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.
it would be A LOT higher than 3.8 million. Aren't there 5.2million+ in Cook County? Imagine adding close to 400sq miles. The city is already 2.89 million.
it would be A LOT higher than 3.8 million. Aren't there 5.2million+ in Cook County? Imagine adding close to 400sq miles. The city is already 2.89 million.
What are you talking about? Cook County is 5.2million people in 946sq mi.
The question was what would the population of Chicago be in 600 sq. mi; 346 less than Cook County. x 5500 people sq/mi (density of Cook County) = about 2 million people.
5.2million (cook county) - 2million (roughly the amount to subratct to get to 600sq mi) = 3.2million <---total amount in 600 square miles
Do you ever contribute actual facts or do you just spew nonsense?
I thought it would be interesting to see what people think the 5 largest United States cities will be in 2050. Post populations and comments as to why you feel this way, don't just order them off in a list!
1. New York, New York
Population: 9,400,000
I don't see anything passing New York by 2050. I know some people are going to say the city will be well over 10,000,000 by then, but I don't see anywhere for NYC to grow. Growing up takes so much time and money that I just don't see it happening.
2. Los Angeles, California
Population: 5,000,000
I think the growth L.A has experienced is going to start to slow down as Hispanic Immigrants become more and more "Americanized".
3. Chicago, Illinois
Population: 3,800,000
Chicago's population has the reputation for going up, and then falling right back down, but with Urban living making a comeback, I think it will keep a slight lead over Houston.
4. Houston, Texas
Population: 3,600,000
Houston is the perfect location for some, it offers suburban living in a major city. I think this will still be appleaing to many people come 2050.
5. Philadelphia, Pennslyvania
Population: 2,100,000
I think the spot for number five is going to be a battle. It will be VERY close between Pheonix, Philadelphia, and San Diego, but I hope Philadelphia can pull through and win it.
I like and second this! Great. I would imagine, come 2050, these predictions may vary slightly, but will be mostly valid.
What are you talking about? Cook County is 5.2million people in 946sq mi.
The question was what would the population of Chicago be in 600 sq. mi; 346 less than Cook County. x 5500 people sq/mi (density of Cook County) = about 2 million people.
5.2million (cook county) - 2million (roughly the amount to subratct to get to 600sq mi) = 3.2million <---total amount in 600 square miles
Do you ever contribute actual facts or do you just spew nonsense?
No, I just take into consideration all variables.
You cant take the total density of the entire county when you aren't taking the entire county into consideration. A lot of areas that bring the density down wouldn't be included in the theoretical 600sq mile city of Chicago. The population within the 600sq miles would be more dense versus taking in the population including the "urban fringe".
I like and second this! Great. I would imagine, come 2050, these predictions may vary slightly, but will be mostly valid.
I don't know about Philadelphia. I voted with my heart . I REALLY hope it can manage to get back and stay in the top five. Urban core cities are so much better than suburban ones, and I think they deserve to be in the top 5. My dream list would be:
1. NYC
2. Chicago
3. Philadelphia
4. Boston/Detroit
5. San Francisco/Boston/Detroit.
You cant take the total density of the entire county when you aren't taking the entire county into consideration. A lot of areas that bring the density down wouldn't be included in the theoretical 600sq mile city of Chicago. The population within the 600sq miles would be more dense versus taking in the population including the "urban fringe".
Well that is why I said 3.8-4.2 not the 3.2 the numbers said. The fringes of Chicago and the inner suburbs are not outragously dense.
Obviously there are a few exceptions. The suburb I live in in something like 4,500 people per square mile.
Lesson learned: A lot of Chicago's inner suburbs are fairly dense .
Yeah, those are some of the denser suburbs in Cook County, probably should add Cicero to the list. I don't know what point your trying to prove.
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.
. I REALLY hope it can manage to get back and stay in the top five. Urban core cities are so much better than suburban ones, and I think they deserve to be in the top 5. My dream list would be:
.
