HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #141  
Old Posted Dec 1, 2022, 12:08 AM
badrunner badrunner is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 2,698
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yuri View Post
That's a poor example you chose. You were the one using 1950 Census metro area definition and applied it to the 5x smaller 1920 Los Angeles. In the thread, a forumer was posting the proto metro area definition, the "metropolitan district", used by the US Census between 1910-1940 and that it was not county-based.

The said forumer simply forgot to post Los Angeles numbers and I speculated they probably included only some parts of LA County and nothing of OC. Later another forumer confirmed my guessing, posting that US Census Bureau gave 831k inh. for 1920 Los Angeles as opposed to 932k of LA or 997k of LA+OC.
This is totally wrong, and I suspect you are being intentionally dishonest here. The census bureau gave a figure of 879k which is a lot closer to the retroactive county based number than it is to your initial guess of 700k. By 1930 the county based number and the metro "district" number are virtually identical at 2.3m which shows the validity of retroactively using the county based number for this particular metro. So no, the other forumer did not confirm your "guessing." In fact, it turned out you were wrong on all counts. You said the metro shouldn't include Orange County. Not only did the census bureau include most of Orange County, it also included parts of San Bernardino County. In some ways it's even more expansive a metro area definition than today's MSA.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yuri View Post
And back to this thread, I brought numbers for Pittsburgh from 1890 way up to 2020.
Yes, back to this thread. You still haven't explained why your methodology for calculating metro areas has seemingly done a 180 in a couple of days. There is no consistency, no logic to it. It's just whatever it needs to be for your agenda at the time. I'll stick to the census bureau definitions, imperfect as they may be.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yuri View Post
Several definitions were used by the Census Bureau between 1950 and 2020; 4 counties back then; 7 today. I made a compromise and picked up 5.
Why do any of that?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yuri View Post
Since the 1950's at least, Butler was clearly a booming suburb of Pittsburgh, hence I included it.
So you included it under a false premise.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yuri View Post
And the two counties of the MSA I decided to drop here:

Armstrong: -4,91% -4,77%
Fayette: -5,71% -8,10%
Why? This seems totally arbitrary.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #142  
Old Posted Dec 1, 2022, 12:19 AM
Yuri's Avatar
Yuri Yuri is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 4,478
Let's have a disclaimer here as we're losing the main point of the thread.

When I think of Detroit, Cleveland, Pittsburgh and Buffalo "metro areas" (metro areas, not MSAs or CSAs), I usually use CSAs for Detroit and Cleveland (more precisely, Detroit CSA minus Lenawee; Cleveland MSA + Akron MSA). For Pittsburgh and Buffalo, it's their MSAs. Buffalo is very straightforward as its definitions remain the same since 1950.

Anyway, as I intended to compare US metro areas with the much more strict in Europe, I thought well, let's work with MSAs then, which are already overesized for overseas standards. And as people always complain about Pittsburgh particularities (big counties, big coal towns independent from Pittsburgh), I thought about using 1950 4-county definition, but that would leave Butler out, which is basically Cleveland's Medina/Geauga or Detroit's Livingston. It's the metro area boom county. That's it.

What difference does it make to this thread? Pittsburgh peaked in 1970 instead of 1960? Or its total decline was a bit smaller as result?
__________________
London - São Paulo - Rio de Janeiro - Londrina - Frankfurt
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #143  
Old Posted Dec 1, 2022, 12:36 AM
Yuri's Avatar
Yuri Yuri is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 4,478
Quote:
Originally Posted by badrunner View Post
This is totally wrong, and I suspect you are being intentionally dishonest here. The census bureau gave a figure of 879k which is a lot closer to the retroactive county based number than it is to your initial guess of 700k. By 1930 the county based number and the metro "district" number are virtually identical at 2.3m which shows the validity of retroactively using the county based number for this particular metro. So no, the other forumer did not confirm your "guessing." In fact, it turned out you were wrong on all counts. You said the metro shouldn't include Orange County. Not only did the census bureau include most of Orange County, it also included parts of San Bernardino County. In some ways it's even more expansive a metro area definition than today's MSA.
I guessed several numbers there, from 700k to 850k. AFAIK, it could be anything between Los Angeles City numbers and LA County numbers. Crawford, for instance, used the city proper number to state Los Angeles was smaller than Scranton-Wilkes. My first intervention was actually to correct that notion. Then you appeared saying everything was wrong and Los Angeles population was 997k. Which was not, of course.

And where did you see they included communities outside LA County? I haven't seen any map posted there. And if that's the case, you are also wrong as I claimed LA County rural population was big in 1920 and you said it was not. If LA metro area had 850k, including areas outside LA County (932k), then you have a much bigger rural population there, even bigger than the one guessed by me.


Quote:
Originally Posted by badrunner View Post
Yes, back to this thread. You still haven't explained why your methodology for calculating metro areas has seemingly done a 180 in a couple of days. There is no consistency, no logic to it. It's just whatever it needs to be for your agenda at the time. I'll stick to the census bureau definitions, imperfect as they may be.
As this thread doesn't deal with metro areas definition, but metro area declines. Metro areas here could be anything that include more than the city proper itself (as we had a thread dealing with city proper decline recently).

And as we're are in SSP/SSC where people main concern is to have their city look bigger and better, here my definition for Los Angeles metro area: Los Angeles CSA. And for me that's the case since 1960 or 1970.


Quote:
Originally Posted by badrunner View Post
Why do any of that?
I explained above: 4 counties would leave out the only boom county of the metro area; 7 would make Pittsburgh bigger than Detroit and twice the size of Cleveland, adding two more fast declining counties that Pittsburgh forumers always claim they are just coal towns that might as well be located in WV, not "being Pittsburgh". In fact, I read once in this section a Pittsburgh forumer saying Pittsburgh metro area was Allegheny County only. It might have been @pj3000, I don't remember.


Quote:
Originally Posted by badrunner View Post
So you included it under a false premise.
Butler is indeed booming since the 1950's, non-stop. What's the false premise?


Quote:
Originally Posted by badrunner View Post
Why? This seems totally arbitrary.
Answered above.
__________________
London - São Paulo - Rio de Janeiro - Londrina - Frankfurt
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #144  
Old Posted Dec 1, 2022, 12:57 AM
badrunner badrunner is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 2,698
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yuri View Post
I guessed several numbers there, from 700k to 850k. AFAIK, it could be anything between Los Angeles City numbers and LA County numbers. Crawford, for instance, used the city proper number to state Los Angeles was smaller than Scranton-Wilkes. My first intervention was actually to correct that notion. Then you appeared saying everything was wrong and Los Angeles population was 997k. Which was not, of course.
I was obviously giving the number based on modern MSA definitions, which others had done in that thread. That is a perfectly valid population figure to cite (in some metros more than others). And it turns out that number was a lot closer to the census bureau's own metro district number than the number you made up in your head (no surprises there).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yuri View Post
And where did you see they included communities outside LA County? I haven't seen any map posted there.
You couldn't have missed this post so I will again assume that you are just being intentionally dishonest here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yuri View Post
And if that's the case, you are also wrong as I claimed LA County rural population was big in 1920 and you said it was not. If LA metro area had 850k, including areas outside LA County (932k), then you have a much bigger rural population there, even bigger than the one guessed by me.
Where are you coming up with these numbers like 850k and 831k? Those figures don't exist anywhere in that thread. LA county did indeed have a very small "rural" population in 1920. An 8 to 1 or 10 to 1 "metro" to "rural" population split would have been huge for 1920s America.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #145  
Old Posted Dec 1, 2022, 1:10 AM
Yuri's Avatar
Yuri Yuri is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 4,478
Quote:
Originally Posted by badrunner View Post
I was obviously giving the number based on modern MSA definitions, which others had done in that thread. That is a perfectly valid population figure to cite (in some metros more than others). And it turns out that number was a lot closer to the census bureau's own metro district number than the number you made up in your head (no surprises there).
Yes, but the forumer was careful enough to provide numbers we hardly see here, from the old metropolitan districts. You just gave the 2020/1950 definition. Which is ok, but then you shouldn't accuse me of not having scientific rigour.

Quote:
Originally Posted by badrunner View Post
You couldn't have missed this post so I will again assume that you are just being intentionally dishonest here.
Disonest because I missed a post in a thread with over 100?

In any case, this map features 1940 Los Angeles, not the 1920. LA County had 936k in 1920 and 2.8 million in 1940. Not a small difference, right?

Quote:
Originally Posted by badrunner View Post
Where are you coming up with these numbers like 850k and 831k? Those figures don't exist anywhere in that thread. LA county did indeed have a very small "rural" population in 1920. An 8 to 1 or 10 to 1 "metro" to "rural" population split would have been huge for 1920s America.
Are you being disonest now? It's on the same page you quoted. Post #40.

And I misread the columns. It's in fact 879k. 831k is the acreage.
__________________
London - São Paulo - Rio de Janeiro - Londrina - Frankfurt
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #146  
Old Posted Dec 1, 2022, 1:57 AM
badrunner badrunner is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 2,698
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yuri View Post
In any case, this map features 1940 Los Angeles, not the 1920. LA County had 936k in 1920 and 2.8 million in 1940. Not a small difference, right?
Did you even read that thread? It's basically the same map for 1920. About 1300 square miles. What the hell does the population of LA county in 1920 vs 1940 have to do with the physical size of the metropolitan district? That's a total non-sequitur.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yuri View Post
Are you being disonest now? It's on the same page you quoted. Post #40.

And I misread the columns. It's in fact 879k. 831k is the acreage.
I don't know what this means. I'm dishonest for not recognizing that you don't know how to read a table and mistook population for acreage?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #147  
Old Posted Dec 1, 2022, 2:17 AM
Yuri's Avatar
Yuri Yuri is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 4,478
Quote:
Originally Posted by badrunner View Post
Did you even read that thread? It's basically the same map for 1920. About 1300 square miles. What the hell does the population of LA county in 1920 vs 1940 have to do with the physical size of the metropolitan district? That's a total non-sequitur.
It means by 1920 the LA basin area had several non-contiguous communities. By 1940, with a population 3x bigger, all those communities were linked by contiguous sprawl and LA metro could use the 1950 definition easily. In 1920, not so much. Hence population of the official metro area was smaller than the one of LA County.

Regardless, this discussion is completely off-topic. This thread is not about metro definitions and Los Angeles (at least for now), doesn’t belong here.
__________________
London - São Paulo - Rio de Janeiro - Londrina - Frankfurt
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #148  
Old Posted Dec 1, 2022, 2:40 AM
badrunner badrunner is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 2,698
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yuri View Post
It means by 1920 the LA basin area had several non-contiguous communities. By 1940, with a population 3x bigger, all those communities were linked by contiguous sprawl and LA metro could use the 1950 definition easily. In 1920, not so much. Hence population of the official metro area was smaller than the one of LA County.
Nevertheless the census bureau defined that entire area as the metropolitan district. Take it up with them. Don't substitute your own facts.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yuri View Post
Regardless, this discussion is completely off-topic. This thread is not about metro definitions and Los Angeles (at least for now), doesn’t belong here.
I only brought it up because of your wildly inconsistent views on what constitutes a metro area. You demonstrate it even in this post. In one case the criteria is every settlement has to be "linked by contiguous sprawl" or touching "the main urban cluster" to be considered a part of the metro area. But in another case, any distant settlement is deemed to be part of the metro if it experiences population gain, while other adjacent settlements that experience population declines are arbitrarily deemed to be not part of the metro area, despite what the census bureau says. Don't you see the inconsistency? It all seems very dishonest and illogical.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #149  
Old Posted Dec 1, 2022, 10:56 AM
Yuri's Avatar
Yuri Yuri is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 4,478
Ranking:

Decline from the peak:
GENOVA ---------- -26.3% (1971)
PITTSBURGH ------ -13.6% (1970)
BUFFALO --------- -13.5% (1970)
GLASGOW --------- -13.4% (1961)
TORINO ---------- -10.5% (1981)
CLEVELAND ------- -10.0% (1970)
LIVERPOOL -------- -6.6% (1971)
DETROIT ---------- -1.4% (2000)

Biggest decline:
GENOVA ---------- -26.3% (1971-2021)
GLASGOW --------- -18.1% (1961-2001)
BUFFALO --------- -15.8% (1970-2010)
PITTSBURGH ------ -14.7% (1970-2010)
LIVERPOOL ------- -11.6% (1971-2001)
TORINO ---------- -11.6% (1981-2001)
CLEVELAND ------- -10.5% (1970-2010)
DETROIT ---------- -4.1% (1970-1990)

Genoa is by far on the top of table on both counts and the only one that didn't manage to stop decline at one point.

I'd guess Pittsbugh ahead Buffalo (and it would be, on the 4-county and 7-county definition). Detroit and Cleveland, unsurprisingly with the smallest declines, as they managed their declines more than once. If Akron MSA was added, Cleveland would fair better; Detroit just slightly: Flint cancelling Ann Arbor.

Torino, as Genoa, were the only two not growing in the 2010's as Italian demographics entered in a very difficult place lately.

And the strong recovery (the biggest difference between the two lists) came from Glasgow and Liverpool helped by the open-door British immigration policy and economic ressurgence on the past 25-30 years.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Those 8 metro areas pretty much tell the whole story of post-war urban population decline, all of them still below their peaks and each one with its own particularities: British peaking earlier and Italians later, Americans and their 1970's dêbácle.

I intend to bring next 2 cases that are a bit different: their decline was due much broader worldwide events and not local ones.
__________________
London - São Paulo - Rio de Janeiro - Londrina - Frankfurt
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #150  
Old Posted Dec 1, 2022, 2:40 PM
Wigs's Avatar
Wigs Wigs is offline
Great White Norf
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Niagara Region
Posts: 10,820
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Dan View Post
made in Pilsen since 1950:


source: https://www.amazon.com/EL-MILAGRO-Sa.../dp/B00LPEZKZA


Started by a mexican immigrant who came to chicago back in the '40s as a trackman on the old illinois central RR.

Railroad work was a very common path for the earliest mexican immigrants who came to chicago back in the day.
Steely that's amazing Chicago's had a tortilla factory since 1950. No doubt Mexican and Latin Americans are super important to maintaining vibrancy in the city limits that got abandoned by White people.

Most Americans didn't even know about "Mexican" food until a chain like Chi Chi's arrived in the what...the late 1970s?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #151  
Old Posted Dec 1, 2022, 5:07 PM
Steely Dan's Avatar
Steely Dan Steely Dan is offline
devout Pizzatarian
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Lincoln Square, Chicago
Posts: 29,635
^ chicago's mexican-american community was respectably large a lot earlier than most people would probably suspect for a city 1,200 miles NE of the border region.

by 1960, the city was already home to 23,000 people born in mexico.

and it just kept blowing-up from there. today, chicagoland is home to ~1.5M people of mexican ancestry.

to say that "Mexicans saved Chicago!" is obviously over-stating things, but over the past handful of decades, they own it more than any other single ethnic group.



a much less abandoned city + TACOS!!!

thank you, mexico.
__________________
"Missing middle" housing can be a great middle ground for many middle class families.

Last edited by Steely Dan; Dec 1, 2022 at 6:23 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #152  
Old Posted Dec 2, 2022, 7:02 PM
Yuri's Avatar
Yuri Yuri is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 4,478
As I mentioned before, now bringing one of the metro areas whose decline is due major geopolitics events:

Vienna



Area: 1,046 km²

Population
1881: 1,235,147
1891: 1,520,009 --- 23.1%
1900: 1,880,743 --- 23.7%
1910: 2,215,670 --- 17.8%
1923: 2,048,593 --- -7.5%
1939: 1,919,641 --- -6.3%
1951: 1,756,461 --- -8.5%
1961: 1,766,743 ---- 0.6%
1971: 1,778,355 ---- 0.7%
1981: 1,704,762 --- -4.1%
1991: 1,731,145 ---- 1.5%
2001: 1,757,759 ---- 1.5%
2011: 1,941,297 --- 10.4%
2021: 2,165,636 --- 11.6%

Population peak: 1910

Decline from the peak: -2.3%

Biggest decline: -23.1% (1910-1981)

Before WWI, Vienna was the cosmopolitan capital and the main city of a 50 million people empire. One of the world's biggest and most important cities. Four years later, it was left as the capital of a 6 million people small country. With its hinterland reduced by 8x times and its massive minorities population heading back to their new independent country, the city suffered badly.

As if it was not enough, in 1930's it was registered in Vienna the lowest fertility rate ever recorded anywhere in the world: abyssal 0.6 children/per women.

As result, Vienna's peak happened 110 years ago (!!!). It also posted the longest period of overall decline, between 1910-1981, with only some tiny growth interruptions.

Vienna's fortunes changed a lot on the past two decades though: EU enlargement over Eastern Europe and Vienna is now growing at Sun Belt rates, fueled by loads and loads of immigrants, most of them from countries who were part of the former Austria-Hungarian Empire.
__________________
London - São Paulo - Rio de Janeiro - Londrina - Frankfurt
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #153  
Old Posted Dec 2, 2022, 7:22 PM
Docere Docere is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 7,364
Fascinating. So it looks like Vienna should reach and surpass its pre-WWI peak population soon.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #154  
Old Posted Dec 2, 2022, 9:32 PM
Yuri's Avatar
Yuri Yuri is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 4,478
Quote:
Originally Posted by Docere View Post
Fascinating. So it looks like Vienna should reach and surpass its pre-WWI peak population soon.
Yes, it's a fascinating city, with a fascinating history.

As they are keeping this very strong growth, they'll probably reach their peak on the 2020's second half.
__________________
London - São Paulo - Rio de Janeiro - Londrina - Frankfurt
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #155  
Old Posted Dec 3, 2022, 12:11 PM
muppet's Avatar
muppet muppet is offline
if I sang out of tune
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: London
Posts: 6,185
Also interesting to note, despite the decline (and density) and booming growth after, Vienna consistently scored as the worlds most liveable city, an accolade it holds to this day





Reply With Quote
     
     
  #156  
Old Posted Dec 3, 2022, 3:26 PM
Wigs's Avatar
Wigs Wigs is offline
Great White Norf
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Niagara Region
Posts: 10,820
I have an acquaintance (former roommate of one of my best friends) that's an expert in Photonics/Lasers and got offered a job about 8 years ago at a prestigious institute in Vienna.

Suffice it to say, he's never looked back! I can see why. Seems like Vienna is truly one of the world's great cities.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #157  
Old Posted Dec 3, 2022, 9:25 PM
Yuri's Avatar
Yuri Yuri is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 4,478
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppet View Post
Also interesting to note, despite the decline (and density) and booming growth after, Vienna consistently scored as the worlds most liveable city, an accolade it holds to this
Indeed. They always top those lists. And something more subjective: I have the impression their international role, their brand, have been increasing on recent years. It’s not only demographic growth.
__________________
London - São Paulo - Rio de Janeiro - Londrina - Frankfurt
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #158  
Old Posted Dec 3, 2022, 10:02 PM
Yuri's Avatar
Yuri Yuri is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 4,478
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wigs View Post
I have an acquaintance (former roommate of one of my best friends) that's an expert in Photonics/Lasers and got offered a job about 8 years ago at a prestigious institute in Vienna.

Suffice it to say, he's never looked back! I can see why. Seems like Vienna is truly one of the world's great cities.
Those cities full of immigrants usually make newcomers very comfortable. It should very easy to adapt to Vienna.
__________________
London - São Paulo - Rio de Janeiro - Londrina - Frankfurt
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #159  
Old Posted Dec 3, 2022, 11:58 PM
wwmiv wwmiv is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Austin -> San Antonio -> Columbia -> San Antonio -> Chicago -> Austin -> Denver
Posts: 5,271


Y’all arguing over my posts in the other thread is hilarious.
__________________
HTOWN: 2305k (+10%) + MSA suburbs: 4818k (+26%) + CSA exurbs: 190k (+6%)
BIGD: 1304k (+9%) + MSA div. suburbs: 3826k (+26%) + adj. CSA exurbs: 394k (+8%)
FTW: 919k (+24%) + MSA div. suburbs: 1589k (+14%) + adj. CSA exurbs: 90k (+12%)
SATX: 1435k (+8%) + MSA suburbs: 1124k (+38%) + CSA exurbs: 18k (+11%)
ATX: 962k (+22%) + MSA suburbs: 1322k (+43%)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #160  
Old Posted Dec 4, 2022, 4:07 AM
Centropolis's Avatar
Centropolis Centropolis is offline
disneypilled verhoevenist
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: saint louis
Posts: 11,866
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Dan View Post
^ chicago's mexican-american community was respectably large a lot earlier than most people would probably suspect for a city 1,200 miles NE of the border region.

by 1960, the city was already home to 23,000 people born in mexico.

and it just kept blowing-up from there. today, chicagoland is home to ~1.5M people of mexican ancestry.

to say that "Mexicans saved Chicago!" is obviously over-stating things, but over the past handful of decades, they own it more than any other single ethnic group.



a much less abandoned city + TACOS!!!

thank you, mexico.
always been a bee in my bonnet that st. louis got generally left out on this. yes we have 1 street and some areas on the east side where you can get fresh tortillas but its not widespread like Chicago and ubiquitous like L.A.

I made breakfast burritos today thinking about walking northeast L.A. in the morning. Also miss the Chicago tamale man and the polaroid guy in Wicker Park and later Logan Square. ptetty sure i have a polaroid-y photo eating a tamale at 3 AM at the Evil Olive or the Two Way.
__________________
You may Think you are vaccinated but are you Maxx-Vaxxed ™!? Find out how you can “Maxx” your Covid-36 Vaxxination today!
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 9:59 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

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