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.
Houston doesn't have a million more people than SA within a similar land area. Houston is not really anymore dense its just gets bigger over a larger urbanized area. If anything S.A will have 2.3 million if not more within 500 square miles in that time.
Houston city limits 2.2 million
San Antonio city limits 1.4 million
It's pretty close to having a million over SA. Remember the Houston city limits has San Antonio metro population.
Houston doesn't have a million more people than SA within a similar land area. Houston is not really anymore dense its just gets bigger over a larger urbanized area. If anything S.A will have 2.3 million if not more within 500 square miles in that time.
what on earth are you going on about?
SA will have to double its current sq mileage to get to 2.3M. you need your entire metro to get to 2.3M people
so I dunno what you've been smokin.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwillyfromphilly
So basically what saying is that if San Antonio had the same city limit boundaries as Houston, it would be more populated than Houston?
there is a reason San Antonio's metro is basically San Antonio. There aint nuffing around it.
The city of Houston alone has darn near as many people as all of the SA metro. Sweethome is talking nonsense
Given that Jacksonville has almost 800 square miles of land on which to grow its population, I would expect it to reach beyond 1.01 million in the next 18 years. I'd put it at tenth above San Jose. San Jose is prettyn built out and has to resort to infill high density housing to grow its municipal population. While I prefer that sort of growth to forever sprawl, the fact remains that Jax has hundreds of square miles of available land on which to grow.
No way! Drive down the 101 south before you hit Morgan Hill, there are still miles and miles of open space and that is STILL IN THE SAN JOSE CITY LIMITS. Although there is currently an urban growth boundary restricting that area, I can see it being developed over the next 20 years. In 2030 I see San Jose at about 1.15 million.
I think the DFW metroplex will become even more desired than it is right now in the next decade...people are moving in droves to the area for a reason.It is hard to beat on an overall level...
I think the DFW metroplex will become even more desired than it is right now in the next decade...people are moving in droves to the area for a reason.It is hard to beat on an overall level...
I'll agree with you, I think the DFW area is great. I think it is a great place to live on every aspect dealing with the quality of life there. I think if I were actually going to move there, I'd move there with a family and not as a single guy like I am now.
SA will have to double its current sq mileage to get to 2.3M. you need your entire metro to get to 2.3M people
so I dunno what you've been smokin.
there is a reason San Antonio's metro is basically San Antonio. There aint nuffing around it.
The city of Houston alone has darn near as many people as all of the SA metro. Sweethome is talking nonsense
Houston is over 600 square miles and has 2.2 million. SA has 1.4 million within 300 square miles(408 sq miles including annexed far south side empty land to balance growth), and don't forget the 4-5 the major military installations within city limits. Also the 50-75K in bedroom cities surrounded by San Antonio.
SA may have 2.3 million overall but 2 million of it is within Bexar, Comal, and Guadalupe counties which forms the urbanized area and probably is within 600 to 700 square miles. So its more comprable on that scale. Houston keeps going and gets bigger over the the 10 county metro area.
So what I'm saying is that Houston isn't anymore dense than SA in the core, and doesn't have a million more people within 300-600 square miles. There is just more urbanized area and more of Houston Metro.
I really doubt Charlotte would crack the top 10, though I do see it as one of those cities that perpetually gets stuck at #11 or #12. I could see it topping a mil in population, but not going over that by much. There is a city limit expansion boundary there, and the un-annexed land will be by 2030, but really it would depend on upping density. And to Charlotte's credit, it has pushed density and infill - in fits and starts - but at least it's not completely ignoring the subject.
I do see Raleigh - 2 hours up the road - easily heading towards #20 or so. In 30 years, it's grown from approximately 125K to 410K, in a county that is going on a million now, and the county's growth rates have been at times ludicrous - 10 or 20K moving in per year one or two years in the 90s. The recession has not slowed it a bit, which outpaces even Charlotte slightly.
NC's #3 is Greensboro, which is slower growing and sometimes treated like the red-headed stepchild of the NC big 5. Even so, Greensboro should crack the top 50, and probably a bit above that by then as well. Greensboro's issue: proportionally, it's sprawl problem is as bad as Charlotte or Raleigh, even though it's rate of growth is 50%+ lower. This could really come back to bite them in the rear, even moreso than Charlotte or Raleigh if they don't watch it.
Texas has big cities because they have lots of land area. Most Texas cities are just big sprawling suburbs. Give Northeast cities the same land area and im not even sure if any southern cities, except Miami and in California would rank in the top 10.
It is obvious to anyone that seriously studies population data that dtownboss4 either did not do any research or does not understand population projections. I think he failed to recognize the rapid city growth rate of Charlotte. He also failed to notice the modest city population growth rates of San Jose, Jacksonville, Indianapolis, San Francisco, and Columbus. The truth is that Charlotte will leap frog all of these cities in population by 2030. Between 2000-2010, Charlotte grew from 540,828 to 731,424. This is a 35.24% growth rate during this time. If Charlotte continues to grow at this rate then it will have a city population of over 1.3 million by 2030. By comparison, San Jose will have a population just short of 999,000 and Jacksonville's population will be just over 918,000.
It is obvious to anyone that seriously studies population data that dtownboss4 either did not do any research or does not understand population projections. I think he failed to recognize the rapid city growth rate of Charlotte. He also failed to notice the modest city population growth rates of San Jose, Jacksonville, Indianapolis, San Francisco, and Columbus. The truth is that Charlotte will leap frog all of these cities in population by 2030. Between 2000-2010, Charlotte grew from 540,828 to 731,424. This is a 35.24% growth rate during this time. If Charlotte continues to grow at this rate then it will have a city population of over 1.3 million by 2030. By comparison, San Jose will have a population just short of 999,000 and Jacksonville's population will be just over 918,000.
Charlotte will not grow that fast, as most new Development is on1 acre ish lots meaning until these people do something with their land the Population will rise slower, as there is less completlty undeveloped areas.
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.
