The US Census Bureau thread

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

^Yuri's project reminds me of a thread I created a few years back showing the biggest urban growth spurts for U.S. cities, but it was only for the central city. New York City, Chicago, Los Angeles, and Detroit are the only U.S. cities to have ever added more than 500k in population within a decade.

From that thread:



https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=254469

More than city talk, I love history and depending on my mood in a given day, I keep focusing on different time periods.

Your thread shows one of the most fascinating times for urban expansion, specially in the US. I'd say 1870-1970 is the Golden Age where you see American greatest cities to shine. For Europe, I guess it's more 1820-1939, for developing countries, from 1950-2000 and for Sub Saharan Africa 1990-.

Before Industrial Revolution, population growth, urban and general, was very slow so it's a bit boring and registers more sparse, but sometimes it's nice to check this period too.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Yuri

More than city talk, I love history and depending on my mood in a given day, I keep focusing on different time periods.

Your thread shows one of the most fascinating times for urban expansion, specially in the US. I'd say 1870-1970 is the Golden Age where you see American greatest cities to shine. For Europe, I guess it's more 1820-1939, for developing countries, from 1950-2000 and for Sub Saharan Africa 1990-.

Before Industrial Revolution, population growth, urban and general, was very slow so it's a bit boring and registers more sparse, but sometimes it's nice to check this period too.

Yeah, I might say the U.S.'s urban Golden Age ended in 1950 or 1960. We just forgot how to build real cities after the 1950s.

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Yeah, I might say the U.S.'s urban Golden Age ended in 1950 or 1960. We just forgot how to build real cities after the 1950s.

Yeah, I mentioned 1970 thinking on metro areas. The big Northern cities were still growing fast, but at this point, with lots of suburban sprawl.

[Steely Dan]

Chicago, growing from an absolute nothing-burger little frontier trading-post village of a couple dozen families ekeing out a very tenuous existence in the marshy forgettableness at the mouth of the Chicago River in 1830, to becoming the 2nd largest city a mere 7 decades later, in what would become the planet's most powerful nation in the 20th century, is one of the most remarkable tales of lightspeed urban growth ever told.


The cool and selfish part for me: my oldest Chicago ancestors came here from Germany in the early 1850s, so me and my kin are just about as "Chicago" as anyone can get in an ancestral sense.

I don't "get" to raise my family's 7th generation of Chicagoans in Chicago.

I simply HAVE to!!!

#familyobligation

[mhays]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Yeah, I might say the U.S.'s urban Golden Age ended in 1950 or 1960. We just forgot how to build real cities after the 1950s.

I'd say the 1920s for many cities.

Other new ones more like 2019. Several big cities are bigger and denser than ever in 2026, and we're most of the way there in 2019. Office districts peaked in 2019.

Cities declined in the 1930s due to the Depression, then during WWII due to disinvestment (except war production). Pollution was far more obvious in the air and water. Streetcars were long gone by mid-century. The GI bill and redlining continued that disinvestment when the war ended.

Some now-declined cities were still growing on the 1950s, but that wasn't generally due to vibrant and growing core districts.

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by mhays

I'd say the 1920s for many cities.

Other new ones more like 2019. Several big cities are bigger and denser than ever in 2026, and we're most of the way there in 2019. Office districts peaked in 2019.

Cities declined in the 1930s due to the Depression, then during WWII due to disinvestment (except war production). Pollution was far more obvious in the air and water. Streetcars were long gone by mid-century. The GI bill and redlining continued that disinvestment when the war ended.

Some now-declined cities were still growing on the 1950s, but that wasn't generally due to vibrant and growing core districts.

Even the 1920s were a weird, transitional period, because in areas where land was plentiful, proto-suburbia was in full force. You had detached single-family homes with driveways and often garages, in largely single-use residential areas where walkable amenities were beginning to recede. It's just that in the big cities like NYC, Philly, DC, etc. there was enough land scarcity that things like townhouses (and even apartment blocks, in the case of NYC) continued to be built in high numbers as well.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by mhays

I'd say the 1920s for many cities.

Other new ones more like 2019. Several big cities are bigger and denser than ever in 2026, and we're most of the way there in 2019. Office districts peaked in 2019.

Cities declined in the 1930s due to the Depression, then during WWII due to disinvestment (except war production). Pollution was far more obvious in the air and water. Streetcars were long gone by mid-century. The GI bill and redlining continued that disinvestment when the war ended.

Some now-declined cities were still growing on the 1950s, but that wasn't generally due to vibrant and growing core districts.

I can see that. Growth was slowing in many of the northern industrial cities by the 1920s. Some cities experienced their first population declines in the 1930s (Boston, Cleveland, Philadelphia, St. Louis). I chose the 1950s because it is clear in hindsight that the show was over by then for all of the prewar cities. Every major northern industrial city went into population decline in either the 1950s or 1960s.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by eschaton

Even the 1920s were a weird, transitional period, because in areas where land was plentiful, proto-suburbia was in full force. You had detached single-family homes with driveways and often garages, in largely single-use residential areas where walkable amenities were beginning to recede. It's just that in the big cities like NYC, Philly, DC, etc. there was enough land scarcity that things like townhouses (and even apartment blocks, in the case of NYC) continued to be built in high numbers as well.

Yeah, the wind was definitely starting to change back in the 1920s. In Chicago's case, the city experienced an almost unfathomable expansion of the bungalow belt during that decade. I dont know exactly how many square miles of new bungalow belt were laid out and built in the 20s, but it's in the dozens.

However, scads of new 2/3/6-flats and courtyard apartment building were also still being built across the city at that same time, along with larger apartment buildings along the north lakefront.

My own 3-flat was built in 1920.

Definitely transitional.

At the start of the decade very few middle class people owned a car. By the end of the decade, A LOT of them did.

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

I can see that. Growth was slowing in many of the northern industrial cities by the 1920s. Some cities experienced their first population declines in the 1930s (Boston, Cleveland, Philadelphia, St. Louis). I chose the 1950s because it is clear in hindsight that the show was over by then for all of the prewar cities. Every major northern industrial city went into population decline in either the 1950s or 1960s.

I think that generally speaking, the cities that grew in the 1930s and 1940s only did so because they still had undeveloped land within city limits, with growth concentrated at the urban fringes in structurally suburban neighborhood.

You really need to dig to find it, but looking at the inner core of most old urban cities, they were declining in population from 1900 onward.

[craigs]

Originally Posted by eschaton

You really need to dig to find it, but looking at the inner core of most old urban cities, they were declining in population from 1900 onward.

I could be wrong, but that might have been a result of local governments passing and enforcing health and safety laws for tenements and other overcrowded buildings, which often housed new immigrants.

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

The cool and selfish part for me: my oldest Chicago ancestors came here from Germany in the early 1850s, so me and my kin are just about as "Chicago" as anyone can get in an ancestral sense.

I don't "get" to raise my family's 7th generation of Chicagoans in Chicago.

I simply HAVE to!!!

#familyobligation

That's amazing, specially in a country like the US where people move as often as changing underwear. Congrats!

And tell your children they must stay in Chicago.

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by craigs

I could be wrong, but that might have been a result of local governments passing and enforcing health and safety laws for tenements and other overcrowded buildings, which often housed new immigrants.

Some of it was that. Some of it was the expansion of non-residential uses in the core, like office buildings and much larger factory complexes. But a large portion was that the electric streetcar meant for the first time, large masses of people could live in a different neighborhood than they worked, which meant that crowded, multi-generational housing began thinning out.

[mhays]

Two more huge factors:

First, birth rates declined heavily during the Depression and WWII. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data-visualization/natality-trends/index.htm Births per 1,000 women aged 15-44 declined from 126.8 in 1909 to 76.3 in 1933. That's despite a small boom in postwar 1921. The rate never fully recovered. Even the peak in 1947 was 113.3 and the bigger postwar peak was in 1957 at 122.9. (It's now in the 50s.)

Second, immigration was cut in half in the late 1920s, then fell to just about nothing in the 1930s and 1940s. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_the_United_States

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Yuri

That's amazing, specially in a country like the US where people move as often as changing underwear. Congrats!

Yeah, my family is a bit out of step with the American value of always chasing opportunity.

A little story about my dad:

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

A little while ago having dinner with my parents, my dad relayed the story of how he almost took a job transfer to Terre Haute, IN because the company he worked for at the time wanted him to head up their regional office down there.

I was three years old at the time and have no memory of this, but it apparently went as far as my mom and dad going down there to house-hunt and such.

But in the end, thank God, my dad was just too much of a hopeless Chicagoan. Even though it would've been a good opportunity to ladder climb and make more money, he declined it because, in my father's words:

"I ultimately didn't want to uproot our family and completely reinvent our lives for some more money. My parents lived in Chicago, 4 of my 5 siblings and all of their kids lived in Chicago, all my lifelong friends lived in Chicago, your mom's whole family lived in Chicago, why the hell would I want to give all of that up? Just for a little more money? After thinking about it, it didn't make any sense to me. And plenty of other opportunities eventually came my way by staying in Chicago anyway."


I didn't fall very far from the apple tree.

Give me Chicago, or give me death!

Sometimes it's both.

Originally Posted by Yuri

And tell your children they must stay in Chicago.

From my experience, telling a child that they "must" do something often directly results in them doing the exact opposite.

It's definitely a soft-power situation. I often remind them of how special and lucky they are to be 7th generation Chicagoans.

And while it'd be cool if one or both of them kept our family's chicago torch lit, once they become adults, their lives will be theirs to live, not mine.

[Crawford]

For the northern cities, urban cores were prolly already declining by the mid-1950's or so. It just took a while to become a crisis. The immediate period after WW2 was a final surge of urban prosperity.

I remember reading a study of downtown Detroit retail, and I think 1954 was the peak year for downtown retail sales. It was already low-key worrisome by 1960 or so, when they started kinda desperate promotions like "Downtown Detroit Days". It didn't get "holy 🞵🞵🞵🞵" bad till about 1970. The last downtown department store didn't close till 1983. The downtown retail district didn't disappear until the late 1990's.

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by Crawford

For the northern cities, urban cores were prolly already declining by the mid-1950's or so. It just took a while to become a crisis. The immediate period after WW2 was a final surge of urban prosperity.

I remember reading a study of downtown Detroit retail, and I think 1954 was the peak year for downtown retail sales. It was already low-key worrisome by 1960 or so, when they started kinda desperate promotions like "Downtown Detroit Days". It didn't get "holy 🞵🞵🞵🞵" bad till about 1970. The last downtown department store didn't close till 1983. The downtown retail district didn't disappear until the late 1990's.

And now things are returning. I follow to Instagram accounts focused on Detroit pics, mostly Downtown, and it's so many things going on there.

[Wigs]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

And then there's Winterpeg.

Which makes Minneapolis look like Miami.

Originally Posted by JManc

Yeah, Canadians from the Prairies are just built different.

I was in Winnipeg once in January (another time in summer--it was so lovely with nice tree lined streets!). I parked behind the hotel downtown and the key card wouldn't work to enter the hotel it was so cold. I had to walk around the entire building in Siberian feeling climate to go through the main entrance.

Me: "It's so freaking cold, the key card won't work"
Hotel clerk: "Yeah, we've had an exceptionally cold period"
Me: "This is Winnipeg aka Winterpeg right hah"
Hotel clerk: "Yes, but even for us this week is really really cold!"
It was around -35C/-31F, colder with windchill

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by eschaton

I think that generally speaking, the cities that grew in the 1930s and 1940s only did so because they still had undeveloped land within city limits, with growth concentrated at the urban fringes in structurally suburban neighborhood.

You really need to dig to find it, but looking at the inner core of most old urban cities, they were declining in population from 1900 onward.

Yeah, this is how Detroit continued to grow its population after 1920. And even Manhattan peaked in population in 1910. Manhattan lost nearly 500k in population between 1910 and 1930.

[MolsonExport]

that early century population loss was no great tragedy

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

that early century population loss was no great tragedy

I know Manhattan was considered slummy and overcrowded then but it might have mattered more if Manhattan had still been its own city. But this occurred over a decade after the amalgamation so growth in the outer boroughs obscured the population drops in Manhattan. While Manhattan lost almost half a million between 1910 and 1930, Brooklyn gained over 900k, while the Bronx and Queens gained about 800k each. Staten Island only grew by about 70k, which was practically a rounding error compared to the enormous population growth happening in the other outer boroughs.