Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
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 2 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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 10-07-2010, 12:28 PM
 
Location: san francisco
2,057 posts, read 3,867,506 times
Reputation: 819

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by chargerfansd2079 View Post
I will explain.

San Diego at 1,683,961? Don't think. San Diego can gain more than that. 2,200,000.

But Dallas and Philly, same thing. How is Dallas ahead of Philly while San Diego isn't? San Diego should, at least, be over Philadelphia in 2050. And San Diego has a population of 2,200,000, while Philly should have 1,900,000.

I. Am. Simply. Going. By. The. Numbers. Of. The. Last. Decade. It's. Not. My. Fault. The. Cities. Grew. The. Way. They. Did. It's very possible that they will grow more than what they did the last 10 years... but it's also possible they may not. So I just went with the current trends. What is the contention?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-07-2010, 12:30 PM
 
Location: san francisco
2,057 posts, read 3,867,506 times
Reputation: 819
Quote:
Originally Posted by chargerfansd2079 View Post
I don't know. That is what you posted . San Diego can gain 70000 to 1,380,000. Shrug.
I'll be honest. Your posts are really confusing. I guess... I don't know really.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-07-2010, 12:30 PM
 
Location: You Already Know: San Diego!
377 posts, read 1,081,958 times
Reputation: 125
Quote:
Originally Posted by migol84 View Post
I. Am. Simply. Going. By. The. Numbers. Of. The. Last. Decade. It's. Not. My. Fault. The. Cities. Grew. The. Way. They. Did. It's very possible that they will grow more than what they did the last 10 years... but it's also possible they may not. So I just went with the current trends. What is the contention?
Never mind. Your list is quite good to me anyway.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-07-2010, 12:31 PM
 
Location: You Already Know: San Diego!
377 posts, read 1,081,958 times
Reputation: 125
Quote:
Originally Posted by migol84 View Post
I'll be honest. Your posts are really confusing.
I have the TV open right now and it confuses me.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-07-2010, 12:32 PM
 
Location: san francisco
2,057 posts, read 3,867,506 times
Reputation: 819
Quote:
Originally Posted by chargerfansd2079 View Post
I have the TV open right now and it confuses me.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-07-2010, 12:39 PM
 
Location: You Already Know: San Diego!
377 posts, read 1,081,958 times
Reputation: 125
San Diego should have had 2 million people. But most people but 1.8, 1.9, 1.7. Not even close .
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-07-2010, 04:07 PM
 
Location: You Already Know: San Diego!
377 posts, read 1,081,958 times
Reputation: 125
Quote:
Originally Posted by migol84 View Post
I think it's fair to say that within the next 40 years or so cities can figure it out on their own.
I do not get you.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-07-2010, 05:29 PM
 
4,574 posts, read 7,498,039 times
Reputation: 2613
Honestly, I think it's pretty hard to predict the top ten most populous. New York will remain the most populated city for obvious reasons, but outside there it gets pretty iffy. And most of these lists are based off the growth these cities are experiencing now.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-08-2010, 10:44 AM
 
Location: You Already Know: San Diego!
377 posts, read 1,081,958 times
Reputation: 125
Quote:
Originally Posted by hzlgrn's_fnst View Post
I didn't include Philadelphia in the list because if you look back in the past 60 years, Philadelphia has lost about 700,000 people. NY will probably grow about 3,000,000. Los Angeles will grow about 1,000,000 people and then stop growing. Phoenix will probably do the same.


1) New York, NY 11,300,00
2) Los Angeles, CA 4,900,000
3) Houston, TX 4,400,000
4) Chicago, IL 4,200,000
5) Phoenix, AZ 3,300,000
6) San Antonio, TX 2,900,000
7) Dallas, TX 2,500,000
8) San Jose, CA 1,800,000
9) San Diego, CA 1,700,000
10) San Francisco, CA 1,000,000
I think cities gain a lot of population during that time. That New York City gaining 3,000,000.. maybe more. San Diego will gain 650,000, San Jose with maybe 910,000 (SD over SJ)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-08-2010, 05:36 PM
 
Location: Austin, TX/Chicago, IL/Houston, TX/Washington, DC
10,138 posts, read 16,032,687 times
Reputation: 4047
Quote:
So you really think Houston and Phoenix will infill to a density of 7,000 and 5,000 - there are only a hanful a places in the US that have this level of density over as large an area and most are largely driven by a super dense core - outlier being LA but even LA is far denser than either two in toward the core. Just seems unattainable unless they would rebuild much of each of these cities over that timeframe
Haha, How about we let Jan have his predictions instead of nitpicking what he thinks about it, its really not fair to him or anyone else here? Unless you have a device that shows you what 2050 looks like Jan is just about right as anyone else here. His guess is honestly as good as any of ours. And you may not know this but the inner loop is 96 square miles, population 527,386 with a density of 5,493 people per square mile.

In Houston no one cares about the city outside of inner loop where everything besides Energy Corridor is located and inner loop is also where almost all the developments are taking place, and where all of the rail expansion will be and connect every district in it. Thats the real city, so who cares if its density ever reaches 8,000 or not? The inner loop is going to reach that density regardless.

My guess for 2050:
01. New York City (duhhhh everyone should have guessed this )
02. Los Angeles (4,800,000, In my opinion I never see Los Angeles passing 5 million)
03. Chicago (4,100,000 I personally think by Mid-century it will see some large stroke of influx and will surpass its 1950 peak, but it depends solely if it can keep its growth going)
04. Houston (3,600,000 wont surpass Chicago as far as I can tell if Chicago STARTS to keep its growth going)

I personally think trying to guess the population outcomes for 2050 are pointless, none of us can ever guess what it will be like even tomorrow little less 2050. And since this thread is for fun, it would probably be more fun if people can say what they want without any nitpickings and people getting so carried away with their theories, THEIR theories not a generalized fact.
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 $104,000 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
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:11 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - 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, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top