The growth of the sunbelt

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Yuri

We don't need to be limited to 1 million people urban areas. A 300k urban area back in 1950 was a very important urban centre.

There's nothing like Atlanta and Birmingham both being major and similar sized urban centers in 1950 and now one 6x larger than the other. We don't have this anywhere outside the US. In no other country people move so often as in the US. It's not even close.

Australia, Canada and (White) South Africa are the most similar countries in terms of urban morphology and even though they had some "laggers" (Winnipeg, Adelaide, Port Elizabeth), there's only a very gradual change on urban hierarchy not a completely redrawing.

Or we can talk about Brazil or Soviet Union/Russia, other big/empty continental countries like the US, or Britain, France, Belgium, Germany, places that experienced decline of old industrial heartlands. Some cities grows a bit faster, other a bit slower, but that's it.

The US will still have the most large cities even if you draw the line at 300k. Most cities means higher probability that some cities grow faster and some slower. There is really no parallel to the situation of the United States from the mid to late 20th century.

Also, US cities all mostly thrive off of immigration. Phoenix didn't grow at the expense of Detroit. You're not going to find a ton of communities in Phoenix of people that once lived in Detroit (except maybe retirement communities). What Phoenix did benefit from was immigration from Mexico. Phoenix was 81% white non-Hispanic in 1970, and 42% white non-Hispanic in 2020. The city of Phoenix was 13% Latino in 1970 and 42% Latino in 2020. Phoenix's white NH population grew by 205,817 and the city's Latino population grew by 611,208 between 1970 and 2020. There is obviously a very good reason why Latino immigration would favor Phoenix over Detroit, and that reason is very unique to the situation of the United States.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

The US will still have the most large cities even if you draw the line at 300k. Most cities means higher probability that some cities grow faster and some slower. There is really no parallel to the situation of the United States from the mid to late 20th century.

Also, US cities all mostly thrive off of immigration. Phoenix didn't grow at the expense of Detroit. You're not going to find a ton of communities in Phoenix of people that once lived in Detroit (except maybe retirement communities). What Phoenix did benefit from was immigration from Mexico. Phoenix was 81% white non-Hispanic in 1970, and 42% white non-Hispanic in 2020. The city of Phoenix was 13% Latino in 1970 and 42% Latino in 2020. Phoenix's white NH population grew by 205,817 and the city's Latino population grew by 611,208 between 1970 and 2020. There is obviously a very good reason why Latino immigration would favor Phoenix over Detroit, and that reason is very unique to the situation of the United States.

One place growing at the expense of another doesn't necessarily imply people moving from place A to place B. It can just as easily mean people from other places moving B instead of A when they would have moved to place A if B hadn't been more attractive in some way. That doesn't imply that everyone moving to place B would have otherwise moved to A. Just that some of them would have. And even a small difference in growth rates can compound over years and decades.

So if Phoenix out competed Detroit for (some) immigrants, then it did indeed grow at Detroit's expense.

[Docere]

115 US and Canadian metros ranked, ca 1940:

1. New York 11,690,520
2. Chicago 4,499,126
3. Los Angeles 2,904,596
4. Philadelphia 2,898,644
5. Boston 2,350,514
6. Detroit 2,295,867
7. Pittsburgh 1,994,060
8. San Francisco 1,428,525
9. St. Louis 1,367,977
10. Cleveland 1,214,943
11. Montreal 1,145,282
12. Baltimore 1,046,692
13. Minneapolis-St. Paul 911,077
14. Toronto 909,928
15. Washington 907,816
16. Buffalo 857,719
17. Milwaukee 790,336
18. Cincinnati 789,309
19. Providence 711,500
20. Kansas City 634,693
21. Scranton-Wilkes Barre 629,581
22. New Orleans 540,030
23. Houston 510,397
24. Hartford 502,193
25. Indianapolis 455,397
26. Seattle 452,639
27. Atlanta 442,294
28. Louisville 434,308
29. Albany-Schenectady 431,575
30. Rochester 411,970
31. Birmingham 407,851
32. Portland 406,406
33. Springfield, Mass. 394,623
34. Denver 384,372
35. Vancouver 377,447
36. Dallas 376,548
37. Youngstown 373,428
38. Columbus 365,796
39. Akron 349,705
40. Toledo 341,663
41. Haverhill-Lawrence-Lowell 334,969
42. Memphis 332,477
43. Norfolk 330,396
44. Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton 325,142
45. San Antonio 319,010
46. New Haven 308,228
47. Worcester 306,194
48. Winnipeg 299,923
49. Omaha 287,698
50. Fall River-New Bedford 272,648
51. Dayton 271,512
52. Syracuse 258,353
53. San Diego 256,368
54. Miami 250,537
55. Richmond 245,674
56. Nashville 241,769
57. Ottawa 226,290
58. Quebec 224,756
59. Oklahoma City 221,229
60. Bridgeport 216,621
61. Grand Rapids 209,873
62. Tampa-St. Petersburg 209,693
63. Fort Worth 207,677
64. Salt Lake City 204,488
65. Canton 200,352
66. Trenton 200,128
67. Hamilton 197,732
68. Utica 197,128
69. Wheeling 196,340
70. Jacksonville 193,619
71. Chattanooga 193,213
72. Wilmington 188,974
73. Tulsa 188,564
74. Flint 188,554
75. Des Moines 183,974
76. Reading 175,355
77. Davenport-Rock Island-Moline 174,995
78. Harrisburg 173,367
80. Huntington 170,979
81. Peoria 162,566
82. Sacramento 158,999
83. Duluth-Superior 157,099
84. Tacoma 156,018
85. Bay City-Saginaw 153,388
86. Knoxville 151,829
87. Johnstown 151,871
88. South Bend 147,022
89. Binghamton 145,156
90. Waterbury 144,822
91. Evansville 141,614
92. Spokane 141,370
93. Beaumont-Port Arthur 138,608
94. Charleston, W. Va. 136,332
95. Kenosha-Racine 135,075
96. Fort Wayne 134,385
97. Erie 134,039
98. Lancaster 132,027
99. San Jose 129,362
100. Wichita 127,308
101. Little Rock 126,724
102. Windsor 123,973
103. Phoenix 121,828
104. Savannah 117,970
105. El Paso 115,801
106. Mobile 114,906
107. Altoona 114,094
108. Charlotte 112,986
109. Hamilton-Middletown 112,696
110. Austin 106,193
111. Atlantic City 100,096
112. Charleston, S.C. 98,711
113. Edmonton 97,842
114. Fresno 97,504
115. Calgary 93,021

[Docere]

Looking at the list above, half of the US top 10 were rust belt cities.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

One place growing at the expense of another doesn't necessarily imply people moving from place A to place B. It can just as easily mean people from other places moving B instead of A when they would have moved to place A if B hadn't been more attractive in some way. That doesn't imply that everyone moving to place B would have otherwise moved to A. Just that some of them would have. And even a small difference in growth rates can compound over years and decades.

So if Phoenix out competed Detroit for (some) immigrants, then it did indeed grow at Detroit's expense.

Detroit couldn't physically move itself to a more favorable location. And if it wasn't Phoenix there are thousands of other towns in the United States that are closer than Detroit to Mexico and Central America.

I think we're discounting too much how American immigrant patterns are historically tied to geographic convenience. Detroit's 20th century population growth was fed by immigration/migration from roughly three places: Europe, the southern United States, and to a much lesser extent, the Middle East. When you think of it in that context then doesn't it also make sense that as immigration from those geographies tapered off Detroit would also stop growing rapidly?

Likewise, the growth of the American southwest and west coast was fueled by immigration from both Asia (particular east Asia), Mexico and Central America. Those were the biggest sources of migration to the United States for much of the era since WW2. Doesn't it make geographical sense that migrations from those places was mostly directed to the closest ports of entries?

Phoenix did not overtake Detroit in size because of domestic migration patterns. It overtook Detroit because of immigration. I think we're skewing the picture of what really happened with growth patterns in the United States when we focus too much on "internal migration".

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by wwmiv

Given the continued evolution of the European Union, I’d include them as a single unit as well. Most scholars do still consider the EU a sui generis institution, but many are also now recognizing that it has evolved into a single federal structure in all but name (e.g. it is becoming the equivalent of the US, India, Brazil, Mexico, etc.).

I wouldn't for these purposes. The EU doesn't have a unified policy on immigration. As long as they are not EU citizens, each individual EU state can control who is and is not allowed in their borders. US states cannot do that.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Detroit couldn't physically move itself to a more favorable location. And if it wasn't Phoenix there are thousands of other towns in the United States that are closer than Detroit to Mexico and Central America.

I think we're discounting too much how American immigrant patterns are historically tied to geographic convenience. Detroit's 20th century population growth was fed by immigration/migration from roughly three places: Europe, the southern United States, and to a much lesser extent, the Middle East. When you think of it in that context then doesn't it also make sense that as immigration from those geographies tapered off Detroit would also stop growing rapidly?

Likewise, the growth of the American southwest and west coast was fueled by immigration from both Asia (particular east Asia), Mexico and Central America. Those were the biggest sources of migration to the United States for much of the era since WW2. Doesn't it make geographical sense that migrations from those places was mostly directed to the closest ports of entries?

Phoenix did not overtake Detroit in size because of domestic migration patterns. It overtook Detroit because of immigration. I think we're skewing the picture of what really happened with growth patterns in the United States when we focus too much on "internal migration".

Yes absolutely. As various changes happened that gave Phoenix an advantage over Detroit, it makes perfect sense that Phoenix would grow at Detroit's expense. I'm not sure what the dispute is since no one is claiming that it doesn't make sense.

[Crawford]

Wow, no one talks about Denver growth, but Denver was basically Akron in 1940. And Denver doesn't have great weather or huge benefit from AC (but it does have tons of sunshine, which might be enough).

[craigs]

Metro Detroit has almost the same population that it had in 1970. Claiming that is solely or even primarily because of its geographic location is a cop-out. Minneapolis-St. Paul is also far from the Mexican border, has even colder winters, and yet has grown significantly since 1970.

[Wigs]

Originally Posted by craigs

Metro Detroit has almost the same population that it had in 1970. Claiming that is solely or even primarily because of its geographic location is a cop-out. Minneapolis-St. Paul is also far from the Mexican border, has even colder winters, and yet has grown significantly since 1970.

Only by 1.6 million people!
Meanwhile Detroit's MSA has declined by 39,000 as the gargantuan CSA area grows and sprawls ever further away from Detroit's core. The Detroit CSA is larger in area than Connecticut

[Crawford]

Weather definitely plays a role in Detroit's relative stagnation, but I don't think anyone would seriously argue it plays a defining, or even major, role. It's a region built upon brawn and the economy has shifted to brains.

[craigs]

Originally Posted by Wigs

Only by 1.6 million people!

Right, but that represents a 77% growth in the population of the M-SP MSA (same for the CSA) between 1970 and 2020. Compare that with Detroit: between 1970 and the 2020 census, its MSA population declined -0.89% and its CSA grew by a paltry 1.5%.

[Crawford]

Whites in Michigan frequently have long-ago origins in Ontario, especially Ontario farming communities. I grew up with a lot of families that had some odd acreage in rural Ontario, or maybe a Georgian Bay/Lake Huron cottage.

I'm guessing the migration declined as borders hardened, income gaps narrowed and union jobs dwindled. Over time, migration shifted towards Toronto or regional centers like London.

[Wigs]

Originally Posted by craigs

Right, but that represents a 77% growth in the population of the M-SP MSA (same for the CSA) between 1970 and 2020. Compare that with Detroit: between 1970 and the 2020 census, its MSA population declined -0.89% and its CSA grew by a paltry 1.5%.

Only 77%
For my frame of reference, the Buffalo MSA is under 1.2 million total, so 1.6 million growth is huge!

[Docere]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Whites in Michigan frequently have long-ago origins in Ontario, especially Ontario farming communities. I grew up with a lot of families that had some odd acreage in rural Ontario, or maybe a Georgian Bay/Lake Huron cottage.

I'm guessing the migration declined as borders hardened, income gaps narrowed and union jobs dwindled. Over time, migration shifted towards Toronto or regional centers like London.

In 1900 8% of the population of Michigan was Canadian-born. In 1930 half a million Michigan residents were of Canadian birth or parentage.

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by Docere

115 US and Canadian metros ranked, ca 1940:

1. New York 11,690,520
2. Chicago 4,499,126
3. Los Angeles 2,904,596
4. Philadelphia 2,898,644
5. Boston 2,350,514
6. Detroit 2,295,867
7. Pittsburgh 1,994,060
8. San Francisco 1,428,525
9. St. Louis 1,367,977
10. Cleveland 1,214,943
11. Montreal 1,145,282
12. Baltimore 1,046,692
13. Minneapolis-St. Paul 911,077
14. Toronto 909,928
15. Washington 907,816
16. Buffalo 857,719
17. Milwaukee 790,336
18. Cincinnati 789,309
19. Providence 711,500
20. Kansas City 634,693
21. Scranton-Wilkes Barre 629,581
22. New Orleans 540,030
23. Houston 510,397
24. Hartford 502,193
25. Indianapolis 455,397
26. Seattle 452,639
27. Atlanta 442,294
28. Louisville 434,308
29. Albany-Schenectady 431,575
30. Rochester 411,970
31. Birmingham 407,851
32. Portland 406,406
33. Springfield, Mass. 394,623
34. Denver 384,372
35. Vancouver 377,447
36. Dallas 376,548
37. Youngstown 373,428
38. Columbus 365,796
39. Akron 349,705
40. Toledo 341,663
41. Haverhill-Lawrence-Lowell 334,969
42. Memphis 332,477
43. Norfolk 330,396
44. Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton 325,142
45. San Antonio 319,010
46. New Haven 308,228
47. Worcester 306,194
48. Winnipeg 299,923
49. Omaha 287,698
50. Fall River-New Bedford 272,648
51. Dayton 271,512
52. Syracuse 258,353
53. San Diego 256,368
54. Miami 250,537
55. Richmond 245,674
56. Nashville 241,769
57. Ottawa 226,290
58. Quebec 224,756
59. Oklahoma City 221,229
60. Bridgeport 216,621
61. Grand Rapids 209,873
62. Tampa-St. Petersburg 209,693
63. Fort Worth 207,677
64. Salt Lake City 204,488
65. Canton 200,352
66. Trenton 200,128
67. Hamilton 197,732
68. Utica 197,128
69. Wheeling 196,340
70. Jacksonville 193,619
71. Chattanooga 193,213
72. Wilmington 188,974
73. Tulsa 188,564
74. Flint 188,554
75. Des Moines 183,974
76. Reading 175,355
77. Davenport-Rock Island-Moline 174,995
78. Harrisburg 173,367
80. Huntington 170,979
81. Peoria 162,566
82. Sacramento 158,999
83. Duluth-Superior 157,099
84. Tacoma 156,018
85. Bay City-Saginaw 153,388
86. Knoxville 151,829
87. Johnstown 151,871
88. South Bend 147,022
89. Binghamton 145,156
90. Waterbury 144,822
91. Evansville 141,614
92. Spokane 141,370
93. Beaumont-Port Arthur 138,608
94. Charleston, W. Va. 136,332
95. Kenosha-Racine 135,075
96. Fort Wayne 134,385
97. Erie 134,039
98. Lancaster 132,027
99. San Jose 129,362
100. Wichita 127,308
101. Little Rock 126,724
102. Windsor 123,973
103. Phoenix 121,828
104. Savannah 117,970
105. El Paso 115,801
106. Mobile 114,906
107. Altoona 114,094
108. Charlotte 112,986
109. Hamilton-Middletown 112,696
110. Austin 106,193
111. Atlantic City 100,096
112. Charleston, S.C. 98,711
113. Edmonton 97,842
114. Fresno 97,504
115. Calgary 93,021

The 1930-1940 recorded lowest population growth ever. Only the 2010-2020 came below that. Depression ended immigration and made the births plunged.

However we’ve seen some trends that would remain for the next several decades. Los Angeles kept growing very fast and it was the start of Washington’s rise. For over a century the US capital was a sleepy town, much smaller than the neighboring Baltimore. In the 1930’s it jumped from 600k to 900k.

[Wigs]

Interesting how Metros around 500,000 and up must have all felt like big cities in 1940, but in 2020 that's barely the 107th largest Metro/MSA.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metropolitan_statistical_area

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

Well of course not, but geography alone is not the sole determinant of these things, as the now giant share of latinos (predominately Mexicans) in nearby Chicagoland demonstrates.

Geography is not the sole determinant but it is a major factor. It is not a mere coincidence that the majority of the Hispanic population in this country live within a day's drive of the Mexican border.



source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_Hispanic_and_Latino_population

Also, Chicago was the second largest city and metro in the nation in 1950. In the second half of the 20th century Los Angeles blew past Chicago in population and that was fueled by and large part the growth of the Hispanic immigrant population in Southern California.

The Census Bureau didn't start tracking Hispanic as a category until 1970, but by then Los Angeles County and Cook County were the two most populous counties in the country (and they still are today). LA County was just 28% larger than Cook in 1970, but between 1970 and 2020 LA County added three times the Hispanic population that Cook added (3,757,469 in LA vs 1,190,486 in Cook). However, both counties lost non-Hispanic whites over that same period and Cook performed FAR better at retaining non-Hispanic whites than Los Angeles (loss of 2,429,178 or 52% in LA County vs 1,380,105 or 39% in Cook). Without major growth from non-white categories Los Angeles County's growth would have looked like Cook County's over the past half century, if not worse.

I guess we can say that Los Angeles benefited "at the expense" of Chicago. But I personally don't like that terminology because it suggests that Los Angeles doesn't have innate logistical advantages for attracting Hispanic immigrants over Chicago.

[Docere]

L.A. became the second largest metro in 1960 (6.7 million), surpassing Chicago (6.2 million). Prior to the 1960s, most of the population increase in L.A. came from internal migration.

[Wigs]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

I had a Mexican American friend from Monterrey, Mexico whose Dad had dual citizenship via family settling in Chicago. My friend grew up in Mexico but he and his Mom settled in Houston after his folks split when he was in his late teens.

I asked him if he was mad about history and how much Mexican territory was taken by USA by force and he said "No man, there's no bad blood. We are recolonizing our land, this time as Americans"

And I always thought that was a great and funny outlook.