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.
1. Buffalo, New York-It peaked at about 580,000 people in the 1950s and has shrunk to 259,384 (although the population decline has gradually slowed down in the recent years as it was approximately 261,000 in 2010)
2. St. Louis, Missouri-It peaked in the 1950s as well at about 857,000 people, and it was disintengrated to 318,000 (although I question this reported number as it was 355,000 with it being a slight increase from 2000 here about 4-5 years ago which doesn't add up, and we suddenly have only lost less than 800 people in 3 years?!?! There has got to be some error....)
3. Cleveland, Ohio It used to be one of the largest cities in the 1950s when it had over 910,000, and now it's done to 391,000 people.
4. Detroit, Michigan-Remember when it used to have nearly 2 million people back in the 50s? That seems like long ago as it's down to 710,000 people (although that was back in 2010, so I wonder how much lower the number is now?)
5. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania-It had nearly 680,000 people in the 1950s, but has decreased to 306,000 people. However, it has shockingly increased by almost 1,000 people since 2010.
6. Cincinnati, Ohio-It has gone from 503,000 to like 297,000 which isn't as much of a dramatic decline, and it has seemed to slow down like the rest of them have.
7. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania-This one isn't major at all. It has gone from being slightly over 2 million in the 1950s to being in between 1.5 to 1.6 million now with it having a slight increase since 2010.
1. Buffalo, New York-It peaked at about 580,000 people in the 1950s and has shrunk to 259,384 (although the population decline has gradually slowed down in the recent years as it was approximately 261,000 in 2010)
2. St. Louis, Missouri-It peaked in the 1950s as well at about 857,000 people, and it was disintengrated to 318,000 (although I question this reported number as it was 355,000 with it being a slight increase from 2000 here about 4-5 years ago which doesn't add up, and we suddenly have only lost less than 800 people in 3 years?!?! There has got to be some error....)
3. Cleveland, Ohio It used to be one of the largest cities in the 1950s when it had over 910,000, and now it's done to 391,000 people.
4. Detroit, Michigan-Remember when it used to have nearly 2 million people back in the 50s? That seems like long ago as it's down to 710,000 people (although that was back in 2010, so I wonder how much lower the number is now?)
5. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania-It had nearly 680,000 people in the 1950s, but has decreased to 306,000 people. However, it has shockingly increased by almost 1,000 people since 2010.
6. It has gone from 503,000 to like 297,000 which isn't as much of a dramatic decline, and it has seemed to slow down like the rest of them have.
7. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania-This one isn't major at all. It has gone from being slightly over 2 million in the 1950s to being in between 1.5 to 1.6 million now with it having a slight increase since 2010.
Philadelphia is leaps and bounds ahead of the other cities on this list, it never took a hit as hard as the other cities, and still remains one of the largest cities in the country today. A lot of work needs to be done, but Philly never "left" as your putting it. It has always remained a city that attracts millions for all it has to offer.
I think another aspect forget about with these cities is that suburbanization took off after those cities peaked and the lack of annexation for those cities versus many growing, "newer" cities. I believe that many growing cities if left at its 1950 boundaries would have different results and if these cities were able to annex, you may have different results. With this said, some of these metros have lost people as well, while some have had slow, steady growth.
I'd like to see all of them grow again, but if I had to pick one, I'd say Buffalo.
I think another aspect forget about with these cities is that suburbanization took off after those cities peaked and the lack of annexation for those cities versus many growing, "newer" cities. I believe that many growing cities if left at its 1950 boundaries would have different results and if these cities were able to annex, you may have different results. With this said, some of these metros have lost people as well, while some have had slow, steady growth.
I'd like to see all of them grow again, but if I had to pick one, I'd say Buffalo.
Out of all those metro areas, Philadelphia is the only one that never went through a population decline. It has grown as you said slow but steady in recent years, but it has always been among the top metros competing with Boston, San Francisco, Chicago as far as economic power and influence goes. The other cities and their respective areas are much smaller. I am not trying to downplay them, but Philadelphia and especially the area as a whole are not overly comparable to any of those.
Pretty much the first three that you mentioned: Detroit, Buffalo and St. Louis. Three great cities that have truly fallen on hard times. There's a lot of potential in each, and I'm confident they will turn around at some point.
The St. Louis metro area has also never declined in population and it hasn't fallen anywhere near as far as Detroit and Buffalo.
That being said, I'd like to see all of these cities come back eventually, but St. Louis and Pittsburgh first, since I think they're the most interesting ones on the list (aside from Philly). I actually think Philly should be replaced with Cincinnati here.
1. Buffalo, New York-It peaked at about 580,000 people in the 1950s and has shrunk to 259,384 (although the population decline has gradually slowed down in the recent years as it was approximately 261,000 in 2010)
2. St. Louis, Missouri-It peaked in the 1950s as well at about 857,000 people, and it was disintengrated to 318,000 (although I question this reported number as it was 355,000 with it being a slight increase from 2000 here about 4-5 years ago which doesn't add up, and we suddenly have only lost less than 800 people in 3 years?!?! There has got to be some error....)
3. Cleveland, Ohio It used to be one of the largest cities in the 1950s when it had over 910,000, and now it's done to 391,000 people.
4. Detroit, Michigan-Remember when it used to have nearly 2 million people back in the 50s? That seems like long ago as it's down to 710,000 people (although that was back in 2010, so I wonder how much lower the number is now?)
5. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania-It had nearly 680,000 people in the 1950s, but has decreased to 306,000 people. However, it has shockingly increased by almost 1,000 people since 2010.
6. It has gone from 503,000 to like 297,000 which isn't as much of a dramatic decline, and it has seemed to slow down like the rest of them have.
7. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania-This one isn't major at all. It has gone from being slightly over 2 million in the 1950s to being in between 1.5 to 1.6 million now with it having a slight increase since 2010.
I would say Baltimore and DC should be on the list. DC was the murder capital for over a decade and is just starting to recover. Both cities had blight and disinvestment at major levels. Both cities are doing way better, but have a very long way to go. They along with Pittsburg and Philly are doing well now.
Washington DC = 900,000 in 1946. Went down to 550,000 by 2002.
Baltimore = 900,000 in 1950. Went down to 620,000 by 2013.
I would say Baltimore and DC should be on the list. DC was the murder capital for over a decade and is just starting to recover. Both cities had blight and disinvestment at major levels. Both cities are doing way better, but have a very long way to go. They along with Pittsburg and Philly are doing well now.
Washington DC = 900,000 in 1946. Went down to 550,000 by 2002.
Baltimore = 900,000 in 1950. Went down to 620,000 by 2013.
So true, and I personally find it to be unfortunate when high crime rates cause a city to disintegrate, which might be part of the reason for St. Louis disintegrating as it used to be in the top 3 in crime (now it's #4, so it might be improving). Washington D.C. has gained like 45-50,000 people from 2010-2013 alone however, so I can see it hitting over 700,000 by 2025-26 maybe?
Out of all those metro areas, Philadelphia is the only one that never went through a population decline. It has grown as you said slow but steady in recent years, but it has always been among the top metros competing with Boston, San Francisco, Chicago as far as economic power and influence goes. The other cities and their respective areas are much smaller. I am not trying to downplay them, but Philadelphia and especially the area as a whole are not overly comparable to any of those.
I agree.....To be honest, Philadelphia has at worst, has held steady.
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.
