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.
The struggle I have with this comparison is the premise of this thread(and your post) has them as peers at their peaks. If anything I think they are closer to peers now. I know they weren't separated by that much in the rankings, but the size disparity between them when they were at their peak is quite significant. Given their size differences is it truly intellectually honest to really consider them peers at that time? From an urban/metro standpoint there's very little separation between Houston and Dallas in today's metrics. When on the ground they are virtually indistinguishable in size to me (as someone not from there).
Detroit 1950: 1,838,517
Cleveland 1950: 905,686
City proper isn't a fair comparison since Detroit covered nearly twice as much land area as Cleveland at that time so I looked at Urban area. (1950 Demographia is the source so take it as a reference point and not exact data)
1. New York: 12,914,000
2. Chicago: 5,587,000
3. Los Angeles: 4,368,000
4. Philadelphia: 3,671,000 5. Detroit: 3,016,000
6. Boston: 2,411,000
7. San Francisco: 2,241,000
8. Pittsburgh: 2,213,000
9. St. Louis: 1,719,000 10. Cleveland: 1,466,000
If i'm being fair I believe the both peaked at an urban level 20 years later in 1970. I don't think you can really make a modern day equivalence between Detroit and Cleveland then, and the current top 10. The difference in size between them in 1950 was more than double. The 5th largest urban area in 2010 was Philadelphia, the closest one to half it's size is #16 Minneapolis.
I understand the premise of this thread but I think it's OP didn't realize how big the difference between the two actually was at their peaks. The lopsided poll shows how unfair it is to Cleveland IMO.
1. New York: 12,222,953
2. Chicago: 4,902,801
3. Los Angeles: 3,970,595
4. Philadelphia: 2,913,516
5. Detroit: 2,644,476
6. Boston: 2,218,893
7. San Francisco: 1,997,303
8. Pittsburgh: 1,525,966
9. St. Louis: 1,394,051
10. Cleveland: 1,372,374
11. Washington D.C.: 1,281,572
12. Baltimore: 1,151,050
I'm not disagreeing with Detroit peaking ahead of Cleveland either, and from reading this I haven't seen anybody make that argument.
Interesting... I didn't realize metro LA was that big by 1950. They were already beginning to close in on Chicago... Also of note: no Texas city made this list.
Interesting... I didn't realize metro LA was that big by 1950. They were already beginning to close in on Chicago... Also of note: no Texas city made this list.
Yea, by 1930 LA metropolitan area already hit the number 5 spot and was over a million just below Detroit at number 4. A lot of Central and South LA along with other parts were built out initially with a streetcar suburb kind of arrangement and it shows in many parts of the city and is in some ways similar to Detroit and Cleveland which also had much of its core development and growth occur during the streetcar suburb period. It also meant that like other large and quite urban cores after the 1950s, there was a precipitous drop in population. The difference for LA was that the overall area continued to draw a lot of people in and the legal boundaries of the city were quite large so car-centric suburban developments from people leaving the urban core was often still within the boundaries of the city proper. Detroit and Cleveland unfortunately did not have those benefits and so they hit a pretty vicious cycle of a much eroded tax base, worsening city services, leading to even more population loss and further tax base erosion. It's going to be harder but not impossible to dig Cleveland and Detroit out and come close to having a strong bustling urban core. In some good news for Detroit, local referendums in the area have passed funding measures, including this one, for improving regional transit including transit to and within Detroit.
Interesting... I didn't realize metro LA was that big by 1950. They were already beginning to close in on Chicago... Also of note: no Texas city made this list.
Here's something I put together going back to 1900 looking at city limits (granted I know this doesn't tell the whole story since city limits vary in size).
Cities that have peaked at over 2 percent of what the US population was at that time: 1. New York: This is obvious and it's been above the 2 percent mark every census between 1900-2020, with a peak of 5.64% in 1940.
2. Chicago: Was over 2 percent between 1900-1950 before falling between 1-2 percent from 1960 to 2000. It peaked at 2.71% in 1930 (it surprised me that it never hit the 3 percent mark).
Cities that have peaked at over 1 percent of what the US population was: 3. Philadelphia: Was over 1 percent from 1900-1960, and had the third highest total peak of 1.72% in 1920. It remained over 0.5 percent until 2010.
4. Los Angeles: Los Angeles has been over 1 percent in every census since 1930 and peaked at 1.40% in 1990. By 1920 it had reached 0.5%, and LA shot up from 0.13% in 1900 to over 1 percent by 1930.
5. Detroit: Was at over 1 percent from 1930 to 1950 and peaked in 1930 at 1.27%. It had been at least 0.5 percent of the population between 1910 and 1980.
Cities that have peaked at over 0.5 percent of the population: 6. St. Louis: Peaked at 0.755% in 1900 (I suspect it was likely over 1 percent at some point in the late 1800s) and stayed above 0.5 percent from 1900-1950.
7. Cleveland: Peaked at 0.752% in 1920 and stayed above 0.5 percent between 1900-1950.
8. Boston: Peaked at 0.73% in 1900 (another that I suspect may have still been over 1 percent in the late 1800s) and stayed above 0.5 percent between 1900-1950.
9. Houston: Peaked at 0.7% in 1980 and has been above 0.5 percent between 1960-2020. I was surprised that 1980 was its relative peak, but it has been beween 0.65 percent and 0.7 percent every census between 1980-2020.
10. Baltimore: Peaked at 0.69% in 1920 and stayed above 0.5 percent between 1900-1960 (so it lasted another decade longer than Cleveland, Boston and St. Louis).
11. Pittsburgh: Peaked at 0.58% in 1910 and was over 0.5 percent from 1910-1940.
12. Washington D.C.: Peaked at 0.53% in 1950 and was also over 0.5 percent in 1940.
13. San Francisco: Peaked at 0.51% in 1930 and also was over 0.5 percent again in 1950.
How would those peaks compare relative to the current (2020) US population:
1. New York (1940) - 18,697,054
2. Chicago (1930) - 9,085,025
3. Philadelphia (1920) - 5,700,928
4. Los Angeles (1990) - 4,643,604
5. Detroit (1930) - 4,219,349
6. St. Louis (1900) - 2,502,442
7. Cleveland (1920) - 2,492,499
8. Boston (1900) - 2,439,967
9. Houston (1980) - 2,333,403
10. Baltimore (1920) - 2,293,629
11. Pittsburgh (1910) - 1,919,091
12. Washington D.C. (1950) - 1,756,681
13. San Francisco (1930) - 1,706,964
Of the cities that never reached 0.5 percent, here is what rounds out the top 20:
14. Phoenix (2020) - 1,608,139
15. Buffalo (1920) - 1,584,328
16. Milwaukee (1930) - 1,554,497
17. San Diego (1990) - 1,481,578
18. San Antonio (2020) - 1,434,625
19. Cincinnati (1900) - 1,418,603
20. Dallas (2000) - 1,398,716
Anyway, while there really isn't an argument whether Detroit's peak was higher than Cleveland's based on population, it's hardly one that is as much of a landslide as some are making it out to be, especially since the two cities are very similar in their rises, their built densities and their falls.
It's mostly that Detroit city limits have been nearly double that of Cleveland's; Wayne County Michigan is roughly 25 percent larger in land area than Cuyahoga; and the current Detroit MSA is nearly double the size in land area as the Cleveland MSA. While built at similar densities, Detroit is just geographically much larger in every aspect.
Last edited by ClevelandBrown; 11-11-2022 at 12:12 PM..
Yea, by 1930 LA metropolitan area already hit the number 5 spot and was over a million just below Detroit at number 4. A lot of Central and South LA along with other parts were built out initially with a streetcar suburb kind of arrangement and it shows in many parts of the city and is in some ways similar to Detroit and Cleveland which also had much of its core development and growth occur during the streetcar suburb period. It also meant that like other large and quite urban cores after the 1950s, there was a precipitous drop in population. The difference for LA was that the overall area continued to draw a lot of people in and the legal boundaries of the city were quite large so car-centric suburban developments from people leaving the urban core was often still within the boundaries of the city proper. Detroit and Cleveland unfortunately did not have those benefits and so they hit a pretty vicious cycle of a much eroded tax base, worsening city services, leading to even more population loss and further tax base erosion. It's going to be harder but not impossible to dig Cleveland and Detroit out and come close to having a strong bustling urban core. In some good news for Detroit, local referendums in the area have passed funding measures, including this one, for improving regional transit including transit to and within Detroit.
I have problems with these comments on a couple of levels. First, I'm not sure what you mean by "urban core." Downtown? Within the city limits? Not sure.
If you mean downtown, Cleveland's downtown is already "bustling" comparatively -- maybe not during weekdays 9-5p as it once was because of the loss of corporate offices, but it has grown significantly and continues to grow, as residential district; downtown Cleveland is considerably stronger than Detroit's in terms of residentially as well as in terms of being a regional destination for entertainment and dining. Downtown Detroit holds an edge in terms of retail, esp along lower Woodward (over a comparable area of Cleveland's Euclid Ave).
If you're talking about within city limits, obviously both cities have taken tremendous lumps in terms of population loss as aging, post-industrial (don't call them "rust belt") cities. But Detroit's general neighborhood residential fiber has fared far worse in terms of tear-downs and complete abandonment. There are several areas of Detroit where you can travel several blocks; even miles in some cases, in former residential neighborhoods, turned into empty, weed-covered urban prairies. While there have obviously been foreclosure/abandonment and demolition of many homes within Cleveland, largely on the East Side, most neighborhoods, except for a tiny few, remain intact, while several, esp places like Glenville, Hough, and Fairfax, have seen significant reinvestment -- the first, largely being adjacent to booming med/cultural hub University Circle, with the latter 2, hosting mega-hospital/medical research center (behemoth): Cleveland Clinic.
Also, I find it odd why, between the 2 cities, you single out Detroit's 'hope' of Regional Transit, while Cleveland already has Regional Transit -- at least, within Cuyahoga County whereby, unlike Detroit, the transit system doesn't end at the city's border. And yes, Cleveland has a rail Rapid Transit system, plus a hgh-profile BRT up Euclid Ave, while Detroit only has the downtown, single-rail People Mover loop and the touristy M-1 streetcar up Woodward Ave, for 3 miles. This being a particular problem given Detroit, both city and metro area, are significantly larger than Cleveland.
... but this is now. Once again, I totally agree that, at their peaks, Detroit (the city and metro area) was bigger and stronger than Cleveland, no doubt.
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.
