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.
I believe that this is the moment that BOTH Dallas AND Houston metro areas shoot past Chicago and claim more righteous supremacy in the south.
NYC
LA
DFW
Houston
Chicago
Don't be surprised if one of the Texas metros passes LA next time.
I would fall out of my chair if either DFW or Houston Metros become a 10,000,000 metro Like Chicago.Texas Metros wouldn't surpass L.A. in the next 100 years.
Pretty much everywhere's growth momentum has been slowing.
I doubt everywhere slowed for this 2019 estimate.
The close of the decade is usually conservative so as to make the numbers not look wildly overestimated f the census comes out. It's just a precorrection
2009 wasn't conservative enough in that some cities were just too heavily estimated at the start of decade. Dallas and Atlanta are too great examples from 2009. Atlanta has gone the conservative route but Dallas city looks like it is going to get another revision downward. Dallas grew by 10k from 2000 to 2010. But one year later the estimate showed more growth in that one year than Dallas did in the previous 10 years.
Im just not seeing a less than 1% population increase 2000-2010 going to a 12% increase in 2010-2020.
I predict Atlantas population will me more accurate this time while Dallas will be revised downwards again by 50-100k like in 2010
I asked the question because unpopulated seemed like a very specific word to me. Parkland is unpopulated. Airport land is unpopulated. Strip mall land is unpopulated, etc. I was just asking for clarification so that I could understand.
A lot of city land is technically unpopulated, and frankly that's the only way that I could imagine Charlotte having 100 square miles of land that doesn't have people living on it. While that assertion is still out there on this thread, I still don't know where the evidence is to back that up. I actually went to Google maps and I don't see ~1/3 of Charlotte's limits undeveloped. I see undeveloped land beyond Charlotte's limits, especially to its west, but I don't see all that much that's not already developed within them. Contrast this with places with even larger land areas like Jacksonville or Nashville, where it's really easy to spot huge swaths of undeveloped land.
Google Earth doesn't do justice. Come take a drive on the west or Southside and you will understand.
New York City: 8,400,000
Los Angeles: 4,000,000
Chicago: 2,686,000
Philadelphia: 1,593,000
Pittsburgh: ~300,000
Baltimore: 585,000
San Francisco: 893,000
Boston: 705,000
Washington DC: 710,000
Seattle: 754,000
Detroit: 669,000
Cleveland: 368,000
Providence: 185,000
Milwaukee: 593,000
You don't like Texas?
1. Dallas, Houston, San Antonio are well over a million.
2. Austin and Ft. Worth are well over 900,000.
3. All those cities are larger than San Francisco.
4. For several decades they have been growing at a faster rate than all the cities on your list.
The close of the decade is usually conservative so as to make the numbers not look wildly overestimated f the census comes out. It's just a precorrection
2009 wasn't conservative enough in that some cities were just too heavily estimated at the start of decade. Dallas and Atlanta are too great examples from 2009. Atlanta has gone the conservative route but Dallas city looks like it is going to get another revision downward. Dallas grew by 10k from 2000 to 2010. But one year later the estimate showed more growth in that one year than Dallas did in the previous 10 years.
Im just not seeing a less than 1% population increase 2000-2010 going to a 12% increase in 2010-2020.
I predict Atlantas population will me more accurate this time while Dallas will be revised downwards again by 50-100k like in 2010
You don't think Dallas city is growing much with all of that metro growth(one year, it reached 165k annual population growth!)? It also has a large city limits and has a solid amount of multi-family construction...there's no way Dallas city shouldn't be growing a lot.
(not a random selection: suburbs that to me seem "major")
Yikes. A bit surprising to see the suburbs doing considerably worse than even the city, which is hardly in great shape. What exactly is behind the number of people fleeing the area? Are they fleeing the cold? High taxes?
Yikes. A bit surprising to see the suburbs doing considerably worse than even the city, which is hardly in great shape. What exactly is behind the number of people fleeing the area? Are they fleeing the cold? High taxes?
I think it's mainly the taxes, yeah. Anecdotally, that's what I always hear when people say they're moving out of the suburbs. When you look at population growth maps of the US by county over the past few years, you can see the outline of Illinois, where the counties are almost all shrinking, while in neighboring states it's about half shrinking/half growing --- so clearly it's something legal/political.
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.
