Historical urban/rural population for U.S. states
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 09:22:33 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Political Geography & Demographics (Moderators: muon2, 15 Down, 35 To Go)
  Historical urban/rural population for U.S. states
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Historical urban/rural population for U.S. states  (Read 6430 times)
Bo
Rochambeau
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,986
Israel


Political Matrix
E: -5.23, S: -2.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: June 19, 2010, 06:42:16 PM »

I found this link for the urban population (%wise) of all U.S. states between 1900 and 2000.

http://data.iowadatacenter.org/datatables/UnitedStates/urusstpop19002000.pdf

Are there any sources/websites that have urban population data (in %) for U.S. states before 1900? I managed to find this data for the urban population of PA before 1900 (since 1790, in fact).

http://pasdc.hbg.psu.edu/pasdc/PA_Stats/profiles_tables_and_charts/pennsylvania/pop_other/04XT1-06.html

But is there any data for the urban population of any other states before 1900? If you find something, please post it here.
Logged
Torie
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,057
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -4.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: June 19, 2010, 07:44:46 PM »

A tad off topic, but did you know that cities prior to 1890 were death traps in the US, with a higher death rate than birth rate?  The key difference was that in the early 1890's sanitation measures were instituted. I used to kid my dad that he was lucky he was born in Brooklyn in 1906. If he had been born a bit earlier, he might not have been able to sire me, and what a tragedy that would be!  Smiley

Anyway, it was good that the US was largely rural prior to 1890.
Logged
Ban my account ffs!
snowguy716
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,632
Austria


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: June 19, 2010, 08:10:38 PM »

It's interesting.. the most rapid urbanization occurred in Minnesota from 1900-1930, stagnated until 1950, then grew rapidly from 1950-1970 before falling off again and picking up again in the 90s.

I would think that urbanization would have been very high in the 70s and 80s as all the rural born baby boomers graduated high school and moved to "The Cities".  But the boomers also tended to move to areas that may have been considered rural during that time, but with rapid growth, were then reclassified as urban areas in the 1990s.

Still, it's misleading.  71% of Minnesotans are not urban residents.  25% are truly urban residents while the other 45% are suburban residents.
Logged
fezzyfestoon
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,204
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: June 19, 2010, 08:22:46 PM »

I would think that urbanization would have been very high in the 70s and 80s as all the rural born baby boomers graduated high school and moved to "The Cities".  But the boomers also tended to move to areas that may have been considered rural during that time, but with rapid growth, were then reclassified as urban areas in the 1990s.

That's so weird, the opposite could be said in New Jersey.  All the city-born boomers were moving away, especially in the '70s and '80s.
Logged
Verily
Cuivienen
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,663


Political Matrix
E: 1.81, S: -6.78

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: June 19, 2010, 08:54:55 PM »

I would think that urbanization would have been very high in the 70s and 80s as all the rural born baby boomers graduated high school and moved to "The Cities".  But the boomers also tended to move to areas that may have been considered rural during that time, but with rapid growth, were then reclassified as urban areas in the 1990s.

That's so weird, the opposite could be said in New Jersey.  All the city-born boomers were moving away, especially in the '70s and '80s.

NJ's growth patterns were also heavily influenced by the rise and fall of exclusionary zoning from the 1940s to the 1980s.
Logged
Bo
Rochambeau
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,986
Israel


Political Matrix
E: -5.23, S: -2.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: June 19, 2010, 08:59:53 PM »

Still, it's misleading.  71% of Minnesotans are not urban residents.  25% are truly urban residents while the other 45% are suburban residents.

The definition of urban in an urban vs. rural comparison is urban areas+suburban areas.
Logged
Shilly
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 590
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: June 19, 2010, 09:01:41 PM »

Interesting to see Maine buck the trend here.
Logged
Verily
Cuivienen
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,663


Political Matrix
E: 1.81, S: -6.78

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: June 19, 2010, 09:03:02 PM »

Still, it's misleading.  71% of Minnesotans are not urban residents.  25% are truly urban residents while the other 45% are suburban residents.

The definition of urban in an urban vs. rural comparison is urban areas+suburban areas.

Which makes the data pretty much useless after 1940 because the main shifts in American society have been between urban and suburban areas since then.
Logged
nclib
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,300
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: June 19, 2010, 09:12:01 PM »


Yes, Maine has gotten more rural every decade since 1950. Surprising, since ME-1 is growing faster than ME-2.
Logged
Bo
Rochambeau
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,986
Israel


Political Matrix
E: -5.23, S: -2.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: June 19, 2010, 09:13:57 PM »

No one has yet answered my original question. Just saying.
Logged
Ban my account ffs!
snowguy716
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,632
Austria


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: June 19, 2010, 09:16:01 PM »

I would think that urbanization would have been very high in the 70s and 80s as all the rural born baby boomers graduated high school and moved to "The Cities".  But the boomers also tended to move to areas that may have been considered rural during that time, but with rapid growth, were then reclassified as urban areas in the 1990s.

That's so weird, the opposite could be said in New Jersey.  All the city-born boomers were moving away, especially in the '70s and '80s.

Flight from the cities occurred here during the 1950s and 60s.  By the 70s, the population fell at the fastest rate as the white baby boomers that grew up in the city moved out.  Unlike in some cities (like Detroit, Cleveland, or St. Louis), the Twin Cities has had constant growth in the number of households in the cities since they were incorporated.  It's simply the huge decline in household size that has led to population decline.. again indicating that the flight wasn't as big among long time adult residents.. but the simple lack of room for the kids to stay in the city when they moved out.

That's also why some suburbs had a spectacular boom followed by a huge decline in population and then stabilization.  Richfield grew from nothing in WWII to 47,000 residents in 1970.. and fell to 36,000 in 1980 and 33,000 in 1990... that extra 11,000 people were all kids who graduated and moved out of the city in the 1970s.

It's such an incredibly inefficient way to use infrastructure.. but people wanted their 0.5 acre/2.5 kids and a white picket fence on a quiet street.
Logged
Torie
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,057
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -4.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: June 19, 2010, 10:03:14 PM »

The first pic is a night view of the LA basin from Mt. Wilson circa 1908, and the next the same view 100 years later. Pretty cool huh?



Logged
??????????
StatesRights
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,126
Political Matrix
E: 7.61, S: 0.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: June 19, 2010, 10:27:12 PM »

No. Sad
Logged
nclib
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,300
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: June 20, 2010, 02:30:49 PM »

States which have gotten more urban each decade from 1900 - 2000:

Florida   Minnesota   South Carolina
Georgia   Nebraska   South Dakota
Hawaii   New Mexico   Tennessee
Iowa   North Carolina   Utah
Kansas   North Dakota   Virginia

Almost all are either Plains or South Atlantic. Anyone have a reason?
Logged
muon2
Moderator
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,788


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: June 21, 2010, 12:20:29 AM »

States which have gotten more urban each decade from 1900 - 2000:

Florida   Minnesota   South Carolina
Georgia   Nebraska   South Dakota
Hawaii   New Mexico   Tennessee
Iowa   North Carolina   Utah
Kansas   North Dakota   Virginia

Almost all are either Plains or South Atlantic. Anyone have a reason?

The only decade where IL dropped in urban percent was from 1930 to 1940, and that was by a fraction of a percent. That was a common decade for Midwestern states to see a slight decline, though others also saw a dip from 1970 to 1980.
Logged
Verily
Cuivienen
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,663


Political Matrix
E: 1.81, S: -6.78

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: June 21, 2010, 08:06:54 AM »


Yes, Maine has gotten more rural every decade since 1950. Surprising, since ME-1 is growing faster than ME-2.

The fast-growing parts of ME-1 are the tourist areas in the Lake District and South Shore, which are classed as rural.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.229 seconds with 12 queries.