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.
Folks, city populations don't matter. It's the metro or urban population that is important. No one cares if Atlanta proper has 435,000 people (smaller than Nashville, Memphis, Jacksonville, or Charlotte, and that's just the South). It is still the largest city in the Southeast after Miami and Washington, if you count Wash. as the Southeast. Atlanta is 12 times larger than the municipality of Atlanta, and that's all that counts.
South Carolina cities like Greenville (pop. 58,000) are in "small guv'ment" states that don't allow easy annexation, and no consolidation at all. Yet Greenville, Columbia and Charleston are all good-sized metro areas.
City limits and consolidated city-counties are artificial constructs. No comparison between these entities is valid, ever.
@313. Your grade: D-/F. At least 10 states you marked as "possibly" are "NO WAY": AK, CA, DE, IA, KS, KY, ME, MS, NE, NM, VT, whether you count city limits only or the entire metro area. Los Angeles (pop. 3.4 million, metro pop. 12 million+) could be surpassed by what other CA city? Not San Diego, not San Jose, not San Francisco. Anchorage is the only city in Alaska; Juneau and Fairbanks are hick towns in comparison. Des Moines is the hub of Iowa and Albuquerque is the only real urban center in New Mexico. They won't be surpassed in this life, but perhaps we'll take a look in Heaven (if either one of us makes it there).
We should be comparing metro areas, not city limits, but even so...
Some people Say that Miami may be bigger than Jacksonville one Day. Maybe in population, but in Size, never because Jacksonville is 750+ square miles in area. As compared to Miami's 35 sq. Miles. I do believe that if they counted Ft Lauderdale and the Everglades with Miami then yes. Jacksonville takes up 3 counties: Duval (primary), St Johns County (Secondary) and Nassau county (Tertiary). As compared to Miami's 1 county: Dade county.
@313. Your grade: D-/F. At least 10 states you marked as "possibly" are "NO WAY": AK, CA, DE, IA, KS, KY, ME, MS, NE, NM, VT, whether you count city limits only or the entire metro area. Los Angeles (pop. 3.4 million, metro pop. 12 million+) could be surpassed by what other CA city? Not San Diego, not San Jose, not San Francisco. Anchorage is the only city in Alaska; Juneau and Fairbanks are hick towns in comparison. Des Moines is the hub of Iowa and Albuquerque is the only real urban center in New Mexico. They won't be surpassed in this life, but perhaps we'll take a look in Heaven (if either one of us makes it there).
We should be comparing metro areas, not city limits, but even so...
Yes, I'm comparing city limits.
And you're certainaly entitled to your opinion, but I'm also entitled to mine. You should never rule out anything when it comes to the evolution of cities.
People didn't think Detroit would fall as far as it has either in the 1950s/1960s (nor did they think Grand Rapids would become anything more than a "hick town in comparison").
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.
It will not take Columbus 40-50 years to see 1 million. It has already surpassed 800,000. At present growth rates, it'll take less than 20. More like 15.
It will not take Columbus 40-50 years to see 1 million. It has already surpassed 800,000. At present growth rates, it'll take less than 20. More like 15.
Yeah I checked out Columbus' demographics and I agree it will not take 40-50 years but I disagree with 15 years. Figuring Columbus grew 10.6% last census, it would take around 22-25 years. I don't think, and I very much could be wrong, that Columbus will grow at higher rates than that.
I think this past census is the closest Birmingham will come to being overtaken. However I think industry and growth is ahead for all four of the main Alabama cities. But in the end, the Ham just has too many weapons and too many ways to grow and go for the other three to make a move.
Alaska Anchorage - No way (Anchorage is like 8x bigger than Fairbanks)
Arizona Phoenix - No
Arkansas Little Rock - No
California Los Angeles - No way (Los Angeles is 3x bigger than San Diego and 4x bigger than San Jose or San Francisco)
Colorado Denver - No
Connecticut Bridgeport - Possibly
Delaware Wilmington - My guess is probably not, but it's possible given suburban settlement patterns, I don't know what city though
Florida Jacksonville - Most likely not (Jacksonville has 300,000 on Miami)
Georgia Atlanta - No
Hawaii Honolulu - No
Idaho Boise - No
Illinois Chicago - No way
Indiana Indianapolis - No way
Iowa Des Moines - Probably not (there really isn't anything else to exceed it right now)
Kansas Wichita - Probably not (see Iowa)
Kentucky Louisville - Not with the merger thing that happened recently
Louisiana New Orleans - Maybe, but unlikely
Maine Portland - Probably not (see Iowa, Kansas)
Maryland Baltimore - No
Massachusetts Boston - No
Michigan Detroit - No way
Minnesota Minneapolis - No way
Mississippi Jackson - Possibly Probably not (see Iowa, Kansas, Maine)
Missouri Kansas City - If St. Louis grows back, maybe
Montana Billings - No
Nebraska Omaha - No
Nevada Las Vegas - No way (Las Vegas is like 3x the size of Reno, and I don't see any Vegas suburbs taking over anytime soon)
New Hampshire Manchester - Possibly
New Jersey Newark - Possibly
New Mexico Albuquerque - No way (Albuquerque is like 5x larger than any other cities in New Mexico)
New York New York City - No way
North Carolina Charlotte - No (Charlotte is nearly 3x larger than Raleigh)
North Dakota Fargo - Probably not (see Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Mississippi)
Ohio Columbus - Probably not at this point, Columbus has 300,000 more than Cleveland or Cincinnati
Oklahoma Oklahoma City - Probably not
Oregon Portland - No
Pennsylvania Philadelphia - No way
Rhode Island Providence - No
South Carolina Columbia - Possibly
South Dakota Sioux Falls - No (Sioux Falls is around 2x larger than Rapid City)
Tennessee Memphis - Possibly
Texas Houston - Probably not (Houston has about 800,000 more people than Dallas and both are still growing)
Utah Salt Lake City - Surprisingly, this might be a possibility as a couple of Salt Lake City suburbs are getting close in population to the city itself
Vermont Burlington - Possibly
Virginia Virginia Beach - Possibly (not likely though)
Washington Seattle - No way
West Virginia Charleston - Maybe. Huntington is almost the same size. Morgantown and things in the eastern panhandle are growing.
Wisconsin Milwaukee - No
Wyoming Cheyenne - I think Cheyenne and Casper are neck and neck, so it is quite possible.
^^^ Charlotte is not 3x the population of Raleigh on the city level and the two are nearly equal on the metro level.
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.
