Jump to content

My population rank estimates


daniel18

Recommended Posts

Correct population standing as of July 1, 2004

Top 50 Cities in the U.S. by Population and Rank 7/1/2004

New York, N.Y. 8,104,079

Los Angeles, Calif. 3,845,541

Chicago, Ill. 2,862,244

Houston, Tex. 2,012,626

Philadelphia, Pa. 1,470,151

Phoenix, Ariz. 1,418,041

San Diego, Calif. 1,263,756

San Antonio, Tex. 1,236,249

Dallas, Tex. 1,210,393

San Jose, Calif. 904,522

Detroit, Mich. 900,198

Indianapolis, Ind. 784,242

Jacksonville, Fla. 777,704

San Francisco, Calif. 744,230

Columbus, Ohio 730,008

Austin, Tex. 681,804

Memphis, Tenn. 671,929

Baltimore, Md. 636,251

Fort Worth, Tex. 603,337

Charlotte, N.C. 594,359

El Paso, Tex. 592,099

Milwaukee, Wis. 583,624

Seattle, Wash. 571,480

Boston, Mass. 569,165

Denver, Colo. 556,835

Louisville-Jefferson County, Ky 556,332

Washington, DC 553,523

Nashville-Davidson, Tenn 546,719

Las Vegas, Nev. 534,847

Portland, Ore. 533,492

Oklahoma City, Okla. 528,042

Tucson, Ariz. 512,023

Albuquerque, N.M. 484,246

Long Beach, Calif. 476,564

New Orleans, La. 462,269

Cleveland, Ohio 458,684

Fresno, Calif. 457,719

Sacramento, Calif. 454,330

Kansas City, Mo. 444,387

Virginia Beach, Va. 440,098

Mesa, Ariz. 437,454

Atlanta, Ga. 419,122

Omaha, Nebr. 409,416

Oakland, Calif. 397,976

Tulsa, Okla. 383,764

Miami, Fla. 379,724

Honolulu CDP,3 Hawaii 377,260

Minneapolis, Minn. 373,943

Colorado Springs, Colo. 369,363

Arlington, Tex. 359,467

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Replies 125
  • Created
  • Last Reply

I wouldn't say they are 'useless', but useless in the context of comparison. Unless the arguement was made - how successful a municipality has been at annexing. But because of the arbitrarity of these boundaries, how it depends by each state law & how fluid some city's municipal lines are - you can't compare a city with another using municipal boundaries. Nor can you judge a city boundary by 'urban' / 'suburban'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure how Memphis, which had a population increase from 2000 to 2004 of 650,100 to 671,929, would move down from no. 17 to no. 28.

Maybe the great earthquake which is supposed to devastate the area is factored in. :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I honestly don't know how cities like L.A, Phoenix and Las Vegas are going to continue their unfettered growth when the amount of water is not growing.

All it would take is a few dry years and the cities would be paralyzed. I can see if we can come up with some serious desalinization for L.A, but what about Phoenix and Vegas? The Colorado already doesn't make it to the ocean anymore... what's going to happen in the future?

THey've already eyed the great lakes.. and the great lakes states have already said "Nope!"

The difference I've seen between northern and southern cities growth patterns, is that the north has more sustainable growth patterns with transit oriented development while the south is just one big pro-business blob of sprawl on a desert. Of course some cities aren't like that (Miami, New Orleans).. but they have their own set of problems to deal with.

Don't want to be a doom and gloomer, but these are VERY real problems that these palces have to deal with. The solution of "just take someone elses water" isn't going to work. Cloud seeding probably won't work either. The precip trends for the west don't look too good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And if I may: The precip trend in Minnesota looks quite good. The period of 1980-2005 was the wettest of any 25 year period since 1820. And despite high taxes and heavy regulation, the business climate in Minnesota is quite good... beating national trends for years now. After all, our companies have brought you the likes of cheap chic (Target), life saving surgeries for middle-eastern kings (Mayo clinic), and scotch tape! (3M)

Oh well.. that was just a big bloated advertisement. Sorry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

BTW, I still think Chicago holds the number three spot. JMHO

Almost certainly. It is likely to turn its decline around, and NIPC suggests its population by then will be about 3.5 million. I doubt that neither Houston nor Phoenix will hit 3 million by then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just think it's hilarious that the future top 50 lists will include cities like Omaha, NE and Colorado Springs, CO.. but not Minneapolis, St. Louis, or Atlanta.

It just goes to show how misleading absolutes can be. It's a relative, people!!!!

St. Louis has had the biggest fall. In 1900 it was the 4th largest city in the nation, a world city that even had the third Summer Olympics of the modern era. A century later, it had tumbled all the way to #50.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

City populations are useless. The only realistic way to discuss cities is in terms of their metro area. Yes this has been mentioned on this thread already, but it can't be stated enough.

Metro populations (via county populations) are really no more useful than cities. Both are arbitrary administrative constructs that are products of historical, municipal, and governmental actions. If Clark County, Nevada, or Maricopa County, Arizona were one fifth the size they are (in area), then the metro areas would be one fifth the size in area as well.

The true measure, the one that is uniformly defined across the nation, is urban area.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You bet. It's growing faster than Charlotte supposedly. NC is going be quite the state in the future.

As an offhand guess, I'd think they will end up roughly around the same size - they do have 'spheres of influence' - annexation limits (also true for Greensboro, Winston, Asheville, Hickory and a few other cities) or treaties with neighboring towns, which for both cities actually encompass about the same amount of territory. Charlotte has already annexed the majority of what it will be able to, whereas Raleigh hasn't gotten close.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

St. Louis has had the biggest fall. In 1900 it was the 4th largest city in the nation, a world city that even had the third Summer Olympics of the modern era. A century later, it had tumbled all the way to #50.

The suburb locked "City of St. Louis" went down from about 500K to 300K people, because excellent interstate highways made it easy to get to work downtown from the suburbs -- so everone moved there for bigger houses and a higher quality of life in the 1950's and '60s. Places like Boston and Vancouver could not build many interstates into downtown, so the city populations had to live in or near the city centers, leading to a high population density city center, but different lifestyle -- one that trades space for short commute time. St. Louisans didn't need to make that trade, but to the ousider, the loser was a vibrant downtown.

The City of St. Louis is now only about 1/10th of the St. Louis Metropolitan area in population. Clayton is the capital of St. Louis County, which is about 1 million people and does not include the city of St. Louis. If you wanted to pick a center for St. Louis business, you would say it is Clayton, not the City of St. Louis or downtown.

Clayton, Mo

To get control of the skyline, the City of St. Louis does not allow any building to be taller than the Arch. Several are just inches short of that, but nobody has dared challenge the rule. No need to read the caption to figure out if this skyline is Indy, Minneapolis, Nashville, or any one of a number of skylines that all look about alike to people who don't live there.

St. Louis Skyline

Downtown St. Louis is morphing into something we don't see anywhere else in the country. The old downtown garment district in St. Louis is recently the hottest real estate market in the area -- attracting young proffesionals to loft living. With all the stadiums and arena's downtown, downtown is transforming into the gathering, entertainment, and loft living center of the area. The business community is spread evenly throughout the metro area -- which makes sense since that is where the poeple live.

St. Louis, as the oldest city in the Midwest, is what other cities may become in the future. Concentrating all the business workers downdown in tall glass monoliths is unnecessary and unproductive in the 21st century. And illogical. Dipsersing business to the suburbs is a growth industry here.

Several New Big businesses have been spawned out of St. Louis based solely on the idea of taking the business to where the people live -- right down the street in the Suburbs. Edward Jones started it by putting offices on every suburb corner. Then Enterprise Rent-a-car trumped Hertz and Avis by putting businesses where you live. Scottrade is doing the same. In the internet age, nobody will care if the business is in a downtown tower or even overseas. They just want convenience. Boeing and A. Busch are huge St. Louis businesses that have never been downtown.

Downtowns of major cities will be moving away from business and retail shopping to something else -- and St. Louis, by design or by necessity, will be showing the rest of the country a new model for downtown. Not busness. Not shopping. Sports and Party Gathering Place for the Midwest. Along with the explosion of lofts downtown, four new giant downtown party-condo developments are leading the metamorphisis.

Ballpark Village

New Cardinals Ballpark

The Bottle District

Pinnacle Casino Complex and Tunnel to Dome

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i dont see the sunbelt cities growning very much in the future, i see alot of the people who are moving there now to move back up north or farther out east where there is more water. i think this because, like someone already said, the Colarado doesnt even make it to the ocean anymore and us up here in the great lakes basin signed a law preventing pipeing of water from the great lakes to anywhere out side of the great lakes/st.lawrence river basin. and if people are on a constant short supply of water, or even periods of no water, some of them will get tired of it and move somewhere else

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i dont see the sunbelt cities growning very much in the future, i see alot of the people who are moving there now to move back up north or farther out east where there is more water. i think this because, like someone already said, the Colarado doesnt even make it to the ocean anymore and us up here in the great lakes basin signed a law preventing pipeing of water from the great lakes to anywhere out side of the great lakes/st.lawrence river basin. and if people are on a constant short supply of water, or even periods of no water, some of them will get tired of it and move somewhere else

What about them 12 million illegals (mostly mexican) and more to come as soon as congress caves and gives them a "road to citizenship"???? You don't see the million mexican march happening in New York. Anyways... is there any plan out there to get the southwest more water? What about desalization plants on the pacific and even the Great Salt Lake?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.