City Population Rank If All The Same Size (comparison, America, bigger)

[jbcmh81]

Also, here is the change 2000-2010 in population within 201 square miles for the top 50 largest cities in 2010.

1. Las Vegas, NV: +164,916
2. New York, NY: +154,374
3. Bakersfield, CA: +121,970
4. Riverside, CA: +115,182
5. Portland, OR: +88,845
6. Washington, DC: +83,484
7. Albuquerque, NM: +81,909
8. Charlotte, NC: +75,830
9. San Jose, CA: +74,541
10. Sacramento, CA: +69,430
11. Fresno, CA: +68,770
12. Austin, TX: +67,856
13. Seattle, WA: +62,898
14. Orlando, FL: +56,382
15. Boston, MA: +51,543
16. Miami, FL: +47,775
17. Phoenix, AZ: +47,602
18. Tampa, FL: +46,001
19. San Francisco, CA: +40,934
20. Richmond, VA: +39,269
21. Tucson, AZ: +32,048
22. San Diego, CA: +25,775
23. San Antonio, TX: +25,500
24. Columbus, OH: +23,348
25. Houston, TX: +22,092
26. Denver, CO: +19,927
27. Hartford, CT: +18,957
28. Omaha, NE: +17,198
29. Salt Lake City, UT: +15,746
30. Indianapolis, IN: +10,812
31. Oklahoma City, OK: +10,396
32. Philadelphia, PA: +7,806
33. Los Angeles, CA: +4,521
34. Minneapolis, MN: +3,722
35. Providence, RI: +2,937
36. Louisville, KY: +2,008
37. Rochester, NY: -914
38. Atlanta, GA: -5,610
39. Milwaukee, WI: -6,047
40. Baltimore, MD: -10,719
41. Dallas, TX: -18,356
42. Kansas City, MO: -30,437
43. Cincinnati, OH: -44,144
44. Buffalo, NY: -46,025
45. St. Louis, MO: -52,631
46. Pittsburgh, PA: -53,800
47. Cleveland, OH: -110,030
48. Chicago, IL: -145,093
49. New Orleans, LA: -167,553
50. Detroit, MI: -203,673

Keep in mind this was for a specific square mileage during the 2000s, and may not represent growth rates today in the same specific square mileage, nor does it have any indication on the growth rates within the current city boundaries. So please no one lose your crap over this.

[jbcmh81]

Originally Posted by Mutiny77

True, but Fort Worth is a core city of the DFW Metroplex and has its own metropolitan division within the MSA.

Yep, I know, but there was no way to rank it the way I was using, unfortunately.

The best you can do is divide the 2010 population within the 349 square miles. You come up with roughly 2,124 people per square mile. Multiply that by 201 gives you 426,924, which would leave Ft. Worth out of the top 50, but this is not an exact count like what was used with all the others, so that may not be correct.

[2Easy]

Originally Posted by gwillyfromphilly

I'm surprised San Jose would still be higher than San Francisco.

A large chunk of SF's 8 mile radius is likely in the water.

[Spade]

It also hurts the true densities in some cities but helps it others. San Francisco in this list now only has a density of just under 5500 ppsm. Even Houston would have a higher density than San Francisco here. In fact, this list would hurt densities for most cities.

[gwillyfromphilly]

Originally Posted by 2Easy

A large chunk of SF's 8 mile radius is likely in the water.

I guess so. Las Vegas at #8 surprised me as well. I didn't realize that area was so populated around 200 sq. miles, beating out cities like Houston and Dallas.

[Mezter]

Denver's top 10 in something

[WestCobb]

Originally Posted by Spade

How exactly is Houston a pretender? I actually could see Houston at number 9 in 2020 as its growing faster than the two above it. Even in the 201 square miles.

When Houston starts talking about "the four" it's fronting. There's three - then a steep drop and all the rest.

[BajanYankee]

I'd be more interested in seeing the densest 41 sq. mi. (Paris), densest 135 sq. mi. (Philly) etc. I know some people were already doing that using SF's footprint.

[gwillyfromphilly]

Originally Posted by WestCobb

When Houston starts talking about "the four" it's fronting. There's three - then a steep drop and all the rest.

Actually Philly is right behind Chicago "almost neck and neck", if you look at the OP's statistics.

[MDAllstar]

Originally Posted by jbcmh81

It's using 2010 numbers.

Oh ok, then DC will definitely be #4 behind Chicago when the new 2020 census numbers come out.