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 think you are going to have a hard time finding people to support this list you made. All these cities on your list were very important cities much earlier than you have dated. I can only speak for Houston because I live here and know a lot about it, but i'm sure others can state several reasons why their cities were thriving and major players much earlier than what's on your list.
So they were thriving major players but weren't even in the top 100 in the country? Please explain. Perhaps you can tell me where some of the other cities should be placed?
So they were thriving major players but weren't even in the top 100 in the country.
Do a search of the history of some of the cities you listed and you will see what i'm talking about. If being the capital of a nation that included not only the state of Texas but also several other states (present-day New Mexico, Oklahoma, Kansas, Colorado, and Wyoming) does not make a city important than I don't know what does.
Do a search of the history of some of the cities you listed and you will see what i'm talking about.
No, I don't. A city with 2000 people does not constitute a major, important city in a country with 17 million in my view. Sorry. The ages of the cities are relative; the exact date is not even important, but the relative ranking. By your standard, I could put Pittsburgh in with Philadelphia and Baltimore because we had a recognized university before Cincinnati and Washington DC were founded, but I don't; not because I don't think we had some importance in the 1770s, but because Balto and Philad. were picked up as major cities before Pittsburgh.
No, I don't. A city with 2000 people does not constitute a major, important city in a country with 17 million in my view. Sorry. The ages of the cities are relative; the exact date is not even important, but the relative ranking. If I wanted to, I could put Pittsburgh in with Philadelphia and Baltimore because we had a recognized university before Cincinnati and Washington DC were founded, but I don't; not because I don't think we had some importance in the 1770s, but because Balto and Philad. were picked up as major cities before Pittsburgh.
Alright, stand by your list. I just think it would be a better list if you made it your own by setting your own criteria instead of just basing it on the census. We can all go to the census website and view this data. But if you made it interesting by adding your own viewpoint to it then it would be worth debating.
Alright, stand by your list. I just think it would be a better list if you made it your own by setting your own criteria instead of just basing it on the census. We can all go to the census website and view this data. But if you made it interesting by adding your own viewpoint to it then it would be worth debating.
Well, it is partly my own. I rearranged some of the cities, I formed the categories and determined whether or not there seemed to be a legitimate pattern in the census. I therefore determined that this is a more accurate way of defining the relative age of cities than when a city was founded or incorporated. I don't mind you disagreeing 100%, but I just don't see your argument from a population standpoint. Moving Houston to the range of Cleveland and Chicago seems unreasonable to me.
My mistake. I said that the measure of a true cities age is when it is incorporated or founded. I meant to say: the age of a city is not necessarily when it was founded or incorporated. The context should have hinted that my list represents when a particular city showed up on the U.S. Census Bureau.
What about the cities that were not in the the boundaries of the United States? Are you saying that the cities which are now part of the United States but where not part of the United States back in the 1800s were not cities? These cities do not show up in the Census back then because they lie outside the old borders.
By the way, i'm no longer arguing for Houston. It didn't crack 100,000 till after 1900 so I wouldn't exactly call it a city before that time.
Maybe that could be a good basis for when a these places became cities. When the crack a population of 100,000.
What about the cities that were not in the the boundaries of the United States? Are you saying that the cities which are now part of the United States but where not part of the United States back in the 1800s were not cities? These cities do not show up in the Census back then because they lie outside the old borders.
By the way, i'm no longer arguing for Houston. It didn't crack 100,000 till after 1900 so I wouldn't exactly call it a city before that time.
Maybe that could be a good basis for when a these places became cities. When the crack a population of 100,000.
If you can find a major city today that was outside of the U.S. borders that should be included then be my guest. I don't think the 100,000 mark is very good because the U.S. had a lot less people back in the day. If we went with that then the U.S. only had one city from 1630-1840. In 1840 we would have still only had 3 cities. Yet, I think it is hard to argue that Baltimore and Philadelphia weren't major cities before that.
ainulinale--I'm trying to figure out where you are coming from. You said, "Every decade since 1790, the U.S. has produced a census of American cities. I figure such a census can give us insight into when cities emerged. In order to be found on the U.S. census, such a city would have been picked up by the government's radar." I'm not sure what you mean when you say a city needs to be picked up by the government's radar to be in the census, and what you mean by "when cities emerged".
In a later post you mention the census bureau's list of cities by population rank, by decade (or two). Is your point that the true "emergence" (coming of age?) of a city is not its founding date, but the date of the first census when it shows up as one of the US's top 100 cities in population?
I am not criticizing and am not trying to put words in your mouth, I am just trying to understand your point. I think you might be on to something interesting.
ainulinale--I'm trying to figure out where you are coming from. You said, "Every decade since 1790, the U.S. has produced a census of American cities. I figure such a census can give us insight into when cities emerged. In order to be found on the U.S. census, such a city would have been picked up by the government's radar." I'm not sure what you mean when you say a city needs to be picked up by the government's radar to be in the census, and what you mean by "when cities emerged".
In a later post you mention the census bureau's list of cities by population rank, by decade (or two). Is your point that the true "emergence" (coming of age?) of a city is not its founding date, but the date of the first census when it shows up as one of the US's top 100 cities in population?
I am not criticizing and am not trying to put words in your mouth, I am just trying to understand your point. I think you might be on to something interesting.
Yes, I do not believe that the true age of a city is its founding or incorporation. I believe these can be arbitrary dates, much like current city proper figures. For instance, I believe Detroit was founded before Baltimore, yet, I don't think anyone would argue that Detroit is older than B-More. Balto was a bustling, major city in the U.S. in the middle 1700s, while Detroit was a fur trading post. It is my speculation therefore, from the trends that I've seen, that the true age of a city is when it began to gain prominence--it's "coming of age" as you said (though not to be confused with "boom" as Cincy had its boom before NYC). Because let's face it, when Baltimore was one of our biggest cities, and Pittsburgh had its own university, Detroit was simply a fur trading post. Surely, "founding" doesn't measure a city's true age, and "incorporation" can be even worse. Edit: I forgot to answer your first question. I simply find it interesting that cities such as Pittsburgh existed well before 1810. Yet, in 1800, the U.S. Census Bureau measured only 33 cities of which Pittsburgh was not included. 33 is a completely arbitrary number...why would they rank only 33 when there were many more cities out there? My hunch is that the popular conception of such cities was that they were country bumpkin or frontier towns of little importance to the central government--they were not unknown, but under the radar. When they first start popping up on the census, seems to indicate that they were beginnning to gain noteriety (and obviously significant population for that time period).
Yes, I do not believe that the true age of a city is its founding or incorporation. I believe these can be arbitrary dates, much like current city proper figures. For instance, I believe Detroit was founded before Baltimore, yet, I don't think anyone would argue that Detroit is older than B-More. Balto was a bustling, major city in the U.S. in the middle 1700s, while Detroit was a fur trading post. It is my speculation therefore, from the trends that I've seen, that the true age of a city is when it began to gain prominence--it's "coming of age" as you said (though not to be confused with "boom" as Cincy had its boom before NYC). Because let's face it, when Baltimore was one of our biggest cities, and Pittsburgh had its own university, Detroit was simply a fur trading post. Surely, "founding" doesn't measure a city's true age, and "incorporation" can be even worse. Edit: I forgot to answer your first question. I simply find it interesting that cities such as Pittsburgh existed well before 1810. Yet, in 1800, the U.S. Census Bureau measured only 33 cities of which Pittsburgh was not included. 33 is a completely arbitrary number...why would they rank only 33 when there were many more cities out there? My hunch is that the popular conception of such cities was that they were country bumpkin or frontier towns of little importance to the central government--they were not unknown, but under the radar. When they first start popping up on the census, seems to indicate that they were beginnning to gain noteriety (and obviously significant population for that time period).
How about when the population starts to increase at a rapid rate? That seems like it could be a good indicator. Like when a city population doubles in size. Something big and important economically has to be taking place in order for it to do that.
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.
