# Will Manhattan surpass its 1910 population peak?



## polako (Apr 7, 2005)

Recently I found this cool graph on flickr. It made me think whether the island will surpass its 1910 peak. It seems possible looking at the chart and the growth of the last three decades and this decade's boom. 









1910:*2.332(peak)*
1920:2.284
1930:1.867
1940:1.890
1950:1.960
1960:1.698
1970:1.539
1980:*1.428(trough)*
1990:1.488
2000:1.537
2007:1.621(estimate)
2010:1.657(projection)
2050:2.137
2060:2.257
2070:*2.377(new peak given this decade's raw growth rate) *

What do you guys think? Will the island surpass its 1910 population peak before 2050, after, or it will never happen? Do you guys think the growth of this decade is sustainable or this was just a boom decade that will be followed by a bust next decade?


----------



## hudkina (Oct 28, 2003)

While it isn't impossible (especially if economic times worsen), I'd say it probably won't happen for some time. Back then Manhattan was filled with mile after mile of overcrowded slums. It wasn't uncommon to find a family of eight or nine sharing a single room. Today Manhattan is mostly gentrified. You might only find ten or twelve people in a building that once housed nearly one hundred. The only reason the population has increased is because taller and taller buildings are being constructed.

While eventually we could see even more massive residential towers fill the skyline or a prolonged level of economic hardship force people to consolidate their living space, it would still be hard for Manhattan to ever see such a high population again.


----------



## Homer J. Simpson (Dec 2, 2003)

^Bang on analysis.

Raw population is not a good measure of a city's worth. There are many rapidly growing cities in developing nations that are now populated in many millions of people around the world. Of those very few offer a quality of life that most of us would deem as acceptable.

Population and extreme density is only astonishing when it occurs in places that have a strong representation by people of all classes and lifestyles.


----------



## philadweller (Oct 30, 2003)

Manhattan has become a very upscale city with less squatters and overcrowding. It is very common to have one person living in a 2 bedroom apartment.


----------



## Captain Obvious (Sep 13, 2002)

If NYC ever abolished rent control, the population of Manhattan could spike to new highs. 

While a lot of people struggle to accept the concept, rent control actually discourages the development of affordable rental units. Developers would rather invest in luxury condo units, than risk having rental units be compromised by government decree. 

With all the young professionals who work in Manhattan, but are forced to rent elsewhere in the city, the abolition of rent control would set off an unparalleled construction boom of rental units in Manhattan.


----------



## jefferson2 (May 31, 2008)

Some factors about whether population grows on the island are probably how convenient transportation links are into Manhattan (much better now than in 1910, as people own private cars, and there is fast train service to Connecticut or Long Island which i dont think was always the case), and also preferences are a factor. If more families move into Manhattan, that would increase people per household and populations.

Also, there seems to be new construction which is not only commercial but also residential, so I think Manhattan should grown steadily as it has been. Because people are wiling to pay a premium to live in Manhattan, density should continue to increase. Also, as the city becomes safer, densities on the north part of Manhattan could increase a bit. The population seems to hit the 'trough' around the same time as the crack epidemic, which has reversed itself, so low crime rates could equal population growth. 

Other places like queens, brooklyn or new jersey are probably becoming more comparable to mahattan, so some growth may be shifting to these places, as they become desirable urban-type areas.


----------



## Xusein (Sep 27, 2005)

It will never happen. Population growth is overrated anyway.


----------



## Taller Better (Aug 27, 2005)

I had no idea its population peaked in 1910!! That is an amazing bit of trivia that I would never have guessed in this age of highrise living.


----------



## monkeyronin (May 18, 2006)

New York will not experience the necessary demographics again in the foreseeable future to result in a population of 2+ million in Manhattan. Leading to 1910, NYC/the US was seeing massive waves of poor immigrants settling there. And due to their poverty (the likes of which we don't see today), they'd live in overcrowded tenements. Basically, to experience this population with massive redevelopment, America would need to regress from a post-industrial nation. 

Also, due to New York's smaller population and more industrial economy, Manhattan could be more heavily residential. The space needed today for commercial use was not needed at that time. 

Today, the many immigrants that come are able to settle in further-out locations. And if NYC were to experience economic decline and increasing poverty, we would see population loss, not gain, as was experienced in the 70s and 80s. 

I do believe that Brooklyn and the Bronx will pass their peak populations in the not-too-distant future however, and of course Queens and Staten Island will continue to grow.


----------



## CityPolice (Sep 27, 2008)

monkeyronin said:


> New York will not experience the necessary demographics again in the foreseeable future to result in a population of 2+ million in Manhattan. Leading to 1910, NYC/the US was seeing massive waves of poor immigrants settling there. And due to their poverty (the likes of which we don't see today), they'd live in overcrowded tenements. Basically, to experience this population with massive redevelopment, America would need to regress from a post-industrial nation.
> 
> Also, due to New York's smaller population and more industrial economy, Manhattan could be more heavily residential. The space needed today for commercial use was not needed at that time.
> 
> ...


Um those immigrant usually lived in the lower parts of manhattan. People are still forgetting that in manhattan there are still alot of empty lots that can be turned into a residential buildings. Ive seen them everywhere. If you got to east harlem you could see alot of lots and abandoned buildings that could be developed. Not to long the city approved a $700 million plan to for the redevelop east harlem. There are even empty lots in lower manhattan that have not been dealt with. Since the mayor is doing alot of rezonings across the city. Alot of neighborhoods are being rezoned in manhattan. 
They almost finished with a 20 floor apartment building in harlem with 180 apartments and the last time i checked more than have of them are sold.
I mean come on, manhattan has 70,000 people per sq mi and its density is reportedly growing or atleats population. With al these new residential buildings going in manhattan and the want to live in manhattan i could see the population meet 2 million.


----------



## monkeyronin (May 18, 2006)

The population at present is 1,620,867. The space created by simply filling in the few remaining vacant lots will not be able to fit 500,000 people (as to do that, at current densities, would mean that a full one quarter of Manhattan would have to be comprised of vacant lots). 




> Um those immigrant usually lived in the lower parts of manhattan.


Okaaay, how does that have anything to do with what I said? If anything, it only adds to my point about how Manhattan was filled with poor immigrants crowding into small spaces, therefore making it denser. Not quite the case today - its too expensive and not as necessary to live their, they can go to the outer boroughs instead.

On that last note, notice how after the Dual Contracts came into effect in 1913, connecting Brooklyn and Queens to Manhattan, the population of the latter began to fall? 




> With al these new residential buildings going in manhattan and the want to live in manhattan i could see the population meet 2 million.


The current buildings under construction and proposed won't come near to housing 500,000 people, and while just on the number of people who want to live there, the population could increase well beyond 2 million (very well beyond that), except that there is a finite amount of space.


----------



## CityPolice (Sep 27, 2008)

monkeyronin said:


> The population at present is 1,620,867. The space created by simply filling in the few remaining vacant lots will not be able to fit 500,000 people (as to do that, at current densities, would mean that a full one quarter of Manhattan would have to be comprised of vacant lots).
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Hey they could fit 500,000 people dont forget about all the old abandoned buildings to. Think about it We are known for Going up not wide. If i made a list of new buildings under construction, recently finished or approved in manhattan it would take me a long time. The hudson yards is going to make a huge impact on population. Rezoning of upper manhattan will make an impact as well as lower manhattan. The only thing thats keeping it down is the economy and how expensive it is to live in manhattan, but if you live in new york you should be able to afford a home, and the mayor still has the affordable housing program. Also im not just talking about major projects that everyone knows. There are alot of empty lots and and abandoned buildings not few. Plus you are not thinking about how many homes in manhattan have nobody in them right now.


----------



## mhays (Sep 12, 2002)

Many good points in this thread. Manhattan has very little chance of growing that much in the foreseeable future.


----------



## CityPolice (Sep 27, 2008)

mhays said:


> Many good points in this thread. Manhattan has very little chance of growing that much in the foreseeable future.


most of the people commenting on this thread dont even live here so they have no idea what is going on.


----------



## Xusein (Sep 27, 2005)

So, only people who live in Manhattan are entitled to comment?


----------



## hudkina (Oct 28, 2003)

500,000 people is a lot of people. If I build a fifty story tower and each floor has ten units and each unit has an average of two people, that's only 1,000 people. That means that I would have to build 500 fifty story buildings to increase the population by 500,000. Most new residential towers in Manhattan aren't fifty stories tall so that means even more tall buildings would have to be built to accomodate that many people.


----------



## CityPolice (Sep 27, 2008)

hudkina said:


> 500,000 people is a lot of people. If I build a fifty story tower and each floor has ten units and each unit has an average of two people, that's only 1,000 people. That means that I would have to build 500 fifty story buildings to increase the population by 500,000. Most new residential towers in Manhattan aren't fifty stories tall so that means even more tall buildings would have to be built to accomodate that many people.


But each unit wont have an average of 2 people it will have different amounts


----------



## CityPolice (Sep 27, 2008)

10ROT said:


> So, only people who live in Manhattan are entitled to comment?


No i was saying that your comments cant be as accurate as someone who lives here and knows all the local things.


----------



## Chrissib (Feb 9, 2008)

monkeyronin said:


> I do believe that Brooklyn and the Bronx will pass their peak populations in the not-too-distant future however, and of course Queens and Staten Island will continue to grow.


It's a good chance for Brooklyn to experience massive growth in the foreseeable future. It's all about the natural growth of the Haredi Jews. With 8 children per woman, the population is doubling every 15 years. It's estimated that 200,000 Haredis are living in New York city, most of them in Brooklyn. If we forecast the growth in the future, we'll get 800,000 in 30 and 3,200,000 in 60 years. At that point, the growth will turn New York City into one of the fastest growing cities in the USA.


----------



## Mikejesmike (Jan 20, 2007)

Manhattan of course was really overcrowded in 1910. I did the math and by using year 2000 bedroom numbers per dwelling Manhattan can comfortably hold about 1,880,000+. This is with everyone having a bedroom to themselves and 2 in a master bedroom. Could probably stretch it to 1,890,000.


----------



## hudkina (Oct 28, 2003)

CityPolice said:


> But each unit wont have an average of 2 people it will have different amounts


I used two as an average, because a lot of units will only have one person. You could change it to 3 (which is high for most older cities, and especially for Manhattan) and you would still need hundreds and hundreds of new major residential developments to even get a fraction of 500,000 people.


----------



## mhays (Sep 12, 2002)

CityPolice said:


> most of the people commenting on this thread dont even live here so they have no idea what is going on.


Yes, but many people are grounded in realistic concepts about development and demographics. 

If you think Manhattan is going to grow that quickly, that sounds fanciful, unrealistic, and wishful.


----------

