not allowed

Decline in Housing Starts worst since Great Depression | The Economic Populist
**This morning the Census Bureau reported housing starts at an annual rate of 464,000 for January 2009. At a nearly 80% decline from the high of 2,273,000 starts of January 2006, the collapse in housing starts is now not just the worst since the modern data series was started in 1959, it is also worse than the 75% decline during World War 2. The only worse decline is the 90% decline between 1927-1935.**

Home Sales During the Great Depression | Teachinghistory.org
**During the Depression, the federal government also intervened in the housing market by eventually dominating home building itself, both public housing and then, in the defense build-up toward the end of the 1930s, "war housing" units in areas near military bases and industrial plants. Privately funded housing construction fell by 80 percent between 1929 and 1933, and the federal government expanded its role in housing construction.*

Add: If you look at the stats below the chart I posted, you can see a year by year tally of housing starts by number, and by 1000 households. Note big drop in the latter in 1930, dropping farther through 1933, then staying below 1929 levels until 1940, then dropping to very low levels again until 1946.

Last edited by Yac; 03-18-2014 at 08:14 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-14-2014, 04:33 PM
Status: "Summer!" (set 23 days ago)
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
87,016 posts, read 102,649,686 times
Reputation: 33082
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malloric View Post
Natural decline rate, you mean. Western countries have negative natural growth rates for the most part. They have immigration driving population growth. Without that, they'd mostly be in decline, the US included.

We would be far below replacement birth rate, like most of Europe is, without the influx of Hispanic population which tended (although that is now declining) to have large families. We were down to a fertility rate of 1.6 in the '70s, bounced back up to 1.9 while much of Europe is down around 1.5.
Here are the US birth totals and birth rates, every 5 years 1910-1950, then yearly after that. Note again, low birth rates during the depression and WW II, did not get that low again until 1965. With a little fluctuation, they have been going down ever since. Even with low rates, we've generally been above 4,000,000 total births since 1989 (except for 1994-99) numbers that haven't been seen since the Baby Boom years.
Live Births and Birth Rates, by Year | Infoplease.com
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 > General Forums > Urban Planning
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