U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S.
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 10-15-2009, 07:20 PM
7,848 posts, read 18,285,868 times
Reputation: 2785


Originally Posted by pw72 View Post
That's fair. My visits to Atlanta have been infrequent, but my impression was there was still a lot of open land, but not being extremely familiar with the city limits, I stand corrected.
Okay cool...that was a decent response from you, and I appreciate it. I'm sure you can understand my reply to you being that, to many people on city-data, all southern cities are exactly alike - and there is no amount of factual information that can sway them from that opinion.

I wouldn't say that there is a lot of open land within Atlanta city limits, but there is some that could be developed or re-developed. I guess my point was that Seattle is 84 square miles with a population of 602,000 and Atlanta is 132 square miles with a population of 540,000...so there isn't a HUGE difference in the amount of space between the two cities.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

Old 10-17-2009, 11:17 AM
Location: St Paul, MN - NJ's Gold Coast
5,256 posts, read 11,974,482 times
Reputation: 3097
My city was incorporated in 1693, and its peak population is now, 42,800.
I'm pretty sure there is barely to almost no more room to build since it's only a 4 square mile city that's been growing for over 300 years.

But there is a very old section of the city that's filled with over sized parking lots and abandoned/depressing factories that can be cleaned up and rebuilt on.
So the max could probably reach 45,000.

Overall, I say they clean up the industrial section and turn it into a preserved garden or land, the city virtually has no more wooded areas for it's decent amount of wildlife.

(I know.. I got a little too in depth )

Last edited by BPerone201; 10-17-2009 at 11:33 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 10-17-2009, 08:01 PM
Location: Tokyo (but will always be) Phoenix, Az
932 posts, read 1,693,777 times
Reputation: 530
I'm not sure, but I read some where that the Greater Phoenix area is expected to have 7 million people by 2025-2030. 8-9 million by 2050.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 10-18-2009, 10:59 PM
Location: South Beach and DT Raleigh
11,810 posts, read 18,828,779 times
Reputation: 11141
Well, these are crap shoot numbers:
Miami: 500,000K in the city limits based on the fact that it's only ~35 sq miles.
Miami Beach: 100,000K based on the fact that it's only 7 sq miles and almost all of its land is already developed and any growth will only come after teardowns are replaced by bigger buildings and as more locals buy and occupy the "second homes" of others after the economic meltdown.
Raleigh: I am guessing that the city limits will never grow past 200 sq miles due to other municipalities that hem it in on almost all sides. It's about 143 sq miles now. I think Raleigh's city limits will top out at 700K before 2030. The metro, on the other hand, is probably going to grow into the multi millions.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 10-19-2009, 08:46 PM
3,970 posts, read 11,844,378 times
Reputation: 1576
Originally Posted by Phxguy View Post
I'm not sure, but I read some where that the Greater Phoenix area is expected to have 7 million people by 2025-2030. 8-9 million by 2050.
A lot of big southwest increases are based on past indicators. You would have to make the assumption that these past indicators will continue for those kind of numbers to happen.

I'm not saying it wont happen, but the reality is there are water issues, crime issues (mainly due to the Mexico problems), foreclosure issues (hopefully more short-term), and general economic issues. More realistically, I would reduce those growth predictions by about 35-45% to get more accurate predictions.

Last edited by pw72; 10-19-2009 at 08:56 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 10-19-2009, 11:48 PM
Location: Los Angeles, CA
231 posts, read 559,397 times
Reputation: 87
San Diego as a county still has room to build upon and build up. It will need a source for water, energy and more freeways/public transportation/better airport to go in unison for maximum expansion.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 10-20-2009, 01:33 AM
Location: 30-40N 90-100W
13,856 posts, read 22,991,559 times
Reputation: 6688
I have a nephew named Max, but he doesn't live here. Due to Maximilian Kolbe it's possible the Max population is highest in places with large Polish populations. So Chicago and New Britain, Connecticut might have a large Max population. Max also seems to be a much more common name in Australia and Canada than it is here. So perhaps Sydney or Toronto have the maximum Max.

Less/More seriously I think my town may grow, but probably never get much beyond a thousand.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 10-20-2009, 04:52 PM
Location: Jersey City
6,490 posts, read 16,176,041 times
Reputation: 5646
Jersey City's population peaked in 1930 at 316,000. The city declined through the 1970s, but began growing once again in the 1980s. The current estimated population is about 245,000. Jersey City has been "built out" since the 1920s, so growth comes from redevelopment, and from converting 3-family houses to 6-family houses, etc. The growth is stunted by losses which come from the national trend of declining household size and blight in outer neighborhoods. Jersey City has a citywide population density around 16,300 ppsm. That's low for Hudson County, but much of JC is not residential. Many of the residential areas are 25,000 to 30,000 ppsm or more. As old rail yards and industrial areas continue to be redeveloped into loft condos and towers, etc., and as the city adopts very (perhaps too) ambitious development plans in downtown and Journal Square, and likely elsewhere in the future, I think there's a potential for Jersey City to nearly double its current population... one day. I think 400,000-450,000 is the maximum population Jersey City could ever have. We're getting almost to Manhattan density at that point. Will this happen tomorrow? Is it likely that it would ever happen? IDK, probably not. But I think that's the absolute maximum potential there could ever be. I think in reality, once (if) Jersey City passes 300,000 again, we'll have to think of really creative ways to accommodate more growth in a 15 sq mile city.
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.

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

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