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 2000 Census had Nashville Metro with 1.2 mill and NOLA with 1.3 mill. The 2012 census has Nashville with 1.7 million and NOLA with 1.2 mill which means in the past 12 years Nashville has added 500,000 to its population and NOLA has lost population for several reasons including Katrina. I say that to say this if Nashville can add 500,000 in 12 years why can't NOLA? I think a lot of people underestimate NOLA on A LOT of levels. By the way people keep saying how small NOLA is so what do u call cities similiar in size like Memphis,Nashville,OKC,Milwaukee,Louisville etc.I hope small too. The difference NO city smiliar in size of NOLA has the STAR POWER of NOLA that's why people tend to forget how small NOLA is when people compare it to "BIG CITIES!"
The 2000 Census had Nashville Metro with 1.2 mill and NOLA with 1.3 mill. The 2012 census has Nashville with 1.7 million and NOLA with 1.2 mill which means in the past 12 years Nashville has added 500,000 to its population and NOLA has lost population for several reasons including Katrina. I say that to say this if Nashville can add 500,000 in 12 years why can't NOLA? I think a lot of people underestimate NOLA on A LOT of levels. By the way people keep saying how small NOLA is so what do u call cities similiar in size like Memphis,Nashville,OKC,Milwaukee,Louisville etc.I hope small too. The difference NO city smiliar in size of NOLA has the STAR POWER of NOLA that's why people tend to forget how small NOLA is when people compare it to "BIG CITIES!"
Not to nitpick, but Nashville's metro was 1.31 million in 2000...so that's 400,000 gained. Also, 80,000 of that "growth" was the addition of another county to the metro....so if you backtrack and add that county to the 2000 total, there were 1,390,000...so the metro has actually grown by about 336,000 over that time period...while still having one of the top 12 or so growth rates of large metros.
Another point to make would be while the city of Nashville has grown by a healthy 80,000 or so, most of that growth came from the suburbs, where there is much more available land to develop than there is in New Orleans.
That's not to say it's out of the realm of possibility...but I do think it would be very, very difficult to add 41% to the population over that time. That's Raleigh-level growth. Over 12 years, Nashville's metro has grown by about 24%. If New Orleans grew by that pace over 12 years, with the current population estimates, it would have about 1,521,000 by 2024 (assuming no county additions to the metro). I think that's a more reasonable goal...though it's definitely possible they could exceed it.
Not to nitpick, but Nashville's metro was 1.31 million in 2000...so that's 400,000 gained. Also, 80,000 of that "growth" was the addition of another county to the metro....so if you backtrack and add that county to the 2000 total, there were 1,390,000...so the metro has actually grown by about 336,000 over that time period...while still having one of the top 12 or so growth rates of large metros.
Another point to make would be while the city of Nashville has grown by a healthy 80,000 or so, most of that growth came from the suburbs, where there is much more available land to develop than there is in New Orleans.
That's not to say it's out of the realm of possibility...but I do think it would be very, very difficult to add 41% to the population over that time. That's Raleigh-level growth. Over 12 years, Nashville's metro has grown by about 24%. If New Orleans grew by that pace over 12 years, with the current population estimates, it would have about 1,521,000 by 2024 (assuming no county additions to the metro). I think that's a more reasonable goal...though it's definitely possible they could exceed it.
I think theres definitely enough room for just the city of Nola to grow by 300,000 (hypothetically) many neighborhoods are still at 60% of their pre-katrina populations. Also, the city has like 25% of the housing stock still blighted. Dont forget that much of the city was blighted before Katrina too. Trust me, there is certainly room for new Orleans to grow
Oh yea New Orleans will grow to a size reflective of its national importance. The only thing slowing it is perception that New Orleans isn't the place you'd wanna establish a career and a family, but people come to that off some unfounded conclusions.
New Orleans is not too dangerous or lewd for your family to come up safe and successful. Numbers will mislead you but a short term stay and you'll figure it out.
New Orleans is not cutesy little arts and college town, it's not like an Austin or Portland or Charleston. It's an economic powerhouse functioning nowhere near it's capacity. It's the Mouth of the Mississippi and the largest port in the western hemisphere! Its location provides top notch logistical benefits. There's also thriving industry entrenched here, like chemical refineries.
It's public perception that hurts New Orleans, people don't really realize that Louisiana's got a bigger gdp than its population can handle, that means low level of competition, there's enough pie to go round. The media's coverage of Katrina left a lotta people thinking we're some sorta corrupt backwards hasbeens, couldnt be farther from the truth. The truth is New Orleans is too important of a city with too many big time players invested in its future for it not to flourish in the future. I think it'd be wise to hop on the bandwagon cuz were going places
New Orleans is a metro area of only 1.2 million. Its smaller in metro area then raleigh, charlotte, indy, columbus, cincy, portland, st.louis, detroit, milwaukee, minneapolis, tampa, orlando, austin, las vegas, albuquerque and phoenix. Its the same size as jacksonville metro wise. Even city wise its not that populated compared to many of the cities i listed. New Orleans still is a major city and still has some important functions to the united states economy but overall it is not a top tier city
Other than the history, food and architecture, I don't understand why such a crime-ridden, mismanaged dump of a medium-sized city has such allure all over the world.
I mean, San Francisco, Boston have amazing history and dense urbanity but are very safe overall. NYC, LA and Chicago are Alpha world cities, period. While Chicago has an out of control crime problem in some areas, 60-70% of the city is very safe and a car still isn't absolutely required. Houston and Dallas might not be as sexy, but they are major economic and commerce centers and becoming major educational and cultural centers. Even Miami and Atlanta are in another caliber from NOLA. Even Oakland is more interesting than NOLA as long as you know the streets and BART stations to stay away from.
I'm sorry, I really just don't see what's so great about New Orleans. If you wanna blast me, fine, but that's how I feel. I'm sure NOLA would be great for a weekend trip, but there are so many other cities in this country to get more out of--and that would also handle their affairs much better in the event of a major natural disaster.
Other than the history, food and architecture, I don't understand why such a crime-ridden, mismanaged dump of a medium-sized city has such allure all over the world.
I mean, San Francisco, Boston have amazing history and dense urbanity but are very safe overall. NYC, LA and Chicago are Alpha world cities, period. While Chicago has an out of control crime problem in some areas, 60-70% of the city is very safe and a car still isn't absolutely required. Houston and Dallas might not be as sexy, but they are major economic and commerce centers and becoming major educational and cultural centers. Even Miami and Atlanta are in another caliber from NOLA. Even Oakland is more interesting than NOLA as long as you know the streets and BART stations to stay away from.
I'm sorry, I really just don't see what's so great about New Orleans. If you wanna blast me, fine, but that's how I feel. I'm sure NOLA would be great for a weekend trip, but there are so many other cities in this country to get more out of--and that would also handle their affairs much better in the event of a major natural disaster.
Your post was fine up until the end. Leave the Katrina potshots out of this.
New Orleans is a metro area of only 1.2 million. Its smaller in metro area then raleigh, charlotte, indy, columbus, cincy, portland, st.louis, detroit, milwaukee, minneapolis, tampa, orlando, austin, las vegas, albuquerque and phoenix. Its the same size as jacksonville metro wise. Even city wise its not that populated compared to many of the cities i listed. New Orleans still is a major city and still has some important functions to the united states economy but overall it is not a top tier city
Out of those, New Orleans is actually bigger than the (technical) Raleigh metro, and also bigger than Albuquerque.
We have a higher GDP than Albuquerque (more than double), Austin beats us by about 12% (with significantly more population), we're within spitting distance of Las Vegas...some of those cities, yes, we're not comparable... Detroit and Phoenix are much larger.
Out of those, New Orleans is actually bigger than the (technical) Raleigh metro, and also bigger than Albuquerque.
We have a higher GDP than Albuquerque (more than double), Austin beats us by about 12% (with significantly more population), we're within spitting distance of Las Vegas...some of those cities, yes, we're not comparable... Detroit and Phoenix are much larger.
Anyone who looks at the Raleigh metro, and not the Research Triangle as a whole is clearly off a little bit. Just saying.
But going back to the original topic, despite New Orleans metro only being 1.4 million, the number of tourists and national presence and events tend to give the city a bigger name then it probably should have. Plus Katrina.
Anyone who looks at the Raleigh metro, and not the Research Triangle as a whole is clearly off a little bit. Just saying.
But going back to the original topic, despite New Orleans metro only being 1.4 million, the number of tourists and national presence and events tend to give the city a bigger name then it probably should have. Plus Katrina.
No, I agree that Durham should be included in any honest discussion. That's why I said "(technical)".
How does something have a bigger name than it should have based on "national presence"? Coachella is a big name on the national stage because of its festival. If you're famous for something, then in most cases, you've earned it. We just happen to be a great place for staging events; just because St. Louis isn't known for the same thing doesn't mean our high profile is undeserved.
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.
