PDA

You are viewing a trimmed-down version of the SkyscraperPage.com discussion forum.  For the full version follow the link below.

View Full Version : 2007 Census city numbers-125 largest cities in the US



jimthemanincda
Jun 28, 2007, 7:25 AM
125 largest cities in the US as of 7.1.06 according to the US Census Bureau:

The 125 most populous — based on July 1, 2006, estimates — and the change over six years:

City 2006 estimate 2006 rank 2000 rank Change 2000-06

New York 8,214,426 1 1 2.6%

Los Angeles 3,849,378 2 2 4.2%

Chicago 2,833,321 3 3 -2.2%

Houston 2,144,491 4 4 8.8%

Phoenix 1,512,986 5 6 14.5%

Philadelphia 1,448,394 6 5 -4.6%

San Antonio 1,296,682 7 9 11.8%

San Diego 1,256,951 8 7 2.7%

Dallas 1,232,940 9 8 3.7%

San Jose, Calif. 929,936 10 11 3.9%

Detroit 871,121 11 10 -8.4%

Jacksonville 794,555 12 14 8%

Indianapolis 785,597 13 12 0.5%

San Francisco 744,041 14 13 -4.2%

Columbus, Ohio 733,203 15 15 3%

Austin 709,893 16 17 7.6%

Memphis 670,902 17 16 -1.8%

Fort Worth 653,320 18 28 20.7%

Baltimore 631,366 19 18 -3%

Charlotte 630,478 20 22 11.2%

El Paso 609,415 21 23 8.1%

Boston 590,763 22 20 0.3%

Seattle 582,454 23 24 3.4%

Washington 581,530 24 21 1.7%

Milwaukee 573,358 25 19 -4%

Denver 566,974 26 25 2.4%

Louisville* 554,496 27 26 0.6%

Las Vegas 552,539 28 33 15.1%

Nashville-Davidson 552,120 29 27 1.2%

Oklahoma City 537,734 30 30 6.2%

Portland, Ore. 537,081 31 29 1.5%

Tucson 518,956 32 31 6.5%

Albuquerque 504,949 33 36 12.6%

Atlanta 486,411 34 40 16.8%

Long Beach 472,494 35 35 2.4%

Fresno 466,714 36 38 8.8%

Sacramento 453,781 37 41 11.5%

Mesa, Ariz. 447,541 38 43 12.5%

Kansas City, Mo. 447,306 39 37 1.3%

Cleveland 444,313 40 34 -6.9%

Virginia Beach 435,619 41 39 2.4%

Omaha 419,545 42 45 7.2%

Miami 404,048 43 48 11.5%

Oakland 397,067 44 42 -0.6%

Tulsa 382,872 45 44 -2.6%

Honolulu 377,357 46 47 1.5%

Minneapolis 372,833 47 46 -2.6%

Colorado Springs 372,437 48 49 3.1%

Arlington, Texas 367,197 49 54 10.2%

Wichita 357,698 50 50 1.8%

Raleigh, N.C. 356,321 51 61 25%

St. Louis 347,181 52 51 -0.3%

Santa Ana, Calif. 340,024 53 52 0.6%

Anaheim, Calif. 334,425 54 56 1.7%

Tampa 332,888 55 58 9.7%

Cincinnati 332,252 56 55 0.3%

Pittsburgh 312,819 57 53 -6.5%

Bakersfield, Calif. 308,392 58 71 26.7%

Aurora, Colo. 303,582 59 63 10%

Toledo, Ohio 298,446 60 57 -4.9%

Riverside, Calif. 293,761 61 67 14.9%

Stockton, Calif. 290,141 62 70 19%

Corpus Christi, Tex. 285,267 63 62 2.8%

Newark 281,402 64 64 3.3%

Anchorage 278,700 65 66 7.1%

Buffalo 276,059 66 59 -5.7%

St. Paul 273,535 67 60 -4.6%

Lexington-Fayette, Ky. 270,789 68 65 3.9%

Plano, Tex. 255,009 69 79 14.9%

Fort Wayne, Ind. 248,637 70 68 -0.6%

St. Petersburg, Fla. 248,098 71 69 -0.1%

Glendale, Ariz. 246,531 72 81 12.7%

Jersey City 241,789 73 73 0.7%

Lincoln, Neb. 241,167 74 78 6.5%

Henderson, Nev. 240,614 75 117 37.2%

Chandler, Ariz. 240,595 76 116 35.9%

Greensboro, N.C. 236,865 77 77 4.6%

Scottsdale, Ariz. 231,127 78 86 14.1%

Baton Rouge 229,553 79 75 0.7%

Birmingham, Ala. 229,424 80 72 -5.4%

Norfolk, Va. 229,112 81 74 -2.3%

Madison, Wis. 223,389 82 84 6.8%

New Orleans 223,388 83 32 -53.9%

Chesapeake, Va. 220,560 84 91 10.7%

Orlando 220,186 85 101 14.5%

Garland, Texas 217,963 86 83 1%

Hialeah, Fla. 217,141 87 76 -4.1%

Laredo, Texas 215,484 88 115 21.3%

Chula Vista, Calif. 212,756 89 122 22.6%

Lubbock, Texas 212,169 90 89 6.2%

Reno 210,255 91 111 14.8%

Akron, Ohio 209,704 92 82 -3.4%

Durham, N.C. 209,009 93 106 11.3%

Rochester, N.Y. 208,123 94 80 -5.3%

Modesto, Calif. 205,721 95 105 9%

Montgomery, Ala. 201,998 96 87 0.1%

Fremont, Calif. 201,691 97 85 -0.8%

Shreveport, La. 200,199 98 88 -0.3%

Arlington, Va. 199,776 99 104 5.5%

Glendale, Calif. 199,463 100 98 2.3%

San Bernardino, Calif. 198,985 101 108 7%

Boise 198,638 102 99 1.9%

Spokane, Wash. 198,081 103 95 0.6%

Yonkers, N.Y. 197,852 104 96 0.9%

North Las Vegas, Nev. 197,567 105 195 71.1%

Winston-Salem, N.C. 196,990 106 109 6%

Tacoma, Wash. 196,532 107 100 1.5%

Irving, Texas 196,084 108 102 2.3%

Huntinghton Beach, Calif. 194,436 109 103 2.5%

Irvine, Calif. 193,956 110 146 34.6%

Des Moines 193,886 111 92 -2.5%

Grand Rapids, Mich. 193,083 112 94 -2.4%

Richmond, Va. 192,913 113 93 -2.6%

Mobile, Ala. 192,830 114 90 -3.2%

Gilbert, Ariz. 191,517 115 207 73.9%

Augusta, Ga.** 189,366 116 97 -3%

Columbus, Ga. 188,660 117 107 1.3%

Fort Lauderdale 185,804 118 124 8.9%

Amarillo, Texas 185,525 119 121 6.9%

Oxnard, Calif. 184,463 120 125 8.1%

Little Rock 184,422 121 112 0.7%

Moreno Valley, Calif. 183,571 122 150 28.9%

Knoxville, Tenn. 182,337 123 118 4%

Salt Lake City 178,858 124 113 -1.6%

Newport News, Va. 178,281 125 114 -1.3%


* — Also includes Jefferson County, Ky. ** — Also includes Richmond County, Ga.

Source: Analysis of Census Bureau estimates by Paul Overberg, USA TODAY.

bobdreamz
Jun 28, 2007, 4:32 PM
Florida Cities

City / Population / % +/-

Jacksonville 794,555 14 8%+
Miami 404,048 11.5%+
Tampa 332,888 9.7%+
St. Petersburg, Fla. 248,098 -0.1%
Orlando 220,186 14.5%+
Hialeah, Fla. 217,141 -4.1%
Fort Lauderdale 185,804 8.9%+

interesting list for Florida and it's nice to see Miami finally break through 400,000 for the first time. The city now has a estimated density of 11,544 people per sq. mile.

thanks for posting this list jim!

jimthemanincda
Jun 28, 2007, 4:47 PM
This link has all of the city population numbers: http://www.census.gov/popest/cities/SUB-EST2006-4.html

soonermeteor
Jun 28, 2007, 5:34 PM
New Orleans 223,388 83 32 -53.9% :(

Its too bad New Orleans probably dropped below 10 or more sprawlburbs.

Red UM Rebel
Jun 28, 2007, 5:38 PM
It always shocks me that Atlanta is so far lower than Memphis. Memphis does not nearly have the size downtown that Atlanta does.

tennreb
Jun 28, 2007, 6:22 PM
Memphis doesn't have the downtown skyscrapers like Atlanta does, but it's downtown is much, much better. Far more people live in downtown Memphis. Atlanta has more skyscrapers downtown because its metro area is nearly five times the size of Memphis'.

Red UM Rebel
Jun 28, 2007, 6:27 PM
You would be hard pressed to have me believe that Memphis's downtown is even close to better than Atlanta's, definately with all the revitalization going on in Atlanta. Atlanta's has better shopping, entertainment, the largest aquarium in the world (i believe), a new coke museum and has hosted the olymipics. Metro Atlanta is like 8,000 square miles and contains five million, but really there is just not many places to live in Atlanta proper. I was just saying the difference is shocking

Lakelander
Jun 28, 2007, 7:04 PM
Florida Cities

City / Population / % +/-

Jacksonville 794,555 14 8%+
Miami 404,048 11.5%+
Tampa 332,888 9.7%+
St. Petersburg, Fla. 248,098 -0.1%
Orlando 220,186 14.5%+
Hialeah, Fla. 217,141 -4.1%
Fort Lauderdale 185,804 8.9%+

interesting list for Florida and it's nice to see Miami finally break through 400,000 for the first time. The city now has a estimated density of 11,544 people per sq. mile.

thanks for posting this list jim!

Interesting list indeed. Any reason why Miami is rapidly growing, while neighboring Hialeah's population is dropping?

bobdreamz
Jun 28, 2007, 8:07 PM
^ Lakelander not sure why Hialeah keeps losing population but it's down from a high of 229,000+ in 2000. The traffic there is one of the worst in Dade County. Miami's highrise boom maybe be the reason for it's current growth as more people prefer to be closer to the city & the beaches.

brickell
Jun 28, 2007, 9:26 PM
The Hialeah numbers are interesting and there are 3 things that come to mind.
1) It's an industrial/manufacturing city. It doesn't get the same press as others, but those jobs and factories are being shipped out just like everywhere else.
2) Homestead. One of the fastest growing cities. It's new, suburban and clean. Lots of things that Hialeah isn't.
3) In it's own way, it's gentrifying and losing some of the staggering density it once had. I've seen it in parts where they'll replace a home that's been illegally divided 5 or 6 times with a standard duplex.

These are just quick guesses, and it may be a combination of them all or none it all, but something to explore.

LMich
Jun 29, 2007, 12:39 AM
I think you're number three really hits it on the head. I'd imagine the city is getting wealthier, and generally the higher you get up the income ladder the less children you have. I'd always assumed Hialeah's incredibly high density (for the US) could be ascribed to it being a magnate for immigrants with big households, and that the decline can simply be attributed to the population moving up the economic ladder.

Atlriser
Jun 29, 2007, 5:03 PM
You would be hard pressed to have me believe that Memphis's downtown is even close to better than Atlanta's, definately with all the revitalization going on in Atlanta. Atlanta's has better shopping, entertainment, the largest aquarium in the world (i believe), a new coke museum and has hosted the olymipics. Metro Atlanta is like 8,000 square miles and contains five million, but really there is just not many places to live in Atlanta proper. I was just saying the difference is shocking

Living in downtown ATL for 6 years now 5 blocks from Turner Field, I'd argue there are GREAT places to live intown. Why do you think the city proper has added over 80,000 people in the past 6 years alone with only Ft. Worth outgrowing Atlanta in the top 50 cities percentage wise. Memphis is a beautiful city but Red UM is right....Atlanta offers far more IMO not to stir anyone's pot though.

The population of intown Atlanta is growing amazingly fast and for the first time since the 1970's the number of housing permits within the city of Atlanta exceeded every other county out of the 28 that make up Atlanta over the past 2 years. Hell the city alone added over 16,000 people in the past year accelerating faster than since the trend began in 2000 with no signs of a slowdown right now in this trend toward intown living.

sirkingwilliam
Jun 30, 2007, 3:35 AM
At current rates SA will move ahead of Philly by 2010.

dante2308
Jul 5, 2007, 5:10 AM
Atlanta is growing faster than Las Vegas and Phoenix? Interesting indeed. By the way, who said that Memphis has a better downtown than Atlanta needs a talking to. How do the two even compare? Farlie Poplar is almost better than downtown Memphis...

Trae
Jul 5, 2007, 6:14 AM
Atlanta is growing faster than Las Vegas and Phoenix? Interesting indeed. By the way, who said that Memphis has a better downtown than Atlanta needs a talking to. How do the two even compare? Farlie Poplar is almost better than downtown Memphis...

Damn...

dante2308
Jul 5, 2007, 9:19 AM
Sigh, maybe that was a slight exaggeration, but the hard facts have the Atlanta Downtown population at over 30,000 and Memphis at under 28.000. Why even compare the two though?

LMich
Jul 5, 2007, 9:37 AM
The Central Atlanta Progress organization gave downtown Atlanta a population of 23,300 as of 2006, with 36,600 by 2008, which seems like a bit much unless this includes adding additional areas to the 'downtown'.

Central Atlanta Progress Residential Report (http://www.centralatlantaprogress.org/Plans%20and%20Documents/CAP_Housing_map_2006.pdf)

I have no idea what the boundaries are, though, but they must be pretty expansive. Are there any official boundaries for 'downtown' Atlanta, BTW? I've always wondered.

Downtown Memphis currently has 28,000 in its downtown, which only includes 6.5 square miles.

Downtown Memphis (http://www.downtownmemphis.com/downtownmemphis/documents/demographics.pdf)

dante2308
Jul 5, 2007, 10:43 AM
Well, I saw that as well, but that report was from early 2006 and if you look more throughly at the internet, you will see reports with higher stated numbers for downtown with some as higher than 28,000 for the 2000 count.

The 23,000/36,600 numbers were for the only 4 square mile definition of downtown though I am not sure which four square miles that refers to. In either case, it was a smaller area than the area defined in the Memphis report.

Atlanta's Downtown Homepage (http://www.atlantadowntown.com/DoingBusiness_Downtown_Retail.asp)

One reason for the jump, though, may be the new Georgia State housing. In any case, Memphis only has one central distract that I know of and Atlanta's definition of 'downtown' is constrained by Midtown to the north. Regardless, it seems that there is no one who can say that Memphis has many more people living downtown than Atlanta and there is no one who can say that he daytime population of downtown Memphis is anywhere near that of downtown Atlanta.

LMich
Jul 6, 2007, 12:22 AM
Yep, before I logged back on here today I did some research and found that the area they are talking about is actually only about 4 square miles. The area they refer to is bound by North Avenue on the north, Boulevard to the east, the I-20 to the south, and Northside Drive to the west, and includes the core and a few core-city neighborhoods.

BTW, the boundaries for the Atlanta Downtown Improvement District (ADID), just the core, are 1.2 square miles, but they don't have any population data for that.

lmcm1990
Jul 6, 2007, 2:04 AM
Miami's sure to grow.

Snoshredder21
Jul 9, 2007, 4:35 AM
so weird seeing phoenix over phily....and im sick of waiting for newark to pass corpus cristi already, newarks been one behind that city since 10 years ago.... need about 5000 more to come in

also interesting to see buffalo losing so much population, cant believe there in the 200,000s now

and wow 71% increase for henderson

Rail Claimore
Jul 9, 2007, 6:57 AM
What's amazing about the city of Atlanta is that it has regained almost all of its population loses since it's peak in 1970 without annexing any additional land since the 1950's.

LMich
Jul 9, 2007, 10:18 AM
That's really kind of sad that we only expect even physically large cities like Atlanta to grow by aquiring more land. I'd always found it odd that a city like Atlanta, with a state and metro with booming population, was losing population and wasn't able to capture those many hundreds of thousands that found their home in the state and metro area over the past few decades. To me, there should have been no reason for a city of its physical size, and with so much room to fill in, amongst a booming state and metro, that the population fell for so long. It's good to see the city is finally beginning to capitalize, in the form of new residents, off of this massive growth.

But, then again, I guess it's not all that surprising the city continued to lose despite the rapid metro growth, as the metro really took off after the war when almost all urban growth was sprawl.

Rail Claimore
Jul 10, 2007, 12:05 AM
That's really kind of sad that we only expect even physically large cities like Atlanta to grow by aquiring more land. I'd always found it odd that a city like Atlanta, with a state and metro with booming population, was losing population and wasn't able to capture those many hundreds of thousands that found their home in the state and metro area over the past few decades. To me, there should have been no reason for a city of its physical size, and with so much room to fill in, amongst a booming state and metro, that the population fell for so long. It's good to see the city is finally beginning to capitalize, in the form of new residents, off of this massive growth.

But, then again, I guess it's not all that surprising the city continued to lose despite the rapid metro growth, as the metro really took off after the war when almost all urban growth was sprawl.

Your definition of a physically large city must be different from mine. Atlanta is 132 sq miles, tiny compared to its sunbelt peers (ex: Houston is 600 sq miles), and roughly the same size as Detroit or Philly. Almost everything inside I-285 and all of the city of Atlanta was physically built out before 1960. That's what makes the repopulation amazing. They're either moving back into old neighborhoods, or redeveloping into totally new urban ones out of thin air. The whole city is arguably the biggest collective new-urbanist project in the country this decade.

Interesting tidbit is that the city trippled in land area in the 1950's under Mayor Hartsfield: the goal was to keep the city majority-white.

LMich
Jul 10, 2007, 12:24 AM
I knew someone would call me on that, but my responses is that just because you have Texas-sized cities in this country doesn't make up for the fact that 100+ square mile major cities are physically larger cities, and that the average size for central cities aren't anywhere near this size. Houston-sized major cities are an exception and anamolies, not the rule. Yes, for any historically significant cities to be over 100 square miles in size is rare, and that includes Detroit and Philly.

And, what I meant by room to fill in was just what I meant, room to make more dense.

Gordo
Jul 10, 2007, 12:29 AM
Your definition of a physically large city must be different from mine. Atlanta is 132 sq miles, tiny compared to its sunbelt peers (ex: Houston is 600 sq miles), and roughly the same size as Detroit or Philly. Almost everything inside I-285 and all of the city of Atlanta was physically built out before 1960. That's what makes the repopulation amazing. They're either moving back into old neighborhoods, or redeveloping into totally new urban ones out of thin air. The whole city is arguably the biggest collective new-urbanist project in the country this decade.

Arguably, I guess. I would throw LA in there as another candidate - a city which has never emptied, yet continues to add population as neighborhoods densify and rebuild themselves.

dante2308
Jul 10, 2007, 2:13 AM
That's really kind of sad that we only expect even physically large cities like Atlanta to grow by aquiring more land. I'd always found it odd that a city like Atlanta, with a state and metro with booming population, was losing population and wasn't able to capture those many hundreds of thousands that found their home in the state and metro area over the past few decades. To me, there should have been no reason for a city of its physical size, and with so much room to fill in, amongst a booming state and metro, that the population fell for so long. It's good to see the city is finally beginning to capitalize, in the form of new residents, off of this massive growth.

But, then again, I guess it's not all that surprising the city continued to lose despite the rapid metro growth, as the metro really took off after the war when almost all urban growth was sprawl.

Atlanta is not unique in this regard of course. What is unique is it's comeback. No other city in the top 50 grew faster percentagewise. While it is a shame that it got smaller for 20 years, that was in the past. Where else puts on 100+ per square mile every year? What does size matter when the city was already built out? How many places can put on 70,000 people in just density increases in 6 years? Lets focus on the here and now.

LMich
Jul 10, 2007, 2:30 AM
I guess you missed the last sentence of my first paragraph that you quoted. I'm very happy to see Atlanta city capitalizing on a boom that's been going on for many years now, and I hope they they begin to capture even more of this boom in the coming years building a better, more cohesive central city. I'm just a little disappointed that the city missed out on a lot by not being able to capitalize on more of the growth, earlier, before the sprawl got beyond the point of no return. This is similar to my view of my own state's largest city that is starting to capitalize just off of its core finally, but it doesn't erase the terrible past decades the city has gone through. You have to both remember and learn from the bad, and focus and capitalize on the good.

Gordo
Jul 10, 2007, 2:40 AM
Atlanta is not unique in this regard of course. What is unique is it's comeback. No other city in the top 50 grew faster percentagewise. While it is a shame that it got smaller for 20 years, that was in the past. Where else puts on 100+ per square mile every year? What does size matter when the city was already built out? How many places can put on 70,000 people in just density increases in 6 years? Lets focus on the here and now.

San Jose is one:

http://www.sanjoseca.gov/planning/data/population/

Los Angeles is another:

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/06/0644000.html

Both of these cities may not have the percentage growth of Atlanta over the past six years, but grew by more people (LA by several times the number) and both started the decade at population densities FAR exceeding that of Atlanta - and both are built out and have not gained any land.

Exodus
Jul 10, 2007, 2:53 AM
I hope Detroit does sue the census bureau, and wins.

dante2308
Jul 11, 2007, 3:45 AM
San Jose is one:

http://www.sanjoseca.gov/planning/data/population/

Los Angeles is another:

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/06/0644000.html

Both of these cities may not have the percentage growth of Atlanta over the past six years, but grew by more people (LA by several times the number) and both started the decade at population densities FAR exceeding that of Atlanta - and both are built out and have not gained any land.

Great, good job. So two cities, both in California. I'm not sure how this relates to LMich's comments about how sad Atlanta is or my defense of that, but go SoCal.

Trae
Jul 11, 2007, 8:39 PM
San Jose is in Northern California ;).

Gordo
Jul 11, 2007, 9:29 PM
Great, good job. So two cities, both in California. I'm not sure how this relates to LMich's comments about how sad Atlanta is or my defense of that, but go SoCal.

Sorry if I upset you - you asked questions, I posted an answer. And as another poster mentioned, San Jose is in Northern California.

djvandrake
Jul 12, 2007, 1:58 AM
The mayor of St. Louis would very much dispute these numbers. According to his office the population of St. Louis is 354,000+ and is a net influx of residents for the 2000-2006 time period.

dante2308
Jul 12, 2007, 6:07 PM
Sorry if I upset you - you asked questions, I posted an answer. And as another poster mentioned, San Jose is in Northern California.

Hey, sorry if i came across strongly. Anyway, while San Jose is is northern California and I made a mistake there, but when we look back at the numbers, San Jose actually grew slower than Atlanta both in terms of raw numbers and percentage wise and didn't grow by 70,000 or put on 100+ per year per square mile.

Los Angeles put on more people, but we must understand that it is several times larger than Atlanta standing at nearly 500 square miles while Atlanta stands at 132 square miles. In terms of the Los Angeles metropolitan area versus the Atlanta metropolitan area, Atlanta grew faster in terms of absolute numbers and of course by percentage. I know this doesn't all represent density as neither areas are completely built out. It is hard to come up with a comparable area in Atlanta to compliment the mammoth city of Los Angeles, but it only grew a little more than twice as much as Atlanta while being almost four times the size.

Anyway, my initial claim was in error because i missed the growth of Fort Worth. So, yep, I'm wrong. In any case, Atlanta's growth isn't "sad."

Trae
Jul 13, 2007, 12:00 AM
Hey, sorry if i came across strongly. Anyway, while San Jose is is northern California and I made a mistake there, but when we look back at the numbers, San Jose actually grew slower than Atlanta both in terms of raw numbers and percentage wise and didn't grow by 70,000 or put on 100+ per year per square mile.

Los Angeles put on more people, but we must understand that it is several times larger than Atlanta standing at nearly 500 square miles while Atlanta stands at 132 square miles. In terms of the Los Angeles metropolitan area versus the Atlanta metropolitan area, Atlanta grew faster in terms of absolute numbers and of course by percentage. I know this doesn't all represent density as neither areas are completely built out. It is hard to come up with a comparable area in Atlanta to compliment the mammoth city of Los Angeles, but it only grew a little more than twice as much as Atlanta while being almost four times the size.

Anyway, my initial claim was in error because i missed the growth of Fort Worth. So, yep, I'm wrong. In any case, Atlanta's growth isn't "sad."
You also have to understand that LA has a lot of uninhabitable land in its city limits, especially around the mountains. It is like being in the wilderness.

Gordo
Jul 13, 2007, 12:29 AM
Hey, sorry if i came across strongly. Anyway, while San Jose is is northern California and I made a mistake there, but when we look back at the numbers, San Jose actually grew slower than Atlanta both in terms of raw numbers and percentage wise and didn't grow by 70,000 or put on 100+ per year per square mile.

Los Angeles put on more people, but we must understand that it is several times larger than Atlanta standing at nearly 500 square miles while Atlanta stands at 132 square miles. In terms of the Los Angeles metropolitan area versus the Atlanta metropolitan area, Atlanta grew faster in terms of absolute numbers and of course by percentage. I know this doesn't all represent density as neither areas are completely built out. It is hard to come up with a comparable area in Atlanta to compliment the mammoth city of Los Angeles, but it only grew a little more than twice as much as Atlanta while being almost four times the size.

Anyway, my initial claim was in error because i missed the growth of Fort Worth. So, yep, I'm wrong. In any case, Atlanta's growth isn't "sad."

Fair enough. Just to mention though - I was using the data from the State for San Jose's numbers - state data has generally been more reliable in California for estimates between census years - and that data shows more than a 70,000 person gain. San Jose is also a tough one - it showed some pretty decent population declines in 2002/2003 after the dotcom bust, but has grown significantly in the past few years to recover those losses and start growing significantly again.

dante2308
Jul 13, 2007, 6:20 AM
Fair enough. Just to mention though - I was using the data from the State for San Jose's numbers - state data has generally been more reliable in California for estimates between census years - and that data shows more than a 70,000 person gain. San Jose is also a tough one - it showed some pretty decent population declines in 2002/2003 after the dotcom bust, but has grown significantly in the past few years to recover those losses and start growing significantly again.

Oh, now that I clicked your link, I see that the 75,000 number is a seven year figure not a six year. That would make sense then. Note that the numbers for every city in the list would be higher on a seven year basis (well the ones growing anyway).

Trae, I do not want to compare Atlanta and LA. I respect LA, but I want to make sure that people don't leave this thinking that Atlanta's growth is stunted when it obviously is something remarkable. Atlanta's growth isn't shame and it isn't all in the suburbs. In fact there is really a limit to how much growth I would like Atlanta to have. Densification will raise house prices way too high so I'll eventually have to move away. Personally, I would love some leeway keeping the prices reasonable.

subterranean
Jul 30, 2007, 10:24 AM
Oh my god. Poor NOLA.

LosAngelesSportsFan
Aug 26, 2007, 3:36 AM
the California State numbers are so different and more accurate i believe. LA passed 4 million last year and is close to 4.1 million already. im sure the other Cali cities are larger as well.

on a side note, 11 of the top 125 are in the LA metro.

mhays
Aug 26, 2007, 7:17 AM
I'm very impressed at how quickly Atlanta is densifying. And I like a lot of the architecture.

But 486,000 in 132 square miles is still pretty low-density. That suggests there's a lot of room to grow inside the city.

It took Seattle from 1986 to 2007 to grow from 486,000 to 582,000, which is 21 years for only a little more growth than Atlanta has gotten in 7 years. On the flip side, we did it despite a reduction in average household size during that period, and we only have 83 or 84 square miles. But we were also considered to be at full buildout.

BigBird9
Aug 26, 2007, 6:29 PM
At current rates SA will move ahead of Philly by 2010.

Awesome! It will be a looooonng time before they ever get into the top five though.

fla_tiger
Oct 23, 2007, 12:09 AM
New Orleans 223,388 83 32 -53.9% :(

Its too bad New Orleans probably dropped below 10 or more sprawlburbs.

Latest numbers would look like this: New Orleans 333,900 55 83 49.4%
....looks like a trend back in the other direction.

LMich
Oct 23, 2007, 8:04 PM
It's funny this was brought back up because Social Compact, a D.C. consulting agency, recently found that Detroit actually has a whopping 62,000 more people than the Census Bureau is estimating, putting it at 933,043 for the 2006 estimate. The city is still losing, but it appears nowhere near what it's predicted to be falling by. At 933,000 that would be a loss of less than 20,000 since 2000. The mayor is challenging the Census, and he's right to have done so, it seems.

Avian001
Oct 24, 2007, 11:45 PM
I'm very impressed at how quickly Atlanta is densifying. And I like a lot of the architecture.

But 486,000 in 132 square miles is still pretty low-density. That suggests there's a lot of room to grow inside the city.

It took Seattle from 1986 to 2007 to grow from 486,000 to 582,000, which is 21 years for only a little more growth than Atlanta has gotten in 7 years. On the flip side, we did it despite a reduction in average household size during that period, and we only have 83 or 84 square miles. But we were also considered to be at full buildout.

Yeah, Seattle's density is almost twice that of Atlanta's, while Atlanta's is more like Tucson's. But nonetheless ATL's recent growth as a metro is quite amazing.

tech12
Oct 25, 2007, 7:15 AM
The State of California put SF's population at 809,000, which is much higher than the census's 744,000. Also, Oakland is put at 415,000, compared to the census's estimate of 397,000.

Anyways, here are the Bay Area cities:

San Jose, Calif. 929,936 10 11 3.9%
San Francisco 744,041 14 13 -4.2%
Oakland 397,067 44 42 -0.6%
Fremont, Calif. 201,691 97 85 -0.8%

Just outside of the Bay Area:

Sacramento 453,781 37 41 11.5%
Stockton, Calif. 290,141 62 70 19%
Modesto, Calif. 205,721 95 105 9%

A lot of the growth in those last cities are actually from people leaving the Bay Area. Stockton is sort of an unofficial part of the Bay Area anyways though, and The Sacramento Metro is pretty close too. There is a lot of interaction between the two areas.

PhxSprawler
Oct 25, 2007, 6:43 PM
the California State numbers are so different and more accurate i believe. LA passed 4 million last year and is close to 4.1 million already. im sure the other Cali cities are larger as well.

on a side note, 11 of the top 125 are in the LA metro.

6 are in the Phoenix metro - all have higher estimates than what is listed here. I suppose everyone is looking for more population.

Phoenix 1,512,986 5 6 14.5%
Mesa, Ariz. 447,541 38 43 12.5%
Glendale, Ariz. 246,531 72 81 12.7%
Chandler, Ariz. 240,595 76 116 35.9%
Scottsdale, Ariz. 231,127 78 86 14.1%
Gilbert, Ariz. 191,517 115 207 73.9%

andrewkfromaz
Oct 25, 2007, 7:53 PM
I was a little surprised by Scottsdale's growth rate, it seems high. And Gilbert in the top 125?? Mid-size cities are a lot more common in the US than one might think...
I think it's silly to claim that the Census data is inaccurate. While it certainly may be true, bewailing its inaccuracy is a waste of time. Why not find other, positive economic or demographic trends on which to focus? The US Census is, and will continue to be, the most used tool for defining an area's population, and particularly for comparing nationally. No amount of claiming other data to be more accurate will change that fact.

MolsonExport
Nov 5, 2007, 4:59 PM
And the usual suspects (Buffalo, Cleveland, Detroit, Pittsburg, etc.) continue to shed people, as they have for about 5 decades...I hope that the next 5 decades see a major reversal.

LMich
Nov 5, 2007, 11:31 PM
And the usual suspects (Buffalo, Cleveland, Detroit, Pittsburg, etc.) continue to shed people, as they have for about 5 decades...I hope that the next 5 decades see a major reversal.

They are, but if you haven't been paying attention, a few of them are not losing anywhere near the amount that the Census says they are (i.e. Cincy, Detroit, DC....)

JJG
Apr 8, 2008, 9:09 PM
Congrats to Texas.
6 major cities in the top 25 and 3 of the fastest growing cities in America (San Antone, Austin, and Ft. Worth).
Keep 'em commin'.... but not too many.

subterranean
Apr 9, 2008, 2:53 AM
Florida Cities

City / Population / % +/-

Jacksonville 794,555 14 8%+
Miami 404,048 11.5%+
Tampa 332,888 9.7%+
St. Petersburg, Fla. 248,098 -0.1%
Orlando 220,186 14.5%+
Hialeah, Fla. 217,141 -4.1%
Fort Lauderdale 185,804 8.9%+

interesting list for Florida and it's nice to see Miami finally break through 400,000 for the first time. The city now has a estimated density of 11,544 people per sq. mile.

thanks for posting this list jim!

Ah, but this is misleading. Jacksonville city is also the county boundary. I used to live in Jacksonville, and it still has a medium-size city feel.

Grand Rapids, MI has under 200,000, but has almost the same number of people in the Metro as Jacksonville. They both feel about the same size.

Miami, on the other hand, feels very large, considering it stretches way up the coast and mingles with a ton of suburbs.

weatherguru18
Apr 10, 2008, 5:27 AM
Congrats to Texas.
6 major cities in the top 25 and 3 of the fastest growing cities in America (San Antone, Austin, and Ft. Worth).
Keep 'em commin'.... but not too many.

I'm not sure where you pulled those cities from, but Houston and Dallas where in the top 5 for growth. If your talking about percentage wise, then you may be right. Forgive me if I'm wrong on that.

JJG
Apr 10, 2008, 11:48 PM
I'm not sure where you pulled those cities from, but Houston and Dallas where in the top 5 for growth. If your talking about percentage wise, then you may be right. Forgive me if I'm wrong on that.

You may be thinking of the metro areas (like everyone else on this forum, it seems....).

Here's an article, talking about the growth of the cities from the past year.
http://azrealestate.wordpress.com/2007/07/04/top-10-fastest-growing-large-cities-july-2007/

Evo5Boise
Apr 17, 2008, 5:40 PM
Its crazy to me how far down Salt Lake City is. Only 178,000. You never think of it as a city that size because the metro area is very large.

subterranean
Apr 17, 2008, 10:08 PM
Its crazy to me how far down Salt Lake City is. Only 178,000. You never think of it as a city that size because the metro area is very large.

Boise is large? I wouldn't consider just over half a million to be very large...

LMich
Apr 18, 2008, 4:39 AM
Who said anything about Boise?