Power Shift: Cities

[Yuri]

As people mentioned, Ohio's shift in the early XXth century:

Cleveland

http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2012...hio_resid.html

vs

Cincinnati

Skyline by k.ditty, on Flickr


Cleveland
1900 ------ 704,768
1910 ------ 972,764 --- 38.0%
1920 ---- 1,491,856 --- 53.4%
1930 ---- 1,852,870 --- 24.2%
1940 ---- 1,886,863 ---- 1.8%
1950 ---- 2,233,447 --- 18.4%
1960 ---- 2,825,417 --- 26.5%
1970 ---- 3,098,513 ---- 9.7%
1980 ---- 2,938,277 --- -5.2%
1990 ---- 2,859,644 --- -2.7%
2000 ---- 2,945,831 ---- 3.0%
2010 ---- 2,881,937 --- -2.2%

Cincinnati
1900 ------ 793,758
1910 ------ 851,338 ---- 7.3%
1920 ------ 901,151 ---- 5.9%
1930 ---- 1,052,895 --- 16.8%
1940 ---- 1,101,539 ---- 4.6%
1950 ---- 1,270,310 --- 15.3%
1960 ---- 1,574,663 --- 24.0%
1970 ---- 1,721,901 ---- 9.4%
1980 ---- 1,788,404 ---- 3.9%
1990 ---- 1,880,332 ---- 5.1%
2000 ---- 2,050,175 ---- 9.0%
2010 ---- 2,172,191 ---- 6.0%

CSAs



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



Only the core of the metropolitan areas:

Cleveland
1830 ------- 16,069
1840 ------- 58,692 -- 265.2%
1850 ------- 88,839 --- 51.4%
1860 ------ 123,353 --- 38.9%
1870 ------ 178,253 --- 44.5%
1880 ------ 248,795 --- 39.6%
1890 ------ 368,500 --- 48.1%
1900 ------ 515,657 --- 39.9%
1910 ------ 736,389 --- 42.8%
1920 ---- 1,062,774 --- 44.3%
1930 ---- 1,352,335 --- 27.2%
1940 ---- 1,379,660 ---- 2.0%
1950 ---- 1,613,673 --- 17.0%
1960 ---- 2,014,095 --- 24.8%
1970 ---- 2,175,343 ---- 8.0%
1980 ---- 1,986,110 --- -8.7%
1990 ---- 1,898,765 --- -4.4%
2000 ---- 1,906,153 ---- 0.4%
2010 ---- 1,811,519 --- -5.0%

Cincinnati
1830 ------- 91,741
1840 ------ 126,315 --- 37.7%
1850 ------ 228,649 --- 81.0%
1860 ------ 307,016 --- 34.3%
1870 ------ 368,836 --- 20.1%
1880 ------ 443,506 --- 20.2%
1890 ------ 518,741 --- 17.0%
1900 ------ 570,073 ---- 9.9%
1910 ------ 629,427 --- 10.4%
1920 ------ 666,862 ---- 5.9%
1930 ------ 795,662 --- 19.3%
1940 ------ 831,973 ---- 4.6%
1950 ------ 959,599 --- 15.3%
1960 ---- 1,174,094 --- 22.4%
1970 ---- 1,270,699 ---- 8.2%
1980 ---- 1,267,924 --- -0.2%
1990 ---- 1,299,901 ---- 2.5%
2000 ---- 1,349,351 ---- 3.8%
2010 ---- 1,368,604 ---- 1.4%

Cincinnati: Boone, Campbell, Kenton, Clermont and Hamilton counties; Cleveland: Cuyahoga, Lake and Lorain counties



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



And finally the city proper (coincidentally, which is very convenient, both have exactly the same size, 201 km²):

Cleveland
1820 ---------- 606
1830 -------- 1,075 --- 77.4%
1840 -------- 6,071 -- 464.7%
1850 ------- 17,034 -- 180.6%
1860 ------- 43,417 -- 154.9%
1870 ------- 92,829 -- 113.8%
1880 ------ 160,146 --- 72.5%
1890 ------ 261,353 --- 63.2%
1900 ------ 381,768 --- 46.1%
1910 ------ 560,663 --- 46.9%
1920 ------ 796,841 --- 42.1%
1930 ------ 900,429 --- 13.0%
1940 ------ 878,336 --- −2.5%
1950 ------ 914,808 ---- 4.2%
1960 ------ 876,050 --- −4.2%
1970 ------ 750,903 -- −14.3%
1980 ------ 573,822 -- −23.6%
1990 ------ 505,616 -- −11.9%
2000 ------ 478,403 --- −5.4%
2010 ------ 396,815 -- −17.1%
2012 ------ 390,928 --- −1.5%

Cincinnati
1800 ---------- 850
1810 -------- 2,540 -- 198.8%
1820 -------- 9,642 -- 279.6%
1830 ------- 24,831 -- 157.5%
1840 ------- 46,338 --- 86.6%
1850 ------ 115,435 -- 149.1%
1860 ------ 161,044 --- 39.5%
1870 ------ 216,239 --- 34.3%
1880 ------ 255,139 --- 18.0%
1890 ------ 296,908 --- 16.4%
1900 ------ 325,902 ---- 9.8%
1910 ------ 363,591 --- 11.6%
1920 ------ 401,247 --- 10.4%
1930 ------ 451,160 --- 12.4%
1940 ------ 455,610 ---- 1.0%
1950 ------ 503,998 --- 10.6%
1960 ------ 502,550 --- −0.3%
1970 ------ 452,525 -- −10.0%
1980 ------ 385,460 -- −14.8%
1990 ------ 364,040 --- −5.6%
2000 ------ 331,285 --- −9.0%
2010 ------ 296,945 -- −10.4%
2012 ------ 296,550 --- −0.1%


As both cities are on the edges of the state, not sharing an influence area, I believe the shift was rather symbolic. Maybe forumers from Ohio could explain better state's internal dynamics.

Cincinnati is now growing more than Cleveland for the past 40 years, as Cleveland is the second largest Rust Belt metro area after Detroit. However, another shift in Ohio will involve another player: Columbus, the capital lying in the centre of the state. With a quasi-Sun Belt growth rate (12.9% in the past decade), it went from 1,835,189 inh. (2000) to 2,071,052 inh. (2010). It will take over Cincinnati in the next years (already did using the new CSAs definition), and will get closer and closer to Cleveland.

[Centropolis]

Originally Posted by yuriandrade

When did it take place?

1860s, same decade st. louis overtook cincinnati and the same decade that chicago closed the gap considerably.

[Razor]

What an interesting thread topic

I think that Toronto over taking Montreal in Canada is a perfect example, and it happened in recent history.
As a child I remember when Montreal was the clear dominant city in Canada.
It just came off hosting the very successful Expo 67 world fair, and the 1976 summer Olympics (remember Nadia and her perfect 10's?)
It was flying high at the time. I remember vividly as a child when older people talked about moving to or visiting "the city", and it was Montreal they were talking about..Not Toronto.And I grew up in Ontario..Not Quebec..The mid 70's is roughly the right time frame where Toronto emerged as Canada's dominant city.
The thing is, Toronto is dominating over Montreal as Canada's leading city by a healthy margin.Sure Montreal is still dominant in French Canada, but it's more of a regional dominance now..Someone on here before likened Toronto overtaking Montreal to Chicago taking over NYC..I thought that that was a perfect analogy.

[pip]

Damn that is shockingly beautiful

[Ch.G, Ch.G]

Originally Posted by Razor

What an interesting thread topic

I think that Toronto over taking Montreal in Canada is a perfect example, and it happened in recent history.
As a child I remember when Montreal was the clear dominant city in Canada.
It just came off hosting the very successful Expo 67 world fair, and the 1976 summer Olympics (remember Nadia and her perfect 10's?)
It was flying high at the time. I remember vividly as a child when older people talked about moving to or visiting "the city", and it was Montreal they were talking about..Not Toronto.And I grew up in Ontario..Not Quebec..The mid 70's is roughly the right time frame where Toronto emerged as Canada's dominant city.
The thing is, Toronto is dominating over Montreal as Canada's leading city by a healthy margin.Sure Montreal is still dominant in French Canada, but it's more of a regional dominance now..Someone on here before likened Toronto overtaking Montreal to Chicago taking over NYC..I thought that that was a perfect analogy.

But Chicago never did overtake NYC. It was probably its fiercest competitor for awhile, but NYC solidified its dominance over all other US cities awhile ago (although Angelenos may argue otherwise...?).

[Razor]

^ yes, but imagine if Chicago did overtake NYC? That would be like what actually took place here. Just drawing a comparison.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Razor

^ yes, but imagine if Chicago did overtake NYC? That would be like what actually took place here. Just drawing a comparison.

Wouldn't it be more like if LA did the same? If Chicago did such a thing it would be a monumental change in the order of U.S. cities.

Back in the 50's, while Montreal was clearly dominant, Toronto was fast growing and in a similar general ballpark of cities as Montreal. LA is sort of analogous to NYC in the same way today.

[ardecila]

Possibly. New York and Montreal both have a rich colonial history as economic centers, while Chicago and Toronto were both frontier trading posts at the time of their country's founding (roughly speaking).

That's often how this dynamic works, though. The seaport city booms early in a country's history due to foreign trade, investment, and immigration, but as the country matures and starts to rely more on resource extraction and domestic growth, an inland city takes the crown away. Of course, this isn't a deterministic thing - not every country has major inland resources, and cities are run by humans who can and do mess things up through poor management, corruption, etc.

[Roadcruiser1]

New York City will probably continue to dominate for a long time. Why? The city has a good harbor, a bustling economy, diverse economic classes, history, and tourism.........

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by ardecila

Possibly. New York and Montreal both have a rich colonial history as economic centers, while Chicago and Toronto were both frontier trading posts at the time of their country's founding (roughly speaking).

True, from that perspective, it's a good comparison.

[ue]

Opened this thread expecting it to be all about Montreal vs Toronto, and it ended up being about Rio vs Sao Paolo. Cool.

Another interesting one is Melbourne and Sydney, especially considering the former is poised to re-take the top spot after the latter did it in the 1970s.

In the future, we may be talking about LA and New York, as that city has the potential to overtake New York in a few decades after centuries of New York being America's largest city.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by ue

.

In the future, we may be talking about LA and New York, as that city has the potential to overtake New York in a few decades after centuries of New York being America's largest city.

Anything's possible, but there would have to be major, major changes in the fortunes of the two cities. LA's economic growth over the past decade or so has generally trailed that of NYC, especially during the down cycles.

If you count by CSA and not MSA, LA has slightly higher population growth, but it would still take centuries to overtake NYC in population, and that's assuming no changes in CSA geography, basically impossible in the populated Northeast. By MSA NYC has slightly higher population growth.

But if you take the extreme long-vision, LA was really the American boomtown of the 20th century. If the 21st century is equally kind to LA, it may one day have a shot, though I still cannot imagine 30 million+ people in LA, and how that could possibly work.

But who knows. I don't think too many people thought that Dallas and Houston would have 7 million people back in the 50's.

[ue]

Some more background about Montreal and Toronto (the only one I know a good amount about)...

Although Montreal was Canada's city for over a century, it should be noted that for most of the 20th century, Toronto wasn't that far behind. It was far more industrial and less cultural (although that still existed) and its wealthy class preferred not to erect grand monuments and instead act a bit more provincial. This is still something ingrained in Toronto's psyche, even in 2014, although changing. You see it anytime an Olympic bid is brought up or someone wants to build a new landmark for the city.

It has taken awhile for Montreal to shed its importance over Canadian affairs in culture, economy, and politics. In many ways still Montreal has allure and prestige over Toronto for Canadians as our most grand city and most cultured city. Toronto has caught up remarkably fast, though, and now dominates over much of Anglo Canada's affairs (as much as is possible in such a disconnected country). It is plenty cultured and vibrant these days, not being overtly provincial (though perhaps a tad insecure), though it takes time for people to change their perceptions, which is why Montreal is still spoken of with such romanticism. That being said, Quebec growing more insular has definitely pushed things along.

[antinimby]

LA's gonna need to find new water sources for that to happen.

[saybanana]

Where do you think the power lies in China: Shanghai or Beijing?

[Roadcruiser1]

Originally Posted by saybanana

Where do you think the power lies in China: Shanghai or Beijing?

Shanghai. 22 million people living in it makes it the world's largest city. Don't forget the harbor..

[ue]

^ I think Tokyo would like to have a word with you if you think Shanghai is the world's largest city.

[jd3189]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Some other American reversals:

New York and Philadelphia
Houston and Galveston
Houston and New Orleans
Charleston and Atlanta

The change here wasn't really significant, if any. As soon as the first US census was made, NYC had already overtaken Philly as the largest city. Things just stayed like that ever since.

Originally Posted by ue

In the future, we may be talking about LA and New York, as that city has the potential to overtake New York in a few decades after centuries of New York being America's largest city.

We could, but I highly doubt it. New York has too much dominance already and it isn't stopping. Los Angeles would have had a chance if NYC continued to be in the decline of the 70s, because now it's slowing down a bit. Unless most Americans start to suddenly love the ultra urban feel that New York has always had and wish this kind of feel could be applied to other cities instead of suburban sprawl and whatnot, things aren't really going to change.

[The Chemist]

Originally Posted by saybanana

Where do you think the power lies in China: Shanghai or Beijing?

Politically and culturally - Beijing
Economically - Shanghai

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by ue

Opened this thread expecting it to be all about Montreal vs Toronto, and it ended up being about Rio vs Sao Paolo. Cool.

Surprised me as well. I thought people would focus only on the North American shift.

Originally Posted by ue

Another interesting one is Melbourne and Sydney, especially considering the former is poised to re-take the top spot after the latter did it in the 1970s.

I guess Melbourne was ahead Sydney for only a brief moment back on the Australian Gold Rush in 1860. After that, Sydney kept a stable 20% lead, which is now being erode as Melbourne is growing faster.

Originally Posted by ue

Some more background about Montreal and Toronto (the only one I know a good amount about)...

Although Montreal was Canada's city for over a century, it should be noted that for most of the 20th century, Toronto wasn't that far behind. It was far more industrial and less cultural (although that still existed) and its wealthy class preferred not to erect grand monuments and instead act a bit more provincial. This is still something ingrained in Toronto's psyche, even in 2014, although changing. You see it anytime an Olympic bid is brought up or someone wants to build a new landmark for the city.

It has taken awhile for Montreal to shed its importance over Canadian affairs in culture, economy, and politics. In many ways still Montreal has allure and prestige over Toronto for Canadians as our most grand city and most cultured city. Toronto has caught up remarkably fast, though, and now dominates over much of Anglo Canada's affairs (as much as is possible in such a disconnected country). It is plenty cultured and vibrant these days, not being overtly provincial (though perhaps a tad insecure), though it takes time for people to change their perceptions, which is why Montreal is still spoken of with such romanticism. That being said, Quebec growing more insular has definitely pushed things along.

English used to be Montreal's lingua franca when the city was the biggest one, right? I heard many wealthy English-speakers left in the 70's and 80's.