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.
There are reports for each decade, but i don’t think anyone has compiled them all together. MSA was first defined in 1950 (although the 1950 report has 1940 data), if you scroll to the bottom it lists the metro areas by population. https://www2.census.gov/library/publ...03/pc-3-03.pdf
Los Angeles did not come into the picture until 1930. I guess the car, railways and planes made that place much more accessible, and people everywhere who wanted to enjoy the weather and natural beauty could finally get there. Plus that coincides with the rise of Detroit, the motor city.
Chicago did not come into the picture until around 1890. Both NYC and Chicago exploded from that point on. I wonder what caused that. I know NYC was getting a whole influx of euro immigrants, but what about Chicago.
Boston and Philly had steady growth up until 1930. I guess with advent of transportation technology, any that could must have tried to leave those two cities or went elsewhere.
The 1930 table is ordered alphabetically, so I decided to reorganize it by population size.
Thanks for posting.
Wild to see Scranton in the top 20 MSAs.
Also really shows how Seattle and Portland really aren't boomtowns and haven't grown that much (compared to the country as a whole) in the past century. Seattle was the 23rd biggest MSA in 1930 and is only 15th now. Portland has gone from 29th to 25th.
It’s interesting because Boston population shrunk significantly. But I think the answer largely lays in the 495 belt and suburbs between 95/495.
495 “staples” were boomtowns between 1960-1970. First three I looked up were Chelmsford (+107%), Andover (+38%), and Franklin (+69%).
As far as “why”, it was the growth of commercial office projects from Boston outward, driven by major tax breaks. That era was really the “revitalization” of Greater Boston and the transition away from a majority blue collar to a majority white collar economy. Then came tech. The rest is history.
There has never been more jobs and opportunity than today. Second, according to my research, was the late 60s before the National contraction in the early 70s.
Edit to add: Bostons deindustrialization and what happened in the following decades is truly wild. It’s seen sustained “success” in its economy in a way very few Northern cities have. It’s not an easy city to explain, either. Bit of luck, and a lot of focus on verticals that have remained or grown relevant… Higher Ed, Healthcare, Tech, Defense and Aero, FiServ, and obviously Bio/R&D. Robotics and data science also has an unsurprisingly large presence now.
Yeah I’d say it’s more interesting that this number doesn’t make sense as it grew by *more than* 2x it ever has in any decade since we started keeping record and prior to the Massachusetts Miracl…which occurs in the 1970s not the 1960s. I just think somethings very off, missing here or totally inaccurate
Yeah I’d say it’s more interesting that this number doesn’t make sense as it grew by *more than* 2x it ever has in any decade since we started keeping record and prior to the Massachusetts Miracl…which occurs in the 1970s not the 1960s. I just think somethings very off, missing here or totally inaccurate
As shown above, they combined NECTAs in 1970. Thats why the MSA nearly doubled.
after digging around finally found the "metro" equivalent data for 1920 giving us a round 100 year snapshot of change. I decided to go with the larger "City and Adjacent Territory" rather than the smaller metropolitan district, since the definition they used back then was closer to what we consider to be as urban area today, plus there were only 29 listed and I wanted 40. I also added hyphen if the other city was considered a major city at some point in its own right (I may have missed some). Furthermore, I color coded the top 10 cities, as well as marked the cities in red for those that fell off the list, and those in blue that were not on the list in 1920.
after digging around finally found the "metro" equivalent data for 1920 giving us a round 100 year snapshot of change. I decided to go with the larger "City and Adjacent Territory" rather than the smaller metropolitan district, since the definition they used back then was closer to what we consider to be as urban area today, plus there were only 29 listed and I wanted 40. I also added hyphen if the other city was considered a major city at some point in its own right (I may have missed some). Furthermore, I color coded the top 10 cities, as well as marked the cities in red for those that fell off the list, and those in blue that were not on the list in 1920.
Edit: It looks like Atlanta should be #9 on your 2020 list if that number is accurate.
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.
