Jump to content

My population rank estimates


daniel18

Recommended Posts

You're definitely right about that. Alabama boasts the second largest waterway system in the country. There's no shortage of water in the South, but I'm sure that most of the people in the North think we're still podunk, and are going around walking into walls cause there's no water. (Even though there is)

All of the 4 major cities in Tennessee are on major waterways and most of them have very large reservoirs as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Replies 125
  • Created
  • Last Reply

All of the 4 major cities in Tennessee are on major waterways and most of them have very large reservoirs as well.

Most of the major cities in Alabama do. Birmingham has distant access. Montgomery has the Alabama River. Mobile has the Bay. Huntsville has short distance access to the Tennessee. Tuscaloosa has the Warrior. Hoover is same as Bham. Dothan just doesn't. Decatur is right on the river with the largest river port on the Tenn River. Florence has the Tennessee too. Gadsden has the Coosa. There are reservoirs all of the states, even on the smallest creeks and streams.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To all those yapping on about metro areas, this thread has absolutely nothing to do with that; this thread is about city proper only. Stop derailing my damn thread.

I'm sorry, I understand your point about city populations and this holds up for most of the dense older cities such as NYC and Chicago. But there are many places where metro areas have to come in to play. Have you ever been to Jacksonville? It is nothing like a city of 777,000!! Indianapolis the same for that matter although a little larger feel to it than Jax. And look at my little city of Orlando, population around 230,000. You mean a city of 230,000 can have a huge upscale mega-mall with Bloomingdales, Neiman Marcus and Macy's as tenants as well as Tiffany, Hugo Boss, Cartier, Louis Vutton, Dior, Jimmy Choo, Crate & Barrell, etc? Most of these retailers won't even look at a city under 2,000,000 and our metro population is rapidly approaching 2.2 million. If the city of Orlando with it's current limits continues to grow (just the city) it would become the most crowded, dense city in the country. I can't imagine an Orlando with 600,000 residents in it's current land size! (Although that would be awesome!) Orlando doesn't do much annexation, it rarely annexes neighborhoods close to the city center based mainly on property values and income levels. The city skips over close-in neighborhoods and annexes undeveloped land that developers promise to build upscale planned "new urbanist" developements. I could see Orlando passing Tampa, Miami, Atlanta by city numbers since the growth within these cities has been slow, but Miami may have a large upswing due to the fact it has run out of land and it is building skyward. But Jacksonville for it's size is a smaller city than these 4 no matter the 777,000!! So you see, although I understand the point of this thread, it still seems unfair to leave out some of the largest metros in the US, so Jax, Indy, Columbus, Austin, etc can give the impression that they are huge cities. Love this topic though, keep on rockin'!!! (And I don't think the Top 3 are gonna do much movement in the next 20 years) :thumbsup:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I honestly find it hard to believe Portland will pass Seattle...

I'll go you one better, there's no way Philadelphia will drop down to 11. Phoenix & Philadelphia have been battling for the #5 spot for quite sometime. Yes Phoenix is one of the fastest-growing cities in the nation but Philadelphia is growing as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll go you one better, there's no way Philadelphia will drop down to 11. Phoenix & Philadelphia have been battling for the #5 spot for quite sometime. Yes Phoenix is one of the fastest-growing cities in the nation but Philadelphia is growing as well.

I agree with you on that one. I still think those southwest cities can't grow at that rate forever and Louisville won't be that big by then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chicago isnt going out of the top 3, I dont think Phoenix will get higher than top 5 (Phoenix is highly opposed to density.....urban life seems to scare people, and i think the city is reaching its maximum capacity soon). Philadelphia is also not going to leave 10, falling lower than jacksonville?

on a side note,

And look at my little city of Orlando, population around 230,000. You mean a city of 230,000 can have a huge upscale mega-mall with Bloomingdales, Neiman Marcus and Macy's as tenants as well as Tiffany, Hugo Boss, Cartier, Louis Vutton, Dior, Jimmy Choo, Crate & Barrell, etc? Most of these retailers won't even look at a city under 2,000,000 and our metro population is rapidly approaching 2.2 million.

These retailers dont just look at population. In many cases, including Orlando, like Las Vegas and Atlantic City, they have many luxury retailers because of the high traffic of tourists that come through the city. Yes Orlando is a lot bigger in metro size than both the other two, but tourists come into play too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll go you one better, there's no way Philadelphia will drop down to 11. Phoenix & Philadelphia have been battling for the #5 spot for quite sometime. Yes Phoenix is one of the fastest-growing cities in the nation but Philadelphia is growing as well.

Is Philadelphia growing now?

Population (year 2000): 1,517,550. Estimated population in July 2005: 1,463,281

It won't leave the top ten though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would be EXTREMELY cautious of using U.S Census bureau estimates, because they don't take any international migration into account.. and where do most immigrants go when they come to the north? To the cities.

The estimates provided for Minneapolis put the population at 373,000 down from 382,000 in 2000 while the Metro council puts estimates at 387,000 because they take immigration into account.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's no shortage of water in the South, but I'm sure that most of the people in the North think we're still podunk, and are going around walking into walls cause there's no water. (Even though there is)
I wonder why places like Greensboro have a shortage of water, then?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is Philadelphia growing now?

Population (year 2000): 1,517,550. Estimated population in July 2005: 1,463,281

It won't leave the top ten though.

Most likely it is, cities don't have stagnant populations from year to year. In July 2005, Phoenix was at 1,461,575. Philadelphia has a slight lead over Phoenix. I believe Philly & Phoenix will still be battling for #5, but to say Philadelphia will fall out of the top 10 is rather insane.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is Philadelphia growing now?

Population (year 2000): 1,517,550. Estimated population in July 2005: 1,463,281

It won't leave the top ten though.

While it is indeed losing population now, or at least up until last year, I have read that the Census does expect the city to see some population growth around 2010 and beyond. I believe reasons for the turnaround include more recent increases in immigration from foreign countries and migration from more expensive cities in the Northeast.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder why places like Greensboro have a shortage of water, then?

IMO, Greensboro suffered from a lack of forsight when planning their water infrastructure many decades ago. While many cities and towns around them made deals and had reservoirs built decades ago, Greensboro depended on some local lakes. For many years Greensboro has had to buy water for "water-rich" Winston-Salem, Burlington, and High Point. This has even come close to stalling development at times. However, with the Reservoir at Randelman Dam when it is filled, this problem should pretty much be alleviated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

heheh The water talk cracks me up. If water were what drove the growth of cities. Then Michigan cities would be the most healthy in the country, seeing as the state sits on more fresh water than any other place on earth. But you all know that's not the case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Portland could certainly pass Seattle...it's not far behind now...only about 20,000-30,000.

Water does not drive the growth of cities. Lack of water, however, will stop the growth of cities. The South does not have an inexhaustible supply of water. There was a very nasty three-state spat over the Chatthoochee river (Western Georgia border from about La Grange down to FL). specifically about downriver flow and sewage contamination). Unlike here in the west where water wars were/are common, the state statutes in the South don't make room for riparian rights, et. al. Here in Norcal we are counting the days until the Southland water contracts expire. Goodbye LA! <_<

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:( The April 2006 edition of National Geographic has an article about Lake Powell on the Colorado River and how it's been rapidly drying up, it's now called Glen Canyon. Once Lake Powell goes then Lake Mead will be next. The whole water issue is getting scary. People in SoCal, Phoenix and Vegas need to do a lot more Xeroscaping and get rid of lawns. Where I live in Metrowest, I live on top of a very sandy ridge and the water districts policy of watering 2 days a week does nothing for my lawn if there is no rain. My neighbors and I have been doing away with as much of our grass as possible and creating garden areas with a lot of brick patios and trees and plants that require much less water. Grass in my neighborhood is very very greedy! :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15,000 lakes, bordering the world's freshwater lake, and several large rivers along with moderate growth keeps me happy up here!
Michigan

Four of the five Great Lakes are within its border, with a total surface area of 38,192 square miles. That is more than 40% of the Great Lakes surface area. Plus, the entire state of Michigan is within the Great Lakes basin. That is important, as only communities within the basin can tap into the Great Lakes. The only part of Minnesota in the basin is the northeast, portions of Aitkin, Carlton, Cook, Itasca, Lake, Pine, and St. Louis counties. Those counties have a total population of just 335,000, and not all of those people live in the basin (perhaps only half). The western suburbs of Milwaukee are experiencing water problems but can't tap into Lake Michigan, although it is just 15 miles away.

Then, include the 11000+ inland lakes (Michigan is the land of 10,000 lakes, too :P ), with a total surface area of 1,704 square miles, and countless rivers and streams, Michigan certainly isn't hurting for water.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:( The April 2006 edition of National Geographic has an article about Lake Powell on the Colorado River and how it's been rapidly drying up, it's now called Glen Canyon. Once Lake Powell goes then Lake Mead will be next.
Lake Mead is already shrinking. Saddle Island is no longer an island.

23jhm61.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is plenty of water in the southeast. None of the southern river cities should have any problems at all.

i didnt mean the south east, i meant more of the LA/Phoenix/Las Vegas types of cities

Detroit on the other hand, as you can see from the pic below, has plenty of water

skyline39.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People say that cities with good weather will grow the fastest.. what I keep telling myself is this: Americans are fooling themselves:

AMericans are fatter than ever and inside more than ever despite a major growth in the "sunbelt."

Of course I don't think living in the sunbelt has made the country fatter.. but the type of growth since WWII that has dominated has made it easier for us to be much lazier and hence, fatter.

I personally think places with bad weather promotes healthier lifestyles.. because people will take advantage of nice days by going out and enjoying the weather. A would dare to say that city parks are probably much busier on a nice sunny September day in Cleveland than they are in Phoenix, AZ or Las Vegas.

I think people will begin to realize that 20*F in January is better than 115*F in July.... but I guess that's more of my own opinion than anything.

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.