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 04-25-2011, 12:12 PM
 
Location: Avondale and Tempe, Arizona
2,852 posts, read 4,405,682 times
Reputation: 2558

Advertisements

Here is something interesting I was researching, the breakdown of America's 10 largest cities as compiled each census since 1790.

Notice how New York remained the largest city each decade but Philadelphia's then-separated districts also held a place in the top 10 in the early census reports.

Interesting to note the definite westward expansion of the nation and the migration to more suburban-styled cities in the 20th century.

Los Angeles didn't place in the top 10 until 1920 and it had the sparsest density of any major city for a long time. Similar sprawling cities like Houston, San Diego, and Phoenix followed suit later in the century.

Largest cities in the United States by population by decade - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-25-2011, 12:42 PM
 
Location: Bella Vista
2,471 posts, read 3,934,840 times
Reputation: 2211
Quote:
Originally Posted by Java Jolt View Post
Here is something interesting I was researching, the breakdown of America's 10 largest cities as compiled each census since 1790.

Notice how New York remained the largest city each decade but Philadelphia's then-separated districts also held a place in the top 10 in the early census reports.

Interesting to note the definite westward expansion of the nation and the migration to more suburban-styled cities in the 20th century.

Los Angeles didn't place in the top 10 until 1920 and it had the sparsest density of any major city for a long time. Similar sprawling cities like Houston, San Diego, and Phoenix followed suit later in the century.

Largest cities in the United States by population by decade - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

very cool, wow did not realize that philly was keeping pace with new york for those first 50 years or so if you included all of philly's current neighborhoods.

also never realized that at one point baltimore passed philly and was the second largest city. also never realized that in the same time period both new orleans and boston also surpased philly and philly fell to 4th only to climb back up to second to be overtaken eventually by chicago.

of course i knew about how big detroit once was, but it's still shocking to view where it once stood population wise compared to today.

cool link thanks
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-25-2011, 12:59 PM
 
Location: Denver
16,432 posts, read 25,479,756 times
Reputation: 13027
Very cool to see how these cities grew. Too bad NOLA, Detroit, Baltimore, and Cleveland didn't keep their rankings.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-25-2011, 01:22 PM
 
Location: Avondale and Tempe, Arizona
2,852 posts, read 4,405,682 times
Reputation: 2558
Quote:
Originally Posted by annie_himself View Post
Very cool to see how these cities grew. Too bad NOLA, Detroit, Baltimore, and Cleveland didn't keep their rankings.
Thank the decline in manufactuing jobs and outsourcing for why Detroit and Cleveland are no longer in the top 10.

Detroit is the poster child of cities that rapidly grew during the first part of the 20th century because of the automotive industry then rapidly declined during the latter part of the century.

New Orleans is too prone to devastating hurricanes and too poorly prepared for them to ever experience any substantial population gains. We all remember the aftermath of Katrina.

I'm hoping the major real estate crunch that affected mostly the sunbelt areas won't result in those cities losing population and falling out of the top 10.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-25-2011, 01:34 PM
 
Location: Up on the moon laughing down on you
18,502 posts, read 32,317,205 times
Reputation: 7744
Quote:
Originally Posted by phillies2011 View Post
very cool, wow did not realize that philly was keeping pace with new york for those first 50 years or so if you included all of philly's current neighborhoods.

also never realized that at one point baltimore passed philly and was the second largest city. also never realized that in the same time period both new orleans and boston also surpased philly and philly fell to 4th only to climb back up to second to be overtaken eventually by chicago.

of course i knew about how big detroit once was, but it's still shocking to view where it once stood population wise compared to today.

cool link thanks
well if you are counting all of Philly neighborhoods you would have had to do the same with NY too.

Yeah it is strange to See Baltimore as the 2nd largest city and NOLA as the 3rd. St Louis reached 4th.

Wow, Houston, LA and Chicago busted onto the charts and raced up them. Would love to see if these stay in the top 4 in the next 30-50 years (we all know NY is not going anywhere).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-25-2011, 01:36 PM
 
Location: Cincinnati
3,341 posts, read 6,817,194 times
Reputation: 2084
i like this chart. although Cincinnati's day may have past, we were a top 10 city for basically the entire 19th century before falling off forever around 1900. then cleveland and detroit and pittsburgh came, and have now given way to sunbelt cities.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-25-2011, 01:37 PM
 
Location: Denver
16,432 posts, read 25,479,756 times
Reputation: 13027
Quote:
Originally Posted by Java Jolt View Post
Thank the decline in manufactuing jobs and outsourcing for why Detroit and Cleveland are no longer in the top 10.

Detroit is the poster child of cities that rapidly grew during the first part of the 20th century because of the automotive industry then rapidly declined during the latter part of the century.

New Orleans is too prone to devastating hurricanes and too poorly prepared for them to ever experience any substantial population gains. We all remember the aftermath of Katrina.

I'm hoping the major real estate crunch that affected mostly the sunbelt areas won't result in those cities losing population and falling out of the top 10.
So is Miami but it didn't stop them. Hurricanes may have been a factor before technology but not in the last 50 years. NOLA has the levees/pumps now to take a Cat 5 beating.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-25-2011, 01:45 PM
 
Location: Up on the moon laughing down on you
18,502 posts, read 32,317,205 times
Reputation: 7744
Quote:
Originally Posted by Java Jolt View Post
Thank the decline in manufactuing jobs and outsourcing for why Detroit and Cleveland are no longer in the top 10.

Detroit is the poster child of cities that rapidly grew during the first part of the 20th century because of the automotive industry then rapidly declined during the latter part of the century.

New Orleans is too prone to devastating hurricanes and too poorly prepared for them to ever experience any substantial population gains. We all remember the aftermath of Katrina.

I'm hoping the major real estate crunch that affected mostly the sunbelt areas won't result in those cities losing population and falling out of the top 10.
Quote:
Originally Posted by annie_himself View Post
So is Miami but it didn't stop them. Hurricanes may have been a factor before technology but not in the last 50 years. NOLA has the levees/pumps now to take a Cat 5 beating.

Yeah, NOLA's decline started before Katrina.

NOLA was the primary economic center of the south until the 50's when first Houston, then Dallas, Atlanta and Miami surpassed it. This meant that the city lost a lot of banker and financial services to these other cities. also automation of port activities meant loss of jobs to port workers.

Like the campaign slogan said "It's the economy stupid"
you lose industries your city declines. You boost your economy and the population booms
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-25-2011, 01:49 PM
 
Location: The City
22,397 posts, read 37,983,900 times
Reputation: 7964
If only these could be normalized to same land areas (to HTowns favorite city today if you added the closest 590 sq miles of Philly you have a population of about 3.8 million people in Philadelphia or conversely the 128 closest sq miles to the Houston core would be somewhere around 700-800K so they are pretty difficult to compare)

to HTown one difference in NY compared to the Philly areas in the early years are that Northern Liberties, Spring Garden, and Southwark are all part of the 5 sq mile core today

I believe NY on the list is the whole island of Manhattan though around 1850 NYC accelerated ahread of all cities in population.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-25-2011, 01:55 PM
 
Location: Up on the moon laughing down on you
18,502 posts, read 32,317,205 times
Reputation: 7744
Quote:
Originally Posted by kidphilly View Post
If only these could be normalized to same land areas (to HTowns favorite city today if you added the closest 590 sq miles of Philly you have a population of about 3.8 million people in Philadelphia or conversely the 128 closest sq miles to the Houston core would be somewhere around 700-800K so they are pretty difficult to compare)

to HTown one difference in NY compared to the Philly areas in the early years are that Northern Liberties, Spring Garden, and Southwark are all part of the 5 sq mile core today

I believe NY on the list is the whole island of Manhattan though around 1850 NYC accelerated ahread of all cities in population.
what the heck are you saying in this post? back in the early days Philadelphia was a lot larger than Houston. Houston was only a couple of Acres back then.



Anyway, I don't know why you are always nitpicking. NY was always a bigger city and if you are trying to make Philly cover more areas you have to do it for NY too.



Quote:
Originally Posted by kidphilly View Post
If only these could be normalized to same land areas (to HTowns favorite city today
Better yet why not normalize the urban areas instead with Philly having 5.3M in 1800 sq miles while Houston has 5,045M in 1337 sq miles (info from that new UA thread)
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.

© 2005-2023, 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