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 02-11-2011, 10:11 PM
 
Location: South St Louis
4,363 posts, read 4,559,063 times
Reputation: 3165

Advertisements

I've compiled a list of every U.S. city that has ever surpassed the half-million mark throughout the history of our nation.
The numbers represent the very highest population each city has ever attained, with the year. PLEASE READ: This is for city proper only-- not urbanized areas or MSA's.
Sources: United States Census Bureau; estimates for 2010 are from Business First, Nov. 22, 2010.

1. New York- 8,453,558 (2010)
2. Los Angeles- 3,852,820 (2010)
3. Chicago- 3,620,962 (1950)
4. Houston- 2,306,455 (2010)
5. Philadelphia- 2,071,605 (1950)
6. Detroit- 1,849,568 (1950)
7. Phoenix- 1,638,283 (2010)
8. San Antonio- 1,411,732 (2010)
9. Dallas- 1,320,126 (2010)
10. San Diego- 1,314,900 (2010)
11. San Jose- 982,102 (2010)
12. Baltimore- 949,708 (1950)
13. Cleveland- 914,808 (1950)
14. St. Louis- 856,796 (1950)
15. San Francisco- 825,358 (2010)
16. Jacksonville- 822,884 (2010)
17. Indianapolis- 813,700 (2010)
18. Austin- 811,210 (2010)
19. Washington- 802,178 (1950)
20. Boston- 801,444 (1950)
21. Columbus- 779,728 (2010)
22. Fort Worth- 764,017 (2010)
23. Milwaukee- 741,324 (1960)
24. Charlotte- 729,781 (2010)
25. Memphis- 682,024 (2006)
26. Pittsburgh- 676,806 (1950)
27. El Paso- 632,143 (2010)
28. Seattle- 629,875 (2010)
29. New Orleans- 627,525 (1960)
30. Denver- 626,107 (2010)
31. Nashville- 615,221 (2010)
32. Buffalo- 580,132 (1950)
33. Las Vegas- 577,587 (2010)
34. Portland (OR)- 575,671 (2010)
35. Oklahoma City- 570,024 (2010)
36. Louisville- 569,135 (2010)
37. Atlanta- 560,002 (2010)
38. Tucson- 551,091 (2010)
39. Albuquerque- 540,896 (2010)
40. Minneapolis- 521,718 (1950)
41. Kansas City (MO)- 507,087 (1970)
42. Cincinnati- 503,998 (1950)

Interesting that Baltimore, Cleveland and St. Louis are still among the top 20 U.S. cities ever.
Considering it's big reputation. it's hard to believe that Miami has never reached the 500k mark.
And it's strange to see Atlanta that far down the list, even below Buffalo!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-11-2011, 10:42 PM
 
639 posts, read 1,289,049 times
Reputation: 636
Those lists on list the city proper.
The metro is a much better benchmark.
MIA has a small population because what is considered Miami proper is very small (land wise).
However, there is no gap in between the dozens of decent size cities surrounding Miami and there so closely packed together that it feels like one big city and you won't even notice you are driving thru multiple cities if you don't see the signs on the side of the road.

Atlanta area is similar, but more spread out than MIA.
For all intensive purposes the city proper of MIA and ATL the whole cities themselves could be considered downtown districts of the Metro.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-12-2011, 01:30 PM
 
Location: South St Louis
4,363 posts, read 4,559,063 times
Reputation: 3165
Quote:
Originally Posted by Observation View Post
Those lists on list the city proper.
The metro is a much better benchmark.
MIA has a small population because what is considered Miami proper is very small (land wise).
However, there is no gap in between the dozens of decent size cities surrounding Miami and there so closely packed together that it feels like one big city and you won't even notice you are driving thru multiple cities if you don't see the signs on the side of the road.

Atlanta area is similar, but more spread out than MIA.
For all intensive purposes the city proper of MIA and ATL the whole cities themselves could be considered downtown districts of the Metro.
I realize that MSA populations are more representative of how "big" cities are; that's not the point of this thread. I think looking at highest historical populations of the cities themselves is interesting because several cities reached their peaks decades ago.
If you looked at highest historical populations of MSA's, that list would look pretty much the same as a list of current largest MSA's. Reason: Nearly every current MSA population is the highest it's ever been. Very few MSA's actually grow smaller over time.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-12-2011, 03:19 PM
 
1,073 posts, read 2,193,711 times
Reputation: 751
Omaha 2020
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-12-2011, 03:20 PM
 
639 posts, read 1,289,049 times
Reputation: 636
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1greatcity View Post
I realize that MSA populations are more representative of how "big" cities are; that's not the point of this thread. I think looking at highest historical populations of the cities themselves is interesting because several cities reached their peaks decades ago.
If you looked at highest historical populations of MSA's, that list would look pretty much the same as a list of current largest MSA's. Reason: Nearly every current MSA population is the highest it's ever been. Very few MSA's actually grow smaller over time.
No, I think the chart might look quite different.
Theirs many metros in the US well over 2 million with an anchor city having less than 500K ppl.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-12-2011, 04:20 PM
 
Location: Cleveland, OH
3,844 posts, read 9,279,817 times
Reputation: 1645
^ Give the man a break, he did his research!

I think it's very interesting to see when cities peaked and also the ones peaking at 2010 are obviously the healthy ones today.

The 1950 decade stands out to me the most since that was the time the Freeways were built eliminating so much denisty in so many of the cities (mostly through poor,dense neighborhood in most cities), causing those people to relocate/white flight etc. The cities that peaked at 1950 will probably never see those populations again due to lack of land available without annexing. Yeah they can keep growing in population, but the zoning, freeways, and lost urban areas will make reaching that 1950's number nearly impossible.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-12-2011, 04:39 PM
 
639 posts, read 1,289,049 times
Reputation: 636
Quote:
Originally Posted by costello_musicman View Post
^ Give the man a break, he did his research!

I think it's very interesting to see when cities peaked and also the ones peaking at 2010 are obviously the healthy ones today.

The 1950 decade stands out to me the most since that was the time the Freeways were built eliminating so much denisty in so many of the cities (mostly through poor,dense neighborhood in most cities), causing those people to relocate/white flight etc. The cities that peaked at 1950 will probably never see those populations again due to lack of land available without annexing. Yeah they can keep growing in population, but the zoning, freeways, and lost urban areas will make reaching that 1950's number nearly impossible.
Ok, I will. I agree the chart is amazing, and I enjoyed it thoroughly and learned from it.

With the MIA comment however I felt the need to explain to not only him (cause he probably already knows) but anyone who sees this terrific thread about MSA's and how they really are the true test of a cities strength and influence in the USA.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-12-2011, 05:25 PM
 
Location: Morgantown, WV
996 posts, read 1,896,043 times
Reputation: 529
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1greatcity View Post
I've compiled a list of every U.S. city that has ever surpassed the half-million mark throughout the history of our nation.
The numbers represent the very highest population each city has ever attained, with the year. PLEASE READ: This is for city proper only-- not urbanized areas or MSA's.
Sources: United States Census Bureau; estimates for 2010 are from Business First, Nov. 22, 2010.

1. New York- 8,453,558 (2010)
2. Los Angeles- 3,852,820 (2010)
3. Chicago- 3,620,962 (1950)
4. Houston- 2,306,455 (2010)
5. Philadelphia- 2,071,605 (1950)
6. Detroit- 1,849,568 (1950)
7. Phoenix- 1,638,283 (2010)
8. San Antonio- 1,411,732 (2010)
9. Dallas- 1,320,126 (2010)
10. San Diego- 1,314,900 (2010)
11. San Jose- 982,102 (2010)
12. Baltimore- 949,708 (1950)
13. Cleveland- 914,808 (1950)
14. St. Louis- 856,796 (1950)
15. San Francisco- 825,358 (2010)
16. Jacksonville- 822,884 (2010)
17. Indianapolis- 813,700 (2010)
18. Austin- 811,210 (2010)
19. Washington- 802,178 (1950)
20. Boston- 801,444 (1950)
21. Columbus- 779,728 (2010)
22. Fort Worth- 764,017 (2010)
23. Milwaukee- 741,324 (1960)
24. Charlotte- 729,781 (2010)
25. Memphis- 682,024 (2006)
26. Pittsburgh- 676,806 (1950)
27. El Paso- 632,143 (2010)
28. Seattle- 629,875 (2010)
29. New Orleans- 627,525 (1960)
30. Denver- 626,107 (2010)
31. Nashville- 615,221 (2010)
32. Buffalo- 580,132 (1950)
33. Las Vegas- 577,587 (2010)
34. Portland (OR)- 575,671 (2010)
35. Oklahoma City- 570,024 (2010)
36. Louisville- 569,135 (2010)
37. Atlanta- 560,002 (2010)
38. Tucson- 551,091 (2010)
39. Albuquerque- 540,896 (2010)
40. Minneapolis- 521,718 (1950)
41. Kansas City (MO)- 507,087 (1970)
42. Cincinnati- 503,998 (1950)

Interesting that Baltimore, Cleveland and St. Louis are still among the top 20 U.S. cities ever.
Considering it's big reputation. it's hard to believe that Miami has never reached the 500k mark.
And it's strange to see Atlanta that far down the list, even below Buffalo!

You know what it says about Miami? They got the big tough guy image, but no balls (balls = population) :P

Same goes for their Miami Heat!

Sorry had to say it
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-12-2011, 05:29 PM
 
Location: The City
22,378 posts, read 38,888,203 times
Reputation: 7976
Agree on the Heat - BTW the sixers actually beat the Spurs last night go figure

Anyway this is an interesting way to look at

Urban area is probably even a better stat than MSA though on developed population of which Miami is now #4 in the US actually
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-12-2011, 09:02 PM
 
Location: 30-40°N 90-100°W
13,809 posts, read 26,546,133 times
Reputation: 6790
Also interesting that OKC's city-proper is bigger than KC or Cincinnati's ever was. I knew it was big, but I guess I didn't realize how big.
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

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