U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S. > City vs. City
 [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 05-20-2016, 12:10 PM
 
8,091 posts, read 5,501,750 times
Reputation: 9072

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by BPt111 View Post
Will Chicago lose world class city status ? NYC is top dog though
Yes, the loss of 3000 people renders Chicago irrelevant on the global stage. It will be replaced by Houston or some as yet to be built Chinese city.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-20-2016, 12:30 PM
 
2,250 posts, read 2,370,498 times
Reputation: 1501
Quote:
Originally Posted by gladhands View Post
Yes, the loss of 3000 people renders Chicago irrelevant on the global stage. It will be replaced by Houston or some as yet to be built Chinese city.
Haha.

Chicago will not lose it's world class status. Yeah, it's losing population and has been for a long time, but that doesn't mean it's losing it world class status, in fact I think it continues to become more world class every year.

I do think though, certain cities will start to overshadow Chicago more and more. For example, SF I think already overshadows Chicago, and I can see other cities that are going through their own urban renaissance and growing, will overshadow Chicago somewhat. However Chicago is a world class city and in our lives it will always be.

It could lose its status one day, but I think that would take like 100 years for that to happen, and the city would have to have a mass exodus and severe urban decay like Detroit experienced.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-20-2016, 12:47 PM
 
Location: The Greatest city on Earth: City of Atlanta Proper
8,080 posts, read 12,956,678 times
Reputation: 6166
Quote:
Originally Posted by NOLA101 View Post
Population growth usually isn't super-heavily correlated with housing construction.

You could have no new construction, yet a booming population increase. All you need is increased household sizes.

In the case of NYC, yes, there are huge levels of construction, especially outside Manhattan, but I'm not sure if that's actually the main driver of growth.
Or a high rate of deaths and population loss, both which NYC has. For quite some time now, NYC loses about the same amount of people it adds each year.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-20-2016, 12:52 PM
 
Location: Baltimore, MD
3,521 posts, read 3,387,942 times
Reputation: 2819
Quote:
Originally Posted by waronxmas View Post
Or a high rate of deaths and population loss, both which NYC has. For quite some time now, NYC loses about the same amount of people it adds each year.
Care to explain? If that were the case, the city wouldn't be posting overall population gains.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-20-2016, 12:55 PM
 
Location: The Springs
1,773 posts, read 2,422,698 times
Reputation: 1863
Quote:
Originally Posted by iknowftbll View Post
Colorado has a fairly impressive number of cities over 100,000, especially for a state of about 5.5 million.

Denver: 682,545
Colorado Springs: 456,568
Aurora: 359,407
Fort Collins: 161,175
Lakewood: 152,597
Thornton: 133,451
Arvada: 115,368
Westminster: 113,130
Centennial: 109,741
Pueblo: 109,412
Boulder: 107,349
Greeley: 100,883

Of course, most of these are in the Denver area, where around 3/5 of the state's population lives.
The South Central Colorado urbanized area (metro COS and PUB) have an estimated 2015 population of around 900,000. My guess in the not too distant future, the Springs and Pueblo will become a CMSA which would account for over 16% of the state's population. Not bad for a couple of towns that are for all purposes are in Denver's shadow and most likely always will be.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-20-2016, 01:10 PM
 
1,687 posts, read 1,123,688 times
Reputation: 342
Quote:
Originally Posted by NOLA101 View Post
Are you sure you don't have your cities reversed?

LA is geographically much larger than NYC, yet doesn't even have half the population of NYC. If the cities had "equivalent" areas based on size, LA would have a smaller population than Houston.

LA, like almost all Sunbelt cities, has enormous city limits. NYC, like almost all older Northeast/Midwest cities, has rather constrained city limits relative to population.
Houston 627 Sq miles
LA 465.

That statement is false.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-20-2016, 01:14 PM
 
Location: Minneapolis, Minnesota
1,602 posts, read 1,479,468 times
Reputation: 3088
Quote:
Originally Posted by Freddy K View Post
Houston 627 Sq miles
LA 465.

That statement is false.
Those are gigantic city limits.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-20-2016, 01:15 PM
 
8,091 posts, read 5,501,750 times
Reputation: 9072
Quote:
Originally Posted by Freddy K View Post
Houston 627 Sq miles
LA 465.

That statement is false.
He saying that of LA were the same size as New York it would have a smaller population than Houston.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-20-2016, 01:16 PM
 
10,276 posts, read 8,435,307 times
Reputation: 10644
Quote:
Originally Posted by Freddy K View Post
Houston 627 Sq miles
LA 465.

That statement is false.
I don't know what you're referring to. Yes, Houston is much larger than LA, yet has a much smaller population, which is exactly the point.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-20-2016, 01:17 PM
 
Location: Louisville
4,460 posts, read 4,269,120 times
Reputation: 7657
Quote:
Originally Posted by gladhands View Post
He saying that of LA were the same size as New York it would have a smaller population than Houston.
Well that's a silly game to play. If Houston were the same size as New York It would have smaller population than Phoenix.
Rate this post positively 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. > City vs. City

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2021, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - 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, 36, 37 - Top