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 03-31-2015, 10:56 PM
 
300 posts, read 440,922 times
Reputation: 320

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sammy215267 View Post
I dont see San Diego , Phoenix , San Jose having that many people. I really honestly don't. Philly I really feel like it could be maybe like 1.6-1.7 Million. Our growth rate is slow but still climbing. Philly was home to 2 Million People in the city alone
Phoenix has a larger growth rate than Philly and if it continues it definitely will have that number, unless they actually did run out of water(not projected to happen by 2050).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-31-2015, 11:19 PM
 
Location: SF Bay Area
2,033 posts, read 1,982,202 times
Reputation: 1437
I don't see San Jose doubling their population by 2050. They have become much more restrictive on granting parcels to private developers for new housing developments. They have all but stopped further growth in the Coyote Valley at this point. You will see the western edge of San Joaquin County grow much faster in the Bay Area region than any inner bay city.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-01-2015, 07:42 PM
 
Location: Austin
603 posts, read 930,768 times
Reputation: 1144
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kavinbuchanan44 View Post
These or next big cities in 2050 New York and Los Angeles will maintain there places in rank LA will never up catch with NY anytime soon unless the state provide them with more fresh drinking water.


New York 15,500,000
Los Angeles 5,700,000
Houston 4,500,000
Chicago 4,350,000
Phoenix 2,750,000
San Antonio 2,550,000
San Deigo 2,490,000
Dallas 2,360,000
Philadelphia 1,990,000
San Jose 1,830,000
As long as we are talking about unrealistic numbers and things that won't happen, check out the straight line projection numbers for Austin. It ranked 11th in size in 2010. Take the growth rate from 2010 to 2013 estimates gives a yearly growth rate of just a tad over 3.86% per year. This is a rate of just under 46% per decade.

Austin in year

2010 790,390
2020 1,153,878
2030 1,684,529
2040 2,459,219
2050 3,590,176

I rounded the growth rate in the paragraph above. If you want the exact figure I used, take the three year growth rate of 12.02% (from wikipedia) and find the yearly rate by 1.1202^(1/3).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-01-2015, 09:10 PM
 
Location: Minneapolis (St. Louis Park)
5,993 posts, read 10,181,497 times
Reputation: 4407
IFF nothing changes, then yeah.....rely on historical or current growth rates. I think the most compelling responses are those that think through the multitude of "isms" that can and will occur between now and then. For example, the price of oil, the climate, commodity shortages, tax increases, etc.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-01-2015, 10:09 PM
 
Location: South Beach and DT Raleigh
13,966 posts, read 24,141,649 times
Reputation: 14762
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricNorthman View Post
As long as we are talking about unrealistic numbers and things that won't happen, check out the straight line projection numbers for Austin. It ranked 11th in size in 2010. Take the growth rate from 2010 to 2013 estimates gives a yearly growth rate of just a tad over 3.86% per year. This is a rate of just under 46% per decade.

Austin in year

2010 790,390
2020 1,153,878
2030 1,684,529
2040 2,459,219
2050 3,590,176

I rounded the growth rate in the paragraph above. If you want the exact figure I used, take the three year growth rate of 12.02% (from wikipedia) and find the yearly rate by 1.1202^(1/3).
That's not likely to happen. Cities cannot sustain growth rates like Austin's over time unless there is an almost unlimited access of land to annex. At best, cities like Austin can expect to add 500 ppl/sm each ten years after reaching 3500 ppl/sm. For Austin @~300 sm, that means that once it reaches 1,050,000, probably in or around 2020, it can can expect an additional 150K per each subsequent decade as best. This would put Austin nearing 1.5 million in 2050 unless it can annex much more land into its limits. Now, if Austin can actually double its land size to mirror that of Houston today, then 3 million is eventually possible.

To put this in perspective, Miami is adding about 1000 ppl/sm per decade as a result of some insane high rise housing construction within its city limits of less than 36 square miles. I just don't see any way Austin sustains more than half that rate given how much of its limits is purely suburban by nature.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-02-2015, 02:11 AM
 
Location: Austin
1,795 posts, read 3,165,066 times
Reputation: 1255
Also with the insane amount of traffic that comes with it. I'll point a sign leading to San Antonio.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-02-2015, 02:43 AM
 
2,744 posts, read 6,107,518 times
Reputation: 977
If Austin is the 11th largest city now it will definitely break into the top 10 one day.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-02-2015, 03:58 AM
 
459 posts, read 375,700 times
Reputation: 276
I still think of Austin as just a midsize city
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-02-2015, 10:36 AM
 
Location: The Dirty South.
1,624 posts, read 2,034,839 times
Reputation: 1241
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mudduck View Post
I still think of Austin as just a midsize city
It sure doesn't feel like one.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-03-2015, 12:15 AM
 
Location: Austin
1,795 posts, read 3,165,066 times
Reputation: 1255
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mudduck View Post
I still think of Austin as just a midsize city
It depends on how you look at it. Austin is a up and coming city with a population on 850,000 and a 2 million metro. I myself refer to Austin as a small large city, same way with Kansas City, Orlando, Nashville, Charlotte, ect. But I can see your point.
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 05:37 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