Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S. > City vs. City
 [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 06-23-2010, 07:41 AM
 
5,546 posts, read 6,872,645 times
Reputation: 3826

Advertisements

Buffalo:

1950 - 580,132
2009 - 270,240

I don't think Buffalo will make it back to its 1950 population anytime in the next 50 years. I'm interested to see what this century brings, in terms of lifestyle trends. I've read a number of articles that says that more and more people are moving into cities. So, I'm not going to say it will never get back to that population, I just don't see it ANYTIME soon...given that it's still bleeding population within the city limits.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-23-2010, 08:09 AM
 
Location: Lower East Side, Milwaukee, WI
2,943 posts, read 5,073,472 times
Reputation: 1113
Milwaukee, WI

1950: 637,392
1960: 741,324 (highest)
2000: 596,974 (lowest)
2008 est.: 604,477 (slight rebound)

Milwaukee has been slowly adding to its population over the last decade, but I don't think we'll ever get back to our 1960's peak population. In the coming years, we'll be implementing high speed rail to Madison and Chicago, commuter rail to Racine and Kenosha, and a downtown streetcar loop. 2 Spanish companies have moved to the Menominee River Valley in the last year and will provide a few thousand new "green collar" manufacturing jobs. We'll be making high speed trains for Talgo and wind turbines for Ingeteam. These are all things that I believe will help make the Milwaukee area more attractive to more people. Oh, and we're gonna be featured in Transformers 3 next summer too!

Tower Automotive site, Art Museum to be used in 'Transformers 3' scenes - JSOnline
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-23-2010, 08:18 AM
 
3,235 posts, read 8,715,586 times
Reputation: 2798
Quote:
Originally Posted by PeterRabbit View Post
Generally speaking, after WWII the average family size became 4 compared to the previous generations 10.
That is a very good point. People are having few children..... and in many of these cities, they just moved to the suburbs.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-23-2010, 08:22 AM
 
Location: Oak Park, IL
5,525 posts, read 13,948,017 times
Reputation: 3908
Quote:
Originally Posted by garmin239 View Post
That is a very good point. People are having few children..... and in many of these cities, they just moved to the suburbs.
In terms of number of households, Chicago is at an all-time high. It's just that many more of them are single person households than in the past.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-23-2010, 08:48 AM
 
1,250 posts, read 2,517,147 times
Reputation: 283
Quote:
Originally Posted by oakparkdude View Post
In terms of number of households, Chicago is at an all-time high. It's just that many more of them are single person households than in the past.
This is something that I have wondered, if you go by number of households the dropoff isn't as severe. To get to previous highs in cities you might need nearly double the number of households that existed at its peak population. A better indicator is when the number of households in a city equal what it was during the peak, in many places it might not be far off even if there was significant population loss in the past.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-23-2010, 08:56 AM
 
93,263 posts, read 123,898,066 times
Reputation: 18258
Quote:
Originally Posted by oakparkdude View Post
Aside from NYC (and maybe Indianapolis and Columbus) has any major city in the Northeast or Midwest gained population since 1950?
Basically when you consider the fact that many cities in those regions didn't or can't annex adjacent communities like cities in the South and West have, with some exceptions, of course.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-23-2010, 09:31 AM
 
Location: In the heights
37,131 posts, read 39,380,764 times
Reputation: 21217
Quote:
Originally Posted by oakparkdude View Post
Aside from NYC (and maybe Indianapolis and Columbus) has any major city in the Northeast or Midwest gained population since 1950?
The major cities of the plains states have mostly gained population, but they're quite a bit smaller than the major cities of the northeast and the rest of the midwest.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-23-2010, 09:58 AM
 
2,106 posts, read 6,630,851 times
Reputation: 963
Quote:
Originally Posted by FLABoyJ View Post
Damn forreal? Whats up with Ohio cities?
Everyone moved to the suburbs / sprawled out further. The state still saw a population increase in those years.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-23-2010, 10:01 AM
 
2,106 posts, read 6,630,851 times
Reputation: 963
Quote:
Originally Posted by BelieveInCleve View Post
Cleveland:
1950 - 915,000 in 55 sq miles
2010 - 434,000 in 78 sq miles

I've heard that in the current city limits, in 1950 Cleveland would have had 1.2 million people, so that's nearly 2/3 of the population gone, even more than Detroit and St. Louis.


Another is Youngstown, OH (I don't know how much the land area has changed since then)
1950 - 168,000
2010 - 73,000
About 16,000 people per square mile.. I wonder why no one believes me when I say density wise (structural) Cleveland feels far more urban than most US cities.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-23-2010, 10:19 AM
 
Location: Boston
1,081 posts, read 2,891,246 times
Reputation: 920
Quote:
Originally Posted by AJNEOA View Post
Buffalo:

1950 - 580,132
2009 - 270,240

I don't think Buffalo will make it back to its 1950 population anytime in the next 50 years. I'm interested to see what this century brings, in terms of lifestyle trends. I've read a number of articles that says that more and more people are moving into cities. So, I'm not going to say it will never get back to that population, I just don't see it ANYTIME soon...given that it's still bleeding population within the city limits.
None of these cities are likely to get back to the peak populations. As others have pointed out, family sizes are much smaller. Boston was 850,000 in 1950, today it is 645,000, but with more households. For Boston to return to 1950 levels will require a significant increase in high rise housing construction, something that is generally fought by Nimby's. But the thing is, there is no land left to build additional medium density residences. I'm curious to know the changes in MSA or CSA. Can't speak for Buffalo, but the Boston metro population is at an all time high, there is just a larger percentage in the suburbs.
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. > City vs. City
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - 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, 36, 37 - Top