What cities have shrunk most from the peak?

[Leo the Dog]

Originally Posted by ChargerCarl

Yeah I remember reading somewhere that Manhattans population is actually smaller than it was 100 years ago.

I think population figures for The Bronx are interesting.

It grew from 200,000 in 1900, to nearly 1.4 million in by 1940, pop remained stable until the 1970's.

From census figures - 1970 to 1980 it lost over 20% in a decade - 302,000 people, then began the long journey of urban revitalization, where it is now approaching all time population highs that were reached mid century.

[Beedok]

The city of Glasgow used to have over a million people and is now at about half a million, though I think the metro as a whole has grown.

[muppet]

Same with London. Just before WWII it peaked at 8.7 million for the city proper, then came the Blitz and evacuation. Afterward the austerity years coupled with suburbanisation, and de-industrialisation saw the city plummet to 6.4 million by the 1980s, where 1/8 of the land stood derelict as manufacturing firms, factories and docks closed en masse. In reality though the city proper plummeted, the suburbs grew.

Rush hour at the turn of the century, pop 6.8 million:




After the 1987 Big Bang the city changed to the services industry, and slowly started growing again, at increasing speed. Fast forward to today and the city is now growing at real numbers faster than in Victorian times (when it doubled its population 6x in a century), at about 120,000 per annum, and even higher in the metro. In 2015 it marked a landmark by passing peak population (from back in 1939).

London commuter rail, rush hour at Waterloo:

1939



1970s




2017

[Ex-Ithacan]

I know Binghamton, NY has lost a large portion of its population since 1950, from over 80,000 to 45,000 now. The metro area has also seen a decline in recent decades.

[pdxtex]

the detroit metro has nearly twice as many people as it did in 1950. central cities should be treated as a "neighborhood" within the greater context of a metro area. in that case, very few metros are actually losing population....between now and the last census, the only metros that lost population were rochester, cleveland, pittsburgh and buffalo. all for well known reasons....carry on.

[ssiguy]

One must remember there is a BIG difference between a city shrinking due to changing demographics such as a family once having 6 to 7 people to now having 3 or 4 and those that have experienced population decline due to people fleeing the city such as US Rust Belt cities.

[Yuri]

Rome had about 1 million people two millenia ago and fell to less than 50,000 in the middle-ages.

On modern times, thinking of major metropolitan areas only, I guess Pittsburgh is a good example, losing people every year since the early 1960's. There a couple of European examples too.

[ThePhun1]

Originally Posted by ChargerCarl

Yeah I remember reading somewhere that Manhattans population is actually smaller than it was 100 years ago.

As it should be. People were packed in like sardines, similar to many places on the Indian Subcontinent. Manhattan's population is actually similar, especially during the daytime, to how it used to be, it's just that far fewer people live there full time and commute in from New Jersey or the outer boroughs; some use it as a second home.

[ThePhun1]

Originally Posted by pdxtex

the detroit metro has nearly twice as many people as it did in 1950. central cities should be treated as a "neighborhood" within the greater context of a metro area. in that case, very few metros are actually losing population....between now and the last census, the only metros that lost population were rochester, cleveland, pittsburgh and buffalo. all for well known reasons....carry on.

Yes and no...often a sharp decline in municipal population is a sign of that place's decline in stature and power. Notice Detroit and St. Louis' status has declined while New York and Boson's has stayed the same, if not increased.

[10023]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Also, it's worth mentioning that many booming metros had similar population losses in the core, they just had larger city limits to mask the losses.

Even Manhattan is almost 30% below its peak residential population.

The baseline population loss in American cities due to smaller households, assuming no change in available building stock, is probably 40% or more.

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by ThePhun1

Yes and no...often a sharp decline in municipal population is a sign of that place's decline in stature and power. Notice Detroit and St. Louis' status has declined while New York and Boson's has stayed the same, if not increased.

I don't think New York and Boston stayed the same. They've relatively lost lot of ground since the 1950's.

[Minato Ku]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

One must remember there is a BIG difference between a city shrinking due to changing demographics such as a family once having 6 to 7 people to now having 3 or 4 and those that have experienced population decline due to people fleeing the city such as US Rust Belt cities.

That's true,
It's also what happened for the City of Paris
The decrease of population is due to gentrification, the City is no longer full of appartment with 7 people inside.
It's an increase of the quality of life.

[the urban politician]

I think Chicago's story is more multi-pronged than most:

1. Black flight leading to unhealthy population loss
2. Booming core with population gains
3. Gentrification with decline in household sizes, thus healthy population loss
4. Population gains on the NW and SW sides of the city due to families, immigrants

But the net effect is still population loss largely because #1 and #3 outweigh #2 and #4

[north 42]

Originally Posted by balletomane

Buffalo, Cleveland, Detroit, Flint, Gary, Niagara Falls, Pittsburgh, St. Louis, Youngstown. All have lost 50% of their population, with Detroit still losing population fastest.
On my part, I will say that my use of population as the sole indicator for a city's health is unfair, there are many factors to consider when looking at a city's health.
Detroit is turning a corner, and I'm excited for what that city could look like a few decades from now. I'm as hopeful for that city as anyone, but north 42 and the north one, telling people they have no idea what they are talking about won't help your cause or the city's. I'm all for having a discussion because hearing opinions should they be delivered respectfully is a healthy way to learn and also develop your own.
Thank you for contributing to the thread! Most people's think that Detroit is an example of what a city could look like after an apocalypse, its great that there are people out there who see things differently and more optimistically!

Oh, so the two people who actually live in the region don't know what they are talking about, but a bunch of kids in their parents basement who only get their information from the internet knows more. Stop pretending you know what Detroit is like, I'm sorry, but you really don't have a clue!

[balletomane]

Originally Posted by north 42

Oh, so the two people who actually live in the region don't know what they are talking about, but a bunch of kids in their parents basement who only get their information from the internet knows more. Stop making false claims, I'm sorry, but you really don't have a clue!

Not once did I say you didn't know what you were talking about, and clearly both of you would have more knowledge about Detroit considering you live in the region. I'm sorry if I might've insinuated that you didn't know what you were talking about.

I think an important aspect when talking about Detroit is perception, and in particular an outsider's perceptions of what the city is like. As naive as my comments may be about the city, its the truth to many people out there, even if the metro is doing quite well. Its like how many Canadians think of Winnipeg as being the desolate, crime-ridden, "Murder Capital of Canada" city, yes there are issues, but the city is much safer than many assume.
I really respect that you defend Detroit from people such as myself who may have incomplete opinions of the city, even if there is some weight to them. I know I would do the same if anyone was making false claims about Winnipeg's reputation. The more I think of the exaggerated negative opinions of Detroit, the more I think of how its similar to Winnipeg, knowing that many people's opinions about Winnipeg are incorrect, the more I assume my opinions about Detroit are incorrect too.

[north 42]

Originally Posted by balletomane

Not once did I say you didn't know what you were talking about, and clearly both of you would have more knowledge about Detroit considering you live in the region. I'm sorry if I might've insinuated that you didn't know what you were talking about.

I think an important aspect when talking about Detroit is perception, and in particular an outsider's perceptions of what the city is like. As naive as my comments may be about the city, its the truth to many people out there, even if the metro is doing quite well. Its like how many Canadians think of Winnipeg as being the desolate, crime-ridden, "Murder Capital of Canada" city, yes there are issues, but the city is much safer than many assume.
I really respect that you defend Detroit from people such as myself who may have incomplete opinions of the city, even if there is some weight to them. I know I would do the same if anyone was making false claims about Winnipeg's reputation. The more I think of the exaggerated negative opinions of Detroit, the more I think of how its similar to Winnipeg, knowing that many people's opinions about Winnipeg are incorrect, the more I assume my opinions about Detroit are incorrect too.

Thank you, yes, you got it, I'm sorry. Too many people make lazy, outdated claims and try to pass them off as fact, and people like me just try to educate them about what is actually happening currently. It's not that we are denying all the bad aspects of the city, we live here, we know all about them, but it's just that there are also a lot of great things happening, and that progress is being made.
And yes, I think that Winnipeg also has to battle an unfair reputation, though not as bad a one as Detroit, but there is just so much more to both cities than just past history and bad news stories. No one is being a blind Homer here, we're just trying balance out all the negative perceptions floating around with some of the positive aspects as well.

[balletomane]

Originally Posted by north 42

Thank you, yes, you got it, I'm sorry. Too many people make lazy, outdated claims and try to pass them off as fact, and people like me just try to educate them about what is actually happening currently. It's not that we are denying all the bad aspects of the city, we live here, we know all about them, but it's just that there are also a lot of great things happening, and that progress is being made.
And yes, I think that Winnipeg also has to battle an unfair reputation, though not as bad a one as Detroit, but there is just so much more to both cities than just past history and bad news stories. No one is being a blind Homer here, we're just trying balance out all the negative perceptions floating around with some of the positive aspects as well.

I hope this remains the case. If there are enough people in the future who have positive opinions and share news about good developments in their city the more likely it is that external and internal perception will change.
I'm assuming, if Detroit's mentality is anything like Winnipeg, there are people who live there who believe their city is destined to only get worse and they live in the worst city in their country.
Winnipeg, in the late-1990's and early-2000's had a very sad, depressed feeling to it, when the Jets left, that was the kicker and it was like everyone had lost hope in the city's future. Finally things are changing, we have two skyscrapers planned that should they be built will be significantly taller than our current tallest, projects that will only add to recent developments downtown. Winnipeggers' perception of Winnipeg is improving, now its just a matter of improving that perception nationally.

On another note, even though the population of the City of Detroit has decreased substantially, I think the population of the Former City of Winnipeg could've also declined by a similar margin. There were factors that saved us from a similar population loss, one of them being that the Aboriginal population was and still is rapidly urbanizing.

[ThePhun1]

Originally Posted by yuriandrade

I don't think New York and Boston stayed the same. They've relatively lost lot of ground since the 1950's.

New York is every bit as prominent as it was 100 years ago. It's actually in better shape than it was 30 years ago. The only thing that's changed is that other places have grown in prestige but New York is still the place be, domestically and internationally.

Boston has stabilized at worst. And like New York, there are some new kids on the block but certain things, such as its educational prowess, have not changed and can't so easily be wrestled away. Boston has fallen in stature from where it was 200 years ago but that's natural because there's way more cities. The country no longer gravitates wholly north and east.

[Yuri]

New York population and GDP share is smaller now than it was 80 years ago. They didn't have competitors like Los Angeles, San Francisco, Dallas, Houston and Atlanta back then. It was them alone, with Chicago in a far away 2nd place.

This new hype around New York has five years ago only. The history of city in the XX century is a history of relative decline over the whole period.

[eschaton]

I did a calculation a few years back, and the vast majority of Pittsburgh's population decline was indeed due to falling household size. So much so that if the city grew by only an additional 110,000 (unlikely, but not impossible if we really became a "new Portland") the number of households would be equal to the 1950 peak.