Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
None, the only other city that even gets a significant bragging right is Philadelphia, because they can say they've been there since the start of the census.
But none can claim the same as NYC. The city has been in the same spot since the very start.
I would find it interesting if it could keep that same spot if Brooklyn were still it's own city today.
Actually in 1790 current day Philly was larger than current day NYC - NYC passed in 1800 barely - then continued to seperate
3 of the ten most populated cities on the 1790 are now part of what today would be Center City
Location: Austin, TX/Chicago, IL/Houston, TX/Washington, DC
10,138 posts, read 16,060,443 times
Reputation: 4047
Quote:
Originally Posted by kidphilly
Actually in 1790 current day Philly was larger than current day NYC - NYC passed in 1800 barely - then continued to seperate
3 of the ten most populated cities on the 1790 are now part of what today would be Center City
Honestly recalling from all the things I learned in elementary and middle school Social Studies classes. I remember my teachers telling me Philadelphia was larger than NYC at given points in time.
Then looking at the census information here, I just completely brushed it off because of the fact that they were elementary and middle school teachers.
That's when I first began obsessing over Boston and Philadelphia. Both cities are well loved by elementary and middle school kids at least.
We even learned about how Philadelphia was the national capital and all, but they never once taught us back then that NYC was the national capital as well...
None, the only other city that even gets a significant bragging right is Philadelphia, because they can say they've been there since the start of the census.
But none can claim the same as NYC. The city has been in the same spot since the very start.
I would find it interesting if it could keep that same spot if Brooklyn were still it's own city today.
Easy math:
NYC Population ~ 8.3mil
Brookly Population ~ 2.5mil
NYC - Brooklyn Population = 5.8mil
Honestly recalling from all the things I learned in elementary and middle school Social Studies classes. I remember my teachers telling me Philadelphia was larger than NYC at given points in time.
Then looking at the census information here, I just completely brushed it off because of the fact that they were elementary and middle school teachers.
That's when I first began obsessing over Boston and Philadelphia. Both cities are well loved by elementary and middle school kids at least.
We even learned about how Philadelphia was the national capital and all, but they never once taught us back then that NYC was the national capital as well...
As were Trenton NJ and Lancaster PA - both briefly
on the cpaital and i know I have written this before but until the concession to the South for DC - the capital was seriously considered for an area right next to Trenton for the building of the nations capital - that would have been 14 miles from present Philadelphia and 38 miles from NYC (and the city borders not metros) - could you imaging putting DC in the 46 mile spaces that seperates NYC and Philly - I for one am glad that didnt happen. There is an overpass on I-95 in NJ between exits 3 and 4 called Federal City road - that would have been the epicenter
Location: Austin, TX/Chicago, IL/Houston, TX/Washington, DC
10,138 posts, read 16,060,443 times
Reputation: 4047
Quote:
Originally Posted by prelude91
Easy math:
NYC Population ~ 8.3mil
Brookly Population ~ 2.5mil
NYC - Brooklyn Population = 5.8mil
Still the largest city in US
I think you misunderstand what I meant, I meant if NYC (which is current day Manhattan) didn't annex in The Bronx, Queens, Staten Island, and Brooklyn.
I know growth patterns would have been more different, because of two large competing cities resting right next to each other.
So to rephrase what I meant. Manhattan (Which was just NYC before annexing in the others) vs. Brooklyn.
I know we would be seeing some major changes in the census from then to now.
Location: Austin, TX/Chicago, IL/Houston, TX/Washington, DC
10,138 posts, read 16,060,443 times
Reputation: 4047
Quote:
Originally Posted by kidphilly
As were Trenton NJ and Lancaster PA - both briefly
on the cpaital and i know I have written this before but until the concession to the South for DC - the capital was seriously considered for an area right next to Trenton for the building of the nations capital - that would have been 14 miles from present Philadelphia and 38 miles from NYC (and the city borders not metros) - could you imaging putting DC in the 46 mile spaces that seperates NYC and Philly - I for one am glad that didnt happen. There is an overpass on I-95 in NJ between exits 3 and 4 called Federal City road - that would have been the epicenter
That would have been an urban night mare, especially with traffic. I cannot see our nations capital being in a better location than it is now. Thank god they placed it on the Potomac.
NYC Population ~ 8.3mil
Brookly Population ~ 2.5mil
NYC - Brooklyn Population = 5.8mil
Still the largest city in US
The other interesting thing is Brooklyn if at 2.5 million is still growing - am glad to see Philly growing again but that would make Brooklyn either the 4th or 5th largest city all by itself and if you break up the boroughs, it would actually be 3 or 4 - kind of interesting to think about
I know how you feel! Normally I write paragraphs of things and only get like a "one word" answer.
Okay, I'd like to add something to your list/paragraph.
Back in high school we also learned in AP US History class that suburban growth also came partially because of the fear of a nuclear disaster. To get away from the core of the city and into a more spread out location would be a lot safer especially with developments of basements in the suburban locations in the Midwest and Northeast.
They would do nuclear threat tests all the time, they would display the tests on the television screens of those locals watching television, this was during the period where the Soviet Union and USA were bulking up their arms and defense and building atomic bombs at fast rates.
Plus it was the introductory phase of the Cold War and the stressed relationship with the Soviet Union post World War II.
It led to massive migration from the cities to the suburbs, and 9 out 10 of those cities suffered greatly from their 1950 peak to their 1960 drop. The only city on the list that did not suffer was Los Angeles.
I also found it quite surprising to see Buffalo on the list as one of the nations 10 largest cities! LOL, and that too for nearly 2 decades it stayed on the list!
I disagree. This nuclear-fear was just a cop-out. Most whites left the inner city, sadly, due to racism. In almost every major city in the 50's and 60's you see this trend. It wasn't right, but it was the reality.
What is truely interesting is the reverse is happening in many areas today. Many blacks have moved to the suburbs, and many whites have moved back into the inner city. The stats will show up in the 2010 census.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
