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.
New York City's post-Civil War to 1950 population growth was amazing, but what you posted above is missing one key thing.
In 1860, New York City was just Manhattan and the city was a total of 23 square miles (give or take).
By 1898 the Bronx, Brooklyn, Queens and Staten Island had all been annexed into the city of New York and the city was a total of 303 square miles.
This is why their population went from 800,000 to 3.5 million from 1860 to 1900.
In contrast, had New York City remained confined to it's pre-consolidation area, it would have been 1.8 million in 1900 and peaked at 2.3 million in 1910. Today, it's population would be 1.6 million.
NYC is the most extreme example, but all of the big Northeast cities did a lot of annexing in their 1800-1920 histories: Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, Boston, Chicago, Detroit all expanded rather rapidly, until they were either boxed in by other municipalities, or the states started banning annexations.
NYC is the most extreme example, but all of the big Northeast cities did a lot of annexing in their 1800-1920 histories: Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, Boston, Chicago, Detroit all expanded rather rapidly, until they were either boxed in by other municipalities, or the states started banning annexations.
Yes and no, the annexation was on a much smaller scale then what has taken place in the Sunbelt, and when many did annex they combined areas that were already highly populated and cohesively developed already.
For Example Philly annexed Northern Liberties, Spring Garden (North Philly), and Southwark (now South Philly) when all were among the 10 largest cities in the US
For example 1820-1850 - 3 of the top ten in what is Philly now, at one point all 4 of these were on the list that are now part of Philly
They were developed and populated, much different from more recent annexations
And if you go from 1860 forward there has be zero land added - Philadelphia went from 500K to 2.1 milion in 90 years
I still like Orlando but within the last 10 years it has became way too congested for the infastructure. It is also too "cookie cutter" for me and has no natural beauty.
I agree with the guy who said it is like a bland Las Vegas.
Yes and no, the annexation was on a much smaller scale then what has taken place in the Sunbelt, and when many did annex they combined areas that were already highly populated and cohesively developed already.
For Example Philly annexed Northern Liberties, Spring Garden (North Philly), and Southwark (now South Philly) when all were among the 10 largest cities in the US
For example 1820-1850 - 3 of the top ten in what is Philly now, at one point all 4 of these were on the list that are now part of Philly
They were developed and populated, much different from more recent annexations
And if you go from 1860 forward there has be zero land added - Philadelphia went from 500K to 2.1 milion in 90 years
When Pittsburgh annexed Allegheny (today's North Side), all the rich people who lived in Allegheny greased some palms in the Pennsylvania State Legislature in exchange for reforming the laws on government annexation. This is part of why Pennsylvania has so damn much government fragmentation at the local level, because it's been damn near impossible to annex for about the last 100 years.
Location: Cleveland bound with MPLS in the rear-view
5,509 posts, read 11,875,397 times
Reputation: 2501
I'd say some cities like Phoenix and Las Vegas are/were growing too fast to sustain themselves (It's not just my opinion but I do tend to agree). Both seem more like places to retire or live in "paradise" and have less infrastructure and resources (tangible or intangible) than the population can serve, and problems ensue. I do realize that both cities do have plenty going for them and plenty of jobs and industry, however a major reason both grew so fast was to sustain the growth industry, in other words, a perpetual cycle. It's like chasing your shadow. I don't know if things will equilibriate or not, but I am not surprised both cities are getting hit HARD by the recession and major adjustments are being made to real estate prices. This seems different to me than other growth centers like the historic Chicago or the modern-day Dallas, Houston or Atlanta, because in those instances they all have an abundance of jobs AND employment growth.
Jacksonville is a pretty decent example. The city grew 165% in the 1960s. I'm not sure if it was by annexation or by rapid growth, but it is a city that is over 800 sq miles...
Jacksonville is a pretty decent example. The city grew 165% in the 1960s. I'm not sure if it was by annexation or by rapid growth, but it is a city that is over 800 sq miles...
It was due to annexation, as the Jacksonville city limits are the same as the Duval County limits.
Most Florida cities.... along with Houston, Dallas, Phoenix...Charlotte, etc....
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.
