Great Lakes Cities

[lio45]

Originally Posted by pj3000

Incorporation dates are kinda just political technicalities though (which vary by place). Don’t really reflect a city’s true age.

And if you needed any argument, you'd point out the fact that the current City of Toronto got its charter on January 1, 1998.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by pj3000

Incorporation dates are kinda just political technicalities though (which vary by place). Don’t really reflect a city’s true age.

Yeah, Detroit considers its founding to have occurred in 1701.

[Innsertnamehere]

Toronto was first settled by Europeans in 1793 - likely younger than most American cities. The only reason that happened was loyalists fleeing the east coast after the American Revolution. Prior to the Revolution Ontario was essentially wilderness, with only a few very small settlements closer to Quebec along the St. Lawrence and on the Niagara Peninsula. Settlement didn't really take off until the early 19th century as loyalists left the US to remain in the British Empire.

[deja vu]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

Thanks for those awesome pics of the new U/C freighter!

But just a minor correction here:

The new freighter is being built for the Interlake fleet, but it is being built by Bay Shipbuilding Company (now owned by Italian conglomerate Fincantieri) in Sturgeon Bay.

In any event, it is so freaking cool to see large scale shipbuilding return to the great lakes after so many decades. Let's hope this new freighter is the first of a whole new fleet of freighters built on the great lakes for the great lakes.

Thanks for the correction. The LinkedIn post didn't make mention of Fincantieri, and I forgot that you had (correctly) mentioned it in your original post on the topic.

[bilbao58]

Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere

Toronto was first settled by Europeans in 1793 - likely younger than most American cities. .

Ummmm...no. Likely older than most American cities. Only a small portion of what is now the US existed at that time. We are definitely not just the East Coast.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by pj3000

Incorporation dates are kinda just political technicalities though (which vary by place). Don’t really reflect a city’s true age.

there's definitely a certain degree of ambiguity involved with incorporation dates, but at least for "city" incorporations, they're generally not too terribly far off from when a place transitioned from being a mere frontier outpost village into a more established place of long-term consequence.

it's no coincidence that 6 of the 9 largest great lakes cities were all incorporated as cities within 5 years of each other (1832-1837), with detroit as an early outlier (1815), and milwaukee and hamilton as slight stragglers (1846).

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by bilbao58

Ummmm...no. Likely older than most American cities. Only a small portion of what is now the US existed at that time. We are definitely not just the East Coast.

It's probably correct that Canadian cities were among the later settlements in North America. Windsor is apparently the oldest European settlement in Canada west of Montreal. A lot of cities all over the Lower 48 grew out of settlements that were established prior to the 19th century.

Keep in mind that the British were actually latecomers to colonialism. The oldest European settlements in North America, regardless of present day country, were either settled or conquered by the Spanish, who were in the Americas for over a century before the British landed.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Keep in mind that the British were actually latecomers to colonialism. The oldest European settlements in North America, regardless of present day country, were either settled or conquered by the Spanish, who were in the Americas for over a century before the British landed.

and the great lakes region was first explored (by non-indigenous) by the french in the 17th century, long before the brits arrived on the scene.

i don't think any of the early spanish explorers ever made it that far north.

[deja vu]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

and the great lakes region was first explored by the french, long before the brits arrived on the scene.

i don't think any of the early spanish explorers ever made it that far north.

I just found this - not Great Lakes, but still interesting -

The National Park Service and American Latino Heritage
The Spanish Claim to the Pacific Northwest, 1595-1795

I didn't know that there were Spanish colonial land claims as far north as Washington State and even Vancouver island.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

and the great lakes region was first explored by the french, long before the brits arrived on the scene.

i don't think any of the early spanish explorers ever made it that far north.

Yeah, I don't think so either. The French appear to be the first Europeans that tried to navigate the interior. They explored and claimed the Great Lakes, Gulf Coast, and much of the Mississippi River basin. That's probably why so few of the big interior cities have English names. They're all either derived from French or a native language (French: Detroit, St. Louis, New Orleans, Baton Rouge, Biloxi, Mobile, St. Paul; Native: Chicago, Milwaukee, Minneapolis).

Originally Posted by deja vu

I just found this - not Great Lakes, but still interesting -



I didn't know that there were Spanish colonial land claims as far north as Washington State and even Vancouver island.

That doesn't surprise me. The Spanish were in California before any other Europeans had made it to the west, so it seems highly likely that they went up the entire coast at one point.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

They're all either derived from French or a native language (French: Detroit, St. Louis, New Orleans, Baton Rouge, Biloxi, Mobile, St. Paul; Native: Chicago, Milwaukee, Minneapolis).

and even when derived from indigenous languages, there was often an intermediate french step along the way to english.

"Chicago" is an English derivation of a French derivation, "Checagou", of the indigenous Algonquian word "Shikaakwa"

[bilbao58]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

It's probably correct that Canadian cities were among the later settlements in North America. Windsor is apparently the oldest European settlement in Canada west of Montreal. A lot of cities all over the Lower 48 grew out of settlements that were established prior to the 19th century.

Keep in mind that the British were actually latecomers to colonialism. The oldest European settlements in North America, regardless of present day country, were either settled or conquered by the Spanish, who were in the Americas for over a century before the British landed.

I suppose this all harkens back to earlier comments about the difference between early European settlement roots of cities and the political incorporation of those cities. "Insertnamehere" responded to a comment of mine by stating that most US cities are older than Toronto. I was referring to the 1793 incorporation of the Town of York, Upper Canada, which was the name given by English settlers to an area already known as Toronto. I don't believe most US cities were incorporated before 1793.

[bilbao58]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

and even when derived from indigenous languages, there was often an intermediate french step along the way to english.

"Chicago" is an English derivation of a French derivation, "Checagou", of the indigenous Algonquian word "Shikaakwa"

Those onions were stinky.

[Docere]

1870

Chicago 298,977
Buffalo 117,714
Cleveland 92,829
Detroit 79,577
Milwaukee 71,440
Rochester 62,386
Toronto (1871) 56,092
Toledo 31,584
Hamilton (1871) 26,716

1900

Chicago 1,698,575
Cleveland 381,768
Buffalo 352,787
Detroit 285,704
Milwaukee 285,315
Toronto (1901) 208,040
Rochester 162,608
Toledo 131,822
Hamilton (1901) 52,634

1930

Chicago 3,376,438
Detroit 1,568,662
Cleveland 900,429
Toronto (1931) 631,207
Milwaukee 578,249
Buffalo 573,076
Rochester 328,132
Toledo 290,718
Hamilton (1931) 155,547

[Docere]

1870-1900

Chicago +468%
Toledo +317%
Cleveland +311%
Milwaukee +299%
Toronto +271%
Detroit +259%
Buffalo +200%
Rochester +161%
Hamilton +97%

1900-1930

Detroit +449%
Toronto +203%
Hamilton +195%
Cleveland +136%
Toledo +121%
Milwaukee +103%
Rochester +102%
Chicago +99%
Buffalo +62%

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Docere

1870

Chicago 298,977
Buffalo 117,714
Cleveland 92,829
Detroit 79,577
Milwaukee 71,440
Rochester 62,386
Toronto (1871) 56,092
Toledo 31,584
Hamilton (1871) 26,716

1900

Chicago 1,698,575
Cleveland 381,768
Buffalo 352,787
Detroit 285,704
Milwaukee 285,315
Toronto (1901) 208,040
Rochester 162,608
Toledo 131,822
Hamilton (1901) 52,634

1930

Chicago 3,376,438
Detroit 1,568,662
Cleveland 900,429
Toronto (1931) 631,207
Milwaukee 578,249
Buffalo 573,076
Rochester 328,132
Toledo 290,718
Hamilton (1931) 155,547

I would not have guessed that Toledo was nearly 3x twice the size of Hamilton in 1900, and still almost twice as large in 1930.

i guess i never fully appreciated how much a late-bloomer Hamilton was.


and from where they began:


1840

Rochester 20,191
Buffalo 18,213
Toronto (1841) 14,249
Detroit 9,102
Cleveland 6,071
Chicago 4,470
Hamilton (1841) 3,000*
Milwaukee 1,700*
Toledo 1,222


(*) Milwaukee and Hamilton weren't yet incorporated by 1840, so these rounded figures are likely just rough estimates.

[Docere]

Toronto's trajectory looks rather similar to Rochester's until 1900, but then it begins to take off in the 20th century.

Canada had more emigration than immigration in the late 19th century. Lots of Canadians immigrated to the US until 1930 or so. I think Detroit had more than 100,000 Canadians in 1930.

However in the early 20th century immigration picks up significantly. Still mostly from Britain, but eastern and southern Europe becomes a source of immigration as well (though Toronto doesn't get the mass Slavic immigration that most US Great Lakes cities got, just as it didn't get the German 19th century immigration).

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Docere

(though Toronto doesn't get the mass Slavic immigration that most US Great Lakes cities got, just as it didn't get the German 19th century immigration).

how about the irish in toronto?

they're typically the #2 or #3 euro-ancestry in most great lakes cities i believe.




also interesting to note how close detroit and milwaukee were to each other in both 1870 and 1900.

and then from 1900-1930, henry ford happens and detroit zooms off to the stars while milwaukee has much more modest (but still decent) growth.

[Docere]

Big Irish immigration in the mid-19th century. Pretty much fully melted into the mainstream today. In a city that's 50% foreign born and filled with immigrants from East Asia, South Asia, the Caribbean, the Middle East, Africa...they don't really stand out anymore.

[Doady]

Toronto is young and suburban even by North American standards, even compared to other Great Lakes cities. People often compare Toronto to Chicago, but look at those population numbers from 1930, Toronto is actually more on the level of Cleveland and Milwaukee. Most of Toronto's growth happened in the post-war era, but it seems older and bigger and more urban than it actually is because of continued investment in public transit, especially in its suburbs.

Less suburbanites driving downtown, less demand for parking space downtown, that not only allowed Toronto to preserve what little inner city and downtown it had, but also allowed it to continue to develop and build upon that. TTC had over 1 billion unlinked trips in 2019, GO 79 million, MiWay 57 million, York Region Transit 22 million. Compare that to 27 million for Milwaukee CTS and 33 million for Cleveland RTA. Suburbanization is only a problem for the outskirts of cities, it is a problem for centres of cities as well. If a city has the ridership level of a suburb, it is hard to think about urbanization and building a downtown.