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.
Location: Austin, TX/Chicago, IL/Houston, TX/Washington, DC
10,138 posts, read 16,053,483 times
Reputation: 4047
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by bradly
Top 10 List
1. New York City
2. Los Angeles
3. Houston
4. Phoenix
5. San Antonio
6. Chicago
7. Philadelphia
8. Dallas
9. San Diego
10. Fort Worth or Jacksonville (Toss Up)
My City Albuquerque, 2050 Rank: 17, Currently 34. 7th fastest growing large city.
Metro Rank: 31
Rio Rancho New Mexico 2050 Projection Rank: 52, Currently not ranked but listed as 275.
Soon to be Albuquerque-Rio Rancho Metro.
I don't think Chicago would fall that low, because both SA and PHX would have to double their population to get to where Chicago is at now. And for SA, a little more than double.
My list would be;
1. NYC (It's going to stay this way for city and metro for eons folks)
2. LA (Both city and metro)
3. Houston (3rd For city but not metro)
4. Chicago ( 4th for city but not metro, metro will be 3rd)
5. Dallas (The pace it's growing it'll jump on the list it recently passed San Deigo)
Chicago and the midwestern states will gain major importance in 30-40 years. Believe me, with the water contamination and shortages going across the world, these cities like Chicago, Detroit, Cleveland, and Grand Rapids will have a very bright future being as they sit on the largest bodies of fresh water on the planet. I don't see Chicago falling for long, it'll gain it's historic importance yet again in the future to come.
1. New York- It is just way too far ahead and still wildly popular to be overtaken in my lifetime
2. LA- Big and getting bigger
3. Houston- Even if the influx of people slows down, Houston's young population and natural increase rate assures that it will pass up Chicago
4. Chicago- The bleeding seems to have stopped so I think it will hold firm to in the top 4
5. Phoenix or San Antonio. Although I am more of a fan of Phoenix, I think it will be San Antonio.
houston will pass chicago by 2050 because its has more then twice as much land. chicago wont see there population go up all that much as long as people see the news and how 60 people are shot and ten dead just over the weekend.
houston will pass chicago by 2050 because its has more then twice as much land. chicago wont see there population go up all that much as long as people see the news and how 60 people are shot and ten dead just over the weekend.
Well Juneau is about 8 times the land size of Chicago will it pass Chicago too?
yes juneau will pass chicago because of the wonderful wheather juneau has especially in the winter where you can go for a dip in a lake to cool off from the sun beating down on you all damn day.
You know, instead of city propers limits, I'd base it on metropolitan size. A lot of countries, Canada may be notable, have merged a lot of their suburban cities into the central city. If the United States were to do this, think about all of LA County south of the mountains being merged as a single city, the valley in Phoenix, Orange County consolidated as a city-county, DFW becoming two big conjoined cities instead of a series of towns between two cities and so on and so forth until you have mega-cities.. Merging separate cities is usually done in the name of efficiency and being able to provide more services. If we did that, the rank of US city size could be drastically different... I mean, if all the towns that immediately border Boston were forced to amalgamate into an even larger city of Boston, then Boston would raise up in the ranks... This may be unlikely in the States, but you never know.
I don't think Chicago would fall that low, because both SA and PHX would have to double their population to get to where Chicago is at now. And for SA, a little more than double.
My list would be;
1. NYC (It's going to stay this way for city and metro for eons folks)
2. LA (Both city and metro)
3. Houston (3rd For city but not metro)
4. Chicago ( 4th for city but not metro, metro will be 3rd)
5. Dallas (The pace it's growing it'll jump on the list it recently passed San Deigo)
Chicago and the midwestern states will gain major importance in 30-40 years. Believe me, with the water contamination and shortages going across the world, these cities like Chicago, Detroit, Cleveland, and Grand Rapids will have a very bright future being as they sit on the largest bodies of fresh water on the planet. I don't see Chicago falling for long, it'll gain it's historic importance yet again in the future to come.
I definitely agree with this. I read an article saying that they are trying to change up Chicago, expanding the downtown area into the West Side, creating a West Loop and building more condos etc. They are trying to pull more people into the city (like in New York). I think that Chicago's downtown, in the next 20-30 will expand to a size comparable to Manhattan, New York. I know there's a lot of gentrification going on in other parts of the city, away from downtown (like Logan Square NW of the loop).
I also think that LA is in decline and will continue to decline for the next couple of years. I think by 2050, the population of LA and Chicago will be very close.
So I'd say it'll be
1. New York
2. Chicago
3. LA
4. Houston
5. Philadelphia
You know, instead of city propers limits, I'd base it on metropolitan size. A lot of countries, Canada may be notable, have merged a lot of their suburban cities into the central city. If the United States were to do this, think about all of LA County south of the mountains being merged as a single city, the valley in Phoenix, Orange County consolidated as a city-county, DFW becoming two big conjoined cities instead of a series of towns between two cities and so on and so forth until you have mega-cities.. Merging separate cities is usually done in the name of efficiency and being able to provide more services. If we did that, the rank of US city size could be drastically different... I mean, if all the towns that immediately border Boston were forced to amalgamate into an even larger city of Boston, then Boston would raise up in the ranks... This may be unlikely in the States, but you never know.
Canadians aren't as afraid of "Big Government" as Americans and they have fewer racial, class, or crime issues than Americans.
I definitely agree with this. I read an article saying that they are trying to change up Chicago, expanding the downtown area into the West Side, creating a West Loop and building more condos etc. They are trying to pull more people into the city (like in New York). I think that Chicago's downtown, in the next 20-30 will expand to a size comparable to Manhattan, New York. I know there's a lot of gentrification going on in other parts of the city, away from downtown (like Logan Square NW of the loop).
I also think that LA is in decline and will continue to decline for the next couple of years. I think by 2050, the population of LA and Chicago will be very close.
So I'd say it'll be
1. New York
2. Chicago
3. LA
4. Houston
5. Philadelphia
No way Chitown is catching up with LA again anytime soon
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.
