Metropolitan area populations, 1940

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Do you mean fastest materializing?

Yes.

From marsh to million person metropolis in about 75 years.

Chicago exploded outta nowhere like an urban supernova.

NYC had a much slower build with its 100+ years of colonial development before its own 19th century explosion.

[dave8721]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

Yes.

From marsh to million person metropolis in about 75 years.

Chicago exploded outta nowhere like an urban supernova.

NYC had a much slower build with its 100+ years of colonial development before its own 19th century explosion.

South Florida went from a couple hundred people in 1900 to hitting a million during the 1950's. Las Vegas probably did it even faster.

The US will probably never see growth like that again with cities popping up out of virtual wilderness in the course of a few years.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

Yes.

From marsh to million person metropolis in about 75 years.

Chicago exploded outta nowhere like an urban supernova.

NYC had a much slower build with its 100+ years of colonial development before its own 19th century explosion.

New York existed but... it was pretty much a village until the mid 19th century. I think the distinction is that Chicago was not an organized municipality in the colonial era. I don't think that qualifies it as "fastest growing city in the world", though. That seems to obviously have been New York in that era.

I think it's interesting that Chicago is one of the youngest of the industrial cities, though. Of the top 20 in 1900, Chicago, Milwaukee, and Minneapolis were the youngest:

1. New York: Founded in 1624.
2. Chicago: Founded in 1833.
3. Philadelphia: Founded in 1682.
4. St. Louis: Founded in 1764.
5. Boston: Founded in 1630.
6. Baltimore: Founded in 1729.
7. Cleveland: Founded in 1796.
8. Buffalo: Founded in 1801.
9. San Francisco: Founded in 1776.
10. Cincinnati: Founded in 1788.
11. Pittsburgh: Founded in 1758.
12. New Orleans: Founded in 1718.
13. Detroit: Founded in 1701.
14. Milwaukee: Founded in 1846.
15. Washington, D.C.: Founded in 1790.
16. Newark: Founded in 1666.
17. Jersey City: Founded in 1820.
18. Louisville: Founded in 1778.
19. Minneapolis: Founded in 1867.
20. Providence: Founded in 1636.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

New York existed but... it was pretty much a village until the mid 19th century.

NYC had a population of 60,514 in the 1800 census and was the largest US city at the time, (as it has ranked in every US census ever undertaken, though early Philly was technically split among a handful of different municipalities that might've been larger in aggregate at some points in time).

What's more, the city was large and established enough in the 18th century to have served as the nation's capital city from 1785 - 1790.

In 1820, NYC had a population of 123,706 when Chicago was literally a remote fly-speck frontier swamp village trading post barely hanging onto existence with ~100 permanent settlers (a best guess, as the place wasn't significant enough to even register an official census count at the time).

Calling NYC a "village" until the middle of the 19th century, in any way that remotely resembled what Chicago actually was at the time, is being quite disingenuous with the facts.

Originally Posted by iheartthed

I think the distinction is that Chicago was not an organized municipality in the colonial era. I don't think that qualifies it as "fastest growing city in the world", though.

We'll have to agree to disagree.

Chicago flashed into existence like a lightning bolt out of a veritable interior wilderness in a fundamentally different way than NYC and the other east coast colonial cities developed.

Chicago went from a 100 person outpost frontier village on the very edge of civilization to a 1M person metropolis serving as the beating heart of the interior of the nation in just 60 years.

That same 100 to 1M people process took NYC over 2 centuries.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

We'll have to agree to disagree.

Chicago flashed into existence like a lightning bolt out of a veritable interior wilderness in a fundamentally different way than NYC and the other east coast colonial cities developed.

Chicago went from a 100 person outpost frontier village on the very edge of civilization to a 1M person metropolis serving as the beating heart of the interior of the nation in just 60 years.

That same 100 to 1M people process took NYC over 2 centuries.

As Dave just pointed out, the invention of air conditioning caused a similar ~60-year meteoric rise for Miami. It's for sure a closer rival for Chicago than NYC on the "instant growth from village to metropolis" metric.

[Crawford]

Yeah, NYC might have had more late 19th century numeric growth than Chicago, but I'd say Chicago's rapid rise from mosquito-infested swamp outpost to world city was generally more notable. NYC was probably already one of the most important cities in the Western world by the end of the Civil War.

Manhattan had 900k+ in 1870. Looking at the European numbers, only London was clearly larger. Paris was probably larger, but it's hard to tell apples-apples. Paris proper was larger than Manhattan. And then Vienna, the third largest European city (I'm not counting Constantinople), didn't even have 500k. So NYC has been big and important for a pretty long time. Probably the third largest and most important Western city in 1870.

[themaguffin]

Originally Posted by 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.

Birmingham was more industrial... Atlanta had corporate interests which helped the city limit the mistakes of Birmingham. Plus they invested in Emory and of course the city also has GA Tech.

Birmingham was in consideration for an air mail infrastructure (airport etc) as it is more centrally located, but Atlanta had the assets plus avoided Birmingham's aggressive attacks on the civil rights movement.

This isn't to say that Atlanta was truly "too busy to hate" but compared to its Alabama neighbor, it sure seemed that way.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Yeah, NYC might have had more late 19th century numeric growth than Chicago, but I'd say Chicago's rapid rise from mosquito-infested swamp outpost to world city was generally more notable. NYC was probably already one of the most important cities in the Western world by the end of the Civil War.

Manhattan had 900k+ in 1870. Looking at the European numbers, only London was clearly larger. Paris was probably larger, but it's hard to tell apples-apples. Paris proper was larger than Manhattan. And then Vienna, the third largest city, didn't even have 500k. So NYC has been big and important for a pretty long time. Probably the third largest and most important Western city in 1870.

The modern 5 boroughs altogether didn't have 200k people in 1820. Going from that to 3 million by 1900 was a stunning level of growth that no other city on this continent matched. The only other city on Earth that matched NYC's growth over that period was London, which added about 4 million people and was the largest city in the world. NYC went from somewhere in probably the low top 50 to the 2nd largest on Earth over that time.

[dave8721]

Originally Posted by lio45

As Dave just pointed out, the invention of air conditioning caused a similar ~60-year meteoric rise for Miami. It's for sure a closer rival for Chicago than NYC on the "instant growth from village to metropolis" metric.

Las Vegas metro had only ~35k people in 1950. The metro hit a million in the 1990s.

[Centropolis]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

New York existed but... it was pretty much a village until the mid 19th century. I think the distinction is that Chicago was not an organized municipality in the colonial era. I don't think that qualifies it as "fastest growing city in the world", though. That seems to obviously have been New York in that era.

I think it's interesting that Chicago is one of the youngest of the industrial cities, though. Of the top 20 in 1900, Chicago, Milwaukee, and Minneapolis were the youngest:

1. New York: Founded in 1624.
2. Chicago: Founded in 1833.
3. Philadelphia: Founded in 1682.
4. St. Louis: Founded in 1764.
5. Boston: Founded in 1630.
6. Baltimore: Founded in 1729.
7. Cleveland: Founded in 1796.
8. Buffalo: Founded in 1801.
9. San Francisco: Founded in 1776.
10. Cincinnati: Founded in 1788.
11. Pittsburgh: Founded in 1758.
12. New Orleans: Founded in 1718.
13. Detroit: Founded in 1701.
14. Milwaukee: Founded in 1846.
15. Washington, D.C.: Founded in 1790.
16. Newark: Founded in 1666.
17. Jersey City: Founded in 1820.
18. Louisville: Founded in 1778.
19. Minneapolis: Founded in 1867.
20. Providence: Founded in 1636.

By 1910 Los Angeles (1781) had entered the chat, arguably one of the greatest all-time industrial cities of the Americas. Always funny to see 1700s anything next to Lps Angeles but there we are.

[Quixote]

Looks like the Greater LA region, as defined today, has been a megapolis for a little over 50 years now, being a mere 28,000 shy of 10 million at the 1970 census.

Los Angeles: 7,032,075
Orange: 1,420,386
Riverside: 459,074
San Bernardino: 684,072
Ventura: 376,430

Total: 9,972,037

Greater NYC was 19,636,490.

Chicagoland was 8,244,378.

[Quixote]

Greater LA's rise coincides perfectly with the historical definition of the 20th century, beginning a few years before WWI and ending around the same time as the Cold War.

1910: 648,316
1990: 14,531,417

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Centropolis

By 1910 Los Angeles (1781) had entered the chat, arguably one of the greatest all-time industrial cities of the Americas. Always funny to see 1700s anything next to Lps Angeles but there we are.

Los Angeles did well for itself, but no city has ever matched New York for sustained growth. As I pointed out in this thread, no U.S. city except New York has ever posted over a +1 million population growth in a single decade... and NYC did it twice. I think Chicago holds the record for largest population increase in a decade for any city other than NYC, growing by 674k in the 1920s. L.A.'s highest growth decade was also in the 1920s, when that city grew by 661k, but narrowly missed beating out Chicago. NYC lapped both cities in the population race, though, by adding 1.3 million that decade.

Even in the modern era, NYC still routinely posts the largest population growth of any city. That gets lost when the conversation gets focused on growth rates.

[SteveD]

I was just checking the Census page. The July 1, 2022 metro population estimates are coming soon. There's a two day qualified media embargo May 16 through May 18 to be followed by the public release. So we'll get the most current yardstick soon. I'm sure someone of the board will start a new thread with it. About a week from now.

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by dave8721

Las Vegas metro had only ~35k people in 1950. The metro hit a million in the 1990s.

My grandfather did a cross-country drive with two other guys in 1946 after he was discharged from the army. He took 3-4 color slides in Las Vegas, which he insisted was "just a wide section of road with a few stop lights". Unfortunately, they're pretty lousy photos (I have them - I remember a blurry photo of one of the small early casinos). The much more entertaining photos are photos they took of each other out in the middle of the desert, since they're wearing preposterously formal clothing - dress pants and shirts. This was before t-shirts and casual clothing took off.

[Wigs]

Originally Posted by SteveD

I was just checking the Census page. The July 1, 2022 metro population estimates are coming soon. There's a two day qualified media embargo May 16 through May 18 to be followed by the public release. So we'll get the most current yardstick soon. I'm sure someone of the board will start a new thread with it. About a week from now.

Unlike Statistics Canada, the yearly US Census estimates are usually garbage. Way off compared to the decennial census.

[Quixote]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Los Angeles did well for itself, but no city has ever matched New York for sustained growth. As I pointed out in this thread, no U.S. city except New York has ever posted over a +1 million population growth in a single decade... and NYC did it twice. I think Chicago holds the record for largest population increase in a decade for any city other than NYC, growing by 674k in the 1920s. L.A.'s highest growth decade was also in the 1920s, when that city grew by 661k, but narrowly missed beating out Chicago. NYC lapped both cities in the population race, though, by adding 1.3 million that decade.

Even in the modern era, NYC still routinely posts the largest population growth of any city. That gets lost when the conversation gets focused on growth rates.

LA is exhibit 1A when it comes to arbitrary and changing city boundaries. Its county boundaries have remained the same since 1900, however.


The most dramatic growth spurt in the history of U.S./Canada settlement is probably LA County from 1940-1960, when it added 3.25 million in the span of a mere two decades.

1940: 2,785,643
1960: 6,039,771


The five-county region went from 3.25 million (about the size of Portland, OR today) at the beginning of WW2 to a megalopolis (for all intents and purposes) when Armstrong set foot on Moon's surface:

1940: 3,252,720
1970: 9,972,037


That was over 50 years ago. To this day, there are only a handful of megalopoli in the developed and Western worlds.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Quixote

LA is exhibit 1A when it comes to arbitrary and changing city boundaries. Its county boundaries have remained the same since 1900, however.


The most dramatic growth spurt in the history of U.S./Canada settlement is probably LA County from 1940-1960, when it added 3.25 million in the span of a mere two decades.

1940: 2,785,643
1960: 6,039,771


The five-county region went from 3.25 million (about the size of Portland, OR today) at the beginning of WW2 to a megalopolis (for all intents and purposes) when Armstrong set foot on Moon's surface:

1940: 3,252,720
1970: 9,972,037


That was over 50 years ago. To this day, there are only a handful of megalopoli in the developed and Western worlds.

For a county, yeah, that's without a doubt the biggest jump in the country's history. L.A.'s metro growth trajectory is very similar to NY's, just delayed by about 5 decades. NY metro and LA metro both took about 5 decades to go from populations of 3-4m to +11m. LA has to build denser to keep pace, though. That's already happening, but I suspect that's a not well understood reason by why so many other cities stall out.

[Lobotomizer]

Austin MSA

1940 - 214,603

2020 - 2,352,426

Breakdown By County

1940:

Travis - 111,053
Williamson - 41,698
Hays - 15,349
Bastrop - 21,610
Caldwell - 24,893

2020:

Travis - 1,290,188
Williamson - 609,017
Hays - 241,067
Bastrop - 97,216
Caldwell - 45,883