Population of Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas: 1960 and 1950

1960 SUPPL:EM.ENTAR Y Census of R~PD;RIS Population April 10, 1961 PC( Sl) -1 POPULATION OF STANDARD METROPOLITAN STATISTICAL AREAS: 1960 AND 1950 (The data shown here are being issued in advance of their publication in Final Report PC(l)-lA, which is scheduled to be published in May 1961 and which will contain additional sumnary information on the numbers and geographic distribution of the population. The discussion in the text of the present report refers to the 212 SMSA•s in the 50 States and the District of Columbia; however, statistics for the three SMSA's in Puerto Rico are given in table 3, This report supersedes Pre liminary Report PC(P3)-4) Approximately 84 percent of the increase from 36~9 million persons.to 54,9 million. The in the total population of the United States nonmetropolitan territory increased from 62.0 between 1950 and 1960 occurred in standard million persons to 66.4 million, an increase metropolitan statistical areas (SMSA 1 s), that of about 7 percent. is, in cities of 50,000 or more and the out lying areas surrounding them. The 212 SMSA's This general pattern of metropolitan increased by 23.6 million persons, and of this nonmetropoli tan growth represents a continu increase 17. 9 million occurr'ed in the outlying ation of a similar pattern which occurred in parts of the SMSA 1 s and 5,6 million in the the decade 1940 to 1950. In that decade, central cities. Thus the population increase nearly 80 percent of the population growth of in the outlying parts of the SMSA 1 s accounted the country occurred in standard metropolitan for nearly two-thirds of the total population statistical areas. The rate of increase in increase of the United States since 1950, and these areas was 22 percent, as compared with more than three-fourths of the total increa~a 26 percent in the decade 1950 to 1960. The within SMSA 1 s. The growth of population in percentage increas·e for the remainder of the the central cities accounted for 20 percent of country outside metropolitan areas between the total population increase of the United 1940 and 1950 was 6 percent, which was also .States and 24 percent of the increase within slightly less than the 1950-60 rate. For the SMSA 1 s (table A), country as a whole, the gain was 18.5 percent between 1950 and 1960, and 14.5 percent be~ The population of the 212 SMSA 1 s increased tween 19~0 and 1950. from 89,3 million persons in 1950to112.9 mil lion in 1960, an increase of about 26 percent. Within metropolitan areas, however, there The 5.6 million increase in the population of were appreciable differences. In the decade central cities to a total of 58 million per 1950 to 1960, the population of central cities sons in 1960 represented an 11-percent incl'ease increased by only 11 percent, whereas in tho over the 1950 population. The population of previous decade the corresponding increase the outlying parts of the SMSA's increased by was nearly lli· percent. In the suburban ring, about 49 percent between 1950 and 1960, growing however, the 1950-60 increase was nearly 50 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, Luther H. Hodges, Sect·etary BUREAU OF THE CENSUS For sale by the Bureau of tke Census, Washington 25, D.C., and U.S. Department of Commerce Field Offices, 25 cents. 2 Table A.--POPULATION OF STANDARD METROPOLITAN STATISTICAL .ABEAS, FOR THE UNITED STATES, BY REGIONS: 1960 AND 1950 (Minus sign (-) denotes decrease) Increase, 1950 to 1960 Region and component parts of SMSA 1960 1950 Number Percent United States,,,,., ..• ,,.,,.,,, •.• ,, 179,323,175 151,325,798 27,997,377 18.5 In S:r1SA 1s •.•.••••••..••• ,., ••••••••• ,,.,,,,, 112,885,178 89,316,903 23,568,275 26,4 Central e-ities,, ..... ,., .... ,.,,, •. ,, ... 58,004,334 52,385,642 5,618,692 10.7 Outside central cities ••.•..••..•.•.•• ,. 54,880,!!44 36,931,261 17, 949, 583 48.6 Outside SMSA 1 s. , .•.. , •..•. , ... , . , •. , •• , , , , 66,437,997 62,008,895 4,429,102 7,1 Northeast, ..... ,.,,,,.,, ...•. ,., .. ,,.,, 44,677,819 39,477,986 5,199,833 13,2 In S:rv1SA' s • •• , .•••• , •••• , •• , • , •• , , , , , , , , ••• 35,346,505 31,267, 169 4,079,336 13,0 Central cities,,,,,,.,., ....... , •.. ,, .... 17,321,731 17,895,694 -573,963 '."3.2 Outside central cities •••••.••.•..•••••• 18,024,774 13,371,475 4, 653,299 34.8 Outside SMSA•s,,,.,,,, •. ,.,, ..••.•. ,,.,,,, 9,331,314 8,210,817 l, 120, 497 13.6 North Central,, ....... , .... , .. , ... , .. , ... 51,619,139 44,460,762 7,158,377 16,l In Sl1SA 1 s .. , ..•.• , ........ ,,, .... , , • , , , , , • , • 30,959,961 25,074,674 5,885,287 23,5 Central cities, ... , .. , .. ,,, ... ,,,,,.,.,, 16,510,746 15,836,656 674,090 4.3 Outside central cities •• ,,, .••. , .. ,,,,,, 14,.449,215 9,238,018 5,211, 197 56,4 Outside SMSA's, •• , ••.• , .••. , ..••.• , .• ,,,,, 20,659,178 19,386,088 1,273,090 6,6 South . .... , , .. , , , , . , ......•. , , .. , , , , , , 54,973,113 47,197,088 7,776,025 16.5 In St1SA's .•..•.••.•. , •. , ................... 26,44'7,395 19,417,751 7,029,644 36,2 Central cities ...... , .. ,.,, .........•..••• 15,061,777 ll,720,843 3,340,934 28.5 Outside central cities .........•... , .••• 11,3$5,618 7,696,908 3,688,710 47.9 Outside St-1SA 1 s ............ , •. , ...... , •..• ,. 28,525,718 27,779,337 746,381 2.7 West, ..... •••••••• ........•......• ,,., 28,053,104 20,189,962 7,863,142 38,9 In 8?1.SA.' s., ••• , •• , ••••• , •••...•• , •.••• , , , . , 20,131,317 13,557,309 6,574,008 48.5 Central cities, ........ ,,., ..• ,.,,,.,,,, 9,110,080 6,932,449 2,177,631 31,4 Outside central cities ••..•.•••••••• ,,,, 11,021,237 6,624,860 4,396,377 66.4 Outside SMSA's •••.••..•••••••••• , •• ,,.,,,, 7,921,787 6, 632,653 1,289,134 19.4 percent, as compared with 35 percent in the outside such areas (36 vs. 3 percent), that of preceding decade. Considered as a proportion central cities increased by more than one of the countrywide increase, the outlying parts quarter, and that of the suburban ring by less or suburban ring accounted for about two-thirds than one-half. In the West, the population of of the total 1950-60 increase, but for slightly metropolitan areas increased at more than twice less than one-half of the 1940-50 increase. the rate of the population of nonmetropolitan. areas (49 vs. 19 percent). The rate of in The metropolitan-nonmetropolitan pattern crease for central cities was about 31 percent of increase varied considerably among the and that of the ring, about 66 percent. various regions. The population inside and outs_ide metropolitan areas of the Northeast in The West had an overall rate of increase creased at about the same rate (13.0 and 13.6, more than twice as great as that of any other respectively), central cities decreased by region. As in the North Central Region and. about 3 percent, and the suburban ring increased the South, but to a lesser degree, there is: by slightly more than one-third (table 1). In evidence of movement from nonmetropoli tan to the North Central States, the rate of increase metropolitan territory. The growth rate of' in metropolitan areas was about 4 times that the ring is somewhat greater in relation to outside metropolitan areas (24 vs. 7 percent), the growth rate of central cities than in the1 central cities showed a modest increase · of South, but less than that in the North Central. about 4 percent, and the suburban ring in Region. creased by something more than one-half. In the South, the population of standard metro The variation in rates of increase among; politan statistical areas increased at a rate SMSA's of different sizes was less extensivei 12 times as great as in the population living than that of thof'e among the r'egions (table 2) • 3 The population increased most rapidly in those growth within the 1950 city limits (table 2). SMSA's that ranged in size from 500,000 to In SMSA's of 1,000,000 to 3,0oo,ooo, the popu l,Ooo,ooo, where the rate of increase was 36.0 lation within the 1950 boundaries of central percent· Among the SMSA 1 s of other size cities declined by 2. 2 percent, but annexations classes, the rate of population growth ranged added 7.8 percent to the 1950 total for a net only from a low of 23. 2 percent for areas of gain of 5.6 percent. In each of the size 3,000,000 or more to 25.8 percent for areas classes of SMSA's with fewer than one mill.ion of 100,000 to 250,000. The relation between inhabitants, more than two-thirds of the in growth rates of central cities and outlying crease in the population of central cities re areas was clearly associated with the size of sulted from annexations. the SMSA. In the five SMSA's of 3,000,000 or more, the gain in central cities was only 1 Of the 212 SMSA's, 204 gained popula percent whereas the increase in the suburban tion between 1950 and 1960, and 8 lost popu ring was 71 percent. Progressively, as size lation. The areas with population losses were declj.ned, the rate of growth of central cities Altoona, Jersey City, Johnstown, St. Joseph, increased in relation to that of the ring, so Scranton, Texarkana, Wheeling, and Wilkes that in SMSA's of less than l00,000 the rate Barre--Hazleton. Six of these areas--St, Joseph for• the central cities ( 29 percent) exceeded and Texarkana were the exceptions--had also that for the ring (ll percent).

Load more