HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #41  
Old Posted Nov 24, 2022, 10:04 PM
wwmiv wwmiv is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Austin -> San Antonio -> Columbia -> San Antonio -> Chicago -> Austin -> Denver
Posts: 5,272
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChiSoxRox View Post
The page I directly referenced on that link, from the *1920* Report.

How I overlooked those I have no idea but I will redo the 1920 numbers following that document
__________________
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
     
     
  #42  
Old Posted Nov 24, 2022, 10:08 PM
wwmiv wwmiv is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Austin -> San Antonio -> Columbia -> San Antonio -> Chicago -> Austin -> Denver
Posts: 5,272
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yuri View Post
LA County had 932k (Orange would definitely be out in 1920) and you had lots of farming communities back then and the county is huge. As those pre-1950 metro areas definitions were not county-based, I'd guess metro Los Angeles at 850k or so.

@wwmiv could you help us out?




That's the sum of Los Angeles and Orange counties population in 1920.
See above posts. ChiSoxRox was correct, altho technically the data I pulled was also correct but distinct data altogether.

To be clear: His number is the 1920 number using the same lines as 1910. My list is numbers for 1920 using the same lines as 1930, for which Los Angeles Metro didn’t have a population listed.
__________________
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%)

Last edited by wwmiv; Nov 24, 2022 at 10:26 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #43  
Old Posted Nov 24, 2022, 10:18 PM
ChiSoxRox's Avatar
ChiSoxRox ChiSoxRox is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 2,489
@wwmiv, I do appreciate your time in reading all these scanned century plus old reports. It's quite fascinating thinking that the stenographer putting the typeset together in 1922 or so had no idea that one day we'd be peering at an electronic screen to compare these cities.

Also it's quite annoying how the Census Bureau keeps shifting the qualifications. The 1950 Census changes gears quite a bit, replacing the subdivision-based metro districts by tract-based urbanized areas, meaning the 1950 metros have smaller footprints then the 1940 definitions! For example, Waukegan gets dropped out of the 1950 definition for Chicago, which stops at Lake Bluff.
__________________
Like the pre-war masonry skyscrapers? Then check out my list of the tallest buildings in 1950.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #44  
Old Posted Nov 25, 2022, 1:25 AM
wwmiv wwmiv is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Austin -> San Antonio -> Columbia -> San Antonio -> Chicago -> Austin -> Denver
Posts: 5,272
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChiSoxRox View Post
@wwmiv, I do appreciate your time in reading all these scanned century plus old reports. It's quite fascinating thinking that the stenographer putting the typeset together in 1922 or so had no idea that one day we'd be peering at an electronic screen to compare these cities.

Also it's quite annoying how the Census Bureau keeps shifting the qualifications. The 1950 Census changes gears quite a bit, replacing the subdivision-based metro districts by tract-based urbanized areas, meaning the 1950 metros have smaller footprints then the 1940 definitions! For example, Waukegan gets dropped out of the 1950 definition for Chicago, which stops at Lake Bluff.
I updated the 1920 post, but only modestly.

Also: thank you.
__________________
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%)

Last edited by wwmiv; Nov 25, 2022 at 2:34 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #45  
Old Posted Nov 25, 2022, 5:01 AM
wwmiv wwmiv is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Austin -> San Antonio -> Columbia -> San Antonio -> Chicago -> Austin -> Denver
Posts: 5,272
1940 ‘Metropolitan Districts’

These 1940 numbers use the same method as the previous 1930 list, so are comparable even if the lines are not exactly identical (Metro areas grow and add new territory over time, after all). As far as I can tell, each is usually the exact or nearly exact same geography anyway. For most of the multipolar metro areas, I have combined the populations of the core cities (in most of these cases, the Census Bureau made that combination and I am following their lead here).

Green indicates a positive rank change or growth rate over the national average (7%) 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 Wheeling). Today, only a handful of metro areas below are beneath 1 million population.

Highlights: New York, Chicago, and many other cities had a larger decrease in their growth rates than the country as a whole, some core cities experience declines, Los Angeles is now the third largest metropolitan area, Providence loses Fall River and New Bedford which now anchor their own metro, Atlanta outgrows Birmingham, Texas rises, and Florida joins the list. There are a smattering of smaller metro areas as well—follow the link at the bottom.





1. New York City: 11,690,520
NYC: 7,454,995
NJ (Patterson, Jersey, Newark, Elizabeth): 980,501
Surroundings: 3,255,024

2. Chicago: 4,499,126
City: 3,396,808
Surroundings: 1,102,318

3. Los Angeles: 2,904,596
City: 1,504,277
Surroundings: 1,400,319

4. Philadelphia: 2,898,644
City: 1,931,334
Surroundings: 967,310

5. Boston: 2,350,514
City: 770,816
Surroundings: 1,579,698


6. Detroit: 2,295,867
City: 1,623,452
Surroundings: 672,415

7. Pittsburgh: 1,994,060
City: 671,659
Surroundings: 1,322,401


8. San Francisco-Oakland: 1,428,525
San Francisco: 634,536
Oakland: 302,163
Surroundings: 491,826

9. St. Louis: 1,367,977
City: 816,048
Surroundings: 551,929

10. Cleveland: 1,214,943
City: 878,336
Surroundings: 336,607

—————

11. Baltimore: 1,046,692
City: 859,100
Surroundings: 187,592

12. Minneapolis-St. Paul: 911,077
Cities: 780,106
Surroundings: 130,971

13. Washington, D.C. 907,816
City: 663,091
Surroundings: 244,725

14. Buffalo-Niagara Falls: 857,719
Cities: 653,950
Surroundings: 203,780

15. Milwaukee: 790,336
City: 587,472
Surroundings: 202,864

16. Cincinnati: 789,309
City: 455,610
Surroundings: 333,699

17. Providence: 711,500
Providence: 253,504
Surroundings: 457,996


18. Kansas City: 634,093
Cities: 520,636
Surroundings: 113,457

19. Scranton-Wilkes Barre: 629,581
Cities: 226,640
Surroundings: 402,941


—————

20. New Orleans: 540,030
City: 495,537
Surroundings: 45,493

21. Hartford-New Britain: 512,193
Cities: 234,952
Surroundings: 267,241


22. Houston: 510,397
City: 384,514
Surroundings: 125,883

23. Indianapolis: 455,357
City: 386,972
Surroundings: 68,385

24. Seattle: 452,639
City: 368,302
Surroundings: 84,337

25. Atlanta: 442,292
City: 302,208
Surroundings: 140,006

26. Louisville: 434,408
City: 319,077
Surroundings: 115,331

27. Albany-Schenectady-Troy: 431,575
Cities: 288,430
Surroundings: 143,145

28. Rochester: 411,970
City: 324,975
Surroundings: 86,905

29. Birmingham: 407,851
City: 267,583
Surroundings: 140,268

—————

30. Portland: 406,406
City: 305,894
Surroundings: 101,012

31. Springfield-Holyoke: 394,623
Cities: 203,304
Surroundings: 191,319

32. Denver: 384,372
City: 322,412
Surroundings: 61,960

33. Dallas: 376,548
City: 294,734
Surroundings: 81,814

34. Youngstown: 372,428
City: 167,720
Surroundings: 204,708


35. Columbus: 365,796
City: 306,087
Surroundings: 59,709

36. Akron: 349,705
City: 244,791
Surroundings: 104,914

37. Toledo: 341,663
City: 282,349
Surroundings: 59,314

38. Lowell-Lawrence-Haverhill: 334,969
Cities: 232,464
Surroundings: 102,506

39. Memphis: 332,477
City: 292,942
Surroundings: 39,535

—————

40. Norfolk-Portsmouth-Newport News: 330,396
Cities: 232,144
Surroundings: 98,252

41. Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton: 325,142
Cities: 188,983
Surroundings: 136,159

42. San Antonio: 319,010
City: 253,858
Surroundings: 65,156

43. New Haven: 308,228
City: 160,605
Surroundings: 147,623

44. Worcester: 306,194
City: 193,694
Surroundings: 112,500

45. Omaha-Council Bluffs: 287,698
Cities: 265,283
Surroundings: 22,415

46. Fall River-New Bedford: 272,648
Cities: 225,769
Surroundings: 46,869

47. Dayton: 271,513
City: 210,718
Surroundings: 60,795

48. Syracuse: 258,352
City: 207,967
Surroundings: 52,385

49. San Diego: 256,368
City: 203,341
Surroundings: 53,027


—————

50. Miami: 250,537
City: 172,172
Surroundings: 78,365


51. Richmond: 245,674
City: 193,042
Surroundings: 52,632

52. Nashville: 241,769
City: 167,402
Surroundings:74,367

53. Oklahoma City: 221,229
City: 204,424
Surroundings: 16,805


54. Bridgeport: 216,621
City: 147,121
Surroundings: 69,500

55. Grand Rapids: 209,873
City: 164,292
Surroundings: 45,581

56. Tampa-St. Pete: 209,693
Cities: 169,203
Surroundings: 40,490


57. Fort Worth: 207,677
City: 177,662
Surroundings: 30,015


58. Salt Lake City: 204,488
City: 149,934
Surroundings: 54,554


59. Canton: 200,352
City: 108,401
Surroundings: 91,951


—————

60. Trenton: 200,128
City: 124,697
Surroundings: 75,431

61. Utica-Rome: 197,128
Cities: 134,732
Surroundings: 62,396

62. Wheeling: 196,340
City: 61,009
Surroundings: 135,241





—————

Source: https://www2.census.gov/library/publ...3538v1ch02.pdf
__________________
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%)

Last edited by wwmiv; Nov 25, 2022 at 5:30 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #46  
Old Posted Nov 25, 2022, 11:31 AM
Yuri's Avatar
Yuri Yuri is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 4,478
1930's were horrible for the US. Depression messed up with its demographics in an unprecedented way. New York went reasonable well.

The real star, however, was Washington. Government has grown massively and give it a big advantage compared to the industrial cities of the North. That phenomenon happened all over the world, specially on post-war, as the state became big and more complex. And of course, the impact was bigger in capitals that aren't the biggest city: Washington itself, Brasília, Rome, etc.

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

I want to put the numbers to get later to make sure when New York surpassed London as world's largest metropolis, in 1930/1931 or in 1939/1940. As perceptions take time to change, specially so far in the past where info circulation was more limited, metro area definitions were a rare thing, London was perceived as world's largest throughout WWII.
__________________
London - São Paulo - Rio de Janeiro - Londrina - Frankfurt
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #47  
Old Posted Nov 25, 2022, 3:40 PM
Docere Docere is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 7,364
Canadian cities, 1941:

Greater Montreal 1,139,921

City 903,007
Surrounding municipalities 236,914

Greater Toronto 909,928

City 667,457
Surrounding municipalities 242,471

Greater Vancouver 351,491

City 275,353
Surrounding municipalities 76,138

Greater Winnipeg 290,540

City 221,960
Surrounding municipalities 68,580

Greater Ottawa 215,022

City 154,951
Surrounding municipalities 60,071

Greater Quebec 200,814

City 150,757
Surrounding municipalities 50,057

Greater Hamilton 176,110

City 166,337
Surrounding municipalities 9,773

Greater Windsor 121,112

City 105,311
Surrounding municipalities 15,801
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #48  
Old Posted Nov 25, 2022, 4:02 PM
Docere Docere is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 7,364
Interesting how Washington DC and Toronto were virtually the same size in 1940.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #49  
Old Posted Nov 25, 2022, 4:08 PM
Steely Dan's Avatar
Steely Dan Steely Dan is offline
devout Pizzatarian
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Lincoln Square, Chicago
Posts: 29,634
Quote:
Originally Posted by Docere View Post
Interesting how Washington DC and Toronto were virtually the same size in 1940.
The twin cities too.

The twin cities have been pretty damn stable, hovering between #16 and #11 for the last 120 years.
__________________
"Missing middle" housing can be a great middle ground for many middle class families.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #50  
Old Posted Nov 25, 2022, 4:16 PM
Yuri's Avatar
Yuri Yuri is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 4,478
Another oddity from the past: Buffalo was bigger than São Paulo till 1920.
__________________
London - São Paulo - Rio de Janeiro - Londrina - Frankfurt
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #51  
Old Posted Nov 26, 2022, 1:31 AM
Docere Docere is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 7,364
Outer London is still often called "the suburbs" even today (even though it's no more "suburban" than Queens is).

Outer London

1891 1,344,010
1901 1,970,622
1911 2,638,756
1921 2,902,232
1931 3,713,355
1939 4,601,650
1951 4,515,255
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #52  
Old Posted Nov 26, 2022, 4:22 AM
Docere Docere is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 7,364
Quote:
In 1881, the population of London’s Outer Ring stood at 936,364. By 1939, this figure had more than quadrupled to 4,601,650, meaning more than half of Greater London’s population now resided outside the County itself. London had been rapidly growing, both in its number of inhabitants and in the extent of its built-up area, throughout the nineteenth century, during which time many of its middle-class residents chose to relocate to less built-up districts on its outskirts. Yet during the late Victorian era, London’s lower middle-class and, to a lesser extent, working-class residents, also started to migrate en masse to the suburbs, with the Outer Ring’s population more than trebling from 1871 to exceed two million by the start of the twentieth century. The rate of this growth slowed during the Edwardian period—although the Outer Ring still gained nearly 700,000 people between 1901 and 1911—before being stemmed by the First World War.

Following the end of the conflict, suburbanization resumed with renewed vigour. The Outer Ring’s population increased by 59% between 1921 and 1939, but even more startling was the rate of physical growth, as the extent of London’s built-up area doubled. This was an era of lower density suburbs, the heyday of the semidetached home. At the same time, however, the London County Council (LCC) was also erecting cottage estates outwith the County—such as the Becontree Estate, spread across the boundaries of the Essex Urban Districts of Barking, Dagenham and Ilford, and the Watling Estate in Edgware, Middlesex—which facilitated working-class migration to the suburbs as well, with class tensions often ensuing. Furthermore, the interwar period also saw suburban London become a site of growth for Britain’s newer, more innovative industries, as evident from the development of the Park Royal Estate in North West London, or the relocation of Ford’s automotive manufacturing facilities to Dagenham.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/...4Z.00000000047
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #53  
Old Posted Nov 26, 2022, 11:13 AM
Yuri's Avatar
Yuri Yuri is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 4,478
And suburbanization was already beyond Greater London before WWII. For instance, Britain grew 4.6%, London 9.7%, while for example the neighbouring counties of Hertfordshire grew 21.3%, Surrey 20.6% between 1921-1931 census.
__________________
London - São Paulo - Rio de Janeiro - Londrina - Frankfurt
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #54  
Old Posted Nov 26, 2022, 6:16 PM
Docere Docere is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 7,364
The definition of "London" can be quite confusing. Hertfordshire and Surrey had different boundaries then, their populations then took in areas that became boroughs of Greater London that was established in 1965. On the other hand, the concept of Greater London existed long before then. There were metropolitan authorities extending beyond the County of London (i.e. Inner London) that were similar if not identical to what became (Greater) London.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #55  
Old Posted Nov 26, 2022, 6:35 PM
Yuri's Avatar
Yuri Yuri is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 4,478
Quote:
Originally Posted by Docere View Post
The definition of "London" can be quite confusing. Hertfordshire and Surrey had different boundaries then, their populations then took in areas that became boroughs of Greater London that was established in 1965. On the other hand, the concept of Greater London existed long before then. There were metropolitan authorities extending beyond the County of London (i.e. Inner London) that were similar if not identical to what became (Greater) London.
Those figures I mentioned refer to today's borders. There is a British database that provide all those past figures using current borders.
__________________
London - São Paulo - Rio de Janeiro - Londrina - Frankfurt
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #56  
Old Posted Nov 27, 2022, 5:35 AM
Docere Docere is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 7,364
What were the populations for the home counties in the early 20th century?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #57  
Old Posted Nov 27, 2022, 8:52 PM
Yuri's Avatar
Yuri Yuri is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 4,478
Quote:
Originally Posted by Docere View Post
What were the populations for the home counties in the early 20th century?
---------------------- 2021 ------ 1931 ------ 1921 ------ 1911 ------ 1891
LONDON -------- 15.876.845 - 10.674.366 - 9.627.862 - 9.236.020 - 7.140.440

London ------------- 8.799.728 -- 8.098.206 -- 7.382.131 -- 7.157.729 -- 5.567.591
Hertfordshire ------ 1.198.798 ---- 377.916 ---- 311.634 ---- 290.814 ---- 216.736
Essex -------------- 1.297.724 ---- 424.983 ---- 346.864 ---- 290.817 ---- 194.725
Kent --------------- 1.198.911 ---- 589.918 ---- 564.005 ---- 539.881 ---- 442.138
Surrey ------------- 1.203.108 ---- 511.579 ---- 424.078 ---- 394.499 ---- 282.467
Berkshire ----------- 788.329 ----- 247.656 ---- 223.903 ---- 206.130 ---- 155.963
Buckinghamshire --- 553.078 ---- 190.597 ---- 165.948 ---- 152.209 ---- 137.196
Bedfordshire -------- 519.514 ---- 152.433 ---- 140.109 ---- 129.932 ---- 106.985
Crawley ------------- 118.493 ------- 6.003 ------- 5.405 ------ 5.082 -------- 3.961
NE Hampshire ------ 199.162 ------ 75.075 ----- 63.785 ----- 68.927 ------ 32.678

Essex missing 4 northeast districts, Kent missing 5 on southeast, Berkshire missing 1 west, Buckinghamshire minus Milton Keynes and Bedfordshire including Luton and missing Bedford. Besides the Home counties, I included Crawley and the 2 districts on northeast Hampshire.

It's a 12,162 km² area.
__________________
London - São Paulo - Rio de Janeiro - Londrina - Frankfurt
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #58  
Old Posted Nov 28, 2022, 2:33 AM
pj3000's Avatar
pj3000 pj3000 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Pittsburgh & Miami
Posts: 7,544
Quote:
Originally Posted by Docere View Post
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.
Similarly for Pittsburgh… age and small size. And other cities/towns in the area were not really “satellites” of Pittsburgh, similarly to the situation in Boston.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #59  
Old Posted Nov 29, 2022, 6:25 AM
craigs's Avatar
craigs craigs is offline
Birds Aren't Real!
 
Join Date: May 2019
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 6,667
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yuri View Post
By 1920, the main urban cluster ended on Beverly Hills and didn't have enter San Fernando Valley. Didn't reach Pasadena either. Long Beach, a completely distinct city and had 55k people, Pomona 13k. We should at least deduct those from the 932k of Los Angeles County to find a metro population for Los Angeles. I guess 800k it's the most likely figure.

During the 1920's, population has grown insanely, 2.5 times in 10 years. For 1930 and 1940, I would use the county-based 1950 definition for Los Angeles.
The Pacific Electric Railway ("Red Cars") connected its hub, downtown Los Angeles, to the San Fernando Valley, Long Beach, Orange County, and the Inland Empire by 1912. The development in between the destinations was not contiguous so early in the metropolis' history, but it was already a very far-flung metropolis with a unified mass transit system, as seen in Wikipedia's Pacific Electric service map from 1920:

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #60  
Old Posted Nov 29, 2022, 3:45 PM
iheartthed iheartthed is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: New York
Posts: 9,786
Quote:
Originally Posted by Docere View Post
Outer London is still often called "the suburbs" even today (even though it's no more "suburban" than Queens is).

Outer London

1891 1,344,010
1901 1,970,622
1911 2,638,756
1921 2,902,232
1931 3,713,355
1939 4,601,650
1951 4,515,255
Outer Queens gets pretty suburban, but the borough is still twice the density of Outer London.
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 9:30 PM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

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