Phoenix Closing Gap on Philly in City Population Once Again (Boston, Chicago)
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.
A growing population is important, but that does make Phoenix at all a better city.
Look at San Francisco and Boston. Arguably the two best cities in the country and they are not in the top 10, and are highly regarded unlike Phoenix. Philadelphia has many great things going for it, so slipping into the number 6 spot is no skin off my back.
A growing population is important, but that does make Phoenix at all a better city.
Look at San Francisco and Boston. Arguably the two best cities in the country and they are not in the top 10, and are highly regarded unlike Phoenix. Philadelphia has many great things going for it, so slipping into the number 6 spot is no skin off my back.
Nowadays city population rankings aren't a great indicator on how successful a city is doing. Simply annexing more land doesn't really change anything for a city's migration patterns.
Nowadays city population rankings aren't a great indicator on how successful a city is doing. Simply annexing more land doesn't really change anything for a city's migration patterns.
I agree on what you wrote i mean Columbus, OH has more people in city proper than Boston or San Fran lol... but one reason Southwest cities are growing is the land is cheaper and the cost of living as lower than on the East and West Coast.
A growing population is important, but that does make Phoenix at all a better city.
Look at San Francisco and Boston. Arguably the two best cities in the country and they are not in the top 10, and are highly regarded unlike Phoenix. Philadelphia has many great things going for it, so slipping into the number 6 spot is no skin off my back.
Seriously folks! This is becoming an old pattern here on CD. Threads get started speaking about one topic and then posters get into a pissing match about which city is "better". Things get misconstrued, and then we get a post like the one above that makes it appear that Phoenix posters actually believe that population is an indicator that the city they live in is better. It's rather insulting to the posters from Phoenix (many of whom come from other cities and are well aware of what else is out there) who feel as though they have to constantly defend their decision to live in their city from posters in other cities who obviously have some twisted ways of thinking.
Seriously folks! This is becoming an old pattern here on CD. Threads get started speaking about one topic and then posters get into a pissing match about which city is "better". Things get misconstrued, and then we get a post like the one above that makes it appear that Phoenix posters actually believe that population is an indicator that the city they live in is better. It's rather insulting to the posters from Phoenix (many of whom come from other cities and are well aware of what else is out there) who feel as though they have to constantly defend their decision to live in their city from posters in other cities who obviously have some twisted ways of thinking.
This.
I've probably been to the Valley 20 times between business trips & visits with friends. I didn't know what to expect on my first visit, but I have really grown to like the place. It's very unique and different from anything most people are familiar with, but it has it's definite charms and a very laid back and friendly population overall.
Yes, the heat is unreal in the Summer - but people deal. There seem to be misters everywhere and dining, shopping and partying outside continues. The desert and the in-city mountain ranges are just amazing. And despite all of the myths of the Valley being a water pig and sucking the Southwest dry, nothing could be further from the truth. The Latin and Native American influences are rich and very present, including architecture.
,
It's basically a huge oasis in the middle of the desert. It's not for everyone, but you simply can't ignore that it is a metro of 4.3 million and it is only going to grow.
And nobody there even thinks about passing Philly in municipal population. Other than an article in the paper, it's not even on their radar.
While I am sure Phoenix will pass Philly, it won't be for long. Lack of water in Phoenix has already become a major concern, & will only get worse in the future. Water prices will go up to ridiculously high levels & people will leave, same with Las Vegas
Actually no... we are in a drought and we still dont have any concerns for the forseeable future. There are huge underground aquifers that can sustain Phoenix for hundreds of years to come.
The question that no one seams to be asking is this, why did the sunbelt city planners make the boundaries of thier cities so large? I am a Philadelphian born and raised. When you are in the city, you know that you are in a city. Also, when you pass the city line and leave the city, in mAny areas, the row houses and high density buildings still continue. I have visited Pheonix, Dallas, Miami, Orlando, Jacksonville and Tampa. All of these places are nice however when I visited them (other than when I went downtown where the high rises are) I was left wondering where the city is. I wonderred where are all of the houses for all of the people that the popation numbers boast. When you are in Philadelphia, there is no question about where the houses are and where all of the people live.
So, the question is why did the sun belt city planners make their city boandaries so large especially since the cities were so sparsely populated when the boundaries were set.
Maybe they had an ulterior motive all along....knowing that they would eventually fill in albeit in a sparse fashion in order to get federal funding..... Oh and aren't those sunbelt cities red anyway that pine against the evils off all of that federal money anyway?
As a San Antonio resident yes there is ulterior motives. The city doesn't want to become land locked or surrounded by incorporated surburban cities with no chance to annex current or future surburban sprawl and the loss of city tax dollars not federal. The county is also asking the city to annex unincorporated areas adjacent to the city as they don't have the manpower or funds to keep up with the continued growth. This issue has been written about numerous times in the newspaper over the years. The city is looking at 66 suqare miles another 200,000 people the largest annexation in 20 years. I live in the city my county taxes are 480.00 my city 950.00 It's not about a population race to pass Philadelphia or Phoenix, I would think most people know those cities have much larger metros like in state DFW and Houston.
Right, I should have said annexed and not grow, the only land available for Phoenix to annex is to the north. Keep in mind that Phoenix is a very, very young city. Phoenix has a lot in common with Los Angeles of the 1960s in terms of population and population density. Forty years from now Phoenix will probably be similar to 2015 LA in both population and density and LA will probably have 11,000 people per square mile by then.
Except LA has two things that Phoenix will never have, very accessible coastal location and great weather year round. These are huge limitations will prevent Phoenix from ever approaching LA size or density.
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.
