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 04-05-2018, 08:27 PM
 
Location: Oklahoma City
742 posts, read 720,899 times
Reputation: 795

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by jbcmh81 View Post
I posted this information a while back, but here's a repeat comparing city population by standardized area size. The information is from 2010.


To compare, let's take the smallest area size of the top 50 largest cities, which is San Francisco's 36 square miles. I can't compare exactly at 36. The closest I can come is 28.3. I could also only do the comparison with cities that weren't part of a metro, so it excludes those like St. Paul and Fort Worth.


So here would be the top 50 largest cities by population if they were all a little smaller than San Francisco's 2010 city area size and their rank difference compared to now, if any difference.


1. New York: 1,455,020 0
2. Los Angeles: 788,989 0
3. Philadelphia: 674,481 +3
4. Boston: 630,930 +18
5. San Francisco: 608,704 +8
6. Chicago: 508,949 -3
7. Washington, DC: 472,291 +14
8. San Jose, CA: 411,306 +2
9. Baltimore: 391,742 +21
10. Las Vegas: 327,258 +18
11. Minneapolis: 325,198 +35
12. Milwaukee: 319,111 +19
13. Providence, RI: 317,761 +124
14. Denver: 309,360 +5
15. San Diego: 282,490 -7
16. Pittsburgh: 275,312 +47
17. Honolulu: 273,958 +38
18. Miami: 262,246 +24
19. Houston: 262,029 -15
20. Portland, OR: 253,691 +6
21. Rochester, NY: 250,998 +86
22. New Orleans: 250,422 +27
23. San Antonio: 250,099 -16
24. Seattle: 246,279 -6
25. Fresno: 239,305 +9
26. Oxnard, CA: 232,737 +82
27. Bridgeport, CT: 224,946 +153
28. Dallas: 221,527 -19
29. Columbus: 221,466 -14
30. Atlanta: 221,432 +8
31. New Haven, CT: 218,227 +179
32. Sacramento: 216,795 +3
33. Austin: 212,985 -22
34. Hartford, CT: 212,107 +187
35. Cincinnati: 205,624 +30
36. Modesto, CA: 203,949 +77
37. Stockton, CA: 203,932 +25
38. Syracuse: 199,986 +145
39. Phoenix: 198,191 -34
40. Bakersfield, CA: 198,077 +13
41. Springfield, MA: 191,181 +124
42. Tucson: 190,805 -9
43. Worcester, MA: 186,577 +88
44. Allentown, PA: 185,185 +187
45. Grand Rapids: 184,887 +76
46. Salt Lake City: 182,922 +77
47. Santa Rosa, CA: 179,408 +95
48. Akron: 177,674 +70
49. Riverside, CA: 177,330 +10
50. Trenton, NJ: 177,202 Unknown- not even ranked in the largest 300 cities.


With this list, cities with low urban population or large boundaries tended to fall. Some cities currently in the top 20 didn't even rank in the top 50 at this size, like Indianapolis and Charlotte, among others.


On the opposite end, the city with the largest area size in the current top 50 is Jacksonville, Florida, at 747 square miles. What would the top 50 look like at that size? Again, I couldn't get it exact- the closest is 709 square miles.

1. New York: 10,805,994 0
2. Los Angeles: 6,314,836 0
3. Chicago: 3,827,875 0
4. Philadelphia: 3,275,728 +2
5. Washington, DC: 3,039,444 +16
6. Houston: 2,783,903 -2
7. Dallas: 2,352,799 +2
8. Boston: 2,418,039 +14
9. Phoenix: 2,298,350 -4
10. Miami: 2,225,294 +32
11. San Francisco: 2,179,786 +2
12. Denver: 2,174,178 +7
13. Minneapolis: 2,069,082 +33
14. Detroit: 1,930,481 +9
15. Riverside, CA: 1,981,997 +44
16. San Diego: 1,882,993 -8
17. Atlanta: 1,877,599 +21
18. Baltimore: 1,877,086 +12
19. Las Vegas: 1,866,997 +9
20. Portland: 1,810,420 +6
21. San Jose: 1,646,340 -11
22. Seattle: 1,642,182 -4
23. San Antonio: 1,593,872 -16
24. Orlando: 1,504,709 +49
25. Sacramento: 1,469,706 +10
26. St. Louis: 1,452,667 +35
27. Columbus: 1,334,289 -13
28. Pittsburgh: 1,312,603 +35
29. Cleveland: 1,298,074 +22
30. Indianapolis: 1,296,740 -16
31. Cincinnati: 1,227,419 +34
32. Tampa: 1,220,885 +20
33. Kansas City, MO: 1,215,077 +4
34. Milwaukee: 1,155,096 -3
35. Charlotte: 1,092,985 -18
36. Austin: 1,072,357 -25
37. Providence: 1,043,943 +100
38. Hartford: 956,152 +183
39. Louisville: 953,515 -10
40. Jacksonville, FL: 942,114 -28
41. Salt Lake City: 935,724 +82
42. Oklahoma City: 914,188 -15
43. Buffalo: 908,828 +38
44. Raleigh, NC: 889,128 -3
45. Memphis: 883,446 -20
46. Richmond, VA: 869,596 +52
47. Tucson: 845,785 -14
48. New Orleans: 830,968 +1
49. Honolulu: 825,903 +6
50. Nashville: 824,908 -26


Again, the least dense cities tend to suffer, even those with large boundaries.



Using 2010 census tracts, I've come up with an area in Oklahoma City that comes to 47.3 sq mi (just slightly larger than SF's 46.9 sq mi) with a population of 207,133.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-05-2018, 09:37 PM
 
4,486 posts, read 2,670,613 times
Reputation: 4095
2010 is ancient history for some cities. Mine grew by 16% just to the 7/1/16 estimate. By now it might be 20% if recent estimated gains have continued. Growth inside a SF-like area would be higher than the overall city.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-06-2018, 07:38 AM
 
Location: Dallas, TX and wherever planes fly
1,558 posts, read 2,395,131 times
Reputation: 1399
Omaha, Nebraska - city population 446,970. Metro population 915,312. Who Knew. Also there downtown looks decently built up. I was floored.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-06-2018, 07:44 AM
 
9,382 posts, read 9,543,826 times
Reputation: 5786
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbcmh81 View Post
I posted this information a while back, but here's a repeat comparing city population by standardized area size. The information is from 2010.


To compare, let's take the smallest area size of the top 50 largest cities, which is San Francisco's 36 square miles. I can't compare exactly at 36. The closest I can come is 28.3. I could also only do the comparison with cities that weren't part of a metro, so it excludes those like St. Paul and Fort Worth.


So here would be the top 50 largest cities by population if they were all a little smaller than San Francisco's 2010 city area size and their rank difference compared to now, if any difference.


1. New York: 1,455,020 0
2. Los Angeles: 788,989 0
3. Philadelphia: 674,481 +3
4. Boston: 630,930 +18
5. San Francisco: 608,704 +8
6. Chicago: 508,949 -3
7. Washington, DC: 472,291 +14
8. San Jose, CA: 411,306 +2
9. Baltimore: 391,742 +21
10. Las Vegas: 327,258 +18
11. Minneapolis: 325,198 +35
12. Milwaukee: 319,111 +19
13. Providence, RI: 317,761 +124
14. Denver: 309,360 +5
15. San Diego: 282,490 -7
16. Pittsburgh: 275,312 +47
17. Honolulu: 273,958 +38
18. Miami: 262,246 +24
19. Houston: 262,029 -15
20. Portland, OR: 253,691 +6
21. Rochester, NY: 250,998 +86
22. New Orleans: 250,422 +27
23. San Antonio: 250,099 -16
24. Seattle: 246,279 -6
25. Fresno: 239,305 +9
26. Oxnard, CA: 232,737 +82
27. Bridgeport, CT: 224,946 +153
28. Dallas: 221,527 -19
29. Columbus: 221,466 -14
30. Atlanta: 221,432 +8
31. New Haven, CT: 218,227 +179
32. Sacramento: 216,795 +3
33. Austin: 212,985 -22
34. Hartford, CT: 212,107 +187
35. Cincinnati: 205,624 +30
36. Modesto, CA: 203,949 +77
37. Stockton, CA: 203,932 +25
38. Syracuse: 199,986 +145
39. Phoenix: 198,191 -34
40. Bakersfield, CA: 198,077 +13
41. Springfield, MA: 191,181 +124
42. Tucson: 190,805 -9
43. Worcester, MA: 186,577 +88
44. Allentown, PA: 185,185 +187
45. Grand Rapids: 184,887 +76
46. Salt Lake City: 182,922 +77
47. Santa Rosa, CA: 179,408 +95
48. Akron: 177,674 +70
49. Riverside, CA: 177,330 +10
50. Trenton, NJ: 177,202 Unknown- not even ranked in the largest 300 cities.


With this list, cities with low urban population or large boundaries tended to fall. Some cities currently in the top 20 didn't even rank in the top 50 at this size, like Indianapolis and Charlotte, among others.


On the opposite end, the city with the largest area size in the current top 50 is Jacksonville, Florida, at 747 square miles. What would the top 50 look like at that size? Again, I couldn't get it exact- the closest is 709 square miles.

1. New York: 10,805,994 0
2. Los Angeles: 6,314,836 0
3. Chicago: 3,827,875 0
4. Philadelphia: 3,275,728 +2
5. Washington, DC: 3,039,444 +16
6. Houston: 2,783,903 -2
7. Dallas: 2,352,799 +2
8. Boston: 2,418,039 +14
9. Phoenix: 2,298,350 -4
10. Miami: 2,225,294 +32
11. San Francisco: 2,179,786 +2
12. Denver: 2,174,178 +7
13. Minneapolis: 2,069,082 +33
14. Detroit: 1,930,481 +9
15. Riverside, CA: 1,981,997 +44
16. San Diego: 1,882,993 -8
17. Atlanta: 1,877,599 +21
18. Baltimore: 1,877,086 +12
19. Las Vegas: 1,866,997 +9
20. Portland: 1,810,420 +6
21. San Jose: 1,646,340 -11
22. Seattle: 1,642,182 -4
23. San Antonio: 1,593,872 -16
24. Orlando: 1,504,709 +49
25. Sacramento: 1,469,706 +10
26. St. Louis: 1,452,667 +35
27. Columbus: 1,334,289 -13
28. Pittsburgh: 1,312,603 +35
29. Cleveland: 1,298,074 +22
30. Indianapolis: 1,296,740 -16
31. Cincinnati: 1,227,419 +34
32. Tampa: 1,220,885 +20
33. Kansas City, MO: 1,215,077 +4
34. Milwaukee: 1,155,096 -3
35. Charlotte: 1,092,985 -18
36. Austin: 1,072,357 -25
37. Providence: 1,043,943 +100
38. Hartford: 956,152 +183
39. Louisville: 953,515 -10
40. Jacksonville, FL: 942,114 -28
41. Salt Lake City: 935,724 +82
42. Oklahoma City: 914,188 -15
43. Buffalo: 908,828 +38
44. Raleigh, NC: 889,128 -3
45. Memphis: 883,446 -20
46. Richmond, VA: 869,596 +52
47. Tucson: 845,785 -14
48. New Orleans: 830,968 +1
49. Honolulu: 825,903 +6
50. Nashville: 824,908 -26


Again, the least dense cities tend to suffer, even those with large boundaries.



I think that Buffalo is somewhere in the 16-25 range in that top list



Also Worcester, Syracuse and Springfield are impressive because they are the smallest metros on that list (Worcester has a super inflated MSA)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-06-2018, 08:26 AM
 
Location: Mexico City, formerly Columbus, Ohio
13,103 posts, read 13,491,061 times
Reputation: 5778
Quote:
Originally Posted by btownboss4 View Post
I think that Buffalo is somewhere in the 16-25 range in that top list

Also Worcester, Syracuse and Springfield are impressive because they are the smallest metros on that list (Worcester has a super inflated MSA)
At the 28.3 square miles used for the first list, Buffalo's population came in at 163,748, falling outside of the top 50.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-06-2018, 08:30 AM
 
Location: Mexico City, formerly Columbus, Ohio
13,103 posts, read 13,491,061 times
Reputation: 5778
Quote:
Originally Posted by KayneMo View Post
Using 2010 census tracts, I've come up with an area in Oklahoma City that comes to 47.3 sq mi (just slightly larger than SF's 46.9 sq mi) with a population of 207,133.
OKC is too small to make the top 50 in the first list, but at roughly 50 square miles, the population would've been 218,358, so not too far off from what you came up with.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-06-2018, 08:53 AM
 
9,382 posts, read 9,543,826 times
Reputation: 5786
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbcmh81 View Post
At the 28.3 square miles used for the first list, Buffalo's population came in at 163,748, falling outside of the top 50.
That's really surprising because the citywide density is over 6,000ppsm
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-06-2018, 09:36 AM
 
1,303 posts, read 1,203,584 times
Reputation: 3091
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbcmh81 View Post
At the 28.3 square miles used for the first list, Buffalo's population came in at 163,748, falling outside of the top 50.
Not sure where 38 or 28 square miles comes from. San Francisco is 46.9 sq mi land area. Total land area in Buffalo is 40.2 sq miles.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-07-2018, 08:23 AM
 
Location: Midtown Omaha
1,225 posts, read 1,816,679 times
Reputation: 546
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taynxtlvl View Post
Omaha, Nebraska - city population 446,970. Metro population 915,312. Who Knew. Also there downtown looks decently built up. I was floored.
Omaha city proper population benefits from liberal annexation laws in Nebraska.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-07-2018, 11:56 AM
 
56,618 posts, read 80,930,134 times
Reputation: 12508
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbcmh81 View Post
At the 28.3 square miles used for the first list, Buffalo's population came in at 163,748, falling outside of the top 50.
To be honest, I think quite a few cities on the list would need to be adjusted, when looking at that land size.


For instance, Syracuse is already 25 square miles. So, the population would be about 150-155,000.
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.
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