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.
Ironically my database also contains historical city population and land area. No other city was able to hide it's true core declines like KC was due to that annexation they did during the 1960s. I haven't added 2020 data yet.
Milwaukee also annexed a huge area in the 1950s (possibly more later?). Like KC, its population losses were masked because of this. Would you pull Milwaukee's data to compare it with KC's?
Milwaukee also annexed a huge area in the 1950s (possibly more later?). Like KC, its population losses were masked because of this. Would you pull Milwaukee's data to compare it with KC's?
Milwaukee did do a big land grab in the 50's, but still relatively small by some of these other cities standards. It went from 50sq mi at the beginning of the 50s, to 91sq mi by the 1960 census. By 1970 it got to it's current size of 95 sq mi.
Most(not all) legacy cities had their worst growth decades in the 1970's, and their best decade in the 1990's. Sunbelt cities peaked in the 2000's, and some haven't peaked yet. Californian cities were on fire in the 1980's. Boston has definitely accelerated it's growth over the last 10 years by a significant margin. That's 38% of it's overall growth in the last 50 years!
Great info! Thank you for compiling it!
What happened with Chicago in the 90s? It was slow growing for 20 years, then shot up for 10, and returned to slow for the most recent 20.
What happened with Chicago in the 90s? It was slow growing for 20 years, then shot up for 10, and returned to slow for the most recent 20.
The spike in the 90's happened in several post industrial metros. The 90s were an economic boom for most of the country and was the first decade most struggling cities started gaining population again. For instance Detroit had it's best decade in the last 50 years by more than double during the 1990s, followed by it's worst decade in the 2000's.
I don't think there was something specific happening in Chicago, it follows the pattern with most legacy/industrial cities that were recovering, a big spike in the 90s, followed by slower gains after. The numbers are higher so it just seems more pronounced in Chicago.
The spike in the 90's happened in several post industrial metros. The 90s were an economic boom for most of the country and was the first decade most struggling cities started gaining population again. For instance Detroit had it's best decade in the last 50 years by more than double during the 1990s, followed by it's worst decade in the 2000's.
I don't think there was something specific happening in Chicago, it follows the pattern with most legacy/industrial cities that were recovering, a big spike in the 90s, followed by slower gains after. The numbers are higher so it just seems more pronounced in Chicago.
Specifically the growth in Chicago was tied to immigration from Mexico. The city added more than 200,000 Hispanic residents between 1990-2000 while the population of white & black residents both fell.
Specifically the growth in Chicago was tied to immigration from Mexico. The city added more than 200,000 Hispanic residents between 1990-2000 while the population of white & black residents both fell.
The Chicago metro gained more than 900k residents during the 1990s. It was more than just the Latino influx, which was a trend in several metro's as well.
The Chicago metro gained more than 900k residents during the 1990s. It was more than just the Latino influx, which was a trend in several metro's as well.
My bad - didn't re-read the thread title and was thinking about city limits population.
Atlanta? Slowing down? 800,000 is Great but I Remember when Atlanta used to do 1,000,000 every census
In Other News You mean to tell me Atlanta hasn't cracked 500,000k in City Limits Yet!? Census playing Games with Atlanta lol
Atlanta's city limits is pretty small compared to other cities. 136 square miles. If it was stretched out like Houston's (671 square miles), it would probably be 4x to 5x the 500k number.
Atlanta's city limits is pretty small compared to other cities. 136 square miles. If it was stretched out like Houston's (671 square miles), it would probably be 4x to 5x the 500k number.
A lot of America's cities have bloated land areas relative their populations. This makes comparing apples to apples quite difficult.
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.
I've got the data to do a city specific one, just need to get around to it.
