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 don't feel like predicting numbers, but I'm not so sure that cities will grow as fast as people think. My prediction is that they will continue to attract people looking for an urban lifestyle, but with declining birth rates and declining illegal immigration populations won't increase as they have historically. I think that most cities including LA, NY, Chicago, SF, etc will stay relatively flat. LA will look more dense structurally, but as families are replaced with singles and childless couples it won't increase much in population. There will be a few cities that grow over 20% in two decades, but most will be in the -10% to 10% range. And I think that sunbelt cities will start to lose people. For example I can see Phoenix in 20 years having less people than they do now.
Sounds far more like a loophole (though from a development and service standpoint it is likely better) than some sort of accomplishment. At 600 sq miles and the current density it is difficult to take the current 2.4 million seriously
get over your self righteous nonsense. More cities are closer to Houston's Density than yours. just because it is not yours it can't be taken seriously??
that is elitism at its worst. Pure Northeast nonsense
you just got caught up in your usual density nonsense and failed to realize that there are other ways that cities grow.
get over your self righteous nonsense. More cities are closer to Houston's Density than yours. just because it is not yours it can't be taken seriously??
that is elitism at its worst. Pure Northeast nonsense
you just got caught up in your usual density nonsense and failed to realize that there are other ways that cities grow.
No righteousness whatsover purely a reality. To deny is playing an elitism on a stat that is not a comparable achievement in any regard. Just is what it is
Its kind of like comparing this
http://www.flickr.com/photos/lizandcameron/3834577642/ (broken link)
to this
http://www.flickr.com/photos/iduke/5514075362/ (broken link)
One is tall and grand and the other is, well you get the picture...
Last edited by kidphilly; 12-30-2011 at 07:02 PM..
No righteousness whatsover purely a reality. To deny is playing an elitism on a stat that is not a comparable achievement in any regard. Just is what it is
To be fair, even NYC has hundreds of square miles of land.
Philadelphia is the smallest land area of the bunch at about 135 square miles.
Some interesting physical size relationships among our largest cities and some others:
NYC is almost identical in land size to Augusta, GA.
Chicago and Tucson are about the same size.
Oklahoma City is slightly larger than Houston.
Philadelphia is about the same size as Las Vegas, Atlanta, Portland and the Phoenix suburb of Mesa.
San Diego is exactly the same size as Louisville, KY.
Using cities that have consolidated with their counties (Augusta, Louisville) is somewhat misconstruing for your points. In fact the whole idea of comparing cities when different states (and then the cities and counties within the different states) have such wildly different laws concerning city limits and land size, that any comparison of city populations is nothing more than a mind exercise.
To have Jacksonville mentioned in the same breath as other 1 million plus cities just because they merged with their county in the 60s or 70s is completely irrelevant to real life concerns of major urban areas. Metro Jacksonville ranks WAY down the list, 40th MSA as of 2010 Census.
Curious to hear from Houstonians (?) about any density improving infill that has been going on.
In LA it seems like every week a new mixed use apartment structure (usually about 6-7 stories w. ground floor retail) is being proposed, going through its EIR, breaking ground or actually being completed. Just off the top of my head I can think of about 10 in the last few months. (BTW I actually prefer this to high rises, part of LA's uniqueness is mountain views and the bright blue sky, so being in a skyscraper canyon would really detract from that. There are places like DT where that kind of development belongs but I prefer the mid-rise high density structures.)
Is there a lot of this going on in Houston? Do they still have room in the city limits to build out and not up?
They still have room but there is still lots of infill going on. I think Houston is straddling the fence. It's no longer a single family house city. Especially inside the loop. It is turning into an apartment and townhouse city. The newer single family homes are far more denser than the old ranch style 1950-1970 style homes built in a good portion of Texas cities.
I think Chicago is a great candidate to have an increase. But people are turned off to Illinois due to weather and taxes.
I'm predicting Houston will become a beast by 2030, I'm sure it will be 3rd largest by then, it may even dethrone LA sometime in the future for the 2nd spot.
I know some of you think City limits are irrelevant, but the Goverment allocates Resorces by CITY LIMITS population so it is relevant.
My top 10 would Be
1) New York 8.9 million
2) Los Angeles 4.7 Million
3) Houston- 3.4 Million
4) Chicago- 3.2 Million
5) Phoenix- 1.7 Million
6) Philly- 1.6 Million
7)San Antonio- 1.5 Million
8) San Deigo- 1.45 Million
9) Dallas- 1.3 Million
10) San Jose- 1.06 Million
* Jacksonville would be on SJ tail at 1.01 Million
Last 2 using Extrapulations cause of closeness.
My list: i made up the land areas
1. NY 8.3M- Land area 302 sq miles
2. Los Angeles 4M -Land Area 475 sq miles
3. Houston 2.9M- Land Area 599 sq miles
4. Chicago 2.6M- - Land Area 230 sq miles
5. San Antonio 1.9M- Land Area 525 sq miles
6. Phoenix 1.75M - Land Area 575 sq miles
7. Philadelphia 1.6M- Land Area 135 sq miles
8. San Diego 1.4M - Land Area 350 sq miles
9. Fort Worth 1.35M - Land Area 400 sq miles
10. Austin 1.3M - Land Area 375 sq miles
runners up:
11. Dallas- 1.25M
12. Charlotte 1.2M
13. San Jose 1.1M
14. Detroit 1.1M
15. Jacksonville 1M
16. Indianapolis 1M
17. El Paso 900K
18. San Francisco 800K
19. DC 700K
20. Memphis 700K
I don't feel like predicting numbers, but I'm not so sure that cities will grow as fast as people think. My prediction is that they will continue to attract people looking for an urban lifestyle, but with declining birth rates and declining illegal immigration populations won't increase as they have historically. I think that most cities including LA, NY, Chicago, SF, etc will stay relatively flat. LA will look more dense structurally, but as families are replaced with singles and childless couples it won't increase much in population. There will be a few cities that grow over 20% in two decades, but most will be in the -10% to 10% range. And I think that sunbelt cities will start to lose people. For example I can see Phoenix in 20 years having less people than they do now.
I think this is the most accurate assessment so far. If you look at the population pyramid of the U.S. it shows a peak population of those in the ages of 45-54. It drops after that, then rises and falls, staying relatively level though.
Some cities will not be affected. I imagine a place like NYC will stay level, though we may see some fluctuation in the outlying regions. I think it's tough to predict what cities will grow and which ones will shrink. I think most will see slight declines in population though, with the exceptions being those cities that can draw in people from other areas. Think of cities competing for population as a sort of resource.
I don't feel like predicting numbers, but I'm not so sure that cities will grow as fast as people think. My prediction is that they will continue to attract people looking for an urban lifestyle, but with declining birth rates and declining illegal immigration populations won't increase as they have historically. I think that most cities including LA, NY, Chicago, SF, etc will stay relatively flat. LA will look more dense structurally, but as families are replaced with singles and childless couples it won't increase much in population. There will be a few cities that grow over 20% in two decades, but most will be in the -10% to 10% range. And I think that sunbelt cities will start to lose people. For example I can see Phoenix in 20 years having less people than they do now.
I also agree, if areas like Pico Union, Westlake, midcity, east hollywood etc. become gentrified/yuppified their densities will drop to that of west hollywood
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.
