Metropolitan area populations, 1940

[MolsonExport]

I guess Dallas wasn't big enough to make the top 25 in 1940?

[dave8721]

Originally Posted by Wigs

Comparing 1940 to 2020 city population as % of Metro
*1941/2021 numbers for Canada

The City of Miami went from 44.5% of the MSA population in 1940 to just 7.2% of the MSA population in 2020. The 1940 MSA was just Miami-Dade County (Broward and Palm Beach were separate back then).

[ChiSoxRox]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

I guess Dallas wasn't big enough to make the top 25 in 1940?

Dallas - 376,548
Fort Worth - 207,677

The direct numbers are on Page 56 of the Census Report itself.

[Wigs]

Originally Posted by dave8721

The City of Miami went from 44.5% of the MSA population in 1940 to just 7.2% of the MSA population in 2020. The 1940 MSA was just Miami-Dade County (Broward and Palm Beach were separate back then).

wow! In my opinion the closer to population parity the city and suburbs are, generally the better off the core city is. Hartford for example has probably been considered "left for dead" by the suburbanites.

Miami seems to buck this trend, as development in an area such as Brickell seems to be nonstop. Is Brickell considered the heart of Miami now?

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Wigs

wow! In my opinion the closer to population parity the city and suburbs are, generally the better off the core city is. Hartford for example has probably been considered "left for dead" by the suburbanites.

I don't think Hartford is unusually distressed or decayed. I don't think the theory makes much sense. There are city propers with huge geographies, and the city/region is troubled (see Memphis) are there are city propers with tiny geographies and the city/region is healthy (see SF).

If anything, it might be a (slight) advantage to have extremely small city boundaries, as the desirable regional core will be a large share of the city proper, and the less desirable mid-century middle will be a small share of the city proper. Boston, DC, Seattle, and SF are some of the most prosperous cities. Long-term, I'd rather be a Cincy than an Indy. Modern-day decay is in older sprawl.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Crawford

I don't think Hartford is unusually distressed or decayed. I don't think the theory makes much sense. There are city propers with huge geographies, and the city/region is troubled (see Memphis) are there are city propers with tiny geographies and the city/region is healthy (see SF).

Memphis appears to have a major sprawl problem. The city of Memphis has more than doubled in area since the mid-20th century, which has likely kept the population from cratering, but Memphis had quite an extensive historic core that has been virtually wiped out of existence. The decline of the older sections of the city are likely as bad as the worst of the Rust Belt, if not worse. The Memphis metro has grown consistently, if not rapidly, since the mid-century though, even while the super enlarged city has started to stagnate in population again.

[Wigs]

Originally Posted by Crawford

I don't think Hartford is unusually distressed or decayed. I don't think the theory makes much sense. There are city propers with huge geographies, and the city/region is troubled (see Memphis) are there are city propers with tiny geographies and the city/region is healthy (see SF).

If anything, it might be a (slight) advantage to have extremely small city boundaries, as the desirable regional core will be a large share of the city proper, and the less desirable mid-century middle will be a small share of the city proper. Boston, DC, Seattle, and SF are some of the most prosperous cities. Long-term, I'd rather be a Cincy than an Indy. Modern-day decay is in older sprawl.

I was referring to the power struggle of city vs suburbs in a Metro. NY, Toronto, Montreal all have close to city/suburb population parity and are all doing great on any comprehensive list of metrics that make cities desirable (including great public transportation). The more power the suburbs have, generally the less likely they are to give a crap about the central core.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Wigs

I was referring to the power struggle of city vs suburbs in a Metro. NY, Toronto, Montreal all have close to city/suburb population parity and are all doing great on any comprehensive list of metrics that make cities desirable (including great public transportation). The more power the suburbs have, generally the less likely they are to give a crap about the central core.

Maybe, but just bc you're part of the city proper doesn't mean you care about urban issues. Rob Ford was elected Toronto mayor due to the suburban sprawl vote. He would have never been mayor if Toronto didn't consolidate with suburbs.

In the Bay Area, only 10% of residents live in SF, yet the region has successfully initiated urban-focused projects like BART. Same with DC and METRO. DC might be the U.S. poster child for postwar coordinated regional growth/urbanization. In Indy, half the suburbs are in the city proper, yet there's little regional focus on urban issues.

[Docere]

Top 10 Canadian metro areas, 1941

Montreal 1,145,282
Toronto 909,928
Vancouver 377,447
Winnipeg 299,923
Ottawa 226,290
Quebec 224,756
Hamilton 197,732
Windsor 123,973
Edmonton 97,842
Calgary 93,021

https://www66.statcan.gc.ca/eng/1954...1_p.%20121.pdf

[Wigs]

amazing to compare 1941 with 2021
Canada now has:
Ottawa, Calgary, Edmonton Metros at ~1.5M
Vancouver over 2.6M
Montreal over 4.2M
Toronto over 6.2M

and Winnipeg (~835k), Quebec City (~840k), and Hamilton (~785k) that will probably be over 1M in the next 15 or so years.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...ions_in_Canada

[Centropolis]

but what the fuck pittsburgh? sleeper of sleepers. i always thought of pittsburgh / metro pittsburgh as similar in size to st louis at that pre-war zenith of the midwest/interior but it has OVER HALF A MILLION more people which back then meant a lot more than today.

[dave8721]

Originally Posted by Wigs

wow! In my opinion the closer to population parity the city and suburbs are, generally the better off the core city is. Hartford for example has probably been considered "left for dead" by the suburbanites.

Miami seems to buck this trend, as development in an area such as Brickell seems to be nonstop. Is Brickell considered the heart of Miami now?

Miami is less than 36 square miles. The urban area is 1279 square miles (one of the geographically smallest of the major metros). Miami makes up less than 3% of the land area. Even smaller % of the MSA or CSA.

[bigstick]

The City of Atlanta, 1940, was a relatively dense city of 302, 288 that dominated the metropolitan region of 518, 100.

https://exhibits.library.gsu.edu/sprawling-of-atlanta/

[bigstick]

[QUOTE=Docere;9927970]Metropolitan area populations, 1940 (500,000+)

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 1,214,945
11. Montreal 1,145,282
12. Baltimore 1,046,692
13. Minneapolis 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 634,093
21. Scranton 629,581
22. New Orleans 540,030
23. Houston 510,397
24. Hartford 502,193

Atlanta should be in the 23rd spot. the City of Atlanta was a relatively dense city of 302, 288 that dominated the metropolitan region of 518, 100.

[MolsonExport]

I am still trying to wrap my head around the notion that Scranton was the 21st largest metro in 1940. I guess with Wilkes-Barre...but still. It is a surprise. No Dallas-Fort Worth. No Miami. No Denver. No Seattle.

Big changes in what was/is probably the most mobile country in the world.

[Tuckerman]

It is interesting to see the % of MSA population that is found in the central city as of 2020. While Atlanta has been often characterized as the “Queen of Sprawl” it is notable that its current @ 12% CC to MSA populations is quite similar to many urban areas in 2020. Of course this is complicated by considering land area covered as well as the continuity of built up area. Also notable is that in recent years the population of Atlanta city has been growing. This is in contrast to many older central cities that have significantly lost population in the past few decades. .

[Tuckerman]

Originally Posted by Tuckerman

It is interesting to see the % of MSA population that is found in the central city as of 2020. While Atlanta has been often characterized as the “Queen of Sprawl” it is notable that its current @ 12% CC to MSA populations is quite similar to many urban areas in 2020. Of course this is complicated by considering land area covered as well as the continuity of built up area. Also notable is that in recent years the population of Atlanta city has been growing. This is in contrast to many older central cities that have significantly lost population in the past few decades. .

I should note that depending on whether you use MSA or contiguous urban area the % of Atlanta city to suburban area can be as low as 8-9% which would still leave ATL as still among the most sprawling cities in the US. Nonetheless it is quite clear that the central area of the ATL metro, that is inside and close to the 285 perimeter, is rapidly densifying. From an Atlanta perspective the ITP is the central city and locals refer to whether they live ITP or OTP.

[bigstick]

Originally Posted by Tuckerman

I should note that depending on whether you use MSA or contiguous urban area the % of Atlanta city to suburban area can be as low as 8-9% which would still leave ATL as still among the most sprawling cities in the US. Nonetheless it is quite clear that the central area of the ATL metro, that is inside and close to the 285 perimeter, is rapidly densifying. From an Atlanta perspective the ITP is the central city and locals refer to whether they live ITP or OTP.

Amazing webcam of Midtown ATL.

https://app.oxblue.com/cameras/3abfd...rasfieldgorrie

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Tuckerman

It is interesting to see the % of MSA population that is found in the central city as of 2020. While Atlanta has been often characterized as the “Queen of Sprawl” it is notable that its current @ 12% CC to MSA populations is quite similar to many urban areas in 2020. Of course this is complicated by considering land area covered as well as the continuity of built up area. Also notable is that in recent years the population of Atlanta city has been growing. This is in contrast to many older central cities that have significantly lost population in the past few decades. .

I don't think relative share of sprawl is related to share of city proper in metro. Obviously postwar, auto-oriented sprawl can be present regardless of city boundaries. Atlanta, especially, is a city where city and suburban boundaries are largely meaningless, and the city proper has some of the region's most prominent low density sprawl (wealthy SFH parts of Buckhead/North Atlanta). Driving around there, it isn't at all clear when you're in Atlanta or Dunwoody, to take an example. Some of the older, more walkable parts of Atlanta are in suburbs, such as Decatur.

[Crawford]

Also interesting that Birmingham, not Atlanta, was the largest southern city back around WW2. No doubt the postwar Atlanta growth engine was aided by the "City to Busy to Hate" marketing, while Birmingham was "Bombingham", the major city most resistant to integration, with really prominent violence/hatred.