[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

actually, cleveland (city proper) experienced its first decade of population loss in the 1930s. chicago (city proper) didn't experience its first decade of population loss until the 1950s, just like the vast majority of the other industrial rust belt cities.

when you look at things at the metro level, your argument that chicago was the first to stagnate/decline in population becomes even weaker, as the data shows metro areas like pittsburgh, detroit, and cleveland stagnated/declined earlier than chicago. in fact metro chicago has never experienced a single decade of population decline, ever, unlike those other metro areas. now, chicagoland's growth in the 70s/80s was indeed quite anemic, but at least it was still positive growth.

Well, my point was that Chicago was never really thought of as much of a threat to take over New York as the nation's largest city. It's been a century since Chicago's growth rate was high enough for the thought to even enter someone's mind.