U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S. > City vs. City
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Jump to a detailed profile or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Business Search - 14 Million verified businesses
Search for:  near: 
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 09-11-2010, 02:56 AM
 
Location: Tower of Heaven
4,023 posts, read 4,199,171 times
Reputation: 1399

Advertisements

[LEFT]Houston ranked second in the nation in terms of population growth between 2000 and 2009, a new report from the U.S. Census Bureau says.
Houston added 284,199 people between 2000 and 2009 for a population of 2,257,926 as of July 1, 2009, according to revised U.S. Census Bureau population figures released Friday. The city ranked as the 4th most populous city. The nation's largest city, New York, posted the largest population increase, adding 383,195 residents. Its estimated 2009 population was 8.39 million.


[LEFT]Here are the 10 U.S. communities with the biggest drops in raw numbers during the nine-year period:

  1. New Orleans, loss of 129,824
  2. Cleveland, loss of 46,094
  3. Chicago, loss of 44,749
  4. Detroit, loss of 40,349
  5. Pittsburgh, loss of 22,791
  6. Buffalo, loss of 22,408
  7. Memphis, loss of 14,103
  8. Baltimore, loss of 13,736
  9. Flint, Mich., loss of 13,468
  10. Dearborn, Mich., loss of 13,128
Thirteen communities gained at least 100,000 residents in nine years:

  1. New York, gain of 383,195
  2. Houston, gain of 284,199
  3. Phoenix, gain of 271,221
  4. San Antonio, gain of 213,752
  5. Fort Worth, gain of 184,239
  6. Charlotte, gain of 136,479
  7. Los Angeles, gain of 136,442
  8. Atlanta, gain of 122,099
  9. Austin, gain of 118,137
  10. Raleigh, gain of 117,150
  11. Dallas, gain of 110,640
  12. North Las Vegas, Nev., gain of 108,856
  13. Gilbert, Ariz., gain of 107,373


Read more: Houston ranked No. 2 in population growth - Houston Business Journal
[/LEFT]

[/LEFT]
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-11-2010, 03:07 AM
 
Location: Austin, TX/Chicago, IL/Houston, TX/Washington, DC
10,180 posts, read 5,179,481 times
Reputation: 4047
God damn it Chicago...

But New York City, Phoenix, Houston a job well done, however they did it, annex, natural growth, whatever. Great stuff!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-11-2010, 03:38 AM
 
Location: Tower of Heaven
4,023 posts, read 4,199,171 times
Reputation: 1399
Quote:
Originally Posted by Awesome Danny View Post
God damn it Chicago...

But New York City, Phoenix, Houston a job well done, however they did it, annex, natural growth, whatever. Great stuff!
Not really a surprise for Chicago.
I imagined worse for Los Angeles, and I don't know Gilbert in Arizona o_o
4 Texas cities in the top 10 it's impressive, Houston is a new US giant now
I'm surprised, really, about one thing : No Florida cities in the top (this state had a huge population growth this decade..)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-11-2010, 03:40 AM
 
Location: Austin, TX/Chicago, IL/Houston, TX/Washington, DC
10,180 posts, read 5,179,481 times
Reputation: 4047
Quote:
Originally Posted by RenaudFR View Post
Not really a surprise for Chicago.
I imagined worse for Los Angeles, and I don't know Gilbert in Arizona o_o
4 Texas cities in the top 10 it's impressive, Houston is a new US giant now
I'm surprised, really, about one thing : No Florida cities in the top (this state had a huge population growth this decade..)
Los Angeles grew the first 7 years of the year by a lot. The last 3 not as much, but yeah. Next decade it will be the city to watch. In 2006, Los Angeles for the first time in its history saw a population decline, but regained it and topped it in 2007. And thats not a really good sign going into the new decade with that kind of economy.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-11-2010, 03:46 AM
 
13,344 posts, read 13,538,931 times
Reputation: 3451
Quote:
Originally Posted by RenaudFR View Post
[LEFT]Houston ranked second in the nation in terms of population growth between 2000 and 2009, a new report from the U.S. Census Bureau says.
Houston added 284,199 people between 2000 and 2009 for a population of 2,257,926 as of July 1, 2009, according to revised U.S. Census Bureau population figures released Friday. The city ranked as the 4th most populous city. The nation's largest city, New York, posted the largest population increase, adding 383,195 residents. Its estimated 2009 population was 8.39 million.


[LEFT]Here are the 10 U.S. communities with the biggest drops in raw numbers during the nine-year period:

  1. New Orleans, loss of 129,824
  2. Cleveland, loss of 46,094
  3. Chicago, loss of 44,749
  4. Detroit, loss of 40,349
  5. Pittsburgh, loss of 22,791
  6. Buffalo, loss of 22,408
  7. Memphis, loss of 14,103
  8. Baltimore, loss of 13,736
  9. Flint, Mich., loss of 13,468
  10. Dearborn, Mich., loss of 13,128
Thirteen communities gained at least 100,000 residents in nine years:

  1. New York, gain of 383,195
  2. Houston, gain of 284,199
  3. Phoenix, gain of 271,221
  4. San Antonio, gain of 213,752
  5. Fort Worth, gain of 184,239
  6. Charlotte, gain of 136,479
  7. Los Angeles, gain of 136,442
  8. Atlanta, gain of 122,099
  9. Austin, gain of 118,137
  10. Raleigh, gain of 117,150
  11. Dallas, gain of 110,640
  12. North Las Vegas, Nev., gain of 108,856
  13. Gilbert, Ariz., gain of 107,373


Read more: Houston ranked No. 2 in population growth - Houston Business Journal
[/LEFT]

[/LEFT]
Look at all those warm weathered cities.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-11-2010, 03:50 AM
 
Location: Tower of Heaven
4,023 posts, read 4,199,171 times
Reputation: 1399
Quote:
Originally Posted by Awesome Danny View Post
Los Angeles grew the first 7 years of the year by a lot. The last 3 not as much, but yeah. Next decade it will be the city to watch. In 2006, Los Angeles for the first time in its history saw a population decline, but regained it and topped it in 2007. And thats not a really good sign going into the new decade with that kind of economy.
Maybe I'm wrong but I can imagine Los Angeles lose population this decade, the economy of the city is so bad, and it won't heal before some years..In California this decade San Francisco and San Jose could be the winners, they did better during the recession.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-11-2010, 04:00 AM
 
Location: Spain
1,856 posts, read 2,833,310 times
Reputation: 898
It would be nice to have metro numbers. I bet L.A. and Dallas would fare better than New York and Houston on that measure.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-11-2010, 04:09 AM
 
Location: Spain
1,856 posts, read 2,833,310 times
Reputation: 898
Quote:
Originally Posted by Awesome Danny View Post
No DFW added 1.3 Million people, Metro Houston added 1.2 Million people this decade.

Dallas-Fort Worth is the fastest growing, Houston is 2nd. Census: Houston, Dallas fastest growing metro areas in 2009 - Houston Business Journal

They are adding like 130K-140K people per year this decade. Haha.
...Right, just like I said: Dallas would fare better than Houston.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-11-2010, 04:13 AM
 
Location: Austin, TX/Chicago, IL/Houston, TX/Washington, DC
10,180 posts, read 5,179,481 times
Reputation: 4047
Quote:
Originally Posted by PDX_LAX View Post
...Right, just like I said: Dallas would fare better than Houston.
Yeah I mean, thats kind of a given. Haha its the slightly faster growing metro. But Los Angeles if it kept up what it had in the 1990's could have fared better than Houston and Dallas both.
New York City, thats just a whole different animal. Haha.

I thought you meant both Dallas AND Los Angeles together fared better than New York City AND Houston... so there was a confusion by sentence.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-11-2010, 04:15 AM
 
Location: Spain
1,856 posts, read 2,833,310 times
Reputation: 898
Quote:
Originally Posted by Awesome Danny View Post
Yeah I mean, thats kind of a given. Haha its the slightly faster growing metro. But Los Angeles if it kept up what it had in the 1990's could have fared better than Houston and Dallas both.
New York City, thats just a whole different animal. Haha.

I thought you meant both Dallas AND Los Angeles together fared better than New York City AND Houston... so there was a confusion by sentence.
Haha nah, I only meant that Dallas would add more than Houston and L.A. would probably add more than New York. Only my guess though.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $84,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S. > City vs. City

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:26 AM.

2005-2014, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 - Top