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.
This whole discussion seems disingenuous. Most of these cities actually have grown since 1950. It is just that the growth took place outside of the city limits, particularly in older cities.
I think Detroit has actually lost more than Chicago. Detroit is down over 1 million, Chicago is less than 1 million.
Regardless, I think you have to look at % when dealing with this. I mean Youngstown only lost 100,000 people, but that represents over 60% of the population. Chicago has lost almost a million, yet that represents around 25% of the peak population, far lower than many other cities.
This whole discussion seems disingenuous. Most of these cities actually have grown since 1950. It is just that the growth took place outside of the city limits, particularly in older cities.
Growth that happens outside of the city limits is NOT growth of the city. Its growth of the metro. The 1950 white flight to the suburbs left many cities in decay and it took decades for some cities to recover and some have never recovered at all. If cities are being abandoned in favor of the suburbs it doesnt indicate any positive trend or process for the cities. Also, when looking at any particular area or city its not the net number in the last decade but rather the long term trend that either proves citys evolution or slow downfall especially when compared to other cities of similar size.
If we limit to city-proper Baltimore, Buffalo, Detroit, Rochester, and St. Louis have had noticeable declines since 1950. All of these are smaller than they were in some decades before 1950.
Baltimore, Maryland
1920: 733,826
1950: 949,708
2010: 620,961 -4.6%
Buffalo, New York
1900: 352,387
1950: 580,132
2010: 261,310 -10.7%
Detroit, Michigan
1920: 993,678
1950: 1,849,568
2010: 713,777
The Detroit-metro is bigger than in 1950, but it appears to be smaller than it was in 1970.
Growth that happens outside of the city limits is NOT growth of the city. Its growth of the metro. The 1950 white flight to the suburbs left many cities in decay and it took decades for some cities to recover and some have never recovered at all. If cities are being abandoned in favor of the suburbs it doesnt indicate any positive trend or process for the cities. Also, when looking at any particular area or city its not the net number in the last decade but rather the long term trend that either proves citys evolution or slow downfall especially when compared to other cities of similar size.
That is shortsighted for many areas. While some areas bleed people there are also other areas that can be tranforming or redevoloping within the same city.
Also what is missed in these pure counts, especially in older cities are that the average household size is down SIGNIFICANTLY from 1950.
Based on that alone a city of 1.4 Million with an average household size of 3.5 left alone today would be a city of 960K (average houseold size of 2.4) which would show a huge percentage loss where actually the largest factor is smaller family size.
Stats and trends do not always tell an accurate story relative to what is or is not taking place. that said there are definately places in worse shape then they were in 1950 but these absolute numbers are somewhat misleading as a barometer.
If we limit to city-proper Baltimore, Buffalo, Detroit, Rochester, and St. Louis have had noticeable declines since 1950. All of these are smaller than they were in some decades before 1950.
Baltimore, Maryland
1920: 733,826
1950: 949,708
It is a shame that Baltimore came so close and didn't make it to a million.
It would have been the 7th city to cross a million
1. NY- 1870's
2. Chicago- 1880's (first city to get to 3M then drop below it)
3. Philly- 1880's (first city to get to 2M then drop below it)
4. Detroit-early 1920's (first city to get to 1M then drop below it)
5. LA- late 1920's
6. Cleveland- would have made it in the 1940 if not for the drop
7. Baltimore- would have made it in the 50's if not for the drop
8. Houston- 1960's
9. St Louis- 1970's if not for drop
10- DC- 1970's if not for the drop
11- San Diego- mid 1980s
12- Dallas- very late 1980s
13- Phoenix- early 1990's
14- San Antonio- 1990's- making Texas the 1st city with 3 million + cities
but that never happened and only 10 US cities ever made it to the 1M mark and since Detroit dropped out only 9 currently are above it.
only 5 have made it over 2M (the current top 5)
Only 3 have made it past 3M (the current top 3)
only one have made it passed 4-8M (the current top 1)
That is shortsighted for many areas. While some areas bleed people there are also other areas that can be tranforming or redevoloping within the same city.
Also what is missed in these pure counts, especially in older cities are that the average household size is down SIGNIFICANTLY from 1950.
Based on that alone a city of 1.4 Million with an average household size of 3.5 left alone today would be a city of 960K (average houseold size of 2.4) which would show a huge percentage loss where actually the largest factor is smaller family size.
Stats and trends do not always tell an accurate story relative to what is or is not taking place. that said there are definately places in worse shape then they were in 1950 but these absolute numbers are somewhat misleading as a barometer.
They would be if ALL of the cities were affected yet you know that there are cities that were able to grow despite the household size change and all other factors. You also forget the number of immigrants that came to this country since 1950.
I think what we we are seeing is simple utilatarianism: cities are created to fulfill certain need, once that need disappears they either have to reinvent themselves or face decay. Detroit has been the center of autoindustry providing housing for thousands of factory workers, St. louis has been an important transportation hub when rivers were major transportation tracts. Chicago has been a transportation hub when both the rail and the lakes played much more important role in transport of meat etc. Etc.
All those cities face population problems as they already fulfilled their historical role.
Whats next? If they are not needed they will dissapear.
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.
and only 10 US cities ever made it to the 1M mark and since Detroit dropped out only 9 currently are above it.
