In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

201 Appendix A D e ce n n i a l Po p u l a t i o n L os s f o r t h e F i f t y L a rg es t U. S . C i t i es, 18 2 0 – 2 0 0 0 Number of Cities Population Size Absolute Relative Largest Smallest Years Loss Loss City City 1820–1830 3 33 123,706 3,545 1830–1840 5 29 202,589 5,566 1840–1850 1 32 312,710 7,887 1850–1860 1 31 515,547 14,257 1860–1870 1 27 813,669 18,266 1870–1880 2 20 942,292 26,766 1880–1890 0 28 1,206,299 35,629 1890–1900 3 16 1,515,301 57,478 1900–1910 1 26 3,437,202 78,961 1910–1920 0 28 4,766,883 100,253 1920–1930 0 23 5,620,040 132,358 1930–1940 15 22 6,930,446 156,492 1940–1950 2 29 7,454,995 167,402 1950–1960 24 29 7,891,957 203,486 1960–1970 24 28 7,781,984 261,685 1970–1980 33 26 7,895,563 277,714 1980–1990 18 26 7,071,639 284,413 1990–2000 12 23 7,322,564 328,123 Note: The fifty largest cities are recalculated for each decade as new cities join the rankings and other cities drop out of the category. An absolute loss is any net reduction in population, regardless of size; a relative loss involves a fall in ranking. Population size is for the first year 202 Appendix A of the period. For the entire time span, New York was the largest city; the smallest city varied from year to year, with York, Pennsylvania, occupying that position in 1820 and Buffalo, New York, in 1990. Sources: U.S. Bureau of the Census population statistics for decennial years, plus Campbell Gibson, “Population of the 100 Largest Cities and Other Urban Places in the United States, 1790–1990,” U.S. Bureau of the Census, Population Division, Working Paper 27 (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1998). ...

Share