Today's major cities population 100 years ago (compared, cons, skyscrapers, size)

[AZLiam]

Originally Posted by HtownLove

I think she is talking about the city of phoenix

I'm pretty clear on that.

[HtownLove]

Originally Posted by AZLiam

I'm pretty clear on that.

the city gained 1.5M in the last 75 years though. Not in 15. That is why I thought you meant the metro

[HtownLove]

Originally Posted by kidphilly

Today the NE and MW are STILL the most populated areas in the country (by a wide margin), reading your points one might think these areas died

And actually the NE and the midwest are not the most populated by a wide margin.

in fact they are not most populated by a small margin

in fact they are not most populated regions at all.

In fact the South and the West have more people than the mid west:



U.S. Population by Region, 1990



I know you are gonna come out with your density and urban core nonsense, but the fact of the matter is that the south and the west have more people

and that was far from the truth 100 years ago.

[Drover]

Originally Posted by HtownLove

well density was a necessity back then because:

1. cars were not as popular
2. There were no highway systems

further:
3. people in developed areas generally have less kids than people in more rural areas
4. two world wars wiped out scores of young men
5. AC was invented making summers in the south more tolerable combine that with mild winters and that made the southa major draw.
6. automation of industries required less people in the manufacturing sector
7. The wars caused a mild fear of major cities being attacked
8. Crime
9. TV romanticizing the suburbs
10. An opening of the west and south west to travellers via trains, interstate highways, airplanes coupled with lots of land

Yes... and it's still kind of alarming that a number of top 10 cities of 100 years ago have yet to return to the population levels they had back then.

[HtownLove]

Originally Posted by Drover

Yes... and it's still kind of alarming that a number of top 10 cities of 100 years ago have yet to return to the population levels they had back then.

It is doubtful that some ever will


the boat has already sailed for some

[sandiegoallday487]

San Diego is at the 8th place as of 2009 with over 1.32 million residents and counting.

On the other hand, SD was one of the top 100 with a population of about 40,000?!?

[HtownLove]

Originally Posted by sandiegoallday487

San Diego is at the 8th place as of 2009 with over 1.32 million residents and counting.

On the other hand, SD was one of the top 100 with a population of about 40,000?!?

yes San Diego is listed correctly at 8 (It is Dallas I made a mistake on, it is supposed to be 9)

But it was not in the 100 biggest cities 100 years ago

[AZLiam]

Originally Posted by HtownLove

the city gained 1.5M in the last 75 years though. Not in 15. That is why I thought you meant the metro

Yeah, the metro.

[kidphilly]

Originally Posted by HtownLove

And actually the NE and the midwest are not the most populated by a wide margin.

in fact they are not most populated by a small margin

in fact they are not most populated regions at all.

In fact the South and the West have more people than the mid west:



U.S. Population by Region, 1990



I know you are gonna come out with your density and urban core nonsense, but the fact of the matter is that the south and the west have more people

and that was far from the truth 100 years ago.

There is no regions in the country with even remotely the population concentration of the NE Corredir or the Great Leakes region. I am not talking about the rural areas. Now you are quiveling over semantics, again you know this to be true.

There are as many people in the NE corrider as the whole states of CA and TX combined nearly, taking up an area slightly larger then the combined LA and SD CSAs

[HtownLove]

Ha ha. I knew you woould do that