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.
The St. Louis metro has a million more people than the Kansas City metro, so there's no question which city is truly bigger and more influential. St. Louis City is just 61 sq. miles while KC is over 300 sq. miles. St Louis would probably be double the size of KC if its land area was that big.
It's still a pretty significant and palpable difference. Metro KC will not overtake StL any time soon based on current population trends, though those are only trends and trajectories can certainly change. If/when KC does overtake St Louis in terms of metro population, it is likely that more or less half that population will be in Kansas, ensuring that in terms of state politics and economy, greater St Louis will remain Missouri's biggest city.
I could see the Raleigh-Durham CSA eventually passing Charlotte's (sort of the way DFW has a larger metro than Houston), but I doubt Raleigh will ever catch up to Charlotte in size.
I could see the Raleigh-Durham CSA eventually passing Charlotte's (sort of the way DFW has a larger metro than Houston), but I doubt Raleigh will ever catch up to Charlotte in size.
Actually, Newark is gaining population, albeit slowly. Jersey City's growth isn't too rapid either.
If both cities maintain the same growth rate they had between the 2000-2010 census counts, Jersey City will surpass Newark by the 2080 Census. When the 2010 Census figures came out, the mayor of Jersey City flipped, saying there's no way JC was still behind Newark. Fact is we're not growing fast enough to close the 30,000 person gap (and a moving target, since Newark is growing too) in a hurry.
There have been thousands of new housing units built in downtown Jersey City, and people (like the JC mayor) point to that as evidence that the "Census got it wrong." But in the older neighborhoods gentrification can have a population-reducing effect. For example, many apartments that were occupied by families are now occupied by singles and DINKs. Also there are parts of the city that have not yet become targets for gentrifying yuppies nor for immigrant families, and some of those areas may still be emptying out. So the net of all of these trends could in fact be a very modest population gain.
Phoenix will never be surpassed. Cities like Tucson have 1/3 of Phoenix's population, and will never catch up. Phoenix is just geographically too big, has room to grow, and another boom is beginning to really ramp up!
Not a chance do you realize Columbus' population is over 787,000. The city is over 200 sq miles. It is physically impossible for Cleveland or Cincinnati to ever reach this size. Further, it isn't just that Columbus has large city limits that works in its favor. The entire metro is growing faster than anywhere in Ohio, and the city and county, and the economy has stable, reliable growth. These are factors that have been consistent since WWII.
Maybe if a major economic shift occurs there could be a change, but under current economic conditions Columbus has the strongest economy in the state and one of the strongest in the entire NE/midwest/greatlakes region. The trend (of Columbus not growing faster economically/metro wise/and city population wise) be something way beyond a lifetime.
Cleveland used to have 914,000 in 1950 while Cincinnati had 503,000. I know this means nothing but it wouldn't take for ever to get it back, maybe 40-50 years. Although if Columbus grows steady for the next 40-50 years, they could reach 1 million in the city.
Louisiana (my homestate): Baton Rouge might surpass New Orleans (my hometown). The problem with Nola is that it is landlocked between a river and a lake.
I doubt Baton Rouge will ever surpass New Orleans. NOLA is back to regaining people and with 20 years could top 400,00 again and 500,000 in 40-50 years. In 50 years, I see Baton Rouge at 250-350,000.
Montgomery has a slight chance of overtaking Birmingham in city population, but even then Birmingham will still be the largest metro by far. Huntsville and Mobile have no chance of doing so.
City Populations:
Birmingham 212K
Montgomery 205K
Mobile 195K
Huntsville 180K
Metro Populations:
Birmingham 1.1-1.2 million
Mobile 591K
Huntsville 417K
Montgomery 374K
I think Mobile (and yes I am bias) could challenge Birmingham some years from now. I am definitely not saying it would happen but with the recent economic developments, and the ones that will spur from them, Mobile could enter the fight. Mobile's metro could add 100,000+ over the next decade, figuring 60,000 will go to Mobile County, Mobile City could reach 223,000 by 2023.
As far as metro populations, everyone understands Bhams position and it is clear as who is number one. Although Mobile MSA could add 100,000 and Baldwin come 2020 Census, bringing it to 700,000. Still far from the leader, especially when Bham adds Tuscaloosa increasing it to 1.5m, although this would be for the CSA not the MSA.
Do I think Bham will get passed up by next census, no. But depending on the 2020 census, cities could be in a battle for the number one spot, one that only Birmingham and Mobile has held.
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.
