Your metro's suburbia before WWII
For Toronto.
Toronto had stopped annexations before WWI. In the 1920s, raw growth of the suburban municipalities began to match that of the city proper. The City of Toronto south of St. Clair Ave. was pretty much built out by 1920. North Toronto, the last early 20th century annexation (1912) filled up in the 1920s, and the City (35 square miles) was pretty much built out by 1930. 1921 City of Toronto 521,893 Suburban municipalities 89,550 Metro total 611,443 In city 85.4% 1931 City of Toronto 631,207 Suburban municipalities 187,141 Metro total 818,348 In city 77.1% 1941 City of Toronto 667,457 Suburban municipalities 242,471 Metro total 909,928 In city 73.3% https://southofbloorstreet.blogspot....ropolitan.html In 1920, York Township (population 57,448) surrounded the city to the north, northeast and west and contained the majority of the suburban population. The southern part was urbanizing while northern parts were rural. Etobicoke Township 10,443 Leaside 325 Mimico 3,751 New Toronto 20,682 Scarborough Township 11,746 Weston 3,116 York Township 57,448 In the 1920s, several new communities were incorporated, mostly out of York Township. The more rural North York was split off from the urbanized south around Eglinton Avenue (Cedarvale, Oakwood, Mount Dennis etc.). East York to the northeast was split off as well. Forest Hill and Swansea were incorporated in the 1920s. A third western lakeshore suburb, Long Branch, was also incorporated. By 1930, there were 13 municipalities in the Toronto metropolitan area. They all joined the Metropolitan Toronto federation in 1953, and the map held out until 1967: https://www.researchgate.net/figure/...fig2_228354503 1931 population East York Township 36,080 Etobicoke Township 13,769 Forest Hill 5,207 Leaside 938 Long Branch 3,962 Mimico 6,800 New Toronto 7,146 Scarborough Township 20,682 Swansea 5,031 Weston 4,723 York Township 69,593 One interesting to note is that the "favored quarter" North Toronto ended up in the city, while the working class fringe was left out. York and East York, which suffered enormously in the depression applied for annexation in the 1930s, but were turned down. There's also a change in the 1930s and 1940s. Before 1930, the suburbs were actually more blue collar than the city. But in the 1930s and 1940s, affluent Forest Hill, Leaside and the Kingsway area of Etobicoke grew significantly and by 1951, the city was more blue collar. 1941 population East York Township 41,021 Etobicoke Township 18,973 Forest Hill 11,757 Leaside 6,183 Long Branch 5,172 Mimico 8,070 New Toronto 9,504 North York Township 22,908 Scarborough Township 24,303 Swansea 6,988 Weston 5,740 York Township 81,052 |
Here is the 1940 United States Census reports. For each state, the reports have a detailed breakdown of individual "metropolitan districts."
The Chicago metropolitan district starts on page 82 of the section with Illinois. 1940 definitions: Chicago metro: 4,499,126 https://i.imgur.com/szgPz4B.png The 1940 definition combined incorporated places and townships, including most -- but not all -- of Cook County, the eastern half of DuPage County, the SE third of Lake County, IL up to Waukegan, and the urban cluster in Lake County, IN. Top municipalities in metro Chicago, 1940: Chicago, 3,396,808 Gary, 111,719 Hammond, 70,184 Oak Park, 66,015 Evanston, 65,389 Cicero, 64,712 East Chicago, 54,637 Berwyn, 48,451 Waukegan, 34,241 Maywood, 26,648 Chicago Heights, 22,461 Harvey, 17,878 Wilmette, 17,226 Blue Island, 16,638 Elmhurst, 15,458 Highland Park, 14,476 Selected others: Downers Grove, 9,526 Wheaton, 7,389 Niles Center, 7,172 (renamed Skokie that year) Lake Forest, 6,885 Naperville, 5,272 Steger, 3,369 Lemont, 2,557 Wheeling, 550 |
^ I always kinda "forget" what a relative beast NW Indiana was pre-war.
In 1940, Lake County, IN already had 293,195 people, making it by far the largest collar county of Cook. The other main collar counties (Dupage, Lake (IL), Will, and Kane) we're all between 100K -130K in 1940 (Mchenry was still HARDCORE corn country in 1940 and certainly wasn't a "collar county" at the time). But what's even more remarkable is that 246,847 of Lake County, IN's people were located in just Gary, Hammond, East Chicago & Whiting in the top 5th of the county. The southern 80% of the county was still all cornfields sprinkled with a few small towns. Those GIANT steel mills and their myriad associated industrial plants were the realest fucking deal back in the day when most men actually had to go out and "work" work, not just slowly melt their eyeballs staring into a computer screen for 8+ hours a day as they desk-jockey the decades away. It's also interesting that the CB included Waukegan in the metro area back then, but not the other significant satellite ring cities of Elgin, Aurora, and Joliet, all of whom were a similar distance from the loop and had solid commuter rail connections to the city by then, just as Waukegan. I wish the CB still used finer-grained townships to define metro areas instead of their extremely clumsy county-based definitions. |
So I guess you have your mix of "blue collar residential suburbs that are extension of the city" (Cicero, Berwyn), white collar residential suburbs that are extensions of the city" (Oak Park, Evanston), executive suburbs (Wilmette, Winnetka) and industrial satellites (Chicago Heights, Gary, Waukegan).
|
1900 ‘Metropolitan Districts’
Census Bureau first defined a ‘metropolitan district’ in 1910 as a city over 200,000 and all urban minor civil districts (townships, etc.) within roughly 10 miles of that city. They construct an identical measure for cities between 100,000 and 200,000 without calling this latter list ‘metropolitan.’ For both lists, the Census Bureau also published the vintage 1900 numbers for sake of comparison. I have collated them below into a single list, and set a minimum total population threshold of 100,000 for inclusion (Portland, Seattle, and Spokane are thusly dropped, and won’t be above that number for another decade). Italics are core cities which are smaller than their collection of surrounding towns. 1. New York City: 4,607,804 City: 3,437,202 Surroundings: 1,170,602 (includes Jersey City and Newark) 2. Chicago: 1,837,987 City: 1,608,575 Surroundings: 139,412 3. Philadelphia: 1,623,149 City: 1,293,697 Surroundings: 329,452 4. Boston: 1,249,504 City: 560,892 Surroundings: 688,612 5. Pittsburgh: 792,968 City: 451,512 Surroundings: 341,456 6. St. Louis: 649,711 City: 575,238 Surroundings: 74,473 7. Baltimore: 577,670 City: 508,957 Surroundings: 68,713 8. Cincinnati: 495,979 City: 325,902 Surroundings: 170,077 9. San Francisco-Oakland: 473,073 San Francisco: 342,782 Oakland: 66,960 Surroundings: 63,331 10. Cleveland: 420,020 City: 381,768 Surroundings: 38,252 ————— 11. Buffalo: 394,031 City: 352,387 Surroundings: 41,644 12. Minneapolis-St. Paul: 372,009 Minneapolis: 202,718 St. Paul: 163,065 Surroundings: 6,226 13. Detroit: 318,967 City: 285,704 Surroundings: 33,263 14. Milwaukee: 324,963 City: 285,315 Surroundings: 39,648 15. Providence: 306,110 City: 175,597 Surroundings: 130,513 16. Washington, D.C. 305,684 City: 278,718 Surroundings: 26,966 17. Albany: 297,094 City: 94,151 Surroundings: 202,943 18. New Orleans: 294,615 City: 287,104 Surroundings: 7,511 19. Louisville: 259,856 City: 204,731 Surroundings: 55,125 ————— 20. Lowell: 238,246 City: 94,969 Surroundings: 143,277 21. Scranton: 235,039 City: 102,026 Surroundings: 184,671 22. Kansas City: 228,235 KCMO: 163,752 KCKS: 51,148 Surroundings: 13,065 23. Fall River: 226,231 City: 104,863 Surroundings: 121,868 24. Worcester: 194,653 City: 118,421 Surroundings: 76,232 25. Rochester: 185,409 City: 162,608 Surroundings: 22,801 26. New Haven: 182,315 City: 108,027 Surroundings: 76,232 27. Omaha: 175,133 City: 102,555 Surroundings: 72,578 28. Indianapolis: 173,632 City: 169,164 Surroundings: 4,468 29. Columbus: 164,460 City: 125,560 Surroundings: 38,900 ————— 30. Toledo: 164,198 City: 131,822 Surroundings: 32,376 31. Syracuse: 150,853 City: 108,374 Surroundings: 42,479 32. Atlanta: 141,023 City: 89,872 Surroundings: 51,151 33. Memphis: 137,462 City: 102,320 Surroundings: 35,142 34. Denver: 135,809 City: 133,859 Surroundings: 1,950 35. Dayton: 130,917 City: 85,333 Surroundings: 45,584 36. Birmingham: 129,131 City: 38,415 Surroundings: 90,716 37. Nashville: 124,642 City: 85,333 Surroundings: 43,777 38. Los Angeles: 123,062 City: 102,479 Surroundings: 20,583 39. Richmond: 119,645 City: 85,050 Surroundings: 34,595 ————— 40. Bridgeport: 116,117 City: 70,996 Surroundings: 45,121 41. Grand Rapids: 114,808 City: 87,565 Surroundings: 27,333 ————— Source: https://www.loc.gov/resource/gdcmass...1,0.319,0.47,0 |
1910 ‘Metropolitan Districts’
I have collated the 1910 numbers below into a single list. Green indicates a positive rank change or growth rate over the national average (21%) in this decade, red indicates negative growth (or negative rank change, but only if there was also negative growth). Italics are metropolitan districts where the suburbs are larger than the core city. New entries are in bold. 1. New York City: 6,474,568 City: 4,766,883 Surroundings: 1,707,685 2. Chicago: 2,446,921 City: 2,185,283 Surroundings: 261,538 3. Philadelphia: 1,972,342 City: 1,549,008 Surroundings: 423,334 4. Boston: 1,520,470 City: 670,585 Surroundings: 849,885 5. Pittsburgh: 1,042,855 City: 533,905 Surroundings: 508,950 6. St. Louis: 828,733 City: 687,029 Surroundings: 141,704 7. San Francisco-Oakland: 686,873 San Francisco: 416,912 Oakland: 150,174 Surroundings: 119,787 8. Baltimore: 658,715 City: 558,485 Surroundings: 100,230 9. Cleveland: 613,270 City: 560,663 Surroundings: 38,252 10. Cincinnati: 563,804 City: 363,591 Surroundings: 200,213 ————— 11. Minneapolis-St. Paul: 526,226 Minneapolis: 301,408 St. Paul: 214,744 Surroundings: 10,104 12. Detroit: 500,982 City: 465,766 Surroundings: 35,216 13. Buffalo: 488,661 City: 423,715 Surroundings: 64,946 14. Los Angeles: 438,226 City: 319,198 Surroundings: 119,028 Los Angeles jumped 15 places… essentially a new entry. 15. Milwaukee: 427,175 City: 373,857 Surroundings: 53,318 16. Providence: 395,972 City: 224,326 Surroundings: 171,646 17. Washington, D.C. 367,869 City: 331,069 Surroundings: 36,800 18. Albany: 349,846 City: 100,253 Surroundings: 249,583 19. New Orleans: 348,109 City: 339,075 Surroundings: 9,034 ————— 20. Kansas City: 340,446 KCMO: 248,381 KCKS: 82,331 Surroundings: 9,734 (likely due to annexations into one of the two KCs) 21. Scranton: 314,538 City: 119,295 Surroundings: 184,671 22. Louisville: 286,158 City: 223,928 Surroundings: 62,230 23. Fall River: 284,938 City: 119,295 Surroundings: 165,643 24. Lowell: 283,741 City: 106,294 Surroundings: 177,447 25. Rochester: 248,512 City: 218,149 Surroundings: 30,363 26. Seattle: 239,269 City: 237,194 Surroundings: 2,075 27. Indianapolis: 237,783 City: 233,650 Surroundings: 4,133 (likely due to annexations) 28. New Haven: 224,901 City: 133,605 Surroundings: 91,296 29. Worcester: 222,732 City: 145,986 Surroundings: 76,746 ————— 30. Columbus: 221,567 City: 181,511 Surroundings: 40,056 31. Denver: 219,314 City: 213,381 Surroundings: 5,933 32. Portland: 215,048 City: 207,214 Surroundings: 7,834 33. Birmingham: 211,961 City: 132,685 Surroundings: 79,276 (city merger) 34. Atlanta: 208,284 City: 154,839 Surroundings: 53,445 35. Omaha: 206,749 City: 124,096 Surroundings: 82,653 36. Toledo: 203,748 City: 168,497 Surroundings: 35,251 37. Syracuse: 183,462 City: 137,249 Surroundings: 46,213 38. Memphis: 175,183 City: 131,105 Surroundings: 44,078 39. Richmond: 168,854 City: 127,628 Surroundings: 41,226 ————— 40. Dayton: 163,646 City: 116,577 Surroundings: 47,069 41. Bridgeport: 156,765 City: 102,054 Surroundings: 54,711 42. Nashville: 150,910 City: 110,364 Surroundings: 40,546 (may be an actual loss, rather than a result of the city annexing adjacent land) 43. Grand Rapids: 145,632 City: 112,571 Surroundings: 33,061 44. Spokane: 124,838 City: 104,402 Surroundings: 20,436 ————— Source: https://www.loc.gov/resource/gdcmass...1,0.319,0.47,0 |
interesting thread! have always wondered what early metropolitan area populations would have looked like.
|
So Boston in 1910 was #2 for surrounding area, not surprising given Boston's age and small size. And Pittsburgh is third, it has a lot of industrial satellite boroughs.
|
1920 ‘Metropolitan Districts’
In 1930, they changed the method to only include adjacent minor civil divisions that had a qualifying population density. They also included equivalent 1920 numbers when they were available, and those are what is below. In some instances, the Census Bureau did not have a comparable baseline from 1920 for the new definitions, and so I have included those metros with their 1920 numbers using the 1900-1920 definitions. These cities are marked by a double asterisk. The change in method did not result in appreciable changes in most instances, so they are still roughly comparable—they are Los Angeles, New Orleans, Memphis, Houston, Wilmington, and Portland. Although boundaries changed, I calculated growth rates from the previous available boundaries from 1910 for comparison’s sake. Green indicates a positive rank change or growth rate over the national average (15%) in this decade, red indicates negative growth (or negative rank change, but only if there was also negative growth). Italics are metropolitan districts where the suburbs are larger than the core city. New entries are in bold. For this decade, I will only include as far down the list as is necessary to capture the whole universe of cities in the previous post (excluding those which had population decline, so down to Grand Rapids). For most of the suburban declines, the changes in the method and annexation are the likely culprits. Highlights: Spokane drops off the boundaries of my list due to population decline, Detroit booms due to the combustion engine, Pittsburgh is now a minority of its region, Providence and Fall River are combined and New Bedford is added to them, and a number of future notables are new entries, including Dallas, Houston, and San Antonio. 1. New York City: 8,505,404 City: 5,020,048 Surroundings: 3,485,356 2. Chicago: 3,271,557 City: 2,701,705 Surroundings: 569,852 3. Philadelphia: 2,452,076 City: 1,823,779 Surroundings: 628,297 4. Boston: 2,007,425 City: 748,060 Surroundings: 1,259,365 5. Pittsburgh: 1,696,646 City: 625,110 Surroundings: 1,071,536 6. Detroit: 1,252,909 City: 996,321 Surroundings: 250,588 7. St. Louis: 1,071,529 City: 772,702 Surroundings: 298,632 8. San Francisco-Oakland: 964,495 San Francisco: 506,676 Oakland: 216,261 Surroundings: 241,558 9. Cleveland: 935,850 City: 805,442 Surroundings: 130,432 **10. Los Angeles: 879,008 City: 576,673 Surroundings: 302,335 ————— 11. Providence-Fall River-New Bedford: 878,708 Providence: 237,595 Fall River: 120,485 New Bedford: 121,217 Surroundings: 399,411 12. Baltimore: 817,646 City: 733,826 Surroundings: 83,820 (metro definition changes likely contributed to this) 13. Minneapolis-St. Paul: 680,344 Minneapolis: 380,582 St. Paul: 234,698 Surroundings: 65,064 14. Buffalo: 671,893 City: 506,775 Surroundings: 165,118 15. Cincinnati: 630,896 City: 401,247 Surroundings: 229,649 16. Scranton-Wilkes Barre: 590,206 Scranton: 137,783 Wilkes-Barre: 83,826 Surroundings: 368,597 17. Milwaukee: 553,118 City: 460,194 Surroundings: 92,924 18. Washington, D.C. 524,469 City: 437,571 Surroundings: 86,898 19. Kansas City: 479,893 KCMO: 324,410 KCKS: 108,851 Surroundings: 46,632 ————— **20. New Orleans: 397,915 City: 387,219 Surroundings: 10,696 21. Hartford: 381,875 City: 138,036 Surroundings: 243,830 22. Albany: 377,185 Albany: 113,344 Schenectady: 88,723 Troy: 71,996 Surroundings: 103,122 23. Springfield-Holyoke: 359,778 Cities: 189,817 Surroundings: 169,961 24. Seattle: 350,678 City: 315,685 Surroundings: 34,993 25. Indianapolis: 343,868 City: 314,194 Surroundings: 29,074 26. Lowell-Lawrence: 342,706 Lowell: 112,759 Lawrence: 94,270 Surroundings: 135,677 27. Louisville: 330,048 City: 234,801 Surroundings: 95,157 28. Rochester: 328,925 City: 295,750 Surroundings: 33,175 29. Portland: 299,882 City: 258,288 Surroundings: 41,594 ————— 30. Norfolk-Portsmouth-Newport News: 298,080 Cities: 205,770 Surroundings: 92,326 31. Akron: 288,371 City: 208,435 Surroundings: 79,936 32. Youngstown: 283,521 City: 132,358 Surroundings: 151,163 33. Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton: 281,083 Cities: 274,063 Surroundings: 103,122 34. Denver: 280,332 City: 256,491 Surroundings: 23,841 35. Worcester: 276,755 City: 170,754 Surroundings: 97,001 36. Toledo: 275,062 City: 243,164 Surroundings: 31,898 37. Columbus: 267,413 City: 237,031 Surroundings: 30,382 38. Birmingham: 266,772 City: 178,806 Surroundings: 87,966 39. Atlanta: 260,424 City: 200,616 Surroundings: 59,808 ————— 40. New Haven: 258,912 City: 162,537 Surroundings: 96,365 41. Omaha: 238,440 City: 191,601 Surroundings: 46,739 **42. Memphis: 214,169 City: 162,351 Surroundings: 51,818 43. Syracuse: 200,868 City: 171,717 Surroundings: 29,151 44. Dallas: 195,565 City: 158,976 Surroundings: 36,589 45. San Antonio: 189,392 City: 161,379 Surroundings: 28,013 46. Richmond: 194,890 City: 171,667 Surroundings: 23,223 47. Dayton: 189,360 City: 152,559 Surroundings: 36,801 48. Bridgeport: 185,580 City: 143,555 Surroundings: 42,025 49. Utica: 174,784 City: 94,156 Surroundings: 80,628 ————— 50. Wilmington: 171,713 City: 110,168 Surroundings: 61,535 51. Wheeling: 170,479 City: 56,208 Surroundings: 114,271 52. Houston: 168,351 City: 138,276 Surroundings: 30,075 53. Trenton: 162,331 City: 119,289 Surroundings: 43,042 54. Nashville: 156,238 City: 118,342 Surroundings: 37,896 (another actual loss, not due to annexations or to the way the definitions changed) 55. Grand Rapids: 154,264 City: 137,634 Surroundings: 16,630 ————— Source: 1920 standalone numbers (same geographies as 1910 numbers): https://www2.census.gov/library/publ...84484v1ch1.pdf 1920 comparison numbers (same geographies at 1930 numbers, in the 1930 report as a comparison baseline):https://www2.census.gov/library/publ...3450421ch1.pdf |
Quote:
The 1920 numbers keep the same order. NYC ‘burbs > Boston ‘burbs > Pitts ‘burbs > Phily ‘burbs > Chicago ‘burbs. Providence develops a substantial ‘burb population in this decade, partially as a result of its merger with Fall River. Detroit, St. Louis, Cincy, Cleveland, Scranton, and others also have larger numbers of collar communities in these decades. |
Quote:
|
I'll bring Brazil's two largest cities.
Of course suburbs in Brazil are not comparable to the US and Canada. For one thing, city proper is bigger here and wealth are centered on the core of the cities and suburbs are much poorer than the city. And I used current definitions. For earlier years, "suburbs" are actually rural. Even parts of the city. No merges either, the opposite: creation of new municipalities out of the central ones. Rio de Janeiro 1872 Rio de Janeiro 274,972 Niterói 47,548 Suburban municipalities 120,257 Metro total 442,777 1890 Rio de Janeiro 522.651 Niterói 34,269 Suburban municipalities 115,280 Metro total 672,200 1910 Rio de Janeiro 870,475 Niterói 80,000 Suburban municipalities 180,799 Metro total 1,131,274 1920 Rio de Janeiro 1,147,599 Niterói 86,238 Suburban municipalities 168,562 Metro total 1,402,399 1940 Rio de Janeiro 1,764,141 Niterói: 142,407 Suburban municipalities 320,697 Metro total 2,227,245 For Rio, I brought Niterói as they are city on the way own, on the opposite side of Guanabara Bay. Like San Francisco and Oakland. Keep in mind Rio-Niterói Bridge was only built in 1970's. São Paulo 1872 São Paulo 31,385 Suburban municipalities 34,599 Metro total 65,944 1890 São Paulo 64,934 Suburban municipalities 67,978 Metro total 132,912 1910 São Paulo 346,410 Suburban municipalities 117,409 Metro total 463,819 1920 São Paulo 579,033 Suburban municipalities 123,215 Metro total 702,248 1940 São Paulo 1,326,261 Suburban municipalities 241,784 Metro total 1,568,045 Even though urbanization arrived later in Brazil, by 1940 both Rio de Janeiro (2.23 million) and São Paulo (1.57 million) were already very big, industrial cities. Other major cities of that time was Recife (450k), Porto Alegre (330k), Salvador (290k), Belo Horizonte (211k), Belém (206k), Santos (183k), Fortaleza (180k), Curitiba (141k), Campinas (130k), Manaus (106k). |
Funny to see Scranton bigger than LA, just a few years before WW2.
And Houston not even on the list, smaller than Utica. |
For some reason, Los Angeles was brought alone though. LA County had 936k inh. in 1920. Maybe a 700k de facto "metropolitan district"?
About Scranton-Wilkes, I remember when I was teenager, looking into the US stats, making my tables, and I remember how I find shocking the size of Scranton-Wilkes, Wheeling-Steubenville. Rust Belt arrived there 100 years ago. Interestingly, after declining between 1930-2000, Scranton-Wilkes resumed their growth since then: 560k (2000), 563k (2010), 567k (2020). I need to check later, but if I remember correctly they peaked at almost 800k (current definition). Maybe New York exurbs arriving there? Pittsburgh-like rehabilitation? Wheeling-Steubenville, on the other hand, are still in free fall. No signs of any recovery. I guess they'll just disappear. |
Yeah, Scranton area is kind of an extreme commuter area now for the NYC region, so there's finally some growth. Lots of commuter buses, and a long-planned rail link. It's extremely cheap compared to closer-in suburbia.
I'd assume places like Scranton were declining 100 years ago bc mining and the railroads started declining. Pretty sure that area was economically dependent on mining and railroads. But yeah, at some point in U.S. history, Scranton was considered pretty important. So important that the rail corridor between NYC and Scranton, called the Lackawanna Cutoff, is arguably one of the most impressive on earth. When it was built, it was considered an engineering wonder and kind of the first "high speed" rail line on earth. It's pretty much a giant viaduct, with a bunch of impressive bridges and tunnels. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lackawanna_Cut-Off |
St. Louis City 1940 - 816,048
St. Louis metropolitan population (including metro east) 1940 - 1,432,088 source: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_St._Louis |
Quote:
Personally to me, Rust Belt is a very fascinating as I live in a country with not a big old industrial heritage and of course, my father's family business is on farming, lived in a dynamic agribusiness city, now live in a big, dynamic metropolis. And when we travel abroad, we'll obviously focus on the touristic hotspots. I see pics of those coal towns in Pennsylvania, West Virginia and it's the most exotic thing to me. |
wwmiv, thanks for compiling all of those early 20th century metro area numbers! :tup:
Pittsburgh was a true beast when including the surrounding area in those early decades of the 20th. In addition to LA's MASSIVE jump from 1900 to 1910, I also stand in awe of Detroit going from 12th to 6th place between 1910 - 1920, leapfrogging a whole bunch of the older guard in a single decade. I guess that Henry Ford really was on to something.... ;) |
[QUOTE=Crawford;9798658]
I'd assume places like Scranton were declining 100 years ago bc mining and the railroads started declining. Pretty sure that area was economically dependent on mining and railroads. I’ve never been to Scranton, but I remember reading years ago that the advent of the Rust Belt in that city was so sudden and complete that you have 1920s neighborhoods on the very edge of town. That isn’t the case in a lot of other slow growth cities where housing continued to be added on the periphery even as metro population growth slowed down or even stopped altogether. And watching episodes of “The Office,” I’m also puzzled at how much the city resembles the San Fernando Valley. |
Quote:
https://msa.maryland.gov/bca/files/2011/08/maps21.jpg (Maryland State Archives) |
All times are GMT. The time now is 8:53 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.