What major city has increased in relevance the most while losing population?
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.
Chicago - it has really anchored the western Great Lakes by maintaining a strong metro area and world class amenities. It’s quite diversified, and maintains a food vernacular, good transit, and international prominence. Chicago has by far weathered the rust belt phenomenon the best and maintained or enhanced its stature over the last 50ish years. It’s still corrupt and city schools suck, with a crime problem. But no question in my mind, it’s floated above all the rest.
The two cities that have gone down in population while remaining relevant are Detroit and Washington, DC, and neither of them are in the survey.
Detroit had over two million people in the city alone, now the city population gone down to about 600,000. Meanwhile, it is still a major industrial center, port and important trade center with many corporate headquarters remaining.
Washington, DC has lost population for decades, and only started gaining population in recent years. Yet it has become more relevant due to the increased regulation of our lives and the military industrial complex.
Boston's gone from the most important city to just another city to a hub of biotech.
it's several thousand percent bigger than when it was the most important city, but 20% smaller today than it was in 1950 when it was just another city.
IMHO Boston was the most important city in North America from 1630 to sometime in the first half of the 1700s. In the 1730s Philadelphia and Boston both had about 12,000 people. NYC only had ~8000 people in 1730.
I doubt even the Pittsburgh voters think it's gained relevance since 1950. It's arguably gained in the past 10-15 years.
Pittsburgh's relevance bottomed out in the 1990s. Its foreign-born population percentage reached its nadir in 1990, versus 1970 for everyplace else, and it always seemed to be the last major metropolitan area get the upscale retail and restaurant chains that everybody in other major metropolitan areas took for granted. For example, Pittsburgh didn't even get a Nordstrom until 2008, which appears to have been a major oversight by Nordstrom, given how full its parking lot gets during the holidays and other special events, and the fact that they've opened a Nordstrom Rack not too far away on McKnight Road. Also, Pittsburgh was, by far, the largest metropolitan area in the U.S. to be left out of the Olympic Torch Relay in 1996. It was the only metropolitan area with at least 2,000,000 population that was left out, and the only others with at least 1,000,000 population that were left out were Virginia Beach/Norfolk and San Antonio, the latter of which was barely over 1,000,000 at the time. In terms of relevance, Pittsburgh had nowhere to go but up from the 1990s.
The two cities that have gone down in population while remaining relevant are Detroit and Washington, DC, and neither of them are in the survey.
Detroit had over two million people in the city alone, now the city population gone down to about 600,000. Meanwhile, it is still a major industrial center, port and important trade center with many corporate headquarters remaining.
Washington, DC has lost population for decades, and only started gaining population in recent years. Yet it has become more relevant due to the increased regulation of our lives and the military industrial complex.
The question is has Detroit increased in relevance since it began losing population. I'd say no.
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.