The Billy Wilson: An Interactive Map of the American Urban Centres that Ranked in the Top 100 Most Populated 1790-1900
1 Introduction Plotted in this article are the top 100 most populated American urban centres for each decade since the 1790 census (first year it was taken). Also included are the Canadian centres that would have ranked among the top 100 American centres. The data for the Canadian centres is less reliable though.
Paid for by patrons
Weekly Content Selection #12
Hello everyone! This is the twelfth ever "weekly content selection". Just in case you've missed the important update on how I have my Patreon set up: http://www.patreon.com/creation?hid=364704 CONTENT SELECTION: -This week I mainly worked on my population data projects. I released a new one titled "An Interactive Map of the American Urban Centres that Ranked in the Top 100 Most Populated 1790-1900." In it I present an interactive map that I've created showing all of the urban centres in the USA that have ranked within the top 100 most populated between 1790-1900. I also have a detailed breakdown of the number of urban centres per state. You can check out the entire article here: http://www.thebillywilson.com/2014/06/interactive-map-of-american-urban.html I also added a by state/province/territory comparison section to my article entitled "The Population of Every Urban Centre in Canada and the USA with more than 5,000 Inhabitants in 1900.": http://www.thebillywilson.com/2012/12/the-population-of-every-city-in-canada.html (in the "Observations" section) It's quite interesting to compare the different regions. I list the top ten urban centres for each region. Below I'll give a few interesting comparisons. The region with the most urban centres with more than 5,000 inhabitants in the year 1900 was by far Pennsylvania (first number following the state name is the number of urban centres followed by the population in 1900): Pennsylvania, USA: 93 | 6,302,115 1. Philadelphia: 1,293,697 2. Pittsburgh: 321,616 3. Allegheny: 129,896 4. Scranton: 102,026 5. Reading: 78,961 6. Erie: 52,733 7. Wilkes-Barre: 51,721 8. Harrisburg: 50,167 9. Lancaster: 41,459 10. Altoona: 38,973 Interestingly Texas, which now contains some of the largest cities in the USA at the time didn't have any substantially large cities: Texas, USA: 27 | 3,048,710 1. San Antonio: 53,321 2. Houston: 44,633 3. Dallas: 42,638 4. Galveston: 37,780 5. Fort Worth: 26,688 6. Austin: 22,258 7. Waco: 20,686 8. El Paso: 15,906 9. Laredo: 13,420 10. Denison: 11,807 Still, Texas ranked as the 11th region out of 60 for having the most urban centres. Finally, California, despite being on the west coast had a reasonable number of relatively large urban centres in 1900: California, USA: 19 | 1,485,053 1. San Francisco: 342,782 2. Los Angeles: 102,479 3. Oakland: 66,960 4. Sacramento: 29,282 5. San Jose: 21,500 6. San Diego: 17,700 7. Stockton: 17,606 8. Alameda: 16,464 9. Berkeley: 13,214 10. Fresno: 12,470 California ranked at 15 out of 60. -I'm also working on putting together more nature videos. -Finally, I also added to a number of my Pinterest boards. I believe I mainly added to my Georgian Buildings board: http://www.pinterest.com/billywilson/georgian-buildings/ and my Georgian Mansions board: http://www.pinterest.com/billywilson/georgian-mansions/ Your support helps me in so many ways. Knowing that there are people who support me helps me get through mentally challenging times. I can never thank you enough!