Grad. RR lº HB 2175 BOGUE – POPULATION GROWTH IN STANDARD METROPOLITAN AREAS 1900–50 + R. POPULATION GROWTH A. J. $3 lſ". 5’ 367 IN STANDARD METROPOLITAN AREAS 1900-1950 With an Explanatory Analysis Of Urbanized Areas Housing | Research HOUSING AND HOME FINANCE AGENCY - WASHINGTON, D. C. UNIversrry of MICRISAR GENERAL LIBRARY POPULATION GROWTH IN STANDARD METROPOLITAN AREAS 1900-1950 With an Explanatory Analysis Of Urbanized Areas ...” By DONALD J. B06UE Associate Director Scripps Foundation for Research in Population Problems Miami University Oxford, Ohio HOUSING AND HOME FINANCE AGENCY O Albert M. Cole, Administrator 0ffice Of the Administrator - DIVISION OF HOUSING RESEARCH O Joseph H. 0 rendorff, Director Washington 25, D. C. December 1953 Grad. R. R. 4 \A tº 2_\ T 5 ...tº (oſſ HOUSING AND HOME FINANCE AGENCY Office of the Administrator Home locin Bank Board Federal Housing Administration Public Housing Administration National Housing Council For sale by the Super in ten dent of Documents, Government Print in 3 Office Washing to n 25, D. C. — Price 55 cents º 42 –/5 A*2 C FOREWORD This monograph is the first report in a series of studies being made on the subject of patterns of metropolitan growth. Research in this field was begun in 1948 at the Scripps Foundation for Research in Population Problems at Miami University, Oxford, Ohio, as a part of a larger program of research in population distribution. This research was particularly needed as a result of the major changes made in 1950 by the Bureau of the Census, United States Department of Commerce, in its treatment of area data in the fields of economic and social statistics. These changes made data from all earlier censuses re- lating to metropolitan areas and to urban population uncomparable with those for 1950 and later years. There was a genuine need, therefore, for a means through which the major users of such data could make the transition to the new series with a minimum of confusion. Consequently, in 1950 the Housing and Home Finance Agency granted the Foundation a 4-year contract for further research in this field. This has made it possible to intensify and expand the work on metropolitan growth patterns. The Housing and Home Finance Agency shares its financial spon- sorship with the Rockefeller Foundation which granted the original funds under which the project for research in population distribution was begun. The present monograph, which is the first of a series of seven, reestablishes the continuity lost by the shift in 1950 from metropolitan districts to standard metropolitan areas. Working from the 168 standard metropolitan areas for 1950, the author has reconstructed comparable data by decades from 1900. Monographs which follow will deal with aspects of metropolitan growth which have been the subject of widespread discussion and concern. Among the topics covered will be trends in the distribution and redistribution of retail trade, manufacturing, service establishments, and wholesale trade within metro- politan areas, and changes in the composition of the population of central cities and the various parts of metropolitan areas. In the field of housing and urban planning particularly, the relative rates of growth of the central city and the urban fringes have an important bearing upon the character and loca- tion of future housing developments and their related community facilities. It is believed that the analysis of a half-century of metropolitan growth set forth in these volumes will provide useful guideposts to business as well as to public officials concerned with housing policy. The Scripps Foundation will publish these monographs in its series, Scripps Foundation Studies in Popu- lation Distribution. - The research project was sponsored by HHFA's Division of Housing Re- search. It was administered by the Division's Housing Economics Branch headed by E. Everett Ashley 3d. Edmond H. Hoben, urban studies specialist with that Branch, was the staff technician directly supervising the work on behalf of the Government. Y Director of Housing Research. CONTENTS FOREWORD------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY------------------- • * * * * * * * * g = gº º ºs º a sº, sº * = sº tº gº &m sº ims º ºs º dº sº * * = * = age = E = * * * * * *= E = &ºm º sº Chapter I. CHANGES IN METROPOLITAN AND URBAN DEFINITIONS MADE IV. Appendix IV FOR THE 1950 CENSUS--------------------------------------------- Background of the problem.--------------------------------------------- Standard metropolitan areas--------------------------. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — Urbanized areas------------------------------------------------------- GROWTH OF STANDARD METROPOLITAN AREAS; 1900–50--- Classes of standard metropolitan areas------------------------------------ Population in standard metropolitan areas at each census since 1900---------- Sources of metropolitan growth-----------------------------------------. Proportion of national increase claimed by standard metropolitan areas------- Growth in standard metropolitan areas compared with growth in metropolitan districts------------------------------------------------------------- Growth in central cities and rings---------------------------------------- Growth of urban and rural areas within metropolitan rings.------------------ Size as a factor in metropolitan growth ----------------------------------- Regional variations in metropolitan growth-------------------------------- Size of city in relation to regional growth of standard metropolitan areas------ Distribution of population and of population growth within standard metro- Politan areas-------------------------------------------------------- Size of standard metropolitan areas and the growth of rings.----------------- Regional variations in ring growth --------------------------------------- Metropolitan and nonmetropolitan growth in geographic divisions------------ Factors associated with metropolitan growth ------------------------------ URBANIZED AREAS AND THEIR RELATION TO STANDARD METROPOLITAN AREAS------------------------------------------- Urban population as defined by the 1950 census---------------------------- Net changeinurbanand rural populations as a consequence of the new classifications. Components of net change in urban populations resulting from the changed definition----------------------------------------------------------- Distribution of population in urbanized areas, by size---------------------- Urbanized areas by geographic divisions---------------------------------- Integration of statistics for standard metropolitan areas and urbanized areas - - - Population per square mile in standard metropolitan areas and urbanized areas- GROWTH TRENDS IN INDIVIDUAL STANDARD METROPOLITAN Variations in growth--------------------------------------------------- Total growth---------------------------------------------------------- Growth within the area------------------------------------------------- Rural-urban composition of the area-------------------------------------- Other data for the area-------- ----------------------------------------- I am as w = a- a sm m, sºme sm am. He an eme se - emº ºme m = m = ** = * * = * * * * *= = = = * = * = * * = ** = * = * * = = * * * * * = ** = ** = * * * * * * * * * * 39 39 40 42 43 44 45 50 53 53 55 57 59 59 61 CONTENTS TABLES . Percent of increase in population of standard metropolitan areas and of nonmetropolitan urban and rural areas, by decades: 1900–50------------------------------. - * ºr tº ſº. . Percentage of United States total population in standard metropolitan areas and in non- metropolitan urban and rural areas, by decades: 1900–50------------------------ . Percentage of United States total decennial increase in standard metropolitan areas and in nonmetropolitan urban and rural areas, by decades: 1900–50------------------- . Percent increase in population of standard metropolitan areas which first qualify as standard metropolitan areas at each census: 1910-50---------------------------- . Percent increase in population of standard metropolitan areas, by decades, by size: 1900-50-------------------------------------------------------------------- . Percentage of standard metropolitan area total population in each size group of standard metropolitan areas, by decades: 1900-50--------------------------------------- . Percentage of United States total decennial increase in each size group of standard metropolitan area, by decades: 1900-50---------------------------------------- . Percent of increase and percentage of decennial regional increase in population of standard metropolitan areas, by classes, regions, and decades: 1900–50--------------------- . Percent increase in population of standard metropolitan areas, by decades, by regions and size: 1900-50----------------------------------------------------------- . Number of standard metropolitan areas in each region, by size: 1900–50------------- . Percentage of standard metropolitan area population in central cities and rings: 1900–50– . Percentage of standard metropolitan area total decennial increase in central cities and rings: 1900-50-------------------------------------------------------------- 3. Percent increase in population of central cities and rings of class V standard metropolitan areas, by decades, by size: 1900-50------------------------------------------- . Percentage of class V standard metropolitan area population in central cities and rings, by decades, by size: 1900-50------------------------------------------------- . Percentage of class V standard metropolitan area total decennial increase in central cities and rings, by decades, by size: 1900-50---------------------------------------- . Percent increase in population of central cities and rings of standard metropolitan areas . (class V) by decades, by region and size: 1900-50------------------------------- . Rates of growth of parts of standard metropolitan areas (class V) by size, standardized for regional variations------------------------------------------------------- . Rates of growth of parts of standard metropolitan areas (class V) by regions, standard- ized for variations in size----------------------------------------------------- . Percent increase in population of standard metropolitan areas (class V) and of non- metropolitan areas, by divisions: 1900-50-------------------------------------- 0. Coefficients of linear correlation between percent increase in population of standard metropolitan areas (class V) 1940–50, and other selected variables---------------- . Urban and rural population of states and geographic divisions under the old and new definitions, with percentage difference, 1950------------------------------------ . Urban population in 1950 according to the old and new definitions------------------ 8. Net change in urban population due to change in definitions, by divisions and source of change, 1950--------------------------------------------------------------- . Number and percentage distribution of population in urbanized areas, by size of areas, Page 13 13 14 15 22 23 23 25 27 28 28 29 30 30 31 31 33 33 34 35 41 42 43 43 contents 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. : 2A. 2B. : Number and percentage distribution of population in urbanized areas, by geographic divisions, 1950-------------------------------------------------------------- Number and percentage distribution of population in urbanized areas, by size of area and region, 1950---------------------------------------------------------------- Percentage distribution of population of standard metropolitan areas in central cities, urban fringes, and outside urbanized areas, 1950-------------------------------- Percentage of standard metropolitan area population in central cities, urban fringes, and outside urbanized areas, by size of area, 1950-------------------------- \- - - - - - - - - Percent of standard metropolitan area population in central cities, urban fringes, and outside urbanized areas, by region and size of area, 1950------------------------- Population per square mile of standard metropolitan areas and urbanized areas, by size, FIGURES . Schematic diagram of relative sizes and arrangement of standard metropolitan areas, urbanized areas, and metropolitan districts-------------------------------------- . Population of the United States: 1790 to 1950, and population of standard metropolitan and nonmetropolitan areas, 1900 to 1950---------------------------------------- . Percentage of United States population in principal standard metropolitan areas, by . Growth rates of metropolitan districts plotted against growth rates of standard metro- politan areas, 1930 to 1940, and 1940 to 1950------------------------------------ . Ratio to the national growth rate of standard metropolitan area growth rate, central cities and rings, by decades, 1900 to 1950 (class VI standard metropolitan areas) ------ Ratio to the central city growth rates of growth rates of metropolitan rings, urban and rural, 1900 to 1950 (class VI standard metropolitan areas) ------------------------- . Ratio to the growth rate of all standard metropolitan areas of standard metropolitan growth rates by regions, 1900 to 1950 (class VI standard metropolitan areas) --------- . Population of the United States, urban and rural: 1790 to 1950----------------------- Frequency distribution of growth rates of standard metropolitan areas, central cities and rings, 1940 to 1950----------------------------------------------------------- APPENDIX TABLES Population and percent of increase in population of standard metropolitan areas, by decades: 1900-50----------------------------------------------------------- Population in 1950 and 1940 and percent change (1940–50) of the standard metropolitan areas of New England, delimited along town lines------------------- ------------- List of county equivalents to standard metropolitan areas of New England, with coun- ties comprising each--------------------------------------------------------- Number and percentage distribution of population in urbanized areas, 1950------------ w Land area and population per square mile of standard metropolitan areas, 1950--------- Land area and population per square mile of urbanized areas, 1950-------------------- VI Page 44 45 46 48 48 50 12 12 17 18 20 26 42 54 61 , 72 72 73 75 76 SUMMARY The metropolitan district, used since 1910 to present population statistics for large cities and their suburbs, is being replaced in the 1950 census by standard metropolitan areas." Whereas the metropolitan district was com- posed of one or more central cities and the contiguous suburban townships; the S. M. A. consists of central cities, the entire county con- taining these cities, and any other counties having metropolitan characteristics which are integrated with the central city.” This change has been made to achieve greater comparability among several bodies of Government statistics and to adjust census concepts to changing pat- terns of distribution of population and eco- nomic activities. In addition, the 1950 census has adopted a new definition of the urban population which includes, in addition to incorporated places of 2,500 or more (a) residents of densely settled . but unincorporated suburban fringes about large and medium size cities, and (b) residents of other unincorporated places of 2,500 or more. Although the metropolitan district was for- merly used to measure the suburban population about larger cities, it was never given a place in the rural-urban classification of the census. In 1950 the new fringe delimitation, together with data for the central city, permits an ex- plicit statement, in rural-urban terms, of the total population of large urban clusters. These clusters are called urbanized areas. The purpose of this monograph is to help familiarize those who use population statistics 1 The abbreviation S. M. A. will be used for standard metropolitan area in this report. * New England is an exception. There town rather than County lines were used as boundaries. In order to obtain Comparability between areas at several censuses for a variety of data, the New England areas are arbitrarily redelimited to their nearest county equivalent for this study. Because two or more New England S. M. A.'s sometimes are located in a single county-equivalent area, the 168 S. M. A.'s are here reduced to 162. For details, see ch. I. with the results which these new definitions yield, and to provide background information about S. M. A.'s by analyzing trends in metro- politan growth over the half-century 1900–50. The data for this task were obtained from the 1950 census and by combining county statistics from previous censuses. Standard metropolitan dreds In this study, S. M. A.'s of 1950 are divided into six classes, according to the census at which they probably would have become S. M. A.'s with 100,000 inhabitants or more if the new 1950 definition had been applied at each census since 1900.” A seventh class, for S. M. A.'s of all sizes, is also recognized. A variety of sta- tistics relating to population growth from 1900 to 1950 is presented for each of the seven classes. In 1900, 24.2 million persons (32 percent of the total population of the United States) lived in the 52 areas which would have been classified as S. M. A.'s. In 1950, 86 million (57 percent of the national population) lived in the 162 S. M. A.'s or their county equivalents. During this half-century, the population of the Nation nearly doubled in size, but the S. M. A. popula- tion became 314 times its 1900 size. Although the S. M. A.'s, as constituted in 1950, contained only 40 percent of the population in 1900, dur- ing the last 50 years they have received 73 per- cent of the Nation's increase in population. About two-thirds (64 percent) of this ex- traordinarily rapid growth was contributed by the 52 areas which would have been S. M. A.'s in 1900. One-fifth (21 percent) came from changing the classification of population from nonmetropolitan to metropolitan at the time ad- ditional areas have qualified as S. M. A.'s. The remainder (15 percent) came from the growth * For the method of applying the new definition to earlier censuses, see ch. II. VII VIII SUMMARY of these added metropolitan areas during the decades following their entrance into the metropolitan status. A comparison of growth rates for S. M. A.'s with growth rates for metropolitan districts shows that for the 1930–40 decade the two types of areas have about the same efficiency in measuring metropolitan growth. In the 1940– 50 decade much metropolitan growth has taken place in areas outside metropolitan districts. For this reason, the larger S. M. A. is probably now a more useful unit of area for general metropolitan analysis than the metropolitan district. - Central cities have grown less rapidly than the balance of the S. M. A.'s, 1940–50. This is a continuation of a trend which began in the largest areas about 1910–20 and was present in most areas by 1930–40. The preceding era of compact metropolitan growth gave way, dur- ing the 1920's and 1930's, to a much more ex- tended type of growth covering a wider area. Within the rings of metropolitan areas (the part outside central cities) the rural parts have been growing more rapidly during the past two decades than the urban parts. This means that suburban residential development has been taking place primarily in unincorporated areas outside central cities. This is one of the trends which has made it necessary for the Census. to revise the definition of urban population to include closely built up and densely settled areas which are not incorporated as cities or villages, and hence were being treated as rural under the old definition. Metropolitan growth was much more rapid in the regions of the West and South than in the Northeast and the North Center during the 1940–50 decade. Whereas the West grew by a continuation of the great westward migra- tions, the metropolitan development of the South took place largely by an internal redis- tribution of population in which many non- metropolitan areas lost population while metropolitan areas grew rapidly. There is a tendency for the rate of growth of S. M. A.'s to decline, relative to other metro- politan areas, once they have attained a size of one million inhabitants or more. Until this point is reached, however, size does not appear to limit metropolitan growth in any consistent way. There is no evidence of slower growth in metropolitan areas during the past decade as a result of the threat of atomic warfare. Size of area is a factor in determining the internal pattern of population growth and population distribution within metropolitan areas. In general, the larger the S. M. A., the more readily the ring tends to grow in comparison with the central city. In larger metropolitan areas the rate of growth in rural parts of rings tends to surpass the rate of growth of the urban parts. * The tendency toward suburban, more pe- ripheral, growth varies from one region to another. With the factor of size controlled, this type of growth is a more pronounced characteristic of the Northeast and North Center regions than of the South and West. An examination of several possible factors associated with metropolitan growth shows that fertility, size of S. M. A., age of S. M. A., degree of industrial development, and rate of industrial growth bear no simple and direct relationship to the rate of metropolitan growth. Either no relationship appears to exist, or if it does exist, it operates in a unique regional context which does not permit generalization on the national level. The reasons for area-to- area variations in metropolitan growth and in the growth of surburban areas are still largely unknown. Urban population and urbanized areas The new definition of urban population had the net effect of adding 7.5 million persons to the urban and removing this many from the rural population. This represents an increase of 8.5 percent in the urban population and a decrease of 12.2 percent in the rural. Of the total net increase to the urban popula- tion which resulted from the change of defini- tion, 82 percent was contributed by the new urban fringe delimitation, and 18 percent was contributed by the recognition of other places of 2,500 or more as urban. SUMMARY IX Large urbanized areas tend to have a much greater proportion of their total population located in fringe areas than do smaller urban- ized areas. The urban fringe of the larger areas consists predominantly of satellite cities, whereas the fringe of the smaller areas consists predominantly of unincorporated area. Under the new urban-rural classification, only 13.6 percent of the total population of S. M. A.'s is rural, whereas under the old classi- fication, more than 20 percent would have been classed as rural. The new urban classification had the net effect of transferring more than one-sixth of the total population of metropoli- tan rings from the rural to the urban category. About 95 percent of this change is due to the new urban fringes, and only 5 percent is due to the new unincorporated area rule. The average population per square mile of urban fringes is 3,200, while that of the rings of S. M. A.'s is only 174. This unusually low density of the outer portion of S. M. A.'s is due to the fact that the use of the county unit includes much farmland, wasteland, and other low-density area within the metropolitan area. Where density statistics are needed to compare large urban clusters (central cities and imme- diate environs) it is believed that data for ur- banized areas will usually be found to be more useful than those for S. M. A.'s. Conclusion It is too early to evaluate fully the utility of the S. M. A.'s and the new urban definition in furthering urban and metropolitan research, planning, and administration. The data as- sembled for this analysis provide proof that a change from the old definitions was badly needed, and that the changes which were made greatly improved the quality of the 1950 statis- tics. Research and general use by a wide variety of interested persons during the next few years will be required before a final judg- ment can be made as to whether the new defini- tions are the best and most practicable ones under present and foreseeable trends in popu- lation growth and distribution. Chapter I CHANGES IN METROPOLITAN AND URBAN DEFINITIONS MADE FOR THE 1950 CENSUS THE 1950 CENSUs has introduced two new major area concepts into economic and Social statistics: S. M. A.'s and urbanized areas. Together these new units of area create a revo- lutionary change from the 1940 and earlier cen- suses. S. M. A.'s replace the well-known metropolitan districts which had been in use since the census of 1910. Under the newly es- tablished urbanized areas classification, the in- habitants of a variety of places located in the suburbs of cities of 50,000 or more are removed from the rural category and added to the urban population. This makes the urban population, as defined in 1950, noncomparable with that used in several earlier censuses which had been extended back to 1790. Changing to these new definitions, therefore, means abandoning 40 years of thinking and research done in terms . of metropolitan districts, and breaking the chain of continuity in urban population statis- tics in such a way that data for 1950 and later censuses can be only roughly linked to data for the preceding 160 years. These changes were not made irresponsibly, however. They were formulated in response to numerous expressions of dissatisfaction with the units of area used in previous censuses, and were adopted in an effort to eliminate serious deficiencies which were impairing the useful- ness and meaningfulness of census data. The problems which gave rise to these new classifications had become so widespread that a change from the old categories was inevitable, if not in 1950 then at a later census. It is too early yet to pass final judgment on the new area program. The major effort now should be to understand what was done and why, and to examine the results. The present monograph is designed to assist in making the transition from the old to these new units of area. It undertakes to explain S. M. A.'s and urbanized areas in terms of the weaknesses they are designed to correct and the goals their use may achieve. The balance of chapter I is devoted to providing a brief back- ground of the problem of delimiting metropoli- tan and urban areas, and to explaining the new delimitations as they fit into the entire Federal program of social and economic statistics. Chapters II and III are a first step in finding out how the new areas work in practice. In order to reestablish the continuity which was lost in abandoning the metropolitan district units, statistics for number of inhabitants in S. M. A.'s at each census since 1900 have been compiled and are presented and analyzed in chapter II. The analysis covers not only the growth by decades from 1900 to 1950 of popula- tion in S. M. A.'s as whole units, but also the population growth in the principal parts of S. M. A.'s—the central cities, the suburban cities, and the remainder of the metropolitan areas. It is hoped that this compensates, at least in part, for the discontinuance of the 1900–40 series of metropolitan district data. Chapter III deals with urbanized areas and the new definition of urban population. It summarizes the results obtained by the new ur- ban classification and compares them with the results which would have been obtained had the old definition of urban population been re- tained. This chapter also undertakes to inte- grate statistics for the S. M. A.'s and urbanized 8.I’e3S. Chapter IV illustrates how the principles of chapters II and III may be applied to the study -: CHAPTER I of population trends in individual S. M. A.'s. At this point it should be emphasized that the interpretations made throughout the report are not necessarily those of any Federal agency. Although the report has been checked with the Federal agencies for the accuracy of the facts it contains, the conclusions which are reached on the basis of these facts are judgments of the author. Background of the problem During recent decades such a large share of new residential, industrial, and commercial growth has taken place in areas adjacent to large cities, rather than in the cities themselves, that the city proper has become only the central core of a much larger metropolitan area. Those who assemble and make use of statistics for major cities began several years ago to abandon the city as the principal unit for observation. They devised new boundaries, lying outside the city limits, which were a more realistic de- limitation of the “greater city,” including its residential, industrial, and commercial ap- pendages which had been located outside the legal boundaries. Because agencies of the Fed- eral Government provide a large share of the basic statistics available for local areas, they have been confronted with this problem of set- ting boundaries to the expanding metropolitan area, and of using such boundaries in publish- ing a variety of official statistics. Many uses are made of data for these larger areas, and the users have many interests. Consequently, the opinions of what constitutes realistic and ap- propriate metropolitan boundaries have been varied and difficult to reconcile. Furthermore, peripheral growth has been consistently more spectacular in rate and distance from the central city, and has involved a wider variety of activ- ities, than seemed probable a decade or so earlier. For these reasons, some decisions which seemed to be justified at one time ap- peared to be inadequate after a very few years. Inasmuch as Federal statistics are prepared in the interests of the general public, they must be tabulated for units of area which satisfy the greater number of users. Hence, this problem { of reconciling varied interpretations of what constitutes the metropolitan area must be con- fronted even while the area itself is undergoing rapid change. The Bureau of the Census of the United States Department of Commerce provides such a large share of the basic statistics for areas that whatever definitions are adopted for a par- ticular census tend to establish the general prac- tice for the ensuing decade. Those who rely en- tirely upon the census for data have no other choice. Even agencies collecting series of data of their own tend to adopt Bureau of the Census concepts and definitions, for the value of their own statistics is greatly increased by making their data comparable with census data. Hence, the problem of satisfactorily delimiting metro- politan areas, and of choosing from among the several possible methods of delimiting metro- politan areas, has been one of primary concern to the Bureau of the Census. This has been true since 1910 when the first attempt was made by the Bureau of the Census to delimit such 8.Te&S, To resolve the problem of presenting sta- tistics for the largest cities and their environs in the 1910 census, the “metropolitan district” was devised. This was the first official attempt to recognize that large functional portions of -major cities lie outside their legal boundaries. As originally defined, each metropolitan dis- trict consisted of a city of 200,000 inhabitants or more plus those minor civil divisions (town- ships and urban places) in the adjacent terri- tory which had a density of 150 or more per square mile." Minor exceptions to the mini- mum density requirement were allowed in order to avoid undue irregularity in the shape of the districts. Twenty-five areas qualified as metropolitan districts in 1910. This definition was also used to define 29 metropolitan districts at the census of 1920. For the 1930 census the minimum size limitation was lowered from 200,- 000 for the central city alone to 100,000 for the central city and adjacent areas combined, provided that the central city had a population 1 Thirteenth Census of the United States: 1910, vol. I. p. 73. This definition also included the limitation that only those minor civil divisions within 10 miles of the boundaries of the central city could be included in the metropolitan district. CHANGES IN METROPOLITAN AND URBAN DEFINITIONS MADE FOR THE 1950 CENSUS 3 of at least 50,000. Under this revised definition there were 97 metropolitan districts.” In 1940 the 1930 definition was again used. By this time, suburbanization had become so common- place among all medium-size and larger cities, that 43 additional metropolitan districts were established. This extensive peripheral growth took place between 1930 and 1940 in spite of the fact that the growth rate of the Nation's population was at its lowest point in the Na- tion's history and that most central cities grew comparatively little. A total of 140 metro- politan districts were recognized in 1940. As a consequence of the changed definition of the metropolitan district between 1910 and 1940, and of the steadily increased number of places which qualified, the summaries which had been prepared for the various censuses were not comparable with each other. The es- tablishment of trends from one period to the next was rendered even more difficult because of redistricting, annexations, and other bound- ary changes. In 1948, Warren S. Thompson completed a special study in cooperation with the Bureau of the Census which established comparability among the metropolitan district delimitations for the four censuses, 1910–40. Data from earlier censuses were regrouped to conform to later definitions. Special estimates were made to eliminate the effects of certain classes of annexations and redistricting. This study systematized the entire subject of popula- tion growth in metropolitan districts, and is the authoritative source of data in this field.” In spite of the experimentation and work put into them, the metropolitan districts were abandoned as major units for which data are to be published for the 1950 census. Their * Fifteenth Census of the United States: 1930. Metropolitan Districts, p. 6. Only 96 districts were recognized in 1930. In 1940 the Providence-Fall River-New Bedford metropolitan district was split into 2 separate districts, making a total of 97 under the 1930 definition as modified in 1940. * Warren S. Thompson, The Growth of Metropolitan Dis- tricts in the United States: 1900–40, in cooperation with the Bureau of the Census (Government Printing Office, 1948). This monograph contains a complete description of the trends in the growth of metropolitan districts, together with chapters dealing with factors affecting the redistribution of population within metropolitan districts, the demographic significance of the growth of metropolitan districts, and the future growth of areas which would qualify as metropolitan districts. It is a most complete history and explanation of metropolitan growth prior to 1950. place has been taken by the S. M. A.'s and the urbanized areas. A variety of problems could be solved by making this change; some of the more important of which are as follows: (a) The comparability of Government sta- tistics could be greatly increased.—For many years, users of Federal statistics have com- plained that data collected by one bureau or agency frequently are not comparable with re- lated data collected by another bureau or agency. One troublesome source of noncom- parability has been the use of noncomparable areas. In dealing with the suburbanization of manufacturing, for example, the Census of In- dustry had devised “industrial areas” which consisted of cities, plus one or more whole coun- ties. The more narrowly defined metropolitan districts were ill suited for preparing statistics of manufacturing. They were similarly in- adequate for reporting statistics collected by some of the other Federal agencies. A unit of metropolitan area was needed which could be adopted as standard by all Federal agencies. All interested agencies participated in the de- limitation of the S. M. A.'s. Hence these areas represent the achievement of such a generally accepted delimitation. (b) The urban population could be defined more realistically.—At the beginning, the met- ropolitan district population was apparently intended to be analyzed and interpreted as urban population. It was assumed that pop- ulation living outside urban places but within the metropolitan district was different from the rural population outside the suburban area. It was further assumed that this rural suburban population was similar to the urban population as it was then defined. This fact is unmistak- able from the definitions given in the various censuses.” Yet neither the Bureau of the Cen- sus nor the major users of census data explic- itly recognized this assumption by incorporat- ing the metropolitan district definition into the official Bureau of the Census definition of * The following quotation from the Census of 1910 may be taken as an example : “Where the density was less than [150 per square mile] that [minor civil] division was considered as rural rather than urban in character, and as not properly a part of the metropolitan district.” Thirteenth Census of the United States: 1910, vol. I, p. 73. CHAPTER I the urban population. Nor did they give it a position in the rural-urban hierarchy. It would have been possible to have recognized the nonurban part of the metropolitan district population as a separate “suburban” category, thereby yielding the following four-fold urban- rural classification: urban, suburban, rural- nonfarm, and rural-farm. Perhaps an outright classification of the entire metropolitan district as urban seemed too extreme in 1910. Even the creation of a separate category for the surburban popula- tion also may have seemed unnecessary at that time, for the automobile was still a novelty and city growth was still fairly com- pact and dense. The decision whether to classify as urban this outlying surburban population, which in recent decades has cap- tured such a large share of growth, could be arrived at only after intensive research had been made into the composition and mode of life of the populations occupying various posi- tions in the suburbs. This research was never undertaken. Consequently, the basic ideas un- derlying the metropolitan districts delimitation were not put to a rigorous test. The metropol- itan districts were allowed to exist as special units which did not fit into the larger scheme of census definitions and concepts. They lived and died without being generally used and interpreted in terms of the ideas which brought them into existence. Hence, it was to be expected that they would be abandoned even- tually in favor of some new areas which were not a special exception, but which readily could be integrated into the balance of the census program. The new urbanized area delimitation makes a more realistic separation of the urban and rural populations. This leaves the S. M. A.'s free to be given a broader definition. (c) The more inclusive metropolitan area could be recognized.—Numerous users of of ficial statistics had felt a need for a unit of area which was broader in scope than the metro- politan districts. Economists concerned with labor market areas or transportation, engineers and housing groups interested in commuting, for example, found that much of the popula- tion growth and activities with which they were concerned lay outside the metropolitan district boundaries. The spread of large manufactur- ing establishments into open-country areas near large cities, which made metropolitan districts, unsatisfactory units for a census of manufac- tures, has already been mentioned. Thus, while there was apprehension in some quarters that a density of 150 per square mile may be too low to be used as a definition of urban population, there was a conviction in other quarters that this minimum density in the environs of large cities excluded a great many activities and con- ditions which properly should be classed as metropolitan. In the 1950 census, the problems described were faced squarely, and were resolved in a manner calculated to permit the orderly ac- cumulation of meaningful satistics separately for metropolitan areas and for urban popula- tions for a long period of time to come. Standard metropolitan dreds The official definition * of S. M. A.'s is as follows: Except in New England, a standard metropolitan area is a county or group of contiguous counties which contains at least one city of 50,000 inhabitants or more. In addition to the county, or counties, con- taining such a city, or cities, contiguous counties are included in a standard metropolitan area if according to certain criteria they are essentially metropolitan in character and socially and economically integrated with the central city. The criteria of metropolitan character relate pri- marily to the character of the county as a place of work or as a home for concentrations of nonagricul- tural workers and their dependents. Specifically, these criteria are: 1. The county must (a) contain 10,000 nonagricpl- tural workers, or (b) contain 10 percent of the non- agricultural workers working in the standard metro- politan area, or (c) have at least one-half of its popu- lation residing in minor civil divisions with a popu- lation density of 150 or more per Square mile and contiguous to the central city. - 2. Nonagricultural workers must constitute at least two-thirds of the total number of employed persons of the county. 5 Bureau of the Census. U. S. Census of Population: 1950, vol. I, Number of Inhabitants, ch. 1 : U. S. Summary. U. S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D. C., 1952, p. xxxi. CHANGES IN METROPOLITAN AND URBAN DEFINITIONS MADE FOR THE 1950 CENSUS 5 The criteria of integration relate primarily to the extent of economic and social communication be- tween the outlying counties and the central county as indicated by such items as the following: 1. Fifteen percent or more of the workers residing in the contiguous county work in the county contain- ing the largest city in the standard metropolitan area, Or 2. Twenty-five percent or more of the persons work- ing in the contiguous county reside in the county containing the largest city in the standard metropoli- tan area, or 3. The number of telephone calls per month to the County Containing the largest city of the standard metropolitan area from the contiguous county is four Or more times the number of subscribers in the con- tiguous county. g These areas differ from the metropolitan dis- tricts in two important respects. (a) Whereas the metropolitan districts consisted of whole townships or towns, the S. M. A.'s consist of whole counties. (b) Whereas population den- sity was the principal criterion for including additional units of area in metropolitan dis- tricts, possession of metropolitan characteris- tics and close social and economic integration with the metropolis is the basis for determining whether contiguous counties are to be included as a part of S. M. A.'s. these changes is to increase the size of the metropolitan area. Such a broader delimitation acknowledges that nearby rural-farm and rural-nonfarm as well as urban populations are integrated into the economy of the central city. Villages and other rural-nonfarm residences far outside the built-up portion of the city may consist largely of homes of commuters who work in the city or its suburbs. The labor market area of metropolitan centers is known to be much more extensive than the built-up area. Living on a suburban farm has become a very common resi- dential adjustment for many urban workers. Commuting to work from a distance of 15 miles outside the limits of the central city is not at all infrequent, even for residents of the smaller S. M. A.'s. Willage and other rural-nonfarm clusters outside the densely settled part of the city also may contain businesses catering to the flow of traffic into and from the city, or estab- lishments producing for, or otherwise con- The joint effect of nected with, firms in the city. Economically, socially, and demographically such groups are most realistically thought of as belonging to the metropolitan area rather than to the cate- gory of open-country villages and farm shop- ping centers. Hence, the use of the county as a unit of area (which forces the inclusion of large blocks of population and area) and the use of the concept of economic and social integration of such large units tend to produce a much larger metropolitan area than the metropolitan dis- trict. The validity of this broader delimita- tion is supported by a voluminous body of re- search, eactending over several decades. In fact, the establishment of S. M. A.'s represents the recognition in official Government statistics of repeated assertions that the area of “daily contact” or the “20me of direct participation” with the metropolis is a social and economic unit worthy of widespread attention. Numer- ous studies of the metropolitan area had demon- strated that this was a most worthwhile and informative point at which to delimit the “pri- mary metropolitan area.” Although it is gen- erally recognized that the influence of the metropolis extends many miles into the hinter- land, at some point less than 30–40 miles from the central city the nature of this influence shifts from one of direct participation to one based on economic division of labor and ex- change.” Furthermore, it has been demon- strated that the growth of population around the periphery of metropolitan cities has over- flowed the boundaries of the metropolitan dis- trict and is now taking place in a much broader area outside." Therefore, the need for broaden- ing the scope of the metropolitan area has been indicated not only by studies of the social and economic structure of the metropolitan area, but by the greater radius of metropolitan growth as well. * For statistical evidence, see Donald J. Bogue, The Struc- ture of the Metropolitan Community. (Ann Arbor, University of Michigan Press, 1949.) Also, R. D. McKenzie, The Metro- politan Oommunity (McGraw-Hill, 1933), and National Re- sources Committee, Reſſional Planning ; Part II—St. Louis Region. (Government Printing Office, 1936.) * I)onald J. Bogue, Metropolitan Decentralization: A Study of Jifferential Growth (Oxford, Ohio : Scripps Foundation Studies in Population Distribution, 1950). CHAPTER I Some experts in the fields which require data for metropolitan areas may object to this par- ticular delimitation on the grounds that the indexes which were used in establishing S. M. A.'s are crude, and were not validated by previous research before being applied. It should be remembered, however, that in addi- tion to the formal rules, the judgments of local organizations, both in central cities and in out- lying counties, were solicited and considered in arriving at the delimitation. By weighing the subjective but experienced judgments of the best informed and best qualified local groups in the light of the indications of the indexes, a result was obtained which, in most cases, was probably identical with or very close to what would have been obtained had a more elaborate (and hence more costly) study been made using county units. It should be readily admitted that using the county unit as a “built-in” guar- antee that the full scope of the integrative influ- ence of the metropolitan center would be delim- ited was a very gross procedure. Having to exclude entire counties where they barely failed to qualify because of peculiar combinations of circumstances undoubtedly produced less pre- cise delimitations for some areas than for others. The average result, however, was to establish units of area which are more suitable than metropolitan districts for use by those doing research or administrative work in the field of metropolitan labor markets, metropolitan housing, metropolitan transportation, metro- politan marketing, or metropolitan population growth and distribution. Considerable varia- tion could be present in the delimitation of the outer boundaries of these larger areas without greatly impairing the usefulness of the result. This is true because there is no single point at which the “zone of direct daily participation” ends and the hinterland begins. The two are mingled in a broad area several miles wide. If one drew the boundary at the absolute outer limits of commuting, for ex- ample, it would include much area which, by most other standards, would be considered non- metropolitan. Hence, the fact that the S. M. A.'s were arrived at by a somewhat in- formal procedure rather than by rigorous sta- tistical research should not lead to the conclu- sion that because of it they are not useful or meaningful. The results obtained in actual use provide a much better test. In New England, S. M. A.'s were delimited along town rather than along county lines. The Bureau of the Census * states that: In New England, the city and town are administra- tively more important than the county, and data are compiled locally for such minor civil divisions. Here, towns and cities were the units used in defining stand- ard metropolitan areas, and criteria relating to the number and proportion of nonagricultural workers set forth above could not be applied. In their place, a population density criterion of 150 or more persons per square mile, or 100 or more persons per square mile where strong integration was evident, has been used. Applying this alternative definition of the S. M. A.'s: in terms of towns rather than coun- ties had the effect of retaining in New England the metropolitan district concept which was abandoned for the remainder of the Nation. In several cases, in fact, the S. M. A.'s in New Eng- land are smaller than were the corresponding metropolitan districts. Hence, the delimitation for S. M. A.'s failed to achieve its objective in New England, and the areas there are not com- parable with those in the other regions. In delimiting the state economic areas, metro- politan areas were separately identified. The S. M. A.'s were generally adopted as metropoli- tan state economic areas also if they contained a total population of 100,000. An exception to this is that the New England delimitation for S. M. A.'s was not recognized in the state eco- nomic areas delimitation. Instead, the closest possible approximation in terms of whole coun- ties was made.” This placed the New England delimitation upon the same basis as the remain- der of the Nation and eliminated the confusion between “urban” and “metropolitan” which exists in the present S. M. A.'s there. In this report and in those which will follow in this series, full and complete statistics from the last census will be given for the S. M. A.'s of New England as delimited along town lines. How- * Bureau of the Census, U. S. Census of Population: 1950, op. cit., p. xxxi. ° Donald J. Bogue, State Economic Areas, Bureau of the Census, U. S. Government Printing Office, 1951, p. 6. CHANGES IN METROPOLITAN AND URBAN DEFINITIONS MADE FOR THE 1950 CENSUS 7 ever, data for the county-equivalents, as de- limited for state economic areas, are also shown. In all summary tables where comparisons are made between regions, between size-groups of S. M. A.'s, or between other classifications for the entire Nation, the county-equiva- lents will be substituted for the town- delimited S. M. A.'s of New England.” This is necessary for two reasons. First, it is the only way to make reliable comparisons among all regions. If the town-delimited areas for New England are used, an unknown part of all differences between the S. M. A.'s of New Eng- land and those of any other region must be attributed to the difference in method of delimi- tation. Second, using the county-equivalents makes it possible to establish growth trends for New England. County data from previous cen- suses may be combined to establish S. M. A. Summaries for earlier dates. Statistics for re- tail trade, wholesale trade, service establish- ments, and manufactures are not available for New England towns, although they are avail- able for New England counties. Hence, adopt- ing the county-equivalents to the S. M. A.'s of New England permits the systematic analysis of trends there as in other regions. making of interregional comparisons and the measurement of change are two of the major objectives of this and the other monographs which are to follow, the success of the studies depends upon using the county-equivalents for S. M. A.'s in New England in the analytical phases. r Urbanized areas The urbanized area consists of a city of 50,000 or more (at the 1940 census or at a subsequent Special census) plus the thickly settled urban fringe built up around it. An urbanized area is an area that includes at least One city with 50,000 inhabitants or more in 1940 or later according to a special census taken prior to 1950 and also the surrounding closely settled in- Corporated places and unincorporated areas that meet the criteria listed below. Since the urbanized area Outside of incorporated places was defined on the basis *=== 10 For a list of the county-equivalents to the S. M. A.'s of New England, and of the counties which comprise each area, See appendix table 2. 257894 O - 54 - 2 Since the of housing or population density, its boundaries for the most part are not political but follow such features as roads, Streets, railroads, streams, and other clearly defined lines which may be easily identified by census enumerators in the field. The urbanized area bounda- ries were selected after careful examination of all available maps, aerial photographs, and other sources of information, and then were checked in detail in the field by trained investigators to insure that the cri- teria were followed and that the boundaries Were identifiable. * * * The urban fringe of an urbanized area is that part which is outside the central city or cities. The follow- ing types of areas are embraced if they are contiguous to the central city or cities or if they are contiguous to any area already included in the urban fringe: 1. Incorporated places with 2,500 inhabitants or more in 1940 or at a subsequent special census con- ducted prior to 1950. 2. Incorporated places with fewer than 2,500 in- habitants containing an area with a concentration of 100 dwelling units or more with a density in this concentration of 500 units or more per square mile. This density represents approximately 2,000 persons per square mile and normally is the minimum found associated with a closely spaced street pattern. 3. Unincorporated territory with at least 500 dwell- ing units per square mile. 4. Territory devoted to commercial, industrial, transportational, recreational, and other purposes functionally related to the celltral city. Also included are outlying noncontiguous areas with the required dwelling unit density located within 1% miles of the main contiguous urbanized part, measured along the shortest connecting highway, and other out- lying areas within one-half mile of such noncontiguous areas which meet the minimum residential density rule. Although an urbanized area may contain more than one city of 50,000 or more, not all cities of this size are necessarily central cities. The largest city of an area is always a central city. In addition, the second and third most populous cities in the area may qualify as central cities provided they have a population of at least one-third of that of the largest city in the area and a minimum of 25,000 inhabitants. The names of the individual urbanized areas indicate the central cities of the areas.11 This major change in the definition of urban population was made in order to remove from the rural and add to the urban population the large and rapidly growing group of suburban dwellers in the vicinity of larger cities which lives under typically urban conditions but is located outside an incorporated place of 2,500. 11 Bureau of the Census, U. S. Census of Population: 1950, Op. cit., pp. xxiv-xxv. CHAPTER I By thus recognizing the compactly built-up part of the suburbs as being a part of the genuinely urban population, the urbanized area serves a function which formerly was approxi- mated by metropolitan districts. The overall effect of this delineating of ur- banized areas is to add to the urban population and to remove an equivalent number from the rural. Chapter III explains in more detail the effect of the change in the definition of the ur- ban population and its implications for the use of statistics for the urban population. Residents of several cities which reached 50,000 for the first time in the 1950 census may be disappointed to find that no urbanized area delimitation was made for their city, even though its suburban areas may be large and thickly settled. A great deal of work was re- quired of the Census geographer to establish an urbanized area. Hence, this work was under- taken well in advance of the 1950 census. Those cities for which there were no census statistics to indicate that the city would probably be 50,000 in 1950 did not have urbanized areas delimited for them. Urbanized areas were delimited for 157 cities. The following schematic diagram illustrates the various delimitations referred to above. COUNTY CONTAINING CENTRAL CITY CENTRAL CITY METROPOLITAN DISTRICT BOUNDARIES - URBANIZED AREA: CITIES IN URBAN FRINGE N URBANIZED AREA: BALANCE OF URBAN FRINGE -zºw. º OUTLYING URBAN PLACES IN S. M. A. RING (INCORPORATED OR UNINCORPORATED) [ ] RURAL-FARM AND RURAL-NONFARM TERRITORY IN S. M. A. RING URBANIZED AREA OUTSIDE S. M. A. <– COUNTY INTEGRATED WITH METROPOLITAN CENTER º S. M. A. BOUNDARIES FIGURE 1.-Schematic diagram of relative sizes and arrangement of standard metropolitan areas, urbanized areas, and metropolitan districts. Chapter ll GROWTH OF STANDARD METROPOLITAN AREAS: 1900-50 FROM 1900 to 1950, the population of the United States nearly doubled in size. During this same period the population of areas which were defined as S. M. A.'s in 1950 increased far more rapidly; they grew 177.8 percent, or at a rate 80 percent faster than the nation (table 1). since 1900, a greater share of the total popu- lation has been found to be living either in or in the immediate vicinity of metropolitan centers than lived there a decade earlier. This fact is documented in table 2. In 1900, about 32 percent of the total population lived in areas which would have met the 1950 defini- tion of S. M. A. By 1950, this proportion had risen to 56.8 percent. As a consequence of this extraordinarily rapid expansion of population. in S. M. A.'s, the nonmetropolitan areas lying outside have languished at much lower than average rates of growth. In the entire area outside the S. M. A.'s as defined in 1950, the percent of increase, 1900–50, was less than one- half that of the Nation. A great deal of even this comparatively small nonmetropolitan growth has been produced by the westward movement. ſº In order to study this long-term trend toward metropolitan aggregation more precisely, it is necessary to reconstruct the sequence of devel- opment as it actually occurred, insofar as pos- Sible. The present chapter attempts to do this. Classes of standard metropolitan areas The rapid gathering of the population into metropolitan areas is the joint accomplishment of two redistributive processes. (a) Already established metropolitan areas have grown At each census" faster than the Nation. By capturing a larger than proportional share of the total national population increase, these areas have gradually accumulated a larger proportion of the Nation's population. (b) Certain medium-size and small cities have rapidly increased in size also, and consequently have risen to the metropolitan status. At each census since 1900, new metro- politan centers have made their appearance. Recognizing them as S. M. A.'s requires a trans- fer of their entire population from the non- metropolitan to the metropolitan classification. This depletes the proportion of the total popu- lation classed as nonmetropolitan and increases, the proportion classed as metropolitan. Before the trends toward metropolitan ag- gregation can be interpreted accurately, each of these two sources of growth must be isolated and analyzed separately. In order to accom- plish this separation of metropolitan growth into its components, the 162 S. M. A.'s have been grouped into classes, according to the census at which they probably would have first qual- ified as a S. M. A. had the 1950 definition been applied uniformly at each census since 1900. Those parts of the definition which refer to social and economic integration cannot be ap- plied to the earlier censuses. If the nominal conditions of size of central city and of total population are met at any one decade, it can only be presumed that the condition of integra- tion must also have existed at that date, and throughout the entire area designated as a S. M. A. in 1950. In other words, the date at which a central city and its environs is said to have passed from nonmetropolitan to metro- politan status must be determined by available evidence. The only part of the definition of 9 *~ IO CHAPTER II S. M. A.'s for which evidence may be obtained is that pertaining to size. Therefore, if the size requirements are met at a census, then it has been assumed that the conditions of inte- gration, for which no evidence is available, also existed at that time. Furthermore, it has been assumed that this integrative influence included all counties contained in the S. M. A. in 1950, for there is no valid basis for determining which counties were integrated with the metropolis at an earlier date. This extension backward of 1950 boundaries to earlier censuses is most valid for the large and least valid for the small S. M. A.'s. It is questionable whether such an extension would yield meaningful results in cases where the total population of the area is less than 100,000. Hence, for purposes of classifying them according to the census at which they first qualified, S. M. A.'s have been divided into two types: “principal S. M. A.’s” (those with a central city of 50,000 inhabitants and a total population of 100,000 or more at a given census) and “secondary S. M. A.’s” (those with total population of less than 100,000 at a given census).” In 1900, 52 of the S. M. A.'s, as delimited in 1950, would have qualified as principal S. M. A.'s under the assumptions stated above. This group of S. M. A.'s is designated as class I.” By 1910, 71 of the areas would have quali- fied; they are designated as class II. Similar successive classes were established for principal S. M. A.'s as of 1920, 1930, 1940, and 1950, and are identified as classes III, IV, V, and VI, respectively. The total for all S. M. A.'s, as delimited in 1950 (both primary and secondary S. M. A.'s combined, with county-equivalent * Some students of metropolitan areas regard the practice of classifying as S. M. A.'s places having less than 100,000 inhabitants as an abuse of the term “metropolitan.” They would fix the absolute lower limit of any metropolitan area at about the point chosen here for designating “principal” S. M. A.'s. If the term “metropolitan area” is to retain its original meaning, some subclassification such as “primary” and “secondary” must be used to compensate for the fact that the Bureau of the Census is asked to recognize as S. M. A.'s many small places which lack most of the qualities associated with metropolitan centers. * In all classes, the S. M. A.'s of New England are taken as the county-equivalent areas (metropolitan state economic areas) rather than as the town-boundary areas, for the reasons stated in chapter 1. See appendix table 2–B for a list of the county-equivalent areas. areas for New England) is shown as class VI—A. One area, St. Joseph, Missouri, contained a central city of more than 50,000 and a total population of more than 100,000 in 1900, but lost population thereafter and has failed to qualify as a principal S. M. A. at any subse- quent census. Throughout this study, it is treated as a secondary S. M. A. The identification of the classes, and the num- ber of S. M. A.'s falling within each class, are: Class ºf Areas comprising the class I--------- 52 | Principal S. M. A.'s of 1900. II-------- 71 | Principal S. M. A.'s of 1910 and earlier. III------- 94 | Principal S. M. A.'s of 1920 and earlier. IV - - - - - - - 115 | Principal S. M. A.'s of 1930 and earlier. V-------- 125 | Principal S. M. A.'s pf 1940 and earlier. VI- - - - - - - 147 | Principal S. M. A.'s of 1950 and earlier. VI—A----- 162 || All S. M. A.'s of 1950. A list of the S. M. A.'s belonging in each class follows: CLASS I (52) Albany-Schenectady-Troy, N. Y. Atlanta, Ga. Baltimore, Md. Boston-Lawrence-Lowell, Kansas City, Mo. Los Angeles, Calif. Louisville, Ky. Manchester, N. H. Memphis, Tenn. Mass. Milwaukee, Wis. Bridgeport-Stamford-Nor- M in n e a polis-St. Paul walk, Conn. Minn. Buffalo, N. Y. Nashville, Tenn. Chicago, Ill. New Haven - Waterbury, Cincinnati, Ohio. Cleveland, Ohio. Columbus, Ohio. Conn. New Orleans, La. New York—Northeastern Dayton, Ohio. New Jersey. Denver, Colo. Omaha, Nebr. Detroit, Mich. Peoria, Ill. Duluth, Minn.-Superior, Philadelphia, Pa. Wis. * Pittsburgh, Pa. Fall River-New Bedford, Portland, Maine. Mass. Portland, Oreg. Grand Rapids, Mich. Harrisburg, Pa. Hartford-New Britain- Bristol, Conn. Indianapolis, Ind. Providence, R. I. Reading, Pa. Richmond, Va. Rochester, N. Y. St. Louis, MO. GROWTH OF STANDARD METROPOLITAN AREAS: 1900–50 CLAss I (52)—Continued San Francisco-Oakland, Calif. Scranton, Pa. Seattle, Wash. Springfield-Holy o ke Mass. Syracuse, N. Y. Toledo, Ohio. Utica-Rome, N. Y. Washington, D. C. Wilkes-Barre-Hazleton, Pa. Wilmington, Del. Worcester, Mass. CLAss II (71) Akron, Ohio. Allen town-Bethlehem- Easton, Pa. Altoona, Pa. Birmingham, Ala. Brockton, Mass. Canton, Ohio. Dallas, Tex. Des Moines, Iowa. Erie, Pa. Fort Worth, Tex. Houston, Tex. Johnstown, Pa. Norfolk-Portsmouth, Va. Salt Lake City, Utah. San Antonio, Tex. Spokane, Wash. Tacoma, Wash. Trenton, N. J. Youngstown, Ohio. (and all S. M. A.'s of class I). CLAss III (94) Augusta, Ga. Binghamton, N. Y. Charleston, S. C. Chattanooga, Tenn. Davenport, Iowa–Rock Island-Moline, Ill. El Paso, Tex. Flint, Mich. Fort Wayne, Ind. . Huntington, W. Va.- Ashland, Ky. *. Jacksonville, Fla. Knoxville, Tenn. Lancaster, Pa. w Little Rock-North Little Rock, Ark. Mobile, Ala. Oklahoma City, Okla. Saginaw, Mich. San Diego, Calif. Savannah, Ga. South Bend, Ind. Springfield, Ill. Tampa-St. Petersburg, Fla. Tulsa, Okla. Wheeling, W. Va.--Steu- benville, Ohio. (and all S. M. A.'s of class II). g CLAss IV (115) Atlantic City, N. J. Beaumont-Port Arthur, Tex. - Charleston, W. Va. Charlotte, N. C. Evansville, Ind. Fresno, Calif. Greensboro-High Point, N. C. Hamilton-Middletown, Ohio. Lansing, Mich. Lincoln, Nebr. CLASS W Asheville, N. C. Austin, Tex. Madison, Wis. Miami, Fla. Roanoke, Va. Rockford, Ill. Sacramento, Calif. San Jose, Calif. Shreveport, La. Sioux City, Iowa. Wichita, Kans. Winston-Salem, N. C. York, Pa. * (and all S. M. A.'s of class III). (125) Columbia, S. C. Columbus, Ga. CLAss V (125)—Continued Jackson, Miss. Kalamazoo, Mich. Montgomery, Ala. Phoenix, Ariz. Stockton, Calif. Waco, Tex. (and all S. M. A.'s of class IV). CLAss VI (147) Albuquerque, N. Mex. Baton Rouge, La. Cedar Rapids, Iowa Corpus Christi, Tex. Durham, N. C. Galveston, Tex. Greenville, S. C. Jackson, Mich. Ilexington, Ky. Lorain-Elyria, Ohio Lubbock, Tex. Macon, Ga. Orlando, Fla. Pittsfield, Mass. Racine, Wis. . Raleigh, N. C. San Bernardino, Calif. Springfield, Mo. Springfield, Ohio Terre Haute, Ind. Topeka, Kans. Waterloo, Iowa (and all S. M. A.'s of class V). CLAss WI-A (162) Amarillo, Tex., 1930–40.* Bay City, Mich., 1940–50. Decatur, Ill., 1920–30. Gadsden, Ala., 1940–50. Green Bay, Wis., 1940–50. Kenosha, Wis., 1920–30. Laredo, Tex., 1940–50. Lima, Ohio, 1940–50. Muncie, Ind., 1940–50. Pueblo, Colo., 1920–30. St. Joseph, Mo., 1890–1900. San Angelo, Tex., 1940–50. Sioux Falls, S. Dak., 1940–50. * Wichita Falls, Tex., 1940– 50. (and all S. M. A.'s of class VI). Ogden, Utah, 1940–50. Population in standard metropolitan areas of eqch census since 1900 With the various classes of S. M. A.'s estab- lished, it is possible to estimate what the popu- lation of S. M. A.'s probably would have been at each census since 1900 had the 1950 definition been applied: Total popula-| Popule- |Population Year tion of United| tion in otltside States S. M. A.’s | S. M. A.'s 1950 (class VT-A)--------------- 150,697,361 || 85, 872,096 || 65, 125,265 1950 (class VI)-----------------. 150,697, 361 | 84,296,957 66,400, 404 1940 (class V)------------------- 131,669, 275 67, 126,820 64, 542,455 1930 (class IV)------------------ 122,775,046 61,005, 353 | 61,769,693 1920 (class III)------------------ 105,710,620 46,058,708 || 59,651, 912 1910 (class II)------------------- 91, 972, 266 || 34, 517, 119 || 57,455, 147 1900 (class I)-------------------- 75,994, 575 24, 105,084 || 51,889, 491 In the above summary, classes I through VI represent principal S. M. A.'s only. In 1900, *This and other dates given for class VI-A indicate decade during which area qualified or would have qualified as an S. M. A. by reason of size of central city. 12 CHAPTER II 24.1 million persons lived in principal S. M. A.'s. By 1950, this number had risen to 84.3 million. The two sources of metro- politan growth are not shown separately; hence, the totals report the growth of established S. M. A.'s and the population of S. M. A.'s newly added at that decade as a combined figure. MillionS 200 80 United states 1800 1820 1840 -1860 1880 1900 1920 1940 1950 FIGURE 2,-Population of the United States: 1790 to 1950, and population of standard metropolitan and nonmetro- politan areas, 1900 to 1950. As figure 3 and table 2 illustrate, the propor- tion of the national population which resides in principal S. M. A.'s has risen from slightly less than one-third (31.7 percent) in 1900 to con- siderably more than one-half (55.9 percent) in 1950. Percent 100 Nonmetropolitan 0 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 FIGURE 3.-Percentage of United States population in principal standard metropolitan areas, by decades, 1900 to 1950. Sources of metropolitan growth Tables 1, 2, and 3 report the growth experi- ence of each of the classes of S. M. A.'s, for each decade from 1900 to 1950, and for the 1900–50 period as a single intervā1. Since, in these tables, the land area for each class remains con- stant throughout the entire half-century,” the metropolitan growth in any one decade result- ing from the growth of already established S. M. A.'s, may be determined by referring to the data for the appropriate class. The diag- onal step-like lines in these tables separate the decades during which all S. M. A.'s of a class were principal S. M. A.'s from these decades in which only some of the members of the class were principal S. M. A.'s. Statistics to the left of this line are for principal S. M. A.'s only, whereas statistics to the right of it are for decades in which some S. M. A.'s in the class had not yet qualified as principal S. M. A.'s. Thus, in order to analyze the growth of S. M. A.'s with land area held constant, a hori- zontal comparison should be made for the class of S. M. A.’s in which one is interested. In order to analyze the growth of S. M. A.'s with definition of S. M. A. held constant, the growth of the various classes for the decade immedi- ately to the left of the diagonal line should be traced. (Growth data for decades one or more columns removed to the left of the diagonal line refer to the second, third, etc., decades after entrance into the principal S. M. A. status.) The 52 areas of class I, those which would have been S. M. A.'s at the turn of the century, have grown faster than the Nation in all dec- ades except 1930–40. While the population of the Nation was increasing 98.3 percent over the 50-year period, the population of the class I S. M. A.'s grew by 160.3 percent, or more than 60 percent faster. Each of the other classes has grown faster than the Nation also. From table 2, it may be noted that the original S. M. A.'s of class I contained 31.7 percent of the Nation's population in 1900, and 41.6 percent in 1950. This demonstrates that the rapid * Minor changes between censuses in county boundaries, which could not be controlled in all cases, introduce a small amount of area variation, but not enough to affect national and regional summaries to any appreciable extent. GROWTH OF STANDARD METROPOLITAN AREAS: 1900–50 13 Table lº-Percent of increase in population of standard metropolitan areas and Table 2.-Percentage of United States total population in standard astropoli- tan areas and in nonmetropolitan urban and rarel areas, by decedest 1900-1950 Area and class of standard metropolitan Mººſ, Percent distribution tº Tºo Tº ſº. Tºol isº U.S. Retal Class WI-At (162 areas) 8tandard metropolitan areas Central cities lings Urban lººrsi Area outside 8.X.A.'s Urban Laral Class VI t (ll,7 areas) Principal standard metropolitan areas Central cities Rings Urban lural Area outside 8.M.A.'s Urban Rural Class Wt (125 areas) Principal standard 100.0 100.0 loº,0 100.0 100,0 100,0 56.8 53.3 52.7 k8.2 lil, 2 40.5 32.8 33.0 33.5 31.5 28.3 25el 24.0 20.k. 19.2 16.7 15.9 15.4 12.0 10.7 10.5 8.2 6.8 5.5 12.0 9.7 8.7 8.5 9.0 10,0 83.2 *6.7 lºº.3 51.8 55.8 59.5 14.2 12.9 12.1 11.6 10.5 9.1 29.0 33.0 35.1 lºo.2 kJ.3 50.3 of non-metropolitan urban and rural areas, by decadest 1900-1950 Area and class of Percent increase standard metropolitan CºCº, 1so-ºligº-ºoºº-ºo-º-º-º-º: U. S. Total 18.5 7.2 16.1 14.9 21.0 98.3 Class wr-At (162 areas) Central cities 13.9 5.8 23.8 27.7 36.6 159.2 Rings .7 13.9 33.2 2le 3 28.3 208.l. Urban 29.2 9.l k8.2 38.5 50.7 336.1 lºural lo.8 19.6 10.0 8.2 9.9 137.8 Ares outside S.M.A.'s 6.0 5. 6.0 6.7 13.6 *.1 Urban 25.8 18.0 22.0 26.2 39.5 208.2 -1.6 ic 1.3 2.l 8. 14.8 Class VI: (ll,7 areas) Principal standard metropolitan areas 21.8 8.5 27.2 25.3 32.0 lz7.8 Central cities 13.7 5.3 23.8 27.5 36. J57-5 Ring's 34.8 18.0 33.6 21.8 28.8 211.0 Tºrban 29.1 9.2 k8.3 38.4 5lel 3.37.1 Rural *1.3 19.8 19.0 8.3 10.0 140.1 Area outside S.M.A.'s 6.3 5.9 6.2 6.9 13.7 *3.4 Urban 26.0 .8 22.3 26.8 39.9 211.0 lural —l.* 3.l 1.4 2e2 8.9 14.6 Class Vs (125 areas) Principal standard metropolitan º'COO 21-3 8.3 27.1 25.5 32.3 177.2 Central cities 13.0 5.l 23.6 27.4 36.2 15%.8 Rings 38.7 13.8 33.9 22.0 25.8 214.9 Urbaa 28.8 9.l $8.8 38.8 51.3 338.0 Dural $1.8 19.8 18.9 8.* 10.6 lº2.1 Area outside 8.M.A.'s 7.3 6.2 6.7 7.2 13.9 *8.5 Urban 26.9 13.7 22.9 26.9 $0.2 215.3 Rural •0.9 3.4 l-6 2e2 8.7 15.8 Glass IVs (115 areas) Principal standard metropolitan areas 21.0 8.1 27.0 25.5 32.5 176.1 Central eities 12.6 8.9 23.3 27.3 36.2 152.5 Rings 34.7 13.6 38.2 22.2 26.1 216.8 Urban 28.5 9.0 A3.1% 38.7 51.2 335.8 Rural A2.2 19.9 18.8 6.3 10.7 1A2.6 Area outside B.M.a. "s 7.9 .* 7.1 7.4% 18.0 50.5 Urban 27.5 18.0 23.5 27.3 #0.2 220.* lural ~0.5 3.5 1.8 2.3 8.0 16.7 Class III, (9, areas) Principal standard metropolitan areas 20.3 7.7 26.5 25.2 32.3 171.3 Qentral cities ll.9 8.7 22.3 26.7 35.6 lºé.3 Rings 34.1. 13.0 38.5 || 22.8 26.5 215.5 Urban 27.5 e? 47.8 38.* 50.8 327.6 Rural #3.0 19.3 18.7 7.6 10.1 180.0 Area outside 3.M.A.'s 9,1 6.9 8.2 Sel 18.5 56.0 Wºma t 28.1 13.8 25.9 || 28.7 & 1.8 23%.0 Rural 0.8 3.9 2.1 2.5 8.9 18.9 Class II: (71 areas) Principal standard metropolitan areas 19.6 7.3 26.1 28.9 32.6 168.0 Central cities 11.3 *.* 21.2 25.7 35.3 139.6 Rings 33 12.6 35.9 23.2 27.6 220.6 Urban 27.0 8.6 $8,1 37.7 50.7 323.8 Rural $3.2 19.2 19.3 7.9 9.0 lºl. 2 Area outside S.M.A.'s 10.3 7.2 9.3 9.0 15.0 62.0 Uºban 27.5 13.2 27.6 30.6 ble: 280.8 Rural 1.6 *.* 2.4 2.6 8.9 21.3 Class I; (52 areas) *:::::::: 10.6 26 7 60 litan areas – ºe 7.0 .3 23. 31,3 l69. Centrel cities 9.6 &.l 20.8 23.9 53.1 :::: Rings 33.6 12.2 30.6 23.3 27.0 227.4 Uºbº 26.8 8.6 $9.7 37-3 $9.7 3.22.2 lural $6.1 19.1 21.5 6.6 8.8 || 145.1 Areas outside 8.M.A.'s 11.7 7.4 10.2 10.3 16.3 69.5 Urban 27.9 12.8 27.8 33.0 *5-0 |258.4 Rural 2.8 *.7 2.6 2.8 9el 23.3 *-i- Jºural Area outside 8.M.A. 0s Urban lural Class 171 (115 areas) Area outside 8.M.A.'s Urban Ibaral onase III: (9's areas) Frincipal standard metropolitan areas Central eities Rings Urben lural Area outside 8.M.A.'s Uºbań Rºral class 111 (71 areas) Principal standard metropolitan areas Central cities lings Urban Mºral Area outside S.M.A.'s Urban ºral Class 1:(52 areas) Principal standard astropolitan areas Central eities Rings Urban Ibarel Area outside B.M.A.'s Ulrbºn lural $1.6 *O-2 40.3 37.0 3*.* 31.7 2.8.l. 25.2 25.9 25.0 23.2 21sl 17.6 15.0 lk,l} 12.0 ll.? 10.6 10.5 9.5 9.1% 7.3 6.l &.9 7.0 5.5 5.0 A.7 5.1 5.7 58.4 59.8 59.7 63.0 65.6 68.3 2*.* 21.0 20.0 18.9 16.4 13.7 34.0 38.0 38.9 *.0 *9.2 54, 14 CHAPTER IV Table 3e- Percentage of United States total decennial increase in standard metropolitan areas and in nometropolitan urban and rural areas, by decades 1 1900-1950 Area and class of Percept of United States increase standard metropolitan ſººn 1910-30|lºo-oº-ºo-ºo-ºoºoo-oºoo-ºo U. S. Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 l00.0 100.0 Class WI-At (162 areas) Standard metropolitan areas 80.6 61.6 80.9 75.0 61.6 73.2 Central cities 31.6 28.8 l;6.l. 52.5 lº.7 k0,6 Rings lº,0 36.8 31.5 22.6 17.9 32.7 Urban 21.5 13.2 28.5 17.6 13.2 18.7 Lºral 27, b, 23.5 9,9 5.0 lº.7 14.0 Area outside S.M.A.'s 19.4 38, tº 19.1 25.0 38.* 26.7 Urban 23.0 23.5 15.7 18.5 17.2 19.3 lºural ~3.7 15.0 3.4 6.5 21.2 7.1, Class VI 1 (187 areas) Principal s metropolitan areas 79.3 60.8 79.9 73.9 6l.0 72.3 Central cities 30.7 28.2 $5.2 51,5 $3.1 39.8 Rings k8.6 36.6 . 31.3 22.4 17.9 32.5 Urban 21.4 13.3 28.5 17.5 13.2 18.7 Rural 27.2 23.3 9.8 lº.9 *.6 13.8 Area outside 8.M.A. ºs 20.7 39.2 20el 26.1 39.0 27.7 Urban 24.1 24.0 16.6 19.5 17.7 20,1 Jºural –3.4 || 15.2 3.5 6.6 21.3 7.5 Class VI (125 areas) Principal standard Central cities 28.5 22.8 lºlº.2 50el lºz.0 38.3 Rings kó.8 31.9 33.4 22.0 17.7 31,5 Urban 21.0 13.1 24.3 17.4 13.1 18.k. Rural 25.8 21.8 9el b.6 lº.6 13.1 Area outside 8.M.A.'s 21.8 kg.2 22.8 27.8 liſ).3 30.2 Urban 26.8 25.6 18.2 21.0 19.0 22.0 Rural ~2.1 16.7 lº.2 6.9 21.3 8.2 Class IV; (115 areas) Principal standard metropolitan areas 72.8 55.4 76.2 71.1 59.0 68.2 lings lºs. 6 33.8 || 32.9 21.7 17.5 30.9 Urban 20.7 12.8 23.2 17.3 13.0 18,3 Rural 25.0 20.9 || 8.7 k.k. A.b. 12.6 Area outside B.M.A., "a 27.2 blº.6 23.8 28.9 lºl,0 31.8 Urban 28.4 27.0 19.2 21.8 19.5 23.0 Rural •le? 17.6 4.6 7.1 21.5 8.7 Class III 1 (9's areas) Principal standard metropolitan Chirº 67.0 50.1% 71.5 67.6 56.6 63.9 Central cities 28.5 19.8 k0,0 kó.8 39.8 34.9 Rings h2.5 30.6 31.5 20.8 16.7 29, 1 Urban 19.6 12.2 23.7 17, 1 12.9 17.8 Lural 22.8 18.k. 7.8 3.7 3.8 ll.3 Area outside 3.M.A., "s 33.0 lº.6 26.5 32.h. lº.k. 36.l. Urban 32.0 29.5 23.0 2k.6 21.1% 26,0 Taral 1.0 20el 5.5 7.8 22.1 10,0 Class III (71 areas) Principal standard metropolitan areas 60.2 blº.8 65.6 62.5 || 53.1 58.5 Rings 30.5 27.5 30.1 19.7 15.7 26.9 Urban 18.8 ll.8 23.2 16.4 12.6 17s2 Ibiral 19.7 15.7 6.9 3.3 3.l 9.7 Area outside 3.M.A. ºs 39.8 55.2 34.2 37.5 l;6.9 Al-5 Urban 35.8 32.8 27.8 29.3 28.1 29.9 Lºral *..l 22.8 6.l. 8.2 22.8 ll,6 Class It (52 areas) Principal standard Central cities 16.6 18.8 31.6 37.1 33.2 27, 1 RCG 35.0 213.2 28.8 17.5 18.1 24.6 Urban 17.4 llel 22.5 15.3 lle? 16.2 Ibural 17.6 13.l. 6.3 2.3 2.4 8.4 Área outside S.M.A. ºs kő.4 61.0 39.6 85.8 52.8 *6.3 Urban lºz.2 35.6 32.6 36.2 29.3 35.3 Lural 6.2 25.8 7.0 9,2 23.5 12.9 growth of the metropolitan population has not been due to the addition of new areas alone, but to the continuation of eartraordinarily rapid rates of growth in already established S. M. A.'s as well. Yet the cumulative effect of adding new S. M. A.'s at each census is also apparent. Be- tween 1900 and 1950, a total of 95 new princi- pal S. M. A.'s were created in addition to the original 52. The 147 principal S. M. A.'s of 1950 contained 56.0 percent of the total popu- lation. The difference of 14.4 percent, remain. ing after the 41.7 percent residing in class I areas is subtracted, represents the increase in S. M. A. population resulting from adding new S. M. A.'s after 1900. Although the long-established S. M. A.’ have continued to grow faster than the Nation the newly established S. M. A.'s have shown tendency to grow even more rapidly. Thi may be verified by observing that the rate o growth during most décades to the left of th stepped line is greater for class II than fo class I, greater for class III than for class II etc.” Hence, the addition of new S. M. A.” has facilitated the expansion of metropolita population not only by transferring large clusters of population from the nonmetropoli tan classification, but also by adding units o population which have unusually high growth rates for at least one or more decades after their classifications as S. M. A.'s. - The growth behavior of new S. M. A.'s added at each decade may be examined in detail by referring to table 4. This table presents data, 1900–50, for only those new S. M. A.'s whic were added to already established S. M. A.'s to form a new class. The areas are grouped ac- cording to the decade in which they were added. Rates of growth for these groups should be compared with rates of growth for the areas which they were added (table 1). For example, by comparing the growth behavior of class I areas (table 1) with the growth behavior of the 19 areas added in 1910 (table 4) it can be noted that whereas the class I areas grew by 160.3 percent, 1900–50, the 19 new S. M. A.'s grew by 264.0 percent, or 65 percent faster. Similar comparisons for other decades will show that: (a) the new S. M. A.'s have grown faster tha the areas to which they were added, (b) this rapid growth has taken place both before and after being defined as S. M. A.'s, (c) this rapid growth in new S. M. A.'s has tended to persist for several decades after entering a class, and (d) growth of newer S. M. A.'s has been par. ticularly marked during the past two decades. * High growth rates for decades to the right of the diagonal line would be expected of new S. M. A.'s, for it is frequently by virtue of extraordinary rapid growth that they enter the metropolitan class. - GROWTH OF STANDARD METROPOLITAN AREAS: 1900–50 15 table 4. - Percent increase in population of standard metropolitan areas which first qualify as standard metropolitan areas at each eensus, 1910-1950 Percent increase Census at which added and type of area tº-ſo 19x-lo 1920-30 1910-20 |ix-lo |lºo-so 1950 (15 areas) standard metropolitan areas] 24sº 6.9 20.6 28.4 17.8 135.2 Central cities 25.5 8.1 25.3 34.0 31.5 199.5 lings 22,0 it.!! 11.6 9.3 lels 57.5 Urban 72.0 26.5 26.6 96.8 28.7 124.4 1950 (22 areas) Principal standard metropolitan areas 36.9 15.1 28.1 20.1 22.2 196.2 Central cities 36.7 ll.8 31.2 30.9 *.6 279.2 Rings 37.2 19.5 24.2 8.6 5.0 132.3 Urban 56.7 16.4 35.9 lle.9 38.7 284.9 ºural 33.1 20e2 2:le.9 8.0 0,& lll.6 1940 (10 areas) * Principal standard astropolitan areas 39.7 21.3 33. It 2k.5 22.4 2kly." Cºntral cities l,0.2 21.2 *3 5 39.0 *0.2 381.9 lings 39.0 21s5 22e2 13.5 lle 7 16.1.8 Urban 105.4 67.1 86.1 115.6 156.5 2672.5 Rural 32.8 18-3 20.8 10.5 9.8 129.5 1930 (21 areas) Principal standard tetropolitan areas 34.3 16.3 lºſ).7 33.3 36.2 299.1 Cºntral cities 26.8 9,8 50.3 lº.2 55.6 379.5 Rings Alt.* 26.8 28.0 18.5 20e2 232.7 thrban 99.1 32.7 109.8 79.3 126.6 2057.8 Rural 35.7 25.2 19.5 1k.5 16.6 170.8 1920 (23 areas) Principal standard Central cities 20.8 9.0 $2.8 lº.2 50.7 315.9 Rings lº.2 18.6 19el 13.9 17.1 169.7 Vºrban #6.9 12.9 37.0 68.1 57.3 500.0 Rural $2.3 20-2 15.0 6.1 12.9 135.7 1910 (19 areas) Principal standard metropolitan areas 30.1 10.5 23.4 37.8 l:8.9 261.0 Central cities 29.3 7.2 29.9 50.7 75.9 377.2 Rings 31.3 16.0 lºt.0 22.5 25.8 167.5 Urban 37.4 8,8 23.0 **.3 69.0 352.8 Rural 28.3 19,8 9.k. 14.5 18.9 121, 1 On the basis of the information assembled, the total growth of the population of principal S. M. A.'s over the 50-year period may be sub- divided into parts as follows: (a) population of S. M. A.'s newly created at each census, (b) growth of the original 52 S. M. A.'s of class I, and (c) growth of classes II through VI dur- ing the decades after their establishment as S. M. A.'s. The contribution made by each of the three sources may be summarized as follows: Total G th of dºth of Pºpººn () tº POWLI) () Other of newly Time span . increase class I | established added classes |8. M. A.'s 1 1940-50--------------- 17, 170, 137 9, 825,388 4,492, 211 2,852, 538 1930-40--------------- 6, 121,407 || 3,469,312 1,457,021 1, 195, 134 1920-30--------------- 14,946, 645 10,304,998 1, 897, 879 2,743,768 1910-20--------------- 11, 541, 589 7,497,727 | 1,085,762 2,958, 100 1900-10--------------- 10,412,035 7, 543, 119 |------------ 2,868,916 1900-50--------- 60, 191,873 38,640, 544 || 8,932,873 12,618,456 Percentage distribution 1940-50--------------- 100.0 57.2 26, 2 16. 6 1930–40.-------------- I00.0 56, 7 23.8 19.5 1920-30--------------- 100.0 68.9 12.7 18, 4 1910-20--------------- 100.0 65.0 9.4 25, 6 1900-10--------------- 100.0 72.4 ------------ 27.6 1900-50--------- 100.0 64. 2 14.8 21.0 * Assigned to the decade during which growth into S. M. A. size OCCurred. It is evident that in each decade since 1910, the increment to the total population made by add- ing new S. M. A.'s has been an important source of growth. Yet even more metropolitan growth has come from the greater than average rates of increase of previously established metro- politan areas. In every decade since 1900, the largest single source of metropolitan increase was the growth of the original 52 S. M. A.'s of class I. In the last half century, almost two- thirds of the metropolitan growth has come from this source. Proportion of national increase claimed by S. M. A.'s The intensity of the trend toward concentra- tion of population in metropolitan areas may be more fully appreciated by comparing the percentage of the decennial increase in popula- tion going to S. M. A.'s (table 3) with the percentage of the national population in S. M. A.'s of the same class at the beginning of the decade (table 2). For example, the 147 S. M. A.'s of class VI, which contained 52.6 per- cent of the Nation's population in 1940, captured 79.3 percent of the Nation's increase 1940–50. The area outside these S. M. A.’s which con- tained 47.4 percent of the Nation's population in 1940, received only 20.7 percent of the Na- tion's increase, 1940–50. Similar comparisons for each class at each decade show large dis- proportionate gains of this type in favor of S. M. A.'s. When made for the half-century, 1900–50, these comparisons reveal the full ex- tent to which the national increase has flowed into the building up of the metropolitan pop- ulation. Although the area constituted as principal S. M. A.'s in 1950 contained only 40.0 percent of the population in 1900, during the last 50 years they have received 72.3 percent of the Nation's increase in population. Growth in S. M. A.'s compared with growth in metropolitan districts Thompson has extended back to 1900 a con- stant definition for the 44 metropolitan districts with central cities of 100,000 or more in 1910." * Warren S. Thompson, op cit., pp. 5–6. 16 CHAPTER II As is shown by the following comparison be- tween growth rates of these 44 original metro- politan districts and the corresponding S. M. A.'s, the two sets of metropolitan data show essentially the same thing: greater than average rates of growth during each decade 1900–30, with growth rates slightly below aver- age from 1930 to 1940. Yet the two definitions do not yield identical results. - 44 metro º United ...?" |Equivalent Ween T}ecade litan ... I metropolitan states ſº. S. M. A.'s]; . S. M. A.'s 1900-10--------------- 21.0 34.6 32, 4 –2.2 1910-20--------------- 14.9 25, 3 24.0 -1.3 1920–30--------------- 16, 1 28.0 27.2 —. 8 1930-40--------------- 7, 2 6.9 7, 1 ... 2 The fairly large disparity for the earlier dec- ades is undoubtedly due to the fact that the inner parts of the S. M. A. rings, immediately surrounding the central city, were growing rapidly, whereas the outlying parts were grow- ing less rapidly, were almost stationary, or were losing population. The inner parts would have been in the metropolitan district, but the outer parts would not. Thus, when applied to the 1900–30 period, the S. M. A. definition prob- ably embraces more territory than the area of rapid metropolitan growth, and for this rea- son tends to understate the true rate of growth in the actual metropolitan ring. As the above comparison shows, the eastent of this under- statement has decreased in recent decades and appears to have even disappeared as metropoli- tan growth has tended to flow beyond the metropolitan district boundaries. That this is true of metropolitan areas generally, and not merely of the original 44 metropolitan districts, may be verified by making the same comparison between the 97 metropolitan districts of 1930 and the equivalent S. M. A.'s: 97 met º Inetro- Ween Decade United iºn |#9 ºvalºmetºian states | }. S.M.A.'s ºl. S. M. A.'s 1920-30--------------- 16.1 28.3 27.2 -1. 1 1930–40--------------- 7, 2 7.7 7. 9 .2 These statistics are for groups of areas, how- ever, and do not necessarily imply that similar results would be obtained for all individual areas. However, they do imply that as sub- urbanization has become more extensive in re- cent years the average differences in result be- tween using metropolitan districts and S. M. A.'s have become negligible. i To discover how great the variation would be for individual areas, the 1930–40 and 1940- 50 rates of growth for the individual 140 metro politan districts of 1940 were plotted against the equivalent rates for S. M. A.'s for the cases in which equivalence could be established (same: central cities). The results are shown in figure 4. In this chart, if the two sets of rates for a decade had been identical, all points would have fallen on the diagonal line of equal growth rates. Since the central cities are almost iden- tical for both the metropolitan districts and the S. M. A.'s, the deviation of the points away from the diagonal line are due almost entirely to differences in rates of growth between the parts of metropolitan districts lying outside central cities and the parts of S. M. A.'s lying 1 outside central cities. For a majority of the slower-growing areas the S. M. A. rates are larger than the metropolitan district rates, and the points fall slightly below the diagonal. This indicates that the metropolitan district is no longer enclosing the entire area of rapid growth for these areas. Most of these areas consisted of the older and larger metropolitan centers. For the faster growing areas, the S. M. A. rates are smaller than the metropoli- tan district rates, and the points fall above the diagonal. The faster the rate of growth, the greater this deviation tends to be. These areas were, for the most part, the newer and smaller metropolitan areas. A least squares regression line has been drawn through the points of figure 4. By measuring the vertical or horizontal distance between the least squares line and the diagonal line of equal growth rates it is possible to estimate the average amount of difference in rate of growth shown by the two areas, for each rate of growth. For the majority of areas the difference is very small for both decades. GROWTH OF STANDARD METROPOLITAN AREAS: 1900–50 17 110 1930 to 1940 110 1940 ro 1950 I T I I I | | I | I y I | I TI H | I | mº * 4 100 - 2’ — 100 - A. / Af Z / 90 k- / sº 90 F- 2 amº A •,• 80 k-- ascaession Line / dºm. 00 H = LºGº tº ON LINº. Z'. sºm ,’ 5 / Af Af i-| / - # *H .2 / - / ,” : 60 k- ,” m # 60 - v'. — / LINE OF EQUAL RATEs i Z ºr or squal nams 30 º / mº 50 , º e & ſe [ _*- s / † / 3 40 l- 2. im. ; 40 – Z ſº tº- z 4. º - / * ©e 2% ; "| 2% - ; "I º $º * * / * 20 - & 24 wº- ; 20 H- ºf ¥ se 10 l- 3 tº- 10 H. 7. ºm * Ž •. °, sº 0 - * > 0 - ;" tº 2 Zº 10 F-A/ um. 10 P-Z’ 2 I | | | | | | H– 2’ H ! | | | I | | | | -10. 0. 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 00 90 •IQ 0. jº) 20 30 (0. 30 60 70 CO 90 PERCENT INCREASE - $. M. A. PIRC NT INCLEASE - 3. M. A. Figure 4.—Growth rates of metropolitan districts plotted against growth rates of standard metropolitan areas, 1930 to 1940, Gnd 1940 to 1950. Hence, although the metropolitan district . may have been a superior unit for delimiting the area of metropolitan aggregation as of 1900 or even 1920, no such unilateral assertion can be made for 1950 and for the future. It is possi- bly true that the metropolitan district would still be a preferable unit for use with the small- est central cities, but aside from this, the S. M. A. unit is either distinctly preferable or shows essentially the same result. If recent tendencies for metropolitan growth to spread more and more diffusively over a broader area characterize smaller S. M. A.'s as well as larger areas, the superiority of the metropolitan dis- trict unit in this respect may disappear al- together; in fact, it may have disappeared already. The validity of the S. M. A. unit for measur- ing metropolitan growth may be established in another way—by showing that 1940–50 rates of growth at the periphery of S. M. A.'s are greater than the S. M. A. rates. This may be demonstrated by computing rates of growth, 1940-50, for the tier of townships which lies at the outer boundaries of S. M. A.'s and of com- paring them with the rates of growth of the S. M. A. as a whole. Because of the large amount of data assembly required for this dem- onstration, only every tenth S. M.A. of class VI has been given this treatment. The results are as follows: * Rate of growth, 1940–50 S. M. A. Cen- Ring Total #: l Outer | Inner * |Totall. part Akron, Ohio--------------------- 20.8 || 12.2 43. 1 47. 4 || 42.3 Baltimore, Md------------------- 23.4 || 10.5 | 72.9 || 41, 5 || 80. 5 Cedar Rapids, Iowa------------...- 17. 0 | 16.4 | 18.3 10. 1 || 26.6 Columbus, Ohio----------------- 29. 5 22.8 || 54.3 35. 1 || 60.8 El Paso, Tex--------------------- 48.8 || 34.8 || 88.2 84.9 90.9 Greensboro-High Point, N.C.----| 24.1 16.9 || 36.7 28.0 || 53.7 Jacksonville, Fla----------------- 44.7 | 18.2 | 168.4 (3) (a) Lorain-Elyria, Ohio-------------- 31.8 || 17.7 || 54.5 53.5 56.2 Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minn.----- 18.7 6.8 || 76.2 33. 2 | 85.0 Orlando, Fla--------------------- 64.0 || 42. 5 87.7 (4) (4) Raleigh, N.C.-------------------- 24.6 | 40.0 | 18.0 12.6 13.7 San Bernardino, Calif.------------ 74.8 || 44, 5 || 86.1 78, 5 98.3 Spokane, Wash.------------------ 34.6 || 32.6 40.3 -7, 6 || 53.8 Toledo, Ohio--------------------- 14.9 7. 5 || 48, 3 33. 5 61.7 Wilkes-Barre-Hazleton, Pa.”------ -11.2 ſ -9.6 |-11. 8 || -6.5 - 12.5 Total----------------------- 21.8 12.9 || 43.0 38.7 || 44.7 1 Townships contained in the metropolitan districts in 1940 are excluded. * No comparable figures for 1940–50. * Included with Scranton metropolitan district in 1940. * Not divisible into an inner and outer ring. CHAPTER II In 10 of the 13 areas for which inner and outer rings could be established, the rate of growth in the outer ring was above the S. M. A. average rate, although, in most cases not as high at the rate for the inner ring. The excep- tional cases are smaller or newer S. M. A.'s. Hence, the rapid growth, between 1940 and 1950, of territory outside the metropolitan dis- trict but within the S. M. A. must be regarded as a typical rather than an exceptional aspect of metropolitan growth. Growth in central cities and rings The preceding analysis has examined the growth of the S. M. A.'s as units, without refer- ence to the pattern of distribution or growth within the areas. Considerable attention has been given in recent years to the growth of the various parts of S. M. A.'s and particularly to the comparative rates of growth of central cities and that part of the metropolitan area lying outside central cities.” (In this report the metropolitan “environs,” or the part of the S. M. A. lying outside the central city, is called the “metropolitan ring,” or the “ring of the S. M. A.”) Tables 1, 2, and 3 provide data with which to trace the pattern of central city and ring growth for each class over the last 50 years. Table 4 provides similar data for new S. M. A.'s added at each census. Since 1900, a remarkable reversal in the pattern of growth within S. M. A.'s has taken place. In 1900–10, the central cities had higher growth rates than the metropolitan rings, but in 1940–1950 the rings were growing at a much more rapid rate than central cities. This change appears to have taken place about 1920 (see figure 5).” The advent at that time of the • Growth by distance from the central city will be treated in detail by Dr. A. H. Hawley in Population Redistribution Within Metropolitan Areas of the United States: 1900–1950, another monograph in this series. * Thompson, ibid., finds in the 44 metropolitan districts of 1910 that central cities were growing more slowly than the part of the metropolitan districts outside central cities’ both during the 1900–10 and 1910–20 decades, although the differ- ence did not become large until the 1920–30 decade. This again is evidence that the S. M. A. would have been a rela- tively poor unit of metropolitan area prior to the recent era of extended metropolitan growth. For tracing the early growth of metropolitan areas, Thompson's metropolitan dis- trict data, rather than the present S. M. A. data, are the more realistic. use of automobiles for commuting marks the beginning of the more extended pattern of set- tlement around metropolitan centers which has now become an outstanding characteristic of population distribution. About 11 percent of the total population of principal S. M. A.'s was living in the metropolitan ring outside central cities in 1900. By 1950, this proportion had risen to 24 percent. For the past twenty years, both in the 1930-40 decade and in the 1940-50 decade, central cities have grown less rapidly than the population of the Nation, and only about one-third as rapidly as their own rings. This can only mean that such growth as they have made was largely self-generated by an eaccess of births over deaths (natural increase). Many cities, if not most, have suffered rather large net out-migrations both during the de- pression 1930's and the prosperous postwar 1940's. Thus, the decade just completed con- tinued the pattern of growth within S. M. A.'s which became predominant in the 1930's. MATO 3.0 RINGs |.....“ •e ea. - || --e." (s" 2.0 ****** •vºr:vº -º-º-º ...“ S.M.A. TOTAL ... • **** ,...----" ST- i.0 N- T. TIONAL GROWTH LEVEL TRAL CITIES 0. ---- 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1930 FIGURE 5.—Ratio to the national growth rate of standard metropolitan area growth rate, central cities and rings, by decades, 1900 to 1950 (class VI standard metropolitan areas). It could be maintained, with some superficial plausibility, that no fundamental alteration took place in the pattern of growth within S. M. A.'s, but that central cities merely over- flowed their boundaries into the surrounding territory. This view overlooks the fact that central cities had been overflowing their bound- aries for many decades prior to 1920. Since growth was dense and compact, and since outly- GROWTH OF STANDARD METROPOLITAN AREAS: 1900–50 19 ing communities had little social or economic autonomy, annexation to the central city of newly settled areas was fairly prompt. The fact that separate incorporation of Öutlying areas and a decline in the rate of annexation began almost simultaneously in S. M. A.'s throughout the entire Nation, irrespective of their stage of growth, and that the compact pattern of growth gave way to a more extended type of suburban settlement, supports the view that automotive transportation altered radically the course of metropolitan growth. It permitted the estab- lishment of many more suburban communities consisting primarily of single-family resi- dences. Although the practice of razing obso- lete structures in central cities to make space for higher density apartment buildings has con- tinued, it has not succeeded in maintaining growth at the center nor lessened the impetus for outward diffusion. The area occupied by urban metropolitan population has continued to grow, but over a much greater radius than previously. This tendency for rings to outstrip central cities in rate of growth began in the older estab- lished S. M. A.'s and then a decade or so later became the pattern for newer S. M. A.'s. This may be verified by comparing the rates of growth of central cities and rings of new S. M. A.'s added at each census (table 4) with the corresponding rates for the classes to which they were added (table 1). Whereas, in the already established S. M. A.'s of class I, the population of the rings was growing at a more rapid rate than that of the central cities as early as the 1920–30 decade (table 1), it was not until the 1930–40 decade that rings in any of the groups of newer S. M. A.'s grew faster than their central cities (table 4). It is noteworthy that this change took place in all of the newer groups of S. M. A.'s in the same decade, and hence was not related to the date at which they attained S. M. A. status. Droader metropolitan growth appears to be associated with techno- logical and social developments which have occurred during recent decades and not to an area's attaining any particular stage of growth. Growth of urban and rural areas within metropolitan rings Within the rings of S. M. A.'s there has been another reversal of the pattern of growth, similar to that which occurred between cen- tral cities and rings. Before 1930, urban places in the rings were growing much more rapidly than the rural areas. This growth arose from two sources: the growth of already established cities, and the growth of smaller incorporated places to a population of 2,500 inhabitants, which caused them to be trans- ferred from the rural to the urban classifica- tion.” Prior to the depression, both of these processes were operating at a rapid pace. Be- cause they lost population steadily through the reclassification of incorporated places as urban, the rural areas of rings grew less rapidly than either central cities or satellite urban places. During the 1930–40 decade, however, this situ- ation was completely reversed, and this rever- sal has continued through the 1940–50 decade. During the last 20 years, the growth of incor- porated places into the urban class has slackened noticeably, while the suburbanization of unin- corporated territory adjacent to metropolitan centers has been accelerated tremendously. Thus, the great surge of population into the periphery of S. M. A.'s during recent decades has not gone heavily to outlying urban centers, as in 1900–30. Instead, it has gone primarily to the unincorporated and less densely settled parts of the ring. The 1940–50 decade merely continued this tendency which became the pre- dominant pattern during the depression years. * For this study, the urban and rural populations have been summarized exactly as reported at each census, using the 1940 definitions. Hence, the increase of urban population by the passing of incorporated places from the rural to the urban classification is combined with the increase in population of already existing cities. The rates shown are rate of urban growth from both sources combined. If one desires to analyze growth rates of a fixed sample of urban areas in order to measure the attractive power of existing cities, these rates are not useful. For this overall study of urban growth in rings, however, these are the proper rates to use. It is inconse- quential, in the aggregate, whether an increase in the urban population comes as an urbanization of a place previously rural or as an accumulation of added persons in already established urban places. In fact, holding constant the area would tend to hide the true extent of urbanization in the rings. For much more detailed study of growth patterns within metropolitan areas, see the monograph by Dr. Hawley in this series of reports, op. cit. This study will analyze the growth of ring cities, holding area constant. 2O CHAPTER II RATIO 4.0 3.0 f 2.0 ** ... •" A& {e • * * * * * * eel vessee see” G ROWTH LºV.E.L. 2' , 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 FIGURE 6.—Ratio to the central city growth rates of growth rates of metropolitan rings, urban and rural, 1900 to 1950 (class VI standard metropoliton areas). The above generalization, based on tables 1, 2, and 3, and figure 6, makes use of old defini- tions of the urban population in order to gain comparability for the decades from 1900 to 1950. Much of the population classified as rural under the old definition is classified as urban under the new urbanized area definition. (See ch. III.) It is precisely this upsurge since 1930 of growth and urban-like settlement of unincorporated areas about larger cities which has made it necessary to abandon the old definition of urban population, based on incor- porated places, and to adopt a new definition based on density of settlement. Statistics for the urban and rural population (old defini- tions) are useful for documenting this reversal of the former pattern of growth in metropolitan rings and for demonstrating the need for a revised urban-rural classification within S. M. A.'s. They do not, however, measure the full extent of urban growth in S. M. A.'s. The foregoing emphasis upon the growth of rural areas in the rings should not be allowed to obscure the fact that between 1940 and 1950 urban population in the ring grew fairly rapidly, even if less rapidly than the rural-pop- ulation. Undoubtedly, a large share of this urban growth was due to the emergence of new places into the urban classification. Although between 1930 and 1940 urban population of rings grew much less rapidly than the rural population, the difference was not as great as i has been during the past decade. Thus, in th postwar years the urbanization of the ring haſ proceeded along three fronts—the building up of unincorporated territory into urban-like de velopments, the building up of small incorpo rated rural places until they become urban, an the continued growth of older urban places. During the last decade, this spreading of population growth into rural areas of the rin has been much more pronounced in the olde S. M. A.'s than in the ones more recently estab lished, although during the 1930's it was abou equally characteristic of all classes of S. M. A.'s. This differential tendency toward growth in rural areas may be measured by noting th ratio of the rural to the urban rate of growth (old definitions) in each class of S. M. A.'s for the two decades: Ratio of rural to urban rates of growth Class of S. M. A. 1940–50 1930–40 I-------------------------- 1. 75 2. 2 II-------------------------- 1. 60 2. 2 III------------------------- 1. 56 2. 2 IV------------------------- 1. 48 2. 2 V-------------------------- 1.45 2. 1 VI------------------------- 1.42 2. 1 --sº In spite of this, newer S. M. A.'s are tending to build up urban places (old definitions) in their rings at a faster rate than they are set- tling rural territory. This may be seen di- rectly by comparing the rates of growth in the urban and rural parts of rings of newer S. M. A.'s (table 4) with the already established S. M. A.'s (class I, table 1). Without excep- tion, each group of newer S. M. A.'s had a higher rate of urban than rural growth in the ring, 1940–50. This differential in growth is greater in the S. M. A.'s established since 1930 than in those established in 1910 and 1920. The change may be due to the fact that smaller and younger S. M. A.'s have immature suburbs with few urban places. - As a consequence of their rapid growth over the past two decades, the rural portion of GROWTH OF STANDARD METROPOLITAN AREAS: 1900–50 2] S. M. A. rings contained, in 1950, about the same total population as the cities of the rings. More than one-fourth (27.2 percent) of the total national increase of the 1940–50 decade went into the growth of rural rings, in spite of the fact that they contained only 9.6 percent of the Nation's population in 1940. Size as a factor in metropolitan growth S. M. A.'s vary greatly in size. The largest S. M. A., the New York-Northeastern New Jer- sey area, contained 12,912,000 inhabitants in 1950; Laredo, Tex., the smallest S. M. A., con- tained only 56,000 inhabitants. The largest area was more than 230 times the size of the Smallest. A majority of the S. M. A.'s are of small size. In 1950, one-half of them had a population of less than 240,000, and three-fourths had a popu- lation of less than 440,000. In spite of the fact that most S. M. A.'s are comparatively small, a large proportion of the total metropolitan population is contained in the few largest areas. The five areas with 3 million or more inhabitants contain more than one-third of the total S. M. A. population. About one-half of the total metropolitan popu- lation is contained in the 11 largest S. M. A.'s. Together, the 84 smallest S. M. A.’s (each with less than 150,000) contain only one-seventh of the total metropolitan population. It is evi- dent that statistics for trends and composition of all S. M. A.'s, taken as a total, will reflect the trends and composition of the few largest &I'é8.S. In order to determine how the growth trends outlined above differ with varying size of S. M. A.'s, data for S. M. A.'s by size groups are presented in tables 5, 6, and 7. The general finding from these tables is that with the eaccep- tion of a general tendency for S. M. A.'s of 1 million inhabitants or more to grow at a slightly less rapid rate than S. M. A.'s smaller than this, there has been no pronounced or consistent trend for rates of total metropolitan growth to vary with size, either in the 1940–50 decade or in any earlier decade. The proper technique for tracing the growth of cities, by size, over several decades is not to classify cities by their present size and trace their growth backward, but to classify them by size at some early date and trace their growth forward. The first approach may show arti- ficially rapid rates of growth for the largest cities, for it is by growing rapidly that some cities would fall into the larger size groups at the terminal date. Therefore, the growth of S. M. A.'s by size can best be studied by tracing forward the growth of class I areas (S. M. A.'s of 1900). During the half-century of growth of this group, the slowest growing areas were those which contained 250,000 to 349,999 in- habitants in 1900. Two of the fastest growing size groups were those immediately above and below the slowest group. Thus, size alone ap- peared to produce no uniform effect on growth. This negative result was not caused by a re- versal of pattern within the half-century, for the situation described is present for most of the individual decades. There has been a ten- dency for the largest S. M. A.'s, those with 1 million or more inhabitants, to grow less rapidly than most smaller size groups. This tendency is not new; it has been present since 1900. - Yet, on the basis of this evidence, it would be incorrect to assert that all size groups of cities grow at about the same rate, for there are quite large differences between the growth rates of the various size categories. But because those rates exhibit no readily interpretable patterns with respect to size—either ascending, descend- ing, or some other systematic sequence which would indicate relationship, it must be as- sumed that the differences are the result of other factors with which size is also associated. Regional differences in growth is one hypothe- sis which presents itself as a possible explana- tion of the variation in growth rates of the different size groups. It is a fact that in the Northeast, S. M. A.'s tend to be large, whereas in the South they tend to be smaller. If growth rates in the Northeast differ from those in the South, then this regional difference can also be reflected as a size of S. M. A. difference. The regional factor may be controlled by “standard- izing” the rates for regional variation in size of 22 CHAPTER II S. M. A.” This was done using the size distribu- tion of S. M. A.'s in the entire United States as a standard population. The results are as follows: Rate of growth, 1940–50 Size of 8. M. A. Unstandardized Standardized Less than 250,000-------- - 27. 5 23. 7 .250,000–499,999- - - - - - - - - 22, 3 24.2 500,000–999,999- - - - - - - - - 25. 3 22. 3 1,000,000 and over------- 18, 1 20. 6 Standardization has the effect of removing some of the variation in the growth rates and of bringing them all nearer to a single value. When the regional aspect of growth is con- trolled, cities of 1 million are found to be growing only about 85 percent as rapidly as the remainder of S. M. A.'s. Within this re- mainder there probably is no pattern of growth by size, for the fastest growing of the groups * The use of this technique for controlling the effect of one area classification while studying rates for another area classi- fication was suggested by Dudley Duncan in “Regional Com- parisons Standardized for Urbanization,” Social Forces, vol. 26, No. 4, May 1948. Readers who are unfamiliar with the technique of standardizing rates are referred to the Bureau of the Census, Handbook of Statistical Methods for Demogra- phers, by A. J. Jaffe, U. S. Government Printing Office, 1951, ch. 3. under 1 million was the slowest growing before standardization. As a consequence of this lack of any sys- tematic pattern of growth by size, there has been no long-run tendency for the larger or the smaller cities of any class to alter greatly its proportion of the total. However, because the largest S. M. A.'s have become even larger, and more and more S. M. A.'s have grown into the larger classes, a slightly larger proportion of the total U. S. population and of the total S. M. A. population is now living in the larger places than previously. For example, in 1900, when there were only 5 places of 1 million or more, 48.9 percent of the total S. M. A. popula- tion lived in these large areas. In 1950, when there were 14 such areas, 52.5 percent of the population of all S. M. A.'s was living in them. Conversely, there has been a tendency for the population of smaller S. M. A.'s to constitute a smaller proportion of the total. This phe- nomenon may be viewed in another way by noting, in table 7, that the five class-I places of 1 million or more gained 23.5 percent of the national decennial population increase 1900–10, but that the 14 places this large in 1950 gained 37.4 percent of the total decennial increase, 1940–50. table 5.-Percent increase in population of standard metropolitan areas, by decades, by sises 1900–1930 8ise CA in th: Sise in 1960, 1940, 1900 se of standard metropolitan area (in thousands) and interoensal period 3,000 a. 1,000- 500- 350e 250- 150- 100s Under Total Gºver 2,999 999 499 849 249 109 100 8ize in 1950s Class WI-A Mumber of 8.11 eſse's 102 [5 9 £3 16 $26 37 32 15 Percent increase 1940-60 21,0 R7e9 20.9 26s2 23,4 25e03 26.5 28,6 24.4 1930-40 8,5 7.8 7.O 9.e4 7.2 9.e.9 12.3 9,6 6.9 1920-30 27, 1 36el 19.3 25.0 20.3 24.4 24.2 23.9 20.6 1910-20 25.4 28,8 2lsº 24.3 29,7 26.e4 22.9 1924 24 e6 1900-10 32.0 37.0 27.3 84 el: 30.5 37,6 25.6 22.0 17.0 1900-60 177.8 2O5.3 137,0 189e 6 l69e 4 198e0 172,4 144,5 135,2 8ise in 1940s Class W Mumber of S.M.A.'s 125 $ Q 13 18 10 $6 Sº o Percent increase 1940-50 21,3 12.2 25.7 #: 17.9 28.7 28.2 26.e.9 tº e e 1930s-40 8,3 5 e4 8,5 *I,8 6.1 10.6 11.8 10.9 © C & 1930-30 27.2 26,8 36.0 23,6 2O.e0 21,9 29.1 24 el © e ∈ 1910-20 25,5 22.0 32,6 20,8 23.3 $2.5 28.0 23,0 © o e 1900-10 $2.5 33.6 33.9 $2.8 29,9 $2.9 36.6 22e 0. © C e 1900-50 178.0 144,4 $229.3 176.4 140,6 205.8 22 le? 103,8 © & 8ise in 1900: lass I lumber of 8. M.A.'s & l & [5 3 9. 19 9 e e Q Percent increase 1960-60 18,6 IO.7 R1,7 £6,7 25.2 12.9 29,0 23 el ge o & 1930-40 7.0 Teº 2,6 6,0 ll.” 4.0 lle 8 8,4 © e & 1920-50 36,3 27,9 2O,7 22,8 36 el l'7s.6 38,6 15.1 © & © 1910s-2O 23.7 $20,6 21.0 18,2 48,5 16.0 30,6 20e2 © tº G 1900-10 31 e3 39,6 26.1 22,9 34.9 23.8 39. It 36,8 © tº 9 1900-50 160,3 155 e.7 111.1 140,2 274 el 97.6 265,0 162,7 © C tº GROWTH OF STANDARD METROPOLITAN AREAS: 1900–50 23 table 6.-Percentage of standard metropolitan area total population in each size group of standard metropolitan areas, by decades: 1900–1950 Size in 1960, 1940, 1900 Sise of standard metropolitan area (in thousands) and oensus year 3,000 & 1,000- 500- 350- 250- 150- 100- Under Total gºvoy." 8,999 999 499 $49 249 l69 loſ) Bise in 1960s Class WI-A Humber of 8 ºf Jºe's 16:2 5 9 23 15 26 37 32 15 Population 1950 100 so 34.4 18 el 16.9 7,4 8,8 8,8 4s6 1,6 1940 100.0 $5.6 18.8 16,3 7,3 8,5 8.0 4.6 le6 1930 100.0 35,8 18, 5. 16.2 7,4 8,4 7.7 4 e5 1 s6 1920 100.0 33,4 19.8 18,4 7.8 8,6 T.9 4.6 l,6 1910 100 eſ} 32.5 20.5 16 =5 7.5 8,5 8.0 4.8 l,6 1900 100 e0 31.8 21 e? 16.2 7.6 Be? 8,6 5.2 l,8 8ise in 1940s Class W lumber of 8.M.A.'s 125 § Ç 13 10 10. S4 Sl tº gº Q Population 1950 100,0 27.1 28,6 13.6 Ile O 8.3 10.4 6.0 tº gº tº 1940 100 eO 29,5 22, 8 13 e? lled 7.8 9,9 5,7 © C & 1930 100 •0 30.1 22.7 12,8 lls 6 7.6 9.6 5,6 © e & 1920 100.0 30.2 21.2 18.1 12.3 7.9 9.5 CŞe 7 º tº e 1910 100 eO 31, 1 20.1 13.7 l2.5 7,5 9.8 5,8 tº gº tº 1900 100,0 30,8 19,9 13.7 12,0 7,3 9,0 6eº gº º tº Wise in 1900s Class I Mumber of 8.M.A.'s & l & 5 ſº 9 19 9 tº º º Population 1960 ICO ed 20e 6 22.7 11,6 12e3. 8e03 19,9 & eº © & © 1900 100.0 22 ed 24-l 10,8 lle 7 8-9 18.2 4e5 © C e Rºo 100,0 22 eO 25.2 10,8 lls& 9 el: 17.4 & eº º gº º 1920 100,0 2le 7 $26,3 ll.” 10.5 9,9 15.9 4s6 tº C tº 1910 100e) 22e3 26,9 lle 7 8.8 10,5 15.0 4,7 © º Gº 1900 100 so 20,9 28.0 12 e5 8,6 ll.” 14,2 4e5 © e tº table 7- - Perestage of United States total decennial increase in each sise group of standard metropolitan area, by decades: 1900–1950 Sise of standard metropolitan area (in thousands) 8ise and decade 3,000 1,000- 500- 350e 250= 150e IOOe Under Total & over 2,999 999 499 349 249 l(\9 ROO $ise in 1960s Class WI-A Mumber of 8.N.A's l62 5 9 2, 15 26 $7 & 2 ls 1940-50 80,6 23.6 18.8 15.8 6.3 8.0 7.8 3.9 lsº 1930-40 61.6 20.3 9.4 llel 3,9 6,? 6.9 Sel Qe7 1920-50 8O, 9 36.0 ll.8 12.6 4,7 6.3 5,7 8,8 leO 1910s. O T5,0 $7.7 18.8 11.0 6,6 6,7 5,4 2.0 lel 1900-10 Gle 6 82.4 lls? 10,7 4.5 5.9 4.1 2.2 0,6 1900-50 73's...} $6.5 12 so 12.7 6.8 6,7 6,0 3.1 lso Gise in 1940s Class W Mumber of 8.M.A. *s 125 3 0. lº 10. 10 34 3] Jº tº 1940-30 T5.3 12,6 $0.6 $l e8 7sº 7.9 9e 3 5,4 tº e e 1980-40 57.7 Ilsº 13 e5 10,5 4.9 5,6 7.5 4.2 tº e Q 1920s–30 77.8 28, 1 21-0 8,9 7.0 5-0 7.9 3,9 tº º º 1910-20 72 •? 19 •8 18.5 8.0 8.2 6.9 7,4 3.8 © C C lºGO-10 59, 7 19.0 12.4 Bel 7.0 4.5 6el 2,6 tº º º 1900–30 69.8 17.5 17.9 9.e5 7.0 6el 7,9 4.e0 tº tº 8ise in 1900s Class I Number of 8.M.A.'s & l & 5 5 9 19 9 te e & 1940-50 5.1 s6 6.6 7.8 8.0 8.2 3.2 15, 1 2.7 tº º º lº)e^0 39.0 9.0 3 e5 4.1 7.0 2.0 lle 4 2.0 © tº gº 19 O-GO 60,4 18.9 12.5 6,7 Be6 ée0 14-0 le6 to e G 1910-120 64 e6 10.5 18.1 6,0 9.5 3.9 lo,6 2,? tº C & 1900-10 47.2 12.5 11.0 4.3 4.5 8.9 8,6 2,5 o º º 1900-50 51s 7 10.5 10.0 5.7 7.6 3.5 12.1 2.2 * > gº tº 257894 O - 54 - 3 24 CHAPTER II The following summary helps to emphasize the increased role of large S. M. A.'s in the na- tional life since the turn of the century. Size of S. M. A. Item I millº or In Ore wº 1940 1900 1940 1900 Number of persons (thou- sands)--------------- 34, 963:11, 803 8, 852, 3,019 Percent of total United States population - - - - - 26. 6, 15. 5. 6. 7| 4.0 Percent of total United States national increase t in decade-------------| 33. 2. 23. 6 11.8 8. 0 Thus, below the level of about 1 million in- habitants, the size of S. M. A.'s has not in the past been a very severe limiting factor in metro- politan growth. Such variations in rate of growth by size group as do exist can probably be explained in terms of regional, social, and economic differences which also have a size pat- tern. Specifically, during the decade just fin- ished which ushered in the atom bomb there is no evidence of a suspension of growth in the largest centers and a major transferal of growth to the smaller ones. During the past decade, 3 more S. M. A.'s entered the 1 million class and 10 more entered the 500,000–999,999 class, thereby continuing the long-run trend for an increasing proportion of the Nation's popu- lation to live in the very large metropolitan areas. Although some advocates of decentralization have hoped the threat of mass destruction by atomic weapons would frighten the populace into a course of action which other lines of ar- gument had failed to produce, there is little evidence that further settlement around large cities has stopped or slowed down materially since 1940 as a consequence of the fact that such places are prime military targets. The only responses to this new problem of possible mass extinction which one might detect in metropoli- tan growth are two: (a) A possible acceleration in the emergence of new medium size cities and smaller S. M. A.'s could have occurred. Twenty-two new prin- cipal S. M. A.'s were created between 1940 and 1950. Although this appears to be a large number of new principal S. M. A.'s to add in one decade, it should be pointed out that 23 new areas of this type were added in 1920, and 21 in 1930. Hence, the number of new S. M. A.'s created as a result of 1940–50 growth is only the average of the pre-depression trend (ac- complished with a considerably smaller total population) and does not signify any unusual reaction against continued growth of large cities. In addition, urban areas in nonmetro- politan territory outside such S. M. A.'s grew at the-rate of 26.0 percent between 1940 and 1950 (table 1). This was at a faster rate than S. M. A.'s grew. Yet much of this growth re- sulted from the birth of new cities from pre- viously rural incorporated places. Table 1 shows that a similar tendency has prevailed during each decade since 1900, except one. This tendency has been noted and studied in some detail for the 1920–30 period.” There is little evidence of the creation of an unusually large number of small cities instead of continued ex- pansion of larger cities. Hence, the increased number of S. M. A.'s and the rapid growth of urban population in nonmetropolitan areas cannot be interpreted as a breaking up of ex- isting metropolitan centers and their dispersal over the regions as smaller centers. At best it could represent only a mild acceleration of an old trend. (b) A possible acceleration in the outward movement to suburbs from central cities could have taken place. Data presented above have shown that high rates of metropolitan growth have spread out to the S. M. A. boundaries, and undoubtedly beyond in many cases. However, it was shown in the comparison between S. M. A.'s and metropolitan districts that this tendency had already begun in the 1930–40 decade. Its possible acceleration and extension in the 1940– 50 decade could be interpreted as a response to an atomic threat, as a response to an in- creased demand for housing during a period of greater prosperity, following an already estab- * D. J. Bogue, Metropolitan Decentralization, op. cit. sº GROWTH OF STANDARD METROPOLITAN AREAS: 1900–50 25 lished pattern, or as a response to a combina- tion of both factors. It would be difficult to attribute all of the 1940–50 peripheral growth to the desire to live at a greater distance from the central city in order to escape possible bombing. In short, in spite of all that has been said and written about the vulnerability of the metro- politanized American economy to modern methods of aerial attack, there is little visible evidence of basic change in the historic patterns of population growth and distribution. If the age of atomic power is to revolutionize the pat- terns of metropolitan growth, either its effects have not yet been clearly manifested or else we have not yet learned to recognize them. Regional variations in metropolitan growth S. M. A.'s located in some regions have grown more rapidly than the S. M. A.'s of other regions. Thus, region of location is a factor in metropolitan growth. This is not a recent phenomenon, but one of long standing. Table 8 presents data which indicate that re- gional variations in metropolitan growth not only have been large during the 1940–50 decade, but also have been large during the preceding decades. Table 8, - Peroent of increase and percentage of decennial regional increase in population of standard metropolitan areas, by classes, regions, and deeedes's 1900-1950 Percent increase Percentage of decennial regional inerease in 8.M.A.'s Class of standard metropolitan area and interceneal period Total Lorth- North Total Lior the orth U.8, east Center South West U.8, east Cººter South West Class WI-A 1940-50 $1 e8 10 sº 18 e? $5.6 62,0 30, 6 85.8 86.1 82.24 71,0 1930-40 8.5 ( e^ Geº 18 sº 18.0 Gle6 82,5 07.0 Öle 6 80.0 1920-30 27, 1 19,0 28 e S $2.9 53,9 80.9 93.3 95.20 56,7 77.8 1910s&O 25 e4 18 eC Sle? $8.5 40.2 75e0 96.9 86,0 48,8 59.6 1900-RO $2,0 28,9 29 el 29,7 &le 4 6le 8 91.7 72.9 $29,8 50,6 1900-30 177.8 109,8 171.7 264-0 || 60l,0 78.3 91s2 84.3 55,0 68 el Class VI 1940-60 21-8 10,3 18 el $5e0. 62.2 79.3 85.3 & e.7 80.8 Tle O lºo-00 8,5 ©e6 5,8 18,4 || 10s? 60,0 $3.5 60s 7 Öleſ) 59.e.7 1920-50 $7.2 19eO 29.8 $2e 6 Bºe & *929 93 sº 93.7 $4.9 77.2 1910-20 $25,35 18s 8 $le6 27,9 40,9 Tº sº 96.9 36el 48,5 [59.0 lººkſ) 32 e() 28.9 29 e5 $9el 82.7 GleO 91.7 72e2 28,9 @9 e6 1900-50 177,6 loº. 8 17420 251.4 616.0 72,3 91 e? &,7 53.5 65,8 Glass W. 1940s&Q &lsº 10.8 18 el $4.0 Cleº 75e 86,0 8O,2 73.) 67e5 1930s. O Seº 4s6 6,8 17.9 17.9 57.7 8.2e 4 6le 8 46,4 57.1 1920-50 27, 1 19.1 29,9 32 el 64.3 77.8 93.2 91 sº 50,6 74 e6 1910- 0 £5.e5 18e7 82 sº 28 e^ &lsº 72e2 96.7 & Beº 40 sº 57,9 1900–10 $2.3 29-0 39 eſº $9,7 84.2 59 s? 91 s6 69 e? 27 e4 48,7 1900-50 177.2 110e2 177.3 $49e 7 || 016 e4 (89.0 91s0 79.7 &B ed Gºeſ? Class I & 1940s&O 18,6 10,8 10,0 30et% 49e.7 5le6 79,0 64 e? 26.1 49.6 1930s-40 7.O. 6,6 5el 16,7 17 el $9,0 76.7 (Seº 17.0 & Red 1920-30 Geº 19,6 81 el 2lsº 61.2 60 ed 88 el 76.7 15.2 62,7 1910-20 £3,7 18, 7 31s0 18e7 42.9 54 e6 89.2 64,8 14el $4.3 1900-10 $2,3 #: 31.0 17,8 85.8 47.2 84.8 $7,4 8.7 36,8 1900–50 160.3 1IIſ, 7 179. It 158.9 644,8 5|le 7 $6,8 64,9 16,7 48,2 Since 1910, S. M. A.’s in the Northeast and the North Center regions have been growing more slowly than the average for all S. M. A.'s. Those in the South and West have been growing at above-average rates. During this period, the S. M. A.'s of each region have developed by a pattern which is not exactly the same as that of any other, region. A brief description of the metropolitan development. of each region follows. The S. M. A.'s of the Northeast region grew very rapidly in the 1900–1910 decade, but at each Successive decade since then, their rates have been much below those of S. M. A.'s in other regions. In the 1940–50 decade, this 30-year trend of extraordinarily low rates was con- tinued. Whereas S. M. A.'s as a whole grew by 21.8 percent, those of the Northeast grew only by 10.3 percent. Since the Northeast is a highly metropolitanized region, a large share of its total regional increase goes into the continued growth of S. M. A.'s. In the 1940–50 decade, 85.3 percent of the Northeast's regional increase was located in S. M. A.'s. S. M. A. growth in the North Center region has been near the national average rate. It was somewhat above average in 1910–20 and 1920–30, but below average in 1930–40 and 1940–50. In this region also a large pro- portion of the population resides in S. M. A.'s, 26 CHAPTER II and a large proportion of the regional increase in population has gone into metropolitan growth. In recent years, the South has undergone a very rapid metropolitan development. Dur- ing the decades prior to 1930, the S. M. A.'s of the South grew at rates which were below average (1900–1910) and only slightly above average (1910–20 and 1920–30). Since 1930, they have grown at rates well above the aver- age. A comparison of growth rates for the various classes of table 8 shows that this has not resulted merely from the rapid growth of a few new areas, but from a resurgence of growth in the older, already established S. M. A.'s as well. Although this phase of greater than average growth of southern metro- politan areas began between 1910 and 1920, and continued through the 1920–30 decade, it was greatly accelerated during the 1930's and remained at a high level during the 1940's. In the 1940–50 decade, the South increased its S. M. A. population at the comparatively rapid rate of 35.6 percent, or more than 50 percent faster than the average rate of met- ropolitan growth in the Nation. Even the oldest areas of the South, those of class I, grew by 30.5 percent. These are the fastest rates of metropolitan growth which the South has enjoyed since 1900 or possibly muðh earlier. They are faster rates of growth than those which prevailed in the Northeast and the North Center during their period of rapid metropoli- tan earpansion. They are second only to the West, which for the past half century has in- creased its metropolitan population much faster than has any other region. The rapid rise of metropolitan population in the South may also be traced in more detail by noting the proportion of its regional increase which occurred in S. M. A.'s. During 1900–1910, only 8.7 percent of the South's total population in- crease went to its S. M. A.'s as then delimited. This proportion has risen steadily during each subsequent decade, until in the 1940–50 period the equivalent of 80.6 percent of the South's total increase occurred in principal S. M. A.'s. Growth rates of S. M. A.'s in the West have been about twice the rate of growth for all “.. mº, **. *e, •ees" 2.0 ‘. &A As see seco º ...º. - & "... S. M. A.'s. This region, which has ea perienced a great influa, of population at each decade since 1900, has not failed to settle at least one-half of its total regional increase in S. M. A.'s. The 50- year average is 65 percent of the regional in- crease occurring in S. M. A.'s. Hence, for the past half-century, the great westward movement has been predominantly a movement toward metropolitan areas rather than a movement to- ward sparsely occupied land. The closing of the frontier did not stop the westward flow, but merely redirected much of it into the building of metropolitan areas. A concise picture of the regional trends in metropolitan growth may be obtained from figure 7, which expresses the regional growth rates for S. M. A.'s during each decade since 1900 as a ratio of the national growth rate for all S. M. A.'s. LATIO 3.0 >- F NORTHEAST 0. | 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 FIGURE 7.-Ratio to the growth rate of all standard metro- politan areas of standard metropoliton growth rates by regions, 1900 to 1950 (class VI standard metropolitan areas). Size of city in relation to regional growth of S. M. A.'s It was noted in the analysis of metropolitan growth by size of S. M. A. that there are regional variations in size of S. M. A.'s. Conceivably, a part of the very low rates of growth in the Northeast region and the North Center region, as contrasted with the much higher rates of growth in the South and West, may be due to the fact that much population in the slow- growing regions resides in S. M. A.'s of one million or more which have been shown to grow less rapidly. It is also conceivable that if the GROWTH OF STANDARD METROPOLITAN AREAS: 1900–50 27 rates of growth by size of S. M. A. are examined separately for each region, some systematic size pattern may be present in one or more regions. Table 10 shows the number of S. M. A.'s of each size in each region, by decades and class of S. M. A. Table 9 shows the rates of growth of each of those size groups by region, by decades, and by classes. From this later table, it ap- pears that there is no such size pattern within any region for the 1940–50 decade. This size-of-S. M. A. variation can be con- trolled by standardizing the regional rates for size (just as the size of S. M. A. rates were The size distribu. standardized for regions). wº tion of all S. M. A. (class VI) population in the United States in 1950 was used as a standard population. The results of this standardiza- tion are as follows: Rate of growth, 1940–50 Region Unstandard- St. ized andardized Northeast------------------- 10. 3 10. 3 North Center---------------- 18. 1 18, 2 South---------------------- 34. 8 29. 9 West----------------------- 51. 2 52. 1 Table 9. - Percent increase in population of standard metropolitan areas, by decades, by regions and sise 1900–1930 Percent increase 1940-60 Percent increase 1930–40 Percent increase 1920-30 sise of 8.M.A. Total | North- || Morth Total | Northel North Total | North- || North (in thousands) U.8. east Center | South | West U.S. east Center | South | West U.8. east Center South West, $ise in 1950s Class WI-A 21 s6 10 es 18 s? | 35,6 || 52.0 8,5 4,6 5.3 | 18.2 | 18.0 27 el 19e O 28.8 32 e? & sº le,000 & over 18e0 10 e? 17e 0 || 30.e6 || 50sº 7e5 5,2 5el || 23.8 || 19el 29 stº le? $4.9 18.4 tº el 600 - 990 26s2 1826 18 el || 34 e6 || 3:0s? 9.e4 6 sº 5,5 | 16.e5 || 15 eC) 26 a 6 14,4 26sº 39 eC) 28,2 280 - 490 24.5 &so 16 e6 || 89eº || 68,8 8e7 le6 3.9 18, 7 17e 7 & 2 e5 10sº 21.0 36.2 36.5 100 = 249 25.4 lle & 21s2 || 32.5 || 54.2 ll sº 5,0 7.2 17el || 23 e2 24 el 14,0 21 e5 $3.5 1990 Under 100 24 e4 © C e l6e6 $4,7 38.2 6.e.9 tº C & 6elº 8,8 6,2 $9,6 & O & 12 s? 45 e5 18, 9 Sise in 1960s Class WI 21 eſſ 10,8 18 el || 35.6 || 53 s? GeG 4 e6 5.3 i 18,4 i862 127 e2 1990 29.3 $2 e6 & sº 1,000 & over R8s 8 10e 7 17.8 36.6 60e 9 7e5 5.2 Sel 28,8 19el 29.e0 21,9 34 e? 16.4 83el 500 • 999 26.2 12 e6 18, 1 || $4.6 || 50e2 9.e4 4e? 3,5 | 16.8 || Mºso 25.8 14.4 28.8 39,0 26 sº 250 e 499 84 e5 SeO 18,6 || 39,6 || 58,8 0.7 le.8 3.9 || 18.7 || 17.7 22.5 10.9 21,8 36.2 88,5 100 = 240 £5.e4 lle 8 &le? $2,5 : 54 s? ll. •S 3.0 7.2 || 17.1 || 25,2 24 sl 14,0 2le & $3,5 1990 Sige in 1960s Glass W - 21e3 10,3 18.1 84 e6 5le? 0.3 4 e6 5.3 17.9 17.9 27 el 19el 29,9 32 el 64sº 1,000 & over 18el 10.6 17, 7 || 23.5 || 50.9 6,8 6e? &e 7 || RO,0 19 el- 30,6 2lsº 36,3 15,6 88sl &OO = 999 25.3 10 s.6 16.9 | 89.4 || 42.9 11,8 $e 8 6.3 || 27.4 9.e5 23,6 15,7 25.2 31 s6 $0.5 $230 e 499 £2.5 8,6 18.0 || 36,5 . GO-0 7.9 2,6 4.1 || 17 e5 || 24,0 2Os3 12.5 1927 35.7 86,7 100 = 49 27.7 11,4 21.4 || 31.4 | 68 s? llel Ge4 7e5 14.8 || 17.5 27.2 $20,6 27s. 34,7 27.7 $ise in 1900s Class I 10,6 10sº 18,0 || 30,5 || 48 e? 7.0 4,6 6el | 16.7 || 17, 1 26,3 19,6 $lel 21s5 61sº l,000 & over ll.” 10.6 18.9 Q tº e G s ſº 6-8 5 e2 3e? © C & tº º ºs 24 eO 21,9 $2,8. Q & Cº. e e ÇOO = 999 $6,7 13s.6 17.1 || 2 le6 || 53.8 6,8 6el 5,4 8.4 Geº 22e3 Cleo 19e3 16,6 38,6 250 = (\º 19,9 5.8 20.8 || 38.2 dº e Q 7.9 8.0 6e5 || 24.3 tº tº º 27 el loe & 59 s5 20 e5 to º ſº 100 = 249 28,8 ll, 7 19.6 | 28.8 || 47.1 llel §e 6 5e0, . 15e? | 1:0sº & sº 14 e6 $0,7 37 el 76e& Peresat increase 1910–20 Percent increase 1900-10 Percent increase 1900–60 Bise in 1950s Class WI-A 25.4 10 e6 31.2 || 26.e5 || 40.2 32.0 28,9 29 el || 29, 7 | Bleº, 177.0 loº e G 171,7 250 eS 601 eS 1,000 & over 25 e8 19e3 $5,9 || 22, 1 || 62.9 38el Sieb $365 || 14e5 || 79el 177.7 132.e.7 203.2 175e? BOleg 500 - 999 $4.3 10,1 $4.3 || 29 so | SOet, $6.2 $3.5 28, 1 || $4 e5 || 95,8 l69.e.8 9&es l60,6 277.8 $58,4 £40 = 499 $7,9 17s2 $7 el || 34e5 $7e9 $4.2 || 26,3| 29,0 || 42.7 || 75.3 184.5 75.0 | 168.5 $38,0 || 516 eg 100 = 249 21,6 15sl 23.2 || 24,9 || 17e5 26 s? 18 e2 $3.9 ſ 24.7 || 76e? 161,7 & eº 14leC) $222,8 367 so Under 100 24.e4 º o º 1526 66el | 16.7 17.8 O © tº 5,3 || 72,3 || 48.4% 135-2 © tº tº 69 sº 51O.e.8 190e,7 81se in 1960s Class VI 25-3 1866 31 s6 || 27.9 || 40,9 32,0 20 e? £9.5 ſ 29.1 || 82.7 177.8 lò0sº 176eO 25lsº 618s 8 1,000 & over 25,9 19e3 $5,9 || 23 el 52.99 33 el $leč $8.5 || 14.5 || 79.1 177.7 122e 7 || 3:03 eit 175e, 2 GOle6 500 e 999 24 sº 18 el 24 e5 || 29.e0 80sº 84.2 23 e5 28, 1 || 34.5 || 96e.8 189,8 96,0. 150,6 277.3 458,4 $50 e 499 27,9 17 e? $7el || $4 e5 || 37e9 34.3 26.3 29.8 || 42.7 || 75.2 104.5 75.0 162.5 388,0. 516.0 iOO = 249 21s0 16el 23.2 || 24.9 || 17e5 24 s? R8s? 23.9 24.7 75.7 l61.7 & eº lòle O 222,9 $6720 Sise in 1940s Class W 25.5 18, 7 $2.2 28.4 41 sº $º sº 29.0% ºsº | 29.7 | 84e^2 177s2 110.2 177.8 249e? 616,4 1,000 & over 26.2 19.2 $7,9 18,3 $2,9 Jºe” 32,0 38e0 lſº e? 79 el 177.7 123,2 200,3 109,2 &Oleg 500 - 999 DeG 16.4 18.6 25el || 29.e5 32 e? 22el 29 e4 24 e? | 125e.7 176e4 38e0 138.7 263,7 461, 4 $50 e 409 26.e0 10 sº $7,4 || 32.2 || 35,4 31s0 26.5 || 82.4 || 36.6 || 56.2 164 e? 88,4 167,7 £98,0. 467e.7 100 - 249 26 el 15,4 26,6 || 80,8 || 32.8 30,9 10 el $4.0 || $4.6 || 80s? 198si & eC) 180.e.9 257,6 450 el Sise in 1900s Class I 2 e? 18, 7 3} e O | 18.7 || 42 sº 31,3 29.2 sl.o 17.8 || 85.6 160,3 11 le? 179 el 150,9 644,8 leOOO & over 20e 8 19e32 27,9 tº ſº º tº º º 31 sº 32.e0 $le5 C tº e tº º ºr 130 eº Rºsº 16:2 6 tº c G & © e 500 = 999 18,2 21sº lleč 16el 30,4 22.9 22.1 21.0 | 12.3 || 42.5 l40s? 114 el 98.7 i00 eS Slſº e? 250 - 690 29et) 13 e5 47.6 ſ 18.8 tº ſº tº 20 sº 23 e5 38el | 16.6 Q O e 170 eſſ. 67sº 265,7 186,7 © º Q 100 = 849 28 el &O.2 25el 2lel || 49e 9 38e.8 22e.7 $8,6 || 25eº || 124el $37,8 96 s.4 || 144 e? 185.3 938 e? 28 CHAPTER II Table no. - Mumber of standard Metropolitan Areas in each regies, by elsen 1900-1950 Iſamber of 8, M.A. 's Sise of S.M.A. ºs (in thousands) U te C $ise in 1950s Claes WI-A l,000 & over 500-999 250-h99 100-289 Under 100 8ise in 1950s Class VI l,000 & over 500-999 100–289 Sise in 1980: Class V ReO00 & ever 500-999 250-kº 100-289 Sise in 1990s Class IV l,000 & ever 500-999 250-kº) 100-289 Gise in 1920: Qºlase III 1,000 & ever 500-999 100–2,9 $1so in 19108 Class II 1,000 & over West iSouth 250-k29 100–289 Sise in 19008 Class I 1,000 & over 500-999 © i e Lorth- : 250-k39 100–289 Standardization leaves almost unchanged the low rates for the Northeast and the North Cen- ter. It lowers somewhat the rate for the South. This implies that a small part of the South's recent rapid growth rate is related to the fact that southern S. M. A.'s are concentrated in a size range which, in the Nation, has high rates of growth. Standardization eliminates this size-distribution factor and reduces the rate to an estimate of what it would be if the southern S. M. A.'s had the same size distribution as all the S. M. A.'s in the Nation. The already high rate for the West is made even a little higher by standardization. This im- plies that the rapid metropolitan growth rates in this region were made in spite of a slightly unfavorable size-of-S. M. A. distribution with: respect to the remainder of the Nation. Hence, there is a marked regional aspect to metropolitan growth which is independent of size of S. M. A. The rapid growth, or failure to grow, of particular S. M. A.'s undoubtedly has some of its roots in unique local conditions. But also, it has other of its roots in broader regional forces which affect other. S. M. A.'s * of the region similarly. This is a point worthy of particular note, for there has been a tendency to view metropolitan development as a process which is more or less independent of the regional context. Distribution of population cºnd of population growth within S. M. A.'s The pattern of growth within metropolitan areas (central cities and rings) has been de- scribed earlier. The data presented there, how- ever, did not state what the past and present distributions of population, and of population growth actually are. This information is con- . tained in tables 11 and 12. table ll. — Percentage of standard estropolitan area population in central cities and rings: 1900-1950 Area and class of Percentage distribution standard metropolitan Cº. ºO 1950 | 19th9 1930 1920 1910 1900 Class VI-A (162 areas) Standard Metropolitan area 100.0 || 100.0 || 100.0 || 100,0 100,0 100.0 Central cities 57.7 6.1.8 63.6 65.3 6kel 61,9 lings $2.3 38. 2 36.4 3k. 7 35 •9 38.1 Urban 21.2 20.0 || 19.9 17.0 15.4 13.5 Lºrral •? | 18.2 | 16.5 17.7 20-5 28.6 Class Wr (187 areas) Principal standard metropolitan areas 100.0 100.0 || 100,0 || 100.0 100.0 100,0 Central cities 57. 61.7 || 63.6 65.3 68.2 62.1 Rings h2.k. 38.3 36.4 34.7 35.8 37.9 Urban 2lek | 20.2 20.1 17.2 15-6 13.6 Llºral 2le Q 18.1 16.8 17.5 20e2 24.2 Class V (125 areas) Principal standard metropolitan areas 100.0 || 100,0 || 100.0 || 100.0 100.0 100.0 Central cities 57.7 61.9 63.7 65.6 68-6 62.7 Rings b2.3 38.1 36.3 34.8 35.4 37.3 Urban 21.9 20.6 20.5 17.5 15.8 23.9 Lural 20.4 17.5 15.8 16.9 19.6 23.8 Class IV (115 areas) Principal standard metropolitan areas 100.0 || 100,0 || 100.0 || 100,0 100,0 100.0 Central cities 57.8 || 62.1 || 63.9 || 65.8 || 68.9 63.l Rings k2.2 || 37.9 || 36.1 38.2 35el 36.8 Urban 22.2 20.9 20.7 17.7 16.1 1kel Lºral 20,0 17.0 15.3 16.4 19,0 22-0 Class III (98 areas) Principal standard Central cities 58.0 || 62.3 || 6′el 66.2 65.k. 63.8 lings h2.0 || 37.7 35.9 33.8 34,6 36.2 Urban 22.9 || 21.6 21.4 28.3 16.6 Ik.5 Jºral 19.1 | 16.1 | 18.5 15.5 18.0 21.6 Class II (71 areas) Principal standard estropolitan areas 100.0 || 100,0 || ROO, 0 || 100,0 100,0 100,0 Central cities 58.1 || 62.lº 6kel 66.7 66.3 65.0 Rings &l.9 37.6 35.9 33.3 33.7 35.0 Wºrbes 2%, l ; 22.7 || 22.4 19.1 17.3 15.2 Lºral 17.8 || 14.9 || 13.8 18.2 16.4 19,8 Glass I (52 areas) Principal standard restropolitan areas 100.0 || 100.0 || 100.0 || 100,0 100,0 100,0 Central cities 57.8 || 62.6 | 68.3 67.5 67." 66.5 Rings $2.2 37.8 35.7 e 32.6 33.5 Urban 25.3 || 23.7 || 23.8 19.7 17.8 15-6 barel 16.9 || 13.7 || 12.3 12.8 18.9 17,9 From table 11 it may be seen that central cities now contain only 57.6 percent of the total S. M. A. population, and that rings contain 42.4 percent. The rural and urban parts of the rings (old definition) each constitute about 21 sº GROWTH OF STANDARD METROPOLITAN AREAS: 1900–50 29 percent of the total. This is in sharp contrast to the distribution of 1900. At that date, cen- tral cities contained two-thirds of the total pop- ulation of the S. M. A.'s of class I. The re- maining one-third contained in the ring was about 54 percent rural. Table 12, - of standard metropolitan area total decessial increase in central cities and ringst 1900-1950 Area and class of Foreentage distribution standard metropolitan CºCCA, 1980-501930-ho. 1920-30 |1910–20, 1900–10|1900–50 class WI-A (162 areas) 8tendard metropolitan area 100,0|| 100,0|| 100,0|| 100.0|| 100,0|| 100.0 Central cities 39.3 k0.3: 57.8 || 69.9| 71.0 55.8 Rings 60.7 59.7 k2.6 30,1 29.0 hk-6 Uºrben 26.7| 21.5| 30-3 || 23.8. 21.8 25.5 Pºral 34.0 38.2 12.3 6.7 7.6 19el class VI (147 areas) Principal standard Central cities 38.7 39.8 57.1 69.7 70-7 55el Rings 61.3 60.2 *2.9 30,3 29.3 kke 2 Urban 27.0 21,9 30.6 23.7 21.7 25.0 Lºral 3%.3 38.3 12.2 6.7 7.6 19el class V (125 areas) Principal standard metropolitan area 100,0| 100,0; 100,0|| 100,0|| 100,0| 100,0 Cºntral cities 37.6 ×3.6| 37.0| Tö.3| 70.3| 58.8 Lingº 62.2 60.h. $3.0 30.5 29.6 $5.2 Urban 27-9 22.6 31-3 28.1 21.9 26.k. Lºral 34.3 37.8 lls? 6.8 7.7 18.0 class IV (115 areas) Principal s metropolitan area 100.0l 100,0; 100,0} 100.0 l'OO,0|| 100,0 Centrel cities 37.3| 39.0) 36.8; 69.5| 70.b. 54.7 Rings 62.7 6l.0 $3 2 30.5 29.6 $5.3 Tºrbºn 28.4 23,2| 31.8 2k.k. 22el 26.8 Lºrai 34.3 37.8 .* 6.2 7e5 18.8 class III (94 areas) Principal standard metropolitan area 100,0|| 100,0|| 100.0 || 100,0|| 100.0 100,0 Central cities 36.6|| 39.3| 55.9| 69-3| 70.b 54-5 lings 63.8 60.7 khel 30.7 29.6 $5.5 Urban 29.3 24.3 33.2 25.3 22.0 27.8 Larºl 34.1 36.5 10.9 5.5 6.8 17.7 class II (71 areas) - Principal standard metropolitan area 100.0|| 100.0l 100.0 | 100,0|| 100,0| 100.0 Central eities 36.0 38.6 54.2 68.5 70.8. 5*.0 Rings 68.0 6l. 8 lº.8 31.5 29.6 lié.0 Urbºn 31.2 26,3 35.3 26.2 23.7 29.4 lural 32.8 35.1 10.5 5.2. 5.9 16.6 class I (52 areas) * Principal standard metropolitan area 100.0 iOQ,0|| 100.0 || 100,0|| 100-0|| 100.0 Central cities 32.2 37.9 52.3 67.9 70e2 52.h. Rings 67.8 62.1 l;7.7 32.1 29.8 *7.6 Urban 33.7 28.5 37.3 28.0 2h.7 31-3 Jºral 34.0|| 33,5} 10.5 bel 5-0|| 16.2 During the period 1900–30, central cities managed to capture more than one-half of the total increase in metropolitan population. That trend was reversed in the 1930–40 decade, and this reversal has also characterized the 1940–50 period. During each of these last two intercensal periods, the ring has claimed more than 60 percent of the total increase, with rural areas in the ring claiming more than urban areas. The older the S. M. A., the greater the share the urban part of the ring has tended to be. The younger the S. M. A., the greater the share the rural part of the ring has tended to be, in comparison with the urban part. Thus, by reversing the tendency for central cities to gain a disproportionately large share of the total increase of metropolitan population, both the urban and rural parts of the rings have managed to grow until now their combined population is approaching the population of the central cities in size. Some central cities al- ready are smaller than their own rings. In the not too distant future, this will be the typical rather than the unusual case, if the trends of the past two decades continue. Size of S. M. A.'s and the growth of rings The tendency for rings to grow faster than central cities in recent decades has been dis- cussed in a previous section. An attempt is made here to analyze this tendency in terms of size of S. M. A.'s. The necessary information is contained in tables 13, 14, 15, and 16. S. M. A.'s of class V have been taken as the universe of analysis. They were principal S. M. A.'s in 1940 at the beginning of the decade whose growth trends are of greatest interest. In general, central city rates of growth have been lower in recent decades in large S. M. A.'s than in small. This was true in the 1940–50 decade and in the 1930–40 decade. Before 1930 there appears to have been no systematic rela- tionship between size of S. M. A. and rate of growth of the central city. 30 CHAPTER II Table 13, -Percent increase in population of central cities and rings of Class V standard metropolitan areas, by decades, by sizes 1900-1930 Bise of standard metropolitan area in 1940 (in thousands) Parts of 8.M.A.'s and decade 3,000 & 1,000- 500- 350e 250m, 150- 100e Total Over 2,999 999 499 349 249 l49 8.M.A.e's Total 1900–50 21sº 12 s? $25,7 25e.8 17.9 $20,7 23s2 26,9 1930-40 8,3 5 e4 & eº; ll sº 6el loe 6 lls3 10.9 1920-30 $27,1 26,8 $8,0 33.6 20,0 21,9 29 el 24 el 1910-20 25,5 22,0 $2.6 20,0 $28,3 32 e5 20,0 &3.0 1909-10 32.3 $8,6 $3,9 32 e2 $29,9 32,9 $6.6 $22,0 1900–50 177.2 144.6 229 sº 176ed 140,6 205,0 221 e? 103,8 Central cities 1940-50 13,0 6,0 18,6 14 e6 14.5 21 sº 18.8 £4.6 1930s-40 6el 8,8 4e5 7.5 3.7 7e 3 6,9 6,6 1920-50 28,6 19,9 20,5 20e2 19el 25e 6 34,0 29 s5 1910–20 $27,4 19el $4.8 22.4 29 e^ 44-0 38e0 $4.3 1900-10 36e? 32 e5 3. Re8 37 el 40,0 Gºel 55,8 37.3 1900-60 154.8 108sl 17.2 e5 148,4 157.7 $36-1 264.6 216.3 Rings, Total 1940-50 $4.7 25 - 7 (OsO 65.2 28,0 39.2 42.6 $0.25 1930–40 13,8 9el lºse? 20.7 10-0 16.1 18.1 18.9 1920-30 33.9 46 e? 46.e0 31 e^ 21 s6 16e 4 22,0 15e 6 1910–20 22-0 &l e() 29 e5 17,3 14.6 18, 1 lſ; sº 8,6 1900-10 25e0 $7.3 36.7 22s 6 16.9 23.0 18.8 7e9 1900–50 214 e? $60,4 $10,6 £ºl sº 120el 178 el 182.6 109,8 Rings, Urban 1940–50 23,0. 1923 33.9 40.0 17.0 34.5 42 e2 $0s6 1930-40 9el 6,6 10,8 14,4 3.0 10,0 14.3 13s.6 1920-30 48.4 58 el 64,8 38el 3.e.7 23.5 36-4 $6.7 1910-20 38e 8 46s2 º .7 23.4 23 •2 Sl sº Gºed 26.e4 4 1900-10 5.1 s6 60,0 53.8 &lsº 38 e5 GO,0 57.7 45,7 1900–50 $38,0 $70,0 40.5e0 280-5 17C e6 26 le6 (74,0 $31 e^ Rings, Rural 1940-30 4le 8 44el 54.1 GOs? 27.5 ^le3 42,4 27, 1 1930s&O 19.8 17s2 20e C 28,5 15,9 19.0 19el 19.8 1920–50 i8.9 17e9 30.0 26.0 12.8 15.1 18 e6 12,6 lºlo-EO 8,4 6,9 7el llel 9.0 M2 sº 8.4 64? 1900–10 10s 0. 10,6 15,0 Teº 6s2 14s6 14s6 4e? 1900e-50 142el 180.e4 198,0. 192.9 93.0 146,7 lºe'ſ 90eº table 14.-Percentage of class V standard metropolitan area population in central eities and rings, by decades, by sise:1900–1950 Sise of standard metropolitan area in loco (in thousands) Parts of S.M.A.,"s and 3,000 & 1,000- 500s 859– 250- 150- IOOe decade (Class W) Total ©ver 2,999 999 499 $49 49 149 & Central cities - 1950 57.7 64-9 40.7 Gºeſ; 38e 2 37el 54e^ COeG & 1940 61s0 68-6 $4.0 65el Gºet) 60e23 5829 6] e.9 1930 G3,7 69.7 $6,0 G7.7 Cle& 62e2 ≤ &\e B 1920 65.6 75.7 59e3 Gºeſ, 61.8 GOs3 59.0 6ls? 1910 60,0 175eſ; 50 egº; 68.7 $8,9 $5,5 64 e6 Cºe? 1900 &e ºf 76e? $3.9 66.3 04 e6 6] e.9 48so 50e? Ringse Total 1950 (2e3 35 el 5le3 ©e4 &lsº 42.9 45e0 $9,2 1900 38el 81 s6 46.0 34 sº 60el $9,7 &l el 38el 1930 $6,8 30sº 44,0 & eº; 38.7 $7,8 $Sey 35.5 lº) $&sº 26,8 (Oe? $0.6 $0s? $50s? &lso $8,1 1910 85 sº Béeſ, (ºleº $lsº &lel 4ée.8 45.2 43,3 |COO $7e 23,8 &lel 33.7 46 e6 48.1 52-0 49e3 Rings, Urban 1950 2lsº 24.0 34.2 20,4 17 sº 18,0 9,6 6,4 lºº) 2Os3 23,3 32-l 10,2 17sº 12 e5 8e03 5,4 1930 20.5 23 el 31,6 17s.6 10,0 12.5 8 e? 5.8 1920 17e5 10 e5 27.6 16.2 16 el 12,6 7e9 6,0 1910 15e0 16,6 26sº 15,8 18el 12.5 6el Ó e? 1900 lºſe? 1 sº 22a3 14 e6 15 si ll.0 §e 3 $e tº Ringee Rural 1960 2004 10sº 17s l 20.1 24.5 29.9 36.2 $ 2.7 1940 17e5 0.0 18.9 16,7 22.6 27.2 82.6 $2.7 lſº . 15,8 7s 2 12,5 l&sº 20,7 25,3 $0.5 $0s? lſº 1660 7e9 13.1 Me? £2,0 27 e5 $3e. & eº Ilºko 19e6 9-0 16.2 15,6 £4,9 $220 89el $8,6 MºCO E3 ed ROe? 18 eG 18.9 350eº $7,1 (M3.7 45.8 GROWTH OF STANDARD METROPOLITAN AREAS: 1900–50 31 fable 15- - Percentage of class v standard metropolitan area total decennial increase in central cities and rings, by decades, by sines 1900-1950 Sise of standard metropolitan area in 1940 (in thousands) Parts of S.M.A.'s and decade 3,000 & 1,000- 500- 350e 250- löOe lſ)0- Total over 2,999 999 499 349 249 l49 Central oities 1940-60 37.8 33,8 28,8 37,6 48,7 45.9 38,3 56e.8 1930-40 $9,6 49.0 29.7 43 el 37,0 42,8 s7.7 38 e6 1920-30 57.0 54 e? 47.0 59.6 58,8 70,4 69,0 75,3 1910-20 69.e5 65,8 62 e5 73.9 74 e4 75,2 74.3 84.8 1900-10 70.3 73,0 56,7 *6.5 74.2 66.4 75,2 82.9 1900-30 54 e5 57.0 44-8 55,8 61.0 59 e6 57.2 07 s.0 Ringse total 1940-60 62.2 66 e2 71, 7 62.4 51.3 54 el 6] e.7 48.2 1930-40 60s & GleO 70.3 56.9 63.20 57.2 62,3 61 s6 1920-30 £5,0 45.8 53.0 40.4 41s2 29,6 31,0 24 e? 1910-20 30 e5 54 e4 37.7 28, 1 25,6 24.8 25,7 15.7 1900-10 29,6 26,4 43.5 23.7 25.8 $5.6 26,8 17 el 1900-30 45.2 45 °C) 55,7 44.2 39.0 40.4 42,8. $3.0 Rings, urban 1940–50 27.9 37 el 42.4 28.9 16.6 15,0 12 s? 10.2 1930s-40 $22,6 28, 1 39, 9 21.8 9.0 11.9 IO e5 6,7 1920-30 81.8 40 sl 42.1 24,7 27.1 13.3 9,8 7.3 1910–2O 24 el $2.4 S4 e? 17,8 16.0 12.0 14.0 5.4 1900-10 22,0 28.0 35,0 19.1 19,5 17.0 8.5 7.9 1900-50 26.4 38 el $9,4 23,5 18, 8 14.0 Ileš 8.0 Rings, rural 1940-50 $4.3 29.1 29.3 33 e5 34,8 89.1 49 el $3,0 1930 -40 37.8 22,9 30.4 35 el 54 el 45.4 5.1 s6 54 e6 1920-30 lle 7 5.2 10.9 15,7 14 •l 16.3 21.2 17 sº 1910-20 6.4 2.0 3,5 8,8 9.e6 12.7 11.8 10,3 1900-10 7.7 3,4 8,3 4,6 6e3 16.6 18.5 9 e? 1900-50 18, 8. 9,9 I6,3 2O,7 2O.2 26,4 31.5 25,0 Table Me - Percent insrease in population of central eities and rings of standard metropolitan areas (Class v) by decades, by region and eise 1900-1939 Ring Ring Sise of 8. Meſºs Central Central Central and region Total eity Total | Urban Rural Total eity Total Urban Rural Total eity Total | Urban Rural Percent increase 1900-50 Persent inerease 1580-40 Percent increase 1920-30 8.M.A.'s le COO,000 & over 18 el 8e0 $3e3 26.e0 Cº eS GeG 4el lle6 8.7 19e? 30.e6 13,0 48,5 56,4 24 e6 The Northeast 10.6 Geº 10.6 Its e0 $3.3 Belº &eº 6.0 4.8 18 el Žle 9 18 sº $1 e^ $8,2 Tº sº The North Center 17e.7 7.9 $8 e5 36e 9 4 2.e0 (e.7 Qe7 14.3 10.4 £5.e.9 36e » £6,6 66,5 89.2 22e tº The Courth £5.e5 10sº Tºep 65 e8 176e 6 10,0 6s.7 $4.7 284 el 9.e0 16,6 9.e.7 $2,0 lle 7 Gòeº Tº Tºoet - 50,9 38e B TO.6 67.7 103, 19el lºs? $7.0 $ºe? $$e 7 85.1 &eº ºlòe G | lºſe& C6 sl 8.M.A.'s Soo,000-099,999 £5.e.8 14 e6 45s? 49e O GOsº lle 0 TeS Qe7 lée 6 20.5 23 e6 Os? 81 e^ 36el 26so The Morth Center l6e.9 9.6 $7,9 $9.e.7 $5,7 6eº 2,6 18.0 12.1 26 el 26 sº 20 e^ $$.e6 58.5 27 sº The South $9.e4 24.7 69 e.9 90sº 66eº 7.e4 22e3 89e3 (720. $4,6 $1.8 29 ed $6,5 (0.25 & Be6 The West 42.9 &4 sº 79.4 || 142,4 69.e0 || || 9eº Oe? 38e 4 27.20 88 sº 20,6 16 e4 $3.3 48 ed 81 so 8.M.A.'s 250,000-499,999 & eº 17e5 89e 5. £º eS CŞe? 7e9 6el lºsº 5 sº 17.3 EOeb &le G 19.5 $0.8 13.0 The Northeast SeG 4s6 1899 4e"/ 20s? 3 e5 =0s? 5,6 Oe6 lleO 12s6 9.4 | 16.8 ſ 24.0 GeO The Morth Center 10,0 llcº COeg &O,4 3Geº 4el le? Seá 2e2 12,0 19,7 1920 Eleº º e8 17el The South $º e5 Sle 8 Ble 6 || 103,6 &Del 17.3 ll e6 $leo 37,6 Tº e8 $3.7 4Rol fºe,0 81.4 15sº The West CQe,0 4 te? 116 sº I lºº,0 103.5 24.0 20,6 & GeG 49e3 20,8 $3,7 Sle 7 $720 | llº sº &lsº 8.M.A.'s loo,000-240,000 sy,7 20,7 $8,8 46 eG C&sº llel Geº 18,6 14sº 10,6 27.2 & sº 19s 7 $3,05 10,8 The Northeast *lsº Sel 10,7 lºs? Blsº Geó. Osº 10-0 Yeº Ylle& 14e^ lleO 17.9 tº e8 lſº sº The North Center Bled 14e ºf $$e 7 37.5 $2.9 ?.e5 Be4 18 e5 8e0. 2Oe? 27sº 29 e? $º e5 46 el 19 sº The South $led 27.3 89el 118,6 &e G 14,8 11e4 ºleº $9,7 Ele? $4e" (8,7 12.0 £7,8 ll sº The West & sº 34,6 76el 06.3 72.0 1725 11.8 £5,6 37,6 23 el 27.7 $2.8 34,4 61st/ 30.e4 Pereent increase 1910–30 Percent increase 1900-10 Pereent increase 1900–50 8.M.A.'s 1,000,000 & over 26.2 24.3 30.2 40 sº 6.1 33.7 $2.5 $6,5 56.5 12,8 177.7 129,5 || $86,9 || $89,3 || 160 so The Northeast 19.2 16,5 24e^ $3,5 5.3 82.0 81sl $5.6 47.7 Alsº 123 sº 94.e5 || 177,6 || $26,6 || 100 e? The Borth Center $7,9 3GeO 47.9 & O 6el 38e0 & e6 $4.7 79.9 4,8 $0.3.3 166s? 4.85s,6 0.42el 150s& The ºlourth 10,8 31,6 - 7-0 SOs3 ~$0s? lºe'ſ 9.e.7 24 e? lso 25e0 loºs & 86,0 || 197.5 || 714s 18 le? The West C32.e.9 46,6 63.0 | ROle? 82.2 79.el 7.5.0 9 Sel £18. 40.4 COle6 &Rlel | |073,8 || 177sl WGºe? S.M.A.'s 800,000-999,999 $9,8 22,0 17.3 $5,4 llel $2 e? $7sl 22e 6 &lsº 7.9 176e4 148,4 || 23 le. 80,5 : 19360 The Mertheast 16,6 16,4 16.5 &leº Sel 22el 22,8 2le3 $4,0 -0.6 88.0 59e 7 || 12le? | 158sl 95 eG The Cevº, 25el 28 eſ; 16.9 27.0 lle& 24,7 29. It 18,9 25.8 lle & $263,7 228.6 || 336,0 535,7 | B46.6 The West $9,5 29 el CQ.e.9 16,0 $3eº lºče.7 159,7 GOs,” 89e3 $8,6 451 e4 391.e." | 668 e^ 918 e5 || 51.5e0 S.M.A.'s 800,000-400,000 $6,0 Cºe'ſ 16eº 26.7 10,7 Slso &lsº 1992 & sº 9.e.7 166,7 185e0 140.4 || 2:00.9 || 115,4 The Bortheast 18 sº 26,4 llsº 17,9 §e6 26.5 * 4 = 1 19,5 46,4 SeG 88s. 6 £3 s.3 & eº || ||26-0 (30.e5 The North Center $7 e^ 47 e5 80sº $3e0 1 e? 32,4 89el 22e.8 $8 e8 16el 167.7 177,4 || 153,9 || 195 e4 || 136,6 The South $2.8 37 sº 38el | 110s? 16.7 $3e3 & eº 14.0 •7.s0 16,0 298.8 $38,9 || $45 el | 893 e5 105e? The Wºosts 85 e4 Cºeg 46 el || 490,8 19e 8 56 e? 66,9 21.0 tº tº º 14e5 487.7 595.0 || 707,9 •e • 426s2 S.M.A.'s 100,000-$69,999 $8,1 36.e5 18 el $2 el 7,6 30,9 $7,9 14.5 & e6 10,0 R98 el 244 el | 153,7 || 4 25e0 || 125e.9 The lortheast 15s,6 |Seº 12.0 (3 e6 lsº 18el 28 el 9,9 3Rs6 4.1 & eo *Sel $9,5 || 199e3 00,0 The Lorth Center 26.6 & GeO 8,1 &le? 3.6 24.0 (Oe" &s? 64 eſſ =0,9 160,9 194s6 120,6 407.7 96el The South $0.0 48,4 10.8 || 112.5 6,0 $º e8 57.2 1824 53 e5 14,6 257.6 30, 2el lºsº | 1003,9 || 119s 7 The Lost . . e6 COeº 36sº 66,6 32.7 90s? 93.0 64,5 735.3 $0.3 &Oel 361.6 || $57,6 || 5600,0 || 450,9 32 CHAPTER II The rate of growth of the rings tends to have no systematic relationship to the size of the S. M. A. For example, in the 1940–50 decade the rings of S. M. A.'s having 3,000,000 or more inhabitants grew somewhat faster than the rings of S. M. A.'s having 350,000–499,999 in- habitants, but somewhat slower than the rings of S. M. A.'s having 100,000—149,999 inhabit- ants. Because there is no regular pattern of increase or decrease in rate of growth of ring by size, such differences as exist between the size groups are presumed to be associated with other factors and only incidentally with size. Of considerable importance for a comprehen- sion of the relationship between S. M. A. size and the suburbanization process is the ratio of ring to central city growth. As table 13 shows, the era of faster growth in rings than in central cities was already underway in the 1900–10 dec- ades in the S. M. A.'s with 1 million or more inhabitants. Even at this early date, however, there had emerged a pattern of growth by size in which the ratio of ring growth to central city growth. varied inversely with the size of the S. M. A. That pattern has persisted, with ex- ceptions, in all subsequent decades except one. In other words, the larger the S. M. A. the more rapidly the ring has been growing in com- parison with the central city. Gradually the tendency for rings to grow faster than central cities spread from the very largest to the medium-size S. M. A.'s. By 1930, it had engulfed all S. M. A.'s. During the decade 1930–40, rings continued to grow while central cities tended to remain stationary. The inverse relationship between size of S. M. A. and ratio of ring to central city growth was again present during the 1940–50 decade, al- though with exceptions. The general pattern for rural areas in the ring to grow more rapidly than urban areas in the ring is not a characteristic of all sizes of S. M. A.'s, but only of the large ones. In fact, there is an inverse relationship between the size of S. M. A.'s and the ratio of rural to urban growth in rings. During the earlier decades (1900–20) there was considerable variation in this ratio among size groups of S. M. A.'s, but it was always below unity. The great influx of population into rural territory appears to have begun almost simultaneously during the 1930–40 decade in all sizes of S. M. A.'s. It has continued, in the 1940–50 decade, among S. M. A.'s of 250,000 or more inhabitants. The effect of these differential patterns of growth upon the distribution of population within the various size groups of S. M. A.'s is detailed in tables 14 and 15. S. M. A.'s con- taining 1 million inhabitants or more contained a much smaller share of their total population in central cities in 1950 than in 1900. Also, about 70 percent of the total population increase of these large S. M. A.'s went to the rings. At the other end of the size-of-S. M. A. range, the smallest areas concentrated a larger percentage of their total population in the central cities than in 1900, and allocated a large part of their decennial increase to the growth of the central city. Because they contained few urban places in the ring, a high proportion of their ring growth was rural. Thus, although the total growth of S. M. A.'s was earlier shown to bear no simple relation- ship to their size, the internal patterns of growth and distribution do vary with size. The larger S. M. A.'s are much further advanced in the process of building up outlying satellite cities and settling unincorporated and other rural territory than the smaller S. M. A.'s. Small S. M. A.'s are still growing rapidly in their cen- tral cities and have only a modest ring develop- ment. However, the phase of rapid ring growth is now characteristic of all sizes of S. M. A.'s; the factor of size only introduces variation in the ratio of rural to urban growth in the ring. The above discussion of ring growth and size of S. M. A. has not controlled the factor of regional variation. Table 17, which presents rates of growth of central cities and rings for each of four size groups of S. M. A.'s stand- ardized for regional variations, provides evi- dence that none of the conclusions arrived at above is accounted for by differences between the size groups in the region of their principal location. (The standard population used was the total population of class V S. M. A.'s in 1950.) Because the same standard population GROWTH OF STANDARD METROPOLITAN AREAS: 1900–50 33 was used for all decades, change in regional distribution during the half century is also controlled. g fable 17. – mates of arowth of parts of standard astropolitan areas (Class V) by eise, standardized for regional variations Percent increate Parts [. • of S.M.A.'s by site 1940-50 1930-hoºl920–30|1910–20, 1900–101900-50 8.M.A. ºs of 1,000,000 & over 20.6 7.9 33.2%. 28.9 35.1| 238.8 Central cities 9.9 *.0| 24.1 || 23.9, 32.2 159.3 Rings lº." 15.9 57.0 28.2 #: *5lel Uhrban 31,6 27.6 64-9 55.6 76.0 853.3 Lºral 58.8 19.0 36.7 le5 10,8 2k5.0 S.M.A.'s of 500,000-999,999 22.3 9.8 22.0| 20.5' 39.0. 106.6 Central cities llek 5.7 18.2 21.6 $3.5 151.8 $2.2| 19.5 31.1 || 10.b 26.9 25*** Ulrban &-1| 13.2| 38.2 22.8 52-3. 363.6 Lºral lº.1 || 26.7| 21.4| ll-6 ll-8, 218.6 8.M.A. is of 250,000-499,999 24.2 8.8 22.3| 28.6, 38.2| 203.5 Central cities tº 16.9| 5.4; 21.9| 35.7 k3.6| 207.l Rings &O. § 15.8 25.2 20.9 19.8 228.8 Urban 35.3 ll.3 lº.2 98.8 33.3 187.5 Lºral las.2, 19. 18.0|| 12.9, ll.9, 175.2 S.M.A.'s less than 250,000 23.7 9e 23.5|| 23.5' 30.5 185.1 Central cities 15.4 lº.5l 25.5| 31.5| A3.6, 20k.9 Rings 38.6: 16. 21.0| 18.7 18.1. 181.0 Urben 38.4| 13.9, 38.3| 52.2 185.0 lll?-l Lºral 35-8) 18.2| 16.9 8.0 lj.0 （53.1 Regional variations in ring growth In addition to the size difference in the pattern of internal growth of S. M. A.'s, there is also a possibility that there are regional varia- tions in this matter. Data with which to study this problem are contained in tables 16 and 18. Table 16 provides detailed growth data for the S. M. A.'s of each region, classified by size of S. M. A. In table 18, regional variations in metropolitan growth patterns have been sum- marized more clearly by standardizing for re- gional variations in size. The following gen- eralizations are worthy of note: table is. - mass of trave of parts of swºrd **weisen areas (class v) by regions, standardised for variations in cise Pergºint increase Parts of $.tt.A.'s by regions 1940–50 1930-80 |1920-30 || 1910–20 | 1900-10 || 1900-60 S.M.A. 's of lºortheast 10,3 &-5 18.0 18.1 27.3 105.2 Central cities bel 2.2 13.3 18.0 30.0 06-2 Rings 17.7 7.2 25el 18,0. 25.3 137,8. Lural 27.9 12.7 12,0 $.2 5.8 78.7 S.M.A. We of Lorth Center 18.2 5.2 30.0 33.1 30.3 100.8 Cºntral cities 9.8 lsº 28.5 35.8 33.8 || 151.3 |Rings 36.0 18.3 lºsé 31.6 25.5 295.6 Uºrban 35.0 9.5 78.* 66.5 73.0 678.1 Lºal 37.3 20,9 20.9 7.6 *.6 126.3 Setº-A,"s of South 29.9 18.6 28.8 &,0 22.6 191e3 Central cities 19.3 10.6 25el 38.9 28,5 2014.9 62.7 27.3 37.7 -5.k. 1920 3.15.3 Uºn f 77.2 17 le.9 25.0 *3.9 6.3 737.6 lºral 51.6 21-0 30.2 -2.4 18,4 lº.9 S.M.A. ºs of West 52.1 18.5 56.5 $2.6 &lez 631-5 Goºdrel cities 31.5 12.6 &5-3 38.5 ºf **7.6 Rings 85.7 29.4 79.5 $2.8 70.2 || 1035.8 Urban 07.0 28.7 || 128.9 lºl-3 || 203.2 2698.9 Lºrel 91.32 30-3 *3.2 29.3 38.8 552.4 (1) Tuere are definite variations among the regions in the tendency toward ring growth. The most decentralized growth is occurring in the Northeast and the North Center regions, whereas the least decentralized growth is oc- curring in the South and West. For example, the ratio of ring to central city rate of growth during the 1940–50 and 1900–10 decades by regions is as follows: 1940–50 1900–10 The Northeast 4.3 0.84 The North Center 3.7 . 75 The South 3.2 . 69 The West 2.7 . 81 (2) These regional variations did not have their origin in the last decade, but have been in evidence for several decades. With the excep- tion of the West, which has had a long history of more diffusive metropolitan growth, the re- gions were ranked in degree of ring growth the same in 1900–10 as in 1940–50, even at a time when central cities were still growing more rapidly than their suburbs. (3) The tendency toward a greater rural than urban growth since 1930 is much more pronounced in the Northeast than in the other regions. To date it has been entirely absent in the South. The ratio of rural to urban growth in class V S. M. A. rings, by regions, is as follows: º 1940–50 1930–40 The Northeast 2. 3 3.0 The North Center 1.1 2.2 The South .7 ... 1 The West 1. 0 1. 1 Thus, the tendency toward peripheral growth in S. M. A.'s has both a size component and a regional component. A distinctive set of variations is present for each, even when the effect of the other is controlled by standardization. Metropolitan and nonmetropolitan growth in geographic divisions In examining the pattern of growth rates in various parts of the Nation, the four broad census regions have been used in order to per- mit a cross-classification with size. In most geographic divisions there are too few S. M. A.'s to permit a detailed analysis of met- ropolitan growth in divisional terms. However, the broad regional differences hide some sig- nificant facts and trends in metropolitan and nonmetropolitan growth which a treatment in terms of geographic divisions can bring out. 34 CHAPTER II Table 19 contains information for such an examination. The slowest metropolitan growth since 1900 has been in New England, and the fastest on the Pacific Coast. Whereas the New England S. M. A.'s managed to increase only by 82.2 percent, the S. M. A.'s of the Pacific division grew more than sixfold. Table 19s-Percent increase in population of standard metropolitan areas (class V) and of nometropolitan areas, by divisions: 1900-1930 Percent increase lumber Geographic ef Standard metropolitan areas (Class V) lometropolitan areas division & Jºshe's 1940- 1980 1900- 1910s 1900- 1900- 1940s. 1930- 1920s 1910- 1900e lſº OO- 1900 lººD 19 O 1920 1910 1930 1900 1940 lºº) MO O lºlò 1900 low lºgland ll 10,6 2eG 12,8 16.0 £2,6 Gºeſ! 10,0 tº,0 4 sº 3.0 5e0 ≤ Middle Atlantic $ºl 10-8 Bel Ele? 19,8 &leſ. 119.e.7 6,5 3e3 5,2 le6 7.7 27.2 last Worth Central 25 18.0 5.2 $3.4 36.5 30,4 lºsº 8.5 $e& £el 3.3 4e5 £5.e.7 West Worth Central 10 16,7 3.6 18.2 19e3 28,3 12:220 •les Qel lsº Geº Seč 1328 South Atlantie †† $4.9 $0.9 25.0 8,0 23s.6 £2 eS 11.0 9,3 8s 3 lòeº |Ge? 66el last South Central ſº £7,2 12, 2 31.4 15,7 $4.2 169,5 Os3 8 el 6-4 Seº 9el 30.3 West South Central lº; COed 17.3 47.] 45sl 54,0 (36 s? le6 4-3 12 sº lleſ) $le4 Tººel Mountain § (MCs: 15.5 27.3 32.0 Sºe (, $49-3 16,7 llsº 7.7 £5.5 57.0 176el Paeifle l? Öle? 10,2 38e 4 43.7 80sº C07.0 42el 20el 27s2 18.2 54 e6 296.3 Although S. M. A.'s of the Middle Atlantic States have grown faster than those of New England, they too have grown more slowly than the national average for all S. M. A.'s. More- over, the ratio of their growth to the national rate has declined steadily, until in the 1940–50 decade they grew no faster than New England S. M. A.'s and only one-half as rapidly as the national rate. The two North Central divisions have had un- like growth experiences. At the turn of the century, S. M. A.'s in both divisions were grow- ing rapidly at about the national average. The East North Central division capitalized on its strategic industrial resources around the Great Lakes, and continued to grow rapidly until 1930, at which time its rate declined below the na- tional average. S. M. A.'s in the more agri- cultural West North Central division, on the other hand, have grown much more slowly at only about three-fourths of the national rate. In the 1940–50 decade, both of these divisions were growing at about this level. The three divisions which constitute the South have had very different histories of met- ropolitan growth. The South Atlantic divi- sion, which was settled from colonial times, be- gan the century with extremely low rates of metropolitan growth, such as characterized New England. In 1910–20 and 1920–30 it grew at about the national rate. During the depres- sion, its S. M. A.'s distinguished themselves by growing faster than those of any other region of the Nation, and in the 1940–50 decade have grown 60 percent faster than the national aver- age. The rise of Miami and the other S. M. A.'s of Florida is a major factor responsible for this sudden spurt of growth, although several other S. M. A.'s also participated in it. The East South Central division had little metropolitan development until 1920. In the three decades since then, it has joined the South Atlantic S. M. A.'s in growing at rates well above the national average. The West South Central division, comprising the S. M. A.'s of the Mississippi Valley, the lower Gulf, and the Texas interior, has grown at very rapid rates in each decade since 1900. Hence, S. M. A.'s in all divisions of the South are now growing rapidly, with the West South Central division continuing to grow considerably faster than the other two. In the two divisions of the West, it has been the S. M. A.'s of the Pacific which have made spectacular gains, although the metropolitan growth of the Mountain division has been above the national average in all decades. Since 1930. the Mountain division has been more nearly able to keep pace with the Pacific than pre- viously. The comparison of this divisional pattern of metropolitan growth with the divisional pattern of growth of nonmetropolitan areas reveals that the two bear no fixed relationship to each other. In the Mountain and Pacific divisions, rapid rates of metropolitan growth have been GROWTH OF STANDARD METROPOLITAN AREAS: 1900–50 35 accompanied by extraordinarily high rates of nonmetropolitan growth. In the four central divisions, heavy metropolitan development has been accompanied by extremely low rates of nonmetropolitan growth. For example, in the decade just ended the West North Central and the East South Central divisions enjoyed a met- ropolitan growth of 16.7 and 27.2 percent re- spectively, while the rate of growth of their nonmetropolitan population was near zero. In the New England and the Middle Atlantic divi- sions the slow growing S. M. A.'s are accom- panied by moderate rates of nonmetropolitan growth. These findings are of fundamental import- ance in the study of population distribution, for they emphasize the fact that population re- distribution can take not only the form of inter- divisional migration, such as the westward movement, but it can also take the form of in- ternal redistribution within the division, such as the absorption of large rural populations in new and expanding S. M. A.'s as has been the case in the West North Central and the East South Central divisions. Such movements are less spectacular than the long-distance migrations, but their effects upon the composition of the region and division are equally as great. Factors associated with metropolitan growth e In spite of the large amount of attention given to the problems connected with metro- politan growth, as yet no comprehensive analy- sis of the factors in metropolitan growth has been made. Because such an investigation would be a major research project in itself, it lies outside the scope of the present report. The data presented below are intended only to illus- trate the need for more knowledge in this area and to demonstrate that some factors which might commonly be thought to be important are, in reality, relatively poor indicators of probable future metropolitan growth. Table 20 contains coefficients of linear corre- lation between 1940–50 rates of growth of the class V S. M. A.'s and a series of variables which might plausibly be regarded as being re- lated to metropolitan growth. Because metro- politan growth tends to have a strong regional incidence, as demonstrated above, these correla- tions have been computed separately for each of the four regions as well as for the United States as a whole. To be thought of as being meaningful, a potential factor in metropolitan growth should exhibit a significantly large cor- relation with rate of growth in each region separately. Moreover, for unambiguous re- sults, the direction of this correlation should be the same in all four regions. In other words, if a correlation between growth and a given variable is significant for some regions and not for others, then the relationship is not general for the entire Nation, but only for certain parts of it. In such cases the meaning of such rela- tionships must be sought in the particular re- gional context rather than on the level of na- tional generality. Similarly, even if the vari- able is significantly correlated with growth in all regions, but if the sign of the correlation is positive in some regions and negative in others, then generalization at the national level prob- ably is of only limited usefulness. table ape - coefficients of linear correlation between percent increase in population of standard metropolitan areas (Class W) Kºekº and ºther variables selected ©oefficient of linear eorrelation Variable lºerth Lorth Toºl east Gester | South | West Past Peresat increase 1930–40 •69 .5% •38 • 60 || -73 1920–30 •51 •25 •56 .k0l. .5% 1900-10 •lº e20 .03 •21 sº Fertility ©rºle birth rate 1999-'0 •22 --2% •32 ~elº •19 Let reproduction rate 1935-40 || --O3 •e 27 •09 •20 29 81se of S.M.A. 31so in 1980 •e 10 Ol; •,09 •08 --09 $1so in 1900 --19 03 •el; --16 ~e?0 Relative site in 1 •ell 02 *,09 •12 i = -13 Age of 8. M. As Lumber of decades principal city has had 50,000 populationi -.28 •08 •elº •eol || -ekº Industrial development Percent of employed in manº- factures 1980 =s*7 .46 el? -ek,0 --&l Percent change in manufac- tures, 1939-87 - •3% •ell slº •85 •50 **- of eise in 1980 With this in mind, a review of the correla- tions of table 20 shows that only one set of variables, past growth, can validly be thought of as being a factor in metropolitan growth with nationwide generality.” All of the other vari- tº To be significant at the 5 percent level, the coefficients of table 20 should have the following values or larger : United States total, 0.17; Northeast, 0.34; North Center, 0.32; South, 0.29; and West 0.50. 36 CHAPTER II ables either show no significant relationship or only a relationship in particular regional contexts. -- (a) Fertility.—The net reproduction rate, 1935–40, as a measure of the ability of the popu- lation to reproduce itself, shows no significant relationship to metropolitan growth. The crude birth rate, as a measure of recent and cur- rent levels of actual fertility shows a low degree of positive association with growth, but only in a regional context, in which the direction of the association is positive in some cases and negative in others. (b) Size of S. M. A.—It has been held that as S. M. A.'s increase in size, they become un- wieldy, less efficient, more crowded, and are generally less desirable locations either for new industries or for residences. As a consequence, it might be expected that growth would slacken and be diverted to other more desirable areas as the size of the S. M. A. increased. As in- dicated above, there is some evidence that after a total population of about one million in- habitants has been reached, this may tend to be true on an average, even though there are individual exceptions. Yet, the fact that size throughout the entire size scale is not a general factor in metropolitan growth is indicated by the very low and inconsistent correlations be- tween size and rate of growth for the four regions. For these computations, size has been measured in two ways: as absolute size in 1940 (thousands of persons) and as relative size in 1940 (logarithm of thousands of persons). This latter measure is used to minimize the ef- fect upon the correlation of the few very large S. M. A.'s which are many times the size of the numerous small S. M. A.'s. When measured in either way, the degree of correlation between rate of growth, 1940–50 and size in 1940, is very low and not statistically significant. Some fairly large S. M. A.'s grew at very rapid rates, and some medium size and small S. M. A.'s grew very slowly or even lost population. The slight negative relationship indicated by the correla- tion is contributed largely by the lower-than- average rates for S. M. A.'s of one million in- habitants or more, mentioned earlier. Hence, if size is a significant general factor in metro- politan growth, its effects are indirect or else . are confounded with the effects of other vari- ables which were not controlled in preparing table 20. (c) Age of S. M. A.—Another hypothesis of metropolitan growth holds that S. M. A.'s which have old central cities tend to grow slower than S. M. A.'s of the same size with young central cities. The data of table 20 support this hypothesis, for they show a sig- nificant correlation, at the national level, between the number of decades that a central city has had 50,000 inhabitants and the rate of growth of its S. M. A. However, this cor- relation is explained almost entirely by the regional factor, for the correlation is high in the individuals regions only for the West. In other words, age of the central city merely measures indirectly the date at which the metropolitan areas of the West began to de- velop. In other regions, whose development has been spread over a longer span of time, the age of the central city does not appear to have been related to the rate of growth, 1940–50. This finding is not inconsistent with the one made earlier that new S. M. A.'s grow more rapidly than already established S. M. A.'s. Many of the new S. M. A.'s are located in the West. Also, the growth of new S. M. A.'s was traced only for a few decades after their entrance into the metropolitan classification, whereas here the age of the central cities has been traced back to the first census in 1790. Hence, the unique factors which appear to have stimulated particular cities and their environs to grow into the S. M. A. status persist for a few decades after the cen- tral city attains 50,000 or the total area attains 100,000. But there is no pronounced rela- . tionship, either positive or negative, between rate of metropolitan growth and the number of decades that the central cities have had a population of 50,000. (d) Industrial Development.—It might seem probable that highly industrialized areas have potentialities for prolonged and above-’ average growth. This hypothesis is tested by correlating rate of growth with percent of the labor force employed in manufacturing in GROWTH OF STANDARD METROPOLITAN AREAS: 1900–50 37 * * º 1940. The data suggest that such a general- ization is valid for S. M. A.’s in the Northeast during the 1940–50 decade, but that its exact reverse is valid for the South and West, where the areas of most rapid growth tended to be those which, in 1940, were comparatively less industrialized, even within the region. . It is even more plausible that industrial ea pansion might be highly correlated with growth. To test this, the percentage increase in number of wage earners engaged in manu- facturing, 1937–47, was correlated with rate of S. M. A. growth, 1940–50. Only in the South and West, the two regions where rapid metropolitan development has taken place and where many new S. M. A.'s have emerged, are the rates of industrial expansion at all closely related to rate of metropolitan growth. . Even this generalization must be studied fur- ther and its regional context clarified before it can be given nationwide generality. * In summary, only two of the four types of variables which might have been considered as factors in affecting metropolitan growth show a significant, consistent, and meaningful correlation with rate of growth. However, both relationships, age of S. M. A. and in- dustrial expansion, are confined to particular aregions and hence cannot be stated as principles with nationwide applicability. As subject to error as the extrapolation of the past into the future is known to be, the simple naive assumption that whatever has caused an S. M. A. to grow during the past decade will also cause it to grow in a similar fashion in the future, in comparison with the Nation or re gion, has a more firm basis in observable fact than attempts to predict on the basis of an analysis of factors. These fairly high correla- tions between recent and more remote rates of growth have an optimistic implication, how- ever. They constitute evidence that the growth of metropolitan areas is a response to definite factors which exert their force for several dec- ades. Hence, metropolitan growth is not a completely unpatterned and unpredictable set of events. Although some of the factors which were studied here are not the ones which really “explain” metropolitan growth, there is evi- dence that valid factors must exist and that it remains only for researchers to discover them. At present, those who are faced with the ne- cessity of forecasting the growth of individual metropolitan areas can be guided by the follow- ing principles: (a) the growth of a particular area is related to the growth of other S. M. A.'s in the same region, (b) the growth of a particu- lar S. M. A. is related to its recent past growth, and (c) it may be possible to establish a series of factors within the regional context which will assist in predicting the growth of individ- ual S. M. A.'s. Other than this, prediction must proceed on the basis of intensive case studies of individual S. M. A.'s. Chapter Ill URBANIZED AREAS AND THEIR RELATION TO STANDARD METROPOLITAN AREAS IN THE PRECEDING CHAPTER, it was noted that one of the outstanding patterns of recent growth in the vicinity of cities of 50,000 inhabitants or more has been the rapid settlement of unincorporated and other territory which would be classified as rural under the definitions of urban and rural area used in the 1940 and earlier censuses. Yet it is a matter of common observation that much of this suburban population actually lives under typically urban conditions and that it resembles the urban population in its social, economic, and demographic composition more than it does the rural population. By 1950, this pattern of urban-like growth in areas classified as rural had come to involve such large popula- tions in so many different areas that it was evi- dent that eventually the traditional urban-rural classification would lose much of its meaning and usefulness if action were not taken to treat as urban these rapidly growing populations which possessed the visible traits of urbanism. Limiting the urban classification to incorpo- nated places of 2,500 or more, which in 1940 had constituted the major test of whether an area was urban, excludes these areas of “rural” sub- urban settlement. Apparently, the trend to- ward such settlement is one which may be ex- pected to continue indefinitely. Hence, it was evident that the definition of urban population must be broadened to include other areas which also may be presumed to be urban on the basis of objective criteria. For the 1950 census such a change was made even though it meant a con- siderable loss of comparability with the past. 257894 O - 54 - 4 Urban population as defined by the 1950 CenSUS Under the urban definition established for use in the 1950 census, the urban population comprises, in addition to the population of places of 2,500 or more inhabitants which are incorporated as cities, boroughs, or villages: (a) The densely settled urban fringe, includ- ing both incorporated and unincorporated areas, around cities of 50,000 or more; * (b) incorporated towns of 2,500 inhabitants or more, except in New England, New York, and Wisconsin where “towns” are simply minor civil divisions of counties; and (c) unincorporated but densely settled places of 2,500 inhabitants or more outside any urban fringe.” The urban fringe, together with its central city, is called wrbanized area. An urbanized area contains, in addition to the central city, all densely settled * For a complete definition of the urban fringe, see ch. I. * “In the 1950 census the urban population of the United States will include all persons living in unincorporated places with 2,500 inhabitants or more, as well as in the incorporated places of this size, and persons living within the urbanized areas. By contrast, in 1940 only those persons living in incorporated places of 2,500 inhabitants or more and in a few places designated as urban under special rule were classified as urban population. ºf i. 10. 1. º “All of the unincorporated places to be reported separately lie outside the newly defined urbanized areas which are made up of each of our larger cities and their closely settled sur- rounding area. Many unincorporated places adjoin or are in the vicinity of large cities, but others form separate centers. Those adjoining cities of 50,000 or more will be included in the urbanized areas defined for such cities. Those adjoining cities of less than 50,000 population will be identified in the same way as outlying unincorporated areas. Each place possesses a definite nucleus of residences, and has its bound- aries so drawn as to include if possible all the surrounding closely settled area. It is necessary that the boundaries be clearly defined and identifiable in order to facilitate accurate field enumeration.” (Bureau of the Census, release dated November 14, 1949.) 39 40 CHAPTER III land surrounding the central city which can objectively be called urban. A part of this surrounding fringe consists of satellite cities which would be considered urban under the old definition. But much of it is unincorpo- rated territory and small towns which are de- voted to high density residential development, or to commercial, industrial, recreational, trans- portational, and other activities which are func- tionally related to the central city. Urbanized areas, therefore, are simply one of three innovations introduced to improve the urban and rural classifications. They were designed for the purpose of identifying and separating urban population from village and other rural-nonfarm populations in the vicinity of large cities. Their outer boundaries set the limits of the urban type of residence. They are not intended to be a delimitation of the func- tional boundaries of the metropolitan area of which the city of 50,000 or more is the central city. That is the task of S. M. A.'s. It would not be correct, however, to maintain that because S. M. A.'s and urbanized areas are two separate units which were designed to ac- complish different purposes, the two are not interrelated or should never be used in conjunc- tion. Chapter II has demonstrated that the growth processes in the urban and rural parts of metropolitan rings are not alike. From this it should be presumed that there is a rural as well as an urban aspect of metropolitan areas, and that it is essential that both be explored, using the improved definitions of urban and rural. This can best be accomplished by obtain- ing a complete picture of the results yielded by the urbanized area delimitation, and then fitting the data for urbanized areas into the system of S. M. A.'s. Net change in urban and rural populations cas a consequence of the new classifications In the 1940 census, several large and densely settled places, which otherwise would have been omitted from the urban population because they were not incorporated, were included arbitrar- ily by defining the entire minor civil division (usually a town or township) as “urban under special rule.” Applying the urban definition of 1950 produces two changes in the urban pop- ulation: (a) additional suburban population which was not recognized as urban under special rule is included, and the urban population is thereby increased; and (b) parts of the minor civil divisions which were urban under special rule in 1940 do not qualify as urban under the 1950 classification, and are transferred from the urban to the rural classification, thereby de- creasing the size of the urban population. The change in the urban and rural population re- sulting from the changed classification is there- fore a net change produced by two opposing changes. For most States where the special rules were not invoked in 1940, the net change is in the direction of greatly increasing the ur- ban population. Table 21 summarizes by States and geographic divisions the net change result- ing from the new urban and rural definitions. For the Nation as a whole, the net change added 7.5 million persons to the urban and removed this many from the rural population. This rep- resents an increase of 8.5 percent in the urban population and a decrease of 12.2 percent in the rural. In New England where the special rule was frequently employed, the net change is to increase the urban population only slightly. In two States, Massachusetts and Rhode Island, the urban population under the new definition is smaller than under the old. Three of the geographic divisions, the South Atlantic, the Mountain, and the Pacific, made extraordi- narily large gains in urban population through the change. As a result, the urban population of Maine, Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, South Carolina, Arizona, and California was increased 20 percent or more. Since the new definition is applied uniformly throughout all States, it is evident that the old definition not only failed to report the full extent of urbaniza- tion in the Nation accurately, but that it seri- ously understated the degree of urbanization of some States and regions in comparison with others. The new definition not only reports the total urban population more accurately, but also makes more precise comparisons between areas. Loss of comparability with the past partially offsets these advantages. The old definitions of urban and rural population had been carried URBANIZED AREAS AND THEIR RELATION TO STANDARD METROPOLITAN AREAS 4] Table 21. - Urban and rural population of states and geographic divisions under the old and new definitions, with persºntage difference, 1950 Nºw definition Old definition Fercentage air-º-º: Division and State Urban Rural Urban Rural Urban Rural United 8tates 96,467,686 54,289,675 88,927,464 61,769,697 8-9 -12.8 Divisions: New England 7,101,5ll 8,212,948 6,922,755 2,591,780 2.6 ~7.5 Middle Atlantic 24,271,689 3,891,844 22,643,778 7,519,761 7.2 -ºl.6 East North Central 21,185,713 9,213,656 19,988,717 10,416,651 6,0 -lle 5 West Morth Central 7,505,219 6,766,175 7,016,000 7,043,594 4el -4, 1 South Atlantic 10,391, 163 10,791,172 8,997,310 12,186,025 15,5 -lle 4 East South Central 4,484,771 6,992,410 4,079,879 7,597,302 9,9 -če 5 West South Central 8,079,828 6,457,744 7,700,860 6,856,712 4.9 ~5,3 Mountain 2,785,888 2,889, llo 8,476,628 2,596,570 18.5 -lle 9 Pacific 10,861,904 S,684,623 9,105,566 5,580,962 19,3 -S3.6 Mew England Maine 478,000 441,774 374,507 559,267 23,0 -19.1 New 506,806 £26,456 S0-1,249 231,995 le.8 -8.4 Vermont 137,618 £40,156 137,612 $40,135 •0 •0 Massachusetts 3,959,859 751,275 4,183,188 566,376 -AsO 28.7 Rhode Island 667,812 184,684 700,410 91,486 ={\e 7 $3.3 Connecticut l,558,648 448,658 lsº,817 %20,465 Blel -S7,? Middle Atlantic Lºew York lº,682,446 8,147,746 ll,889,008 8,941, 184 6e? -$7,0 New Jersey 4,186,207 649,122 S,847,771 987,568 8.8 -S4,3 Pennsylvania 7,405,056 5,094,976 6,906,995 S,591,019 7, 2 ~15,8 East North Centrel Chio 6,578,274 3,568,555 5,275,206 2,673,421 8,8 -lle 4 Indiana 2,557,196 1,577,088 2,217,468 1,715,756 6.5 =8el Illinois 6,759,871 1,958,905 6,486,673 8,826,505 4s? -12.8 Michigan 4,503,084 l,868,682 4,099,007 2,272,759 9,9 •l?,8 Wiscousin 1,987,888 1,446,687 1,906,36S 1,588,818 4.5 •&es West North Central Minnesota 1,624,914 l,557,569 1,607,446 1,575,037 lel =les Iowa l,850,938 1,370,155 1,889,4SS l,591,640 le.7 •le 5 Missouri 2,452,715 1,521,958 2,290,149 ,664,504 6, 2 =8,6 North Dakota 164,817 454,819 164,817 454,819 •0 •0 South Dakota 216,710 436,050 216,157 456,585 Qes, -0, l Lºebraska 621,905 703,605 606,530 718,980 2.5 -Bel Lºansas 993,220 912,079 903,468 1,001,8Sl 9-9 -9.0 South Atlantic Delaware 199,188 ll.9,963 lº?,890 170,195 $4,6 •SOel Maryland 1,616,903 727,099 1,874,618 1,068,585 36,8 -Slsº District of Columbia eos, 178 gº tº C. 808,178 tº tº º •0 cº e > Virginia 1,560,115 1,758,565 il, SS5,944 1,982,736 16.8 •lle3 West Virginia 694,487 l,Sil,065 640,606 1,564,946 8.4 *Se Q North Carolina 1,568,101 8,695,828 1,858, 193 2,825,736 10.5 -4,6 South Carolina 777, l,S39,106 609, 1,507,802 27.7 -lle B Georgia l,569,447 1,886, 181 l,S81,868 2,062,710 18.9 -8,6 Florida 1,815,890 957,415 1,566,788 1,304,517 15, 8 •-20 e5 East South Central Kentucky 1,084,070 1,860,756 985,759 1,959,067 10.0 =5.0 Tennessee 1,452,602 1,859,116 l,864, 159 2,027,559 14.9 =9,3 Alabama 1,540,957 1,730,806 1,228,209 l,855,534 9e? -6el Mississippi 607,162 1,571,752 601,778 1,577,142 Oe 9 ~0.3 West &outh Central C 650,591 1,278,920 617,153 1,292,568 3.2 -led Louisiana 1,471,696 l, gll,880 1,565,789 1,519,727 7.9 •8,8 Oklahoma l, 159,481 1,095,870 1,107,252 1,126,099 2.9 –3,9 Texas 4,858,060 8,875,134 4,618,666 3,098,588 4.9 -7.3 Mountain Montana 258,054 3S2,990 258,906 S8,118 2-0 =lsº Idaho 252,549 SS6,088 234,158 S64,499 7.9 –5, 2 144,618 145,911 144,618 145,911 •0 •0 Coloredo 851,518 493,771 759,959 565,150 9,4 -12.6 I ow Mexico $41,869 889,296 Slé,636 S66,561 8.7 –7, 4. Ari oºlº 416,000 sss,887 275,794 475,795 51.9 -$9,9 Utah 449,856 259,007 412,518 276,344 9-l -15.5 Nevada 91,625 68,458 84,079 76,004 9.0 –9e.9 Pacific 1,508,166 swe, wow l,874,158 1,104,811 l&e O sºoe? ºl 819,518 woz,025 752,247 769,094 lle 9 -lle O California 8,539,480 8,046,805 7,099,166 3,487,057 £0.5 -Aleš s/Old definition taboon as base back to the first census. Figure 8 presents na- tional totals of these data and portrays the rapid urban development of the United States. The 1950 urban and rural populations by the new definitions are also shown. If it is recog- nized that most of the discrepancy of 7.5 million between the old definitions and the new 1950 definitions has accumulated since 1920, an ap- proximate revision of the historic trend may be obtained. 42 CHAPTER III MILLIONS 200 200 100 100 80 30 60 60 40 NEW RURAL 40 * DEFINITION 20 20 RURA1. (Old Definitios) 10 10 8 8 6 6 4 4. 2 2 UR SAN (Old Defiaitica) I l .8 .8 .6 .6 .4 .4 .2 .2 •l • 1 1800 1820 1840 1860 1880 1900 1920 1940 1950 FIGURE 8.—Population of the United States, urban ants rural: 790 to 1950. Components of net change in urban popu- lation resulting from the changed definition As noted above, a net total of 7.5 million pop- ulation was added to the urban classification through the change in the urban-rural defini- tion in 1950. A part of this change came as a consequence of establishing urban fringes. A part also came as a consequence of recognizing as urban, individual densely, settled unincorpo- rated places of 2,500 or more, lying outside the urbanized areas. The contribution of each of these components of change in increasing the size of the urban population is shown in table 22. The new urban fringe definition contrib- uted 6.2 million persons who otherwise would have been classified as rural. The definition of outlying dense settlements of 2,500 as urban added 1.7 million. But some 338,000 popula- tion in these outlying areas had been urban under special rule by 1940 definitions and were classified as rural by 1950 standards. The dif- ference between these opposing changes resulted in a net addition of 1.3 million to the urban population. Table 22. - Urban population in 1950 according to the old and new definitions New urban Old urban Gross Lot: Component definition definition differences differences Total 96,467,686 88,927,464 8,215,416 7,540,822 Incorporated places of 8,600 or more 86,660,941 86,060,941 Urban fringes 6,204,720 6,204,789 Formerly urban under special rule 1,718,422 1,718,422 . Formerly rural territory 6,204,789 Outside urbanised areas 2,010,687 1,335,498 Formerly urban under special rule, now urban 320,304 $20,604 Formerly urban under special rule, now rural s?,597 -857,897 Formerly rural territory 1,673,000 1,678,000 Table 23 shows the net change in each geo- graphic division which resulted from each of the two major components. Of the total net increase to the urban population which resulted from changing the definition, 82 percent was due to the establishment of urban fringes, and 18 percent was due to the recognition of outly- ing unincorporated places. In other words, delimiting urban fringes added a little more than 4% times as much to the urban population . as did recognizing outlying unincorporated places as urban. The relative contribution of the fringes was greatest in the divisions of the Northeast and the North Center. In the divi- sions of the South, where many large textile- mill and other villages are unincorporated, and in the Mountain States, the contribution of the unincorporated areas was larger than in other divisions. In no division, however, did the ef- fect of the later program equal one-half that of the urbanized areas program. URBANIZED AREAS AND THEIR RELATION TO STANDARD METROPOLITAN AREAS 43 Table 23. - Bet change in urban population due to change in definitions, by divisions and source of change, 1950 Source of net change Pereºt of $oºl Toºl Outlying change due not Urbºn unincorporated to urban Jºivisiºn change fringes tº MD fringes U. S. total 7,540,222 6,208,729 1,335,493 82.3 178,776 275,829 –96,651 15%-l lºiddle Atlantic 1,627,917 | 1,420,850 207,067 87.3 Iºast Lorth Central 1,202,996 || 1,051,831 151,565 67.1% West Lorth Contral 267,219 280,666 6,551 97.7 South Atlantic 1,393,853 | 1,003,827 390,026 72.0 last South Central #ok,892 || 280,800 128,092 69.k. West South Central 378,968 238,295 90,673 76.1 309,260 167,558 lºl,702 54.2 Ragdfle 1,756,339 1,835,871 320,466 &=0 In the above summary, all of the small gain in the urban population of New England is con- tributed by fringe areas. A net loss, resulting from the smaller urban population than that recognized by the old definition, is attributed to outlying unincorporated areas. The new urban definition delimits only the densely settled parts of New England towns, recognizing parts of Some as belonging to urban fringes. The nega- tive balance remaining when the genuinely ur- ban centers and the suburban fringes have been removed consists of rural population which pre- viously was arbitrarily included with the urban population as a consequence of defining whole towns (townships) as individual urban places under special rule. Distribution of population in urbanized dreds, by size The population in 1950 for each of the 157 urbanized areas, and for the parts of each urban- ized area, is reported in appendix table 3. For this table, each urbanized area has been divided into three parts; central cities, cities in the ur- ban fringe, and the remainder of the urban fringe areas. The statistics for cities in the ur- ban fringe were obtained by applying the 1940 urban definitions to the 1950 population. Parts or all of places defined as “urban under special rule” in 1940 and which were in the fringe in 1950, were treated as cities in the urban fringe in 1950. The remainder of the urban fringe areas are the population of the urban fringe in 1950 minus the urban places of the 1940 defini- tion. This “remainder” category, therefore, re- ports the population gained by changing to the urbanized area definition. Table 24 presents a national summary of the population of urbanized areas of the United States, together with a summary by size of urbanized area. In 1950, these areas contained a combined population of 69.2 million inhab- itants. This was 46 percent of the total popula- tion of the United States. fable 24, - Number and percentage distribution of population in urbanised areas, by size of areas, 1960 lºber of limbabitants Percentage distribution Sise of urbanised Urban fringe Urban fringe area (in thousands) Central Central Total cities Total G1ties Rºmainder cities Total Cities ºwnlºader *Total 69,849,148 48,377,240 20,871,908 14,667,170 6,208,789 lº,0 ($92.9 30el &le? 9,0 3,000 and over ***18,879 14,831,070 6,993,609 5,543,366 le449,453 lò0,0 67-O $3,0 $6el 6,8 1,000 - 2,999 16,605,169 10,083,845 6,520,344 5,883,000 lsº?,544 100.0 60,7 39es Cºleº 7.4 900 - 990 8,75le ºil 6,460,661 8,290,880 ls 484,544 806,236 100.0 73,0 3e lºe O 9e? SCQ e (ſº 5,485,963 4,896,279 1,187,674 667, seo Bº0,386 lſ)0s0 78.3 $lsº 1 Be? ©eº £30 - 349 S,198,317 2,378,550 919,967 SS1,475 388,8l4 loºe O Wilsº 3.0 Itſ e0. lºs? 190 - Mº 6,314,865 4,698,465 1,616,400 G08,450 1,007,960 lCOsO %s 4 $3,6 9.e6 16,0 100 - 149 4,573,864 3,665,986 907,5ss 463,953. Sos,597 lø0,0 80s? 19,8 8,0 lle@ Under 100 3,116,460 2,679,664 456,786 136,336 3ol,650 100,0 &e O 14-0 4.3 9.7 The remarkable extent to which the areas immediately surrounding large cities have been subjected to dense urban settlement is indicated by the fact that in 1950 almost one-third of the total population of the urbanized areas re- sided in urban fringes outside central cities. Of the 20.9 million inhabitants of fringes, a net amount of almost 30 percent (6.2 million) resided in the “remainder” of the fringe which, under the old definition, would have been classi- fied as rural. Its admission to the urban classi- fication is equivalent to creating about 2,480 new cities of 2,500 inhabitants each. Large urbanized areas tend to have a much greater proportion of their total population lo- cated in fringes than do small urbanized areas. Conversely, a higher proportion of the popula- tion of small urbanized areas tends to be con- tained in the central cities than in large urban- ized areas. The central cities of the largest areas are ringed with numerous satellite cities which would have been classified as urban under 44 CHAPTER III the old as well as the new definition. In fact, the urban fringe of the largest areas consists predominantly of satellite cities, whereas the fringe of the smaller areas consists predomi- nantly of unincorporated areas. For example, more than one-fourth of the population in 1950 of urbanized areas containing one million in- habitants or more resided in satellite cities, whereas only about one-twentieth of the popu- lation in 1950 of urbanized areas containing 100,000—149,999 inhabitants lived in satellite cities. Hence, the urbanized area definition serves the useful function of delimiting more realistically the actual urban population sur- rounding medium-size cities of 50,000–500,000 as well as urban population surrounding the largest cities. Urbanized areas by geographic divisions The distribution of population in urbanized areas, by geographic divisions, is reported in table 25. Urbanized areas with the largest pro- portions of their total population in urban fringes (hence with the smallest proportions in central cities) are found in the New England, Middle Atlantic, and Pacific divisions. These, oddly enough, are the areas of oldest and of most recent settlement. Hence, the number of decades during which a division has contained larger cities is not a unilinear factor in deter- mining whether those cities will contain a large or a small proportion of their population in fringe areas. An examination of the data for individual urbanized areas (appendix table 3) Table 25- - Mumber and percentage distribution of population in urbanised areas, by geographic divisions, 1950 lºber of inhabitants Percentage distribution Urban frings Urban frings Geographic Central Central division Total 61ſtºes Total Cities Lºainder || Total cities Total Gities | Remainder low Lºngland 5,357,531 2,931,893 8,486,236 8,150,000 £76,429 || 100.0 34,7 43,3 40el Bel Middle Atlantic 20,838,666 14,848,459 6,610,207 5,189,867 1,480,860 || 100.0 68,3 Sle 7 £4-9 6.8 East Worth Central 16,636,360 ll,561,844 4,374,516 S,283,086 1,061,431 || 100.0 72.7 $7.3 $0.3 Geº/ West Worth Central 4,380,443 3,467,386 913,058 652,390 $80,668 || 100.0 79.2 100,0 14.4 6.4 South Atlantis 6,413,187 4,759,90s l,678,136 669,508 1,003,887 || 100.0 7.5.9 $6,1 10-4 15,7 East South Central 8,440,928 1,886,319 564, 273,909 £80,000 || 100.0 77.3 $2.7 lls? llsº West South Central 4,456,430 3,909,914 545,514 257,219 $38,395 || 100.0 07.0 lºs? 3,8 6.5 l,015,306 768, e $46,966 79,428 167,358 100.0 75,7 £4,3 7.8 16.5 Pºol?16 8,697,267 5,069,722 S,627,545 8,191,674 1,436,871 || 100.0 83.3 &le? fºeº 16.5 will show that in addition to these geographic variations, there is a considerable amount of area-to-area variation in the proportion of urbanized area population contained in the fringes. There is also a great deal of geographic and area-to-area variation in the composition of the fringe. In the Northeast, the North Center, and the Pacific divisions, satellite cities con- stitute a larger part of the total fringe popula- tion than in the Southern and Mountain di- visions. The proportion of the total fringe population which would have been urban in 1950 under the old definition is as follows: United States total, 70 percent Percent Perceptt New England-------- 89 East South Central--- 49 Middle Atlantic------ 79 West South Central--- 47 East North Central--- 75 Mountain------------ 32 West North Central--- 69 Pacific -------------- 60 South Atlantic------- 40 Hence, a large share of the urban fringe popula- tion in the northeastern part of the United States would have been urban also under the old definitions, but in the South and West the old definitions would have included only a com- paratively small part of the population defined as urban under the new definition. A part of the high proportions for the Northeast is due to the fact that it is in these divisions that the “urban under special rule” definitions were most frequently applied as a part of the 1940 definition. Yet this would not account for all of the large differences among the divisions. It appears that in the South and in the Mountain divisions the development of urbanlike suburbs has tended to take place in unincorporated ter- ritory with a greater frequency than in other parts of the country. On the other hand, in the Northeast and Far West they tended to grow predominantly as incorporated satellite cities. In all divisions there was a large urbanlike population which the old definition was failing to classify as urban. The tendency for a larger share of the popu- lation in urbanized areas of the Northeast to URBANIZED AREAS AND THEIR RELATION TO STANDARD METROPOLITAN AREAS 45 reside in urban fringes, and particularly in satellite cities, is not merely a function of large size of area as such. This may be verified from table 26. Each size group of urbanized area in this region tends to have a smaller proportion of its total population in central cities, a larger proportion in satellite cities, and a smaller pro- portion in “remainder” area, than groups of the same size in other regions of the United States.” The West, which is second in degree of fringe development, is characterized by large concen- trations of unincorporated fringe population in the vicinity of cities of all sizes. Hence, not only does the degree of fringe development vary from region to region, but the composition of Table 26. - Number and percentage distribution of the fringe structure varies as well. Although a part of the compositional variation is un- doubtedly due to regional variations in size of urbanized area, a part of it is due to regional differences not related to size. It may be that older central cities of the Northeast, whose in- dustrial and commercial development came be- fore 1920, tended to suburbanize in the pattern of being built along railway lines; whereas cities whose rise to large size has come since that time, have tended to suburbanize by settling unincorporated area within a wide radius of the central city and not as frequently by consoli- dating into satellite cities. population in urbanised areas, by siss of area and region, 1950 lºmber of inhabitants Percentage distribution Slºe of urbanized Urban fringe Urban frings area (in thousands) Central Central –w and region Total Gities Total Cities Remainder Total cities Total Cities | Remainder Total 69,349,148 48,377,840 so,871,908 14,667, 179 6,364,789 100,0 69.e.9 SOel Tºle? 9e Q l,000 and over S7,817,068 £4,505,915 13,515,163 lo,836,366 2,676,797 100,0 64.3 55, 7 26.7 Wel 300 - 999 8,751,241 6,460,66l 2,290,580 ls&4,544 306,836 100,0 73-8 $3,2 l?-0 9.2 $50 - 499 8,676,270 6,568,609 2,107,661 1,198,762 908,899 100,0 75.7 24.3 13.8 10,5 100 - 1849 10,888,119 8,364,591 2,585,788 1,012,581 1,5ll,547 100,0 76.8 23 e? 9,3 13,9 Under loº S, llé,450 2,679,664 436,786 135,556 SO1,450 lſ)0.0 03,0. l6 =0 4e5 9.7 The Northeast 26,310, 197 17, 175,753 9,056,445 7,540,166 l,696,879 100,0 65,83 $4.5 38e0 6.e5 1,000 and over 18,984,980 12,179,606 6,806, SBS 5,861,002 944,581 100,0 64, 8 $3.8 SO.9 6,0 500 - 999 1,381,369 828,806 568,565 444,944 low,639 l(X)=0 60-0 40.0 Sº, 7.8 $50 - 499 1,895,617 1,231,660 665,967 480,497 183,460 IOO,0 68.0 $5,0 $3,5 9.7 loo - 349 5,358,505 2,4SS,081 906,424 500,616 404,808 MO0,0 72.9 27, 1 15.0 lº. 1 Tºnder 100 609,696 500,600 109,09s 5s,107 56,991 100,0 82, 1 17.9 8,7 9e? The Lorth Center 20,016,803 14,829,289 5,187,574 5,656,475 1,352,099 100.0 7del £5.e.9 lºss 6, 7 1,000 and over 10,568,871 7,248,134 5,121,757 3,675,155 446,608 100,0 69,9 30, 1 23,0 4,3 500 - 999 S,682,185 8,858,258 ses,871 w8,598 $48,473 100,0 $77,6 13,4 15,6 6.7 $50 - 499 2,177,575 l,617,44l 560,184. S44,615 $15,581 100,0 P(\e 5 £3.7 15.8 9.9 100 = $40 2,461,750 1,967,546 494,584 206,766 $85,818 100.0 99.9 0, 1 8.5 lle6 WJºer 100 le:Sl,504 1,144,066 187,448 51,56S 156,686 100.0 86.9 14.1 3.9 10s? The Bouth 13,509,486 10,356,187 2,775,558 1,300,456 1,572,9sº 100,0 79, º 20.0 9e O llsø 1,000 and over 8,449,185 1,751,886 697,299 SS4,181 565,178 100,0 Ple 3 £3.5 13.6 14.8 300 - 999 2,555,577 1,932,384 621,195 swo, eve $41,315 100,0 75, 7 24.3 14.9 9.e5 E30 - 490 S,671,561 8,969,535 702,026 275,052 428,994 100,0 80.0 19.1 º, & lle 7 100 - £49 5,553,561 2,911,199 622,168 182,759 439,415 100.0 82.4 17s.6 &e E lºe & Under 100 l, l08,001 971,5s 150,678 50,666 100,012 100,0 88.1 lle 9 Be 8 Qel The West 9,712,665 8,838,132 3,874,651 8,271,102 1,605,429 100,0 60.1 $9.9 $5,4 18.5 l,000 and over 6,019,024 3,130,890 2,888,734 1,966,098 922,656 100.0 &e O 48,0 33.7 15.3 900 - 999 1,134,158 841,819 292,935 84.1% 308,800 100,0 74eº 3e 8 7,4 10,4 250 - 499 951,717 750,175 181,544 100,680 80,924 lºo,0 80,5 19e3 10,8 Q,7 100 - 849 l,504,513 1,052,765 Sol,788 lito,260 S81,498 100.0 67.7 S3, S 7.7 $4e5 Under 100 75,247 63,686 9,668 º, º ºs 9,562 lº),0 86.9 1Sel © tº º 18, 1 Integration of statistics for S. M. A.'s cand urbanized areas From the preceding review of the results pro- duced by the new definition of urban popula- tion, and particularly by the urbanized area de- limitation, several questions arise: What is the urban-rural composition of S. M. A.'s under the new definitions? Is most of the population of S. M. A. rings also concentrated in the urban * There are a few exceptions in comparison with the West. fringe, or does a large part of it lie outside the fringe boundaries? What proportion of the population of S. M. A. rings was transferred from the rural to the urban classification as a consequence of changing the urban-rural defini- tions? s Since the S. M. A. classification and the ur- banized area classification both are centered around cities of 50,000 or more, and since the major source of change in the urban population has come from the urban fringes, it is essential CHAPTER III Table 27,-Percentage distribution of population of standard metropolitan areas in central cities, urban fringes, and outside urbanised areas, 1960. 8.M.A. Ring Urban fringe Outside urbanised areas 8tandard metropolitan Urban Rural Urban Urban On OOC Central 1950 1950 1940 1900 Uninoe Total eities definition definition Total definition I Remainder rotals/ definition urban Akron, Ohio 100,0 67.0 18.9 14.1 18.9 15.3 3,6 14.1 e Q @ © tº ſº Albany-Schenectady-Troy, l, Y, 100,0 58.1 22.3 19.5 21,5 ll e5 10.0 20,4 Os3 © tº º Albuquerques M. M., 100.0 66.5 10.1 23.4 tº º ſº © e > © go º 33.5 e tº e 10el Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton, Pae 100.0 47.7 24.8 27.5 12.1 8,0. 3.3 40.3 l?,8 © tº gº Altoona, Pae 100.0 65.3 l6, 5 28, 2 6,8 4,6 2.1 37e9 9.7 tº e e Amarillo, Texas 100,0 85.2 5.2 9,6 0.2 tº a c Oe? 14s6 5.0 e e & Ashevilles le C, 100.0 42.6 4e^ 53.0 4,4 º e 4 sº 53,0 O & © © º º Atlanta, Gas 100,0 49.8 29.3 21,6 25.7 13.3 12.4 25.0 3,8 •0,8 Atlantic City, N. J. 100.0 48 e6 39,4 14,0 28,2 21,4 6,8 25.2 lls? © e O tº 100,0 44.1 18, 7 $7.1 10,0 2 •3 7.8 45,8 & só. 4.e3 Austin, Texas 100.0 62,3 2.2 15.5 2s2 e C & 2.2 15,5 tº e tº ſo e Q Baltimore, Md. 100.0 71.0 17.0 12.0 15,8 4.2 lle& 18.2 leO Oe? Baton Rouge, Las 100,0 79.4 6,4 14.2 6.4 C & O 6,4 14.2 tº @ Q ſº º ſº , Bay City, Miche 100 eC) 59.e4 3,6 S7.0 tº º E tº º º tº ſº º 40.6 3.6 © G → Beaumont-Port Arthur, Texas 100.0 77.7 12.7 9,6 12.7 6,5 6.4 9,6 tº º o © tº gº Binghamton, l, Ye 100.0 43.7 34-3 22.0 34,8 2] sº 13.0 22,0 © C. C. tº C tº Birmingham, Alas 100.0 58.3 21,9 19.7 21,3 13.]. 8 s3 20.3 Osº o º º Boston-Lawrenceslowell, Mass. 100.0 34.0 56.4 9,5 50.9 50.2 Osº 15.1 8,9 •3e3 Bridgeport–8tanford-Horwalk, Conn. I 100.0 56.0 29,4 14,6 21.7 6.4 15.3 22e3 7el Oe6 Brockton, Mass, 100.0 33s2 24.7 42.1 8,8 8,8 gº º e 68 el 27,4 =ll, 4 Buffalo, Me Ye 100.0 63 e5 32.9 13.9 20s.O. 10.6 9.4 26.7 12.2 Oe? Canton, Ohio 100,0 41,3 30,0 28,8 20.1 18.2 6,9 38e0 9.e.8 tº º tº Cedar Rapids, Iowa MOO.e0 69.8 5.7 25,0 5.7 5.7 tº ſº º 25e0 © C © º º Charleston, 8, C. 100,0 42 s.6 30,4 27.0 30.4 e - G 80.4 27.0 e º tº C tº Charleston, W. Wae 100.0 22.0 22e3 54,9 17.4 ll.4 6.0 59.0 4.9 tº ſº Charlotte, M. C. 100,0 68.0 3,5 28,5 3.5 tº ſº º 3,5 28.5 & C & * @ º Chattanooga, Tenne 100.0 &e? 16e O 30,9 14.0 6, 5 8.5 32,8 2.0 tº º ſº Chicago, Ille 100.0 66,9 29 el 5,0 28.6 21,3 2.4 10.5 4,0 Oe? Cincinnati, Ohio 100.0 95.7 35,5 8,9 34 e? 27,9 6,3 10.1 lel tº gº tº Cleveland, Ohio 100.0 62.4 33 e5 4.0 31,5 30 e 9 0.6 6.1 2el tº º ſº Columbia, 8, Ge 100.0 61s0 16,7 22,4 16,7 8.8 7.9 22.4 © Cº º © tº gº Columbus, Gae 100,0 48,7 22e & 30.5 22,8 13 e? 9.1 30 eff e g tº ſº Columbass Ohio 100.0 74.7 18el 12.2 12.3 6,7 5.5 18.] Qe 8 C tº ſº Corpus Chri, stis Texas 100,0 66ed 19e 8 14.7 0.9 © tº º Beſ) 25,7 l 6,0 5e0 Dallas, Texas 100.0 70,7 19el 10e2 17.0 8,6 8.4 12.3 2.s.l. tº º º Davenport, Iowa-Rock Island-Moline, Illsloo-O 68 e6 16 el 17.4 14el 9.e4 4.6 17,4 º, p & e - tº Dayton, Ohio 100,0 $3.3 27 e6 19,8 22.5 4.6 18, 1 24.2 4,8 gº tº . Decature Ills 100.0 67.0 7.5 25 e4 7.5 © º e .7e5 28,4 tº Q ſº º Denver, Colos 100.0 73.7 16.9 9,3 14.7 6, 1 8,6 ll e5 is 7 Qe 8 Des Moines, Iowa 100.0 78.7 9.7 lls& 9.7 2.5 7.2 11 sº tº e > tº gº tº Detroit, Miche 100,0 6le3 30,7 8.0 26,8 2lel 5, 7 11.8 3.1 Qe7 Duluth, Minnes&uperior, Wise lCO.O 65.3 19,8 24.8 1,3 lel Os? 45 e4 18.6 ſº tº º II, C, 100,0 70e2 2.0 27,8 2.0 © tº o 2.0 27,8 Q e & tº º º ºl Paso, Texas ROQ,0 68.9 7.8 25.7 3,3 dº º 'º 3e3 29,8 © … c. 4.s0 Brie, Pae 100.0 39.6 16, 9 23,5 9.e5 1,6 8.0 $50,0 7.8 ſº º tº Evansville, ind, 100.0 90e2 6,6 14.2 5.6 tº G & 5,6 14 s? ę & º tº ſº e Pall Riverellew Bedfo rd, Masse 100,0 53,0 26.9 15.1 5, 6 5.1 Os3 36e 5 25,3 ~399 Flint, Miche 100.0 60 e2 14.8 25e0 12.7 lel lle? 27slº 1 s6 tº ſº º Fort Wayne, Ind., 100,0 72.7 3.7 23s.6 3e 7 tº Q Q 3,7 23 e6 tº º º ſº tº 0 Fort Worth, Texas 100.0 77.2 12.3 10,6 10e2 7,6 2.5 12,6 22el tº C. L. Fresno, Calif. 100.0 $3.2 23.0 43,0 14.1 tº e º 14.1 52,0 9,0 tº ſº º Gadsden, Ala • 100.0 $9,4 0.0 32.e6 © tº e tº e o tº C tº (0.7 8.0 tº º º Galveston, Texas 100,0 68.9 28.0 13 el 4,4 o º º 4 •4 36.7 14e ºf 8,9 Grand Rapids, Miche 100,0 6ks? 17,4 21 s6 17,4 2 e? 15.2 21 e3 © & © tº C & ºrcon Bay, C e 100,0 &e 6 17s.6 28.7 © C Q © O Q O © tº 46, & 0 e8 9,8 Greensboro-High Point, le C, 100,0 69,9 6e? 34,0 ( e.7 © tº c Če 7 35,6 tº º le6 Greenville, 8, Go 100,0 84 e6 25,3 40el © C & tº gº tº tº º º 65 e4 2s6 22,7 Hamilton, Middletown, Ohio 100,0 62,3 0.8 29 e^ 3 e5 © C tº 3e 6 84 el {\e 7 tº ſº º Harrisburg, Pas 100.0 30.6 40,8 28,5 25.7 1694 10.8 43.e6 l3e0 2 el Hartford-New Britain-Briston, Conn. 100,0 & sº 27.8 1920 24 e? 12,5 12, 21,9 ls3 le6 Houston, Texas 100,0 75.9 16 el I0e,0 lºst) 9 eC) 4,0 13s2 2.8 0.9% Huntington, W. Wa. sashland • Eye 100.0 47.8 14.8 37.9 14,3 10,8 4.s0 37.9 & © tº tº º e Indianapolis, Ind., 100,0 77.4 13 e6 9,0 13,6 2.e0 lle6 9.e0 tº tº Q O © G Jackson, Miche lº) •0 47.3 9.e5 43.2 tº e Q tº º º tº º º 52.7 tº e e 9.5 Jackson, Misse 100.0 09 el lsº 29,5 lsº gº º º led 29,6 {º º º tº º G Jacksonville, Flae 100e,0 67.3 lés: 10,6 12 el © e > 12.1 20.6 2, 1 © e tº Johnstown, Pae 100.0 21.7 28,0 50,3 10,3 5,0 5 e4 68.0 16,8 Os3 Kalamasco, Miche 100 so 45.5 20e2 34s? 20e2 e tº e 20,2 34,2 tº C tº tº e C Mansas City, Moe 100,0 66.1 32.5 llsº 29.7 20,9 8,0. 14, 2 2,8 0.5 Kenosha, Wise 100e,0 72.5 © … º. 27.7 © e * > * > * > tº º 27.7 * G & © to O. Knoxville, Tenne 100,0 37.0 22e2 40,0 6.e0 tº tº º 6,9 68,0 6.8 10,0 Lancaster, Pae 100.0 27s2 22e2 3Ge.7 6sº lel ©e? 67.5 1860 © º Q © Texas 100,0 92.0 tº tº ſº 7.5 tº O O Q º O tº gº 7e5 © º o © 2 tº Lexington, Mye 100,0 85 sl 19,6 26.e.: 2 O 2 e tº º Go Up tº º 44 sº © C & 19,0 Lisa, Ohio 100,0 67.0 3,9 89el tº e º © O º tº C º 43e0 Seº © O Q Lincoln, Hebre 100,0 0.2s6 2.8 14s6 Qe 5 • * * Oe& 16.9 © ee 2,8 Little Rock-ºlorth Little Rock, Arke 100,0 *Geº, 3,7 2le.9 Se7 tº Gº º Se7 21 e9 & e O © º º Lorain-Elyria, Ohio 100,0 55,0 14,8 30e,7 © tº tº tº tº Q tº gº tº 45 so lée O Os3 Los Angeles, Calife 100,0 46sl 5.Qe2 & sº 46,4 29,9 16sº 0.66 3e0 Oe? Louisvillee Rye 100,0 64,0 18e0 17s2 10,0 8.7 9,8 18el Qeſ, © º º • Texas 100,0 71 °0 $20 24.0 Q & Q © º º © O tº £9,0 6,0 © º o Mason, Cas 100.0 32,0 26,0 22,0 17.2 tº D tº 17.2 30,0 8,8 O © tº Madison, Wise 100,0 56,7 lls? $2 el 8,8 le6 6,8 35,0 2,9 © tº gº Manchester, M. B. 100.0 52.7 25sº 22el l,0 © tº Q l,0 46,3 2^e.7 *Os3 Memphis, Tenne 100.0 02.1 3, 1 ić,9 8.1 tº tº e ? •l 16e 8 le0 © o O Miami, Flas 100,0 60,4 48.8 &,0 42,3 24,4 17.9 7,4 le& © tº º Cy For rural see column 4. URBANIZED AREAS AND THEIR RELATION TO STANDARD METROPOLITAN AREAS 47 Table 27--Percentage distribution of population of standard metropolitan areas in central cities, urban fringes, and outside urbanized areas, 1980.-Continued B.M.A., Ring Urban frings Outside urbanised areas Standard mstropolitan Urban Rural Urban Urban Gº Cº Central 1900 1950 1900 1909 Unines Total eities definition definition Total definition | Remainder rotale/ definition urban Milwaukee, Wise 100,0 73 sº 21.0 5.l £1,8 16-4 5.8 Gel © tº to ſº o Minneapolis-8te Paul's Minne 100,0 74 e6 14,0ſ 10.6 M3s2 18.1 le? l?sl le6 tº ſº tº Mobile, Alas 100.0 &e 9 $ºes E0s& £3,8 10.6 1890 20,0 © º o dº º ſº tgºmery, Mºlas 100,0 76,7 8sl £le? 2.s.l. tº º ſº £el 21 eſſ tº gº º tº e & Muneies Inde 100,0 64s6 ſº º $5eº tº ſº tº tº e > tº gº tº $ºe? tº e Q © tº º Mashville, Tenne 100,0 64s? 26,3 lfle& £6,8 Qeſ) 25 e4 lºsſ; © º º tº gº Rawen-ºaterbury, Conn, 100.0 49.8 Qeſ) liteſ, 18,4 9e? 9e32 82 sº 15.9 6.6 New Orleanse 100.90 03.2 lºs0 Reº 13.0 3eº 9.8 $e? Q © º 'º Mew York-Northeastern, M. J. 100-0 66.8 29sº Se7 20.4 £8,8 4,6 4,8 0,4 Oed Morfolk-Portsmouth, {\e 100.0 65,8 £1,7 12s6 20s& 3.2 17,3 18.7 lsº sº tº 100e) 60.5 16,0 15.5 tº sº tº º tº is tº &l sº 990 Yeo Oklahoma City, Okla e 100,0 T4,8 llsº 13.6 9,7 Ge4 Seº lºe & le? C & O Oahas *s MOOsO 08, C 17,8 l&sº 16sº 12 sº Ge.8 lºss lel to co Orlando, Flae 100e) 45,0. Elel $3e3 18el 7sº 10-0 $6,4 SeO © Cº º Peoriae Ille 100 so £4,7 $9el £5.e5 17.0 7e9 9.2 $8,3 lºsſ) e - © Philadelphia, Pa. 100 so $6,4 $0.8 lºst, 1Geº GeO $9e4 Geº) Oe? Pittsbºa Pae 100,0 $0.0 48,3 21 el 38.7 $2.0 6,? $0,7 9sº Qeſ, Pittsfield, Masse 100,0 40.1 37.0 22.8 tº dº ſº. tº º © C & 69,9 $7.0 •0sº Portland, Me • 100,0 45,0. Rösö 28 e6 21s2 *Oeſ. lso $2,0 &sº © º º Portland, Oreg, MOO,0 &,0 $2.2 £4.8 19.7 9.0 10,7 27.3 2.6 © E tº Providence, Il. Is 100,0 $6,5 &e ºf 0.0 64.3 $3.7 0.6 19sº Mºst -8e0 Pueblo, Colo. 100 eO T0.0 10,0 10.8 10.6 tº ſº 10.6 10,0 C C º tº G & ine © 100.0 00.0 9sº $20,0 4,9 tº º ſº ée 9 80s? @ 26. © o º Raleigh, $s Gs 100,0 48 el 3.0 46.e0 2,3 & gº 2.2 (9,6 2.7 © º º Leading, Pae 100.0 (2.7 23.4 33.9 17,0 9.4 0.6 $9,6 6,0. © e º Richmond, Wae 100.0 70, llsº 18.8 8,4 gº tº tº 8,6 El e 4 c tº e Sel Roanoke, Was $Q0s.O. 68.9 llel £0.0 llel 7-0 3.2 20,0 ſº tº o © to 0 Rochester, M. Y. 100 eO Gºs 17-0 14.0 13.7 Yes 8.2 18, 1 $,0 ~0,0 Rockford, Ill. 100.0 &l so $lsº 17.7. 19eº $e 6 Rºsº Nº e C £el © ed Sacramento • Calife 100,0 $9,6 26 el 26 sº £3.5 2e2 &lsº $6,0 tº e tº le6 Bagisaw, Miche 100.0 60 sº 3,5 $1.0 Geº © ſº Geº &l so © G © o ºp &ts Joseph, Mos 100.0 81 sº £e 8 1Gel &e 8 tº º ºs £e 8 16el gº tº e tº e dº Ste Louis, Moe 100-0 Gleð $8.7 10-4 $ºe $4.3 8.0 16,7 Ge? Oe? Salt Lake City, . Utah BC) eQ 66.5 $9,7 16el 1660. Tes 8,9 17sº Osº led San Angelos Texas 100,0 $8.4 e tº 2 lled tº Q & tº eſ: ſº tº ſº ll sº G G tº © ee San Antonio, Texas 100,0 &leſ; 0sº 10.8 0sº 2.7 6.6 10-2 © tº © e e San Diegoe Calife 100,0 60al 22-0 - 10,0 17.7 Eleº & 8 $2 e? $e & O-0 Ben Francisco-Oakland, Calife lſº sº) Clsº 40s 6.0 $6,0 38e 0.6 lle6 2.5 Oeº Can Jose, Calife 100,0 $º e8 $led $5.7 27.9 lled 16,6 $9.5 10,8 Sel Savannah, Qae 100 sº) 7020 Geº lºsé 5,6 tº ſº º Seó 15,4 © º e e Q & Beranton, Pa. 100.0 48.8 42.9 8,8 42.9 40s.5 2,4 8, © tº º © tº dº Seattle, Wash, 100.0 ($3.8 25el l&sl Ele0 2.8 18.8 15, . le? 0,4 Shreveport, las - 100,0 7.2el 3.5 24.6 3.5 tº so 3,5 26 s.6 G G tº tº e & 8ioux City, Iowa 100.0 00,8 tº ſº tº 19e? tº º & C & C gº tº º 19.2 tº º tº tº º º Sioux Palla, 8. De 100,0 74e5 ſº e G 25.7 tº gº tº tº tº e 25, 7 tº tº c 2 © tº º South Bend, Inde 100.0 56,6 $5sº 18.2 25.2 16.1 9.2 18 e? tº º º tº e & Spokane, º Y00 e() 73,0 9,7 17, Geº tº ſº º Ge4 20-0 3sº e e ge 8pringfield, Ill e. 100.0 62 el 18.0 26.9 12.0 © e Q 12,0 £5,9 © tº e e e gº Springfield, Moe 100.0 (33.7 8.4 27.9 0.4 tº º ſº. 8.4 27.9 tº e o ſº e ſº Springfield, Ohio 100e) 70.3 3.4 26,3 $24 tº ſº º 3.4 26.3 tº e > tº ſº Springfield-Bolyoke, Mass. 100,0 47.0 $4e5 17.0 80s? 29.8 Oeº 21e7 10,6 •6.6 tookton, Calife 100,0 35s 88sf) $0.0 $0.9 gº º ſe Ost) 43e0 13,0 ſº tº o Syracuses II, Ye 100so G4s6 15 sº 20,3 18sl Čeč 7s5 23sº 2el © tº do Tacoma, tº lCOeſ) &el 14e5 $3.8 6.7 tº 8,7 $9.2 §s 6 © tº dº Tampa-St. Petersburg, Vlae 300,0 $4.3 £5.e6 20.3 17.7 le6 16, 1 £0.18 7e9 © c tº Terre Haute, Inde 100,0 Glel 18 el 26,8 13 el $e? 9,9. 25,0 tº º tº tº e Q Teledo, Ohio •0 76eº lºsº 10,7 12.5 lsº llel 10 e? «» G © tº gº º 100,0 74.7 9.e0 16,0. fºeſ, ee ed 9.e.8 16,6 C E & © tº gº Trenton, Le Je 100,0 55.7 $9,1: 15el 22e3 tº gº º 22e3 22,0 CeO tº º ſº Tulsa, 100,0 72s6 9.7 17.7 0.6 £e 8 5,6 19.0 les e Q ſº Utied-ºnee B. Ye lºsſº) 50-6 19el 30,8 $60 3.0 le,0 46.0 15,6 g Cº Waco, Texas 100,0 65el 8,3 26,8 Ge? © tº G 6s2 £3,7 £el tº e^ Washington, D, G, 100,0 &4.8 83,0 llsº 88.1 1960 lde? 12.1 Os3 tº ſº º Waterloo, Iowa 100,0 64sº 19el 16.0 19.1 17e9 lsº l620 tº ſº tº e tº º Wheelinge W. Was-Stubenville, Ohio 100,0 26,0 3e0 39,4 13s.6 lle? ls& 59.7 20-4 © e - Wichita, Kans, 100,0 75.7 11.6 12.7 lle& * : * > lle6 lite? e ec ſº G 2 Wichita Falls, Texas 100,0 60sl 12.6 18.4 * @ tº tº tº & ſº tº $0.9 9.7 2e.9 Wilkes-Barre-Hasleton, Pa. 100e) £8,6 $$e.9 17.2% 49.7 42.7 6.9 21.7 Seº Osº Wilmington, Dela • 100 sº 4lel $4,6 24 e5 £8.7 6.5 22.2 30 sº §e 9 tº C tº Winston-Salem, M. C. 100,0 60 el 5.7 34-2 3.2 gº tº e 3sº $6.7 tº o o 2s6 Worcester, Masse 100,0 $7.2 $7.5 26.2 2.9 led le6 £9.9 $8,6 =$20 York, Pa. 100 eO 129,6 23.8 47.1 9e3 2,0 6,6 6lel llel £e.9 O Ohio 100,0 $1 et) 38,9 $29,82 24 e5 20.1 4e 6 63,0. 13s.6 le0 s/ For rural see column ºe *OTE: A part of the urban fringe of the following urbanised areas lie outside the standard metropolitan area to which the central city belongst Perest of Perseat of Population fringe population friage population Area outside 8. Melº, outside 8 ºf sile Area outside 8.N.A., outside $ sº she Akron, Ohio 14,569 lºe & Hartford-Lew Britaine Albany-Behemested y Bristol, Conne 2,207 le6 Troy, N. Y. 5,474 4,7 Huntington, W. Wat Atlantae Clae 3,784 £el g º 8,674 Beş Atlantile City, He Je 6,112 lèsl Jacksonvillee Lºlas 1,808 $sº Baltimore, Md. 1,303 0.6 lans ings Miche 1,210 Geº Baton Louges (as 3,067 £5.e4 Manehester, M. H. 607 $7.0 Boston-Lowell Milwaukee, Wis. 2,580 lsº Lawrences Masse 10,480 Qe7 Minneapolis–St. Paul, Mim º dello E.T. Bridgeport-Stamford- New Haven-ºaterbury, Cena. 7,111 GeG forwalk, Ceme 18,036 14.7 Providence, R. I. $8,850 0.7 Broektone Masse 12,667 43.3 Baernmento, Calif. 9,048 lºeº Charlestone We Wae 1,891 2,4 8t, Joseph, flee - 1,020 *7.6 Cha e Tenne 2,248 6sl. flen Francisco-Oakland, Calife $6,145 Geº Chicago, Ille 08.1 Oel § rt, Lae 16,779 7.9 Clevels Qhile 7,500 le6 Sioux City, Iowa 6,110 MOOeſ) Columbia, B.G., 10,120 $5,9 South Bend, Ind. Gº? lso lºn Masºeck - Toledo, Ohie lleled 18sº Island-Molines Ille 1,818 CeC. Trenton, iſe Je 10,081 16,6 Fall River-lew Bedford, Mass, 1,227 - 8.5 Tulsa, Okla • 3,400 10.8 Barrisburg, Pas 4,066 Gel Some of the above fringes extead into other 3.N.A.'s and some extend into non-metropolitan territory. Two urbanised arease Muskegon, Miehigan and Port Smith, Ark. have no corresponding 8 sºleAs 48 CHAPTER III Table 20, - Percentage of standard metropolitan area population in centraleeities, urban fringes, and outside urbanised areas, by sise of area, 1980 S.M.A. Ring Urban frings Outside urbanised areas &ise of Belſeae in 1960 Urban Rural Vrban Urban (thousands) 1950 lſº lºº) lº) Unine Total Głties definition &efinition —ºtel— definition I lººminder *a*/ definition tº rººm tºº * F- All Greas lſ)0,0 57.7 : Seº 13,6 84,0 16,9 Wel 1 lºs? @sº Os3 3,000 & over 100,0 Cleº S$28 3,6 $9,4 $3,8 6el 9el 2,8 0.6 1,000 - 8,000 Itſ)0a0 50el $3.7 lileº S3.7 Pe3 6,3 18.8 Øeº =0,8 QQQ = 900 100,0 &Qe7 $3.3 14.0 * Osº 18,4 @sº 18.7 &eº -Qeſ) 300 - 400 100,0 58,4 $4,9 lſº,0. 1996 Ile? 7-9 & 8,0 &el =0,0. $30 - 340 100,0 48.l. Me & £7,6 17.3 Čeč 10,0 34 e6 6el le6 190 - lºº 100,0 &e 4 lºsé $3eº 18,0 4el We 9 180.e0 Se” Qeº/ 100 e lºº 100a0 Gòeº lºe & $3.7 7.0 Beé. (le? $ºel $e 9 le5 Uºnºr lò0 100,0 69,7 6,4 13.9 le6 ſº tº c lsº $ºsº 3,4 le4 s/ Table 39s - Pereene of standard metropolitea area population in central eities, urban friagee, and outside urbanised areas, by region and size of area, 1960 8.M.A. Ring Urban frings Outside ºrbanised areas and size of Selleſ's Urban Rural Urºbºta Uºbº (In thousands) 1909 1900 1900 1949 Unine, *— Total eities I definition I definition || Total aerºsal mainer | *-* | *l ºr All areas 100,0 Sw,7 $8,6 13s.6 &^eO lſºs? Wel lºeſſ Čeč ©e 3 M20,0 $3.7 36el lº,3 $720 fºe." del lºsº CŞed =Qe The North Center 100,0 &,0 $6.5 18, 6. &le,0 lºs? 3e3 lºs0 3el ©ed South 100,0 63,0 Tºe.") 18.4 lºsº/ Geº/ 8,9 ≤3 Sel 0,9 Tº Lost 100,0 30,3 S$29 18, 8 38el 1928 13,3 1926 Se? 0.9 The ºrtheast l,000 & over 100,0 ©ºe Q 36el 8, 1 &leO £6,4 4s6 lſe? &eo Oel COO tº- 900 100,0 46s? 36.9 19,3 Bºe & 14,0 7,8 &led 14.8 *De'º SO = 400 100s0 46.9 $0sº fºe: Deº 10,0 Sel 38e 1 9,8 =lso 100 tº $40 100,0 4éel $6el 19 eV 13,4 Ge.9 6,6 48,3 •6 - -Qe 9 Under 100 tº e tº tº C & C e º « » « » « » tº º tº de C. tº 3 e ſº o tº gº º The Lorth Center 1,000 & ©º 100.0 63-8 $0.0 6.0 3e3 &lsº 3.0 lleš Seº Qe G $200 * - 909 100.0 64's.” $4,8 llel $3e0 15,9 */el lºsº lso Oeſſ CO = 400 100,0 87.5 fºlsº &lsº 16,3 We 3 & S. $3.3 3.0 tº ſº dº 100 * $40 100,0 64.8 lº,3 *SeO 19eº 3eº 6.9 84 e6 lsº 0.4 Unºr 100 100,0 (33.9 4s6 29sº le& e e Q le4 Sº...? Bel lsº The South 1,000 & over 100,0 Cº., 3 &e & lle6 $4,0 lle? lºs? 18.6 Osº Oel QQQ * } 999 100,0 67e(, 20, 1 18-4 18, 6. 19e3 &al 14.8 le? 0-0 200-- 400 100,0 80,0 $0.0 19,9 lºe & §e:-} 19e? &\e 3 3e3 ©eº 100 * $40 100,0 Gle6 lºst) £6,4 8,6 & 4 6,8 $9,8 led $50 * Under 100 100,0 ºCe5 6el 19e3 •0 C & © £3e3! Seá Qe7 The Leº 3. l,000 & over 100,0 47,4 (Wes. Seº 43s? $9,6 Jºe Q 9etº 3,4 ©e? CQQ - 990 lſ)0,0 6&sº Blsº Mºs& 18,5 7e? llcº 19e3 £eº Qed $30 tº º (90 100,0 40,0 $9,8 $9,3 Tºle? GeO lºe'ſ $7,4 Geº le? 100 gº lºº 190,0 38e0 19e6 £3,6 9.e.9 e e Q 9.e.9 38el 3,9 $e G Tºº lºº 100,0 69.6 lºsiº lºe §sº §e 5 fºe D &es 3,4 ** * ~ *-*. that the two types of data be integrated. It is evidently in S. M. A.'s that the greatest change in rural-urban classification has taken place. In table 27 is presented the information neces- sary for answering the above questions for each S. M. A. Summaries by size of S. M. A., and by region and size together (for class WI-A S. M. A.'s) are shown in tables 28 and 29, re- spectively. It should be emphasized that in these three tables, the unit of observation is the S. M. A. As the footnotes at the end of table 27 show, not every urbanized area lies entirely within an S. M. A." Because of string-like set- tlements along highways and river valleys, or for other reasons, the fringe areas frequently extend beyond the S. M. A. boundary into non- • Conversely, two urbanized areas, Fort Smith, Ark., and Muskegon, Mich., have no corresponding S. M. A.'s. metropolitan territory. These tables exclude all such extensions into nonmetropolitan terri- tory. Such fragments of urban fringes are properly treated as urban population outside S. M. A.'s. Under the new urban definition, 86.4 percent of the population of S. M. A.'s is urban (57.7 percent in central cities and 28.6 percent in . rings) and only 13.6 percent is rural. These proportions vary greatly by size of S. M. A. and by region. In the largest S. M. A.'s, those with 3 million or more inhabitants, 94.4 percent of the population was urban, whereas in S. M. A.'s smaller than 350,000 only 73 to 76 percent of the population was urban. The highest proportion of S. M. A. population found to be urban is in the Northeast and North Center regions, where- as the most rural S. M. A. 's are found in the URBANIZED AREAS AND THEIR RELATION TO STANDARD METROPOLITAN AREAS 49 South. In all regions, large S. M. A.'s have a larger proportion of urban population than small S. M. A.'s. Urban fringes contained, in 1950, 24.0 percent of the total population of S. M. A.'s. However, there is great diversity among the S. M. A.'s in this respect. Many whose central cities be- came S. M. A.'s for the first time in 1950, have no urban fringe population whatsoever, for there was no advance indication that the city would be of sufficient size to warrant delimiting the fringe boundaries prior to the enumeration. At the other extreme, a few S. M. A.'s such as those of Boston and Los Angeles have approxi- mately 50 percent or more of their total popu- lation in urban fringes. The proportion of the S. M. A. population located in fringe areas is roughly proportional to size: the larger the S. M. A., the larger the proportion of its popula- tion which tends to fall in fringe areas. Con- versely, the smaller S. M. A.'s tend to have Smaller proportions of their total population located in fringes. This pattern is due in part to the tendency, noted in chapter II, for central cities of smaller S. M. A.'s to contain a large proportion of the total S. M. A. population. For the S. M. A.'s of the United States as a whole, 57 percent of the ring population is with- in the urban fringe and 43 percent lies outside the urban fringe. In other words, the fringe as defined for the 1950 census comprises less than three-fifths of the population which is socially and economically directly integrated with the metropolitan center. The large S. M. A.'s tend to have a considerably greater percentage of their total ring population in urban fringes than do smaller S. M. A.'s. In fact, only in S. M. A.’s which contain half a million or more population is the fringe population larger than the population outside the fringe area but within the S. M. A. Areas smaller than this have more than half their ring population out- side fringes. The new urban classifications had the net effect of transferring 7.4 percent of the S. M. A. population from the rural to the urban classification. This is 17.5 percent of the total ring population. Thus, more than one-sizth of the ring population has had its classification changed from rural to wrban under the 1950 definitions. It is evident, therefore, that the new definitions have a profound effect upon the classification of ring populations. About 96 percent of this reclassification (7.1 percent of the total S. M. A. population) was caused by the urban fringe definition, and only about 4 percent (0.3 percent of the total S. M. A. population) was caused by recognizing densely settled outlying unincorporated places and towns as urban. This latter change, of course, could occur only outside urban fringes, for individual unincorporated places were not separately identified within the fringe. (Most of the increase to the urban population result- ing from the application of this part of the definition accrued to nonmetropolitan, rather than to S. M. A.'s. In fact, the principal reason for using it in 1950 was to include large unincorporated places in open-country areas.) The net increase in the urban populations of S. M. A.'s resulting from the changed urban definition was 6,340,258. Of this, 6,048,931 was contributed by the urban fringe and 291,327 by the outlying unincorporated area. Table 28 shows that the greatest gains in urban population under the new fringe de- limitation were made by medium size and smaller S. M. A.'s, those with 150,000–999,999 inhabitants. g The data of table 29 permit a simultaneous examination in detail of the urban-rural com- position of S. M. A.'s by regions and size. The largest S. M. A.'s of the West are unusually suburbanized; they have more than one-third of their total population in urban fringes. The S. M. A.'s of the South are unique in that an extraordinary small percentage of their S. M. A. population is contained in urban fringes. The Northeast and North Center regions have about the same proportion of their S. M. A. population in fringes as has the national average. Within each region, the generalizations made above, with respect to size, remain valid. An outstanding characteristic of S. M. A.'s of all sizes in the West is their marked tendency to have a large unincorporated fringe popula- tion. Whereas only slightly more than 5 per- 50 CHAPTER III cent of the total population of S. M. A.'s in the Northeast and North Center were in such areas, 8.9 percent of the South's and 13.3 percent of the West's S. M. A.'s population were in this category. Hence, the new urbanized area defi- nition increased the urban population of S. M. A.'s in the latter two regions relatively much more than in the first two. Population per square mile in S. M. A.'s cºnd urbanized areas Occasionally the need arises for comparing the density of settlement of two places. Al- though population per square mile is only a crude measure and is difficult to interpret pre- cisely, it is the index which has been used most frequently. Appendix tables 4 and 5 show the land area and population per square mile of each S. M. A. and each urbanized area. Area and density figures are also shown for central cities and rings of S. M. A.'s and for central cities and urban fringes of urbanized areas. National summaries by size for both units of area are presented in table 30. Table 30e-Population per square mile of standard astropolitan areas and seſ areas, by sises 1950. Standard metropolitan Urbanised 81 se of area C. ^C. § (in thousands) £otel. ºetal All areas 396 5,30 1,000 & ever 1276 7.25% 500 - 999 *54 #51A 250 - 499 172 *22 100 - 289 209 3093 Under 100 07 3790 Since the central cities of S. M. A.'s and of the urbanized areas are the same in a high pro- portion of instances, the density of the central cities is about the same for both. (One sec- ondary central city of an S. M. A. may be less than 50,000, but its population must be equal to one-third or more of the population of the major central city which has a population of 50,000.) Hence, the difference between the two types of areas in population per square mile is due largely to differences in density between rings of S. M. A.'s and fringes of urbanized areas. The density of urban fringe areas is 3,200, while that of S. M. A. rings is 174 per square mile, or only about one-eighteenth as much. Clearly, urban fringes are very densely settled. S. M. A. rings, in comparison, are very sparsely settled. Moreover, the variation in density is much less among urban fringes than among S. M. A. rings. Table 30 does not reveal the full extent of the difference in density between the two types of area, for most of the population and land area of the fringe is also contained in the S. M. A. A better comparison would be one which di- vided the S. M. A. ring into two parts, that part lying inside urban fringe boundaries and the remainder of the S. M. A. ring outside urban- ized areas. Exact data for making such a com- parison are not available, because the land area of the parts of urban fringes which extend be- yond S. M. A. boundaries is not known. How- ever, these extensions are such a small propor- tion of the total land area involved that any reasonable estimate of this land area will yield almost the same results as an exact measure- ment. Such an estimate has been made by as- suming that the population of the parts of ur- banized areas outside S. M. A. boundaries (which is known) is as dense as urban fringe populations of the same size urbanized area. By dividing the outlying population by the as- sumed density, by size groups, an estimate of the unknown area was obtained. By subtract- ing the population and estimated land area of the parts of urbanized areas outside S. M. A.'s from the totals for urbanized areas, the data needed to compute the density of that part of urbanized areas lying within S. M. A.'s were obtained. These estimated data yield the fol- lowing results: *...*.*, * rings, 1950 Size of S. M. A. (in thousands) Part within Part outside urbanized urbanized Bre&S are?S All areas-------------- 3, 216 77 1,000 and over--------------- 3, 807 175 500-999- - - ----------------- 2,820 92 250-499-------------------- 2, 264 51 100-249 - - - ----------------- 2,058 66 Under 100------------------ 1, 371 25 URBANIZED AREAS AND THEIR RELATION ro STANDARD METROPOLITAN AREAS 5] These estimates emphasize that the average density of S. M. A. rings outside the closely built-up urban fringe areas is very low in com- parison with the central city and the urban part of the suburbs. Since population and land area statistics are available for both units, there will be a choice, in 1950, of using data for urbanized areas or for S. M. A.'s in making density comparisons. The choice will depend upon the problem and the inferences to be drawn from the statistics. Probably it is the data for urbanized areas, rather than data for S. M. A.'s, which will answer the questions about density asked most frequently by interested persons. In general, two types of hypotheses may be tested with data for population density. The first type relates to crowding, congestion, and the questions as to whether there is adequate space for recreation, rearing children properly, and good public health. These hypotheses re- fer to residential density. Indexes to measure density of this type, in order to permit com- parisons between different areas or parts of a city, should be based on a ratio of population to the land area available for residential or com- munity use, including parks, playgrounds, and other spaces available for family or neighbor- hood use, but excluding land with industrial, commercial, or other uses. Statistics for such land areas by type of use are difficult to obtain, and are not available for S. M. A.'s or urbanized areas. Hence, the statistician is forced to ac- cept the nearest reasonable approximation. Since the hypotheses to be tested with these data are all related to urban residence, it is to be expected that the most reasonable approxi- mation would be that which was a ratio of the population in an urban unit to the area of that unit. This would call for statistics for urban- ized areas, because the intent of these areas is to delimit the genuinely urban population associated with a city. Hence, for comparing the density of places in order to draw inferences about crowding, congestion, or residential den- sity and community living conditions, statis- tics for urbanized areas are superior to the same data for S. M. A.'s. It is to the built-up areas of the two places that reference is made when it is asserted that the New York area is more densely settled than the Chicago area. Hence, it is the urbanized area, as the outer limit of urban settlement in such places, which should be used in making such comparisons. Inasmuch as one of the major bases for delimiting urban populations was density, the density data for urbanized areas have an exactness of meaning and a comparability which other density data for areas delimited on another basis could not have. The second type of hypotheses which can be tested with density data relates to the intensity of land use. If, in two broad and identical areas, the population per square mile is greater in one than in the other, it may be presumed that the economy of the more dense area makes more intensive use of natural and other fixed resources than does the economy of the less dense area. The proper land area for construct- ing indexes of this type should consist of only that land which has resources which are used or are potentially useful to the population un- der its present economic development. A ratio of population to available and useable land would then provide the index needed. How- ever, statistics of useable or used land are also difficult to acquire. In the absence of accurate information, the statistician usually expresses a ratio of population to total land area, without raising the question of use. It is frequently on this basis that the densities of continents, na- tions, or regions are compared. Wherever there are large unused or virtually unused areas of wasteland included in such comparisons (deserts, mountains, swamps, etc.) the validity of the inference is less certain. In some cases, geographers and others who use density statis- tics have used tillable land, or land in crops, as the basis for making comparisons and infer- ences about intensity of land use and the pres- sure of population upon resources. In other situations such a limitation has no meaning. If, for any reason, a statistician desires to compare the general intensity of land use in any two metropolitan areas, the S. M. A. densities of appendix table 4 may be used. However, it should be recognized that implicit in their use is the assumption that all of the S. M. A. area is 52 CHAPTER III integrated into the metropolitan economy and is available for use. Their use also assumes that all units of the land area are equally usable in the direct metropolitan economy. In many cases neither of the above assumptions is valid. The principal criterion in incorporating counties into the S. M. A. was the presence of significant numbers and proportions of nonagricultural populations which were socially and economi- cally integrated with the central city. The place of work of such people is most frequently in the central city or in the urban fringe. The outlying parts of many S. M. A. rings are used primarily for residence, part-time farming, and other low-density activities, and much of the area in the outer ring is not valued for indus- trial or commercial use. Hence, with reference to such activities, the urbanized area may be a better unit for measuring density than the S. M. A. The accidents of county size tend to account for a part of the variation between S. M. A.'s in the intensity of land use. Whenever considerable areas of wasteland, low-density farmland, and other lands of low- density uses are found inside the S. M. A. boundaries, it is even more difficult, if not im- possible, to place an interpretation upon the statistics. There are some flagrant examples of this problem in the S. M. A.'s as delimited for 1950. San Bernardino city is located in one corner of a huge county containing 20,131 square miles. Most of the county is almost unin- habited desert and wasteland. This single county is so large that it contains nearly 10 per- cent of the total land area of all S. M. A.'s com- bined. Because of this peculiar combination of circumstances, the density of the S. M. A. ring is only 11 persons per square mile. For similar reasons, the ring of San Angelo S. M. A. has only 5 persons per square mile, and that of Laredo, Texas, has only one person per square mile. Other S. M. A.'s with low-ring densities are Amarillo, Austin, Duluth-Superior, Fresno, Lincoln, Lubbock, Phoenix, Pueblo, Sioux City, and Sioux Falls. In every case there is a large wasteland or low-density agricultural area, usu- ally combined with a small central city. In other words, the large units of land area which lower the density are contributed by the minor- ity of the population which is only secondarily related to the central city. It is believed that most statisticians will find that the density statistics for urbanized areas, either as measures of urban congestion or as measures of density in place of work, will ful- fill their needs. However, if it is thought neces- sary to use density data for S. M. A.'s for testing hypotheses about land use in S. M. A.'s, it would be best to do so in segments, using separately data for the central city, the urban fringe, and the area outside urban fringes. The large units of wasteland and farmland would then be iso- lated in the “outside urban fringes” &tegory, where they can be interpreted explicitly. If some such refinement is not made, then it be- hooves the researcher to be completely familiar with the nature of the ring of all S. M. A.'s which he groups into any set of categories for use in computing density statistics. The few S. M. A.'s with large amounts of desert, moun- tains, or other low-density land, and the S. M. A.'s composed of very large counties will markedly affect the density figures obtained. Chapter IV GROWTH TRENDS IN INDIVIDUAL STANDARD METROPOLITAN AREAS GENERAL FINDINGs about national and regional trends in growth and urban-rural composition of S. M. A.'s, such as those made in the two preceding chapters, may be useful in two ways. First, they constitute a body of knowledge which should be kept in mind in interpreting the results of other social and eco- nomic studies pertaining to metropolitan or ur- ban areas. Patterns of population distribution and growth are fundamental aspects of the na- tional economy and of the national Social struc- ture. There should be widespread familiarity and appreciation of them, for they provide hypotheses and explanations in interpreting other events and changes which occur. Second, broad national and regional trends provide con- venient and useful reference points with which to study the growth trends in particular areas. A large proportion of the specialists who make extensive use of statistics for metropolitan areas are primarily interested in one particular met- ropolitan area. For them, general trends and patterns are useful primarily insofar as they can assist in interpreting what is happening in the single S. M. A. with which they are con- cerned at the time. To this group belong many civic groups primarily interested in maintain- ing and expanding business activity like the utility companies and central department stores whose interests are affected substantially by changing patterns of population distribution, marketing and advertising firms, city and re- gional planners, and urban land and housing analysts. Each of these groups may be inter- ested in only a few aspects of metropolitan areas, and hence it must study the general re- search reports and interpret them as they apply to its problems. Yet there are a few comments which apply to all efforts to interpret data for a particular area in terms of the general findings for a broader class of area of which it is a member. - This final chapter undertakes to show briefly how the person interested in a particular met- ropolitan area may interpret its recent growth and pattern of population distribution by relat- ing them to the findings of chapters II and III. The suggested general procedure for doing this is to compare the statistics for the individual S. M. A. with statistics for comparable groups of S. M. A.'s. For purposes of illustration, it has been assumed that the Los Angeles S. M. A. is the object of particular attention. The tables for this report have been designed in such a way that any statistics prepared for a grouping of S. M. A.'s is also reported for each individual S. M. A. Appendix tables 1, 2A, 2B, 3, 4, and 5, and table 27 in chapter III all contain data for individual S. M. A.'s or for individual ur- banized areas. Hence, each general rate or percentage for the Nation, region, or size class can be matched with comparable statistics for each S. M. A. Variations in growth An aspect of growth which all too frequently is neglected in the study of population trends is growth variation, or the tendency for the growth rates for individual places to deviate from the average rate for all places. Sometimes the fact is forgotten that average rates for the * In some tables, rates and percentages are shown but not the actual numbers. Anyone interested in obtaining a tran- script of the population counts on which the rates or percent- ages are based may obtain them from the Scripps Foundation for the cost of photostating. 53 54 CHAPTER IV Nation, a region, or a size group are only a com- posite of the rates for numerous local commu- nities. When the growth rate of a particular area, such as an S. M. A., is compared with the growth rates for a grouping of S. M. A.'s, it is useful to know how closely about the average rate the rates for the individual S. M. A.'s that constituted the group were clustered. If the deviation from the average is great, then it should occasion no surprise if an individual S. M. A. has a growth rate quite unlike the aver- age rate. If, on the other hand, an individual S. M. A. deviates markedly from the average, while most S. M. A.'s are compactly clustered about the average, the individual S. M. A. should be looked upon as an exception to the trend. Thus, a knowledge of growth variation must be coupled with a knowledge of growth averages in order to interpret the data for par- ticular places in their proper perspective. I - I I T 35. H. º 30 $, M. A. TOTAL 25 mºs ... • **: sº crorail : ; CITIES : 20 ; : * 15 H. f # • eº 10 | | | 10 0 M) 20 30 40 30 60 70 CO 90 PERCENT CHANGE, 1940-1950 FiGURE 9.–Frequency distribution of growth rates of standard metropolitan areas, central cities and rings, 1940 to 1950. Statisticians measure the degree of variation from average among a set of data in terms of a unit called “standard deviation.” Among a set of figures which are normally distributed about their average, approximately two-thirds will have values which lie within plus or minus one standard deviation of the arithmetic mean. The values for approximately 95 percent of the figures would fall within plus or minus two standard deviations of the mean. The standard deviation is a measure of abso- lute dispersion, for it is expressed in terms of the particular unit being used in a given prob- lem. A measure of relative dispersion, which will permit a direct comparison of the over-all variability of two or more sets of data, may be computed by dividing the standard deviation by the arithmetic mean. This is termed the “coefficient of variation.” Following is a sum- mary of standard deviations, coefficients of vari- ation, and arithmetic means for several meas- ures of metropolitan growth. They will per- mit the reader to determine whether the devia- tion from the national average of the area in which he is particularly interested is an ex- traordinary event or whether it falls outside the range of variation exhibited by most S. M. A.'s. Variations beyond one standard deviation are sufficiently deviant from the mean to cause the investigator to want to develop ex- planations of why they should be so large. Measures of central tendency and dispersion in selected indexes of S. M. A. growth (percent) Mean | Mººn * * > Rate §§§§ A. pop. ºrates tion S. M. A.'s, 1940–50: Total S. M. A.------ 21. 3 || 25.6 | 19. 0 || 74.2 Central cities------- 13. 0 || 22.8 30. 7 || 134, 6 Rings-------------- 34. 7 || 39. 0 || 36.2 | 92.8 Urban--------- 28. 8 || 65.3 90.9 || 139.2 Rural---------- 4.1. 8 || 37.2 36. 0 || 96.8 S. M. A.'s, total, 1930–40-| 8.3 11.0 | 11.9 || 108.2 S. M. A.'s, total, 1920–30-| 27. 1 29.7 || 28.9 97.3 S. M. A.'s, total, 1900–40-|128.5 |177.8 |203.7 | 114.6 As an additional aid in visualizing the ex- tent of variation among the growth rates of S. M. A.'s and their parts, the following table states the percentage of S. M. A.'s falling in each of several growth intervals: GROWTH TRENDS IN INDIVIDUAL STANDARD METROPOLITAN AREAS 55 Rate of change, 1940-50 |*ś"|*." j | # j Total - - - - - 100. 0 || 100. 0 || 100. 0 ||100. 0 || 100. 0 — 10 and under - L| 1.2 1. 2 3. 7 || 2.6 4. 3 0 to -9- - - - - - - - - 2. 5 5. 6 || 6. 2 || 4 3 8. 7 0 to 9----------- 8. 6 || 30. 9 || 6. 2 | 9.4 5. 0 10 to 14- - - - - - - - - 10, 5 | 16. 0 || 8, 7 || 10. 3 8. 1 15 to 19-- - - - - - - - 21. 0 || 7.4 6, 8 6.8 5. 0 20 to 29- - - - - - - - - 21. 6 || 9, 9 || 12, 4 || 12. 0 14. 9 30 to 39-- - - - - - - - 13. 6 || 11. 1 | 15, 5 || 6. 0 13. 0 40 to 49- - - - - - - - - 5. 6 || 6. 2 9, 9 || 6.8 11. 8 50 to 59--------- 6. 8 || 5. 6 || 8, 1 6. 8 9. 3 60 to 74--------- 3. 7 || 3. 1 8. 1 6. 0 6. 8 75 to 99--------- 4. 3 . 6 || 8. 1 9. 4 6. 8 100 and over----- . 6 || 2. 5 || 6. 2 | 19.7 6. 2 From the body of evidence presented, it may be seen that population growth rates are sub- ject to a great deal of variation. The standard deviation of S. M. A. growth rates was 19.0 percent. This means that about two-thirds of the S. M. A.'s grew at rates between 6.6 and 44.6 percent, and that the remaining one-third grew even faster or slower than this. Yet, as the coefficients of variation show, the relative variation among S. M. A. growth rates is smaller than among the growth rates for cen- tral cities, rings, or the urban and rural parts of rings. Several implications of fundamental impor- tance may be drawn from these data. First, statisticians are generally agreed that average rates computed from such heterogeneous data should not be taken seriously as “typical” of the individual members of the group. When such a large share of the individual members deviate greatly from the average value, the arithmetic mean ceases to be a really typical or representative value. A much better standard in this case would be the growth rates of sub- groups of S. M. A.'s which have similar eco- nomic bases and are located in the same region. Second, it is evident that there is no average or typical rate of suburban growth and periph- eral expansion. The area-to-area variation in this respect is also very great, particularly for outlying satellite cities. Before the proc- ess of peripheral growth can be fully under- 257894 O - 54 - 5 stood, this variation must be analyzed and explained. Third, the average national rates of growth of S. M. A.'s and their parts (obtained by sum- ming the S. M. A. population for successive decades and computing rates on these totals) may be quite different from the simple average of the rates for individual S. M. A.'s (obtained by summing the growth rates of S. M. A.'s and dividing by the number of S. M. A.'s). This difference arises from the fact that the popula- tion of the few largest S. M. A.'s comprise such a large share of the national total that it im- presses its growth pattern on the national aver- ages. The arithmetic mean of S. M. A. growth rates, on the other hand, gives equal weight to small and to large S. M. A.'s. Fourth, the modal rate of S. M. A. growth (rate at which the greatest number of S. M. A.'s were growing) does not coincide with either the average national growth rate of the S. M. A. population or the mean of individual S. M. A. growth rates. The few areas which grew ex- traordinarily rapidly tend to pull the averages to a point above the modal rate of growth. Because of these factors, one should be cau- tious in making inferences about the growth be- havior of a particular S. M. A. by comparing it with national rates such as those presented in chapters II and III of the present report. With this note of caution, the discussion of inter- preting growth trends in individual S. M. A.'s may be resumed. National trends are useful and informative aids for understanding the be- havior of S. M. A. population as a whole, but they should not be taken as a prediction of how a particular S. M. A. should grow. Total growth The growth of an individual S. M. A. can be compared with the growth of any general category of S. M. A.'s to which it belongs. For example, its rate of growth may be compared with the rates of growth of S. M. A.'s of the same class, of the same size, or of the same re- gion, or to S. M. A.'s which simultaneously be- long to the same class, size, and region. For example, the Los Angeles S. M. A. belongs to class I; in 1900, its size placed it in the 150,000– 56 CHAPTER IV 249,999 size group; it belongs in the region of the West. The following summary provides the data necessary for comparing the growth experience of the Los Angeles S. M. A. with these categories of S. M. A.'s: All | 8. M. A.'s of Los All S. M. A.’s S. M.A.’s the same Decade Angeles | class I 150,000- of the region, size, S.M.A. |s.M.A.'s 20,500 in west and class as 1900 & Los Angeless 1940-50------ 49.8 18, 6 29.8 48.7 47. I 1930–40------ 25.8 7.0 11.8 17A1 20.3 1920-30------ 133.2 26.3 38. 6 61.2 74.8 1910-20------ 85.3 23.7 30.6 42.9 49.9 1900-10------ 183.5 31.3 39.1 85.8 124.1 1900–50----| 2,199.0 160.3 265.0 644.8 988, 9 Sources: © 1 Appendix tables. * Table 1. * Table 5. 4 Table 8. *Table 9. The size classification is for S. M. A.'s with 100,000–249,999 in 1900. The column on the extreme right in the above tabulation is for S. M. A.'s which have the same class, size, and region classification as the Los Angeles S. M. A. In analyzing the growth trends for some individual S. M. A.'s, the data for this multiple-factor classification will be very useful. In this particular instance the data must be used cautiously, for the group contains only four S. M. A.'s, Los Angeles, Portland, Denver, and Seattle, and unique con- ditions in one or more of these four can affect the average. Moreover, since Los Angeles is one of the four, to a certain extent it is in- directly being compared with itself. It is immediately apparent that the Los Angeles area has grown faster during each decade since 1900 than the S. M. A.'s of its size and class in the Nation. It has also grown • faster than S. M. A.'s of the same region, and faster than the S. M. A.'s which have the same size-class-region classification. Its growth history has been more nearly paralleled by the S. M. A.'s of the same region, and most diver- gent from S. M. A.'s of the same class. Over the decades, the disparity between the growth of the S. M. A.'s of the region and the growth of the Los Angeles S. M. A. has narrowed, until in the last decade they were almost the same. Hence, these data suggest that the era in which the Los Angeles area far outstripped not only cities in the slower-growing regions but also much smaller areas in the same region is prob- ably past. For the next few years, a useful but crude indicator of its growth may be the average growth of all S. M. A.'s of the West. Until about 1930, the Los Angeles area was one of the outstanding focal points of growth in the West. Now it is, and probably in the future will be, less outstanding in this respect than some other areas of the West. That the Los Angeles area is now growing only about as fast as other S. M. A.'s of the West should not be allowed to hide the fact that in comparison with the balance of the Nation this is a very rapid rate. Its 1940–50 rate is almost two and one-half times the rate of S. M. A. growth in the Nation. As the follow- Thirty fastest-growing S. M. A.'s, 1940–50 Rank Name of S. M. A. Popººn in #: - 1940-50 1 || Albuquerque, N. Mex---- 145, 673 109.9 2 | Lubbock, Tex----------- 101,048 95.1 3 | San Diego, Calif.--------- 556, 808 || 92.4 4 || Miami, Fla------------- 495,084 | 84.9 5 | Baton Rouge, La-------- 158,236 79.0 6 Corpus Christi, Tex------ 165, 471 78.6 7 | Phoenix, Ariz----------- 331, 770 || 78.2 8 || San Bernardino, Calif.---- 281, 642 || 74.8 9 || Norfolk-Portsmouth, Va.- 446, 200 | 72. 3 10 | San Jose, Calif.---------- 290, 547 | 66. 1 11 | Orlando, Fla------------ 114,950 | 64.0 12 || Mobile, Ala------------- 231, 105 62.8 13 | Sacramento, Calif.------- 277, 140 | 62.7 14 || Fort Worth, Tex-------- 361,253 || 60.2 15 || Wichita, Kans---------- 222, 290 || 55.1 16 || Fresno, Calif.------------ 276, 515 54.9 17 | Dallas, Tex------------- 614, 799 || 54.3 18 || San Francisco, Calif- - - - - 2, 240, 767 53.3 19 || Houston, Tex----------- 806, 701 || 52.5 20 | Tacoma, Wash---------- 275, 876 || 51.5 21 || Washington, D.C.------- 1, 464,089 || 51.3 22 | Tampa-St. Petersburg, Fla- 409, 143 || 50.4 23 San Angelo, Tex--------- 58, 929 || 49.9 24 || Los Angeles, Calif-------- 4, 367, 911 || 49.8 25 | Stockton, Calif.---------- 200, 750 49. 26 | El Paso, Tex------------ 194, 968 || 48.8 27 | San Antonio, Tex-------- 500, 460 || 48.0 28 || Ogden, Utah------------ 83, 319 || 46.9 29 | Seattle, Wash----------- 732, 992 || 45.2 • 30 || Austin, Tex------------- 160, 980 || 45.0 GROWTH TRENDS IN INDIVIDUAL STANDARD METROPOLITAN AREAS 57 ing listing of the thirty fastest-growing Thirty slowest-growing S. M. A.'s, 1940–50 S. M. A.'s in the Nation indicates, only 23 of the 162 S. M. A.'s grew faster than the Los Angeles # §. Name of S. M. A. Popººn in #: area, 1940–50. All but two of the 23 were growth 1940-50 much smaller in size. With the exception of Washington, D. C., Norfolk-Portsmouth, and 162 Scranton, Pa---------- 257, 396 – 14.6 Wichita, all are located along the Gulf coast, 161 wº-Hazelton, 392, 241 |- 11.2 in the Southwest, or in the West. ... 160 wheeling, w va- p ſº Of the 14 S. M. A.'s with one million or more Steubenville, Ohio_-_| 354,092 || –2. inhabitants in 1950, only two (San Francisco #. .."; Pa-------- ; : -*: - e OOInº, I’8-- - - - - - - - - - 9 -. and Washington, D. C.) surpassed the Los 157 | Duluth, Minn.—Super- Angeles area in rate of growth. No other ior, Wis------------ 252, 777 —. 5 S. M. A. of this size even approached it in the 156 || Sioux City, Iowa------ 103,917 ... 3 1940–50 decade. Detroit, the next most rapidly 155 | St. Joseph, Mo-------- 96, 826 2.9 o e - sº º o 154 || Fall River-New Bed- growing S. M. A. of more than a million resi- ford, Mass---------- 381, 569 4..6 dents, grew only 54 percent as fast as the Los 153 | Terre Haute, Ind------ 105, 160 5.5 Angeles S. M. A. The growth of these largest 152 | Reading, Paº--------- 255, 740 || 5.7 ked ding to their size in 1950. i 151 || Pittsburgh, Pa-------- 2, 213,236 6. 3 areas, ranked according to their size in ; IS 150 || Atlantic City, N. J.----| 132, 399 || 6.7 as follows: 149 Providence, R. I.------ 681, 815 7. 5 148 || Utica–Rome, N. Y----- 284, 262 8. 0 Growth roles of S. M. A.'s with l million or more inhabitants, 147 | Boston-Lawrence-Low- 1940–50 ell, Mass----------- 2,875, 876 8. 3 146 || Worcester, Mass-- - - - - 546, 401 8. 3 145 || Manchester. N. H----- 156, 987 8.4 Rank 2 9 ** Name of S. M. A. Popººnin ||. 144 Pittsfield, Mass------- 132, 966 8.7 in size 1940–50 143 || Huntington, W. Va.- * Ashland, Ky-------- 245, 795 8. 9 1 | New York-Northeastern 142 || Allentown-Bethlehem- New Jersey----------- 12, 911, 994 || 10.7 Easton, Pa--------- 437, 824 || 10.4 2 | Chicago---------------- 5,495, 364 || 13.9 141 || Albany-Schenectady- 3 || Los Angeles------------- 4, 367, 911 || 49.8 Troy, N. Y--------- 514,490 | 10.5 4 || Philadelphia------------ | 3,671,048 || 14.7 140 || Lancaster, Pa--------- 234, 717 | 10.5 5 | Detroit----------------- 3,016, 197 || 26.9 139 || New York-Northeast- 6 | Boston----------------- 2,875, 876 || 8, 3 ern, N. J.----------- 12, 911, 994 || 10.7 7 | San Francisco----------- 2, 240, 767 || 53.3 138 || Rochester, N. Y------- 487, 632 11.3 8 || Pittsburgh.-------------- 2, 213, 236 || 6.3 137 | Binghampton, N. Y----| 184, 698 || 11.4 9 | St. Louis--------------- 1, 681, 281 17. 4 136 || Springfield, Ill- - - - - - - - 131, 484 11. 5 10 | Cleveland-------------- 1, 465, 511 15. 6 135 | Youngstown, Ohio----- 528, 498 11. 6 11 || Washington, D.C.------- 1, 464,089 || 51.3 134 || Brockton, Mass------- 189,468 || 12.2 12 | Baltimore-------------- 1, 337, 373 || 23.5 133 || Springfield-Holyoke, 13 || Minneapolis–St. Paul----- 1, 116, 509 18. 7 Mass.-------------- 455, 565 12. 6 14 | Buffalo----------------- 1,089, 230 13. 6 o ſº tº * is tº Growth within the cured Many readers interested in individual S. M. A.'s may want to know the names of the thirty slowest-growing areas, to match the above list of the 30 fastest-growing areas. It is pre- sented below for easy reference: To assist in interpreting the rates of growth for central cities, rings, and the rural and urban parts of rings for a particular S. M. A., a comparison similar to that made above for 58 CHAPTER IV total S. M. A. growth is useful. The data necessary to make this comparison for the Los Angeles S. M. A. is as follows: Los Area and decade gº, sº, º , Region a. § Central cities: 1940-50-------- 31.0 9.6 9.9 31.5 2.8. 2 1930–40- - - - - - - - 21.5 4.1 4.8 12.6 13.2 1920-30-------- 114.7 20.4 24. 1 45.3 65.9 1910-20-------- 80. 7 23.9 28.9 38.5 46.6 1900-10-------- 211.5 33. 1 32.2 87.2 73. 0 1900-50-------- 1,822.7 126.4 159.3 447.6 511. 1 Rings, total: 1940-50-------- 69.8 33.6 42, 4 85.7 79.6 1930–40-------- 29.7 12.2 15.0 29.4 27. 6 1920-30-------- 158.6 38. 6 57. 0 79.5 114.6 1910-20-------. 92.0 23.3 28.2 52.4 66.0 1900-10-------- 150.7 27.8 41.9 70.2 93. 1 1900-50-------- 2,639.6 227.4 451. 1 1.055.8 1, 475.8 Rings, urban (old definition): 1940-50-------- 55.6 26.4 31.6 87.0 67.7 1930–40-------- 25.8 8, 6 27.6 28.7 23.9 1920-30-------- 207.7 49, 7 64.9 124.9 147.6 1910-20-------- 128.9 37. 3 55.6 141.3 101.2 1900-10-------- 371, 6 49, 7 76.8 203.2 216.7 1900–50-------- 6,403.7 322.2 853. 3 || 2,608.9 3, 177.1 Rings, rural (old definition): 1940-50-------- 98.5 46. I 58.8 91.2 103.2 1930–40-------- 38.2 19. 1 19.0 30.3 35, 7 1920-30-------- 90.8 21.5 36.7 45.2 66. 1 1910-20-------- 57.0 6.6 1.5 29.3 32.2 1900-10-------- 73.6 8.8 18.8 38.8 40.4 1900-50-------- 1,326. 5 145. 1 245.0 552.4 749.7 Sources: 1 Appendix table 1. * Table 1. * Table 17. 4 Table 18. * Table 16. It will be noticed that standardized rates, from tables 17 and 18, are used in the above summary. It is permissible to use either stand- ardized or unstandardized rates in making region and size comparisons. Use of the stand- ardized rates permits the statistician to say with confidence that differences between the rates be- ing compared are not produced by the factor for which the control data are standardized. It should also be noted that the size and region comparisons are made with data for class V S. M. A.'s rather than for class 1. Hence, class of S. M. A. is not controlled in the size and regional comparisons. The central city, the ring, and the rural and urban parts of the ring of the Los Angeles S. M. A. have grown much faster than those of S. M. A.'s of the same size or class in the Nation. Until the 1940–50 decade, its central city and ring were also growing faster than those of other S. M. A.'s in the region. Its growth was not typical of the growth of other large cities in that its ring area grew at a tremendously rapid pace at the same time its central city was growing rapidly. Its ring was growing much faster than its central city as early as the 1910– 20 decade, at a time when the rings of other class I S. M. A.'s were only growing about as rapidly as the central cities. Although the rates of growth of the class I central cities have declined, relative to the national rate, since the 1920–30 decade, the rates of central city growth for Los Angeles have remained very high, even for the region. However, in the 1940–50 decade, Los Angeles city grew at about the same rate as cities in the region. Its rate of growth (31.0 percent) is extraordinarily high for the Nation, but is only about average for central cities of the rapidly growing S. M. A.'s of the West. x Until 1940, the ring of the Los Angeles S. M. A. grew at rates from two to four times those of S. M. A.'s of the same size and class in the nation. Until 1930, its ring grew more rapidly than the rings of other western S. M. A.'s. Its ring grew rapidly again during the 1940–50 decade, but less rapidly than the rings of other S. M. A.'s in the West. This was true of growth in both the urban and rural (old definition) parts of the ring. Hence, not only has the total growth of the Los Angeles area slowed down to about the regional level, but the growth in all of its parts has slowed down to this level also. Nevertheless, the growth rates for all parts of the S. M. A. are extremely rapid by national standards. Between 1940 and 1950, the central city increased by almost one-third; the ring increased by more than two-thirds. The rate of increase in the rural part of the ring was almost 100 percent. Since the data for the size and region group- ings are for class V S. M. A.'s, the size of Los Angeles is taken as of 1940. For this census, it falls in the “over one-million” size group. The right-hand column of the above tabulation con- GROWTH TRENDS IN INDIVIDUAL STANDARD METROPOLITAN AREAS 59 tains only two S. M. A.'s, Los Angeles and San Francisco. From 1900 to 1940, the Los Angeles area grew at rates from two to four times those of the San Francisco area, and its central city and ring growth were considerably more than those of San Francisco. But in the 1940–50 period, the San Francisco S. M. A. grew faster than the Los Angeles area. This resulted from a very rapid growth of the San Francisco ring (105.8 percent). Los Angeles city continued to grow faster than San Francisco city between 1940 and 1950. Rural-urban composition of the area Table 27 of chapter III provides statistics for determining the urban-rural composition of in- dividual S. M. A.'s. Tables 28 and 29 provide basic data for size and regional groups. Data for Los Angeles, and for the groups with which Los Angeles may be compared have been as- sembled from these sources in the following Summary: Rural-urban composition of the S. M. A., 1950 Area *::: sº * ; d 811 S. ...A.! Over ? CŞ § 101 S128 Total.------------------------ 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Central cities------------ 45. 1 61. 6 50.3 47.4 Rings: Urban--------------- 50.9 32.8 36.9 47.3 Rural---------------- 4.0 5, 6 12.8 5.3 Urban Fringe---------------- 46.4 29.4 32.1 43.2 Urban 1940 definition.---- 29.9 23.2 18.8 29.4 Remainder-------------- 16, 5 6. 1 13.3 13.8 Outside urbanized area: Total.-------------------- 8.5 9. 1 17. 6 9. 5 Urban, 1940 definition--- 3. 8 2.8 3. 9 3.4 Unincorporated area----- ... 7 ... 6 .9 ... 7 Sources: i Table 27. * Table 28, * Table 29. * Table 29. Size for these data is 1 million and over. The Los Angeles S. M. A. is much more de- centralized (in the sense that a larger propor- tion of its total population resides outside the central city in the suburban ring) than other S. M. A.'s of its size and region. In fact, only two S. M. A.'s of 1 million inhabitants or more in 1950, Boston and Pittsburgh, have a larger percentage of their total population in the ring. Los Angeles' large ring development, how- ever, is almost entirely urban. Only 4 percent of its total S. M. A. population is classified as rural under the 1950 definitions. About two- thirds of the ring population resides in cities which would have been classified as urban under the old definition. The unusual situation in which Los Angeles city encloses and is enclosed by numerous incorporated places, including Long Beach, Beverly Hills, Burbank, Compton, Glendale, Inglewood, Pasadena, Huntington Park, and South Gate, contributes to this large urban population. However, the city also has a very large urban fringe population living out- side incorporated places. In fact, 16.5 percent of the total population of the S. M. A. is re- classified from rural to urban in 1950 as a result, of recognizing the urban fringe as urban. This is considerably greater than the average per- centages for the size class and the region. As a consequence of having so many large suburban cities and such a large urban fringe, only 8.5 percent of the total S. M. A. population of Los Angeles lives outside the urbanized area. This is less than one-half the average for the region, but about average for the size class. Other data for the cured By following the same method used above for total growth and growth within the S. M. A., comparisons can be made for density within the urbanized area. For its size, the Los Angeles urbanized area is of extraordinarily low den- sity. Whereas the average density for urban- ized areas of one million or more is 7,254 (table 28) the density for Los Angeles is 4,587 (ap- pendix table 5) or only about two-thirds as much. The difference is due in part to the com- paratively low density of Los Angeles city, for the Los Angeles fringe has a higher population per square mile than its central city. The analysis of individual S. M. A.'s sug- gested above makes use only of data contained in this report. Of necessity, these statistics have dealt with only the broad aspects of 60 CHAPTER IV S. M. A.'s and urbanized areas. If the investi- gator wishes to break down the S. M. A. and the urbanized area into minor civil divisions he may do so by consulting the “Number of In- habitants” volumes of the United States census. The counties which comprise each S. M. A. may be determined by consulting 1950 Census of Population, Preliminary Counts, Series PC-9, No. 96, “Population of Standard Metropolitan Areas: April 1, 1950.”* The county tables of the decennial census returns can then be used to provide the more detailed data desired. None of the above comparisons has made al- lowance for annexations or boundary changes. Such changes are listed in these detailed census tabulations. * 1950 Census of Population Advance Reports, dated Novem- ber 24, 1952. APPENDIX Appendix ºble le - Population and percent of increase in population of standard metropolitan arease by decades a 1900-1950 Standard Population Percent increase metropolitan [\ººl 1950- || 19 1920- 1910- 1900- 1 1900- 1950 1940 1950 1920 1910 1900 1950 l 1950 1920 1910 1950 Akron, Ohio lilo,032 539,105 3il,l 286,065 108,255 71,715 20.8 || -l-ly | 20, 164.5 50.9 || liſle.8 Central city 27,605 791 255, 208,155 69,067 ,726 12.2 l =lso 22 2012,8 6l.6 5:2.7 Ring 135,1427 6ll, 89,091 77,650 39,166 28,967 lış-l 6-2 ll.8 98.1 55.2 367.2 Urban 62,856 ,026 lº,731 lil,69; 15,130 7, 30.8 9.8 li-9 210.h 78.1 | 735-l; Rural 72,591 588 l,5,560 35,956 25,756 2lellº 55.8 2.7 26s2 39.5 20el 258,5 Troy, N.Y, •lso lº,685 l,56,755 lºod,596 58,177 53,120 10,5 le.9 lla8 6.l. 15e0 54-0 Central cities ,091 288,150 295,867 #: 2:9,892 3e =2.5 8e0 9.7 3.0 60-l. 15,995 150,577 slalz 113, 100,255 9,151 2.5 13el 6.5 lº.3 Schenectady 91,785 ; 95,692 88,725 72,826 31,682 =8, 7,9 21,8 129-9 189.7 Troy 72,511 70, 72.76% 71,996 76,815 60,651 2.9 || -5 lel || -6-5 26.6 || 19,2 Ring 215, *:::::: ,868 15,555 15,285 ll,7,636 21s5 || 10el 19,6 Osº *9e0 lij-9 Urban 65 ; 65, 67,055 63,518 65,720 ,257 -2.5 ! -3.0 5-5 =0,5 -10.6 | -10.9 Rºral 15le 112,119 95,855 70,967 70,565 299 55.5 | 19.5 22.2 0.6 –7,6 96.9 Albuquerque, Melºske ll,5,675 69, 29,855 25,606 28,630 109.9 ź. 52.2 26.5 -17.5 | 1,08.8 Central city *:::: 26,570 15,157 11,020 6,258 175, 1 55 75-5 57.5 76-7 || liºz.0 Ring ,858 55,952 18,860 12,586 22, l,5-9 || 80.0 | 86.5 16.6 -l:3.8 118.2 Ulrban © tº gº tº gº tº tº e ºl ſº º ſº * @ s 2 tº º º Q & © & Cº º tº º º tº º º tº º º Rural l,8,858 33,942 18,860 12,586 13. lº.9 || 80.0 || 26.5 8 || -55.5 || 151.2 Allentown-Bethlehem- ton, lº",62i; 596, 391,516 246,66, 289,666 251,561 10.1; lsº 12.9 19,7 25.2 89.2 Central cities 208,726 188,98 18,925 157,675 93,273 67,917 10-l. 2e2 17.5 69.0 •5 || 207-2 Allentoºn *:::: 96, ,565 73,502 51,915 55,1,16 10e2 l-7 25.9 ll.6 6 | 201-l; Bethlehem 66, 58 57,892 50,556 12,857 7,295 15.h. leO 15.0 || 292.5 76.0 || 809.6 Eastoia 35,632 35,589 55,815 28,523 25,258 6-1 || -2.6 lsº 18.5 13-0 lil.2 Ring 229,096 207,690 206, # ,991 196,1,15 *::::::: 10, Oe 5 9.5 -5.8 2O,2 lso.2 Urban 89, 585 90, 7 752 78,076 : -0.7 17.6 •le.7 75,6 ll.0,0 Rural 15,672 118,107 116,345 112,259 118,557 ll.0,150 ll.0 le5 5,6 •5el -Oel 15.7 Altoona, Pa. 139,5ll, lso, 558 139,840 128, 55, 108,856 85,099 -0.6 Oslº 9,0 17.9 27.9 65.9 Central city TT,177 80,211, ,05, 60,551 52,127 *:::::: -5.6 || -2.2 56.0 15.7 35,8 96. Ring 62,557 60, lll: 57,786 66, 56,731 •126 5.6 lel •15.0 19.9 25,0 55-l Urban 20,027 20,25l. 20,295 i: 16,195 6,835 -lel -0.2 || -13.k 8 85.1 | 126el, Rural lº,310 39,895 ,191 559 lso, 37,281 6el 6-l. I -15.9 9.9 8.7 13s.5 Amarillo, Texe •llso 61,1850 15l. 20, 15,736 2,785 lilso | 15.6 | 160.7 29.5 lić5.l. 3051.2 *::: city 2,6 51,686 #: l : 9,957 © g & lsº,6 19,8 176.l., 55.6 © tº ge gº tº go Ring 12,894 9,76, 10,019 891 5, 2,785 32.1 -2.6 10,8 || -15.l. 107.6 363.5 Urban lº,36, ,622 2,821 º tº tº * ſº 66.l. •7el © C e - Q tº © e º © º º Rural 8,550 7,1,2 7,198 l,891 5,779 2,785 19el, l =0.8 lºſ.” | -15.l. 107.6 206,5 Ashevillee Me Ce 12,105 106,755 97,957 64, llib lº,798 lili.286 il-l. I ll.0 52.7 28,8 12-l. 180-9 Central city 55,000 5le § 26,504 18,762 ll,694 •5 2.2 76el 5le.9 27.7 || 260.7 Raral njº 57.ii.5 lº.º. 35.3i. 31.8% 29.9. 2.3 | 20.3 | 333 iii.3 i.3 | ui.; Atlanta, Gas 671,797 518, 100 lilso,906 525,666 252, 179,120 29.7 || 17.5 #: 29.2 lso,5 Central city 351, 502,268 270,566 200,6lé 15,839 89,872 9.6 || 11.8 8 29.6 72.5 || 268.6 Ring 3.0 215,812 170,580 ,072 97.285 º 57.8 || 26.5 36-l. 28,6 8.6 || 280-2 Urban lll,658 62,720 lso,971 157 9,651 82.8 || 55.1 69.7 || 150.6 116.6 *::::: Rural 225,625 153,092 129,569 100,955 87.65, 85,102 l,7.5 | 18.2 28.l., 15.2 3.0 Atlantic City, Med. 152,399 124,066 123,825 85,911, 71,89, sloe 6-7 || -0.6 lº.6 16.7 5.9 185.3 Central city 6l. 6,09; 66, 196 ,707 ; 27,838 =5.8 ~5-2 30.6 9,9 65,8 lºle 5 Ring 70, 59,972 58,625 35,207 25, ,56, 18.0 2.5 76.5 29.0 58.7 || 28 lel Urban lº,198 36,326 55,105 926 ,lºſé Jºël 18.9 5.5 || 1:55.2 #: 172.5 | llllso Rural .5il, 25,656 25,520 18,281 16,266 15,065 16.5 0.5 28.7 7.8 82.6 tae Gas 162,015 131,779 120,395 109,266 100,755 92,767 22.9 9.l. 10.2 8.5 8,6 71.6 Central city 71,508 65,919 Žiž 52,518 §§ Jill 8, 9.2 lls& 28.0 li-l 8ls; Ring 90, 505 65,860 60,051 56,718 59,695 55, 526 57 9.7 5.9 •5e0 lle.9 69.7 Urban 10,712 8,797 6,055 ls, 103 8,272. ,659 22el | lºb l,7.0 || -50.l., 2.2 6le3 Rural 79,763 57,065 OTS 52,615 51,1425 l,6,667 29.8 5-6 2.7 2,5 10e2 70-9 Austina, Texas 160, lil,055 77,777 57,616 55,620 l,7,586 lº.0 | lºº.6 55.0 5.6 17.1, 239.7 Central city 132,1153 87,950 • 120 5,876 29,860 22,258 50.6 || 65.5 52, 16.8 34-2 || 195. Urban 28,521 25, 125 657 22, 25,760 25,128 25.5 -6-2 8 •lle 7 2,5 13e Rural ze.º. 23.123 2.3% 22.7% 25.7% 25.12a || 23.3 | -8.2 | 8 || -ii.; 2.5 | 13.5 Baltimore, Mºde 1,3 g ,573 1,085,500 98/1,606 652,05l 720, 639,332 25.5 10,0 15-6 lºe 12.7 109,2 Central city ,708 859,109 80's, 735,626 558,185 508,957 10.5 ! 6.7 9.7 || ºl •7 86.6 Ring 587,665 179,732 *:::::: 161,902 130,375 72.9 || 2.7 52.0 || -27.0 2 || 197.5 Urban 69,107 lil,871 12, ll, 8, 8,525 : 25l-l lle.7 50.2 lso | Tilsº Rural 518,258 182,529 167,201 107,011 155,293 121,850 6 9,0 56.2 •50.2 25.8 16l.2 Nation Rouge, Las 158,256 68,115 66,206 lili,513 34,580 31,155 Tø,0 29,6 #: 28.7 1l,0 l,07.9 Central city 125,629 3,719 50,729 21,762 ll,897 §: 26l. 8 || 13.0 •l I lºº.2 52.2 || 101lt.8 *::... 52, 53,696 37,179 22,731 19,665 19, ~39.5 lº. 5 6.9 15.5 •le O 6.0 Rural 3e,&n 3.3% 37.is 22.7%i 19.83 19.83, -3.3 13.3 | dº | 13.3 -i.ol dio Bay City, Mich. 88,1961 7,981 69, lºſt, 69,548 68,258 62,378 18.0 7.9 •0el le.9 9el, lilsº Central city 52,525 l,7,956 l,7,355 l,7,554 l,5,166 ,628 9.5 lsº —osis 3 63.5 90el Ring 55,958 27,025 22,119 ,994 25,072 750 55.0 22.2 0.6 7 –55.6 3-l. Ulrban 5,167 © & © © C tº tº C tº tº O 13,119 tº ſº Q © 2 e G. º º tº º º e ºn tº =75.9 Rural 52,771 27,025 22,119 - 21,99, 25,072 ,631 21s5 2 0.6 7 6.7 5i.e5 62 APPENDIX Appendix Table le - Population and percent of increase in population of standard metropolitan areas, by decades, 1900–1939 - Continued Standard Population Percent increase metropolitan Chºº, - 19,0- || 1950- || 1920- || 1910- || 1900- 1900- 1950 1990 1950 1920 1910 1900 1950 1980 1950 1920 1910 1950 Beaumont-Port Arthur, Texe :::::: lsº,529 155,391 73,120 58,182 llº,239 2 8.9 || 82.l.. I 91. 168.2 || 1270el Cºntral cities 15le ,201 108,63, 62,675 28,505 9,1427 l •5.2 75,5 200.2 || 1507,6 Beaumont 9,0ll, ,061 57,752 lso, lº2 ,6so 9,127 •2 2, lº.8 95,8 ll.8.9 897.3 Port Arthur ,550 llso 50,902 ; 7,665 & Cº. º. 7 •9 128.8 190.l., tº a o © tº º #. l,0,128 2,757 10,\l,7 9,879 l,812 8,5 62.1 || 137.0 5.7 105.5 80.8 Rural 3.195 lo.iº. 2.7% lo.in 9.8% l,812 || -22.3 | dºi| 137.6 || 3 || | 103.3 i.e. Binghamton, Me Y, 696 165,719 litº,022 113,610 78,809 69,119 ll.l. 12.7 •l, I like? ll.0 167.1 Central oity 60,674 76, 76,662 66,800 lib.blº 39,647 3.0 2-l 8 || 57.9 22e2 103.5 Ring O2, 87 70, 360 l,6,810 50, 566 o 502 19.0 24- 3 50, 5 54.2 2.9 252.6 Urbºn #: 35,741 29,798 : 5,775 5, lll 10-0 19.9 || 39.3 | 1,66.6 21.3 || 1165.2 Rural ,725 51,699 l,0,562 25, 26,591 26,391 25.2 27.5| 59.6 || -l.l., 0.8 ll,5-2 • Alae 558,928 l,59,950 lºl,l}3 310,054 226,176 ll,0,120 21,5 6.6 •2 || 36.9 6l. •0 Central city 526,057 267,583 259,6 176,806 132,685 38,115 21,8 5e0 5.2 || 3.8 || 2, ; Ring 252,891 192,547 171,815 131,258 93,791 102,005 2 isl 12.0 || 50.9 || 39.9 =8el 128,5 Urban 76,200 5le l,7,753 ,342 10,864 15,75l. lº.6 8el 7i.6 || 151.7 =ºle O 585.8 Rural 156,691 llo,717 062 103,906 82,927 86,254 llel, 15.l. 19.l. 25.3 •3.9 81,7 Boston, Lawrence- Lowell, Mass. 2,875,876 2,656,151 || 2,6ll, 2,315, lll 2,025,286 || 1,685,682 : le? | 12.8 ll-5 20el 70.6 Central oities 979,229 956, 966 955, 862,771 718, 2. =le O ls2 || 10.7 20el 56.3 Boston 801, all, 770,816 761,188 718, 670,585 560,892 leo •l,5 bel, l il-6 19.6 lº.9 Lawrence 80, 556 Bls, 323 85,066 9t, 85,892 62, 559 -la. 5 -0.9 -9.8 9,8 57.3 28.7 Lowell &: : :::::: #& : : it: ls? *:::: 6-l lie% : Ring 1,896,647 1,699, 1,685 le360, 1,162,51. 967 lle 5, •0 || 17-0 20e2 l Urban 1,700, 197 ###. *::::::: 1.35 oz 1,052,201 ãº. 9.9 #: 20,9 || 18.7 2.5 101s2 ºral 196,150 155,259 13, 110,960 110, 122 23.2 13.6 || 21,6 0.6 =9.9 60.l, Bridgeport-Stanford- Morwalke Conne 50,342 lilº,38, 586,702 320,956 2,5,322 205 20.5 8.2 | 20.5 30.8 •2 175.8 Central cities 262,162 25,908 229,081 206, 13, ll:6 93,118 20e2 2,5| lle O §§ M. 203.5 Bridgeport 158,709 7,121 llº,716 llº,555 102,05, 70,996 7-9 ;: 2.2 •7 lº.7 12 o Stamford 295 #: l,6,346 #: 25,158 15,997 O 5.2.1 || 39,6 57.1 Morwalk l:3,160 59, 56,019 27, 6,954 6,125 l 10,6| 29.8 || 299.0 15,5 707.5 Ring 221,880 183,1476 157,621 ll,542 111,176 91,085 20.9 | 16.l, 57. 3.0 22.1 | llº.6 Urban 68, 55,890 57,567 5,357 lo,9 ,526 £2,0 =229 67.6 || -16.1 lº.5 lºe O Rural 155,691 127,586 ,05, 80,185 70, 62,559 20.5 27.5l 2.8 || ll-2 12e3 5,7 Brockton, Masse 189,168 168,824 162,511 156,966 ill,537 115,985 12.2 lso 3.l. 8,8 26.6 66-2 Central city 62,860 62, 5 63,797 66,254 56,678 ,065 0.8 –2.5 -5.7 16.5 lº.0 56.9 Ring ,608 106, l 98,5ll, 90,711, 87,l}} ,922 18.9 8el 8.6 3.7 18.5 7i.e5 Urban 68,174 60,591 58,396 56,018 52,685 lº,315 15.0 it. li-2 6.5 21.6 58,1 Rural 58,151, lsº,890 lso, 118 34,696 5,776 ,609 26.7 15.6 || -0.2 13.6 89.9 Buffaloe Me Y. 1,069,250 958,187 911,737 753,395 621,021 508,647 13.6 5el 2le O 2lsº 22el ill-l Central city 580,132 575,901 575,076 506, l;25,715 352,387 0.7 0.5 || 15.1 | 19.6 20e2 &ls.6 Ring 509,098 ,586 558,661 2.6,618 197, 156,260 53.1 lºsſ) §: 25.0 26-3 225.8 Urban 28,725 £13,629 205,968 llºz, llº 9, 59,657 16-l. 7 •5 || 50.8 58.0 3.16.9 Rºral 260,575 168,957 695 10,172 105,051 96,605 5'-l 25-l; 28.9 6.7 169,5 Castone Chio 265,194 23,887 221,78, 177,218 122,967 93,767 20.6 5-9 || 25el lulel 29,8 198.9 Central city º 108,101 104,906 87,091 50,217 50, 7.9 5.5 | 20.5 || 75.l., 65.7 28 le? Ring 126,186 116,878 ,127 12,770 <, Ele; 8.2 •7 #: 13.6 159,5 Urban 65,262 56,979 56,542 39,051 28,962 20,918 il-6 ©,8 9 & 58.5 212, 1 Rºral 101,000 69,507 60,556 ,096 lº,806 lº, 162 lº-3 15.2 | 18-1 || 16.6 lsº 13.0 Cedar Rapids, Iowa lol.27, 89, llº 82,556 7t,00, 60,720 55,392 17.0 8,5| lle3 || 21,9 9.6 8822 Central eity 72,296 62,120 ogy §§ 32,811 25,656 10,7| 25el 58.9 27-9 181,8 Ring 31,978 27,022 26,239 23 tº ,756 18,25 5,0|| -7.7 le.9 -6-l 7.5 Urban 5,916 721 lº,348 l,158 102 25.5 8,6 5.1 || -6-0 7.3 lil-2 Rural 26,062 22,501 21,891 300 25,509 25,63, 16.9 ls'9 || “2.9 3-l. –8.5 le.7 Charleston, 8, C, 16,856 121,105 101,050 •l,50 88,59; 88,006 36el 19.8 || -6-8 || 22.l., 0,7 87.5 Central city 70,1 71,275 ,265 § 58,833 55,807 •lsº 5| -8.l. 15.5 5-l. : Ring 9t, lº,850 36,785 lso, 33 29, 32,199 90.0 28.5% -la-2 || 36.1 -7.6 19tlel º: 9. tº g g g jº I*zz 9°t t". #: :::: gº; 9%; }% #: 909 “k L6%"Lº * > g # |#|: ; ; ; ; ; É § |: |# tº: ge g ge g º g & t"zz g” La |9°% 9°21 | g "gt Log"3ot : 22.2, of 5°oºt azi'ºtſt * •wſ *3.rodreae'ſ "Oº:T 6'2"991 £23°gll Llo"g6t §§ ... º. º.º.º. **ç12 L*6I | 2°9'I O°2 trog *: .*.*.*.* ºt c - ºn © C e tº º & o°96 ;: gº?' tº B*gn glº"tg & g of "3rodus aud º; 6.8. || 3:3: ...? |3: #" º tº gº tº e ſº tº : Tººl &zºnt Tºrº, 2:16 || 2:2:1 || 2: 3:3 ||3:3: Jº'ſ gº.g. tºpºgri 13°tg 9tz"99 95. "99 treq+ § |#|; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ſl T O Tzu Tººt | 4:21- 2:19 tº tº #" # | #: | #: ºš *:::::::::: © tº º tº º G tº C & I*29 9°Lt. % 6 gºl"gt 99.2°21 99.9°6 tº witud #: tréºt 4°OT- L*96 tºll L*tº tº tº º C & Gº #: oº::ge GLI*Lºſ Twing : 9°til O°92 9°49't 9°901 o°6 9%l."g %l"&T 99.2°21 gºo"te 22.2 600°ot J. #| |*|† : ; ; ; ; ; ; ; *::: O°0%T o°g | T "LI g” º tº T2 109"22 6LL"Tº 199°26 #: .*.* tº © O © © Q ſº Q & Q #:8 o”gt I°49, O06"gº. 960°on ozó"9tſ g sure "rºsy-rºo snd 100 g"Laz 0°% | [*LI : 2°09 || 2°lt J.; ... tº tº º :::: tºº. 6%tt'69 Turºſ £; ºn | }; ; ; # |## |: 930° *9tſ t&rol. Igº O90°9% uneq I 62 ogtrºt 199°tz T£6°4 53. Algo"90% TO6°31% Surry 6.9% || 6 || 3:#: @: ||...} |g. %2. In z06"aft zºo'otſ ggnºg'ſ g - 2.9; 9°tſ o°g- || L’OT a g-te §: titz", zº", 92°. 9Ll g 929°19 o°2LT || 0°9 || Gººt |o"22 4: ºš tgg" gº. 09 Izt" Og6°06 treqrſ, L**k | 6’tk *29 oºl"L9 º; jº og2°49 It?"6. 2trºl Tºl 1. *LT | 6°tº 9°zt- tº Lt | 6’ £6 Lotſ"921 Trg"olt ** º : © º º © Cº -> 9°gt % §e ignºre feg"62 2%0°9% Il *% up "snqºrtoo g"L2t | 1."lt | 9°or I*tt- 9°LT | I*tg tº ſº tº 999"a § 6%6°9% çLI*gn *:::: L 9°2" |Gºlg | 0°12 #: Igº. reg" 96.3" 16.2 90%"g 911" Tsutº I*ztz o°tz L*T* |z*zt 9°6 9, U"T2 6tg"92 teg"Lg 29. Lipſ"2" T9°gg tººl-rºl 9°61 || 0°9% 69%"gºl girt"gg at" $33.5% 96%"aº TI6'99 2urg 2.3% o°ot | 9°2- io"9 || 2 6° g I"gl. 199"L9 grg"tot © *** * ;" |{..., | ##| |##| |## ; : 212°3% 9%8°ºg tgo°16 3 *g "w;antoo 2. t"92 || 6°g. |g"g6 || G*çI 9° 291.3; Ltn’rºl 99t’tzt 61.9°9. 96m*6% 93t"L9 Terug § g"gºl ; .# 3: ||. rt #: 699°66 Izº"3LI §: §: #; treqrºl 2* 6°12 6°1 9°gt O09" d Trigº36. 62t"006 & g 9°09'ſ 23%." tº 9%"9.9 2urtu 2:... 2: | 6′- |º |Tºº tº #: | #: |##, ###, #3; .º.º. § 3.9% 9°6 9*k | <^2 §: 26 £6L"to gºl"99 LGo"I6 º Yuo "pure teae (5 9 9°zt tro o°rk | 9°g 9°Oz 39.01. alo"gmſ L66°gºt *Boºrtz $ººlſ 609°L&Y g"TL | 0°zt | 6°9 |2°02 I tć6°49% Like’t Iztº: tktrºtgg ool treqrn tºti | 6-ºrt £62"L2% 99"I'o66 ; oºr"tgºl ot}*ggn *::::: M3 2urra og61 otót. OzóI | 0661 of 61 || 066 tgz*94L | tºo"L9. •ºº, •006. t| -OT6: ; “Oz.6t | *Og I 006ſ OT6t 0.261 Q 6t -oºt 0%6I of 61 O961 esterout 3 treo.red Tºº worºwindod wrºt Todor, on penniawoo--036-006 pºrºs M-0061 asepwoop Æq “swers uſual Todorew prºpuruqs Jo won strºdod aſ esse-rouy Jo Jo queo-red pure uotautndod-"t eIquq x+pasddy 64 APPENDIX Appendix Table le-Population and percent of increase in population of standard metropolitan areas, by decades's 1900-1950 - Continued 8tandard * metropolitan Population Peresat increase \ \º \ 19,0- || 19 1920- || 1910- || 1900- 1900- 1950 1910 1950 1920 1910 1900 1950 || 1 1950 | 1920 || 1910 1950 El Paso, Texas #: 151,067 151,597 101,877 52,599 2,686 lº.81 -0.l. i. 29.2| 95.7 | lll-l. 683.l., Central sity 150,185 96,810 102 77, 39,279 15,906 34-81 -5.5 32.1 | 97.5 | 11,6-9 720.1, Ring 6,185 5,257 29, 176 2,317 15,320 8,980 88.2| 17.l. 20,0| 82.6 lab.3 618el º a.iº. 3.2% 29.1% 2.5ii 13.3% 8.98% es.?! 17:il 28.6l sºl 15.3 615.i o, Pae 219,588 180,869 175,277 155,556 115,517 98,175 21.5 5.2 le? º 17.3 122.8 Central oity 130,805 116,955 115,967 95,572 525 :#; llsö 0,9 24.2 26-2 lib.o Ring 88,585 65,934. 59,310 60,16, l;8,992 5, 58.6% 7.6 || -lel, 22.8 7-l 95.7 Urban 19,150 17 17 559 12,517 8,475 12.0l -0.l, 20,0|| 17.9 | lºº.7 129, Rural 69,105 l,6,534 lil,8lsº l,5,605 56,645 37,267 lib.5| lisz | -8.2 2.5 ! -1.7 8 Evansville, Inde 160,122 150,763 115,220 92,29 77 71,769 22.7| 15.l, 22.8 || 19.2 7.9 125,5 Central city 128,636 97,062 102,249 & 69, 7 59,007 32.5 ~5-l 19.9 22.l., 18.0 118.0 “º- 51,786 53,721 ll,071 7,029 7,791 12, 762 ~5.7 6 57.5 =9,8 •23,0 ilº-l Rural 3.75% 33,721 11.8m 7. 9 7,731 12,7& | -3.7| 2d.él 5.3| -3.3 -3.8 us...i Pall River-ſew Bedford, Masse 581,569 637 36,590 359,005 ,575 252,029 li-6 © e º l,6 12.7 26.l., 5l.l. Central cities 221,152 225,769 227,871 ,702 215,957 167,305 –2,0| –0.9 || -5.7 lle.9 || 29el 52.2 Mall River lll,963 5,128 115,27, 120,185 119,295 10,863 •3.0 Oel 5 l-0 || 15.8 6.8 Low Ledford 109,189 110,3'-l 112,597 121,217 652 62.lilº •l,0| -2.0 || -7.1 || 25.l., | 54.8 7l-9 Ring 160,117 158,868 156,719 117,505 102,626 6,724 15.5 l,6; 16.6 ll-5 55.6 12.1 Urban *:::: 102,177 100,812 86, iliº 719 53,650 13-2 lel, 17.0 | 15.5 || 39.5 115,7 Rural - 36,691 35,907 31,158 27,907 51,094 21.9 2.2 15.2 ll.6 || 151.6 ~10s? Flint, Miche 270,963 227, 211,6hl 125,666 6,555 lil,80, 18.9 7.7 68.l., | 98.7 54-l. 538.2 Central city 163, ll:3 15leºlº 156 91,599 58,550 15,103 7.7| -5.2 70,6 || 157.6 | 19.2 lılı5-l Ring 107,620 76el;0l 55, 069 26,005 26,701 lil-l 38.5| &l.9 || 31.0 | -9.l. 275.7 Urban 7,116 ź. 3,171 2,507 tº tº º c ll.0e,7 6.5 26.5 tº e de © tº º tº Q O Rural 100,70; 75, 51,978 51,562 26,005 28,701 57.9 lºo.5| 6′.7| 21sl, -9.l. 250.9 Fort Wayne, Inde 183,722 155,08, llº,713 lilº,303 93,586 ,270 18.5 5,7 26sly 22.l. 20.9 137,8 Central eity 153,607 , alo lılı,9:6 86,539 3: lsº, 115 12.8 3.0 | 32.8 || 35.l, lºl.7 196el Ring 50,115 56,671, 31,797 27,754 29slº 32,155 36.6 || 15.3 | ll-6 || -5.6 || -8.l., 55.9 Rural& so.ii; 36.8% 31,797 27.7% 29.1% x.iš 3&é! 13.3 milé! -śl -āli | #3 Fort Worth, Tex, 561,255 225,521 197,555 152,800 106,572 52,576 60-2 ill-2 29.5 lso.7 || 107.5 •7 Central eity 278,776 177,662 163, lºl,7 •lsº 73,312 26,668 56.9 8.7 || 55e l,5.2 || 174.7 6 Ring 82, liſts lº,8 106 l,6,318 35,260 25,688 72.5 | lºo.5 31.l. 37.5 22 lel Urban 5,506 3,661 7,369 * … º. tº ſº tº 752.7 15.8 -50.5 e º © º G e G e Rural 7,169 l,5,619 50.1.h5 38,949 55,260 25,668 8.1 l,5,3} -21.8 10,5 37.5 85.6 Fresno, Calif. 276,515 178,565 llulº,579 126,779 £% 57,862 5.9 23.7 | 12.1 || 70.2 | 99.8 650.5 Central city 91,669 60,685 52,515 l,5,066 692 12,170 5lel 15.6 | 16.5 81.1 | 99.6 635-l Ring 18,816 117,860 91,866 85,695 50,765 25,392 56-8 || 28.5 9.8 || 6.9 || 99.9 628.0 Urban 2,80, 15,880 il,lsº ,670 ls, 199 © C tº 56.2 56.6 22el 106.5 © Q ſo e Q & Rural 160,012 102,000 80, hiº 75,025 l,6,566 25,392 56.9 || 26.8 7.2 6lel || 8 550-5 Alae 93,892 72,580 ,399 l,7,275 59,109 27,561 29-l. il-5| 34.1 | 20.9 lºº.9 25-2 Central city 55,725 56,975 dº? ll,757 10,557 lº,282 50.7 55.8 65.1 •6 ll,6-5 120l.l. Ring 58,167 *:::: 29,557 32,558 28,552 23,079 7.2 -9,5| 21.0 O 25.7 65.l. Urban 7,557 865 13,129 ; 6,826 tº 5.5 -62.8 || ||7.6 || 50.5 Q Q @ tº C º Baral ,650 50,720 26,228 23, 21,726 25,079 ~0.5 17, 1 10,9 8,8 *5-9 22.7 Calveston, Tex. 115,066 81,175 &l,liol ,150 lds,lºº ld,116 29. 26.0 21.2 | 19.5 Oe& 156.5 Central city : 60,862 52, 255 *:::: 37,789 9 15-0 || 19.6 || 19.7 || -2.1 76.2 Ring l,6 20,311 ll 8,895 7 6,327 128.9 || 77.2 || 28.9 || 18.6 || 18.5 634-9 Urban 16,620 ,7,8 3, 2,509 © & O © tº tº M89.1 62.6 lo.9 Q & C tº C e e e Q Rural 29,878 56.5 7,929 6,586 7,196 6,527 105.2 | 85.7| 24-2 || -ll-8 | 18.5 37.2.2 Grand Rapids, Miche 266,292 2.6,558 210,511 185,041 159, lls; 129,711, 17.0 2-l. 31.l. 15.0 || 22.7 122.5 Central eity 176,515 *:::: 168,592 157,654 112,571 67,565 7.lº l =2.6l 22. 22.3 || 28,6 101.6 Ring ill, 82, Tº: 57; l;2,119 36-2 || 11.1 || 58 -Q.5 | loe 5 Urban º le tº e & gº tº tº ſº º 50.7 21.7 © o º tº ſº tº C º º & © º Rural 105, 77,147 67,895 l,5,107 lº,5th lsº, ll:3 56.6 15.6 | bº.5 || -2.5 10.5 150.0 Green Bay, Wis. 98,5ul, 85,109 70,249 &l,889 096 *::::: 18.3 | 18.5 15.5 ill-l. 16.7 112, 1 Central city ,755 ;: 57.1:1 51,017 25,256 18, ll-l 23.6 || 20.6 || 22.9 *::: 2.8.2.2 Ring 5,579 56,8 32.8 30,672 ,862 27,675 25.6 || 12, 6.l. 7,0 5 6l-7 Wºbaſa •llº 6,575 5,521 5,165 77 l,058 27.8 || 1 6-9 || 15.l.. I lo-9 101's 7 Rural ºlº 50,501 27,515 25,707 2,585 25,637 22,7| lle 7 6.2 5-l. 5.2 58.l. Greensboro- 2 16 35 272 60,1697 071, 2. 15,7| 67.8 51 54.8 589 High Point, M.C. 1912057 155,9 135,010 e l © •0 •0 Central city iii. 97, 90.5ll, 165 25,120 #| #| |...} ::::: 79.0 || 705.5 7,369 59,519 55,569 #: 15,895 19,035 10,7| 169.7 25e0 58.l. 6ll-5 High Point 39,975 58,195 75 302 9,525 l,163 5.8 li-8 || 156.9 50.2 | 128.8 860.2 Ring 76,695 56,102 ,696 l,5,109 55,077 2,876 36.7 || 31.l.. I -5.5 || 28.6 ſ lil.0 206,5 Rural 76.3% 56.iº. le.& 15.is 35.&n 2.8% | ≤| si...] -3.3 25.3 | 1.3 | 20.3 Greenville, 8,0s 168,152 156,580 ll?, 88,196 68,3?? 55,190 25.1 | 16.7| 32.2 29el, | 27.8 2llel, c-tºi at, © §§ ;: | #| ##| || 3: | ##| #| #| : ; ; ; Ring 109,991 10le 87,855 57.1 52,656 lil,630 8.0 | 15.9 || 34-l, 2.2 ſ 26.I. l6hs? Urban 3 2,319 ſº tº G º º & © º ſº G & 88.7 tº e G * @ © Q @ © Q @ © & O Rural 105,558 99,1897 87,855 65,571 52,636 ,630 6-1 || 13.5 2.2 || 26-l. 155.6 Bamilton- Middletown, Ohio ll,7,205 120, 06; 67,025 70,271 56,870 22.l., 5-l. 31.1 || 23.8 || 25.6 158,8 Central city 91,696 81,812 82,168 ,269 Isbelºl 33, 12.0 || -0.l. i. 29.9 || 50.6 | lº-2 176.6 Bºdlton •95l 50,592 52,176 #: 35,279 25.9 ll.9 || -3.0 31.5 | 12, l,7e5 lº.5 Middletown 35,695 31,220 •992 23, #: 9,215 7.9 l 27-l 79 lº,7 *::: Ring ,557 38,157 51,916 23,756 º 25,741 lil-5 20.l. 3.5 8,8 -8e0 lºsso Urban lº,613 2,756 2,586 tº ſº º * e o e tº > 152.0 6.5 tº @ ſº © º dº * > … O e Q ſo Rural lib,6l3 55,661 29,538 25,756 21,810 25,741 36.2 || 21.7 || 25.5 8.8 || -8.0 ldsø APPENDIX 65 Appendix Table 1,-Population and percent of increase in population of standard metropolitan areas, by decadest 1900-1950-Continued Standard Population Percent increase metropolitan Cºº 19,0- |1950- 1920- || 1910- || 1900- 1900- 1950 1940 1950 1920 1910 1900 1950 |1950 1950 | 1920 1910 1950 Barrisburg, Pae 292,241 252,216 253,1867 211,694 190,651 16,767 15-9 || 8,0|| 10.5 ll.0 | 15,7 77.3 Central city 89.5ll, 65,895 80,539 75,917 186 50, 6.7 5,8 *:: 27,9 76.5 Ring 202,697 e323 155,128 155,777 126,1:lsº lili,620 20els 999 || 12.8 7 10-5 76.8 Urban 82,976 72,695 68,601 #. l,5,696 lso,085 ill-l 6.0 56.2 15.5 9,0 107.0 Rural 119,719 95,628 6,527 85ell.0 ,719 7,555 25.2 | 1.5el || -l,0 5.2 | 1.lso 60.6 Hartford, Mew Britain, Bristole Coºns 559,66l lºo, 189 lºl,097 356,027 slö2 195,180 19.9 6-9 || 25.5 5 || 28.0 176el Central cities 287,08; 265,119 260,65]. 217,972 152,558 112,116 8.5 l,7| 19.6 •l || 55.9 156el I. artford 17,397 166,267 16,072 156,036 ,915 79,850 6,7 le:3 | 18.9 || 59.6 || 25.9 122e2 Lew Britain ,726 68,685 el28 59,516 3,916 25,998 7.5 Os3 ll.9 35el 68.9 185,6 Bristol 35,96l 30,167 28,1451 20,620 ,527 6, 19.2 6.0 || 58.0 || 116-1, 52.0 lº.7 Ring 252,577 185,070 60, lº 118,055 97,62, 85, 56.5 || 15.5 || 55.9 || 20.7 17.3 20.5e0 Urban 7,555 57,1379 l,7,191 5,085 ;:#; 3 29.3 || 21,8 828.0 56.9 8-9 || 2079.3 Rural 178, 127,591 115,255 112,970 ll. O 79,955 39.7 12.7 Os3 || 20,0 17.7 122,9 Houstone Texas 806, 528,961 559,328 186,667 ilº,695 ,766 52.5 | life? *::: 6l.5 | 81.l.. I lićls." Central city 596,165 ; ,352 158,276 78,800 655 É: 31s5| lll 75.5 || 76.6 || 12:55.7 210,556 7 976 l,8,59 36,89 19,155 5.8 llºe 7 38.l. 1.2 | 92.6 999-2 Urban 95,310 26,370 8,660 ls, 6, © tº º 26l.l. 5|| 112.5 •6 Q @ e © tº e Rural 115,228 118,077 58,316 lili,311 29,909 19,155 –2.l.. I 102.5| 31.6 | lab.2 2 501.6 Buntington, W. Wa- Ashland, Kye 2,5,795 225,668 210,562 160,579 153,696 llle 299 8, 7.5 || 51.0 | 20sl | 20.2 121s0 Central cities 117 108,575 6,6 6,906 ,8/9 18,725 8 3.6 || 61.2 | 62.9 || 112.8 527.5 lºuntington,We Wa 86,355 76,856 75,572 50,177 51,16] 11,925 : lı.5 || 50.6 ióleo || 1 62.5 Ashlande (ye 31,151 29,557 29,07, ll,729 6,686 6,800 l,6| 97.1, 69.5 27.8 557.8 128,511 ll?,295 105,736 95,675 95,859 92,516 9.l. 10.9 10-5 le.9 lel, 58.7 Urban sloy 277 25, 18,190 16,667 lls,949 li-6 -l. 1 || 39.2 9, 1 | ile 5 69,9 Rural 102,908 95,018 80-lul O 77,185 77,162 77,567 10,6 || 15.7 5,8 Oslº -0.5 52.7 Indianapolise Inde #:#; l,60,926 l;22,666 3:6,061 263,661 197,227 19e 7 9.1 || 21.ls 52.0 i 35.7 179.8 Cºntral city ::: 586,972 36,161. 3lli,19, 235,650 169,16, l : 15.9 || 3k.5 58.1 | 152.5 12, 73,954 58,505 55,867 •Oll 28,065 68.5 72.7 | 12.8 || 6.9 O Urban llel 85 5,907 ,552 ſº º ſº {º º tº * > . . . . 10eſ) tº gº tº tº º G. ſº G º © tº º Rural 115,121 70,037 955 55,867 50,011 28,065 61.9 27-5 62.5 | 12.8 6.9 50l.2 Jackson, Miche 107,925 3,106 92,56, º; 55,126 lº,222 15.9 0.9 27.2 || 55.8 || 10.8 125,8 Central city 5le o 55,187 lº, 31,1,35 25,180 2.9 || -10-0| lluel || 55.9 || 2.8 102.9 Urban 56,857 l,5,152 57,117 2,165 21,995 25,0:2 30.8 17.1 55.6 9.9 || -la.6 llº.7 r © O & © C. C. * , º, ø, © º 0. tº º ſº © º ſº. tº tº º © e o © C. O ſº tº gº tº e Le & © Q Rural lº, lº 37,117 2,165 21,995 25,0:2 50.8 17.1 55.6 9.9 || -li,6 11,8.7 Jackson, Misse llº, 16, 107,273 85,118 57,110 65,726 52,577 32.5 || 26.0] lºº. 0 || -10.l, 21.2 170.l., Central city *::::: 62,107 ,282 22,817 21,262 7,816 58.2 28.6; 111.6 7.5 172.0 || 1157.5 Ring ,895 l,5,166 36,856 5,29 ,ld, lili,7 -2.6 || 22.6 7 •1952 •5el •lsº Rural 13.8% 15.1% 36.8% 3.293 leis, u.78 || -2.5| 2:3| 7 || -is: -;i -i} Jacksonville, Flas 3ds, 210, llº 155,505 115,500 75,165 39,755 lili. 7 || 35.1 #: 5lel | 89.2 665,2 Central city 201,517 175,065 *::::: 91,558 57, *::::: 18.2 || 33-6 •5 || 58e7 105e0 619.l., 99,512 ,078 25, 21,962 17 ll, 168-l; lºº.9| 18.1 || 25.9 || 54-5 760.5 Urban 6,150 5,566 5,597 2,775 tº gº º ſº tº º 60.5 -lº.3 101,7 tº º o ſº º & tº Gº º Rural 93,062 35,512 20,557 19,207 17,196, 11,50s 177.8 || 6′4.6 6-0 || 10-0 || 5h.5 723-1, Johnstºne Pae 291,554 296,116 285,910 ,951 253,818 15,298 -2.l. 5el lslº l 19.7 || 51.6 88-8 Central city 65,252 66,668 66,995 67,527 55, lºº 35,956 •5.2 || -0.5 || -0.5 || 21,5 5h.l. 76,0 228,122 251,788 216,917 212,62, 178,566 118,562 •l.6 6.8 2.0 | 19.2 || 50.7 92.7 Urban 63, •636 •l 55,799 ,60, 11,069 -5-6 9el 7.8 || 57el, | 266,8 l,71.8 Rural 16,827 166,112 156,746 156,825 137,762 107,295 -0.6 6-0 || -0.1 | 15.8 || 28.l. 55.6 Kalamasoo, Miche 126,707 100,065 91,568 71,225 60,1,27 lili, 26.6 9.5| 28.5 || 17.9 || 36-l. 186.0 cººl". Tº 57,704 097 786 lib.bº/ 59,157 6.7 || -1.5| 13-0 || 22.9 61.6 ſ 156.5 *::... 69,005 5,988 36,582 22,738 20,990 19,906 50.0 25.7 60.9 8.5 5.l. 6 Rural 9.8% 15.3as 36,32 22.7% 20.3% 19.3% | 36|| 2:#| &l 33 3... I a...: Kansas City, Moe 811,557 686,645 § 528,833 l,”,180 ,lººf 18.6 5.2 || 25-9 25.5 58.2 166.6 Central city l:56,622 599,178 399, 32,110 258,581 163,752 -Oel || 25.2 || 30.6 || 51e7 176.8 Ring 357,755 7,165 :::::: 20tselº 175,799 675 8.1 || 50.1 || 17.6 22.7 152s Urban 189,110 152,655 151, 151,067 108,502 70,991 23.9 9.8 || 15.6 || 21.0 || 52.6 l Bharal 168,625 151,812 lil,lilis ,556 slºt ,66, 25.1 17.8 || 56.0 | 12.0 [ -7.5 158,6 Kenoshas ºise 75,258 63,505 65,277 ,28, 32,929 21,707 18.5 Oel, 25.l, 55.7| 51.7 2,6-6 Central city 54,566 lº,765 50,262 ,1,12 21,571 ll,606 11.5 ! -5-0|| 2.2 | 89els 8l. 1 568.l., Urban 20,870 Tito 15,015 10,812 11,556 10,101 lºl.6 ſ 13-3 -6-5 lls.l., 106.6 Rural 20.8% us.” 13.31% 10,812 u,; 10.ini liºl 13.3 ºil -&l iii. 10& Knoxville, Tºm. 357,105 246,088 209,615 160,02, 132,715 illellº 37.0 | 17-lil 31.0| 20.6| 19.l. 203.5 Central oity 12,769 111,580 105,602 77,818 36, 32,657 ll,8 5.5l 56-0 lllel llel, 262.5 212,556 15h,508 103,811 82,206 96,567 78,505 57.9 || 29.6| 26.5 ! -ll,7| 22.8 170.5 Urban 17,809 15,501 10,215 7,097 5,126 & Cº º Žl.9 || 52.2| lºj.9 || 38.5 © º e tº O O Rural 19,527 121,007 93,598 75,109 91,281 78,505 60-8 29.5 2.6 •lTe? 16.2 170.5 Laneaster, Pae 23,717 212,50l., 196,882 175,797 167,029 159,941 10.5 7e9| 13.3 lel l.9 lifel, cºi"...is 65,771, 61,345 º, #: 7, ,1,59 lso 2-3 | 12.8 || 12.5| 15.9 53.8 170,945 151,159 156,955 120,617 119,802 117,782 13-l 10 15.5 Oe? le.7 hºl Urbana lº,076 33,587 30,881 2,282 17,255 : 25.5 8.0 27.2 laſ),9| 39.9 2ll,6 Fºral 128,867 117,572 106, 96,565 102,569 105 9.6 || 10-9 loel | -6-0 || -2.7 22e2 Lansing, Miche 172,981 150,6ló 116,587 61,554 55,510 39,818 12.0 liº. 0 || 55.0 55.9 34.3 Central city eliº 78,755 18,397 57,527 51,229 16,185 17.0 0,5 36,8 85.6 89el, •9 Ring 60,812 51,863 58, 190 2. 22, 06:1 25, 555 $5.8 55.8 57. 6 9.7 9;s6 5 Urban 25,839 8,706 6,964 tº ſº º tº º ſº. tº gº º 175.8 25.0 © tº e © o o © tº e C - © Rural 56,975 lº, 157 31,226 2s. 22,081 23,555 32.0 || 58.2 28.9 || 9.7 || - ill-2 66 APPENDIX Appendix Table le=Popoulation and percent increase in population of standard metropolitan areas, by decades, 1900-1920-Continued Population Percent increase 8tandard *::::: * 1940- || 19 1920- || 1910- || 1 1900- 1950 1910 1950 1920 1910 1900 1950 | 1 1950 | 1920 | 1910 1950 Laredo, Texas 56, ill l,5,916 lº, 128 29, 152 22,505 21,851 22.3 9.0 | lab.5 29.5 3.0 156-9 Central oity 51,910 g 32,618 22,710 ll,855 13,1,29 32.2 | 20.1, lºº.6 || 52.9| 10.6 286-6 Ring lº,231 6,612 9,510 6,1slº 7,6,8 8,122 –56.5 ~50.2 l,7.6 -15.8 •9e2 -lº.6 Urban Q & Q tº º ſº gº tº tº º ſº. tº º ſº & ºn tº tº e o to tº Q tº e e tº de C ſº tº º to e G Rural lº,251 6,642 9,510 6,1:lsº 7,6,8 8,122 || -36.5 -50.2 | lºº.6 || -15.8 || -9.2 -lº.8 Lawrences Mass Included with Boston, Masse Lexington, Kye 100,746 º: 68,545 54,66, lsº,715 l;2,071 27.7 15.1 25.l. lºsé 13.l. 139,5 Central oity ; 55, lº, l,5,736 lil,53, 35,099 26,369 12.6 7,8 10el 18-3 35sl llo,6 *:: 5,212 29,595 22,807 13,150 12, 616 15,702 52.8 29.8 73.7 ls-l -l9.7 187.9 rban © tº º tº º º & ſº º tº º º tº gº º tº º ſº e Q - tº gº tº © º º e - © tº º º e º 'º Rural l,5,212 29,595 22,807 15, 150 12,616 15,702 52.8 29.8 73.7 li.l | -19.7 187.9 Lima, Ohio 88,185 73,505 69,119 66,225 56,580 lº,976 : 5.6 le8 20,6|| 17-9 85.8 Central city 50,246 lºlº.7ll lºz,287 ,526 50,506 21,723 l2 5.7 2.5 || 35.5 lºo *::: Ring 57,957 28,592 27,132 ,897 26, orz 26, 255 32.7 5-l. 0,9 3.2 -0,7 5 Urban ,lild 3,086 5,055 5,169 2,556 : 10,8 le,0 -5.6 2.0 lle 7 •3 Rural 519 25, 506 orſ 23,728 23, 516 25, 35.5 5.9 le5 O.9 •le? O Lincoln, Nebra 119,742 *:::: 100,32, 85,902 73,793 6,835 19.0 0.5 | 16.8 | 16.l. i. 15.8 8,7 Central city ,864 ble ,933 9,8 lº,975 lso, 169 20.6 8,0 38.2 25.0 9.e5 llº-2 Ring 20,858 18,601 391 30,951, 29,820 2s, 12.1 || -23.7 || -21.2 5.8 || 20.9 -15.l. trban gº º ſº tº ſº 3,659 7,711, 5,880 tº ſº tº tº º tº C º -52.6 51.2 © e tº © tº Lº Rural 20,858 18,601 20,752 23,240 23,990 2,666 12.1 || -10.5 ! -10.8 -2.9 || -2.9 -15.l. Little Rook-lorth Little Rock, Ark, 196,685 156,085 137,727 109,1964 86,751. 65,179 26-0 || 15.3 || 25.8 || 26.2 £: 21 le? Central cities •310 109,176 101,097 79,190 ,079 38,507 3.0 8.0 27.7 38.7 •0 28 le.9 Little Rock 102,215 88, 81,679 65, llº 5,9tal 58,507 16.1 7.8 || 25.l, lºl.8 | 19.9 166-8 Morth Little Rook lil,097 21,157 19,118 il,0:5 ll, 158 tº gº tº loº.6 8.9 || 58.2 26.1 ſº tº ſº tº @ e 50,375 l,6,909 36,650 50,27, 29,672 2,872 7.li 28.1 21.0 2.0 | 19.7 102.5 Urban © C tº º ſº tº ſº º * > * > . . © º º tº ſº tº C. C º tº e C tº G tº e C tº gº º gº tº º Rural 50,575 lº,909 36,650 50,27, 29,672 24,872 7.l, 28.1 21.0 2,0|| 19e3 102.5 Lorain-Elyria, Ohio llb,162 112,390 109,206 90,612 76,057 5,857 31.8 2.9 20.5 19e? 38.6 176el Central cities 81,509 69,245 70, ll,5 57,769 lº,706 24,619 17.7 •le 5 21.l. 32.2 76el 228.l. Lorain 51,202 lili, 125 lili,512 3; 28,883 16,028 16.0 | -0.9 || 19.l, 29.1 | 60.2 3.19.5 Elyria 30,507 25, 120 25,655 20,1, ll,825 8,791 20.6 || -2.0 || 25.2 || 58.1 | 68.6 || 2 ||.8 66,655 lsº, iliº ,06l 32,813 32,329 50,038 5h.5 : 18.9 l,6 7.6 121s Urban 20,711 9,730 7,156 lº,236 l,565 l,082 ll2.9 68.5 -3.0 6-9 l,07 Rural l,5,942 33,1,15 31,925 28,607 27,961, 25,956 37.5 lı.7 || 11.6 2.3 7.7 77.0 Los Angeles, Calif. l,567,911 2.916,103 2,527,166 997,850 558,567 189, lº.8 25.5 || 135.2 85.5 | 185.5 21.99,0 Central city 1,970, 1,504,277 1,238,088 576,675 319,198 102,1179 Bl,0 21.5 | llll-7 80.7 211,5 | 1822.7 2,397, l,lilz,126 1,069,118 lºl, 157 219,569 87,515 69.8 29, 7 || 158.6 92.0 | 150,7 2639,6 Urban 1,171,983 945,769 751, 2:lº, 106,727 ,635 55.6 25.8 || 207.7 | 128.9 || 371.6 6,05.7 Rural 925, l,66,557 357,158 176,891 112,642 6,862 98.5 || 58.2 || 90.8 || 57.0 || 75.6 || 1326.5 Louisville, Kye 576,900 l,51,173 l;20,769 l 323, l;75 29s, 27.8 7.5 21.5 7,1 9,8 95.9 Central od ty ,129 319,077 #: 23,891 223,926 20,731 15.7 3.7 || 31.0 lº.9 9-h 80.3 Ring 207,771 132,596 113, lll,520 § 89,771 §§ 17, 1 le3 || 12,0 | 10.9 15lel, Urban 5,721 ,907 37,765 ,267 55, 31,1402 •5 -2.5 -6-2 19.2 7.6 The 2 Rural 155,050 95,189 75,259 71,255 ,76l 58,369 60.3 || 26.9 5.6 8 12.7 162.2 Lowell, Mass. Included with Bostone Masse Lubbook, Texas 101,048 51,782 39, lol, 11,096 5,62's 295 95.1 || 32.l. 252.l, 206-2| 1136.9 |3,387.l. Central city 71,747 31,855 20,520 *:::: e - i. ... } 125.2 | 55.2 | loé.5 © Q Q © Q & tº º º Ring 29,301 19,929 18,584 7,015 3,624 293 l,7.0 7.2 | 163.8 9's.l. i. 1136.9 9900.5 Urban 5,056 5,587 3,876 © . . tº & O tº gº º lso.l. –7.5 © C º e Q & © º o e Q Q Rural 24,265 16,342 7,045 3,62, 295 lº.5 | 11.1 : 108.6 || 9k-lil 1136.9 || 8181.6 Macon, Gae 155,043 95,066 88,522 95,268 80,255 73, lll, lsz.0 7-7 || -5.5 | 16.2 †: Glue" Central city ,252 ,865 55,829 52,995 lso,665 25,272 21sla 7,5 l,6 50.3 7 2Ole.9 791 37,221 5 l,0,275 39,590 lº,8l42 Titel 7.9 || -ll-l, le.71 -20.6 50,0 Urban ll,855 © to º C & O 5,225 2,697 & Cº º tº tº Q © e O & ſº gº 19. © e e Gº Ge e Rural 52, 37,221 5 37,050 36,895 lº,8liz l;2.5 7.9 •6-9 O -26.0 6.2 Madison, Wise 169,357 130,660 112,757 ,lº2 77,155 69,135 29.6 ſ 15.9 || 26.1 15.5| ll,5 lº.9 Central oity 6,056 67.ll." 57,899 58,578 25,551 19,16, liz-l. 16.5 50.9 50.3 33,2 lol.2 75,301 ,213 54,856 51,05; 51,90, 50,271 16,0 | 15.5 7-l. I -1.6 3.2 lº.6 Urban 7,577 7,3 ls.l.97 5,101 l, 761 3,1831 55.5 5.5 || -lls& 7sl 58.8 115,0 Rural 65,924 58,1470 50,341 l,5,953 . lº, llsº lº, 12.7 | 16.1 9.5 || -2.5 0.6 l,0.7 Manchester, M.H. 156,987 888 lso, l 155,512 126,072 112,640 8-l. 3.l. 3-l. 7e5| lls? •l, Central city 82, 77,685 76,8 ,58, 70,065 967 6.5 lel -2.0 | lleº || 22.9 5,2 Ring 7,255 67,20 63,351 57,128 56,009 55,655 10, 6-1 || 10.9 2.0 0.6 35el, Urban 58,828 36,8 35,531 28,579 26,005 23,896 5 3.7 || 25.2 9el 8,8 62.5 Rural 35,127 50, 27,800 28,719 30,00; 51,755 16.7 9,2 •3.5 2 =525 il-6 Memphis, Tenne l,52,395 558,250 306,182 225,216 191,139 153,557 3.7 | 16.7 || 37.5 | 16.6 || 24.7 2nli-l Ceritral city 000 º *3; 162, 151,105 102,520 55.2 | 15.7 || 55.9 || 23-8 ; 28.1 207-0 *:: :% gº ,539 60,8 60,554 51,257 32.5 || 22 -12.l., 0.9 || 17,8 68.6 rbºn tº º ſº tº ſº º gº tº e : © tº º © e ∈ e C & © tº º C e > tº C C, Cº º Rural 81,697 © 55,539 60,865 60,334 51,257 || 25.1 -12.l, o-9 || 17.8 3.i. Miami, ſlas lº,08, 267,739 llº,955 lº,755 lle953 lº,955 8l.9 || 87.3 || 23's.l., f: llo.8 || 9691.6 Central oity 249,276 172,172 llo,657 29,571 5, lºſſl tº gº tº lili.8 55.6 274.1 •5 © e O. © C C, Ring §§ 32,518 15, 182 6,162 lº,955 157.2 | 195.7 | llº.2 | lol.o Urban 128,278 5 ll,791 & Cº º º, º ſº. & tº tº 195.l., 193.5 C. C o tº e C Q & © tº @ 9 Rural 117,550 52, ll:9 17,527 15, 182 lº,955 125-I4 197.5 33-0 || 101.0 30-l. 2271-9 Milwaukee, Wise 871, clºſ 766,885 725,263 539, lilº lº,187 350,017 13.6 5.7 || 3'-l. 2.5l 51.3 163, Central city 657,392 567,172 ; l,57,117 375,857 ,315 8,5 l,6 || 26.5 22.5 || 51.0 12 255,655 179,113 llº,0 82,502 59,350 702 50.2 22,0 78.6 38.7 52.7 lº2.7 Urban ,950 116,200 100,211 ,585 19,774 6,23, 20.9 || 18.0 155.2 100.2 || 217-2 || 2195-1 Rural 90,705 6l,213 l,6,805 •719 39,556 58,168 l,8.2 50.8 9e 8e0 2,8 155.0 APPENDIX 67 Appendix Table le-Population and percent of increase in population of standard metropolitan areas, by decadest 1900-1950-Continued 8tandard Population Percent increase -ºu- 1910- 1950- || 1920- || 1910- || 1900- || 1900- 1950 1950 1950 1920 1910 1900 1950 | 1940 1950 1920 1910 1950 Minneapolis-Ste Paul, Minne l,ll6,509 940,957 857,515 594,819 lºl, 9.0 18.7 9.7| 21.7 | 18.5 º: 158.5 Central oities 835,067 780,106 735,962 615,280 516, 152 565,785 6.8 6-0 || 19.6 || 19.2 •l 127.7 Minneapolis 521,718 lºg2.570 l,6,356 380, 301,1908 202,718 6.0 6.0 22.0 26.5 | lab.7 157.l., St. Paul 511,319 287, 271, 25,698 2ll,7tal, 163,065 8.2 5.9 15.7 9.5 31.7 3. •llº 160,831 121,551 ,286 78,667 66,157 76.2 || 32.5|| 36.1 || 15.5 | 18.9 328, Urban 152,511, 72,155 5,990 705 20,820 7,580 lll-l l 51.2 122.6 | 18.7 || 1714-7 || 1909.l., Rural 151,126 88,678 66,561 <585 57,847 58,577 l;7.9 || 35.2 5.1 | 11-6 || -le? 125.9 Mobile, Alas 231,105 llal,97, 118,365 100,117 80,851, 62,740 62.8 || 19.9 | 18.2 || 25.8 28.9 268, l, Central city 129,009 Jº 68,202 60,777 51,521 58,169 65.9 || 15.l, 12.2 | 18.0 i 35.9 235.l., Ring 102,096 65,254 50,161 39,340 29,333 24,271 6l.lº || 26.1 || 27.5 | Bl-l | 20.9 320.7 Urban 23,93; 6, l,580 tº o ſº • O C. & C g 295.l. 32.8 Q & © © gº º tº º º © º Rural 76,162 57, 170 lsº,561 39,310 29,555 2,271 36.7 15.9 || 31.1 20.9 222.0 Montgomery, Alas 158,965 lili.lazo 98,671 80,855 82,178 72,037 21.5 | 16.0 | 22.0 | -1.6 ll-l 92.9 Central city *::::: 76,064 66,079 lsº 58,156 30,346 56.l, 18.2 || 52.0 | ll.0 || 25.7 25le O *::... 32 36,356 32,592 37,389 lili,d2 lil,701 •10,7 ll,5| -12.8 -15el 5.6 =22e2 Ur © tº º tº © º º tº tº º tº gº tº Q & Q tº ſº º tº e tº g º Oe & O Q © C. C. tº Q & Rural 32, lilo 56, 556 32, 592 57,589 lil,701 -10,7 ll,5 -12.8 -15el 5.6 =22e2 Muncio, Inde 90,252 71,965 67,270 56,577 51,bul, l;9,62, 20.l., llels 19.3 9,7 3.6 61.9 Central city 58,179 l,5,720 l,6,5h8 56,524 2,005 20,912 17.6 6.8 || 27.l, 52.2 ll.6 || 179.2 Ring 31,773 25,245 20,722 19,855 27,109 28,682 25.9 || 21.8 li-li -27.6 10,8 §: 31,773 25,213 20.7% 19.8% 27,º 28.82 25.3 | 2.5l n., | -27.3 -º 10.5 Mashville, Tenne 321,758 257,267 222,854 167,615 ll,9,1,78 122,815 25.1 | 15.l, | 32.8 12.5 || 21.7 162.0 Central oity 17's, # 167, lºo? 153,866 118,542 110,364 80,865 li.l 8.8 || 50.0 7.2 || 36.5 115.6 *::... *::::: 89,865 66,988 lº,l,73 39, lil, ,950 64-l. 30.3 || 39.l. 26.5 || -6.8 25le 5 Rural :30 89.5% 68,383 19.ii; 39.iii. la,3% | 66.3 | 36.3 || 3 | 2&#| -&g | al.; Mew Bedford, Mass Included with Fall River, Masse Mew Britain-Bristol, Conne Included with Hartford, Conn. Mew Haven-Waterbury Conne 545,764 lºli,516 l,65,149 lilº,2ll, 557,282 269,165 12.7 lı.5 ! 11.6 23.1 || 25.5 102.8 Central cities 268,920 259,919 262,557 252 7,6 155,886 3.5 || -l,0 3.3 || 23.0 | 3.l. 7,8 low Haven l 5 160,605 162,655 162,557 155,605 106,027 2.l.. I -1.5 Oel 21, 7 || 25.7 52.2 Waterbury lds,l,77 99,311, 99,902 91,715 73, lll l,5,859 5.2 i -0.6 8.9 || 25.l.. I 59.5 127.8 Ring 276,86; 397 200,892 160,962 150,556 115,277 25.l.. I 11.7 8 || 25.3 || 15.2 ll,0.2 Urban 137,06, 125,825 ,lºo 86,066 83,925 67,132 8.9 li.5 | lºo.0 2. 2.5 105.5 Rural 159,800 98,572 80,132 ,896 ,613 lº,6l35 lil.8 22.6 7.l, 60.7 || -2.6 192.2 New Orleanse Lae 685,1405 552,2'-l; 505,306 lily,750 562,599 507,156 2.4-l 9.3 || 22.1 | ll-l 17.9 122.9 Central city 570, lili; lºli,537 l,58,762 387,219 *:::::: 267,104 15.3 7.6 | 18.5 ºl.2 | 18.1 98.7 Ring lli,960 57, .5il, 26,551 25, ſº 99.2 || 2.0 75.l, 12.8 || 15.6 | bºl.9 Urban 31,070 15,871 15,571 7, 197 © tº º tº 95.8 16.9 88.6 tº º º © º º © e Q Rural 65,890 lºl,856 32,975 19.33, 23,524 20,352 100.5 || 26.9 || 70.5 | 82.2 | 15.6 312.2 New York-Northeastern Mew Jersey 12,911,994 || 11,660,839 || 10,859, alsº slºo, 7,089,087 5,058,750 10,7 7.l. #: 20.5 ! 39.6 155.7 Central cities ,629, 6,185,926 7,689,196 6,552, 675 ,582,151 3,889, 5.l. 6.5 21. 17.7 58. 121-9 Mew York City 7,891,957 •lsº,995 6,950,116 5,620,0,8 ,766,885 5,137,202 5.9 7.6 || 25.3 || 17.9 || 58.7 129.6 Jersey City, M. J. 2.99,017 501,173 516,715 296,105 267, 206,1335 -0.7 || -l.9 6.2 | 11.5 29.7 Mewark, N. J. l,58,776 lº,760 lºlº,337 lillº, 5||7 Ö 2. l l =2.8 6.7 | 19.5 ! lil.2 78.3 lº,282,2il, 5,174.9ll 5,169,985 2,158,019 1,666,916 1,159,095 25.2 9.6 lºé.9 || 29.5 | lºº.6 269.5 Urban 3,126,659 2,709,155 ,543,688 1,665,816 1,201,081 tº 15.l. 6.5 || 52.7 || 58.7 || 65.7 326.2 Rural 1,155,585 765,1, 626,257 lºº,203 l,65,835 l;25,lia, 51.0 22,2 || 27.2 5.7 9.5 17le 6 Norfolk-Portmouth, Was lilº,200 258,927 229,655 2il, ll,8 16,912 126,025 72.5 12.8 —lieb lº.2 50.9 25l.l Central cities 5, 195,077 175, all, 170,161, 100,642 051 50.5 ll.2 5.1 | 69.1 57.1 358.5 Norfolk 213,513 352 129,710 115,777 67,152 l,6,62, l,7,9 ll,5 12.0 71.6 lilº.7 557,9 Portsmouth 80,059 50,745 l,5,70, 387 35,190 17,127 57.7 ll.0 || -16-0 || 65.9 || 90.5 || 559.5 152,648 65,850 5,221 70,981, éli, 61,972 159.1 || 17.8 || -25.6 || 10 5.7 lisé.5 Urban 19,655 10,658 7,857 ,72, gº º º lº,968 6 || 35-l; le.7 © & © tº e Q 293-6 Ogden, Utah 63,319 56,711, 52,172 lsº, lié5 35,179 25,239 lić-9 8.7 20.0 || 25.5 || 59.l., 250-l *::... *::::: 13,026 ll,900 10,659 9,599 8,926 101.2 9.5 | 11.6 | ll.0 7.5 193.6 Rural 18,721 13.3% 11.3% 10.8% 9.3% 8,923 || 13.7 | 3.; ii.é ii.6 || 7.5 | 103.” Oklahoma City, Oklae 525,552 2wls, 159 221,738 lié,507 85,232 25,915 35.5 10el 90.6 36.5 226.9 1155.5 Central city 2,3,50l., 2d.,k2l, 185,589 91,295 205 10,057 19el | 10.5 ! 105.1 l;2.2 || 559.7 || 1326, 1 Ring 81,848 39,735 ,349 25,012 21,027 15,878 106.0 9.5 | lºº.5 19-0 || 32 5,5 Urban 27,067 6,592 3,576 tº ſº º tº ſº tº tº ſº º 3.10.6 8l.5 © e Q e G & © tº G & © tº Rural 5, 781 35, lls: 52,773 25,012 21,027 15,876 65.3 lel 51.0 19.0 2,5.0 Omaha, Hebre 366,39 325,155 315,272 253,652 20,006 12.7 5.8 || 15.7 || 17.9 lit. 5 79.6 Central City 251,117 225,8,1, 2ll,006 191,601 096 102,555 12.2 lı.6 || 11.7 5l.l. 21.0 ill-7 Ring 115,278 101,509 ,266 83.8/3 109,556 101,1,51 15.8 2.1 | 18.l. -23.5 8.0 15.6 Urban lº,267 lil,lsº ,0,6 36,162 58,721 §:; 18.9 -l-ly 16.5 -38.l., 13.l. 9 Rural 65,991 59,870 57,218 l,7,681 50,835 ,618 10.2 ls.6 | 20.0 | -6-2 2.l. 32.9 Orlando, Flas ul.9% 70,071, l;9,757 19,890 19,107 11,571, 6.0 | lºo.9 || 150-l lº.1 | 68.0 910.6 Central city 52,367 56,736 #: 9,282 3,89, & is º lºz.5 *:: l 158.l. tº o º © e gº & 62,585 33,338 22, 10,608 15,215 ll,574 87.7 •8 llle 2 || -50.5 || 55.8 l,50.2 Urban ll,755 7,775 3,686 º ſº 3,570 & Cº º 51.2 ll.0,9 tº º c e - © © ſº ( ) tº º Rural 50,850 25,565 18,721 10,608 ll,65 ll,374 98.8 || 56.5 76.5 || -8.9 2-l. 316.9 68 APPENDIX Appendix Table 1.-Population and percent of increase in population of standard metropolitan areas, by decadest 1900-1950-Continued Population Percent increase Standard -*::::: tna 19,0- 1950- || 1920- || 1910- || 1900- 1900- 1950 1910 1950 1920 1910 1900 1950 | 1940 1950 | 1920 | 1910 1950 Peoria ſº 2 2ll, 187 150,250 13,262 121,829 18. 13.0 || 2.7l ll.9 || 10-2 105.6 ::::::::s ; #| #| # | #| #| #| || #| #| #| : l g iº & © Urban *::::: : ; 15,901 12,565 Éizo 55.0 39.7 53.7 26.5 lº.2 520.2 Rural 86,131 72,525 58,022 58,228 5,767 57,309 19.2 || 25.0 | -0.l. 6-3 || -l-ly 50.8 ladelphia, Pa. ,671, 3, 199,657 3,137,040 2,711,271 2,268,209 1,892,126 ll.7 2.0 15.6 19.7 19,9 94.0 *:::::::::: :::::::: £º, 1.3% ºf i.ºrg | 1.35 ous | 1.33:37 7.3| -1.0 || 7.0 17.7 | 19.7 || 60-l Ring 1,599,1,1,3 | 1,266,303 ,186,079 890 719,201 598, l, 26.1 || 6.9 || 33-2 || 23.8 || 20.2 | 167.5 Urban 923,717 & 715,256 l,69,158 *::: 23,602 21.8 6.0 52.5| lºº.3 3.0 295.7 Rural 675,726 509,916 lºſſo,825 lºl, 33, º,89's 565,829 32.5 8.5 || 11.7l lº-l lle? 85.7 e tº 186,1. 150,970 89,576 20,1857 78.2 25.5 | 68.5 159.7 | 66.6 || 1521.8 :*::; ::::::: : its 29,055 11,13. 5, 65.5 35.9 65.6 ſ 160.9 || 100.8 1826.7 Ring 22,952 120,779 *:::: *::::: 25, 55, llº,913 #. ; iš: #: 159.2 56. 6 lobel, O 98 7 tº e ſº ſº G & gº o * > © C → « » « » (c. *: #3 *:::: 9%iº º 23,35, lli,915 || 72.9 || 10.8 l ll26.8 ttsburgh ,062, 2,02 ls l,l,71,800 1,083,816 6.3 2.9 || 15.0 | 19.6 35.8 1d,.2 *:::::::: *::::::: 2 ::::: :::::: º: #3305 l,51,512 0.8 || 0.3 || 15.8 || 10.2 | 18.2 | lº-9 Ring l,5 l,lilo,897 1,355.h52 1,171,646 §: 632, 8, b.2 15.5| 24.9 || lab.3 llº.o Urban 9ll,706 851,861 e526 666, ,966 2,0,1, 7 2.9 2| l;2.0 || 95.8 260.14 Rural 621,72, 559,056 525,926 505, 118 l,71,929 391,885 ll.2 6.5 ls.l. 7.0 58.7 © L © 120 ll tº 105 259 95,667 8.7 le3 6.8 7-l. 10,0 39.0 *:::::: * *::::: *::::: ; :::::: jºiá 21,766 7.l. ... 18.9 || 30.0 lif.6 llº-l Ring ,618 72,589 71,025 71,270 75,158 73,901 9.7 2.2 -0.5 ! -2.6 -1.0 7.7 Urban lº,905 lº,075 ,555 l,5,619 5,077 ,188 le.7 lel 6.5 l,5 21.2 Rural 29,715 25,516 ..lºo ,621 ,06l 32,715 26.l. li-6 || -12.2 -8.7 | -llisz ~9.2 Portland, Mee ,201 000 13,645 576 112,0ll, 100,689 15e 8.l. 8,5| ll,0| lle2 68.0 cºi º, *:::::: *::::: #: *:::::: ; 50, llsº 5 l.0 2.2 | 18.5 | 16.8 54.8 Ring 1,567 72,357 65,835 •ld, 55, lalº ,5ul, 26.5| 15.l.. I 15.8 3el 8 le? Urban *::::: 55,871 30,791 bºl 21,095 18,760 22.5 10,0 25.7 16-l 12.5 120,9 Rural 50,075 ,l,86 35,0tl, 30,615 32,550 31,76, 30.1 | 16.5 7.91 -5.l., 57.6 tland l, l,55,0 503, 150,711 l,0.6 10.2 22, 1 22.7 || 101.6 367.7 *:::: : 575,626 #: ; #4. ; ..lºé 22.3 ls? 16.9 2.6 || 129.2 #: Ring 351,201 195,881 155,222 llls,lº 96,615 60,285 69.1 || 27.8 || 53.8 || 18.5| 60.5 Urbaja 60,65 35,092 26,805 18,323 18, liº 6,620 lº.7| ll.9| 57.2| -0.7 || 178.8 || 1118.0 Rural 250,570 162,769 12,117 96,166 78.1 55,665 53.9| 30.8 || 29.l. 25.0| liº.6 566.9 Providence ſº •8 l 616,195 36,572 l,78,555 571,805 7.5 2.9 ll.9 12.2 28.7 83.l., ::::::::" #: #. 252,981 ::::::: 23. 175,597 || -l.9 || 0-2 || 6.5| 5.9| 27.8 lal,6 lsº, ill 580, 363,5ll, ,977 25,007 196,206 15.8 ly,7| 21.6 17,7| 29.5 120.8 Urbaa ,792 ; 3,5,839 277.3kl; 253,767 172,892 12.2 ls-2 O | 18.6 || 55.2 132.l. Rural 51,519 22,505 19,675 21,655 ,240 23,311, 39.5 ll.l. –9el 6.9 -13. 54.5 © 188 66, O58 57,656 52,225 31s0 li-3| lls.6l 10-lal 51.6 161,8 *...*º, %: º: : ſºoºo lil,747 26,157 22.1 | bell 16, lal 3.1 | lab.3 | 126.2 26,503 16,708 15, 588 10,876 6,291 58.6 lº.8 9.3| 39.3 | 66.5 321,5 Urban © C. G. © Q @ © tº G © e de © & © tº º gº tº e ∈ tº gº tº tº go © * c º © ſº Rural 26,505 16,706 15,952 ll,586 10,876 6,291 58.6 lı.8 9.5 || 59.5 | 66.5 321,5 Racine, Wise 109, Olsº 90,217 78,961 57,1,2, l,5,6].'s 16-5 lº.2| ll.3| 37.5| 25.8 lso.l. cºal is #: #; 67,542 58,595 38,002 29,102 5.9 i: 15.5l 5.2 30.6 illu.6 ,392 26,852 :#; ,566 19,122 16,542 lsº,0| 18 lle 3 lº.9 17.l. 152.1 Urban 780 lºlill, 3,626 3,212 2, 8,3 7.5 13,5| 12.9 || 27.2 89.2 Rural 35,612 22,158 18,561 16,742 16,210 il,016 lº.8 || 20.9 || 10.9 3.5 || 15.7 139,8 Raleigh, M. C., l 109, 757 l 65,229 5,626 24.6] 15.6| 26.1 | 18.9 || 15.7 lº.8 : city ; &; #; •155 19,218 13,613 l,0.0 25.5 55.1 27.1 lºo. 381.l. "; 62,647 57,578 50,757 Oll l,0,985 13.0 9.2 13.1 15.3 72.7 Rural 67,837 ce.* 57.3% 50.7% ultii l;0,985 7.1] 9.2 || 13.1 | 15.3 65.6 Pºle O 2,1,66, 251,717 200,854. 185,222 159,6l3 5.7 li-lº 15-is 9.6| lis8 60.2 Central city §: 110,568 ll.1,171 107,784 6, ,96l •lel | -O-5 3.l.. 12.2| 21.7 38.l., #: 151,516 120,556 93,070 87,151 80,654 lle 3 8.9 || 29.5 6.8 81.5 Urban 38,236 ,169 29,100 ll,857 2,950 tº gº º ll,8 16.5 •9 507-1 © tº º Rural 108,181, 97,127 91, ll:6 76,215 8,221 80,654 ll.l. 6,6] 16.5 -7.1 3b-l siemona, va.iſ © 262,991 256,957 2:llelº, 172,56, Maj,631 2.7| ll.0|| 12.2| 22.5| 20.0 | 126.l., Central *ś ::::: i: 182,929 In 33% ižº 85,050 19.5 5.5| 6,6| 5h.5, 50.1 | 170.8 Ring 97,740 ,969 5,026 ,l,68 uſ: 58,581 59.7| 29.5 36.9 || -ll,8 || -25.6 66.8 Rural 97.% 9.3's 54,028 39,1466 blº,736 58,581 39.7| 29.5| 36.9 || -ll.8 || -8.5 100,0 Roanoke, W. l 112, 18's lds,lºº 75,257 57,332 18.9 7slal lize? ...; l,6-0 257.l. Central is ## 69,267 69,206 50, 87, iſiºs 52.7 Oell 36.l #: 62.2 527,6 Ring ,1186 lº,897 55,269 22, 19,623 15,857 ~5-5] 21.6| 57.6 1 || 25.9 162.0 Urban 10,1852 9,192 8,idº 6,9 3,819 3,1,12 13.7 8.9| 21.7| 80.3 || 12.8 2O6.5 Rural 31,031, 53,705 26,646 15,157 15,77, 12,125 ~7,9 25.5 73.7 ~220, 27.0 llº,8 Rochester, Je Y, l,07,632 l,58,250 liz2,681 552,054 285,212 217,854. ll.5 3.l., 20.1, 2,-3) 50.0 125,8 Central city 332,188 32,975 328,132 ,750 218,119 162,608 2.5 =lso 10.9 55.6 10,5 Ring 155, ill, 115,255 ,7,9 28, 65,963 55,216 57.0 18.5 lſ -13.5 17.8 180,8 Urban 51,145, ,501 32,766 ll,507 6,691 #: 3'-5' 16.9 | 18.7| 72.0 | 96.9 | llll-2 Rural 105,690 95, 62,985 lily,777 58,372. 51, 58.5 lº,0 lso,7| -25.3 100,0 Rockford, Ills 152, 121,178 117,3 90,929 65,155 l,7,815 25.8 3.2| 29.1 ! blu.0 •0 218.5 Central city ź : §§ 65,651 5,101 #ºo. 9.8 -lºl, lilº.6 É: 199e3 : 31,509 25,278 17,752 16,79, 62.7 16.0 2.6 lº.l. 5.7 25,0 Urban 8,567 2,825 tº ſº tº & ſº tº tº º º tº e de 2dy.0 tº ſº tº tº dº gº © º º © tº C. Rural 50,871 35,716 31,509 25,278 217,752 16,79, 50.9 7.0 6| l;2.l. 202.9 1/ Colonial Heights, which became an independent oity in 1948, has been excluded from the B.M.A. totals, APPENDIX 69 Appendix fable le=Population and percent of increase in population af standard metropolitan areas, by decadess 1900-1950-Continued ti Percent increase C Population QC, -*:::: * 19,0- : 1920- || 1910- || 1900- 1900- 1950 1980 1950 1920 1910 1900 1950 || 1 1950- 1920 | 1910 1950 Sacramentee Calife 217, lºo 170,555 999 91,029 67,806 lsº,915 62.7 || 20,0 §: 2 I lºº.7 503-6 Central city 137,572 105,958 :: ,908 ,262 29.8 15.0 2 7.5 || 52.6 369,8 Ring 199,568 375 g 121 25,110 16,635 | il6.8 || 55-li | 92.1 || 8.7 || 58.9 || 729.1 Urban 6,029 3,055 & 2 × . . . . tº ſº Q © º e tº º º 97.5 tº º º e Q @ tº º ſº © Q tº Q & Cº. Rural 135,539 61,322 lsº,249 25,121 25,110 16,655 117.8 27.1 || 92.1 8.7 || 58.9 70229 tººl city 92,918 82,794 80,715 61,903 50,500 lºs 12.2 2.6 || 30-lº 22.6 || 19.3 119sh Ring 60,597 lº,67. ,002 58,383 58,760 2877 27.1 || 19e? lº-2 || -1.0 | -0-2 55.9 s: 60.37 | 1.7.8ſ. I loº. 3s,333 || 38.* | *.sril 27.il 13.2 | dºl -i.ol -º 53.3 Ste Joseph, Mee 96.826 9,067 96,635 95,684 95,020 121,858 2.9 -li-6 || 5-3 Qe7 3: –20.5 Central eity 78,566 75,711 60,955 ſº 102,979 3.8 || -6.5 5,8 Oe? =25.7 Ring 18,258 18,556 17,696 15,745 15,617 18,859 -0.6 3.7 12-l. 0-0 || -17s2 •5,3 Rural 18.2% 18.3% 17.* 15.º 15.3% 18.8% | -ººl 3.7 | 12...] 3.5 ! -17.2 | -3.3 8te Louis, Moe 1,681,281 1,132,088 1,359,512 lelº,877 1,005,856 801,151 17.l. 5.5 || 19e3 || 13.5 ;: 109.9 city 856,796 816,058 821, 772,897 687,029 575,238 5,0 || -0.7 6-3 || 12.5 | 19 lº.9 Ring 82,185 616,040 557, 366,960 316,829 225,893 §: ll. 6 | lºº. 15.8 | lºo-3 265,0 Urban ź ;: 306,555 § : 83,156 6 15.7 || 52 20-l, l 100.0 505.8 Paral 320, 267, 251,219 165, llº, 19.8 15.8 || 39-2 || 10,7 5.2 A25e0 Salt Lake City, Utah 211, 19th-102 159,262 131,126 77,725 29.9 9-0 || 21.9 || 21.2 69el 7 Central 182,121 llº,9 ,267 118,110 92,777 ,551 21.5 6-9 || 18.8 || 27.5 | 73.5 Ring 92,774 6le 55,835 lºl,172 56,619 19, 50-l; ll.6 50,8 6.5 59.7 285.5 Ulrban 25,275 17,150 8,120 7,260 6,936 tº tº 55.7 lo3.7 16.0 li-6 tº C & © º e Rural 69,199 lili,539 l,5,115 35,912 51,711 al., 19, 56.0 || -l.9 || 35.9 6.9 || 3 lak 187-5 San Angeloe Tºmas 58,929 39,502 56,035 15,210 17,862 6,80, l:3.9 9.1 ! 136.9 || -llä-9 | 162,8 766el Central city 52,095 Quº 25,508 10,050 10,321 © tº º *:::: 2.0 || 15 leg | -2.6 © e C © C tº *::... 6,856 13,500 10,725 5,160 7,56] 6,804 -lº 25.9 || 107.8 || -51,8 llel 0.5 Rural 6.8% 13.3% 10.72% 5.iº, 7.3% &ºil -ºil & | 10. -xià | lili 3.3 San Antonio, Texas ºlºo 558,176 292,535 202,096 119,676 69,122 lib.0 | 15.6 like? | 68.9 || 72.l., 620.9 Central city ſº sº, ::::::: 161,579 &ll, 55,521 60.9 9.6 lºº.5 || 67.0 | 81.2 666,0 Ring 92,018 322 60,991 ,717 25,062 16,101 9-l : lº,8 || 76.6 | lºº.2 lifle 5 Urban 13, 5,700 6, dº tº º tº e Q C & © 157.7 º: © & © e C & ſº º º © Q @ Rural 78 78,622 lso,717 23,062 16,101 5 || 35.6 || 76.6 lºs? 567., Bernandino, Calif. 281,642 161,106 lºe 73, lºol 56,706 27,929 Tl.8 || 20. 62.l. 29, is 105-0 906.l., Central city 63,058 ,646 37,161. 18,721 12,779 6,150 lil-5 l 100.2 | lºé,5 : 107.8 925-5 Ring 218,581, 117,162 †: 5,680 lº,927 21,779 86-1 || 21.8 || 76.5 2.5 || 101.7 905.6 Urbań 8,095 52,35l. 73 26,852 #: l,797 60.6 i 12.0 || 7t-l lºº.6 || 289.9 | 1655.1 San Diego, Calife 556,808 269,548 209,659 112,248 61,665 35,090 92-l; 58.0 || 86.8 || 82.0 || 75.7 || 1186-8 Central city :::::: 203,341 ll. Te295 7,561 39,578 17,700 6.b 37.1, 99.0 87.9 || 125.6 || 1789-2 Ring 222 86,007 6,66, 57,887 22,087 17,390 #: 39.5 || 62.8 || 71.5 || 27.0 || 1179.0 Urban 65,797 55, 26,037 10,55 tº ſº gº tº e G •5 5 ll,6-7 © tº º © & © tº º º Rºral 156,62, 50,1857 55,627 27,5 22,087 17,990 170.8 •6 30.5 25.6 27.0 685,6 San Francisco-Oakland, º 2,240,767 l,lºl,80's 1,3,7,772 1,009, lºſ 773,975 § 53.3 8.5 33.5 30.l.. I lºº. 312.7 Central cities 1,159,932 956, 918,1157 722,957 ,086 ,742 25.8 2.0 || 27.0 i 27.5 || 38 185.1 San Prºncisco #: 53he 63,394 506,876 6,912 5,2,782 22.2 Q Q ſº 25.2 2le 5 21.6 126s2 Oakland 302,165 28,063 216,26* 150,174 66,960 27.5 lil.0 | 12.3 lºſis-3 Ring 1,060,855 elº, lº,315 *:::: 206, 153,222 l 22.5 •8 || 38.5 55.5 71.le3 Urban 691, 607 290, 17 102,382 ,39's 100.7 18.8 T2, 155.9 lºl-2 Rural 589, 180,198 139,255 110,110 10,507 89,828 115,5| 29.6 || 26.5 16-5 Bºel San Josee Calife 290,547 17,969 llis,118 100,676 85,Ž 60,216 66-1 || 20.6 lilt-1 | 20.5 || 38.7 582.5 Central sity •200 66,557 57,651 39, 23s 21,500 39.2 | 18.7 lºsis 37.0 *::: *::: Ring 195,267 106,492 87,187 61,05, 54,595 56,716 85.1 || 21,8 || 1:3-3 || 11.8 O ºrbºn 65,1427 38,955 57º: 13,982 8,851, 3,650 62.8 le? | 166-0 56-5 | ll:2.0 1657.7 Rural 151,850 67,537 50, lº,052 lış,759 55,066 95.2 34-3 2,0 350e-5 276-0 Savannahe Gae 151,161 117,970 105,431 100,032 19,690 º: 28.h ll.9 5-l, l 25.5 | 11.9 112.6 Central edty 119,638 ,996 85,02, 83,252 65,061, 2.6 | 12.9 2.1 || 28.0 | 1929 120,6 *#. 51,613 21,974 : 20,1,07 16,760 ll,626 16,995 blº.9 7-7 || 21-6 || lle'ſ ~15.9 87.l. ºral 31.83 21,974 20, ºr 16.73% u-º 16.9% liºl 73 ſ 21.6l ii., |-|33 || sili Sorantone Pas 257,396 :::::: 3.10, 286,511 ſº 195,851 •lli-6 || -2.9 8.l. 10.5 ! 35.9 52.8 Central sity 125,556 lso lsº #: 129,867 102,026 +30.6 || -2.1 bel 6el 27.3 25,0 Ring 131,860 160,859 166, ,536 129,705 91,805 •lò,0 -5.7 12.l. ll.5 lil-5 §: Urban lds,254 *:::::: 137,75l. 123,252 106,6ll 62, -19.6 i-5.9 llsö 15.6 || 70.9 Wel Bharal 27, 31, 29,215 25,296 25,092 29 -lle6 7.0 15.5 9.5 -21.5 •6el Seattle, Washe 732,992 50,960 l,63,517 ,273 26,638 110,055 lº.2 8.9 || 19.1 || 36.8 || 158.6 #: Central city l,67,591 566,502 565,56 315,512 º: ,671 27.0 O-7 || 15.9 || 32.9 || 19,20 79.6 *::... 55,516 *:::::: *:::: *::::: º Tºyo :: ºft| #: : 133 -: : Rural 2£635 123.73 sº 67.197 tºº. 2.5i, 3.6 ±5 || 3:3 | "#.3 | tº pºš Lae 176,547 150,205 12,670 65,265 58,200 17.5 20.5 lº.7 lº.1 30.8 296.7 Central sity 127,206 98,167 76,655 lº,871, 26,015 ié,015 29.6 || 28.1 || 7l-7 || 56.6 || 75.0 69'...l. *#. lº,öll 52, 0.56 lsº,015 39, 291 50, 185 26, 186 ~5-2 8.l., 2le.9 30,5 6.0 73.2 Rural .#d 32.8% ls.ºis || 2.5i 30.is; 2s, sº | -3.2| 8 || 21.3 38.3 & tº ~ e Sioux City, Iowa 103,917 103,627 101,669 92,171 67,66 610 0.3 le.9 || 10.5 ! 36.5 || 2 90,3 Central city 85,991 82,56, 79,185 71,227 l,7,828 33, lll 2,0 lı.0 || 11.2 lib.9 155.7 *::... 19,926 21,265 22,166 20,98, 19,786 21,199 -6. 5 -5sh 7.l. -8e0 •7s 5 Rural 19.3% 21.23 22.8% 20.º. 19.” 21.1% -3.3| -śi || 7 || 3 || -8.8 || -73. XIGINEddV OZ L*alſº o°3% g”6% 90.1% Too"zg £9."gg O%g"99 Ternſ 6°90% £*19 gºal 99.1°g tég"9 ºpo'ot zººgt treqrſ. trºtºg L*on tºon zºng'oz g Lºlº all"IOT Jury 9°ry. 2°42 A.”2 gto°36 692°6tt 9%"gzt 600*921 &Yo Tºrºuso 6°orſt 2°12 g°91 199°gat 199°6′st gºn"L9t tol."622 •f *M "uoque.g. :::: :: 4::1 261'st || 4:161 º're 42% §: £"2% a *g A."ºt o61°gt Lºt"6t O90*12 129 2upſ trººt gºtt a “3t tº “gºl 220°oº, oztºb 161°9'. Mayo Tsirºued 2*96 9°tt 9°9t tyle" tº 661°69 002°99 grºſ’ºot •sure. "ualedo; L62 2*Tz 9°09 Igz"re 29%"62 g; 194°99 terºſ tº Q @ © º Gº g”gt e Q Q. 9.61°g #% tººl-Iſh 6°22% trºk g”g'ſ tº 2°te L33°2% 166°99 99.6°16 2upſ **Oºt ç“m 3°E. L61°99t tºt"gre gt."o& 9t?"gog Aayo Tarºtºco 9°13t tºgri 6°rſt gel."z6t tal"gla 60l"Lºk tºg".96% o;go "opetog a "gºl Lºtt 6*at o69* 6tg"62 2% 69%"lº Teng tº Q (º 9°6% Oºot- £90°g otgºl *g L3%"% tºrſ, “It 9°ot £LL" 621 130° 9tlé’on Strºg 1°3. 9°gt 3: 131°96 O otg"29 Tºz Æato Tºrºneo g”69 o°rſt •g 0.6°19 atz'oot Tºg"96 oºt *got *pºſ “equug ex-ret trigº frºg 6°19 103°62 ggºt"gº. tºe ; turnſ tº ſº º 9°ln g"99 962°g 26t"zt tag"Lt 296* treqrſ. 9°0′9 O°6. *29 *0% 290° telºlgi tº º o 0°9. I*6% 1ztºti Agaºtt gz'ſ gºl"Q6 34ate-reqed "ag 3°L99 9 0°ºt ag!"Lº *16 Tºtºvot tgº*"Et wdºg. 6°16′ºt 9°9% 6°0% 606°th gºlo"99 g” 6trºtz ser: To Teryuso tºot Lºgº trog tºlç”9. 223°9tt 99.9°9tz gºt'60'ſ *wu'ſ "3-inqs.reqed "38-udºg 9°ge t”09 gag"eº. 6&9°on 146'6" 2.9°9 Termſ © º º a"& 6°96 “I gaçº *1. tºg"g tº-10 L*zrb 3°L2 6*19 "Eg aºt'in *LS go2°zºt O*Igz 9°gt g"Ig grºlºgg *96 Altg”ºot Ø19° £3 po Tººtºo 6°96% g"6t gºtº ato'ozt Lzt"frt atte‘49t 91.9°glz •usun "wºoow, tºgg o°9 L*9% 166°tg goº"g gog”99 tºo”g6 Tºrºſ 3°69t 9°tg 9°9% 216°It gtſt"gt Llºrºt *92 treq-ºn A*Oot 9°ot 6°3% 6p“49 º og2* T*[2T $ºupſ 9°got T*ge T“A. 6 gºlgit LUL"Ult 92% '602 £96°032 Mapo Tºrqueo 9°20t 9°02 9°gt 962°002 909°t62 6tl"trk •I •º "esnov.zºg 6°gin çºotſ TQ 19. "E. 09% 99.9°got Tºrºſ tº ſº tº 9°6. *TL 169°2 069 Ltº°ot zto"92 troºm 9°ºzº t-tºl t!"gº glºr"L2 609° Lló L69°62t >urra 1*0% **çL. 3 *62 £62°42 962°on 96°lº £49°ol A&To Tºrqueo gºt! 9°16 9°6'ſ tºl."og 906°6. on 5°zot oºl."ooz *JTTwo "woqxooq's •wºod *rodeº prag qaya pepatou I "unco "xten-roºt-progºs Lºgº g°2I (*çz glo"1% 9tpºrt 149° ; Tºrtºſ 9°lot 2°LT 296°ott trºgºt 6:0°6%t L93°39t treqrſ. g"99 9°tz 9°gt gº 190°ogt 099°102 40%"962 9°6t § L*t Q goa"oº *9% Tººtg exafton L*Tºt 9°g'ſ 9°g 926°99 tity"62t ooë'6"It 6&"aºl. ptery?uyids T. trée 9°9 99.9°9′ſt Itg"69t Algºrºoz oyo"Ltz sepºyº Tºrºuso •rº 9°32 9°zt 969°tºz to 6"69% A62°90ſ. gºg”ggºt | *ssw “exotton-pteryºut ids £º §: *::: Tú'ét º'ét £i'az £iº §: g”09 6°I L*2% tg'6t 999°6t £61°22 £61°gº 2urg a"90t J.”62 [*II T26 ofte"oº gºl" 90%"9. A3 po Tarauco g"69 9°12 L*9t gºtº 92."og 9%6°06 Tºº"It'ſ oruo "pteryºut ads Tºz £: 2:34 %2'ge | 122°62 ºrça zºº's, §: trée 3°t o°0% 0%9°92 190° actſ”gz 260°g: 9°991 9°zt 0°6 TO2°9% 19°6. Azº"L3 tºLºgº Aſa To Tºryuso 6°96 9°L 9°9t T£9°49 969°99 626°29 £z9°ºot •ow "previºury adg 2°4% tra- 9°ly 9tk" 6th"gº 699°6% 969°6′l Terº tº º º tº dº ſº gº º & tº º º ogº*z Q & C tº º º uſeqrſ, 2°2% 9°lt 9tk"6% 6Lo° 699°6. 939°6′l O°6&I g"It I*g 9/9*T3 £gt”66 #: 929°to A&to Tºrqueo L°49 t"Ot g"IT teo"16 a 22°oot ØL*III tºgºrºtºt •III "pterºgiºur; ads o”gt L*g 2°42 921." oté"a: 96°ng g33°23 turns © & & g"O2 g C & 9L2% *g tº º º 49.2°E. usq.rſ) a "691 £*9 gºot! 200° 9°9% %96 otle' 6°9% tº e 9°2% I Agºſºrpt trigºgit Izı"T9t & Tºo Tºuco O°992 *t 9-tk “prº”6%t 692°rſt Littºogt *T22 •usum "eurºlodg 9 9°g- g". arºl."gt & otz"Lz 2 Tººl 3: 9°12 gºt 99.9°11 §61°3t 09°92 Žiž treq-ºn 9°692 9°9 2°17 929°0% Tzº"ag *3% Liſt"69 2urº, O°zzz 2°2% gett tº"gg £96°ol. £6t"not TT6°3tſ Aſhto Turºwco £"gre 9°zz L*92 arºº toº."got gºo°09't go"goz •purſ "poeg tanog £"gº g"It 0°9 196°ºt 99.2°lt OT3°Lt ‘rtz”gt Sº © Q Q @ e Q & tº º º © º º tº C & tº ſº C. dºn º:*% gºtt o°g 196°ºt 992"Lt Otº"LT triz'gt 2urº çºgtſ 9°91. I’62 tºo adz”92 a 3%"4% 969*ag £3 to Tºrqueo tºget trºl 6°22 tº"62 o6'1"al zºg"09 oté"ol. •xed "g "st twº rºots O36t 0261 066t OtóI 0.26t 0.6t O36t CONC -0061 -OT6t —orºt urºtodox, ew esterouſ; 3 usered work windod prºpºrºg penata too-066t-ooët seepweep £q "swere uruq ºtodorsem prºpuruas Jo worn unwdod at esserow; Jo queered pure won windod-"t stoº rºpteddy 14. XIGINEddW 9 - ºg - O 5681.92 £*46 || Lºg 6°g 2°rſt 9°9't orog g % •oon A.”96 O°6. 2°4% 9 •T- G ºo::3% £9% ſlº A L6°got OTO *Tat ofrt ſº k.9%; tº 3.5% |3.2 |9.9 #| | #. lººk 22:32: &n'19t grº."rbſ j%; Textºſ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; : #: 2% 489: 991°09% *::s. oz 9°th 9°17 | 6°gz | < *g 9°tt attºlt 9T3°9te #; § § ogg“gºt Atayo Ivºrºuso 2.87 g"6 g"g- 9 6°g 9°02 got!"L. G o?"glº opuo "uno, s?unok ºn | 1.4% | 1.3tt |3:? | 9.9 |33 || 20%: *:::: lººſe 660°19 9%g"tº Egg"frtt turns # | # |33 ||3: |33 |# gol"gº. É. at 6"l. lºgºſt ::::::" | }. treqrn 2°LT | 6°3 9°3t g°9 6*çY gtti'9tt gon*94t t gºt “19t #º, É. Aapo Turqueo 6°49. 2°36 t"6 9°t- O°L 9°22 tº •ud "xxok jº 6.2 |g.8 gºt | 1 3.2% gtg"69 *96 160°46 6tl"Tot ; : ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; , ; ; R. © © <> *8 9°0- I*g Tari"gſt & g 9 '91: 916°anº # # |&# ºf |f| |# | #: | ?: Žiž | #; # | # aw tº 6°691 6°4t |g"Lt I*92 || 2°g2 || 0°ge try" t *sswil "reaseo.zoº 2. to o º e & © tº C ºs tº e Q ſº tº º tº ſº º Yz Iº"e fºlgºg2 Don'9% g tºg"gg Turng º 6°ºt g"LT T*92 2"92 O" : §§ aſp"99 Atayo Tºryuso 6°gll 9 o”g- || 0°92 at | 6′06 & g ‘pº £6T'96 suxey "st Twº ºr pºowº 2. we & Gº Q & © a © e & e ‘º º tº ſº º º: 6t $º Oe £12'oe 002°62 grk"92 Ito"g Tº my $ºl; 9°9 o'g- || 0°92 | "at g°06 99%"6t grg" .. tº Q & º, º go e - C ursqr I*zgg | 9°att || L^1% |6%g | 6°g tºg" | tº §: #: : §§2 Ito"tg *s #: º: ||..., |2:3: |25 || 9 || || ???? 9L6°921 Llo" ſº °suwyſ "wº Tuo Vºl. L*93t 9°tti |gºtia trºtz 6°g gºt L62°rſt g g 932°991 goo"9t at:9°gtſt L*tie | 2°gg |g"gt |9°tt L*g g”2- gg."orſt & 990°9. Ill 61%"OOT LIL"%tt Tºntº 3:#" |}}} |&# |}} |. |}| | . ##| || 3:3: | tº # | ##" *::, © I • O°3% A.” ^^ee *f, * g & 199°l. & # * : ; ; ; ; ; ; ; #| # “tº: ge *6t 9°rn 9°tſ | 9-a- *ç6t G . b CO 219 209°49.2 gºrg"goº got"gº. zºt"B4 •rº, 9°6t a *6- || 9°9 2°It | 6°02 || 0°9- g -**A ** **ay Teeum 9°9%z 9°g- o°92 9°9t 0° iº d Cºrºt & £66°3t fgg"9t gº $ºll, 3.9. |}|...}} | # |## | #3, ; 93.9 29%"l & # § |##| |É |::: |33 ||3: ſº #: º #3; ;: 09.2°6% treq+0. *92 || 2°zz 9°gt 9°42 66%"2% *Ig 961°99 99°tml olgºg 9tſt”69 976°6. gtºn'oot tº #:.. •uttoo "weauh Jº g 2.2% o°9t g"TI 9°0% 6'92 J.”OOT 6%"99 £00°66 II tº ºn pepatou I Arnºl-requil #ºgt | 3:4. |##3 |gºal || 2:31 || 2:1 || 3:3. 62×"g 2It E. 96.1%gt £ng'alg Terrºſ § : :# 3: g"tº tº LIT § 3% #. #: º, #. § *6tſ 90°692 treqxn © •TT te © gº g & & L*992 || 9°lt it!"g | g "LT § :::: gºal: 690°t£g tºg"Løl 699°9gn º: §: £urº 3.09°glº torqºri agg"Uls 961°219 996°196 §: © :"...º. 2: ºr 6.3- |2-n | 3:3 ||3:0- 292'6% 99.9%tſ g º 9 *q 9°g | T "g- || Tºo g°9- tº C tº 6%6° 91%;" 196"an opo"gn 6tg"z" Turnºſ © T 9°6t T*g- 2°g a"O 6°o- 990°6% g 2 GOT ſº £99"a 99.9°z 699°z sº ; ; ; ; ; ; ; , ; , ; , ; ; ; , ; *::s 22 || 2°%t 0°6't | g "g 9°L2 all."6% O32°41. Iz6°29 §: : ##, ** tº 6°g 9°g- 9°g gº 6°th- 2 •] *gſ g swºre "oovy! a-Lot 9°3% tºyſ | Tºtt _ !?. £88 £91.29 29.2°09 O0%"9L glºr"6. º 9°92 t"g T“OY T.; 3: º: ##, % : 9:2::1 T6%"ag #. #: tºrtºſ {:}; 3: #: 9°22 || 9°9 9°tz grk"gt #3; : :: #: tºti'get 6 o't It treq-20 & *92 tº 9 2*T- 0°t (f iſ º 2 g #: #: |}:# || |: ||. :::::: §. º: onl"Tot gº! £º. Jº *It Lºlt | oºg | I*o o°g 679°49t gtg"otz G61°Lºpe #. ::::::: gtz”gſt ser. To Tanued £zeti | 2:0tt | 6’21 || 2: lºt 2.3% 2%'t Øtg"ºt & g 292 *I "g "euog-eoyºn o © * G - g”gt- o°g- tº 19 º º ſº. & ſº tº Hºe 2.9% 690°g O69°gg terrºſ | oºgll 9°60tt 9°6tt |t|"gz | 9°ot 9°tº O& "I %tg" lººk tºlº"9 Lºt"9 99.2°ot gºt | ºvelſ: $; $ 3: . . § ; 91% ºn %92.1% 976°99 *::.. 9°LTE 4°ttz o°zı. . ."g 2°oç oég"t 966°tº: #%, § | ## | }; *::::::::: O66t OT61 || 026T || Ogót I 0%6t *ust nº -0061 || -0061 || -otóI | -0.261 3: -ofºt 006t OtóI O26t 0%6t on 6t O36t Tº ſº esverouſ; queo.red wrºtodox, out tropºutindod prºpºrºg pennyattoo-096t & -0061 sepwoop Aq "swers trur, ºtodor, em prºpuras Jo worºwindod ury esverouſ go queo.red purs tºoyºuſndod-"I eIgu, xippueddy 72 APPENDIX Appendix Table 2-A.-Population in 1980 and 1940 and percent change 1940–50 of the standard metropolitan areas of New England, as a smaced along town lines • 8tandard Population Standard Population -tºº- Percent -tº- Percent 1950 1940 increase 1950 lø40 $ncrease Boston, Mass 2,369,986 2,177,622 8,8 New Haven, Conn. 264,622 240,750 9,9 Central city 801,444 770,816 4.0 Central city 164,448 160,606 2,4 Ring 1,668,542 1,406,805 ll sº Ring loo, 179 80,145 25e0 Urban 1,492,894 1,361,487 10.4 Urban S2,010 30,021 6,8 Rural 76,148 55,818 57.7 Rural 68,169 50,124 36.0 Bridgeport, Conn. 258,137 212,569 21 sq. Pittsfield, Mass. 66,567 60,996 9.l Central city 158,709 147,121 7.9 Central city 53,348 49,684 7,4 Ring 99,428 65,448 5le 9 Ring 13,219 11,312 16.9 Urban S3,428 22,580 48,0 Urban 9,692 8,428 1S,8 Rural 66,000 42,868 54.0 Rural 5,627 2,884 25.8 Brockton, Mass 129,428 119,310 8,5 Portland, Me. 119,942 106,566 12,6 Central city 62,860 62,343 0.8 Central city 77,654 75,643 6.4 Ring 66,568 56,967 16.9 Ring 42,508 S2,923 28,5 Urban 46,188 39,088 15,6 Urban 34,150 26,868 27.1 Rural 21,385 17,679 19,6 Rural 8, 158 6,055 34,7 Fall River Masse 137,298 186,187 ls 6 Providence, R.I. 757,20s 676,766 8,9 Central city 111,963 118,428 -3.0 Central city 248,674 253,604 •lsº Ring 26,336 19,709 28,5 Ring 488,529 423,262 16,4 Urban 8,566 5,875 45.9 Urban 441,978 894,262 12, l Rural 16,769 18,886 21 sº Rural 46,561 29,000 60.5 Hartford, Conn. 368,081 296,618 2l el Springfield-holyoke, Mass. 407,255 S64,680 ll. 7 Central city 177,897 166,267 6,7 Central cities 217,060 203,304 6,8 Ring 180,684 129,346 39.7 Springfield 162,399 149,554 8,6 Urban 74,336 62,391 41 sº Holyoke 54,661 53,750 le.7 Rural 106,349 76,966 38.2 Ring 190,195 161,376 17, 9 Urban 155,681 133,529 16.6 Lawrence, Masse 126,985 124,849 Os3 Rural 34,514 27,847 23.9 Central city 80,686 64,323 -4 e5 Ring 45,399 40,526 12.0 8tamford-Morwalk, Conn. 196,025 160,274 22.3 Urban 45,899 40,526 12,0 Central cities 123,753 87,787 41.0 Rural e C & e & © tº º e Stanford 74,293 47,988 55,0 Norwalk 49,460 $9,849 24.1 Lowell, Mass 133,928 180,999 2e2 Ring 72,270 72,487 =0,8 Central city 97,249 101,369 •4 •l Urban © C & tº C & tº º ſº. Ring 86,679 29,610 23,9 Rural 72,270 72,487 –0,8 Urban 8,666 7,839 18.1 Rural 28,018 22,271 25,8 Waterbury, Conn. 154,656 138,779 ll. •4 Central city 104,477 99,314 5.2 Manchester, M. H. 88,370 81,982 7.9 Ring 50,179 39,465 $27,1 Central city 82,752 77,685 6, 5 Urban 17,465 15,386 13,4 Ring 6,638 4,247 32,8 Rural 32,724 24,077 36,9 Urban p > 0 C 9 gº © º o Rural 6,638 4,247 $2,6 Worcester, Mass, 276,336 252,762 9e3 - Central city 20S,486 198,694 5el Mew Bedford, Mass, 137,469 154,436 2e3 Ring 72,850 $9,068 23,4 Central city 109,189 110,841 •l •0 Urban 24,214 20,258 19,6 £8,280 24,094 17,4 Rural 48,636 38,805 25eº Urban 28,879 19,949 19, 7 Rural 4,401 4, 145 6.2 Mew Britain-Bristol, Conn. 146,983 126,709 1660 Central cities 109,687 98,862 lleO New Britain 73,726 68,686 7,3 Bristol 36,961 30, 167 19e? king 37,296 27,857 33,9 Urban tº Q 2 © tº º Q @ e Rural 87,296 27,857 33 e? Appendix Table 2-B.-List of county equivalents to standard metropolitan areas of Mew England, with counties corprising each. County equivalent areas (state soonomic areas) Counties corprising the equivalent area Grouping of 18 toss-delimited standard metropolitan areas to form 12 county-equivalent standard metropolitan areas Boston, Mass Bridgeport–8tamford-Norwalk, Conn. Brockton, Masse Pall River-Mew Bedford, Mass Hartford, Conne Manchester, M. He New Haven-Waterbury, Conn. Pittsfield, Mass, Portland, Mes Providence, R. I. Springfield-Holyoke, Mass. Worcester, Mass, Essex, Middlesex, Norfolk, Suffolk Fairfield Plymouth & Bristol Hartford Hillsborough Mew Haven Berkshire Cumberland Bristol, Kent, Providence Hampden, Hampshire Worcester Boston, Lowelle Lawrence Bridgeport, Stamford-Norwalk Brockton Fall River, Mew Bedford Hartford, New Britain–Bristol Manchester New Haven, Waterbury Pittsfield Portland Providence Springfield-Holyoke Worcester XION:ddV £4. 6°Ot © º o 6°OI I*69 O*OOt 3.68°st tº º º 368°st £99"60t 640'szt *quoo “toºs).Ig-uyuq1...g. men 9°1 yº II O"gº O° 4.9 O°OOT 996"I Gºg"VI 90s"9T 69t"6OI g6?"G3t * Cuen "projpeg men 9° (c I •t 4, *38 ***,9 O*OOT 6%"To Iç9"a 09G"We aos"val 490°993 *uuel, "eTIraq’son T*T2 T*33 2°gy G*93 O*OOI 996"al 93.9"BT 9T8° 9& 63% "gy G%;"gg •uoſº "noboxsnR 4 *3 & © e & "3 S**6 O*OOT sw8"g © tº ſº cº"a gag "got 990°601 *wſw “Axewoºquon **9t T *gt. G*63 G*Oa, O*OOI O30"Oc WS6"gº WS6"Sg 600°631 soº"38t *uTv "eT1 gon 9°I **ST y”g'ſ 9°59 O*OOT 90s"&T 924."ygºt WSO"zGT a 90°cco TOT"G86 *ugºn"Inuºd"3S-sytodesauyn 6°G 3°4, I 3 *ç3 9°94, O*OOT Sgt.*6W, OG5°zVI SOI"26t 26g"&c.9 G69°638 "syn "eexneat ºn ç”61 ç”93 9°gº º "ºc O*OOT gzg'99 978'03 t Taç"603 9.3°693 avo'96? "uti "JurºpM G*2. tº º º G*3 G*4,6 O*OOI Wºo"OT tº gº tº WSO"OT OOO"968 WCO"90% "true, “studson 9°3 © e ge 9°2 ***,6 O*OOT 99T."g sº º º 99T "3 2Cº." 39 9I6*$8 *H*N *.xe3souptreſſ g"OI g”z 9°3T. 3° à0 O°00'ſ IIG"[I Vºc"a GGO"wt 990°96 TIt"OII *sjr "uosipun 6*$2. * G → 6*$2. T *ç4, O°OOI 4,73'sz * † tº &Ya"cs 2g2°04. 669"sé *wo "uooen 9°y 3 * * 8°g 2 * (5 O*OOT OS6°y 2gy** 2TV '8 698°46 T99°90T *ssºt *[[emori **II 9°OI 6*T3 T*94, O*OOI tº 9°gg 986*6% 4.09"got 63T *69S 984".34% •Ay: "eTI pasſno'ſ O°9T & "3S **Og g"6"> O°00T Y94."O34. Dog"cos"I 996'930°3 99e"Odé"I 976°966's *3 yToo “seteºuw so I 9°y tº gº e 9°W, 3°S6 O*OOT SSS"& tº gº tº SSS", Otg"9">I Sºg"Sct *xxv "xbow eſq.3.r.I qqxon-Moon et??!"I 9°0 & Cº º 9°O W*66 O°OOt º? * * * * * 93.9 Wee"96 50g"66 *qelt "urtoony'I dº º ſº s"9; S*33 &“IA, O°OOT * Gº e Gºd"TS Sad"TS 9&g"Og 60g"gTI •sseſ "soueras I Tº 9t a "GT s"TS 4, *69 O*OOT 969"Ia Gag"Og g36"Tº 621 °36 ago"ºct •qoºt **ursuerſ T*ct g"g 9 * QT 9°C9 O"OOT GG6"6 TGG “a 90g"2T waſ."gg 093°94. •ud "Jeasuomº I 9°g'ſ © º 9°ct 3 * $9 O°OOT 46g"cz tº gº tº 46s"Ca 690"wal 991"gºt *muel, *etty axony 2°OT **W2 9°ºg • *ç9 O°OOT 938"T4. 209"oat 934," Iya 329°999 ogs"969 *opſ “Aayo suswuy 9°OS © º e 3°OS 3°69 O°OOT 93.9"ga g º º 6&9°gz *Oz." LG 38s"sg •uon "oozumetux 9°9'ſ g"GT 8°28 4 * 4,9 O"OOT 38.9°gT OW"WI 381*0s 2S3°gg ºgs"sé •ed "unoasuqof 9°gt & © tº 9°gT 3°ºg O“OOI 368"gs G. º. ºº 36s"9s b.Ig"Wog 606"zwa. °utſ "eTITAuosztour O°g © tº e O°3 O°96 O°OOT o66"I * * * 066"I Tag"96 T93°OOI *seryl "uosrouſ 4, *gſ 2°g O°ct O°G9. O°OOT 6TO"Vg ç9t"It 303"ga, sal" day gas"zog *pay "syſodowerpuſ 9°g gºtſ 9°ºg 3°34, O*OOT Ioy"ct çot"ga Vog"9s $gº" att 98.3°9'SI •ASI "purerſusy -** A • m "uoqºqºquºi 9°y g"OT 6°wt T *gg O*OOT glo"zg a 28'34. gº's "VOT Sgt."26g 90g"000 saxel, "toº snoR **02 G*93 3 * 0.9 9°39. O*OOT ITT"gg T66°wº 3OT”09 Vºg"69 99.9°59'ſ *ud "3rnqs 1...Rep. 4,”91 &"23 O*Tº O°6% O*OOI 46T'9C w81°4.9 I68"szt d6s" tal 984,”008 *umob "projq.rug V"g * c & tº *9 9°16 O°OOT 6ts"g is e gº 6ts"g IG6" LG Oda's 9 oluo "uoqūusg 9°OT * e º 9°OI 3 *69 O*OOI $30"6 is g º ç30°6 698"We 2Ty"co • O'N "ozoqsueelo y”6'ſ 9°3 3°33 9° & 4, O°OOT 669"sy SOy"9 20g"Og glg"90'ſ atte‘933 *uoyi, "spyden pursuo 6°9 tº e e 6° 9 U*@6 O"OOT 696°y e tº G. 69.6°w 999"99 429'14. sexel, *uoqsaaTwo 6°63 tº e e 8°68 3°04, 0°OOT czó"9s tº e. cač"gs 699"[6 369 "Oct *31 Ivo "ousex. 6°3 9°9 a. *II Ç"99 O*OOI 99t"6 $19"a 008'98 Bad "842 Gag"GTS sºxel "uºrom 3-roi 9°y & © e 9°C 2°G6 O°OGI 404"9 tº ſº tº 400"9 4.09"Sct VIg"OVI *puſ "eukem 3roi O°s g"TI g"VI Ø"G9 O°OOI I69"I gly"9 WOI"g 376*** Q *xrv "wº Wu's 3.xod O°9T g"I G**I G°39 O*OOT 969"Is O69°3 99ty"Vº gºt *ç9T TS9°4.6t *\to\id "30 WII 0°t 3 ** a "g 9**6 O*OOT 4.33"t ocó", &gl‘9 ç96*TTI O31°9'II *seen "Jealºu IIuli 9°9 & e ge g"Q G*SG Q"OOT acé"g G - tº *S&"9 9ç9"93t çºg"act *Puſ "eTIyasusai G*It 3 °3 9 *SI 2°28 O*OOT 96.7"at ITV "c 4.06°03 ç09"OCT Ota"TGT *wd "stag 4 * > & © e. u 4, *) S*ç0 O*OOT Scy"9 tº tº º SSy"9 Göy"OSI GI6°9′st surel, "osed [… 9°g tº c 9°3 3 °4,6 O*OOT ago"a e tº º 490°3 IIg"T4. 998"ca • O’M "uneq Inq ç*O 6°I a "g 9° E.6 O"OOT 0.6% c69°3 361°g 9ss°6'st 920°syt "sym'ao; teding-ºutsºn "uantud g”9 0°vg G*OC G°69 O*OOT 9co"zat 764°4.g3 OSa‘609 999'679"I 968°699°z •uopºl "q;or, ed 2°9 9°g 0°TI O°69 O°00'ſ Węc"9t g19°g 696*13 G96"lat WS6'66'ſ *u I “seupon sed 9°6 6°9 9°91 W*çg O°OOI 600 “º gºz"W's agé"29 994, "gtº SV4."96% *otoo "reaued (*ot tº gº « » 1 *OT 6"69 O*OOT Wºw", e tº º *W*4. 692."29 Sta"cº. *III “maeoed. Q "Q-3 6°g ** 63 £*Oa. O*OOI Gag"29 WTW"O3 266°30t 349"Sºg W99°9's oruo "uoqſººd 2°9 g"TI 9°4.T "29 O*OOT 69t"at OOI"22 693°ºg 99.9°091 Gaë"V6T *III "eu ſtop-puets I rootſ -usoſ "3-modu aud 9°6 9°6 W*6t 9°O8 O*OOT 4.99"tg gé9'39 397 "VOI 390 "Wºº W26'98c suxel, "out Tuq 6*II e & © 6°II I*98 O*OOT 699°wt tº ſº tº 699"VI agg"Got 936°33't suxel, "yºsyrgo snd too w"g 9°4, I •VI 6°gg O"OOT 999°43 926"cs 909"I9 Toé"gas 400"agº or qo *snqºntoo I "gſ 4,”6T 9°39. 3°4,9 O°OOI 69g"GT coc"ca wag'98 TT9°64. QBy"91": *wo "snoºnſoo O*GI T*g. 1 *gg 6*IA, O”00T 32t"gſ 344."gT $69"cs WI6'99 909°02't *o’s “eyantoo 9°O 3 *SS 6 *Sº T * 99 O°OOT co8's 989'69? T6..."99% 909"WI6 56G"cºc"I ofuo "pueTeas to O°C, 1 *[g O°9'S O°29 0 °OOT Igº'98 SI3°292 V68°60s 966*SOg 363 "ST9 or qo "Tºutruy oupo **3 6°º ** 92 9° S., O*OOt TVO"tgſ g(9°99t"I $ge"663"I 296°039"g 919"036°y •III "cºeopuſ) 9°gſ I*g 6" (2 T*8t, O°OOI 99T'S3 agg"ST $24, '98 TVO"Ict 994, "Lºſt *uuej, " sºoooººººoºo 6°y G & ºt 6°º I*G6 O°OOT 999's tº dº ſº 99.9°9 avo"tºt OSG"OVI • 2 °n "easota wo 9°QT T *@3. 6°gy I *99 O*OOT W9°og 69&"99 Sty"ag IOg"s. WI6*Ogºt *wa. *n "uoqs streq9 4. "Tº tº @ Q 4. "It C°º O“OOI GII*Og gº º & GII*Og wat"Od 683 *Ogl * Q's "uoqs stauq9 g º e 9°4. 9°4, $*36 O“OOI * > * * 9I6"g 9I6"G 962°34. 3T3°84, **I "spyden rupeo s”II g"T3 9°28 3 * Z, 9 O"OOI Bag"61 way" as goo"ag 2I6'9"II *I6"S&T oyuo "uoqueo 9°3T ç”y'ſ Ç**3 **34. O"OOT cGº"30t 93.9"gTI II6"alz 2GT"09G Sºo'064. *I*N *otegyūg 9°C 6°92 9° tº 2°39 O*OOI 64.8°g 44.9°C3 99.2°62 O99°29 9II '86 *ssen “uoaxcoag 9°61 g"ST 2°CS 9°99 O°OOT 39s" 9, $9I"as 934."ga. 60d"GGI Gº" aga *unoo "ºrodeºp;xg 9°0 y”gg T** 9 6°GS O*OOT 9II" aſ 999"WTW"I WOO"3cy"I WW"toº 9W"cca"g *sseſ "uoqsog 9°ot W*9t 9 * 93 3°St. O”OOT 50¢"9"> 996"ad ada"6II ago"938 VIc"gº •uty "unsºu puzyg 4,” gºt S” & 3 0°º O°9's O*OOT 98.0°ºg 662°68 ass"sº Wag"09 TIO"WI *R*M "u º g"O © º e 3 *O 9°66 O°OOI Gºlſ # * * Gºlſ WIO*V6 69t"W6 surrey, *quomueg S*4. 3°3 G*6 G°06 O*OOT 9st"OT 4.60"g ggz"st 639°gat $99"9sſ *vi "sºnog woqug **gſ 6°y g"91 4. "IG O°OOT gag"Sct 69**96 WI*3ta. 900 °696 3G9" 191*t *ppſ "exow (3Tug 9°3 © tº gº 9°3 ***6 O*OOT gtg's tº ſº º a TG's 6çº"act ta5°gst suze, "uyasny gºvt 2°y g”9T G*TB o°oot 996"at 699°g Gaz"9t 90g"I4. Sct."40 *wo "wasnºav 9°g & “38 g"tº 4, *Bº O°OOT £40°6 678">g 92 w"cy ago"I9 ç90°got *ſºn "A319 on 3 uutºy G*9t 3°9'I 9°Wº 2°39 O°OOI 936"cs çºg"26 Sag"9&T WIS"TSg 4.88 "LOG *wo "squuſºv g"6 tº º º g"6 **06 O*OOT acy"g tº ſº tº agº"g 000°Sg asy"99 * O’N "eTIYAsgºw g"O tº e e S*O 4 *66 O°OOU & 61ſ tº ſº e #6'ſ gºz"ve Sºy"V4, suckey, "oſſ ºrwury y"g G** 6°ot T*69 O°OOT WG6"a Sºw"9 asy"6 *I'll WT9°99 *ud *wuooq Tw g”9 I°4.T **ç2 9°94, O*OOT &Ts'ºt 6%;"98 998"ag 960's.I 396"gaz *ed "usettstuaeg-unoquet IV **OT 9°9T O°63 O*T* O"OOT ags"0s 60s"Vg I6g"V8 90s" log 469"I63 *1°N "Morº-fueqiy 9°W, g°Og I*gg 6 * >4, O°OOT 906"9t *Ga*Ga 09t"26 Gog"wag g24°998 orgo "worly repatuured se;379 Tºol, serºy o Tºol, reputum's se;37.9 Tºo, Ge;3, o Tºol, Turqueo Texqueo were peºpaeºzſ, eſſay 1, trugſ, sºul-J uuq,xn tºo ºnq13.3s ºp e?equeoxed Gºulsº gºtu Jo requºi OgóT "seeru pezyueqim up woºwºndod go uo" ºnql raspp cºsºmeo red pure requiry - * g eTour, ripueddy 74 APPENDIX Appendix Table 3.-Mumber and percentage distribution of population in urbanized areas, 1950–Continued Mumber of inhabitants Percentare distribution Urbanised area Urban fringe Urban fringe Central Central Total cities Total Cities Remainder Total cities Total Cities l Remainder New Haven, Conn. 244,836 164,443 80,393 32,694 47,699 100,0 67.2 $2.8 13.4 19,5 Mew Orleans, La. 659,768 670,445 89,323 25,536 63,788 100.0 86.5 13.5 3.9 9,7 New York-Northeastern N. J. 12,296,117 8,629,750 3,666,367 3,068,739 597,628 100.0 7O.2 29,8 25,0 4.9 Niagara Falls, M. Y. 97,620 90,872 6, 748 tº tº º 6,748 |OOsO 93 el 6,9 tº e & 6, 9 Norfolk-Portsmouth, Was S85, lll 293,562 91,569 14,245 77,516 100,0 76.2 23.8 3.7 20.1 Oklahoma City, Okla • 276,091 243,604 31,587 20,981 10,806 100e) 88.5 ll e5 7.6 3,9 Omaha, Nebr. 310,291 251,117 59,174 46,429 13,746 100.0 80,9 19.1 14.6 4.4 Orlando, Flas 7S, 16S 62,367 20,796 8,250 12,546 100.0 7] .. 6 28.4 ll e5 17 el Peoria, Ill. 154,639 111,866 42,683 19,622 23,061 100.0 72.4 27.6 12.7 14.9 Philadelphia, Pa. 2,922,470 2,071,606 850,866 668,601 182,264 100 eO 70,9 29, 1 22.9 6.2 Phoenix, Arise 216,038 106,818 109,220 24,474 84,746 100,0 49,4 50,6 ll eS $9,2 Pittsburgh, Pa. 1,632,963 676,806 856,147 708,774 147,573 100 eC) 44.2 55.8 46.2 9,6 Pontiac, Mich. 92,573 75,681 18,892 * G - 18,892 100,0 79 s5 20,4 tº e ſº 20.4 Port Arthur, Texas 82,150 67,530 24,620 12,344 12,276 100 eC) 70,0 30,0 15,0 14.9 Portland, Me, 113,499 77,654 35,866 S4, 150 1,715 100.0 68,4 31 s6 SO el 1.5 Portland, Oreg. 512, 643 873,628 139,015 63,572 75,643 100,0 72.9 27, 1 12.4 i4 e 8 Providence, R. I. 583,346 248,674 S34,672 $29,516 5,156 100,0 42.6 57.4 56, 5 0.9 Pueblo, Colo, 73,247 65,685 9,562 © º e 9,562 100.0 86.9 15.1 tº gº º 15.1 Racine, Wisc. 76,537 71, 193 5,344 tº e G 6,844 100.0 93.0 7.0 tº ſº tº 7.0 Raleigh, M. C. 68,743 65,879 3,064 e - © 3,064 100,0 95.5 4.5 tº º G 4.6 Reading, Pa. 154,981 109,320 46,611 24,089 21,522 100 eO 70,6 29.4 15.5 13, Richmond, Wa. 267,995 230,310 27,686 Q & Gº 27,685 100,0 89.3 10, 7 gº gº tº 10.7 Roanoke, Wae 106,682 91,921 14,761 10,452 4,309 100,0 86,2 13, 8 9,8 4,0 Rochester, N. Y. 409, 149 332,488 76,661 36,714 39,947 100,0 81,3 18, 7 9,0 9,8 Rockford, Ill. 122,226 92,927 29,299 6,366 23,933 100,0 76,0 24.0 4,4 19,6 Sacramento, Calif. 211,777 137,672 74,205 6,029 68,176 100,0 65,0 35,0 2.8 $2.2 Saginaw, Mich. loč,939 92,918 13,021 tº e e 13,021 100,0 87.7 12.3 tº ſº º 12.3 St. Joseph, Mo. 82,290 78,588 3,702 © º º 3,702 100.0 95.5 4.5 • * * 4.5 St. Louis, Mo. 1,400,058 856,796 543,262 408,640 134,622 100.0 61.2 S8,8 29.2 9.e6 St. Petersburg, Fla., 114,596 96,738 17,868 6,626 11,232 100.0 84 a 4 l6.6 5,8 9.8 8alt Lake City, Utah 227,368 182,121 45,247 20,706 24,541 100,0 80, l 19,9 9el 10,8 San Antonio, Texas 449,521 408,442 41,079 13,549 27,530 100.0 90.6 9, 1 3,0 6.1 8an Bernardino, Calif. 135,770 63,068 72,712 $6,050 $6,662 100,0 46,4 53,6 26,6 27.0 San Diego, Calif. 432,974 $34,387 98,687 66,372 32,215 100,0 77.2 22,8 15.3 7,4 San Francisco–Oakland, Calif. 2,022,078 1,169,952 862,146 660,294 201,862 100.0 57.4 42.6 32.7 10,0 San Jose, Calif. 176,473 95,280 81, 193 33,001 48,192 100.0 54.0 48.0 18, 7 27.3 Savannah, Ga. 128, 196 119,638 8,568 tº e ſº 8,558 100,0 93.3 6, 7 © tº ſº. 6,7 Schensotady, N. Y. 123,273 91,786 Sl,488 7,812 23,676 1OO,O 74,5 25.5 6,3 19.2 Scranton, Pae 236,076 125,536 110,640 104,284 6,306 100,0 55.2 46, 8 44.2 2.7 Seattle, Wash. 621,609 467,591 153,918 20,752 133,166 100,0 78.2 24.8 3.3 21.4 8hreveport, La • 160,208 127,206 23,002 15,470 7,532 100.0 84,7 15.3 10,3 5,0 * Sioux City, Iowa 90,101 83,991 6, 110 5,557 553 100,0 9Se2 6,8 6,2 Oe 6 South Bend, Ind. 168,166 116,911 52,254 $2,913 19,341 100.0 68.9 $1.1 19,6 11.5 8pokane, Wash, 176,004 161,721 14,283 tº º o 14,283 100,0 91 s? 8, 1 © º º 8, 1 Springfield, Ill. 97,871 81,628 16,745 tº gº º 15,743 100,0 85.8 16.2 tº e tº 16.2 Springfield, Mo. 75,549 66,731 8,818 gº tº e 8,818 100,0 88.5 11 e? © gº º 11.7 Springfield, Ohio 82,284 78,508 s,776 to ~ 9 5,776 100.0 95.4 4.8 tº p → 4, 6 Springfield-Holyoke, Mass. 356,908 217,060 159,848 136,704 4,144 100,0 60,8 39.2 38.0 1.2 Stamford-Norwalk, Conn. 173,536 123,753 49,783 tº gº º 49,785 MOO,O 71.3 28, 7 tº gº º 28,7 Stockton, Calif. 112,834 70,853 41,981 & © e 41,981 100,0 62.8 37.2 to ſº tº 37.2 Syracuse, N. Y. 265,286 220,583 44,703 18,923 25,780 100,0 85.1 16.9 7, 1 9.7 Tacoma, Wash. 167,667 143,675 23,994 & e 23,994 100.0 85.7 14.3 tº gº º 14.3 Tampa, Fla. 179,335 124,681 54,654 & 6 ſo 54,654 100,0 69, 5 SO =5 Gº tº . 30,5 Terre Haute, Ind., 78,028 64,214 13,814 3,367 10,467 100,0 82.3 17.7 4.3 13,4 Toledo, Ohio 364,844 303,616 60,728 15,517 47,211 100.0 83 e5 16,7 3.7 13,0 Topeka, Kans, 89, 104 78,791 10, S13 e º e 10,315 100,0 88.4 11 s6 tº e Q 11 s6 Trenton, N. J. 189,321 128,009 81,312 6,787 54,625 100,0 67.6 $2.4 3,6 28,8 Tulsa, Okla. 206,311 182,740 23,571 6,994 16,677 100,0 88,6 11.4 3.4 8.0 Utica, N. Y. 117,424 101,531 16,893 lo,796 5,097 100.0 86.5 13,5 9.2 4.3 Waoo, Texas 92,834 84,706 8, 128 tº a ºn 8,128 1OO,O 91 e2 8,8 e tº gº 8,8 Washington, D. C. 1,287,333 802,178 486, 155 277,652 207,505 100.0 62.3 S”.7 21,6 16 sl Waterbury, gonn. 131,707 104,477 27,230 17,456 9,775 100.0 79.5 20,7 13.3 7,4 Waterloo, Iowa 84,386 66, 198 19,188 17,905 1,283 100,0 77.3 22, 7 21.2 le 5 Wheeling, W. Wa. 106,660 58,891 47,759 41,538 6,221 100.0 55.2 44.8 S8.9 5,8 Wichita, Kans, 194,047 168,279 25,768 © º º 25,788 100,0 86,7 15.3 tº ſº ſº. 13 s.3 Wilkes-Barre, Pa., 271,589 76,826 194,763 167,668 27, 110 100,0 28,5 71.7 61 e? 10,0 Wilmington, Del. 187,369 110,356 77,005 17,579 59,624 100.0 58.9 41.l 9,S 31,8 Winston-Salem, N. C. 92,477 87,811 4,666 e & e 4,666 100.0 95.0 5,0 tº tº º 5,0 Worcester, Mass. 219,330 203,486 16,844 7,654 8,210 100.0 92.8 7.2 S. 5 S,7 York, Pa. 78,796 69,963 18,843 5,756 13,087 100,0 76.1 23.9 7.3 16.6 Youngstown, Ohio 298,051 168,530 129,721 106, 125 23,596 100.0 56.5 $3.5 $5,6 7.9 APPENDIX 75 Appendix Table 4. Land area and population per square mile of standard metropolitan areas, 1950 Land area Population Land area Population (square miles) per square mile (square miles) per square mile 8tandard Standard metropolitan Central Central metropolitan Central Central Cº. ºOCA Total cities | Rings Total cities | Rings tº ºGº Total cities | Rings Total oities | Rings Akron, Ohio 415 54 SO9 993 61.14 $77 Lorain-Slyria, Ohio (95 19 476 299 4267 140 Albany-Schenectady- Los Angeles, Calif. 4853 45} 4402 900 4370 545 Troy, M. Y. 1405 38 || 1367 388 7769 158 Louisville, Ky. 908 40 868 655 9251 239 Albuquerque, M. M. 1165 48 1116 125 2021 44 Lubbock, Texas 892 17 875 llS 4220 §§ Allentown-Bethlehem- Macon, Ga. 650 12 618 214 5854 105 Easton, Pa. 1082 37 1045 405 5478 219 Madison, Wisc, 1197 R5 Ill&2 l4] 6237 62 Altoona, Pa 5Sl 10 521 263 7718 l2O Manchester, M. H. 890 S2 858 176 2577 87 Amarillo, Texas 1812 21 1791 48 S552 7 Memphis, Tenne 75] 104 647 642 3800 134 Asheville, M. C. 646 14 632 193 Sø55 115 Miami, Fla. 2O54 $4 2O20 24l 7289 122 Atlanta, Ga. 1138 57 11Ol 590 8979 SO9 Milwaukee, Wisc. 239 50 189 3645 12748 1236 Atlantic City, N. J. 576 12 665 2SO 5361 128 Minneapolis- Augusta, Ga. 1422 RO 1412 114 7297 Cº. St. Paul, Minn. 1721 106 1615 649 7859 176 Austin, Texas 1015 S2 983 159 4126 29 Mobile, Ala. 1248 25 1223 185 5079 84 Baltimore, Me • 1106 79 102.7 1209 12O67 577 Montgomery, Ala. 790 26 764 176 4081 (2 Baton Rouge, La. 462 SO 432 $43 4160 76 Muncile, Ind., 400 1O S90 226 5848 81 Bay City, Mich. 446 lo 4$6 198 [347.1 82 Mashville, Tenn. 533 22 5ll &O4 79.25 289 Beaumont-Port Arthur, Texas 946 44 901 206 S476 48 New Haven-Waterbury, Conn. 610 46 584 895 5010 49] Binghamton, M. Y. 710 10 700 26Q 7988 149 New Orleans, La. 1118 199 919 615 2861 125 Birmingham, Ala. 1118 65 1053 500 4993 221 Mew York-Northeastern Boston-Lowell-Lawrence, Mass. 1782 67 1715 1814 14529 1106 New Jersey $939 $52 S587 S278 24,537 1194 Bridgeport-Stamford Norfolk-Portsmouth, Wa. 667 38 629 689 *&^5 243 Morwalk, Conn. 63S 77 558 797 3673 399 Ogden, Utah 549 17 532 152 $440 49 Brockton, Mass, 684, 21 643 285 2937 197 Oklahoma City, Okla. 709 51 658 459 4793 124 Buffalo, N. Y. 1587 39 1548 686 14724 329 Omaha, Nebr. 1533 41 1492 239 8170 77 Canton, Ohio 573 14 559 494 8292 298 Orlando, Fla. 916 l4 902 125 $714 69 Cedar Rapids, Ia. 713 25 688 146 2846 47 Peoria, Ill. 1277 1S 1264 196 867.1 110 Charleston, S. C. 945 5 940 174 13760 1Ol Philadelphia, Pa. $550 127 $428 1054 16286 (67 Charleston, W. Wa. 1567 10 1557 200 7856 160 Phoenix, Aris. 9226 17 9209 $6 6247 24 Charlotte, N. C. 542 SO 512 S64 4468 123 Pittsburgh, Pa. 3053 54 2999 725 | 12487 512 Chattanooga, Tenn. 1024 28 996 24l 4680 116 Pittsfield, Mass. 942 4] 901 141 1304 88 Chicago, Ill. 3817 208 3409 1519 17450 550 Portland, Me. 88.1 * 22 859 197 3594 107 Cincinnati, Ohio 750 75 655 1239 07.11 611 Portland, Oregs $683 64 $599 192 5829 92 Cleveland, Ohio 688 75 6.13 2130 12197 898 Providence, R. I. 619 18 6Ol 11Ol 1$892 721 Columbia, 8. C. 740 13 735 191 6790 76 Pueblo, Colo. 24Ol ll 2390 38 6008 ll Columbus, Gae ll.12 12 1100 153 66.34 83 Racine, Wisc. 337 9 328 325 77.58 l]? Columbus, Ohio 538 39 499 936 9541 258 Raleigh, M. C. 866 ll 855 158 5971 03 Corpus Christi, Texas 838 2O 618 197 5469 70 Reading, Pa. 864 9 055 296 12423 171 Dallas, Texas 893 112 781 688 3879 231 Richmond, Wa. 734 37 697 447 6200. 140 Davenport, Iowa- - Roanoke, Wa. 303 26 277 440 3469 150 Rock Island-Moline, Ill. 873 S6 857 268 4500 08 Rochester, M. Y. 675 S6 637 725 92S6 244 Dayton, Ohio 88.1 25 856 519 9.755 249 Rockford, Ill. 520 14 503 293 6638 118 Decature Ille 577 9 568 171 7126 57 Scaramento, Calif. 985 17 988 281 8140 144 Denver, Colo. 29.18 67 285.1 193 6224 52 Saginaw, Mich. 812 17 795 || 189 5597 76 Des Moines, Iowa 594 65 539 380 $242 89 8t. Joseph, Mo. 411 14 S97 238 5574 46 Detroit, Mich. 1965 140 1825 1535 13249 639 8t. Louis, Mo. 2520 6] 2459 667 14046 $35 Duluth, Minn.- Salt Lake City, Utah 764 54 710 360 3379. lSl Superiour, Wiso, 7591 99 7492 3.3 1414 15 San Angelo, Texas 1543 29 1514 S8 1809 5 Durham, N. C. 299 13 286 340 54O2 108 San Antonio, Texas 1247 70 1177 4O1 5877 78 El Paso, Texas 1064 26 1028 185 5097 63 San Bernandino, Calif. 201Sl 20 |20Ill 14 $234 ll Brie, Pa. 812 19 793 270 6958 112 San Diego, Calif. 4250 99 4159 lSl SS64 & Evansville, Ind., 24l 18 223 666 7.146 145 San Franciso-Oakland Calif., S814 98 $216 676 11885 $36 Fall kiver- San Jose, Calif. 1505 17 1288 223 6005 162 New Bedford, Mass. 556 53 505 686 4,173 3.19 8avannah, Ga., 44l l6 428 $45 8.194 75 Flint, Mich. 644 29 615 421 5568 175 Soranton, Pa. $54 25 429 567 5042 307 Fort Wayne, Ind., 671 lº 0.52 274 7107 77 Settle, Wash. 21S4 7] | 2003 $43 8804 lºº Fort Worth, Texas 877 94 783 412 2975 105 Shreveport, La. 891 24 867 198 5300 57 Fresno, Calif. 5985 15 5970 46 6111 3? Sioux City, Iowa 871 45 826 ll.9 1806 24 Gadsden, Ala • 555 27 528 169 2049 72 Sioux Falls, 8, 9. 815 IS 802 37 &l 49 23 Gal veston, Texas 480 0. 422 26S 8218 110 South Bend, Ind., 467 2O 447 489 5738 200 Grand Rapids, Mich 862 23 839 3.54 7543 133 Spokane, Wash. 1763 42 1721 126 S897 35 Green Bay, Wisc. 525 14 5|ll l67 3794 89 Springfield, Ill. 880 10 870 R49 7349 57 Greensboro, High Point, M.C. 651 28 623 293 4084 123 Springfield, Mo. 677 14 t;83 155 4907 57 Greenville, S. C. 789 16 775 213 3590 R42 Springfield, Ohio 402 l2 390 278 6488 83 Hamilton—Middletown, Ohio 471 15 450 $13 6110 122 Springfield-Bolyoke, Mass. 1149 53 MO96 $96 4.1.19 218 Harrisburg, Pa. RO75 6 RO69 272 14213 190 Stockton, Calif. 1410 12 1398 142 6004 93 Hartford–New Britain- Syracuse, N. Y. 792 25 767 431 87.19 158 Bristol Conn, 740 5. 682 729 4975 370 Tacoma, Wash. 1676 48 1628 165 2999 01 Houston, Texas 1750 160 1570 466 3.726 134 Tampa-St. Petersburg, Fla. 1304 71. 123S 3.14 $110 152 Huntington, W. Va.- Terre Haute, Ind. 415 12 403 233 5263 102 Ashland, Kye 14O7 22 1386 175 5340 9S Toledo, Ohio $43 38 305 1153 7927 302 Indianapolis, Inde 402 55 347 1573 77.59 $59 Topeka, Kans • 545 12 533 195 6:303 50 Jackson, Mich. 705 IO 695 153 5009 82 Trenton, M. J. 228 7 221 1008 17779 461 Jackson, Miss. 877 27 850 l62 3640 52 Tulsa, Okla. 572 27 546 *Q 6840 126 Jacksonville, Fla. 777 30 747 $9.1 6772 15S Utica–Rome, M. Y. 2669 93 2573 107 1542 GS Johnstown, Pa. 1779 6 1775 l64 11291 129 Waco, Texas 1035 26 1009 126 32.58 45 Kalamazoo, Mich. 567 9 558 223 6557 124 Washington, D. C. 1488 0.1 1427 984 15065 464 Kansas City, Mo. 1643 81 1562 496 56.65 229 Waterloo, Iowa 567 Sl 356 177 2003 (36 Kenosha, Wisc. 273 8 265 276 7154 79 Wheeling, W. Va.- Knoxville, Tenn. 1428 25 l4OS 236 4.912 15l. Stubenville, Ohio 1550 l6 1514 231 5850 171 Lenoaster, Pa. 945 4. 941 248 14831 182 Wicnita, Kans. 999 26 978 223 6540 55 Lansing, Miche 659 14 645 309 65.34 148 Wichita, Falls, Texas 612 14 598 16] 4826 Sl Laredo, Texas $295 14 3281 17 S845 l Wilkes-Barre-Hazleton, Pa. 891 l3 878 440 6708 319 Lexington, Ky., 280 6 274 360 97.43 105 Wilmington, Del. 787 RO 777 $41 1126): 2O3 Lima, Ohio 410 0. (O2 216 66] 1 94 Winston-Salem, N.C. 424 19 405 345 467] 14% Lincoln, Web. 845 24 821 142 (155 . 25 Worcester, Mass. 1516 $7 1479 300 5500 232 Little Rook- York, Pa. 914 4. 910 222 14275 287 North Little Rook, Ark. 78.1 34 747 252 4253. 67 Youngstown, Ohio 1720 33 1687 307 6132 213 76 APPENDIX Appendix Table 5. - Land area and population per square mile of urbanised areas, 1950 Land area Population Land area Population Urbanised (square miles) per square mile Urbanised (square miles) per square mile C. º. ſººn Central | Urban Central | Urban Central | Urban Central | Urban Total cities fringe Total cities fringe Total cities frings | Total cities fringe Akron, Ohio 96 eS 55.7 44 e6 3,781 5,114 2,066 Miami, Fla. 116,5 34.2 82.8 3,957 7,289 || 2,644 Albany-Troy, M.Y. 54.5 28,8 26.2 5,556 7,825 3,229 Milwaukee, Wis. 101.7 50.0 | 61.7| 8,156 || 12,748 || 3,716 Allentown-Bethlehem, Pa. 49.3 $4,5 14,8 4,583 6,017 | 8,672 Minneapolis–St. Paul, Minn. 231.0 106.0 | 125.0|| 4,266 || 7,859 1,216 Altoona, Pa. 14 el 10.0 4, 1 6, 143 7,718 2,302 Mobile, Ala. 41.0 25.4 15.6 4,465 5,079 || 3,459 Amarillo, Texas 22.0 20,9 lel 3,384 5,552 179 Montgomery, Ala, 28.7 26.1 2.6 S,814 4,081 1,132 Asheville, M.C. 18, 1 14.5 3,6 S,229 3,655 1,510 Muskegon, Mich. 21.7 8.9 12.8 || 3,928 5,441 2,876 Atlanta, Ga. 105.5 S6.9 68.6 4,814 8,979 2,574 Nashville, Tenn. 53.7 22.0 31.7| 4,821 7,92S 2,668 Atlantic City, N.J. 55.0 ll. 8 45.5 1,911 5,361 998 New Bedford, Mass. 23.5 19, 1 4.4 5,340 5,717 | 3,706 Augusta, Ga. 17.7 9,8 7.9 4,967 7,297 || 2,054 New Britain-Bristol, Conn. 45.9 40.3 5.6 || 2,681 2,722 || 2,391 Austin, Texas 34 e6 32, 1 2.5 3,930 4,126 1,405 New Haven, Conn. 46.8 17.9 || 28.9 || 5,232 || 9,187 || 2,782 Baltimore, Md. 151,8 78.7 7S. l 7,654 12,067 2,902 New Orleans, La • 222 el 199 e4 22.7 || 2,971 2,861 3,936 Baton Rouge, La. 4l eS 30, 2 ll. 1 3,362 4,160 1,192 New York-Northeastern M.J. 1255.4 351.7 901.7 || 9,810 || 24,637 4,066 Beaumont, Texas S8, 8. Slsº 5,4 2,569 2,994 29 Niagara Falls, M.Y. 21, 7 12.7 9.0 4,499 7, 155 750 Binghamton, N.Y. 23.7 10.1 13,6 6,076 7,988 4,657 Norfolk-Portsmouth, Va. 62.4 38.4 || 24.0 6,172 7,645 8,815 Birmingham, Ala. 1OO,5 65,8 $5.2 4,431 4,993 || 3,389 Oklahoma City, Okla. 67.0 50.8 | 16.2 || 4,106 || 4,798 || 1,950 Boston, Mass . $44,8 $7,8 297.0 6,478 16,767 4,822 Omaha, Nebr. 08 s 5 40, 7 25.8 4,666 6, 170 2,294 Bridgeport, Conn. 42.6 l4 e6 28.0 5,574 lo,870 2,812 Orlando, Fla. 24.9 14.1 lo.8 || 2,938 3,714 || 1,926 Brookton, Masse 30 s 5 2] e 4 9el 3,020 2,937 8,215 Peoria, Ill , SS.2 12.9 20.8 || 4,655 8,671 2,103 Buffalo, N.Y. 101.0 39 e6 61.6 7,901 14,724 3,558 Philadelphia, Pa. 31.1 s6 127.2 | 184.4 || 9,879 || 16,286 || 4,614 Canton, Ohio 33 el 14.1 19,0 5,254 8,292 S,000 Phoenix, Aris. 56 el 17, 1 38.0 3,921 6,247 || 2,874 Cedar Rapids, Iowa 28,8 25.4 3.4 2,716 2,846 | 1,740 Pittsburgh, Pa. 255.6 54.2 | 199.4 6,045 12,487 || 4,294 Charleston, 8.0. 18.4 5.1 18.8 6,537 || 13,760 3,768 Pontiac, Mich. 27.8 1928 8.0 S, SSO || 3,721 | 2,562 Charleston, W. Va. 29 el 9.6 19 e5 4,499 7,656 2,944 Port Arthur, Texas 31.6 12.2 | 19.4| 2,600 || 4,716 1,269 Charlotte, M.C. $4 e6 80,0 4 e5 4,085 4,468 1,551 Portland, Maine 51.2 21.6 || 29.6 2,217 | 8,594 | 1,212 Chattanooga, Tenne 50,4 28,0 22,4 3,329 4,680 | 1,639 Portland, Ore. 113.5 64.1 || 49.4| 4,517 | 6,829 || 2,814 Chicago, Ille 6$8,0 2O7.5 450 e5 7,71s 17,450 3,019 Providence, R.I. 142,6 17.9 124.7 || 4,091 | 18, 892 || 2,684 Cincinnati, Ohio 146.1 75, 1 71 - O 5,667 6,711 4,356 Pueblo, Colo. 15,8 10.6 5.2 || 4,636 6,008 || 1,839 Cleveland, Ohio 300 el 75e0 || 225 el 4,610 2,197 2,083 Racine, Wis. 12, 1 9.2 2.9 6,326 || 7,738 1,843 Columbia, S.C. 28.7 12,8 15.9 4,209 6,790 2,132 Raleigh, N.C. 12.S ll 20 1.3 5,589 || 5,971 2,367 Columbus, Ga. $5.1 12.0 23 el 3,376 6,684 1,688 Reading, Pa. 26.4 8,8 17.6 5,869 || 12,425 || 2,592 Columbus, Ohio 64,5 $9,4 25, 1 6,786 9,641 2,462 Richmond, Va. 48.4 37.1 11.3 || 5,330 6,208 || 2,460 Corpus Christi, Texas 29.3 19,8 9.5 4,196 5,469 | 1,544 Roanoke, Wa. 34.7 26.5 8.2 || 3,074 || 3,469 || 1,800 Dallas, Texas 142, 7 112,0 30, 7 s, 777 S,879 || 3,40s Rochester, N.Y. 64.6 S6.0 || 28.6 6,334 || 9,236 2,680 Davenport, Iowa- Rockford, Ill - 26.0 14.0 12.0 4,701 6,638 2,442 Rock Island-Moline, Ill 54, 8 $6,7 19.1 3,557 4,500 1,794 Sacramento, Calif. 41.6 16.9 24.7 || 5,091 8, 140 3,004 Dayton, Ohio 62.6 25,0 37.6 5,541 9,755 2,789 Saginaw, Mich. 24.0 16.6 7.4 || 4,414 5,597 1,760 Decatur, Ill., 15.3 9.3 6.0 4, 818 7,126 1,241 St. Joseph, Mo. 17.2 14, 1 8.1 || 4,784 6,674 || 1,194 Denver, Colo. 105.2 66, 8 $8,4 4,741 6,224 2,160 St. Louis, Mo. 227.8 61.0 | 166.8 6,146 || 14,046 3,257 Des Moines, Iowa 67.6 54.9 12.7 2,958 5,242 1,730 St. Petersburg, Fla. 69,8 52.2 17.6 ſ 1,642 1,853 | 1,015 Detroit, Mich. 394.9 139.6 255,3 6,784 || 13,249 || 3,172 Salt Lake City, Utah 76el 63.9 22.2 2,988 || 3,879 || 2,038 Duluth, Minn. —Superiosº is c. 106.0 G8.9 6, 1 1, S62 1,414 523 San Antonio, Texas 89.7 69,5 20.2 5,0ll 5,877 2,034 Durham, N. C. 14.8 13, 2 le 6 4,957 5,402 1,286 San Bernandino, Calif. 60.5 19.5 4.1.0 2,244 S,234 || 1,773 El Paso, Texas 27.4 25.6 l,8 4,997 5,097 3, 574 San Diego, Calif. 132,6 99.4 $3.2 || 3,265 3,364 2,969 Brie, Pa. 29,8 18.8 ll .0 8,091 6,958 || 1,901 San Francisco–Oakland, Calif. 287.5 97.6 | 189.7 7,038 || 11,886 || 4,545 Evansville, Ind., 22.2 18.0 4.2 6, 197 7,146 2, 128 San Jose, Calif. 60, 6 17.0 43.6 2,912 6,605 || 1,862 Fall River, Mass. $5,3 33.9 1.4 3, S46 3, SOS 4,598 Savannah, Ga. 22.5 14.6 7.9 5,698 || 8,194 | 1,085 Flint, Mich. 44, 8 29.3 16.6 4,4ll 5,568 2,225 Schenectady, N. Y. 17,6 10.2 7.4 || 7,004 8,999 || 4,255 Fort Smith, Ark. 28,3 25, 1 3.2 1,980 1,910 2,53S Soranton, Pa. 103,9 24.9 79.0 2,272 5,042 | 1,399 Fort Wayne, Ind. 22 gº 18, 8 3,6 6,264 7,107 || 1,868 Seattle, Wash. 122,9 70.8 62.1 5,057 | 6,604 || 2,954 Fort Worth, Texas 119.0 93.7 25.3 2,662 2,975 1,465 Shreveport, La. SO,4 24.0 6.4 || 4,941 || 5,300 || 3,594 Fresno, Calif. $0.5 15.0 15.5 4,262 6, ill 2,511 Sioux City, Iowa 49.5 45,0 4.3 | 1,828 1,866 | 1,421 Galveston, Texas 14.6 8, 1 6.4 4,933 8,218 775 South Bend, Ind. 37.2 20, 2 17.0 || 4,521 5,738 || 3,074 Grand Rapids, Mich. 46.7 23.4 23.3 4,857 7,645 2, 159 Spokane, Wash. 51 el 41 s 5 9.6 | S,444 3,897 | 1,488 Greensboro, M. C. 24.0 18,2 5.8 3,476 4,087 l,556 Springfield, Ill. 17.2 10.4 6.8 5,661 7,849 2,315 Hamilton, Ohio 9.2 7.6 1 s6 6,877 7,626 S, S24 Springfield, Mo. 17.8 13,6 4. 2 || 4,244 4,907 2,100 Harrisburg, Pa. 29,3 6,3 28.0 5,790 || 14,213 || 3,485 Spring field, Ohio 13, 2 12. 1 1.1 | 6,234 || 6,488 || 3,433 Hartford, Conn. 52.9 17,4 $5,5 6,686 10,195 3,476 Sprinz field-Holyoke, Mass. 167.3 52.7 114.6 || 2, 18S 4, 119 | 1,220 Houston, Texas 270,1 160,0 110.1 2,594 3,726 948 Stamford-Norwalk, Corn . 8l. 9 62 eS 19.6 || 2,119 1,986 || 2,540 Huntington, W. Wee- Stockton, Calif. 23,9 ll. 8 12.1 || 4,721 6,004 || 3,470 Ashland, Ky. 37, 1 22.0 15.1 4,213 5, S40 2,570 Syracuse, N. Y. 43, 6 25.3 18.3 6,086 8,719 || 2,448 Indianapolis, Ind. 90.6 55.2 $5,4 5,545 7,789 2, 124 Tacoma, Wash. 62.2 47,9 14.8 || 2,696 8,999 || 1,678 Jackson, Miss. 28, 1 27.0 1.1 3,568 3,640 1,809 Tampa, Fla. 40.8 19,0 2] .8 I 4,396 6,562 2,507 Jacksonville, Fla. 50, 8 30.2 20, 6 4,782 6,772 1,864 Terre Haute, Ind. 18, 6 12.2 6.4 4, 195 5,263 2,168 Johnstown, Pa. 14.7 5, 6 9, 1 6,351 || 11,291 || 3,310 Toledo, Ohio 69, 8 38.3 || $1.5 || 6,220 || 7,927 | 1,928 Kalamazoo, Mich. 21 s? 8.8 12.4 3,931 6,557 2,067 Topeka, Mans. 17.1 12.5 4.6 ſ 5,211 6,303 || 2,242 Kansas City, Mo. 149.0 80,6 68.4 4,687 5,665 3,557 Trenton, N. J. 26.0 7.2 18.8 || 7,282 17,779 || 3,281 Knoxville, Tenn. $5.6 25.4 10.2 4,162 4,912 2,294 Tulsa, Okla. S7.7 26.7 | 11 0 || 5,472 | 6,844 2,148 Lancaster, Pa. 8.2 4,3 3.9 9,302 14,831 S,207 Utica, N. Y., 20.2 15,8 4.4 || 5,813 6,426 || 3,612 Lansing, Miche 30, 8 I4 el 16,7 4,362 6,534 2,510 Wacé, Texas SO el 26.e0 4, 1 || 3,084 3,258 || 1,982 Lawrence, Mase, 16, 1 6.7 9,4 6,976 12,020 3,580 Washington, D. C. l?8,4 61.4 || 117.0 7,216 13,066 4, 147 Lincoln, Nebr. 26,4 23,8 2,6 S,769 4, 155 240 Waterbury, Conn. 47,0 27.6 19.4 2,802 3,785 | 1,404 Little Rock-North Waterloo, Iowa 40,7 $1.5 9.4| 2,073 || 2,083 || 2,041 Little Rock, Arke 38.5 $4,4 3,9 4,012 4,253 | 1,880 Wheeling, W. Wa. 23 el 10.4 12.7 || 4,617 | 5,665 | S,761 Los Angles, Calif. 871.3 450,9 420.4 4,587 4,370 || 4,821 Wichita, Kans. 37, 5 25.7 || 11.8 || 5,175 || 6,648 # 2, 184 Louisville, Ky. 68.6 $9,9 26.7 7,098 9,251 3,880 Wilkes-Barre, Pa. 67.4 6.9 || 60.6 || 4,050 | 11,134 || S,219 Lowell, Mass. 16,6 12.9 3.7 6,425 7,539 2,544 Wilmington, Del. 46, 7 9.8 36.9 || 4,012 || 11,261 2,087 Macon, Ga. 22.0 12.0 10.0 4,250 5,854 2,325 Winston-Salem, N. C. 2S. 1 18, 8 4.3 || 4,005 4,671 1,085 Madison, Wis. 24,5 15.4 9, 1 4,494 6,237 1,545 Worcester, Mass. 43.6 S7.O. 6.6 5,031 || 5,500 || 2,401 Manchester, M. H. $4,8 32, 1 2.2 2,478 2,577 994 York, Pa. 9, 1 4.2 4.9 || 8,669 || 14,276 || 3,846 Memphis, Tenn. 109,6 104.2 6.4 3,706 3,800 | 1,858 Youngstown, Ohio 78.9 $2.8 || 46.1 || 3,778 || 5,132 2,814 U. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE O-1954 Housing Research ||||I|| 3 9015 0 DO NOT REMOVE OR MUTILATE CARD