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)
 
Old 02-03-2012, 09:15 PM
 
Location: Charlotte
66 posts, read 103,242 times
Reputation: 56

Advertisements

I do not know where some of you guys get your information from. I do not think that you do any research. First, RDU stated that Charlotte may consolidate to appear to be bigger. That is absolutely crazy. I do not know what you are smoking. No city-county government would consolidate for that reason. It is for one reason and one reason only. That reason is to save money by eliminating overlapping services among the city and county governments. Charlotte has already said that they are not going to do it. The city would love to do it because they would increase city services and city officials would get more power. But Mecklenburg County said no because their officials do not want to eliminate their jobs. This discussion comes up every 10-15 years and, the end result is always the same. As for you guys making these wild population projections, what are you basing your projections on? It looks as if, you are simply guessing. For example, L.A.'s growth rate from 2000-2010 was only 2.6%. Based on that data, I would project L.A's 2030 population at 3,992,000. In addition, LA is not the hot city that it once was because of its problems. Chicago lost population during this 10 years. Although its MSA population will continue to grow, there is absolutely nothing to suggest that Chicago's city population is going to go on a huge growth spurt. Houston only grew by 7.46% during this same period. I would project its 2030 population at 2,424,372. If the economy improves, these numbers may go up slightly. Philly"s city population was basically stagnant over this 10 years. NYC's population only grew by 2.08% in this 10 year period. I would project its 2030 city population at 8,639,349. Someone stated that Charlotte's city population will not reach 1.3 million because of lower densities and the potential of less and less available land to annex. I agree with that to a degree. I live here and, I know that land will be getting more scarce to annex. But the days of building on one acre lots are over. New developments are much denser. So, I cannot say for sure. I think that it will be too close to call.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-04-2012, 12:53 AM
 
Location: Phoenix
1,277 posts, read 4,155,879 times
Reputation: 694
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saintmarks View Post
There is a point where city population rankings pale in comparison to metro rankings. Here in Texas, no one considers San Antonio a more important city than Dallas even tho it outranks Dallas on a city to city population rank. Metro wise, DFW is the largest metro area in the state, even tho Houston as a city has almost twice Dallas' population. San Antonio, Jacksonville, Columbus have one pro sports franchise each, a telling sign of where they rank on a national level.
Technically Columbus has NHL and MLS so that is two. Also Columbus is the later of the 3 big ohio cities to grow and thus lost its professional football team long ago. Anyone that knows anything about pro football knows that city/metro size is only part of why you get a NFL franchise. Market is as big a factor. Columbus is already looped into the nearby NFL markets, adding a team there would do nothing to actually increase sales/ads. Thus the cities metro population could even double clevelands metro and still wouldn't get a franchise. It would take a lot of growth to get one of the existing franchises to move to Columbus. Kind of a rant but still proving a point that number of franchises doesn't tell the whole picture on the importance of metros.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-04-2012, 12:56 AM
 
Location: Phoenix
1,277 posts, read 4,155,879 times
Reputation: 694
Quote:
Originally Posted by cle2sf View Post
Another poster had an issue with Detroit, so I won't say anything about that. I will point out that you left out Columbus, which is currently the 15th largest city and is showing no signs of population decline. I would be surprised if Columbus didn't break 900K.

Ya I thought the same thing. How did this poster leave out Columbus? Do they think it will shrink? That seems highly unlikely, but the city is done annexing (so they say) so all growth forward will be on what is still rural farmland (and there is plenty), redevelopment, and densification. Charlotte and Indianapolis, for example, have more regions to grow in so I predict they move larger than Columbus. Columbus will atleast break 900,000 go toward 1M though. It's already at 830,000 right?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-04-2012, 01:08 AM
 
Location: Phoenix
1,277 posts, read 4,155,879 times
Reputation: 694
Quote:
Originally Posted by HtownLove View Post
who said it isn't??

well it is doing well but not growing as fast as Austin, FW and Charlotte.

2010 Stats:
Rank. City........Growth Rate.......Current population
8. San Diego----- 8% ----------- 1.3M
9. Dallas-------- 0.8% ---------1.2M
11. Jacksonville-- 12% ---------821K
12. Indianapolis-- 6% ---------820K
13. San Francisco-3.7%--------805K
14. Austin--------20%----------790K
15. Columbus------10%--------787K
16. Fort Worth----40% ------- 741
17. Charlotte------35%------- 737


Red- Sluggish Growth
Magenta- Fair growth
Green- Healthy
Blue- Rapid Growth.


Seems like Columbus had a good decade but we will have to see if it keeps up with the Charlotte, FW crowd or keeps more inline with Jacksonville. In terms of raw numbers it posted 75K, Jacksonville posted 85K and FW posted 210K.

That is why I think that if DFW and Austin keeps up their successful economies they are sure to be just outside the top ten by 2010. Columbus on the other hand will probably be just below Jacksonville and Indianapolis.

I agree with all of this, but the reason Columbus will be more sluggish in population growth isn't due to just growth. The city/metro are experincing very healthy growth gains (post recession.) More so than say Charlotte or Indianapolis. However, the city has stopped annexing, has less land area than the other cities mentioned, and is already the most dense.

Sq miles of comparables
Austin sq miles= 297
Indianapolis = 361.4 (they incorporated the whole freakin county)
Jacksonville = 747
Charlotte= 297
Fort Worth = 339
Columbus = 217

Columbus is the the smallest of the sq miles, meaning more suburbanish population growth has been and will be going to the suburbs and other counties. Not Columbus.

Also, Columbus' 217 sq miles is already the densest of all the above cities at 3,623.5. The city could experience rapid economic growth and its population may not increase at the rate of the others around it (in rankings) due to 1) its smaller land area and 2) a policy of stopping annexation and densification only (the mayor views it as unsustainable now).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-04-2012, 09:19 AM
 
Location: Charlotte
66 posts, read 103,242 times
Reputation: 56
As someone who has studied population data for decades, I realize that Columbus has been one of the more faster growing cities and MSAs in the Midwest. Columbus has positioned itself to continue with its steady growth if the recession ever ends.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-04-2012, 10:31 PM
JJG
 
Location: Fort Worth
13,247 posts, read 19,182,274 times
Reputation: 7005
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slyman11 View Post
Fort Worth is in the league of Orlando, Austin, San Antonio, Sacramento, Las Vegas, Portland, Pittsburgh, Rochester, Raleigh, Buffalo, Columbus, and Indianapolis. It in no shape resembles anything close to the caliber of Dallas, which is the true name of the north Texas metropolis. Fort Worth while a city is not deserving of a mero title shared with a powerhouse like Dallas. Really those who call the area 'DFW' clearly havent been to both, would be similar to calling Miami as south FL or Miami-Ft. Lauderdale when Miami is the true name of the metropolis IMO
"Fort Worth while a city is not deserving of a metro title shared with a powerhouse like Dallas" .... oh God, no. You should just slap yourself for even thinking that.

Your opinion is not FACT. I actually live there, have lived there my entire life. I really don't think you should be the one telling me how MY city has developed or how MY city isn't impotant to the area as a whole. Next time, do your homework on the cities before you try to tell natives of those cities how they work.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-05-2012, 12:08 AM
 
Location: South Beach and DT Raleigh
11,810 posts, read 18,807,465 times
Reputation: 11136
Quote:
Originally Posted by drqhome View Post
I do not know where some of you guys get your information from. I do not think that you do any research. First, RDU stated that Charlotte may consolidate to appear to be bigger. That is absolutely crazy. I do not know what you are smoking. No city-county government would consolidate for that reason. It is for one reason and one reason only. That reason is to save money by eliminating overlapping services among the city and county governments. Charlotte has already said that they are not going to do it. The city would love to do it because they would increase city services and city officials would get more power. But Mecklenburg County said no because their officials do not want to eliminate their jobs. This discussion comes up every 10-15 years and, the end result is always the same. As for you guys making these wild population projections, what are you basing your projections on? It looks as if, you are simply guessing. For example, L.A.'s growth rate from 2000-2010 was only 2.6%. Based on that data, I would project L.A's 2030 population at 3,992,000. In addition, LA is not the hot city that it once was because of its problems. Chicago lost population during this 10 years. Although its MSA population will continue to grow, there is absolutely nothing to suggest that Chicago's city population is going to go on a huge growth spurt. Houston only grew by 7.46% during this same period. I would project its 2030 population at 2,424,372. If the economy improves, these numbers may go up slightly. Philly"s city population was basically stagnant over this 10 years. NYC's population only grew by 2.08% in this 10 year period. I would project its 2030 city population at 8,639,349. Someone stated that Charlotte's city population will not reach 1.3 million because of lower densities and the potential of less and less available land to annex. I agree with that to a degree. I live here and, I know that land will be getting more scarce to annex. But the days of building on one acre lots are over. New developments are much denser. So, I cannot say for sure. I think that it will be too close to call.
Charlotte would have to annex a lot of land or increase their density to over 4000 ppl/sq mile to even make 1.2 million. Given that the city isn't close to 3000 ppl/sq mile yet, I don't see that happening. Mind you, I'd love to see NC's cities increase their densities by that much but I don't see it happening given how much of the land is already developed and owned at a much lower density.
I think it's much more realistic to think that Charlotte could reach 3000 ppl/sq mile and end up in the 900,000 range in its current footprint. But, to do so, it has to make some serious changes to how its available land is developed and re-developed.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-05-2012, 10:38 AM
 
Location: Up on the moon laughing down on you
18,509 posts, read 28,173,289 times
Reputation: 7598
Quote:
Originally Posted by SweethomeSanAntonio View Post
Houston is over 600 square miles and has 2.2 million. SA has 1.4 million within 300 square miles(408 sq miles including annexed far south side empty land to balance growth),
and you don't think Houston doesn't have tons of empty land too? think again. If you are removing land from one you have to remove from both. Houston has the entire population of SA in the SW side of town. Houston has as many people as all of the SA metro area in its city limits, so go easy on your nonsense.



Quote:
SA may have 2.3 million overall but 2 million of it is within Bexar, Comal, and Guadalupe counties which forms the urbanized area and probably is within 600 to 700 square miles. So its more comprable on that scale. Houston keeps going and gets bigger over the the 10 county metro area.
don't be silly. Bexar by itself is already huge. face it dude, there is no other area of Texas with as large a concentration of people as Houston. Danny did the calculations down to the zip codes last year. What takes you guys 400 sq miles to get to we get there in 150 sq miles. You can gerrymander all you like you are not going to match that.

Quote:
So what I'm saying is that Houston isn't anymore dense than SA in the core, and doesn't have a million more people within 300-600 square miles. There is just more urbanized area and more of Houston Metro.
You have no evidence to support this nonsense. non at all. I lived in SA for 4 years dude so you know you won't be fooling me. Danny and others did actual research and posted stats to back themselves up. all you are doing is saying what you think even though you don't know crap about anything. You can squeeze down Houston to the Size of SA or to any size you want to compare and Houston will still have more people than SA

This is data from 10 years ago, and still larger than SA:
Houston: Land Boundary
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-05-2012, 10:43 AM
 
9,382 posts, read 9,543,826 times
Reputation: 5786
what I found intresting is Boston could potentially hold its spot at 22 as it will Probably pass Baltimore (probably already did), and Detroit, and maybe Memphis, but probably fall to Louisville, Nashville, and Denver.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-07-2012, 11:00 AM
 
Location: BALTIMORE, MD
342 posts, read 795,625 times
Reputation: 201
Quote:
Originally Posted by btownboss4 View Post
what I found intresting is Boston could potentially hold its spot at 22 as it will Probably pass Baltimore (probably already did), and Detroit, and maybe Memphis, but probably fall to Louisville, Nashville, and Denver.
Doubt it cost of living is the main problem in Boston and Boston to me seems to be extremely crowded already!
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