U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S.
 [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 06-29-2007, 10:58 AM
j33
 
4,625 posts, read 12,873,289 times
Reputation: 1668

Advertisements

I've always found the boom of the southwest interesting especially since, and no offense to the southwest, i've visited and found it lovely, I've never had a desire to live there.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-29-2007, 01:25 PM
 
Location: In exile, plotting my coup
2,408 posts, read 13,367,117 times
Reputation: 1792
Quote:
Originally Posted by j33 View Post
I've always found the boom of the southwest interesting especially since, and no offense to the southwest, i've visited and found it lovely, I've never had a desire to live there.
Same here. That's one thing that contributes to my surprise of Phoenix's high-standing in that while it's now our nation's fifth largest city, it seems odd because to me Phoenix is almost like the "Anti-City" in terms of it's planning, look and feel. The same holds true for a lot of the large suburban boomtowns of the Southwest, places like Mesa, Aurora, Plano, Henderson, etc. There's just so few cultural and visual similarities between them and some of our nation's older "traditional" cities with the dense neighborhoods, impressive skylines, and vast history to them, places like St. Louis and Pittsburgh that are now not even amongst the nation's 50 largest cities.

Other surprises: Austin having topped the 700,000 mark, and Las Vegas' growth while still phenomenal, appears to be slowing, at least in the city proper, although it still has doubled in size in only 15 years.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-29-2007, 01:47 PM
 
Location: Orange, California
1,573 posts, read 5,654,972 times
Reputation: 721
These "city" statistics can be a little misleading since they don't speak to the larger metropolitan area. For instance, the No. 8 city San Diego (which is very big geographically speaking) has a population of 1.25 million, but the larger metropolitan area (San Diego county) has under three million. In comparison, Atlanta and Washington DC both have populations in the 500,000 range (which might not even put them in the Top 25), but both have total metro area populations in excess of five or six million. And anyone who has ever been to SD and Atlanta and/or DC would tell you that Atlanta and/or DC are much larger, more congested urban centers than SD. San Diego is the "bigger" city due to the much larger square mileage, but it definitely feels like a smaller and less populous town.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-29-2007, 08:06 PM
 
5,859 posts, read 14,061,819 times
Reputation: 3486
Biggest surprise to me is Miami's growth and Hialeah's loss. What's doing on down there, did Miami annex part of Hialeah?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-29-2007, 09:35 PM
 
Location: Washington D.C. By way of Texas
18,653 posts, read 27,092,504 times
Reputation: 9584
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben Around View Post
Biggest surprise to me is Miami's growth and Hialeah's loss. What's doing on down there, did Miami annex part of Hialeah?
That's what hit me as well. For years, Miami has stayed around the 360-380,000 range. All of a sudden, the city now has over 400k. Very interesting.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-30-2007, 02:14 AM
 
Location: Pittsburgh
153 posts, read 626,200 times
Reputation: 61
I agree with goozer. Things aren't always as they appear.

Cleveland, Pittsburgh, Buffalo, Chicago, Philly, Detroit, Baltimore, Boston, Kansas City, St. Louis, Cincinnati, Louisville, Indianapolis, etc., etc., aren't sprawling - have had no land growth - 0% in the past 15 years or longer.

Several of the up and coming cities like Raleigh have had a square mile increase over 30% in recent years and Las Vegas from 1990 - 2000 grew 39% in size.

Philly has been 135 sq.mi. for decades while Phoenix is 420 sq.mi. and growing.

Major cities lose people to their suburbs. If you match metro areas to metro areas you'll see Pittsburgh, for instance, around the 20th largest pop. in the country.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-30-2007, 09:29 AM
Status: "Summer!" (set 26 days ago)
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
87,024 posts, read 102,689,903 times
Reputation: 33083
I'm not sure if that's true about Indianapolis. And while Pittsburgh hasn't done any annexing for years, that still doesn't mean the population isn't dropping. The population there is also dropping in the metro area, which is not the case for many of the rest of the cities mentioned.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-30-2007, 10:08 AM
 
Location: IN
20,861 posts, read 35,992,597 times
Reputation: 13304
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smoker View Post
I agree with goozer. Things aren't always as they appear.

Cleveland, Pittsburgh, Buffalo, Chicago, Philly, Detroit, Baltimore, Boston, Kansas City, St. Louis, Cincinnati, Louisville, Indianapolis, etc., etc., aren't sprawling - have had no land growth - 0% in the past 15 years or longer.

Several of the up and coming cities like Raleigh have had a square mile increase over 30% in recent years and Las Vegas from 1990 - 2000 grew 39% in size.

Philly has been 135 sq.mi. for decades while Phoenix is 420 sq.mi. and growing.

Major cities lose people to their suburbs. If you match metro areas to metro areas you'll see Pittsburgh, for instance, around the 20th largest pop. in the country.
Kansas City, MO is now growing again because they continue to annex land north of the city which is known as the "northland." The city is extremely spread out and covers over 300 square miles. Their are many downtown redevelopments going on there now, but their continues to be a huge sprawl problem with population gains continuing in areas that are 1 hour removed from the city.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-30-2007, 10:24 AM
j33
 
4,625 posts, read 12,873,289 times
Reputation: 1668
Kansas city is 300 square miles? I guess I didn't realize how sprawling a lot of cities are. Hell, Chicago is only 234 square miles (and some of that is water) and new york only 468 square miles, and almost 1/3 of that is water. I looked up Phoenix out of curiosity, and apparently they are at 515 sq miles.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-01-2007, 08:57 PM
 
5,859 posts, read 14,061,819 times
Reputation: 3486
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spade View Post
That's what hit me as well. For years, Miami has stayed around the 360-380,000 range. All of a sudden, the city now has over 400k. Very interesting.
And Hialeah is a suburb! Why did they lose pop?
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.
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - 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 - Top