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 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 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 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). lost population in the previous decade. In each of the declining areas, with the excep­ Annexation of territory from the outlying tion of St. Joseph and Texarkana, the central areas by central cities considerably affected cities also lost population. The two gains in the comparative rates . of population change central cities resulted from annexations of during the decade by the two areal components outlying territory. The population within the of SMSA's (table 1). Of the increase of l0.7 1950 city limits declined. Of the 204 SMSA's percent in the population of central cities, that gained population, 138, or about two­ 9,3 percent resulted from annexations, and thirds, had increases of 20 percent or more, only 1. 5 percent from the increase of popula­ and 63, or slightly less than three-tenths tion within the 1950 city limits. The 58.0 of all metropolitan areas, had increases of million persons in central cities in 1960 in­ one-third or more. One area, that of Fort cluded 4. 9 million living in sections that had Lauderdale-Hollywood, almost quadrupled in pop­ been annexed to these cities since the previous ulation, with an increase of 297.9 percent. census. Large differences existed in the rela­ Six other areas, those of Las Vegas, Midland, tive contributions resulting from annexations Orlando, San Jose, Odessa, and Phoenix, at among the central cities of SMSA 1s of the var­ least doubled in population, experiencing in­ ious regions and size classes. creases ranging from 100.0 to 163.0 percent. In the North Central States and in the The 1960 Census i's the first to show pop­ Northeast, the population within the 1950 ulation losses in a considerable number of our limits o:t' central cities declined by 2 to 3 larger cities. More than one-quarter of the percent, but, in the North Central Region, central cities of SMSA's lost population be­ annexations of territory containing nearly one tween 1950 and 1960. Among the five cities million persons in 1960 enabled the central of 1 000 000 or more--New York, Chicago, Los cities to show an increase of 4 percent. The Angeles,' ' Philadelphia, and Detroit--only one, greatest numerical and proportionate increases Los Angeles, had an increase; all of the others to central cities from annexations occurred in lost population. the South and West. In the South this increase These losses are not.necessarily evidence amounted to about four-fifths of the increase of economic decline but may simply reflect the experienced by central cities between 1950 and decentralization of population within the met­ 1960 ( 23. 3 percent of the 28. 5 percent) and in ropolitan area. New York City had about a the West, over one-half ( 16. 9 percent of the 1-percent decline in population, but the New 31.lf percent), York SMSA increased by about 12 percent. The Among the size classes, the smallest corresponding figures for Chicago were -2 and change in central cities from annexations +20 percent, respectively; for Philadelphia~ occurred in metropolitan areas of 3,000,000 or -3 and +18 percent; and for Detroit, -10 an more, where. these gains amounted to only o.4 +25 percent. In short, although there was a decline within the corporate limits of these percent, compared to an increas~ of o.6 through 4 cities, the entire SMSA increased in popula­ 2. If two or more adjacent tion. Since the location of city limits has ench have a city of 50 1000 inhabitants or more little relevance to economic and industrial and the cities are within 20 miles of each growth in an urban aggregate, population trends other (city limits to city limits), they will in the central city as legally defined do not be inclQded in the same area unless there is necessarily constitute a good index of the definite evidence that the two cities are not economic health of the area. economically and socially integrated.

The criteria of metropolitan character DEFINITIONS AND EXPLANATIONS relate primarily to the attributes of the out­ Standard metropolitan statistical areas, -­ lying as a place of work or as a home It has been long recognized that for many types for a concentration of nonagricultural workers. of social and economic analysis it is neces­ Specifically, these criteria are: sary to consider as a unit the entire popu­ 3. At least 75 percent of the labor lation in and around the city whose activities force of the county must be in the nonagricul­ form an integrated social and economic system. tural labor force. Prior to the 1950 Census, areas of this type had been defined in somewhat different ways 4. In addition to criterion 3, the for different purposes and by various agencies. county must meet at least one of the follow­ Leading examples were the metropolitan dis­ ing conditions: tricts of the Census of Population, the indus­ a. It must have 50 percent or more trial areas of the Census of Manufactures, and of its population living in contiguous minor the labor market areas of the Bureau of Employ­ civil divisions with a density of at least ment Security. To provide general purpose 150 persons per square mile, i~ an unbroken areas of this type, the Bureau of the' Budget chain of minor civil divisions with such has established standard metropolitan statis­ density radiating from a central city in tical areas (SMSA 1 s),1 the area. b. The number of nonagricultural Except in New England, an SMSA is a county workers employed in the county must equal or group of contiguous counties which contains at least 10 percent of the number of non­ at least one city of 50,000 inhabitants or agricultural workers employed in the county more or " 11 with a combined popu­ containing the largest city in the area, or lation of at least 50,000. In addition to the the outlying county must be the place of county or counties, containing such a city or employment of at least 10 000 nonagricul­ cities, contiguous counties are included in an 1 tural workers. SMSA if according to certain criteria, they 1 c. The nonagricultural labor force are essentially metropolitan in character and living in the county must equal at least 10 are socially and economically integrated with percent of the nonagricultural labor force the central city. The criteria followed in living in the county containing the largest the delineation of SMSA 1 s relate to a city, or city in the area, or the outlying county cities, of sufficient population size to con­ ·must be the place of residence of a nonag­ stitute the central city and to the economic ricultural labor force of at least 10 000. and social relationships with contiguous coun­ 1 ties that are metropolitan in character. 5, In New England, the city and . are administratively more important than the 1. Each SMSA must include at least: county, and data are compiled locally for such a, One. c~ty with 50 1 000 inhabit­ ants or more, or minor civil divisions. Here, and cities are the units used in defining SMSA's. In New­ b. Two cities having contiguous England, because smaller units are used and boundaries and constituting, for general more restricted areas result, a population. economic and social purposes, a single density of at least 100 persons per square community with a combined population of at mile' is used as the measure of metropolitan. least 50 000 the smaller of which must 1 1 character. have a population of at least 15,000. The criteria of integration relate pri­ marily to the extent of economic and social 1 See also the Bureau of the Budget publication Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas, U.S. Govern­ communication between the outlying counties ment Printing Office, Washington 25, D.C., 1961, and the central county. 5

6. A county is regarded as integrated where cities qualify under criterion l.b. with the county or counties containing the (A city which qualified as a secondary cen­ central cities of the area if either of the tral city in 1950 but which does not qualify following criteria is met: in 1960 has been temporarily retained as a a. If 15 percent of the workers centraJ. city.) living in the given outlying county work in the county or counties containing the cen­ 8. The titles of the SMSA's consist tral city or cities of the area, or of the names of the central cities followed by b. If 25 percent of those working the names of the States in which the areas are in the given outlying county live in the located. county or counties containing the central city or cities of the area. In the 1950 Census reports, data were pre­ sented for standard metropolitan areas (SMA's) Only where data for criteria 6a and 6b are not and in several earlier censuses a somewhat conclusive are other related types of infor­ similar type of area called the "metropolitan mation used. This information includes such district" was used. In 1959, the criteria for i terns as average telephone calls per subscriber delineating SMA's were revised by the Bureau per month from the county to the county con­ of the Budget , and, at the same time the areas taining crmtral cities of the area; percent of 1 were designated as standard metropolitan sta­ the population in the county located in the tistical areas. The comparative figures shown central city telephone exchange area; news­ here for 1950 apply to the SMSA as defined in paper circulation reports prepared by the Audit 1960. Bureau of Circulation; analysis of charge ac­ counts in retail stores of central cities to Standard consolidated areas.--In view of determine tho extent of their use by residents the special importance of the metropolitan of the contiguous county; delivery service complexes around New York and Chicago, the practices of retail stores in central cities; Nation's largest cities, several contiguous official traffic counts1 the extent of public SMSA's and additional counties that do not transportation facilities in operation between appear to meet the formal integration criteria cEmtral cities and communities in the contig­ but do have strong interrelationships of other uous county; and the extent to which local kinds, have been combined into the New York­ plann:Lng groups and other civic organizations Northeastern New Jersey and the Chicago-North­ operate jointly. western Indiana Standard Consolidated Areas, '1. A:t though there may be several cit­ respectively. The former is identical with the ies of 50,000 or more in an SMSA, not all New York-Northeastern New Jersey SMA of 1950, are necessarily central cities. The following and the latter corresponds roughly to the Chi­ criteria are used for determining central cago SMA (two more counties having been added) . cities: a. The largest city in an SMSA is Coverage.--The statistics presented here always a central city. cover 212 standard metropolitan statistical b. In addition, one or two addi­ areas in the 50 States and the District of tional cities may be secondary central Columbia. Prior to the 1960 Census, 189 areas c:l.tios on the basis and in the order of the had been established in the United States. folJ.owing criteria; The results of the census led to the elimina­ (1) The additional city or cit­ tion of one area in which the population of ies have at least 250,000 inhabitants. the central city fell below 50,000 and the (2) The additional city or cit­ addition of 24 areas in which central cities ies have a population of one-third or more attained a population of 50 1 000 or more for of that of the largest city and a minimum the first time. Although statistics are pre­ popul.ation of 25,000, except that both sented for the 3 SMSA's in Puerto Rico, they cities are central cities in those instances are not included in the summary tables. 7

Table 1,·-POPULATION OF STANDA!lD MllTROl'OLITAN STATISTICAL AREAS, BY REOIONS, FOR THE UNITED STATES: 1960 AND 1950

(Minllll sign (-) denotes decrease)

Change, 1950 to 1960

Region and component pa:rts of SMSA 1960 1950 Based on 1950 l!mi ts of From annexations Total cer.tral cities

Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

UNITED STA'.l'E:S In Sf1SAta, •• ,.,,, .. ,.,,.,,,,,,.,,.,,,,, 112,885,178 69,316,903 23,568,275 26,4 23,568,275 26,4 ...... Central oi ties . , , , , , .. , ... , , •••• , . , ..... , , , , , , , 58,004,334 52, ;365' 642 5,616,692 10.7 767, 209 1.5 4,851,483 9,J Outside central o1 ties, , , , . , , , • , ... 1 , , , , , , , , , 54,880,844 36,931,261 17,949,583 48,6 22,801,066 61,7 -4,851,483 -13.1 NORTHE/18'.l'

In SMSA 1s,, •••. , .. ,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ,,,,,,,,, 4 35,346, 505 31,267,169 4,079,336 13,0 4,079,336 13,0 ...... Central oitiea, ...... ,, ,, , . , ,, •••••••••,,, ,, , 17,321,?31 17,695,694 -573,963 -3,2 -594 ,078 -3.3 201115 O,l Outside -central cities, .•...•. , •. , .• ,.,, •.. ,, 18,024,774 13,371,475 4,653,299 34.8 4,673,414 35,0 -20,ll.5 -0.2 NORTR CENTRAL

In SMSA. 1a •••••••••• , •• , .••••••••••••••• ,. 30,959,961 25,074, 674 5,885,287 23,5 5 ,885, 287 23,5 Central oities,, .••• , .• ,.,,.,, ••• , , ••• , , , •• , . 16,510,746 15,836, 656 674,090 4.3 -257' 583 -1,6 931,6?3 5,9 Out.side centrn.l cities,,,,,.,,,,,,,•••,,,,,., 14,449,215 9,238,018 5,211,197 56,4 6,11.2, 870 66,5 -931,673 -10,l

SOUTH

In SMSA 1a.,,, •••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 26,1.4?,395 19,41?,751 7,029,644 36.2 ? ,029,644 36.2 Central cities-.,,,,, .. ,,,, ... ,,,,,., ..• ,,,,,,, 15,061,?77 ll,720,843 3,340,934 28,5 615,801 5,3 2,725,133 23.3

Outside central oities,,,,.,,,,, 11 ,,,,,, 1 ,,,. 11,385,618 7,696,901! 3,688,?10 47.9 6,41;3,843 83,3 -2,725,133 -35,4 WEST In St1SA 1s,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,.,,,,,,, ,20,131,317 13,55?,309 6,571.,008 48,5 6,5?1t ,008 48,5 ... Central cities,,,,,, ... , , , , , . , , , , , , . , , • , •• , , , , 9,ll0,080 6,932,449 2,177,631 31.lt 1,003,069 11~.5 l,l?l.. ,562 16,9

Outside central ci tiea,,, •. ,.,, 1 ,,.,,,,,.,,,, ll,021,237 6,624,860 4,396,37? 66.lt 5,570,939 64,l -1,174,562 -l?.7

Tnble 2, --POPULATION OF STANDARD Ml!TROPOLITAN STATISTICAL AREA.s, BY SIZE OF .IJUlA: 1950 AND 1960

(Minus e!gn (-) denotes decrease)

Change, 1950 to 1960

Based on 1950 limi ta of From annexations Size and component part.a or SMSA. 1960 1950 Total central cities

N"umber Percent Number Percent Number Percent

ALL SIZES

In SMSA•a •. ,, •••••••••• ,,,,,,,, •• ,, •• ,. ll2,SS5,178 89,316,90;3 23,568,275 26,4 23,568,275 26.4 Central cities, , ... , ••.. , .... , • , • , , . , • , .••• , • ,8,004,334 52,385,642 5,618,692 10,? 767,209 l.5 4,851,483 9,3 Outside central cities ...... I ••• '. I • I''' ... 54,880,844 36,931,261 17,949,583 48,6 22,801,066 61,7 -4,851,483 -13,1 3,000,000 OR MORE

!n St1SA 1e,,,, ••••••••• , •• , •••••• ••••••••• 31,763,499 25,788,967 5,974,5.32 23.2 5,9?/t ,53:2 23.2 Central cities,.,,., .•.. , •• ,,.,,.,.,,., ••••. , 17,826,227 17,655,217 173,010 1,0 99,318 0,6 73,692 a:4 Outside central cities ...... ••.•• ,., .• 13,935,272 8,133,?50 5J80l,5.22 71,3 5,875,214 72.2 -73,692 -0,9 l,000,000 TO 3,000,000

In S1"\SA 1s,,.,,.,,,,,, •• , •• , •. , •••••• ,, ••• 29,818,571 23,658,113 5,960,458 25,0 5,960,4:58 25,0 Central cities . . , .. , ..• , •••• , • , • , ; , • , , .• , . , , . 12,707,503 12,037,125 670,378 5,6 -270,275 -2.2 940,653 ?:a Outside central cities ... , ..... ,,,,,,, .....•. , 17 ,lll,068 11,820,988 5,290,080 41t,8 6,230,733 52.7 -940,653 -8.0

500, 000 TO 1, 000, 000

In SMSAts.,,,.,,., •• ,,.,, 11 ,,,,,,,, •••••• 19,214,817 14,125,628 5,089,189 36,0 5,089,189 36,0 Central ci tiea.,,, • , , • , , , , , • , , , , , , . , , , , •• , ••• 10,126,684 8,340,585 l,786,099 21,4 396,636 4,8 l,389,l,6J 16.7 Outside central cities., .. ,.,,,,,,.,.,,,,.,,, 9,068,133 5,785,043 3,303,090 57.1 4,692,553 81,l -1,389,463 -24.0

250,000 TO 500 1000

In Sfw\SA 1a, ,,,. ,,, t•• , ••• ,,, ••••• , , , ...... 15,829,067 12,603,137 3,225,930 25.6 3,225,930 25.6 Central cities,.,. , , , , • , , , , • , , • , , •,. , , , • , ••. , 7 ,750,597 6,671,381 1,079,216 16,2 146,234 2.2 932,982 14.0 Outside central oi ti&s.,.,,.,,,,.,.,.,,., •.. , 8,078,470 5,931,756 2,l't6,714 36.2 J,079.1696 51,9 -932,982 -15.7 100,000 TO 250,000

In S!19A. 1s ••••••.• •••••••••••••••• , ••••••• 14,497 ,617 11,525,685 2,972,132 25,8 2,972,132 25.S Central cities .. ,,., .•...... ,,., ....•. 8,;135,553 6,631,867 1,603,666 24,2 305,082 4,6 1,298,584 19.6 Outside aentral cities ..• , ... ,,., •. ,., .. , .. ,, 6,262,264 4,893,798 l,366,466 28.0 2,6671050 54.5 -1,298,584 -26,5

UNDER 100,000

In SMSA's ...... l,761,407 1,415,373 346,034 24,4 346,034 21r,4 Central oi ties.,.,, ...... • ,., .... ,, .. ,,,.,. l,355,770 1,049,447 306,323 29.2 90,214 8.6 216,io9 20,6 Outside central cities.,,,, .. ,,.,., .... , ..... 1,05,637 365,926 39,711 '10,9 255,820 69,9 -216,109 59.0 Table 3 .-POPIILATION INSIDE AND OUTSIDE CENTRAL CITY OR CITI&S OF SVJIDARD Ml!:TIPPOLI'IAN STATISTICAL AREAS O> IN THE UNITED STA?!'.5 A!ID THE CCMDN'W!l:ALTH OF F!l!CRTO RICO; 1940 TO 1960

(Data relate to areas as defined for 1960. Minus sign (-) denotes decrease. Percent not shown where less than 0.1)

Percent increase Percent increase Standard lll!tropolitan Standard metropolitan 1960 1950 1950 1940 1960 1950 1940 1950 191.0 statistical area 1940 statistical area to to to to 1960 1950 1960 1950

ru,885, 178 89,316,903 72,834,468 26.4 22.6 Binghamton, N.Y ••••••••• , • , • •• ••• 212,661 184,698 165,749 15.1 11.4 Binghamton ••••••••••••••••••• 75,941 80,674 78,309 -5.9 3,0 10.7 14.7 56,004,334 52,365,642 45,652,383 Outside central city...... 136, 720 104,024 lrl,440 31.4 19.0 54,880,844 36,931,261 27,182,085 ,48,6 35.9 Bi:rmiDgham, Ala,,, ••.•.••• , ••••.••• 634,864 558,928 459,930 13.6 21.5 120,377 85,517 67,525 40.8 26.6 ••• , •••• , •••••• ,, •• 340,887 326,037 267,583 4.6 21.8 90,368 45,570 26,612 98.3 71.2 Outside central city...... 293,977 232,891 192,347 26.2 21.1 30,009 39,947 40,913 -24.9 -2.4 Boston, Mass •••••••.••••••••••••• 2,589,301 2,410,572 2,209,608 7.4 9.1 410,032 25.3 20.8 513,569 339,405 Boston••••••.•••••••..•••.••• 697,197 801,444 770,816 -13.0 4.0 290,351 2?4,605 24, '791 5.7 12.2 Outside central city ••••••••• 1,892,104 1,609,128 1,438, ?92 17.6 11.8 223,218 135,427 94,614 64.8 43.l Bridgeport, Conn •••• , ...... 334,576 273,723 225,268 22.2 21.5 28,565 73,5 52.7 75,680 43,617 Bridgeport •••••••.•.••••.•••• 156,748 158,?09 147,121 -1.2 7.9 55,890 31,155 19,055 ?9.4 63.5 Outside central city •••.••• :. 177,828 115,014 78,147 54.6 47.2 19,?90 12,4<>2 9,510 58.8 31.0 Brockton, Mass ...... 149,458 119,728 ll0,463 24.8 8.4 657,503 589,359 531,249 ll.6 10.9 Brockton...... ?2,813 62,860 62,343 15.S o.a 278,900 299,091 288,430 -6.8 3.7 Outside central city ••••••••• 76,645 56,868 48,120 34.8 18.2 129,?26 134,995 130,577 -3.9 3.4 81,682 91, 785 87,549 -ll.O 4.8 Brownsville-Harlingen-San Benito, 67,492 72,3ll 70,304 -6.7 2.9 TexE.s ...... 151,098 125,170 83,202 20.7 50.4 378,603 290,268 242,819 30.4 19.5 In central cities ...... 105,669 72,566 44,890 45.6 61.7 Brownsville ...... 48,040 36,066 22,083 33.2 63.3 262,199 145,6?3 69,391 80.0 109.9 Harlingen••••••.••••••••••• 41,207 23,229 13,306 77.4 74.6 201,189 96,815 35,449 10?.6 173.l. San Benito ...... 16,422 13,271 9,501 23.7 39.7 61,010 48,858 33,942 24.9 43.9 Outside central cities ...... 45,429 52,604 38,312 -13.6 37.3

Buffalo, N.Y ...... 1,306,957 1,089,230 958,487 20.0 13.6 492,168 43?,824 396,6?3 12.4 10.4 Buffalo ••••••.• ,. •••••.••••••• 532,759 580,132 5?5,901 -8.2 0.7 215,710 208,728 188,983 3.3 10.4 Outside central city ••..••••• 774,198 509,098 382,586 52.1 33.l l.08,347 106,756 96,904 1.5 10.2 66,340 75,408 58,490 13.7 13.4 Canton, Ohio ••••••••••••••••••••.• 340,345 283,194 234,887 20.2 20.6 31,955 35,632 33,589 -10.3 6.1 Canton ••••••••••••••••••••••• D3,631 116,912 108,401 -2.8 7.9 276,458 229,096 207,690 20.? 10.3 Outside central city••••••••• 226,714 166,282 126,486 :36.3 31.5 Al 137,270 139,514 140,358 -1.6 -0.6 Cedar Rapids, Iowa ...... 136,899 104,274 89,142 31,3 17.0 69, l,zyJ 80,214 -10.1 77,177 -3.8 Cedar Rapids ••••••••••••••••• 92,035 72,296 62,120 27.3 16.4 67,863 62,337 60,1"4 8.9 3.6 Outside central city••••••••• 44,864 31,978 27,022 40.3 18.3 .Amarill, 149,493 87,140 61,450 71.6 41.8 Champaign-Urbana, Ill •••••••••••• 132,436 106,100 70,578 24.8 50.3 137,969 74,246 51,686 65.8 43.6 In central cities ...... 76,877 62,397 37,366 23.2 67.0 11,524 12,894 9,764 -10.6 32.1 Chwl!Paign •••••••••••••••••• 49,583 39,563 23,302 25.3 69.6 Urbslla ••••••••••• •••• ·• •••• 27,294 22,834 14,064 19.5 62.4 Ann 134,606 80,810 28.1 66.6 172,4401 Outside central cities ...... 55,559 43,703 33,212 27.1 :31.6 67, 31,(J 48,251 29,815 39.6 61.8 105,100 86,355 50,995 Zl.7 69.3 Charleston, S.C ...... 216,382 164,856 121,105 31.3 36,l Charleston••••••••••••••••••• 65,925 70,174 71,275 -6.l -1.5 Ash1 130,074 124,403 108,755 4.6 14.4 Outside central cit;r••••••••• 150,45? 94,f>?2 49,830 58.9 90.0 60,192 53,000 51,310 13.6 3.3 69,882 71,403 57,445 -2.1 24.3 CharlestOJl, ](.Va ••••••• , ...... 252,925 239,629 195,619 5.5 22.~ Charleatoll •••••••.••.•••••••• 85,?96 73,501 67,914 8.Z Ashl 16.7 Outside central city...... 167,129 166,128 127,'705 0.6 30.l Charlotte, K.C ••••••••••••••••••• 272,ill. 197,052 151,826 :is.1 29.8 726,989 , Ga •••• •••• •••••• •••••••• 1,017,188 558,842 39.9 30.1 Cllarl.otte ••••••••.••••••••••• 201,564 134,042 100,899 50.4 32.8 Atl.anta •••••••••••••••••••••• 487,455 331,314 302,288 47.1 9.6 Outside central city.••••• ••• 70,547 63,010 50,927 12.0 23.7 Outside central city••••••••• 529,733 395,675 256,554 33.9 54.2 Chatt8.DOOga, Tenn.-Ga •••.•••••••• 283,169 246,453 211,502 14.9 16.5 Atlentic City, ll.J ...... 132,399 160,880 124,066 21.5 6.7 Chattanooga ••.••••••••••••••• 130,009 131,041 128,163 .;.Q.8 2.2 Atl.antic J:ity •••••••••••••••• 59,544 61,657 64,094 -3.4 -3.8 Outside central city •.••••••• 153,160 ll5,412 83,339 32.7 38.5 Ou:tsi

'° ,_. Table 3. --POPULATION INSIDE AND OUTSIDE CENTRAL CITY OR CITIES OF STAND.ARD MErROFOLITAN Sf.ATISfIC.l!L AREAS 0 IN THE UNITED ST.ATES AND THE CCHIJNWEALTH OF PUER!'O RICO: 1940 TO 1960--Con.

(Data relate to areas as defined for 1960. Ml.nus sign (-) denotes decrease. Percent not shown where less than 0.1)

Percent increase Percent increase Standard metropolitan Standard-metropolitan 1960 1950 1940 1950 1940 1960 1950 1940 1950 1940 statistical area statistical area to to to to 1960 1950 1960 1950 . Dallas, Texas .••.•••.••••••.••••• 1,063,601 743,501 527,145 45.7 41.0 Fort Yleyne, Ind .•••.•••••••.••••. 232,196 183,722 155,064 26.4 16.' Dallas ••••.••••••••.••••••••• 679,684 434,462 294,734 56.4 47.4 Fort Yleyne ••••••••••••••••••• 161, 776 133,607 116,410 21.l 12.1 Outside central city ••••••••• 403,917 309,039 232,411 30.7 33.0 Outside central city••••.•••• 70,420 50,115 36,674 40.5 36.1

Davenport-Rock Island-!t>line, Fort Y/orth, Texas •••••••••••.•••. 573,215 392,643 255,905 46.0 53.• Iowa-Ill ...... 270,058 234,256 198,071 15.3 18.3 Fort Worth•••••••••••••••••.• 356,268 278, 778 177,662 27.8 56.~ In central cities •••••••••••• 183,549 160,656 143,422 14.2 12.0 Outside cez:itral city ••••••••• 216,947 113,865 711,243 90.5 45.~ Davenport •••••••••••••••••• 88,981 74,549 66,039 19.4 12.9 Rock Island .•.•••.•••••••.• 51,863 48,710 42,775 6.5 13.9 Fresno, Calif •••••••••.••••••.••• 365,945 276,515 173,565 32.3 54. ~ ~line ...... •..... 42, 705 37,397 34,608 14.2 8.1 Fresno ...... 133,929 91,669 6:l,685 46.l 51.: Outside central cities ••••••• 86,509 73,600 54,649 17.5 34.7 Outside central city •..•••••• 232,016 164,646 117,880 25.5 56.1

Dayton, Ohio ••••••••••••••••••••• 694,623 518,642 383,975 33.9 35.l Gadsden, Ala••••••••••••••••••••• 96,980 93,892 72,580 3.3 29.• Dayton••••.•••••••••••••••••• 262,332 243,872 210,718 7.6 15.7 Gadsden•...•••.•••.•••.•••••• 58,088 55,'725 36,975 4.2 50,' Outside central city ••••••.•• 432,291 274,770 173,257 57.3 58.6 Outside central city ••••••••• 38,892 38,167 35,605 1.9 7.:

Decatur, Ill. ••.••••••••••••••••• 118,257 96,853 64,693 19.6 16.7 Galveston-Texas City, Texas •••••• 140,364 113,066 81,173 24.1 39 •. l)ecatur...... · · · · • • · · 78,004 66,269 59,305 17.7 11.7 In central cities •••••••••••• 99,240 83,188 66,610 19.3 24.' Outside central city••••••••. 40,253 32,584 25,388 23.5 28.3 Galveston•••••••••••••••••• 67,175 66,568 60,862 0.9 9.• Texas City •••••••••.•.••••• 32,065 16,620 5,748 92.9 189.: Denver, Colo ••••••••••••••••••••• 929,383 612,128 445,206 51.8 37.5 Outside central cities ••••••• 41,124 29,678 14,563 37.6 105.: :Denver ...... 493,887 415,786 322,412 18.8 29.0 Outside central city •.••••••• 435,496 196,342 122,794 121.8 59.9 Gar;r-l!ammond-East Chicago, Ind ••• 573,548 408,228 321,031 40.5 27.: In central cities •••••••••••• 347,687 275, 768 236,540 26.l 16.1 I>es fi:>ines, IO\ila ...... 266,315 226,010 195,8,5 17.8 15.4 Gary••••••••••••••••••••••• 178,320 133,911 111, 719 33.2 19.' Des Moines •.••••••....••••••• 208,982 177,965 159,819 17.4 11.4 Hammond •••••••• •••••• •••••• 111,698 87,594 70,184 27.5 24.: Outside central city ••••••••• 57,333 48,045 36,016 19.3 33.4 Eaet Chicago ••••••••••••••• 57,669 54,263 54,637 6.3 -0.' Outside central cities ••••.•. 225,861 132,460 64,491 70.5 56.: Detroit, Ml.ch .••••.••.••••••••••• 3, 762,360 3,016,197 2,377,329 24.7 26.9 Detroit ••••••••••.••••••••••• 1,670,144 1,849,568 1,623,452 -9.7 13.9 Grand Rapids, Mich•.••••.•••••••• 363,187 288,292 246,338 26.0 17.1 Outside c"ntral city••• · •••••• 2,092,216 1,166,629 753,877 79.3 54.8 G!"Bnd Rapids ••••••••••••••••• 177,313 176,515 164,292 0.5 7.• Outside central city••••••••• 185,874 lll,777 82,046 66.3 36.: Dubuque, Iowa ...... 80,048 71,337 63,768 12.2 11.9 Dubuque •••••••••••••••••••••• 56,606 49,671 43,892 14.0 13.2 Great Falls, !t>nt•••••••••••••••• 73,418 53,027 41,999 38.5 26 •. Outside central city••••••••• 23,442 21,666 19,876 8.2 9.0 Great Falls ••••.••••••••••••• 55,357 39,214 29,928 41.2 31.1 Outside central city •••••••.• 18,061 13,813 12,071 30.8 14.• Duluth-Superior, Minn.-Vis ••••••• 276,596 252,777 254,036 9.4 -0.5 In central cities •••••••••••• 140,447 139,836 136,201 0.4 2.7 Green Bs,y, Y/is ••••••••••••••••••• 125,082 98,314 83,109 27.2 18. Duluth ••••••••••• •••••••••• 106,884 104,511 101,065 2.3 3.4 Green Bs,y •••••••••••••••••••• 62,888 52, 735 46,235 19.3 14. Superior••••••••••••••••••• 33,563 35,325 35,136 -5.0 0.5 Outside central city, •••••••• 62,194 45,579 36,874 36.5 23. Outside central cities ••••••• 136,149 112,941 117,835 20.5 -4.2 Greensboro-High Point, N. C•••••.• 246,520 191,057 153,916 29.0 24. DuI'hrun, N. C•••••••••••••••••••••• lll,995 101,639 80,244 10.2 26.7 In central cities •••••••••••• 181,637 114,362 97,814 56.8 16. 9 Durham•••••••••••••••••••••.• 78,302 71,.>ll 60,195 9.8 18.5 Greensboro ••••••••••••••••• 119,574 74,389 59,319 60.7 25. 4 Outside central city••••••••• 33,693 30,328 20,049 11.1 51.3 High Point...... 62,063 39,973 38,495 55.3 3. 8 Outside central cities ••••••• 64,883 76,695 56,102 -15.4 36. 7 East Chicago (See Gery-Hammond- East Chicago, Ind. ) Greenville, S. c•.•..••..•...... •• 209,776 168,152 136,580 24.8 23. 1 Greenville •• ·-••••••••••••••• 66,188 58,161 34,734 13.8 67. 4 Easton (See Allent=-Bethlehem- Outside central city••••••••• 143,588 109,991 101,846 30.5 8. 0 Easton, Pa. -N. J. ) Hamilton-Middletown, Ohio •••••••• 199,076 147,203 120,249 35.2 22. 4 El Paso, Texas ••••••••••.•••••••• 314,070 194,968 131,067 61.1 48.8 In central cities •••••••••••• ll4,469 91,646 81,812 24.9 12. 0 El Paso •••••••••••••••••••••• 276,687 130,485 96,810 ll2.0 34.6 Hsmilton••••••••••••••••••• 72,354 57,951 50,592 24.9 14. 5 Outside central city••••••••• 37,383 64,483 34,257 -42.0 88.2 Ml.ddletown••••••••••••••••• 42,115 33,695 31,220 25.0 7. 9 Outside central cities ••••••• 84,607 55,557 38!437 52.3 44. 5 fil;)rria (See Lorein-El.yrie, Ohio} Hammond (See Gary-Halmoond-East Chicago, Ind. ) Erle, Pa...... 250,682 219,388 180,889 24.31 21.3 Erie.••••••••.••••••••••••••• 138,440 l.30,803 116,955 5.8 ll.8 Hampton (See N""POrt Ne-JS­ Outside central city-••••••••• J.12,242 88,585 63,934 26.7 38.6 Hampton, Va.) Harlingen (See Br01o.nsv:ille­ Eugene, Oreg•••••••••••••••••.••• 162,890 125,776 69,096 29.5 82.0 Harlingen-Sen Benito, Texas) Eugene ••· ••••••••••••••••••••• 50,977 35,8791·. 20,838 42.1 72.2 Outside eentral city...... lll,913 89,897 48,258 24.5 86.3 Harrisburg, Pa••• , ...... 345,071 292,241 2.52,216 18.1 15.9 Harriaburg...... 79,697 89,544 83,893 -11.0 6.7 Evansville, Ind. -X;r•••••••••••••• 199,313 191,137 157,803 4.3 21.l Outside central city...... 265,374 202,697 lf>ll,323 30.9 20.4 EV'ansville...... 141,543 128,636 97,062 10.0 32.5 Outside centrel city••.•..••• 57, 710 62,501 60,741 -7.6 2.9 Hartford, Conn...... , ...... 525,207 406,.534 3J6,991 29.2 20.6 Hartfonl...... 162,178 177,397 166,267 -8.6 6.7 Fall River, Msss.-R.I...... 138,156 137,298 135,137 0.6 1.6 /Attside central city•.•.•.••• 363,029 229,137 170,724 58.4 34.2 Fell River...... 99,942 111,963 ll5,428 -10.7 -3.0 Outside central city...... 38,214 25,335 19, ?09 50.8 28.5 Haverhill (See La'1rence­ Havertdll, Mass.-N.H.) Fargo-l'borhead, N. Dak. -Ml.nn ••••• 106,027 89,240 78,186 18.8 14.1 In central. cities •••••••.•.•• 69,.596 53,126 42,071 31.0 26.3 Hazleton (See 1'ilkes-Barre­ Bazleton, Pa, ) Fargo ...... 46,662 38,256 32,580 22.0 17.4 fuorhead ...... 22,934 14,870 9,491 54.2 56.7 High Point (See Greensboro-High Outside central cities ...... 36,431 36,ll4 36,115 0.9 Point, N.C.)

Fitchburg-Leominster, Mass •••• , •• 82,4a6 74,943 68,853 10.1 8.8 HollJ'l.vod (See Fort Lauderdale­ In centrel cities ...... 70,950 66, 766 64,0.50 6,3 4.2 Hollyvood, Fla.) Fitchburg...... 43,021 42,691 41,824 0.8 2.1 Jlalyoke (See Springf'ield­ Leominster...... 27,929 24,075 22,226 16.0 8.3 ChicOJ>ee-Holyoke, Mase.} Outside eentrel cities ...... il,536 8,177 4,003 41.1 ?0.2 Honolulu Hawaii ...... 500,409 353,020 258,256 41.8 36.7 Flint, Mich...... 374,313 2'70,963 227,944 38.1 18.9 Honolulu ...... 294,194 248,034 179,326 18.6 36.3 Flint...... 196,940 163,143 151,543 20.7 7.7 Outside centrsl city••••••••• 206,215 104,986 78,930 96.4 33.0 Outside een';.rel city...... 177,373 107,820 76,401 64.5 41.1 Houston, Texas ...... 1,243,158 806,701 528,961 54.1 52.5 Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood, Fla ••• 333,946 83,933 39,794 297.9 110.9 Houston...... 938,219 596,163 384,514 57.4 55.0 In eentral cities ...... 118,885 50,679 24,235 134.6 109.1 Outside central city...... 304,939 210,538 144,447 44.8 45.8 Fart Lauderdale •••••••••••• 83,648 36,328 17,996 130.3 101.9 Ho11.ywood ...... 35,237 14,351 6,239 145.5 130.0 Huntington-Aahlsnd, V.Va.-Ky.- Outside central cities .••...• 215,061 33,254 15,559 546.7 113.7 Ohio...... 254,780 245, 795 225,668 3.7 8.9 In central cities ...... 114,910 117,484 108,373 -2.2 8.4 Fort Smith, Ark...... 66,685 64,202 62,l!09 3.9 2.2 Huntington...... 83,627 86,353 78,836 -3.2 9.5 Fort Smith...... 52,991 47,942 36,584 10,5 31.0 Ashlsnd ...... 31,283 31,131 29,537 0.5 5.4 Outside eentral city....•..•• 13,694 16,260 26,225 -15.8 -38.0 Outside centrsl cities ••••••• 139,870 128,311 117,295 9.0 9.4

,_.,..., J--' Table 3.-POPULATICN INSIDE AND OOTS!DE G!:NTRAL CITY Cit CITIES OF Sl'ANDARD Ml!TROPOLITAN STATIS'.rICAL AREAS f\J IN THE UNITKD srAn:S AND l'H! CCltOftlEALTH OF POERl'O RICO: 1940 TO 19~on.

(De.ta relate to areas as derined for 1960. Ml.nus sign (-) denotes decrel!Be, Percent not shown where less than 0.1)

Percent incre11Be Percent increase standard metropolitan standard metropolitan 1940 1960 1950 1940 1950 1940 1960 1950 1940 1950 statistical area statistical area to to to to 1960 1950 1960 1950

sville, Ala ...... ll7,348 72,903 66,317 61.0 9.9 Long Beach (See Los Angeles-Long Huntsville ••••.•••••••••••••• 72,365 16,437 13,050 340.3 26.0 Beach, Calif.) Outside central city •..••••.• 44,983 56,466 53,267 -20.3 6.0 Lorain-Elyria, CJ¥o ••••••••••••.• 217,500 148,162 ll2,390 46.8 31.8 .anapolis, Ind .••••••••••••••• 697,567 551,717 460,926 26.4 19.7 In central. cities ••••••.••••. l.12,714 81,509 69,245 38.3 17.7 Indianapolis •••••••••.••••••• 476,258 427,173 386,972 ll.5 10.4 Lorain ...... 68,932 51,202 44,125 34.6 16.0 Outside central city ••••••••• 221,309 124,604 73,954 77.6 68.5 Elyria ••••••••••••••.•••••• 43,?82 30,307 25,120 44.5 20.6 Outside central cities ••••••. 104,786 66,653 43,145 57.2 54.5 son, Mich •.•.•••••••••.•••••• 131,994 107,925 93,lOE! 22.3 15.9 Jackson •••••••••••••••••••••• 50,720 51,088 49,656 -0.7 2.9 Los Ailgeles-1ong Beach, Calif •••• 6,742,696 4,367,9ll 2,916,403 54.4 49.8 Outside central city ••••••••• 81,274 56,837 43,452 43.0 30.8 In central cities ...... 2,823,183 2,221,125 1,668,548 27.l 33.l Los Angeles ...... 2,479,015 1,970,358 1,504,277 25.8 31.0 son, Hiss •••••••••••••••••••• 187,045 142,164 107,273 31.6 32.5 1ong Beach •••.• , ••••••••••• 344,168 250,767 164,271 37.2 52.7 Jackson...... 144,422 98,271 62,107 47.0 58.2 Outside central cities ••.•••• 3,919,513 2,146,786 1,247 ,855 82.6 72.0 Outside central city ••••••••• 42,623 43,893 45,166 -2.9 -2.8 Louisville, Xy.-Ind ...... 725,139 576,900 451,473 25.7 27.8 BOilViile, F'l.a ...... • ••• • • • 455,4ll 304,029 210,143 49.8 44.7 Louisville ••.•••••••••.•••••• 390,639 369,129 319,077 5.8 15.7 Jacksonville ••••••••••••••••• 201,030 204,517 173,065 -1.7 18.2 Outside central city ••••••••• 334,500 207,771 132,396 61.0 56.9 Outside central city ••••••••• 254,381 99,512 37,078 155.6 168.4 Lovell, !ti.as ••••••••••••••••••••• 157,982 135,987 132,633 16.2 2.5 ey City, N.J ••••••.••••.•.••• 610,734 647,477 652,040 -5.7 -0.7 Lovell •••••••••••••••.••••••• 92,107 97,249 101,389 -5.3 -4.l Jersey City ••••••••••••••.••• 276,101 299,017 301,173 -7.7 -0.7 Outside central city ••••••••• 65,875 38,738 31,244 70.1 24.0 Outside central city ••..••..• 334,633 348,420 350,!!6'1 -4.0 -0.7 Lubbock, Texas ••••••••••••••••••• 156,271 101,04!! 51,782 54.7 95.1 stmm, Pa ••.•..•••••.•••••••• 280,733 291,354 298,416 -3.6 -2.4 Lubbock •••••••••••••••••••••• 128,691 71,747 31,853 79.4 125.2 J ohnstmm ...... 53,949 63,232 66,668 -14.7 -5.2 Outside central city ••••••••• 27,580 29,301 19,929 -5.9 47.0 Outside central city ••••••.•• 226,7!!4 2211,122 231,748 -0.6 -1.6 4mchburg, Va ••••••••••.••.•••••• ll0,701 96,936 90,862 14.2 6.7 Kali 1111.zoo, Ml.ch •••••••••••••••••• 169,712 126,707 100,085 33.9 26.6 Iqnchburg ..•.••.•..•.•••..••. 54,790 47,727 44,541 14.8 7.2 Kala.ma.zoo •••••••••••••••••••• 82,089 57,704 54,097 42.3 6.7 Outside central city ••••••••• 55,9ll 49,209 46,321 13.6 6.2 Outside central city ••••••••• 87,623 69,003 45,988 27.0 50.0 11&.con, Ge...... 180,403 135,043 95,086 33.6 42.0 I(, as City, M:l.-Kens ...... 1,039,493 814,357 686,643 27.6 18.6 !ti.con •••••••••.••••••••••• ·••• 69,764 70,252 57,865 -0.7 21.4 Kansas Cit;r ••••••..••.••••••• 475,539 456,622 399,178 4.1 14.4 Outside central city ••.•.•••• ll0,639 64,791 37,221 70.8 74.1 Outside central city •••.••••• 563,954 357, 735 287,465 57.6 24.4 !ti.dison, Yis ••••••••••••••••.•••• 222,095 169,357 130,660 31.l 29.6 K sha, Vis ••••••••••••••••••••• 100,615 75,238 63,505 33.7 18.5 Madison••••••••••.••••••••••• 126,706 96,056 67,447 31.9 42.4 Kenosha. •••••••••••••••••••••• 67,899 54,368 48,765 24.9 11.5 Outside central city ••••••••• 95,389 73,301 63,213 30.1 16.0 Outside central city ••••••••• 32,716 20,870 14,740 56.8 41.6 Manchester, N.H •••••••••••••••••• 95,512 88,370 81,932 8.1 7.9 Kno: ville, Tenn •••••••••••••••••• 368,080 337,105 246,088 9.2 37.0 l'tmchester ••••••••••••••••••• 88,282 !!2,732 77,685. 6.7 6.5 ltnoxrllle •••••••••••••••••••• lll,827 124,769 lll,580 -10.4 ll.8 Outside central city ••••••••• 7,230 5,638 4,247 28.2 32.8 Outside central city ••••••••• 256,253 212,336 134,508 20.7 57.9 Memphis, Tenn••••••••••••••••••• : 627,019 482,393 35!!,250 30.0 34.~ Lake Charles, La ••••••••••••••••• 145,475 89,635 56,506 62.3 58.6 Mompl:rls •••••••••••••••••••••• 497,524 396,000 292,942 25.6 35.< Lake Charles ••••••••••••••••• 63,392 41,272 21,207 53.6 94.6 Outside central city •••••••.• 129,495 86,393 65,308 49.9 32.:: Dutside central city••••••••• 82,083 48,363 3!i,299 69.7 37,0 Meriden, Conn •..•....•.••.••••••• 51,850 44,008 39,494! 17.6 11.6 Lancaster, Pa •••••••••••••••••••• 278,359 234,717 212,504 J.E.61 10.5 Meriden •••••••••••••••••••••• 51,850 44,088 39,494 17.6 ll.6 Lancaster ••.•••••••.•••.••.•. 61,055 63,774 61,345 -4.3 4.0 Outside central city•••••••.• 217,304 170,943 151,159 27.l 13.l Mi8l!li, Fla •••••••••••••••••...••• 935,Ql,.7 495,084 267 ,7391 88.9 84.9 Ml.Sl!li •••••••••••••••••••••••• 291,688 249,'2:76 172,172 17.0 44.6 Lansing, Ml.c.h •••••••••••••••••••• 298,949 244,159 l91,4ll 22.4 Z'l.6 Outside central. city ••••••••• 643,359 245,808 95,567 161.7 157.2 Ie.nsing ••••••••••••••••.••••• 107,807 92,129 76,753 17.0 17.0 Outside central city••••••••• 191,142 152,030 ll2,6"58 25.7 34.9 MiddletOllil (See Hamilton- MiddletD"'II, Cllio) Laredo, Texas ••••••••••••.••••••. 64,791 56,141 45,916 15.4 22.3 Laredo ••••••.•••..•••.••..••• 60,678 51,910 39,V4 16.9 32.2 Midland, Texas ••••••...•••••••••• 67,717 25,785 ll,721 162.6. 120.0 Orrtside c.entral city •••••..•• 4,ll.3 4,231 6,642 -2.8 -36.3 Midlazid ••••••••••.•••••.••••• 62,625 21,713 9,352 188.4 132.2 Outside central city ••••••••• 5,092 4/Y/2 2,369 25.0 71.9 Las Vegas, Nev ••••••.•.••..•••.•• 127,016 48,289 16,414 163.0 194.2 Las Vegas •.•.••••...••••..••• 64,405 24,624 B,422 161.6 192.4 Mil'llaukee, Wis ••••••••••••••••••• 1,194,290 956,948 829,629 2/..8 15.3 Outside central city •••.•.••• 62,611 23,665 7,992 164.6 196.l Ml.1'111.ukee, ••••••••••.•..•.••• 741,324 637,392 587,472 16.3 8.5 Outside central city••••••••• 452,966 319,556 242,157 41.7 32.0 1a1'!"e.nce-Haverhill, Mo.ss.-N.H •••• 187,601 1€2,442 176,404 2.8 2.3 In central cities ••••.•...••• 117 ,279 127,816 131,075 -8.2 -2.5 Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minn ••••••• 1,482,030 1,151,053 967,367 28.8 19.0 La=ence ••.••.•..•••••••••• 70,933 80,536 84,323 -11.9 -4.5 In central cities •••••.•••••. 796,283 833,067 780,106 -4.4 6.8 Haverhill •••.•••••••••••••• 46,346 47,280 46,752 -2.0 1.1 Ml.m>eapolla •••••.•.•..••.•• 482,872 521,718 492,370 -7.4 6.0 Outside C!entral nitiea .•.•••• 70,322 54,626 47,329 28.7 15.4 St. Paul ••••.•••••...•••••• 313,411 311,349 287,736 0.7 8.2 Outside central cities .•.•••• 685,747 317 ,986 l.67,261 115.7 69.8 Lavton, Okla ••.••.•••.•.•.••••.•• 90,803 55,165 38,9!!8 64.6 41.5 Lavton ••••.•••••••••.••••.••• 61,697 34,757 18,055 77.5 92.5 M:>bile, Ala. •••••••••••••••••••••• 314,301 231,105 141,974 36.0 62.8 Outside "entra.l city••••••••• 29,106 20,408 20,933 42.6 -2.5 M::ibile ••••••••••••••••••••••• 202,"179 129,009 78,720 57.2 63.9 Outside central city •.•••..•• lll,522 102,096 63,254 9.2 61.4 Leominster (See Fitchburg- Leol!linater, Mass . ) H:>line (See Davenport-Rock Ialand-M::>llne, Iowa-Ill.) Le

..,,,f-' l'llble 3.--POPIJLATION INSIDE AND OUTSIDE CENTRAL CITY OR CITIES OF STANDARD !m'IROPOLITAN STATISTICAL AREAS ~ IN THE UNITED STATES AND THE CCJHlNWEALTH 01" FUERTO RICO: · 1940 TO 1960--Con.

(De.ta relate to areaa as defined for 1960. Minus sign (-) denotes decrease. Percent not abown were less than 0. l}

Percent increaae Percent increase standard metropoJ.itan standard metropolitan 1960 1950 1940 1950 1940 1960 1950 1940 1950 1940 statistical area statistical area to to to to 1960 1950 1960 1950

Nashville,· Tenn •••••••••••••••••• 399,743 321,758 2'II,267 24.2 25.1 Peoria, Ill .•...... •...... 288,633 250,512 2ll,736 15.3 16.3 Nashville ...... 170,ln4 174,Xrt 167 ,402 -2.0 4.1 Peoria, •••.•••••••••••••••••• 103,162 lll,856 105,087 -7.8 6.4 Outside central city ••••••••• 228,669 147,451 89,665 55.2 64.1 Outside central city ••••••••• 185,671 138,656 106,649 33.9 30.0

Nev Bedford, Mass .•.••..•..•••••• 143,176 141,984 138,073 0.8 2.S Philadelphia, Pa.-N.J •••••••••••• 4,342,897 3,671,046 3,199,637 18.3 14.7 Nev Bedford •••••••••••••••••• 102,477 109,189 ll0,341 -6.1 -1.0 Philadelphia ••• , , , , , , • , •• , • , , 2,002,512 2,071,&l5 1,931,334 -3.3 7.3 outside central city••••••••• 40,699 32,795 27,732 24.1 16.3 Outside central city ••••••••• 21 3401 3S5 1,599,443 l,268,303 46.3 26,1

Nev Britain, Conn ...... 129,397 104,251 90,499 24.l 15.2 PbQenix, Ariz ...... 663,510 331,770 186,193 100.0 78.2 Nev Britain •••••••••••••••••• 82,201 73,726 66,665 ll.5 7.3 Phoenix ••.•••••••••••••.••••• 439,170 106,818 65,414 3ll.l 63.3 Outside central city ••••••••• 47,196 30,525 21,814 54.6 39.9 Outside central city., ••••••• 224,340 224,952 120,779 -0.3 86.3

Nev Haven, Conn •••••••••••••••••• 3ll,661 269,714 244,294 15.6 10.4 Pittsburgh, Pa ••••••••••••••••••• 2,405,435 2,213,236 2,062,556 S.7 6.3 Nev Haven ...... 152,048 164,443 160,605 -7.5 2.4 Pittsburgh,,,., ...... 604,332 676,806 671,659 -10.7 0.8 Outside central city.•.•.• ~ •• 159,633 105,271 83,689 51.6 25.S Outside central city ••••.•••• 1,801,103 1,536,430 l,410,897 17.2 8.9

Nev -Groton-Norvich, Conn •• 156,913 123,141 106,207 27.4 15.9 Pittsfield, Mass ...... 73,839 66,567 60,996 10.9 9.1 In central cities ••••••.••••• 72,668 66,184 64,596 6.6 5.6 Pittsi'ield •••.•••.••••••••••• :n,er79 53,348 49,664 8.5 7.4 Nev London ...... 34,182 30,551 30,456 ll.9 0.3 Outside central city ••••••••• 15,960 13,219 ll,312 20.7 16.9 Norvich •••••••••••••••••••• 38,506 Yl,633 34,140 2.3 10.2 Outside central cities ••...•. 64,225 54,9'I/ 41,611 • 53.3 32.l :Port Arthur (See Beaumont-Port Arthur, Texas) New Orleans, La •••••••••••••••••• 868,480 665,405 552,244 26.7 24.l Nev Orl:eans ••••••••••.••••••• 627,525 570,445 494,537 10.0 15.3 :Portland, Kaine •••••••••••••••••• 120,655 119,942 106,566 0.6 12.6 outside central city ••••••••• 240,955 ll4,960 'Il,707 109.6 99.2 :Portland ••••••••••.•.•.•••..• 72,566 77,634 73,643 -6.5 5.4 outside central city ••••••••• 48,089 42,308 32,923 13.7 28.5 New York, N .. Y ...... 10,694,633 9,555,.943 S,706,917 ll.9 9.8 Nev York ...... 7,781,984 . 7,S91,9'I/ 7,454,995 -1.4 5.9 Portland, Oreg.-Wash ••••••••••••• s21,S97 704,829 501,275 16.6 40.6 outside central city ••••••••• 2,912,649 1,663,986 1,251,922 75.0 32.9 Portland ••••••••.••••••.••••• 372,676 373,628 305,394 -0.3 22.3 Outside central. city ••••••••• 449,221 331,201 195,881 35.6 69.1 Nevark, N.J ...... 1,689,420 1,468,458 1,291,416 15.0 13.7 Nevark ...... 405,220 438,776 429,7fJJ -7.6 2.1 Portsmouth (See Norfolk- Outside central. city •••.••••• 1,284,200 1,029,682 861,656 24.7 19.5 Portsmouth, Va.)

Newport News-Hampton, Va ••••••••• 224,503 154,977 93,353 44.9 66.0 Providence-Pavtucket, R.I.-Mass •• 816,148 760,202 695,253 7.4 9.3 In central cities •••••••••••• 202,920 48,324 42,965 319.9 12.5 In centra1 cities •••••••••••• 288,499 330,llO 329,301 -12.6 0.2 Newport NeVB ••.•••••••••••• 113,662 42,358 37,0ffl 168.3 14.3 Providence ...... 207,498 248,674 253,504 -16.6 -1.9 Hampton •••••••••••••••••••• 89,258 5,966 5,898 1,396.1 1.2 Pavtucket ••••••••••••••.••• 81,001 81,436 • 75,797 -0.5 7.4 outside central cities ••••••• 21,583 106,653 50,388 -79.S 111.7 Outside central cities ••••••• 527,649 430,092 365,952 22.7 17.5

Nor.folk-Portammith, Va ••••••••••• 'I/8,507 446,200 258,927 29.7 72.3 Pr

Passaic (See Pateraon-Clifton- .RocJcford, Ill ••••••••.••.•.•••• •• 1 209,7651 152,3651 121,1781 37.71 25.8 Passaic, N.J • ) Rcck:f'ord ••••••••••.•••••••••• 126,706 92,927 84,637 36.4 9.6 Outside central city ••••••••• 83,059 59,458 36,541 39.7 62.7 Paterson-Clii"ton-Paasaic, N~J •••• 1,186,873 876,232 718,999 35.5 21.9 In central cities •••••••••••• Zl9,710 261,549 249,817 6.9 4.7 Rome (See Utica-Rome, N.Y.) Paterson ••••••••••••••••••• 143,663 139,336 139,656 3.1 --0.2 Clit'ton •••••••••••••••••••• 62,064 64,511 48,827 Z"l .2 32.l Sacramento, Calif •••••••••••••••• 502,778 277,140 170,333 81.4 62.7 Passaic ••••• ·••••••••••••••• 53,963 57,702 61,394 -6.5 -6.0 Sacrsaento ••••••••••••••••••• 191,667 137,:n2 105,956 39.3 29.6 outside central cities ••••••• 9Cfl ,163 614,663 469,122 47.6 31.0 Outside central city ••••••••• 311,lll 139,566 64,375 122.9 ll6.8 Pawtucket (See ProVidence- Saginaw, Mich •••••••••••••••••••• 190,752 153,515 130,466 24.3 17.7 Pawtucket, R.I.-Haas.) Saginav •••••••••••••••••••••• 98,265 92,918 82,794 5.8 12.2 Outside central city ••••••••• 92,487 ro,~ 47,674 52.6 27.1 Pensacola, Fla ••••••••••••••••••• 203,376 131,260 90,752 54.9 44.6 st. Joseph, Pi> •••••••••••••••••• , 90,51!1 96,826 94,067 -6.4 2.9 Pensacola •••••••••••••••••••• 56,752 43,479 37,449 30.5 16.l St. Joseph ••••••••••••••••••• 79,ffl3 78,.588 75,7ll 1.4 3.6 Outside central city ••••••••• 146,624 67,761 53,303 ff! .o 64.7 Outside central. city ••••••••• 10,908 16,238 18,356 -40.2 -0.6

I-' "' I-' Table 3.-FOPULlnO!i DISID! .AKD OIJTSID! CmrrRAL cm OR ClTllS 01' S'?A!ID&llD Mlt'IllOPOLTIAH STilISTICAL .iR!AS Ilf THE UllrnID stirJ!s .AKD TlllC ~OF PIJER!O RICO: 1940 to 19~aa. "'

(Data relate to areas BB detined tar 1960. M1=8 sign (-) clel>otes decrease. Percent not shown vhere less than O.l)

Percent increase Percent increase standard metropol.itan standard metropol.itan 1.940 1.960 1.950 1940 1.950 1.940 statistical area 1.960 1950 1940 1950 atatiatiesl area to to to to 1960 1.950 1960 1950

St. Louis, lt>.-Ill ••••••••••••••• 2,060,103 1,719,288 1,464,lll 19.8 17.4 Sprlngtield-Chfoopee-Ho:cyoke, s •. Louis •••• ' ••••••••••••••• 750,026 856,796 816,048 -l2.5 5.0 Hass •••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 478,592 413,494 371,972 i5.7 Outside central city••••••••• 1,310,077 862,492 648,063 51.9 33.1 In central cities ••••••••• • •• 288,705 266,271 244,968 8.4 Spril>gtield •••••••••••••••• 174,463 162,399 149,554 7.4 St. Paul (See Minneapolis,- Chicopee ••••••••••••••••••• 61,.553 49,211 41,664 25.1 St. '.Paul., Mllm.) Ho:cyoke •••• •• •••• •••• •••••• 52,689 54,661 53,750 -3.6 Outside central cities ••••••• 189,887 147,223 127,004 29.0 St. Petersburg (See Tampa- St. Petersburg, Fla.} Stamt'ord, Cann••••••••••••••••••• 178,~ 134,896 98,890 32.3 Stamford ••••••••••••••••••••• 92,713 74,293 47,938 24.8 Salt Lelle City, Ut&h ••••••••••••• 383,035 274,895 211,623 39.3 29.9 Outside central city••••••••• 85,696 60,603 50,952 41.4 Salt Lake City...... , •••• 18?,454 182,l2J. 149,934 4.0 21..5 01!-tside central city•••• _ ••••• 193,581 92,'774 61,689 108.7 50.4 SteubenTille-Veirton, Ohio-Y.Ya •• 167,756 157,787 155,214 6.3 In eentral eities ...... 60,696 59,877 37,651 1.4 San Angelo, rexas ...... 64,630 58,929 39,302 9.7 49.9 Steubenrllle ••••••••••••••• 32,495 35,872 37,651 -9.4 San Angelo ...... 58,81.5 52,093 25,802 l2.9 101.9 Weirton•••••••••••••••••••• 28,201 24,005 17.5 Outside central eity••••••••• 5,815 6,836 13,500 -14.9 -49.4 Outside central cities ••••••• 1IY!,060 97,910 117,563 9.3

San Antonio, Tel

San Benito (See BrOlmsVille- Superior (See Dul.uth-&lperior, Harlingen-San Benito, Texas) Minn.-Wis.)

San Bernardino-Riverside-Qntario, Syrecuse, :II.y ••••••.••••••••••••• 563,781 465,114 405,981 21.2 Calit ••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 809,782 451,688 266,632 79.3 69.4 Syramise ...... 216,038 220,583 205,967 -2.l In central cities ...... , 222,871. 132,694 92,539 68.0 43.4 Outside central city ••••••••• 347,743 244,531. 200,014 42.2 San Bernardino, ...... 91,922 63,058 43,646 45.8 44.5 Riverside ••••••••• ••••••••• 84,332 46,764 34,696 80.3 34.8 Tacoma, Wash ••••••••••••••••••••• 321.,590 275,876 182,081. 16.6 Ontario •••••••••••••••••••• 46,617 22,872 14,J.97 1.03.8 61..J. Tacoma ••••••••••••••••••••••• 147,979 1.43,673 J.09,408 3.0 Outside central cities ••••••• 586,9].J. 31.8,994 l.74,093 84.0 83.2 Outside central city•••••• ••• J.73,6ll 132,203 72,673 31..3

San Diego, Cslit ••••••••••••••••• 1,033,011 556,808 289,348 85.5 92.4 Tampa,..St. Petersburg, Fla•••••••• 772,453 ~,143 272,000 88.8 San Diego •••••••••••••••••••• 573,224 334,387 203,341. 71.4 64.4 In central. cities•••••••••••• 456,268 221.,419 J.69,203 106.1 Outside central city ••••••••• 459,787 222,421. 86,007 106.7 J.58.6 Tampa.••• •• ••••••••···••••• 274,9'70 124,681 1.08,391 120.5 St. Petersburg ••••••••••••• ll!l,298 96,738 60,812 87.4 1 San Francisco-Oakl.and, Cal.it ••••• 2,783,359 2,240,767 1,461,804 24.2 53.3 Outside central cities ••••••• 31.6,185 187,724 102,797 68.4 In central cities ...... J.,107,864 J.,159,932 936,699 -4.5 23.8 San Francisco •••••••••••••• 740,316 775,357 634,536 -4.5 22.2 Terre Haute, Ind••••••••••••••••• 108,458 105,1.60 99,709 3.1 Oaldand •••••••••••••••••••• 367,548 384,575 302,163 -4.4 27.3 Terre Haute •••••••••••••••••• 72,500 64,214 62,693 l.2.9 4 Outside central cities ••••••• 1,675,495 1,080,835 525,105 55.0 105.8 Outside central city••••••••• 35,958 40,946 37,016 -12.2

San Jose, Calit •••••••••••••••••• 642,31.5 290,547 174,949 J.21.1 66.1 TeJCBrkana, Texas-Ark••••••••••••• 91,657 94,580 82,082 -3.l San Jose ••••••••••••••••••••• 204,196 95,280 68,457 114.3 39.2 In central cities•••••••••••• 50,006 40,628 28,840 23.l Outside central city••••••••• 438,119 1.95,267 106,492 124.4 83.4 TeJCBrlama, Tel

Spokane, Wash ••••••••••••••• ••••• 278,333 221,561 164,652 25.6 34.6 Urbana (See Champaign-Urbana, Spokane •••••••••••••••••••••• llll,608 161,721 l.22,001 l2.3 32.6 Ill.) Outside central city ••••••••• 96,725 59,840 42,651 61.6 l0.3 Utica-Rare, N.Y •••••.•••••••••••• 330, 771 284,262 263,163 16,4 a.a Springfield, Ill •••••••••••••••• • 1 146,5391 Dl,484 ll7,912 ll.5 ll.5 In central. cities •••••••••••• 152,056 143,2D 134,732 6.2 6.3 Springi"ield •••••••••••••••••• 83,271 81,628 75,503 2.0 8.1 Utica •••••••••••••••••••••• 100,410 101,531 100,518 -1.1 1.0 Outside central city ••••••••• 63,268 49,856 42,409 26.9 17.6 Rare •• •••••••••••••••• ••••• 51,646 41,682 34,214 23.9 21.8 outside central cities ...... 178,715 141,049 128,431 26.7 9.8 Springfield, Ho ...... 126,276 104,823 90,541 20.5 15.8 Springfield •••••••••••••••••• 95,865 66,731 61,238 43.7 9.0 Waco, Texas ••• ••••••••••••••••••• 150,091 Outside central city••••••••• 30,4ll 130,1941 101,8981 15.3, 27.8 38,092 29,303 -20.2 30.0 Va.co ...... 97,808 84,706 55,982 l5.5 51.3 Outside central. city ••••••••• 52,283 45,488 45,916 14.9 -0.9 Springfield, Ohio •••••••••••••••• Dl,440 lll,661 95,647 17.7 16.7 Springfield •••••.•••••••••••• 82,723 78,508 70,662 5.4 ll.l Warren (See Youngstown-Warren, Outside central. city••.•••••• 48,717 33,153 24,985 46.9 32.7 Ohio)

f-' ""' I-' Table 3. --WPIJLIITION INSIDE AND OUTSIDE CElll'RAL CITY OR CITIES OF STANDARD METROPOLITAN sr.ATISTICAL AREAS cc IN THE UNITED STATES AND THE CCMDN\IEALTH OF PIJEID'O RICO: 1.940 TO 1.960-Con.

(Data relate to areas ea defined for 1.960. Minus sign (-) denotes decrease. Percent not shown were Jess than 0.1)

Percent increase Percent incresse standard metn>;>oli tsn ·standard met:ropoliten 1960 1.950 1940 1950 1940 1960 1950 1940 1950 1.940 statistical. area statistical. area to to to to 1960 1950 1960 1950

Washington, D.C.-Md.-Va •••••••••• 2,001,897 1,464,089 967,985 36.7 51.3 Wilmington, Del.. -N. J ••••••••.•••• 366,157 268,387 221,836 36.4 21.0 Washington, D.c •••••••••••••• 763,956 802,178 663,091 -4.8 21.0 Wilmington••• , ••••• , • , ••••.•• 95,827 110,356 112,504 -13.2 -1.9 Outside central. city ••••••••• 1,237,941 661,911 J04,894 87.0 117.1 Outside central city .•..•..•• 270,330 158,031 109,332 71.1 44.5

Waterbury, Conn .•••• , •••••••••••• 181,638 154,656 138,779 17.4 11.4 Winston-Sal.em, N.C ••••••••••••••. 189,428 146,135 126,475 29.6 15.5 Waterbury •••••••••••••••••.•• 107,130 104,4?7 99,314 2.5 5.2 Winston-Salem••••••••••.••••• 111.,1.35 87,811 79,815 26.6 10.0 Outside central. city .•.••••.• 74,508 50,179 39,465 48.5 27.1 Outside central. city ••••••••• 78,293 58,324 46,660 34.2 25.0

Waterloo, Iow ...... 122,482 100,448 79,946 21.9 25.6 Worcester, Mass ...... 323,306 303,037 276,4.53 6.7 9.6 1.86,5S7 203,4116 1.93,694 -8.3 5.1 Waterloo••••••••••••••••••••• 71, 755 65,198 51, 743 10.l 26.0 Worcester ••.•••••.••••••.•••• Outside central. city ••••••••• 50, 727 35,250 28,203 43.9 25.0 Outside central city ••••••••• 136, 719 99,551 82, 759 37.J 20.3

Weirton (See steubenville- York, Pa ...... 238,336 202,737 178,022 17.6 13.9 Wei.rton, Ohio-W. Va) York ••••••••••••.••.••••••••• 54,504 59,953 56, 712 -9.1 5.7 Outside central. city••.•••••• 1.83,832 142,7S4 121.,31.0 28.7 1.7.7 228,106 1.14,688 79,989 98.9 43.4 West Pel.m Beach, Fla••••••••.•••. 372,566 22.2 11.a West Pal.m Beach•••.••••.••••• 56,208 43,162 33,693 30.2 28.1. Youngst01'Il-Warren, Ohio .••.••.••• 509,006 41.6,544 226,337 21.8,186 210,557 3.7 3.6 Outside central. city •.••••••• 171.,89S 71,526 46,296 1.40.3 54.5 In central. cities •••••••••••. Youngstown••••••••••••.•••• 1.66,689 1.6S,330 1.67,720 -1.0 0.4 1.9.6 16.4 190,342 196,305 208,918 -3.0 -6.0 Warren•••••••••.•.••••••••• 59,64S 49,856 42,837 Wheeling, w. Va. -Ohio ••••••••••••• 198,358 1.62,009 42.5 22.4 Wheeling••••••••••••••••••••• 53,400 58,891. 61.,099 -9.3 -3.6 Outside central cities •..•••• 282,669 Outside central. city••••••••• 136,942 137,414 1.47,819 -0.3 -7.0

Wichita,, Kans ...... 343,231. 222,290 143,31.l 54.4 55.1. PUERl'O RICO Wichita ..••••.••••••.•••••. ,. 254,698 168,279 ll.4,966 51..4 46.4 Oo.tside cent:ral. city ••.•...•• SB,533 54,0ll 28,345 63.9 90.5 83,850 87,307 76,4$7 -4.0 14.1 Meya=~=;~::::::::::::::::::: 50,147 58,944 50,376 -14.9 1.7.0 \Ii chita Fal.ls Texas •••••••••••••• 129,638 105,309 81.,203 23.1. 29.7 Outside central. city .•••••.•• 33,703 28,363 26,1.11. 1.S.8 8.6 Wichita Fal.1.s •••••••••••••••• 1.01., 724 68,042 45,112 49.5 50.8 Outside central city••••••.•• 27,914 37,267 36,091 -25.1. 3.3 Ponce, P.R...... 145,586 1.26,81.0 1.05,ll6 14.8 20.6 Ponce ...... 114,286 99,492 65,1.82 1.4.9 52.6 14.6 -31.6 -Wilkes-Barre--Hazleton, Pa ...... 346,972 392,241 441.,518 -11.5 -11.2 Outside central. city ••••••••. 31.,300 27,31.8 39,934 In central cities ...... 95,607 1.12,317 124,245 -14.9 -9.6 -1.7.3 -1.0,9 San Juan, P.R...... 588,805 465,741. 302, 765 26.4 53.8 Wilkes-Barre ...... 63,551. 76,826 86,236 1 1 Hazleton...... 32,056 35,491. 38,009 -9.7 -6.6 San Juan ..••••••••••••••.•..• 432,377 357,205 1.89 ,182 21..0 88.8 Outside central. cities ••••••• 251.,365 279,924 317,273 -10.2 -11.S Outside central. city.••••••.• 1.56,428 108,536 113,583 44.1 -4.4

1 Includes population of Rfo Piedras annexed to San Juan in 1.951.. Table 4.--POPULATIOO OF STANDARD CONSOLIDATED AREAS: 1960 AND 1950

(Minw:: sign (-) denotes decrease)

Increase, 1950 Increase, 1950 to 1960 to 1960 Standard consolidated area 1960 1950 Standard consolidated area 1960 1950 Number Percent Number Percent

New York-Northeastern New Chicago-Nortlrwestern Indiana ••• 6, 794,461 5,586,096 1,208,365 21.6 Jersey ...... 14,759,429 12,911,994 i,847,435 14.3 Chicago, Ill., SMSA ...... 6,220,913 5,177,868 1,043,045 20.1 New York, N.Y., SMSA ...... 10,694,633 9,555,943 l,138,69C 11.9 Gary-HaJ!loond-East Chicago, Ind., Newark, N,J., SMSA ...... 1,689,420 1,468,458 220,962 15.0 SM>A ...... 573,548 408,228 165,320 40.5 Jersey City, N.J., SMSA ...... 610, 734 647,437 -36, 703 -5. 7 Paterson-Clifton-Passaic, N.J ., SMSA ...... 1,186,873 876,232 301,641 35.5 Middlesex County, N.J ...... 433,856 264,872 168,984 63.8 Somerset County, N.J ...... 143,913 99,052 44,861 45.3

g R .... '>£) J": 0