Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Mikejesmike

All time 20 largest cities in the United States

27 posts in this topic

Just in case anyone forgot, according to the census bureau-

1-New York-8,008,278

2-Los Angeles-3,694,820

3-Chicago-3,620,962

4-Philadelphia-2,071,605

5-Houston-1,953,631

6-Detroit-1,849,568

7-Phoenix-1,321,045

8-San Diego-1,223,400

9-Dallas-1,188,580

10-San Antonio-1,144,646

11-Baltimore-949,708

12-Cleveland-914,808

13-San Jose-894,943

14-St. Louis-856,796

15-Washington-802,178

16-Boston-801,444

17-Indianapolis-791,926

18-San Francisco-776,773

19-Milwaukee-741,324

20-Jacksonville-735,617

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


You forgot Brooklyn, NY which had 806,343 in 1890.

Here's how they ranked as far as density:

1. New York - 26,430

2. Chicago - 17,408

3. Boston - 16,697

4. San Francisco - 16,526

5. Philadelphia - 16,312

6. St. Louis - 14,046

7. Detroit - 13,211

8. Washington - 13,150

9. Cleveland - 12,197

10. Baltimore - 12,022

11. Milwaukee - 8,146

12. Los Angeles - 7,878

13. San Jose - 5,114

14. San Diego - 3,776

15. Dallas - 3,465

16. Houston - 3,374

17. San Antonio - 2,806

18. Phoenix - 2,781

19. Indianapolis - 2,194

20. Jacksonville - 970

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's laughable that Jacksonville is on that list. 700 sq. miles, of course it has over 700k people!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You forgot Brooklyn, NY which had 806,343 in 1890.

Since when is Brooklyn it's own city. Is it no longer a borough of New York City?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since when is Brooklyn it's own city. Is it no longer a borough of New York City?

Until 1898 it was its own city.

In the censuses of 1860, 1870, 1880 it was #3 in the nation, and in 1890 it was #4.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are 2 reasons why I didn't include Brooklyn.

1-This only applies to cities that still exist.

2-I'm only counting peaks. Brooklyn as a city may have had 806,343, but the county peaked at 2,738,000.

As for Jacksonville-it's not as sprawling as you think despite it's density rating-most development is by the river. It would be like thinking because New Orleans at it's peak had a density rating similar to Dallas that both cities would both have a suburban feel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is a lot of the land in Jacksonville's boundaries undeveloped or open?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

what are the updated census numbers for those cities today?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Just in case anyone forgot, according to the census bureau-
Nice list. I added the census year each reached its peak.

                   Peak    Peak

City Population Year

1 New York 8,008,278 2000

2 Los Angeles 3,694,820 2000

3 Chicago 3,620,962 1950

4 Philadelphia 2,071,605 1950

5 Houston 1,953,631 2000

6 Detroit 1,849,568 1950

7 Phoenix 1,321,045 2000

8 San Diego 1,223,400 2000

9 Dallas 1,188,580 2000

10 San Antonio 1,144,646 2000

11 Baltimore 949,708 1950

12 Cleveland 914,808 1950

13 San Jose 894,943 2000

14 St. Louis 856,796 1950

15 Washington 802,178 1950

16 Boston 801,444 1950

17 Indianapolis 791,926 2000

18 San Francisco 776,773 2000

19 Milwaukee 741,324 1960

20 Jacksonville 735,617 2000

Interestingly enough, eight of these cities reached their peak in 1950.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

what are the updated census numbers for those cities today?
                   Peak       2000

City Population Population Change

1 New York 8,008,278 - same -

2 Los Angeles 3,694,820 - same -

3 Chicago 3,620,962 2,896,016 -724,946 -20.0%

4 Philadelphia 2,071,605 1,517,550 -554,055 -26.7%

5 Houston 1,953,631 - same -

6 Detroit 1,849,568 951,270 -898,298 -48.6%

7 Phoenix 1,321,045 - same -

8 San Diego 1,223,400 - same -

9 Dallas 1,188,580 - same -

10 San Antonio 1,144,646 - same -

11 Baltimore 949,708 651,154 -298,554 -31.4%

12 Cleveland 914,808 478,403 -436,405 -47.7%

13 San Jose 894,943 - same -

14 St. Louis 856,796 348,189 -508,607 -59.4%

15 Washington 802,178 572,059 -230,119 -28.7%

16 Boston 801,444 598,141 -203,303 -25.4%

17 Indianapolis 791,926 - same -

18 San Francisco 776,773 - same -

19 Milwaukee 741,324 596,974 -144,350 -19.5%

20 Jacksonville 735,617 - same -

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is a lot of the land in Jacksonville's boundaries undeveloped or open?

Yes, in fact Jacksonville's urban area is about 2.5 times as dense as it's average city density.

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&q=ja...2,0.266418&om=0

Look at the map in the link and if you scroll around you'll see by the street lines what's developed and what isn't. If the streets are in a tightly wound area then it's developed. If you see a few criss crossing then it's pretty much undeveloped. Click once to zoom in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't realize it but according to that list Detroit has lost more people than any other US city, ever. New York had the highest 10 year loss from 1970-1980, but Detroit's total loss from it's peak is higher than any other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interestingly enough, eight of these cities reached the peak in 1950.

Most cities reached their peak in 1950 or after, except for some venerable cities largely in OH, NY, PA, & WV that never reached their pre-Depression peaks in 1930 again...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cities that were considered big in the 1800's tended to peak between 1930-1960. These city are often contrasted with the biggest today by being more urban than the suburban feel of today's largest.

The reason I assume 1950 was the peak year is because men came home from World War II, all they really wanted was to get married and have 3-4 kids. The economy was much better than it was in the 1930's and they were able to buy a more upscale house in the suburbs, I think it was the GI bill that helped that along. So I think the declines from 1950-1960 were more about wanting more for less-more house for less or the same amount as the city house. 1960-1970 decline was more about race, and the increasing crime rate. 1970- 1980 was more about forced busing and increasing crime. 1980-2000 is more about people thinking that unless you live in the suburbs then you really haven't made it. It's become the American ideal, but I think that's starting to change. Especially for those trapped in the suburbs during the 1970's and 1980's when the outer suburbs were forming, making suburban life even more suburban and dreary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I didn't realize it but according to that list Detroit has lost more people than any other US city, ever. New York had the highest 10 year loss from 1970-1980, but Detroit's total loss from it's peak is higher than any other.
And look at St. Louis' drop. Although not the largest drop, St. Louis' current size is probably less than 40% of its all-time high.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


It's laughable that Jacksonville is on that list. 700 sq. miles, of course it has over 700k people!
Anchorage has 260,283 people within 1,697.2 square miles. (Even more extreme, Juneau has 30,711 people within 2,716.7 square miles and Sitka has 8,835 people within 2,874.0 square miles. For Sitka, that's a staggering population density of 3.1 people per square mile! :rofl: )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anchorage has 260,283 people within 1,697.2 square miles. (Even more extreme, Juneau has 30,711 people within 2,716.7 square miles and Sitka has 8,835 people within 2,874.0 square miles. For Sitka, that's a staggering population density of 3.1 people per square mile! :rofl: )

Anchorage is another one. It's average density is 153 per sq mile. However the part where most live is 2,863 per sq mile where 225,744 people live. If Anchorage had this density there would be 4,859,084 people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And look at St. Louis' drop. Although not the largest drop, St. Louis' current size is probably less than 40% of its all-time high.

New York and Pennsylvania have the the most extreme situations. For example, Johnstown PA once had nearly 70,000 people, but now it's about to fall below 25,000.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cities that were considered big in the 1800's tended to peak between 1930-1960. These city are often contrasted with the biggest today by being more urban than the suburban feel of today's largest.

The reason I assume 1950 was the peak year is because men came home from World War II, all they really wanted was to get married and have 3-4 kids. The economy was much better than it was in the 1930's and they were able to buy a more upscale house in the suburbs, I think it was the GI bill that helped that along. So I think the declines from 1950-1960 were more about wanting more for less-more house for less or the same amount as the city house. 1960-1970 decline was more about race, and the increasing crime rate. 1970- 1980 was more about forced busing and increasing crime. 1980-2000 is more about people thinking that unless you live in the suburbs then you really haven't made it. It's become the American ideal, but I think that's starting to change. Especially for those trapped in the suburbs during the 1970's and 1980's when the outer suburbs were forming, making suburban life even more suburban and dreary.

Yep...the 1950s was the first decade of suburbanization. If you look at city and county populations, as recently as 1950, Chicago and its innermost suburbs comprised some 80% of Cook County's population, and the rest of the county and the collar counties were still small and rural.

................... 2000 1950

Chicago city 2,896,016 3,620,962

Cook County 5,376,822 4,508,792

DuPage County 904,152 154,599

Lake County 644,620 179,097

Will County 502,267 134,336

Kane County 404,120 150,388

McHenry County 260,062 50,656

Not sure the suburbs are becoming dreary so much as the inner ring of them is becoming almost inner-city-like. People are moving ever further away from the city center to get the suburban feel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think short of war or catastrophic disaster, St Louis has lost a higher percentage of it's population than any other major city on Earth in modern times. I don't know of any other that compares.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think short of war or catastrophic disaster, St Louis has lost a higher percentage of it's population than any other major city on Earth in modern times. I don't know of any other that compares.

If you define a major city as, say, more than a quarter million residents, I'd have to agree.

Now, New Orleans population has fallen from approximately 450,000a year ago to somwhere less than 200,000 today (behind Baton Rouge and Shreveport), but that would qualify as a catastrophic disaster.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep...the 1950s was the first decade of suburbanization. If you look at city and county populations, as recently as 1950, Chicago and its innermost suburbs comprised some 80% of Cook County's population, and the rest of the county and the collar counties were still small and rural.

................... 2000 1950

Chicago city 2,896,016 3,620,962

Cook County 5,376,822 4,508,792

DuPage County 904,152 154,599

Lake County 644,620 179,097

Will County 502,267 134,336

Kane County 404,120 150,388

McHenry County 260,062 50,656

Not sure the suburbs are becoming dreary so much as the inner ring of them is becoming almost inner-city-like. People are moving ever further away from the city center to get the suburban feel.

Well they are just going to keep building and building further out until there's no room. It's just as possible for those nice sprawling outer ring suburbs to turn into a ghetto in 40 years. Cleveland (Cuyahoga County) is notorious for this. Out of the whole county there are literally about 3 cities that are growing, the county is still losing population but they still keep building houses for those that want to move from an inner ring suburb. The quality of life in the inner ring suburbs is pretty good,except for East Cleveland which is the worst city in the county. So the suburbs are still pretty much a nice place to live like they were when they first started to grow, but East Cleveland is proof that even an upscale older suburb can turn into a complete ghetto overtime. So it's not like people living in Parma, Brook Park, Lakewood, and Rocky River are escaping an crime ridden inner city. The only thing I can figure is people want more and more land to live on.

The real estate is horrible too. Like I said the population is dropping but houses are still being built. My parents bought a house in one of the cities that were growing. After 6 years they decided to sell, the house was appraised around $350-384,000. It was bought for $294,000-this was with no landscaping and only 2 other houses on the entire street, it was just a house on a dirt filled lot. When it went on the market the neighborhood was built up and thriving with tons of kids running around playing. After they put it up, I told my mom it would be a long time before it sells, she of course laughed it off and said sure it will soon. It finally did sell after 2 years on the market, countless families coming in to look around and the price slashed down to either $310 or $318,000. This is a huge contrast from when we lived in Pleasanton California. Our house was literally on the market for 2 hours before someone bought it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My parent built a home in 1989 in a Chicago suburb that, at the time, was at the outer edge of the sprawl. The total cost was 185k. Now, nearly two decades later, they are no longer at the edge of suburban development, but the suburb they are is quite upscale and affluent, and their house was recently appraised at over 600k.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can tell you fully that Detroits population loss goes far beyond the text book answers of Race, and the decline of the auto industry. If this were true, you'd catagorically see a decline in the state of Michigan entire population. Truth is Michigan, while seeing a stagnant growth has never lost residents during a census period. It's peak population was in 00, and it continues to gain residents to this day. If you look at Metro Detroits population from the 1950's on, it has nearly doubled in size, while the city itself has withered away. No Detroits decline is almost purely political. If it hasn't been deadlocked politically with it's suburbs, then it's surely, the do nothing leadership, that figured it Detroits problems would fix themselves, 60+ years of this, and you have the current state of what was once one of Americas most grand cities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think short of war or catastrophic disaster, St Louis has lost a higher percentage of it's population than any other major city on Earth in modern times. I don't know of any other that compares.

Pittsburgh is right behind St Louis and Detroit. Pittsburgh has lost over 50% of it's population since the mid 20th century. The city peaked around 700,000, but is down to around 320,000 now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.