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.
Based on the most recent numerical growth from 2010 to 2011, here is the list of cities to first reach 1 million from first to last.
Austin------ 2018
Charlotte--- 2024
Fort Worth-- 2026
Columbus--- 2032
Indy-------- 2034
San Fran---- 2035
Jacksonville-- 2041
I am certain that future annexations will play a role in this list, but actual in-migration is the largest factor. As for now, Austin, Charlotte, and Fort Worth clearly has the in-migration advantage over the others. Jacksonville (though it has the most land) actually has the least growth. In theory, Jacksonville should fill up faster, but people simply aren't moving there in large numbers like the others.
As for the annexation factor, I'm most certain that if Charlotte's growth holds up, the city council will not allow the 2020 census to go by only 40k short of the 1 million mark. Then again, most of west Charlotte is so undeveloped that just the west side alone could easily support 100k new residents. Being that Fort Worth is so close to a 2020 one million mark, I can see them making an annexation leap to 1 million by the 2020 census as well. As for the other cities (unless a huge migration shift occurs), I just don't see them making it by 2020. For all intents and purposes, San Fran is really already there. It has the look and feel of a true 1 million-plus city, which is why I question the logic in bringing it up with these other cities.
You can't just continue growth rates in a linear manner because the base population increases each year. We can't be certain that annexation will be there for the taking. You should know as well as anyone that NC's current legislature is hostile to liberal annexation laws that have allowed NC cities to expand their municipal populations easier than others around the country. For Charlotte to add essentially a quarter million people within its current limits, it would have to increase its ppl/sq mile by 835. For it to reach 1 million based on its current metric of 2520 ppl/sq mile, it would have to annex nearly 100 more square miles. It's more reasonable to expect its growth to come from both sources (annexation and density) but that calculation has a lot of assumptions tied to it that will play out in years to come. There's no doubt that Charlotte has virgin or quasi-virgin land within its current limits onto which it can expand. The same scenario exists for Austin and Ft. Worth. It's likely that each of these three cities will plateau at some point but it's not clear "where" based on a significant set of current unknowns. On the other hand, Jacksonville doesn't have those limitations. It has land for decades onto which to develop.
A wild card here is average age of citizens. The US is getting older. Younger cities on this list will likely have faster natural growth rates as children are born at a faster pace than the elderly are dying off. Older metros will struggle in decades to come unless they can attract a younger crowd.
Of the likely cities to reach a million, Austin and Ft. Worth are the youngest at 31 and 31.2 years of age. Charlotte and Indy are next at 33.2 and 33.5 years. Columbus is also young at 31.2 but it simply doesn't have the land to reach a million any time soon. Jacksonville and SF are the oldest at 35.5 years and 36.5 years. All of these cities are lower than the national median age of 37.2.
For Charlotte to add essentially a quarter million people within its current limits, it would have to increase its ppl/sq mile by 835. For it to reach 1 million based on its current metric of 2520 ppl/sq mile, it would have to annex nearly 100 more square miles. It's more reasonable to expect its growth to come from both sources (annexation and density) but that calculation has a lot of assumptions tied to it that will play out in years to come.
My calculations were based on the most recent growth estimates we have. These estimates could change. None of us can see the future, so the most recent growth estimates are all we have.
IMO, Austin and Charlotte are both safe bets. Both of these cities were the fastest growing urbanized areas from 2000-2010. Also, both cities are building rentals like crazy in their core areas. Austin is building tons of highrises while Charlotte is building tons of higher density rentals along light rail corridors. Both of these cities also have nearly 300 sq/miles of land with plenty of undeveloped land within their city limits. In other words, these two have the in-migration, the construction of higher density real estate in their core, and the land in which to expand their current efforts. At 300 sq/miles of land, these two only need a density of 3,333. Core neighborhoods in these two are already well over that density mark. As density moves out to the lesser developed areas of these cities, the population will climb.
Infrastructure improvements such as I-485 (in Charlotte's case) is a huge factor as well. Thanks to I-485, there are parts of Charlotte's city limits now getting freeway access for the first time. I-485 neighborhoods (ie Ballantyne) are adding people rapidly. Anyways, there are alot of "ifs" to consider. If the growth holds up and if the unemployment rate can go back down etc. Those are all legitimate limiting factors to the potential growth of any city. However, based on the most recent trends, Austin, Charlotte, and Fort Worth are my picks. FWIW, Charlotte's efforts to bring light rail and sustainable development to more parts of the city are more important to me than Charlotte reaching 1 million.
My calculations were based on the most recent growth estimates we have. These estimates could change. None of us can see the future, so the most recent growth estimates are all we have.
IMO, Austin and Charlotte are both safe bets. Both of these cities were the fastest growing urbanized areas from 2000-2010. Also, both cities are building rentals like crazy in their core areas. Austin is building tons of highrises while Charlotte is building tons of higher density rentals along light rail corridors. Both of these cities also have nearly 300 sq/miles of land with plenty of undeveloped land within their city limits. In other words, these two have the in-migration, the construction of higher density real estate in their core, and the land in which to expand their current efforts. At 300 sq/miles of land, these two only need a density of 3,333. Core neighborhoods in these two are already well over that density mark. As density moves out to the lesser developed areas of these cities, the population will climb.
Infrastructure improvements such as I-485 (in Charlotte's case) is a huge factor as well. Thanks to I-485, there are parts of Charlotte's city limits now getting freeway access for the first time. I-485 neighborhoods (ie Ballantyne) are adding people rapidly. Anyways, there are alot of "ifs" to consider. If the growth holds up and if the unemployment rate can go back down etc. Those are all legitimate limiting factors to the potential growth of any city. However, based on the most recent trends, Austin, Charlotte, and Fort Worth are my picks. FWIW, Charlotte's efforts to bring light rail and sustainable development to more parts of the city are more important to me than Charlotte reaching 1 million.
Time will tell.
No large city in NC is even at 3000 ppl/sm now and these metrics don't move very fast when the physical size of a city is already large. Even if Charlotte or Austin added 30,000 new residents in their DT cores in new mulit-family projects, that itself only moves the needle by 100 ppl/sm. With Charlotte currently at 2457 ppl/sm and Austin at 2653, it's going to take a lot of work. I sincerely wish Charlotte and Austin all the luck in the world to move toward more urban development regardless of the million person threshold.
As an example, Miami has moved the needle by about 1000 ppl/sm in the last 11 years and that has taken an insane amount of highrise development in a tiny footprint of a city. It's not that easy to move these metrics. It's sort of like how seniors in high school try to move their GPA after years of C- performance. it's just not going to do that much good.
Location: South Austin near Wm Cannon and South First
164 posts, read 310,461 times
Reputation: 204
Austin now has roughly the same population Houston had in 1955. Houston went over a million 15 years later, in 1970.
.
Austin now has roughly the same population Dallas had in 1970. Dallas went over a million 20 years later in 1990.
Austin now has roughly the same population San Antonio had in 1980. San Antonio went over a million 20 years later, in the year 2000.
Austin is growing at a faster rate than those other cities were growing when they were the size of Austin.
Based on all that, I'd look for Austin to go over a million by the year 2025.
The only other town in that list to make a million soon would be fort Worth. I think Fort Worth is hell bent on passing Dallas in population.
You could always throw in a wildcard like Pittsburgh where it merges with its county in which case you'll get it jumping from around 300K to 1.2 million
830,000 Indianapolis gained 7500 people in 1 year according to the Estimates. However these are Estimates so they should be taken with a grain of salt. Also Indiana is now a right to work state so job growth will be stronger in Indianapolis now.
Also it depends on what you define as Indianapolis. Unlike the Census i define Indianapolis as all of Marion County EXCEPT Speedway/Southport/Lawrence/Beech Groove. Heck you might even consider Southport to be part of Indy cause IMPD patrols the area.
As far as I know, that's exactly how the Census defines it.
Linear extrapolations from estimates data should only be in the ballpark for the near term, perhaps 5-7 years or so. They also should take the last few years of data rather than just one (we should get this year's estimates soon, which will help). The methodology errors in estimates data will propogate larger over time and economic cycles, which are not always easy to predict, have a major factor in growth rates.
Given that, from my guesstimates I would expect Austin to join San Jose as the newest US cities with over a million in population at the 2020 census. It would take some major annexations and miraculous economic booms for any other city to tie or beat those two.
And, it will also be interesting to see if LA makes the 4 mill mark in 2020.
Trends don't necessarily mean anything. There are way to many unknowns that the future may hold to know with any certainty what a population of any city will be. It's all guesswork, and evidently from the gist of these posts, there is a lot of wishful thinking that their favorite city reaches a million. More is not always better. Austin was a fun, funky, cool smaller city back in the 90's. Now, pushing a million, what are Austin's bragging rights? traffic? pollution? Overcrowded everything?
With the exception of San Francisco, they all suck so who cares?
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.
