HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #81  
Old Posted Jan 17, 2014, 9:39 PM
babybackribs2314 babybackribs2314 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: UWS, Manhattan
Posts: 1,728
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Dan View Post
that's a shift that has always perplexed me because in the northeast the early colonial seaport powerhouses (NYC, Philly, boston) have maintained their stature for centuries. why did the south flip? why isn't savannah a metro area of 4-5 million people today?
The coastal cities in the South were also devastated in the Civil War, and following events. Savannah burned down, New Orleans saw major economic hardship, and so did Charleston -- which was further damaged by a major earthquake in the late 1800s.

Air conditioning + automobiles have given rise to the major Southern cities of today.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #82  
Old Posted Jan 17, 2014, 9:55 PM
Yuri's Avatar
Yuri Yuri is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 4,478
To make the discussion more international:

Berlin

Berlin by david.bank (www.david-bank.com), on Flickr

vs

Vienna

DSC_2368.jpg di generatorrr, su Flickr

Berlin taking over Vienna as the largest German city. Also very meaningful, as Austria had been for more than three centuries the most important German country in Europe. That shift had huge consequences in the mid XIX century, with the Prussian-Austrian War and the German unification. Berlin's rise mirrors Prussia's rise.

1750
Vienna --- 175,000
Berlin ---- 113,000

1800
Vienna --- 230,000
Berlin ---- 172,000

1840
Vienna --- 469,000
Berlin ---- 323,000

1840
Vienna --- 683,000
Berlin ---- 464,000

1870
Vienna --- 901,000
Berlin ---- 826,000

1880
Vienna --- 1,163,000
Berlin ---- 1,122,000

1890
Berlin ---- 1,579,000
Vienna --- 1,430,000

1900
Berlin ---- 1,889,000
Vienna --- 1,769,000

1920
Berlin ---- 3,879,000
Vienna --- 2,100,000

1939
Berlin ---- 4,347,000
Vienna --- 1,771,000

1951
Berlin ---- 3,356,000
Vienna --- 1,616,000

1961
Berlin ---- 3,253,000
Vienna --- 1,628,000

1971
Berlin ---- 3,173,000
Vienna --- 1,620,000

1981
Berlin ---- 3,051,000
Vienna --- 1,531,000

1991
Berlin ---- 3,446,000
Vienna --- 1,540,000

2001
Berlin ---- 3,388,000
Vienna --- 1,550,000

2011
Berlin ---- 3,326,000
Vienna --- 1,726,000
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #83  
Old Posted Jan 17, 2014, 9:57 PM
iheartthed iheartthed is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: New York
Posts: 9,787
This isn't really a power shift but I just stumbled on something pretty interesting about Detroit and Milwaukee. They were basically twins until the early 20th century when Detroit's population exploded as the auto industry consolidated there.

Census-----Detroit ----- Milwaukee
1850 ----- 21,019 ----- 20,061
1860 ----- 45,619 ----- 45,246
1870 ----- 79,577 ----- 71,440
1880 ----- 116,340 ----- 115,587
1890 ----- 205,877 ----- 204,468
1900 ----- 285,704 ----- 285,315

1910 ----- 465,766 ----- 373,857
1920 ----- 993,678 ----- 457,147
1930 ----- 1,568,662 ----- 578,249
1940 ----- 1,623,452 ----- 587,472
1950 ----- 1,849,568 ----- 637,392
1960 ----- 1,670,144 ----- 741,324
1970 ----- 1,514,063 ----- 717,099
1980 ----- 1,203,368 ----- 636,212
1990 ----- 1,027,974 ----- 628,088
2000 ----- 951,270 ----- 596,974
2010 ----- 713,777 ----- 594,833
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #84  
Old Posted Jan 17, 2014, 10:12 PM
fflint's Avatar
fflint fflint is offline
Triptastic Gen X Snoozer
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 22,207
Never mind
__________________
"You need both a public and a private position." --Hillary Clinton, speaking behind closed doors to the National Multi-Family Housing Council, 2013

Last edited by fflint; Feb 2, 2014 at 11:14 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #85  
Old Posted Jan 17, 2014, 10:18 PM
suburbanite's Avatar
suburbanite suburbanite is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Toronto & NYC
Posts: 5,373
Not as recent as some other examples, but Mumbai quickly grew to India's largest city after it became one of the southern world's most important trading ports under the control of the East India Company. It seems that Delhi's population could surpass that if Mumbai's sometime in the future though.
__________________
Discontented suburbanite since 1994
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #86  
Old Posted Jan 17, 2014, 10:20 PM
Crawford Crawford is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NYC/Polanco, DF
Posts: 30,551
Yeah, Berlin and Vienna don't share that much, besides language.

Austria-Hungary vs. Prussia, Catholic vs. Protestant, Rich vs. Poor, Historic vs. Modern, etc. They look and feel quite different.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #87  
Old Posted Jan 17, 2014, 10:24 PM
Yuri's Avatar
Yuri Yuri is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 4,478
Quote:
Originally Posted by iheartthed View Post
This isn't really a power shift but I just stumbled on something pretty interesting about Detroit and Milwaukee. They were basically twins until the early 20th century when Detroit's population exploded as the auto industry consolidated there.
Funny you've mentioned as today at work I was thinking of make a list tracking the ups and downs of all five Great Lakes metros (Buffalo, Cleveland, Detroit, Chicago and Milwaukee) going back to 1830 when they've started to bloom.

I'll post here as soon it's ready.



Quote:
Originally Posted by fflint View Post
Berlin and Vienna aren't both 'German' cities, although both are German-speaking. There wasn't even a "Germany" for much of the period you're tracking. That said, they do have close ties culturally and linguistically so it's an interesting comparison although a bit unlike the others in this thread.

In a similar vein, it would be interested to see when New York overtook London as the most populous English-speaking city in the world.
Up to late XIXth, Germany was not a country, but meant a region in Europe covered by German-speaking countries. In that sense, Austria was just another German country.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #88  
Old Posted Jan 17, 2014, 10:25 PM
Acajack's Avatar
Acajack Acajack is offline
Unapologetic Occidental
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Province 2, Canadian Empire
Posts: 67,773
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crawford View Post
Yeah, Berlin and Vienna don't share that much, besides language.

Austria-Hungary vs. Prussia, Catholic vs. Protestant, Rich vs. Poor, Historic vs. Modern, etc. They look and feel quite different.
Which is rich and which is poor between Berlin and Vienna?
__________________
Amber alerts welcome at any time
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #89  
Old Posted Jan 17, 2014, 10:26 PM
Crawford Crawford is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NYC/Polanco, DF
Posts: 30,551
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acajack View Post
Which is rich and which is poor between Berlin and Vienna?
Vienna is one of the richest cities in Europe and sits in the richest part of Austria.

Berlin is the poorest major city in Germany, and sits in the poorest region of Germany.

Obviously Berlin is "poor" only for German standards; it's obviously prosperous by global standards, but is notably less prosperous than other German cities and certainly less so than Vienna.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #90  
Old Posted Jan 17, 2014, 10:28 PM
fflint's Avatar
fflint fflint is offline
Triptastic Gen X Snoozer
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 22,207
Never mind
__________________
"You need both a public and a private position." --Hillary Clinton, speaking behind closed doors to the National Multi-Family Housing Council, 2013

Last edited by fflint; Feb 2, 2014 at 11:14 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #91  
Old Posted Jan 17, 2014, 10:29 PM
Yuri's Avatar
Yuri Yuri is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 4,478
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crawford View Post
Yeah, Berlin and Vienna don't share that much, besides language.

Austria-Hungary vs. Prussia, Catholic vs. Protestant, Rich vs. Poor, Historic vs. Modern, etc. They look and feel quite different.
I don't agree at all. Berlin-Vienna shift is on the same league of Rio-São Paulo and Montreal-Toronto.

It completely changed the European map, leading to the German unification under Prussia, not Austria, which had been the most powerful German state for centuries.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #92  
Old Posted Jan 17, 2014, 10:36 PM
Crawford Crawford is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NYC/Polanco, DF
Posts: 30,551
Quote:
Originally Posted by yuriandrade View Post
I don't agree at all. Berlin-Vienna shift is on the same league of Rio-São Paulo and Montreal-Toronto.

It completely changed the European map, leading to the German unification under Prussia, not Austria, which had been the most powerful German state for centuries.
I don't understand the similarities. Again, these are different countries, always, except under WWII. Germany and Austria are quite different culturally.

And you have it reversed. Prussia didn't dominate Central Europe because Berlin grew; Berlin grew because Prussia dominated Central Europe.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #93  
Old Posted Jan 17, 2014, 11:15 PM
Steely Dan's Avatar
Steely Dan Steely Dan is online now
devout Pizzatarian
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Lincoln Square, Chicago
Posts: 29,634
Quote:
Originally Posted by iheartthed View Post
This isn't really a power shift but I just stumbled on something pretty interesting about Detroit and Milwaukee. They were basically twins until the early 20th century when Detroit's population exploded as the auto industry consolidated there.

Census-----Detroit ----- Milwaukee
1850 ----- 21,019 ----- 20,061
1860 ----- 45,619 ----- 45,246
1870 ----- 79,577 ----- 71,440
1880 ----- 116,340 ----- 115,587
1890 ----- 205,877 ----- 204,468
1900 ----- 285,704 ----- 285,315

1910 ----- 465,766 ----- 373,857
1920 ----- 993,678 ----- 457,147
1930 ----- 1,568,662 ----- 578,249
1940 ----- 1,623,452 ----- 587,472
1950 ----- 1,849,568 ----- 637,392
1960 ----- 1,670,144 ----- 741,324
1970 ----- 1,514,063 ----- 717,099
1980 ----- 1,203,368 ----- 636,212
1990 ----- 1,027,974 ----- 628,088
2000 ----- 951,270 ----- 596,974
2010 ----- 713,777 ----- 594,833
what's also interesting is that the census bureau is now estimating that milwaukee (city proper) is growing again, ever so slightly, and that detroit (city proper) is continuing it's population free-fall.

if milwaukee (city proper) creeps back up to around 605,000 and detroit (city proper) experiences another 20+ % drop* this decade, they will swtich places by 2020.

(*) but i hope to god detroit doesn't see another drop like that. dear lord, please let detroit bottom out at around 650,000 or so.
__________________
"Missing middle" housing can be a great middle ground for many middle class families.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #94  
Old Posted Jan 17, 2014, 11:18 PM
Crawford Crawford is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NYC/Polanco, DF
Posts: 30,551
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Dan View Post
what's also interesting is that the census bureau is now estimating that milwaukee is growing again, ever so slightly, and that detroit is continuing it's population free-fall.
Yeah, but these are city propers, so not really equivalent. Metro Detroit is growing, and the city proper is a tiny proportion of the metro. In contrast, Milwaukee city is a big proportion of the metro.

And Detroit city proper population loss has been very slight since 2010, if you believe the Census estimates. There has been a dramatic slowdown in population loss.

And overall, they are not really that comparable, since Detroit is almost three times the size.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #95  
Old Posted Jan 17, 2014, 11:26 PM
Steely Dan's Avatar
Steely Dan Steely Dan is online now
devout Pizzatarian
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Lincoln Square, Chicago
Posts: 29,634
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crawford View Post
And Detroit city proper population loss has been very slight since 2010, if you believe the Census estimates. There has been a dramatic slowdown in population loss.
i hope the census bureau is correct. SEMCOG has their 2013 city population estimate down at 681,090, a loss of 32,700, or 4.6%, in just the 3 years since census 2010. that's not good, if true.

is there a reason why SEMCOG would be so far off base from the census bureau estimate?
__________________
"Missing middle" housing can be a great middle ground for many middle class families.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #96  
Old Posted Jan 18, 2014, 12:45 AM
softee's Avatar
softee softee is online now
Aimless Wanderer
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Downtown Toronto
Posts: 3,392
Buffalo and Toronto is another case where two neighbouring cities pulled a major switcharoo.
__________________
Public transit is the lifeblood of every healthy city.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #97  
Old Posted Jan 18, 2014, 4:01 AM
atlantaguy's Avatar
atlantaguy atlantaguy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Area code 404
Posts: 3,333
Quote:
Originally Posted by babybackribs2314 View Post
The coastal cities in the South were also devastated in the Civil War, and following events. Savannah burned down, New Orleans saw major economic hardship, and so did Charleston -- which was further damaged by a major earthquake in the late 1800s.

Air conditioning + automobiles have given rise to the major Southern cities of today.
Sorry babybackribs2314, but you are way off here.

Savannah has never burned down. After General Sherman's infamous 'March to the Sea' after destroying Atlanta, he and his 62,000 troops arrived in Savannah and captured the City in December of 1864. Overwhelmed by the beauty of the City, he presented it as a Christmas present to President Lincoln.

Atlanta had already established itself as a major manufacturing center by the Civil War, due to the railroads. Hence it's destruction. Post war, Atlanta quickly rebuilt and aggressively courted Northern investment. It paid off, and Atlanta passed Savannah in population in 1880. By 1895 Atlanta actually hosted the Worlds Fair of the day, the Cotton States and International Exposition (on the site of present day Piedmont Park). Atlanta was never a part of the plantation, crop growing South.

It continued to grow and prosper pre-automobile, becoming a regional hub with all that entails - a dense business district, a comprehensive streetcar network, etc. Growth has always been an industry here, especially since WWII.

While air conditioning and the automobile did change the growth of the South, that is a hugely oversimplified and frankly, inaccurate statement. Places like Phoenix benefitted from those two things way more than this corner of the South ever did. The South is not monolithic. It is a huge and very diverse region.

Some people tend to forget that Atlanta is over 1,000 feet above sea level. It has been colder here several days this week than D.C. or New York.

Last edited by atlantaguy; Jan 18, 2014 at 4:14 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #98  
Old Posted Jan 18, 2014, 5:37 AM
LMich's Avatar
LMich LMich is offline
Midwest Moderator - Editor
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Big Mitten
Posts: 31,745
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Dan View Post
i hope the census bureau is correct. SEMCOG has their 2013 city population estimate down at 681,090, a loss of 32,700, or 4.6%, in just the 3 years since census 2010. that's not good, if true.

is there a reason why SEMCOG would be so far off base from the census bureau estimate?
SEMCOG's numbers are probably closer to the truth (the Census still seems to be underestimating the city's loss, and understating the suburban growth), but a 4.6% loss over three years would still be a dramatic annual slowdown in the rate of loss from the 2.5% annual loss for the '00-'10 decade. Not only that, but SEMCOG has shown a slowdown in the rate of lost every reporting period since the Census.

Point is that both the Census and SEMCOG are showing a bottoming out of the loss, finally, which is notable since the estimates didn't agree on the trend, last decade. It's entirely possible given the trajectory as of late that Detroit could post a high single-digit percentage loss by decades end, as it's entirely possible that Detroit could actually post very modest net growths later in the decade for the first time in many, many years. Planning agencies seem to be picking up on something real, this time.
__________________
Where the trees are the right height
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #99  
Old Posted Jan 18, 2014, 6:23 AM
niwell's Avatar
niwell niwell is online now
sick transit, gloria
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Roncesvalles, Toronto
Posts: 11,025
Quote:
Originally Posted by softee View Post
Buffalo and Toronto is another case where two neighbouring cities pulled a major switcharoo.
That's a good one! Those cities were neck and neck for dominance of either side of Lake Ontario for some time. Then Buffalo plateaued (or tanked). Toronto continued to boom.

Buffalo still has more impressive older buildings for the most part. Save a few like Commerce Court and the Royal York.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #100  
Old Posted Jan 18, 2014, 1:15 PM
Yuri's Avatar
Yuri Yuri is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 4,478
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crawford View Post
I don't understand the similarities. Again, these are different countries, always, except under WWII. Germany and Austria are quite different culturally.

And you have it reversed. Prussia didn't dominate Central Europe because Berlin grew; Berlin grew because Prussia dominated Central Europe.
It's clearly a shift of power on the German world, from Vienna to Berlin.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 2:21 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.