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.
Population change in anchor cities proper of all 1,000,000+ MSAs
+46.3% - Raleigh, NC
+38.6% - Fort Worth, TX
+35.2% - Charlotte, NC
+22.1% - Durham, NC
+22.0% - Las Vegas, NV
+20.4% - Austin, TX
+19.1% - Riverside, CA
+16.0% - San Antonio, TX
+14.6% - Oklahoma City, OK
+14.6% - Sacramento, CA
+13.2% - San Bernardino, CA
+10.6% - Columbus, OH
+10.3% - Portland, OR
+8.2% - Denver, CO
+8.0% - Seattle, WA
+7.5% - Houston, TX
+6.9% - San Diego, CA
+5.7% - San Jose, CA
+4.9% - Indianapolis, IN
+4.1% - Kansas City, MO
+3.7% - San Francisco, CA
+3.6% - Norfolk, VA
+3.0% - Virginia Beach, VA
+2.6% - Los Angeles, CA
+2.6% - Salt Lake City, UT
+2.5% - Anaheim, CA
+1.3% - Newark, NJ
+0.8% - Dallas, TX
+0.6% - Philadelphia, PA
-2.2% - Oakland, CA
-4.0% - Santa Ana, CA
-4.6% - Baltimore, MD
-6.9% - Chicago, IL
-8.3% - St. Louis, MO
-8.6% - Pittsburgh, PA
-10.4% - Cincinnati, OH
-12.6% - Birmingham, AL
-17.1% - Cleveland, OH
-29.1% - New Orleans, LA
NOTE: This list will be updated as additional information is released. It will not include overgrown suburbs like Irvine, CA; Arlington, TX; Cary, NC; or any place named Aurora, regardless of whether it's located in Colorado or Illinois.
I think it's important to note the land area of these cities and also which cities were able to annex neighboring areas. Most older established cities are land-locked.
I think it's important to note the land area of these cities and also which cities were able to annex neighboring areas. Most older established cities are land-locked.
Agreed. And in the case of cities that didn't annex, several of them include plentiful greenfield sites for tract housing developments, so even those cities have artificial growth advantages over St. Louis, Cleveland, NYC, Chicago, Boston, SF, NOLA, etc.
True, though it should be kept in mind that the currently landlocked cities were not landlocked (and were able to annex) at the time they were growing most rapidly. Thus, this isn't exactly an new phenomena.
Some of those cities that are currently able to annex won't be able to forever - Charlotte (as an example) has about 10 years before becoming landlocked by other municipalities and a state line. A few of the North Carolina cities (Winston-Salem and High Point spring to mind) will run out of land sooner than that.
A third point - annexation is extremely difficult in most Sunbelt states. North Carolina, Tennessee, Kansas, and Idaho are the only states that permit involuntary annexations, and in North Carolina those laws will likely undergo some drastic revision in the near future. In Virginia, South Carolina, and Georgia, involuntary annexations are not legal, and the only way around that is via city-county consolidations, which are legal in all 50 states.
And - lastly - regarding greenfields within city limits of core cities. Those areas have gotten far larger as we have become more sprawly and car-centric. That noted, a lot of cities with enormous land areas (versus relatively small developed/urbanized areas) contain a lot of territory that cannot be developed, due to rugged terrain, swampy terrain, or other practical environmental considerations: Jacksonville, Chesapeake, Suffolk, New Orleans, Los Angeles, Phoenix, Anchorage all contain variably large expanses of territory that cannot be developed.
Similarly - historically, nearly all cities that were able to annex (at any time in their history) annexed some degree of greenfield territory for future growth within the city limits. In the pre-car-culture days, a smaller square mileage area of greenfield territory would have had the same effect in the long run that the vast low-density expanses of contemporary consolidated cities (or other large-area cities, like Charlotte, Oklahoma City, Kansas City or Houston) do now, unless those contemporary cities greatly ramp up density in future development. I have a large Geographia street map of Philadelphia which was published in the mid 1950s, which was decades (at least 60 or 70 years) after Philadelphia lost the ability to annex anything, and even at that late date, the northeastern third of the map (within the Philadelphia city/county boundaries) is very low-density, with a number of empty patches. Similarly, Staten Island was rural or suburban long after the remainder of New York City had urbanized.
In the long run, the fast growing cities of today are just like the fast growing cities of 100 years ago in one regard - when they run out of land to annex, that growth may slow down, it may reverse, or it may continue. Which of those outcomes develops has much more to do with city governance and leadership, local costs of living, and whatever larger demographic shifts and migrations occur in America over several generations than their land area alone, whether that land area is large or not.
Dallas County 880 sq miles
City of Houston 596 sq miles
284 sq miles difference is not substantial.
It makes it nearly 1.5 times larger, that's substantial.
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.
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.
