What cities have shrunk most from the peak?

[TimCity2000]

Birmingham peaked at 340,000 in the 1960s. Today, it stands at 212,000. Good news is that the rate of decline seems to finally be leveling off and I wouldn't be surprised if we even saw an increase (albeit a small one) in the next census.

[balletomane]

Originally Posted by Docere

And the amalgamation of Winnipeg and its suburbs in the 1970s has masked the decline in inner city Winnipeg. Of course Winnipeg as a city/metro as a whole has grown since then.

Yes, I think had Winnipeg not amalgamated it would be the only major Canadian city to have experienced a substantial population decline. Montreal and Toronto both declined, but the Former City of Toronto has rebounded, and Montreal has quite a bit too. Halifax, Ottawa and Hamilton (their former cities) have been more or less stagnant I believe.

Using former vs. current city limits paints a very different picture of the Winnipeg's demographics trends:


1901: 42,000 vs. 48,000
1911: 136,000 vs. 157,000
1921: 179,000 vs. 229,000
1931: 219,000 vs. 295,000
1941: 222,000 vs. 300,000
1951: 236,000 vs. 354,000
1961: 265,000 vs. 472,000
1971: 246,000 vs. 536,000
1981: 200,000 vs. 564,000
1991: 196,000 vs. 617,000
2001: 190,000 vs. 620,000
2011: 194,000 vs. 664,000
2016: 200,000 vs. 705,000

[toddguy]

Originally Posted by ChiSoxRox

Johnstown's metro area (Cambria County) peaked at 213,459 in 1940, and the 2016 estimates have it at 134,732 for a drop of 36.9%. That looks like the worst drop for a metro area in the US, with Wheeling being a contender at 29.8% off its (also 1940) peak.

For metro areas over half a million, the modern Scranton/Wilkes-Barre area peaked at 771,023 in 1930 and is at 555,225 in 2016, a 27.9% drop.

I think that using metro populations or urban area populations give a better idea of how cities as functioning entities are doing population wise, rather than just looking at cities as municipal entities, especially when it comes to just raw population numbers. These are good examples.

Originally Posted by balletomane

Yes, I think had Winnipeg not amalgamated it would be the only major Canadian city to have experienced a substantial population decline. Montreal and Toronto both declined, but the Former City of Toronto has rebounded, and Montreal has quite a bit too. Halifax, Ottawa and Hamilton (their former cities) have been more or less stagnant I believe.

Using former vs. current city limits paints a very different picture of the Winnipeg's demographics trends:


1901: 42,000 vs. 48,000
1911: 136,000 vs. 157,000
1921: 179,000 vs. 229,000
1931: 219,000 vs. 295,000
1941: 222,000 vs. 300,000
1951: 236,000 vs. 354,000
1961: 265,000 vs. 472,000
1971: 246,000 vs. 536,000
1981: 200,000 vs. 564,000
1991: 196,000 vs. 617,000
2001: 190,000 vs. 620,000
2011: 194,000 vs. 664,000
2016: 200,000 vs. 705,000

This is a good example of how if one is going to compare municipal city limit populations, you need to compare the same areas(unchanged)from one time period to another.

An Example would be Cleveland and Columbus. Cleveland has not grown in size(area wise) since 1950, while Columbus has quintupled and then some. It appears that while Cleveland has lost over 60 percent, Columbus has more than doubled. But within the 1950 boundaries, Columbus has lost at least a third. Very different outcomes depending on what you are measuring.

Same thing applies to other nations such as Germany and Japan, where cities have grown in size by adding nearby towns into the municipal limits over time.

It is actually difficult to find cities that have grown greatly within older municipal limits simply because family size has generally dropped. Which cities that have not had any change in municipal city limits since 1950 or so have had a significant increase in population since then? I bet not many.

[MolsonExport]

Originally Posted by toddguy

This is a good example of how if one is going to compare municipal city limit populations, you need to compare the same areas(unchanged)from one time period to another.


It is actually difficult to find cities that have grown greatly within older municipal limits simply because family size has generally dropped. Which cities that have not had any change in municipal city limits since 1950 or so have had a significant increase in population since then? I bet not many.

A nice sobering side effect would be a decline of the nauseating population boosterism that often comes from so-called growth.

[eschaton]

It's worth noting even in traditional cities, the densest urban neighborhoods typically started declining in population way before 1950. In some cases likely as early as 1900. It's just that from the period from 1900-1950, most core cities in the U.S. were still adding additional neighborhoods - first streetcar suburbs, and later on early automotive suburbs. These tended to balance out the shrinkage in population seen in the urban core (which was more due to the expansion of industrial zones into residential areas than anything else).

[CherryCreek]

Originally Posted by toddguy

It is actually difficult to find cities that have grown greatly within older municipal limits simply because family size has generally dropped. Which cities that have not had any change in municipal city limits since 1950 or so have had a significant increase in population since then? I bet not many.

For certain US cities, I suspect if you looked from 1950 to the present you would see a significant decline in population density from 1950 well into the 1990s, but then an uptick. Denver is such a City which did expand boundaries from 1950 to 1974, but largely has been frozen in size since then as it became surrounded by suburbs (excluding land added for airport on which there is minimal residential development).

Looking only at 1950 boundaries, its 2014 density (9.9 per acre) matched almost perfectly its 1950 density (9.8). See http://www.denverpost.com/2016/12/12...opulated-1950/

But if you just looked at that, you would be missing the story, because what really happened was there was a long period of stagnation and decline followed by sharp rebound since 1990.

Denver declined from a peak population of 514,000 in 1970, to 467,000 in 1990 but since that time has rebounded to around 700,000 today, almost all of that within the 1990 boundaries. Although some of the new density is in areas added to city after 1950, much of it is within the 1950 boundaries, as anyone who has seen the intense, dense level of development that has enveloped most of the core city neighborhoods since 2000 could tell you (not to mention the massive redevelopment of land that comprised the old Denver airport prior to the 1990s). With 5,000 units under construction in central Denver in 2016 and many more added to that total since then, density will soon materially exceed the 1950 level.

It wouldn't surprise me to hear that San Fran and Seattle had similar trajectories over those periods. There may be other cities also.

[Docere]

Originally Posted by balletomane

Yes, I think had Winnipeg not amalgamated it would be the only major Canadian city to have experienced a substantial population decline. Montreal and Toronto both declined, but the Former City of Toronto has rebounded, and Montreal has quite a bit too. Halifax, Ottawa and Hamilton (their former cities) have been more or less stagnant I believe.

Using former vs. current city limits paints a very different picture of the Winnipeg's demographics trends:


1901: 42,000 vs. 48,000
1911: 136,000 vs. 157,000
1921: 179,000 vs. 229,000
1931: 219,000 vs. 295,000
1941: 222,000 vs. 300,000
1951: 236,000 vs. 354,000
1961: 265,000 vs. 472,000
1971: 246,000 vs. 536,000
1981: 200,000 vs. 564,000
1991: 196,000 vs. 617,000
2001: 190,000 vs. 620,000
2011: 194,000 vs. 664,000
2016: 200,000 vs. 705,000

Memph in his blog has shown population declines in inner Windsor and London (based on 1951 boundaries).

Windsor

1956: 122,980
2011: 82,324
-33.1%

London

1956: 101,693
2011: 69,533
-31.6%

http://swontariourbanist.blogspot.ca...1956-2011.html

[jayden]

From the stats looks like Chicago (Gary), and New Orleans (for obvious reasons).

[NorthernDancer]

The old city of Toronto went from over 700,000 people to under 600,000 to (now) over 800,000 people in less than 38 square miles.

[Ragnar]

Originally Posted by toddguy

It is actually difficult to find cities that have grown greatly within older municipal limits simply because family size has generally dropped. Which cities that have not had any change in municipal city limits since 1950 or so have had a significant increase in population since then? I bet not many.

I think Los Angeles would qualify since there has been minimal annexation activity since 1950, while the population within the city limits has grown from 1.97 million in 1950 to almost 4 million today.

Of course it helped that in 1950 LA had a lot of undeveloped land in the Valley (which had been annexed in 1915).

[PhillyRising]

Originally Posted by ChiSoxRox

Johnstown's metro area (Cambria County) peaked at 213,459 in 1940, and the 2016 estimates have it at 134,732 for a drop of 36.9%. That looks like the worst drop for a metro area in the US, with Wheeling being a contender at 29.8% off its (also 1940) peak.

For metro areas over half a million, the modern Scranton/Wilkes-Barre area peaked at 771,023 in 1930 and is at 555,225 in 2016, a 27.9% drop.

Johnstown is such a depressing place. It's has a nice natural beauty but the town itself is depressing. Even the most optimistic person will be popping anti depressants by the time they drove from one side of town to the other.

[Yuri]

Why is that? Why there are so many cities in US that create such negative feelings in their inhabitants and visitors? I can't think of anything like that elsewhere.

[the urban politician]

^ Because life in America is stressful.

[CherryCreek]

Originally Posted by yuriandrade

Why is that? Why there are so many cities in US that create such negative feelings in their inhabitants and visitors? I can't think of anything like that elsewhere.

Your question could be its own thread: What's wrong with American cities?

You'd probably have to be a de Tocqueville and look into the American heart and soul to answer that one.

[toddguy]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

A nice sobering side effect would be a decline of the nauseating population boosterism that often comes from so-called growth.

True, but mindless boosterism is hard to resist. I suspect Columbus will pass Indianapolis when the city statistics come out. Indy is basically most of Marion County, and only added about 3500 people, while Franklin(Columbus)added 14,000...Cbus has been getting about two thirds of that recently...and was only about 3500 behind. If it got half of that 14,000 then it goes ahead...will be hard not to be pleased even though it means nothing lol.

Originally Posted by CherryCreek

For certain US cities, I suspect if you looked from 1950 to the present you would see a significant decline in population density from 1950 well into the 1990s, but then an uptick. Denver is such a City which did expand boundaries from 1950 to 1974, but largely has been frozen in size since then as it became surrounded by suburbs (excluding land added for airport on which there is minimal residential development).

Looking only at 1950 boundaries, its 2014 density (9.9 per acre) matched almost perfectly its 1950 density (9.8). See http://www.denverpost.com/2016/12/12...opulated-1950/

But if you just looked at that, you would be missing the story, because what really happened was there was a long period of stagnation and decline followed by sharp rebound since 1990.

Denver declined from a peak population of 514,000 in 1970, to 467,000 in 1990 but since that time has rebounded to around 700,000 today, almost all of that within the 1990 boundaries. Although some of the new density is in areas added to city after 1950, much of it is within the 1950 boundaries, as anyone who has seen the intense, dense level of development that has enveloped most of the core city neighborhoods since 2000 could tell you (not to mention the massive redevelopment of land that comprised the old Denver airport prior to the 1990s). With 5,000 units under construction in central Denver in 2016 and many more added to that total since then, density will soon materially exceed the 1950 level.

It wouldn't surprise me to hear that San Fran and Seattle had similar trajectories over those periods. There may be other cities also.

I agree there are many that are at peak or slightly above..and San Francisco and Seattle are both above their previous peak as is Portland, Toronto, Miami ...maybe others...but there are few if any that are WAY over their previous peak in the same area. I can't think of any major ones that have, say, doubled their previous peak(except LA as was mentioned)at least in the US.
For any to pass their previous high with the decline in household size is really an achievement.

Originally Posted by NorthernDancer

The old city of Toronto went from over 700,000 people to under 600,000 to (now) over 800,000 people in less than 38 square miles.

Toronto would be a good example of one that has really added a lot in a small area.

Originally Posted by Ragnar

I think Los Angeles would qualify since there has been minimal annexation activity since 1950, while the population within the city limits has grown from 1.97 million in 1950 to almost 4 million today.

Of course it helped that in 1950 LA had a lot of undeveloped land in the Valley (which had been annexed in 1915).

Yeah I think LA is the big exception that I can think of. It was already over 400 square miles(I think) and much of the San Fernando Valley was annexed and not very developed.

[NorthernDancer]

New Westminster:

-is 159 years old (ancient by Western Canadian standards)
-is 28 years older than Vancouver itself
-was more populous than Vancouver until the early 20th century
-was BC's original capital city before Victoria

I'm still waiting for Crawford to explain how New Westminster is a "new suburb". I guess he figures because it has "New" in it's name it must be a "new suburb".

[Innsertnamehere]

Originally Posted by eschaton

It's worth noting even in traditional cities, the densest urban neighborhoods typically started declining in population way before 1950. In some cases likely as early as 1900. It's just that from the period from 1900-1950, most core cities in the U.S. were still adding additional neighborhoods - first streetcar suburbs, and later on early automotive suburbs. These tended to balance out the shrinkage in population seen in the urban core (which was more due to the expansion of industrial zones into residential areas than anything else).

growing wealth is a big one too. Average household size dropped, and people started buying larger residences. A 500 square foot flat that housed a family of 8 in NYC in 1900 would house 5 in 1940, and 2 in 2017. Even if nobody moved out of the city, you would need a huge amount of new construction to create the extra space to meet the demand for larger living spaces.

[Centropolis]

Originally Posted by yuriandrade

Why is that? Why there are so many cities in US that create such negative feelings in their inhabitants and visitors? I can't think of anything like that elsewhere.

it's our brand of capitalism.

[skyscraper]

Originally Posted by Centropolis

it's our brand of capitalism.

please explain.

[Innsertnamehere]

Toronto has grown from 1.1 million in its current municipal boundaries to 2.7 million today.. but that includes A large part of the inner suburbs that was not developed in the 1950's.

Toronto's current municipal borders have largely been built out since the 1991 census, and has seen just under half a million people in growth since then.