[Trae]

This list seems about right. San Fran's MSA doesn't appear to grow much, and I actually think it loses population (not sure on that though). It looks like the Los Angeles CSA may be the largest in the U.S. by 2020 if you include the Inland Empire.

40 largest U.S. Metros 2020 projection.

http://proximityone.com/msa06rnk.htm (http://proximityone.com/msa06rnk.htm)

1.New York-Northen NJ 19,752,408
2.Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa-Ana 14,100,584
3.Chicago 10,340,685
4.Dallas-Ft.Worth-Arlington 7,775,098
5.Houston-Sugarland-Baytown 7,380,824
6.Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Marrieta 7,077,814
7.Miami-Ft Lauderdale-Miami Beach 6,459,442
8.Washington-DC-Arlington-Alexandria VA 6,319,959
9.Philadephia-Wilmington 6,149,832
10.Riverside-San Bernadino-Ontario 5,839,053
11.Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale 5,836,205
12.Boston-Cambridge-Quincy 4,493,489
13.Detroit-Warren-Livona 4,467,449
14.San Francisco-Oakland-Freemont 4,156,137
15.Seattle-Tacoma-Everett 3,708,247
16.Minneapolis-St.Paul-Bloomington 3,592,940
17.Tampa-St.Petersburg-Clearwater 3,408,555
18.San Diego-Carlsbad-San Marcos 3,167,189
19.St.Louis 3,009,016
20.Baltimore-Towson 2,888,579
21.Denver-Aurora 2,852,938
22.Orlando-Kissimme 2,764,594
23.Las Vegas-Paradise 2,671,689
24.Sacramento-Arden-Arcade-Roseville 2,639,496
25.Portland-Vancouver- 2,577,531
26.San Antonio 2,476,977
27.Cincinatti-Middletown 2,306,863
28.Kansas City,MO 2,252,265
29.Pittsburgh 2,232,736
30.Charlotte-Gastonia-Concord,NC-SC 2,146,464
31.Austin-San Marcos-Round Rock 2,036,016
32.Cleveland-Elyria-Mentor 2,031,493
33.Indianapolis-Carmel 1,974,874
34.Columbus,Oh 1,965,438
35.San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara 1,879,409
36.Virgina Beach Norfolk-Newport 1,832, 073
37. Nashville-Davidson 1,776,279
38.Providence-Fall River 1,666,288
39.Jacksonville 1,637,288
40.Milwaukee 1,524,223

[unusualfire]

For some reason San Diego seems so low.

[Samwill89]

This is assuming that MSAs near other large MSAs (ex. DC & Baltimore) will not combine to make new MSAs, replacing their CSA boundaries.

[PhxSprawler]

:previous: I have trouble understanding why Riverside/San Bernardino are not included in the L.A. Metro area. They seem contiguous to me.

[Trae]

Commuter patterns most likely.

[NcSc74]

:previous: I have trouble understanding why Riverside/San Bernardino are not included in the L.A. Metro area. They seem contiguous to me.

It is probably included in the Urban Area instead. The same thing happens to Raleigh/Durham. Raleigh has its own metro area and Durham does also. However both cities have grown together. Tragic I know...

[BarbulaM1]

350k people living in Greeley, CO... :o

[Derek]

For some reason San Diego seems so low.

Honestly it kind of does seem a bit low, but not too low.

[texastarkus]

:previous: I have trouble understanding why Riverside/San Bernardino are not included in the L.A. Metro area. They seem contiguous to me.


:haha: It's a conspiracy I tell you. :haha: If you add Los Angeles and Riverside metro areas they'll become the largest in the US. Gotta keep NYC the biggest and only real international city in the US. :koko:

[Trae]

I think they will be one MSA by 2010.

[dante2308]

New York, LA, and Chicago then the Sunbelt for five cities? I'm not sure how Atlanta can be expected to grow another 2.5 million in twelve years and I know that Miami is barely growing at all beyond births. I'm pretty sure that several SF cities have reached build out already and housing is so wholly unattractive to investors and residents alike in the area.

Atlanta is urbanizing rapidly and didn't have a housing crash (yet), but thats little reason so see a further increase in the growth rate. We need to finish the new water source and the transit plan before we can even hold 7 million people. We are only even planning for 6.5 million ... by 2030.

BTW, if you are one of the 560+ people a day who decide to move here, please consider moving in-town. There you can avoid traffic and enjoy the amenities of city living while still enjoying our very affordable housing (ex, brand new upscale 1,500 sqft condos right in midtown for 180K). Please do not move to suburbia unless you really want or have to. Suburbia is a nice place to live, but it only adds to the problem at this point.

[bobdreamz]

^ actually Miami's numbers are within reason. It equates to an increase of 79,000+ people per year which has been about the average for a while now.
Adding 959,000 to the MSA in 12 years is not extreme and besides births you forgot that immigration is still a huge factor in population growth here.

[dante2308]

^ actually Miami's numbers are within reason. It equates to an increase of 79,000+ people per year which has been about the average for a while now.
Adding 959,000 to the MSA in 12 years is not extreme and besides births you forgot that immigration is still a huge factor in population growth here.

That seems true enough except that it needs to be mentioned that Miami is experiencing a net outward domestic migration.

[Trae]

It sure is:

http://recenter.tamu.edu/data/popm00/pcbsa33100.html

[pablosan]

The Denver-Aurora-Boulder MSA estimate is low. Local metro government statistics estimate that the MSA population is 2.8 million already.

[Trae]

Boulder is its own MSA I believe.

[Cbautz]

I am curious to see how and if the water crisis in Atlanta has an effect. It seems to me that there is a growing problem there with resources unless some thing is done to mitigate the issues.

[JDRCRASH]

L.A.'s growing up.

I'm also impressed with Atlanta's growth.

[JDRCRASH]

:haha: It's a conspiracy I tell you. :haha: If you add Los Angeles and Riverside metro areas they'll become the largest in the US. Gotta keep NYC the biggest and only real international city in the US. :koko:

I don't get it. If New York City is called a "real international city", then why is Los Angeles absolutely crushing New York City in terms of immigrants and Seaport Activity?

And why is it that Dubai has taken so much interest in making LAX a major part of it's Emirates' route?

[alleystreetindustry]

I am curious to see how and if the water crisis in Atlanta has an effect. It seems to me that there is a growing problem there with resources unless some thing is done to mitigate the issues.

im pretty sure the drought would end at some point (maybe soon) and everybody would forget all about it and then it will come back up and people will bitch as to why we haven't done anything to prevent it. thats the american way, as sad as it is. (look somewhere in our history, im sure a similar incident has happened)

we tried to get a campaign started at my school, which kind of didn't work out. but the good thing is that there are citizens (both city and metro) that have cut their water usage and are advocates for conserving water (along with other environmentally friendly ideas). my family has cut our usage by almost 45%.

[Gordo]

I think they will be one MSA by 2010.

What makes you say that? (Just curious)

SF and SJ have been separate for decades even though contiguous development exists between them and commuting patterns show them connected (both connected to each other, not one sending commuters to the other overwhelmingly).

Baltimore and DC also seem like they could/should have been combined decades ago, yet haven't been.

[Crawford]

I don't get it. If New York City is called a "real international city", then why is Los Angeles absolutely crushing New York City in terms of immigrants and Seaport Activity?

And why is it that Dubai has taken so much interest in making LAX a major part of it's Emirates' route?

Please source these claims, none of which are true.

[Crawford]

That seems true enough except that it needs to be mentioned that Miami is experiencing a net outward domestic migration.

All expensive U.S. Metro have net outward domestic migration. NYC, LA, SF, MIA, DC, BOS, etc. all have net outward domestic migration. There are no exceptions.

Interestingly, some cities have basically always had net domestic outward migration. NYC has always had this, even before WWII

[SLO]

^^ Who cares, LA is of course a "real international city", as is Chicago, NY, Miami, San Francisco etc...

^Why is net outward domestic migration a big deal anyway. All of those metro areas are still growing tremendously, whether its domestic or otherwise.

MSA's are NOT an apples to apples comparison of urban areas, for some of the reasons already stated.

[buildup]

Philly has lost a near suburban county to NYC due to this type of statistical garbage. In the latest real estate boom New Yorkers have been buying up homes in Philly and commuting to NYC for work. So it won't be long before we are gobbled up to make NYC look bigger!

[Trae]

What makes you say that? (Just curious)

SF and SJ have been separate for decades even though contiguous development exists between them and commuting patterns show them connected (both connected to each other, not one sending commuters to the other overwhelmingly).

Baltimore and DC also seem like they could/should have been combined decades ago, yet haven't been.

I am sure commuting patterns will allow it to become an MSA by 2010 (Los Angeles and Riverside).

[Boquillas]

Where would the Rio Grande Valley fit in? Surely the combined metros of McAllen, Harlingen, Brownsville, Mission, Edinburgh, Pharr, etc already are almost on par with Milwaukee or Jacksonville.

[navyweaxguy]

What does it matter with all the hype about global warming, half of those cities will be underwater or getting close to it... hahaha

[Boysee Boi]

:whatthefuck: I just don't get it.... Ask any Salt Lake City poster, and their MSA is already at least 2.2 million. How could they possibly be ranked 47th at not quite 1.3 mil by 2020? I mean they should be ranked 23rd now, right behind Pittsburgh and ahead of Portland. :shrug:

[manuelpr]

If it continues to grow Dallas/Fort Worth will eventually surpass Chicago and become the third biggest area. Altough Dallas is never in top growing cities, surrounding cities like Fort Worth & Plano are among the fastest growing in the nation. 6 of 12 biggest cities in Texas are already here.:cool:

[Echo Park]

I don't get it. If New York City is called a "real international city", then why is Los Angeles absolutely crushing New York City in terms of immigrants and Seaport Activity?


Your reading comprehension skills are as bad as your grip on reality. Stick to LA threads and dont humiliate yourself here.

Kinda funny how they separate SF and SJ even though development in continuous between the two, yet SF and Oakland are one despite being separated by considerable body of water.

[Echo Park]

Do SJ+SF's numbers seem real low to anyone? Are they projecting a net loss population for SF's MSA? I recall in other rankings that these two combined were around 7 mil.

[Trae]

If it continues to grow Dallas/Fort Worth will eventually surpass Chicago and become the third biggest area. Altough Dallas is never in top growing cities, surrounding cities like Fort Worth & Plano are among the fastest growing in the nation. 6 of 12 biggest cities in Texas are already here.:cool:

Chicago has almost a four million lead on DFW now and is actually growing at a nice, rate, so it will be a LONG time before that happens.

[JDRCRASH]

Please source these claims, none of which are true.


Hehe, how naive....

Incorrect. Here they are.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_of_Los_Angeles

http://travel.latimes.com/articles/la-trw-emirates7jan07

[JDRCRASH]

Your reading comprehension skills are as bad as your grip on reality. Stick to LA threads and dont humiliate yourself here.


Please leave. Your not very entertaining. You KNOW these are true; I could care less about your nonsense.
I'm not the same as I was when I first arrived on this website. I've learned to use REAL sources.

And BTW, please stop posting opinions.

So please, Read my quote above.

[airhero]

:whatthefuck: I just don't get it.... Ask any Salt Lake City poster, and their MSA is already at least 2.2 million. How could they possibly be ranked 47th at not quite 1.3 mil by 2020? I mean they should be ranked 23rd now, right behind Pittsburgh and ahead of Portland. :shrug:

Actually, the population of the whole state of Utah is about 2.2 million. Depending on how you measure the Salt Lake MSA, its size is only about a million, that is including only Salt Lake County. Some people might include Utah county to the south and Davis county to the north, which would add another 900,000, but I would never include Utah county in the MSA, being as there is a huge mountain in between SL county and Utah county. I probably would actually include up to Ogden, which would put SLC's MSA at about 1.4 million and probably about 1.6-1.7 million by 2020. So Salt Lake could make the list in 2020, but only the tail end of it.

[JDRCRASH]

I thought Pittsburgh was bigger.

[lfc4life]

las vegas' (clark county) population is projected to hit 3 million by around 2022, that assumes a quite substancial slowdown in growth of course as the population of clark county swelled from 1 million residents in 1994 to 2 million in mid 2007

projections for vegas have been well wide of the mark in the past, e.g here in 2000 they predict las vegas to hit 2.2 million by 2025 http://www.demographia.com/db-2025metroalpha.htm

this website predicts over 7 million in the valley by 2025 based on current rate of growth which does seem a bit extreme imo but you never know http://www.fairus.org/site/PageServer?pagename=research_research5be4_sup

[tmac14wr]

Wow so in 14 years Boston's entire MSA is going to grow by less than 50,000? That's a pretty bold claim by these guys...especially considering the city proper is hoping to increase by around 100,000 due to all the new area on the South Boston Waterfront and downtown that was freed up thanks to the Big Dig.

I wonder if the strategy these guys used was to look at the one year growth of a city, then just multiply by 14...I don't understand how all this growth is going to be able to sustain itself in the sunbelt...but I guess rankings like this need to be taken with a gigantic grain of salt.

[JDRCRASH]

Clark County ONLY 3 million?

[JDRCRASH]

Wow so in 14 years Boston's entire MSA is going to grow by less than 50,000? That's a pretty bold claim by these guys...especially considering the city proper is hoping to increase by around 100,000 due to all the new area on the South Boston Waterfront and downtown that was freed up thanks to the Big Dig.

I wonder if the strategy these guys used was to look at the one year growth of a city, then just multiply by 14...I don't understand how all this growth is going to be able to sustain itself in the sunbelt...but I guess rankings like this need to be taken with a gigantic grain of salt.

Yeah, I heard that the Big Dig was recently completed. Maybe the San Gabriel Mountain Tunnels currently under study will work in a similar way, bringing upper high-desert residents to the basin even faster.

[SEA-TOWN]

I don't get it. If New York City is called a "real international city", then why is Los Angeles absolutely crushing New York City in terms of immigrants and Seaport Activity?

And why is it that Dubai has taken so much interest in making LAX a major part of it's Emirates' route?

What? Los Angeles sees more seaport activity because IT'S CLOSER TO ASIA. That's common sense right there. It's the largest city on the West Coast so obviously it's going to be the largest water gateway to/from Asia. If I remember correctly, New York still has the largest foreign-born population in the US. I'd like to see you back up these claims. Also, as much as I hate to break it to you, Emirates already flies to New York, and New York will be either their first or second A380 destination. (Can't remember which).

[JDRCRASH]

New York IS the largest of foreign-born, everybody knows that. But L.A. in terms of growth, we're currently, and will continue to lead especially with the increasing wealth of Asian-born immigrants and a falling Dollar that would cause them to defect from that part of the world. Also, New York is one of Emirites airline's main destination points to America; which is why Los Angeles would qualify as a so-called "real international city" as the top Western U.S. route.

Remember, I have nothing personal against New York, I just hate it when people exaggerate using the absurd saying "real international city"

BTW, it took me not long to back up these claims; yet it took weeks for someone to research and respond to them.

[manuelpr]

Chicago has almost a four million lead on DFW now and is actually growing at a nice, rate, so it will be a LONG time before that happens.

Yeah, Chicago is growing but DFW is growing much faster. In 2000 the Chicago area had 9,098,316 people. In the 2006 estimate it had 9,505,748 which gave it an increase of 407,432 people. The DFW area had 5,487,956 people in 2000 and 6,359,758 in 2006. It added 871,802 people, more than double of what Chicago added. But your right it will take some time until this happens, taking into effect that trends stay the same of course.:cool:

[Trae]

Yeah, Chicago is growing but DFW is growing much faster. In 2000 the Chicago area had 9,098,316 people. In the 2006 estimate it had 9,505,748 which gave it an increase of 407,432 people. The DFW area had 5,487,956 people in 2000 and 6,359,758 in 2006. It added 871,802 people, more than double of what Chicago added. But your right it will take some time until this happens, taking into effect that trends stay the same of course.:cool:

DFW had 5,161,544 in 2000 and 6,003,967 in 2006.

http://recenter.tamu.edu/data/popm00/pcbsa19100.html

[JDRCRASH]

Someone in the Chicago Boom Rundown Thread said that the population overall is actually shrinking.:shrug:

[Pandemonious]

The city itself is thriving more than ever (well, not ever, if you count many decades ago, before suburbs were built). Who gives a shit who's city has more lame ass subdivisions being built, which makes up a substantial amount of the growth that most of these MSA's are gaining? The sunbelt's growth in general is unsustainalbe, and projecting what will happen 12 years from now is highly unreliable.

[JDRCRASH]

Unsustainable on account of resources? They're there; it's just a matter of how expensive it is to obtain it.

[King Owl]

What? Los Angeles sees more seaport activity because IT'S CLOSER TO ASIA. That's common sense right there. It's the largest city on the West Coast so obviously it's going to be the largest water gateway to/from Asia. If I remember correctly, New York still has the largest foreign-born population in the US. I'd like to see you back up these claims. Also, as much as I hate to break it to you, Emirates already flies to New York, and New York will be either their first or second A380 destination. (Can't remember which).


And Emirates has already chosen the 5th largest 2020 MSA for their second US destination: Houston

Emirates has been flying to Houston from Dubai nonstop since December....now they have daily nonstop service

[JDRCRASH]

And Emirates has already chosen the 5th largest 2020 MSA for their second US destination: Houston

Emirates has been flying to Houston from Dubai nonstop since December....now they have daily nonstop service

Indeed; which is why having L.A. as one of they're U.S. destinations makes it a "real international city" all the more so.

[Chicago3rd]

I don't get it. If New York City is called a "real international city", then why is Los Angeles absolutely crushing New York City in terms of immigrants and Seaport Activity?

And why is it that Dubai has taken so much interest in making LAX a major part of it's Emirates' route?

Rather than going wacko on us...there was a fantastic National Geographic story about 10-15 years ago expressing the truth that LA is the most internationally diverse country in the U.S. It is one of the great things about LA.

[Chicago3rd]

Someone in the Chicago Boom Rundown Thread said that the population overall is actually shrinking.:shrug:

You seem to be being a little sloppy with your terminology. Topic is MSA areas....Chicago is doing quiet well thank you. Hearing things and seeing things (like numbers actually being posted) are quiet different. One is based on science the other is gossip.

[JDRCRASH]

You seem to be being a little sloppy with your terminology. Topic is MSA areas....Chicago is doing quiet well thank you. Hearing things and seeing things (like numbers actually being posted) are quiet different. One is based on science the other is gossip.

No need to get defensive.:)

[JDRCRASH]

Rather than going wacko on us...there was a fantastic National Geographic story about 10-15 years ago expressing the truth that LA is the most internationally diverse country in the U.S. It is one of the great things about LA.

I receive and read National Geographic all the time, and I didn't see it. I mean, my dad has a whole library of them!:sly:

Or are you talking about the National Geographic CHANNEL? They ALWAYS have interesting things.

[bgrn198]

By 2050 Austin's population is expected to reach 7.9 million.

[JDRCRASH]

Dang....I hope thats only Greater Austin.

[TexasBoi]

By 2050 Austin's population is expected to reach 7.9 million.

That will NOT happen.

[Paul in S.A TX]

By 2050 Austin's population is expected to reach 7.9 million.

Austin wont even reach San Antonio's size by 2040 let alone reach 8 million. That one study saying Austin would eclipse San Antonio by 2040 is way off. Maybe the 5 million ballpark around that time. Of cousre if trends stay the same. Rust belt cities were once boom towns and now hardly even grow.

[JDRCRASH]

Rust belt cities were once boom towns and now hardly even grow.


Now that is not true at all......

[JDRCRASH]

edit

[bgrn198]

http://austin.bizjournals.com/austin/stories/2003/08/18/story2.html

[JDRCRASH]

Wow, I guess there is some realism to that then.

But then again, studies like that come up all the time; there was one recently for Los Angeles Metro.

[anyiliang]

DFW had 5,161,544 in 2000 and 6,003,967 in 2006.

http://recenter.tamu.edu/data/popm00/pcbsa19100.html

http://money.cnn.com/2008/03/26/real_estate/Metropolitan_Population/index.htm?cnn=yes

According to what I read from CNN, DFW gained 162,250 in population from 2006 to 2007. Not bad...

[SteveD]

http://money.cnn.com/2008/03/26/real_estate/Metropolitan_Population/index.htm?cnn=yes

According to what I read from CNN, DFW gained 162,250 in population from 2006 to 2007. Not bad...

Yes, DFW gained the most of any metro, followed by Atlanta, followed by Phoenix, followed by Houston. Following is a clip from today's Atlanta Journal-Constitution. Check out Texas...four of the top 10...outrageous. These are MSAs, NOT CSAs.

Note: Population numbers are estimates for July 1, 2006, and July 1, 2007.

1. Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, Texas Pop. 2006: 5,982,787 Pop. 2007: 6,145,037 Change: 162,250

2. Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Marietta Pop. 2006: 5,127,841 Pop. 2007: 5,278,904 Change: 151,063

3. Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale, Ariz. Pop. 2006: 4,046,914 Pop. 2007: 4,179,427 Change: 132,513

4. Houston-Sugar Land-Baytown, Texas Pop. 2006: 5,507,557 Pop. 2007: 5,628,101 Change: 120,544

5. Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario, Calif. Pop. 2006: 3,994,711 Pop. 2007: 4,081,371 Change: 86,660

6. Charlotte-Gastonia-Concord, N.C.-S.C. Pop. 2006: 1,584,844 Pop. 2007: 1,651,568 Change: 66,724

7. Chicago-Naperville-Joliet, Ill.-Ind.-Wis. Pop. 2006: 9,458,442 Pop. 2007: 9,524,673 Change: 66,231

8. Austin-Round Rock, Texas Pop. 2006: 1,532,281 Pop. 2007: 1,598,161 Change: 65,880

9. Las Vegas-Paradise, Nev. Pop. 2006: 1,777,168 Pop. 2007: 1,836,333 Change: 59,165

10. San Antonio, Texas Pop. 2006: 1,936,750 Pop. 2007: 1,990,675 Change: 53,925

[JDRCRASH]

^
I've said it before, and i'll say it again: I wouldn't be suprised if Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario is included with the Los Angeles-Long Beach-Orange County in the big Census count in 2010.

The I.E. has grown tremendously in the past decade. I mean, I have a street map of SoCal, and it was so sparsely divide in the Inland Empire; but I saw a recent Satalite picture of it, and boy has it CHANGED!:eek:

[weatherguru18]

http://austin.bizjournals.com/austin/stories/2003/08/18/story2.html

I've seen estimates that Houston will have 10+ million by 2050. I can believe Austin will be in the 7 million range. Austin is a happening place. Houston is highly dependent on energy. That collapses, all bets are off. Thank God however, that Houston has diversified it's economy to sustain such blows. I'm convinced that Houston, Austin, San Antonio and Dallas will be connected at the hip within the next century. "Leaving Houston City Limits/Entering Austin City Limits." They are currently working on what is called "The Texas T" which is a high speed rail line that will connect the major metro areas...or so I've heard. Anybody?

[Trae]

Why do people keep saying Houston is highly dependent on the energy industry? It isn't as much as it was even 8 years ago.

[alexjon]

Houston diversified years ago.

And I have my doubts that Austin will be larger than San Antonio in 2050, since San Antonio is a major military center, something that has longstanding stability. However, I do think they will be united by that point, so it won't be an issue. San Antonio-Austin Metropolitan District!

[travelinmiles]

I've seen estimates that Houston will have 10+ million by 2050. I can believe Austin will be in the 7 million range. Austin is a happening place. Houston is highly dependent on energy. That collapses, all bets are off. Thank God however, that Houston has diversified it's economy to sustain such blows. I'm convinced that Houston, Austin, San Antonio and Dallas will be connected at the hip within the next century. "Leaving Houston City Limits/Entering Austin City Limits." They are currently working on what is called "The Texas T" which is a high speed rail line that will connect the major metro areas...or so I've heard. Anybody?

You are talking about the "Texas T-Bone". I'm not sure if the metro areas will physically touch Houston, there is just way to much open space between the other cities in Texas and Houston. Maybe Beaumont and Houston but that is a long way off as far as a physical connection but socially and economically I think it's already there.

[Trae]

How about the mini Texas Triangle along I-10 to Houston, US 290 back out to Austin, then I-35 back down to SA? If you use that, Houston is a lot closer to the rest of the sate (Central and South Texas) than DFW.

[travelinmiles]

How about the mini Texas Triangle along I-10 to Houston, US 290 back out to Austin, then I-35 back down to SA? If you use that, Houston is a lot closer to the rest of the sate (Central and South Texas) than DFW.

Yeah that is true, especially if you include Bryan/College Station. However, I think if there were ever to be a corridor of seamless urban development in my lifetime it would be along the I-35 corridor from D/FW to SA. I do agree though that Houston does have an advantageous position in that you can get to a lot of cool places with in 4 hours. Austin and Houston really aren't that far apart.

[Avian001]

Austin and Houston are what, 160 miles apart? And you actually look forward to the growth patterns???

And where are all those people going to live???

In an endless, mind-numbing, highway-hypnosis-inducing, vinyl-sided sea of cul-de-sacs littered with thousands of Applebee's, Denny's and Olive Gardens.

I think I'll take Manhattan

[travelinmiles]

Austin and Houston are what, 160 miles apart? And you actually look forward to the growth patterns???

And where are all those people going to live???

In an endless, mind-numbing, highway-hypnosis-inducing, vinyl-sided sea of cul-de-sacs littered with thousands of Applebee's, Denny's and Olive Gardens.

I think I'll take Manhattan

No, I think we are referring to commuter patterns or "mega-regional" connections not so much development. Give me urbanity over suburban hell any day, there really is a lot of land that could be preserved on the periphery all these metros.

[Trae]

Austin and Houston are what, 160 miles apart? And you actually look forward to the growth patterns???

And where are all those people going to live???

In an endless, mind-numbing, highway-hypnosis-inducing, vinyl-sided sea of cul-de-sacs littered with thousands of Applebee's, Denny's and Olive Gardens.

I think I'll take Manhattan

Who says we are in support of sprawl that way?

[JDRCRASH]

From what I understand, Houston does sprawl quite a ways. I think it's big enough. Austin itself should grow in size.

[Avian001]

Who says we are in support of sprawl that way?

You may not support it, but that's what you're going to get. Do you really think Austin will add 6 million people and avoid sprawl? Where else are they going to live? In some magical super-dense city with dozens of supertall condo towers? Americans want their slice of land. They want their half-acre lots with McMansions.

[travelinmiles]

You may not support it, but that's what you're going to get. Do you really think Austin will add 6 million people and avoid sprawl? Where else are they going to live? In some magical super-dense city with dozens of supertall condo towers? Americans want their slice of land. They want their half-acre lots with McMansions.

Well will the current land use pattern be viable in 2050. I think not, so Austin maybe completely different in 40 years.

[Skyking]

This list seems about right. San Fran's MSA doesn't appear to grow much, and I actually think it loses population (not sure on that though). It looks like the Los Angeles CSA may be the largest in the U.S. by 2020 if you include the Inland Empire.

40 largest U.S. Metros 2020 projection.

http://proximityone.com/msa06rnk.htm (http://proximityone.com/msa06rnk.htm)

1.New York-Northen NJ 19,752,408
2.Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa-Ana 14,100,584
3.Chicago 10,340,685
4.Dallas-Ft.Worth-Arlington 7,775,098
5.Houston-Sugarland-Baytown 7,380,824
6.Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Marrieta 7,077,814
7.Miami-Ft Lauderdale-Miami Beach 6,459,442
8.Washington-DC-Arlington-Alexandria VA 6,319,959
9.Philadephia-Wilmington 6,149,832
10.Riverside-San Bernadino-Ontario 5,839,053
11.Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale 5,836,205
12.Boston-Cambridge-Quincy 4,493,489
13.Detroit-Warren-Livona 4,467,449
14.San Francisco-Oakland-Freemont 4,156,137
15.Seattle-Tacoma-Everett 3,708,247
16.Minneapolis-St.Paul-Bloomington 3,592,940
17.Tampa-St.Petersburg-Clearwater 3,408,555
18.San Diego-Carlsbad-San Marcos 3,167,189
19.St.Louis 3,009,016
20.Baltimore-Towson 2,888,579
21.Denver-Aurora 2,852,938
22.Orlando-Kissimme 2,764,594
23.Las Vegas-Paradise 2,671,689
24.Sacramento-Arden-Arcade-Roseville 2,639,496
25.Portland-Vancouver- 2,577,531
26.San Antonio 2,476,977
27.Cincinatti-Middletown 2,306,863
28.Kansas City,MO 2,252,265
29.Pittsburgh 2,232,736
30.Charlotte-Gastonia-Concord,NC-SC 2,146,464
31.Austin-San Marcos-Round Rock 2,036,016
32.Cleveland-Elyria-Mentor 2,031,493
33.Indianapolis-Carmel 1,974,874
34.Columbus,Oh 1,965,438
35.San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara 1,879,409
36.Virgina Beach Norfolk-Newport 1,832, 073
37. Nashville-Davidson 1,776,279
38.Providence-Fall River 1,666,288
39.Jacksonville 1,637,288
40.Milwaukee 1,524,223

Milwaukee's metro pop. is about 1.8 million now. There's no way there will be a loss of 250,000 people. More likely, the population may be pushing 2 million by 2020. Therefore, I think these projections may be a bit off the mark.

[urbanactivistTX]

You may not support it, but that's what you're going to get. Do you really think Austin will add 6 million people and avoid sprawl? Where else are they going to live? In some magical super-dense city with dozens of supertall condo towers? Americans want their slice of land. They want their half-acre lots with McMansions.

Americans want a lot of things... but right now, they NEED to be able to fill up their gas guzzling SUVs at over 4 bucks per gallon just to get to work and keep pumping in those McMortgage payments that are already falling behind. Considering that they cut back on the Applebee's, Chilli's and lifestyle center outings back in March, living closer in to the city is starting to look more and more feasible. Even in Texas.

NYC has sprawl... every American city has sprawl. Nobody adds population to their metropolitan areas WITHOUT adding sprawl.

[Paul in S.A TX]

Milwaukee's metro pop. is about 1.8 million now. There's no way there will be a loss of 250,000 people. More likely, the population may be pushing 2 million by 2020. Therefore, I think these projections may be a bit off the mark.

The latest Metro stats (2007) Milwaukee 1,544,000 CSA. The census bureau is the info source for these projections.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_metropolitan_statistical_areas_by_population

[manuelpr]

When Houston bumps Phili from the 5th most populated metro, Texas will have 2 of the top five.

[dante2308]

When Houston bumps Phili from the 5th most populated metro, Texas will have 2 of the top five.

Unless Atlanta overtakes it.

[alexjon]

Unless Atlanta overtakes it.

Well, only if it starts raining

[weatherguru18]

NYC and LA may flip, but I'm pretty sure Houston will stay behind Dallas, Atlanta will stay behind Houston and Phoenix...well, I'm not sure about Phoenix. But Houston, Atlanta, Phoenix and Dallas are all pretty close together. It's really splitting hairs. They are all very similar cities.

[TexasBoi]

NYC and LA may flip, but I'm pretty sure Houston will stay behind Dallas, Atlanta will stay behind Houston and Phoenix...well, I'm not sure about Phoenix. But Houston, Atlanta, Phoenix and Dallas are all pretty close together. It's really splitting hairs. They are all very similar cities.

well phoenix is not that close to dallas, houston, and atlanta in population right now. but your point is taken.

[Trae]

Unless Atlanta overtakes it.

Yeah, if Houston stops growing.

[Complex01]

:previous:

True, and that is not happening anytime soon...

[alexjon]

:previous:

True, and that is not happening anytime soon...

Until Galveston institutes its anti-growth plot, "Project Cabbage Funk"

[IHIH11]

I cant believe that Providence,RIis gonna be bigger than milwaukee and jacksonville.

[alon504]

The Denver-Aurora-Boulder MSA estimate is low. Local metro government statistics estimate that the MSA population is 2.8 million already.

These lists don't mean much, but, I really have no clue how they get their numbers. The figures they have for New Orleans are puzzling....Today, New Orleans is around 1,240,000 and that is a fairly conservative number. If you add Tangipahoa Parish, which is expected to be added to Metro New Orleans for the 2010 census, that number grows to about 1,375,000. Oh well, whatever it is, it is. I'm not real big on actual numbers like I used to be...

[weatherguru18]

When is Houston expected to take over Philly? I know it's close. I also read under an article in wikipedia (take it for what its worth) but by 2020, Houston is expected to take over Chicago as the nations 3rd largest city!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Olympics

[austin242]

I am glad austins metro doesn't look to be that big its way better to have a small metro but a big city which austin ranks 16 comapred to 31 on the metro which means we are probably more urban

[Samwill89]

I am glad austins metro doesn't look to be that big its way better to have a small metro but a big city which austin ranks 16 comapred to 31 on the metro which means we are probably more urban

City/Metro ratios have little to do with the urbanity of the city. if anything, Austin's large municipal population suggests that the city is more suburban than urban (it has a low pop density when compared to Houston, Dallas, and Atlanta).

[delts145]

These lists don't mean much, but, I really have no clue how they get their numbers. The figures they have for New Orleans are puzzling....Today, New Orleans is around 1,240,000 and that is a fairly conservative number. If you add Tangipahoa Parish, which is expected to be added to Metro New Orleans for the 2010 census, that number grows to about 1,375,000. Oh well, whatever it is, it is. I'm not real big on actual numbers like I used to be...

I'm sure there is some kind of logic to it, even though it makes little sense if you actually live in the metro.

Today, Salt Lake City's metro of the 'Wasatch Front' is over 2.2 million people, yet is not even listed in the top 40. A Metro, which is one of the fastest growing areas in the nation and integrally connected by one of a handful of the most aggressive light rail, commuter rail, and highway/freeway building programs in No. America. Commuter patterns are the reason???... Bull #@!*!!!

Neighbors can converse over a back yard garden, or walk across the street to borrow a magazine.... yet they're in a different metro? :rolleyes:

Recently, this area consisted of two separately credited metro's, but now it's three. So...., in a couple of years they're talking of going back to two metro's again, meaning Salt Lake City would add back it's nothern section and another 600 thousand-plus people to it's supposed metro. This of course, will exclude it's connected southern populace of another half-million-plus people. Whaaatever...:shrug:

Based on the current and ongoing logic, who knows where the Wasatch Front will be by 2020? Maybe...One Metro of Three Million, or Two Metro's, or Four Metro's???...LOL

[diablo234]

Truthfully several of the MSA's listed should already be combined because there is substantial commuting between them. These include

Baltimore-Washington D.C.
Denver-Boulder
Los Angeles-Riverside/San Bernadino
San Francisco-San Jose

[tocoto]

Truthfully several of the MSA's listed should already be combined because there is substantial commuting between them. These include

Baltimore-Washington D.C.
Denver-Boulder
Los Angeles-Riverside/San Bernadino
San Francisco-San Jose


Don't forget Boston, Providence and Worcester. Boston's CSA at 7.5 M is closer to its actual metro population than its MSA. All these cities share airports, have extensive commuter rail connections, and frequent Amtrak service.

[OhGreatOne]

[QUOTE=SteveD;3444098]Yes, DFW gained the most of any metro, followed by Atlanta, followed by Phoenix, followed by Houston. Following is a clip from today's Atlanta Journal-Constitution. Check out Texas...four of the top 10...outrageous. These are MSAs, NOT CSAs.

Note: Population numbers are estimates for July 1, 2006, and July 1, 2007.

1. Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, Texas Pop. 2006: 5,982,787 Pop. 2007: 6,145,037 Change: 162,250

2. Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Marietta Pop. 2006: 5,127,841 Pop. 2007: 5,278,904 Change: 151,063

3. Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale, Ariz. Pop. 2006: 4,046,914 Pop. 2007: 4,179,427 Change: 132,513

4. Houston-Sugar Land-Baytown, Texas Pop. 2006: 5,507,557 Pop. 2007: 5,628,101 Change: 120,544

5. Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario, Calif. Pop. 2006: 3,994,711 Pop. 2007: 4,081,371 Change: 86,660

6. Charlotte-Gastonia-Concord, N.C.-S.C. Pop. 2006: 1,584,844 Pop. 2007: 1,651,568 Change: 66,724

7. Chicago-Naperville-Joliet, Ill.-Ind.-Wis. Pop. 2006: 9,458,442 Pop. 2007: 9,524,673 Change: 66,231

8. Austin-Round Rock, Texas Pop. 2006: 1,532,281 Pop. 2007: 1,598,161 Change: 65,880

9. Las Vegas-Paradise, Nev. Pop. 2006: 1,777,168 Pop. 2007: 1,836,333 Change: 59,165

10. San Antonio, Texas Pop. 2006: 1,936,750 Pop. 2007: 1,990,675 Change: 53,925[/QUOTE
Let's examine Austin's 2006 and 2007 metro population estimates from the US Census Bureau. For these two years, the Austin area experienced a growth of 4.3 percent. If one extrapolates this, using exponential regression, (based on the assumption that population increases generally can be modeled by an exponential equation), then one arrives at a population of 2762409 fir 2020. Certainly not 7 million, but a robust increase, nonetheless.

[urbanactivistTX]

I was thinking about this during my time in Dallas (evacuating from Ike). I wonder how many people will want to live in Houston after experiencing this hurricane. It's an unsettling thing to go through, and could have severly affected our growth numbers. In the case of Houston proper... especially areas not along the ship channel or the extreme southeast... the city will be fine, save for a lot of annoying cleanup and power outages. But our coastal communities will never be the same. We'll have to deal with a significant population loss for the Galveston area, but most of those people will still be a part of the Houston metro. It's of course too early to predict, but the Houston area probably won't see a population loss due to Ike (if it does, it will be less than 5,000).

One VERY GOOD thing I've been hearing about... there's increased buzz about the Finger developments One Park Place and the Museum Tower. Neither sustained any significant damage (which is amazing considering OPP is still being constructed-- not a single broken window!!). I think future developers are going to look towards Fingers as good models for stricter building codes in Houston. That way when the next hurricane comes, we'll be better prepared for it.

[weatherguru18]

I was thinking about this during my time in Dallas (evacuating from Ike). I wonder how many people will want to live in Houston after experiencing this hurricane. It's an unsettling thing to go through, and could have severly affected our growth numbers. In the case of Houston proper... especially areas not along the ship channel or the extreme southeast... the city will be fine, save for a lot of annoying cleanup and power outages. But our coastal communities will never be the same. We'll have to deal with a significant population loss for the Galveston area, but most of those people will still be a part of the Houston metro. It's of course too early to predict, but the Houston area probably won't see a population loss due to Ike (if it does, it will be less than 5,000).

One VERY GOOD thing I've been hearing about... there's increased buzz about the Finger developments One Park Place and the Museum Tower. Neither sustained any significant damage (which is amazing considering OPP is still being constructed-- not a single broken window!!). I think future developers are going to look towards Fingers as good models for stricter building codes in Houston. That way when the next hurricane comes, we'll be better prepared for it.

Hurricane hurting Houston/ Galveston growth??? NOT A CHANCE! During Hurricane Alicia, a Cat 3 storm, Houston had a little over 2 million in the metro area. Today we're just shy of 6 million. If growth were to be affected, it would be in Florida. But even there, they can't build the homes fast enough.

[TANGELD_SLC]

I think Salt Lake City should be at about #26 or so, because in 2002 we had a metro pop. of about 1.5 mil and then we had some breakaway in 2003, and now it's at about 1.1-1.2 mil. However there is talk of the Wasatch front CSA becoming an MSA with about 2.6 mil.

[diablo234]

That Denver estimate I think is kind of off. Colorado has been one of the nations fastest growing states for some time now. The Denver-Aurora MSA should at least top three million by 2020, that is if you do not include Boulder.

Also by then Baltimore and Washington D.C. would probably be located in one MSA since as of right now it is pretty much no open space left between the two.

[LivingInExile]

I predict the Salt Lake City area is going to BOOM, along with Imperial County, CA, Omaha, Kansas City, and Birmingham.

[Snodrifter]

That Denver estimate I think is kind of off. Colorado has been one of the nations fastest growing states for some time now. The Denver-Aurora MSA should at least top three million by 2020, that is if you do not include Boulder.

Also by then Baltimore and Washington D.C. would probably be located in one MSA since as of right now it is pretty much no open space left between the two.

How is Boulder NOT included in the stats?

I've always wondered that.

[CONative]

How is Boulder NOT included in the stats?

I've always wondered that.

I'm pretty sure it will be by 2020 -- since there will be many more people commuting between Boulder and Denver. Like you, I believe Boulder should already be a part of the Denver MSA since it is already so connected, but I don't see how it can't by 2020. So this estimate will have to be at least 120,000 higher.

[JDRCRASH]

I predict the Salt Lake City area is going to BOOM, along with Imperial County, CA, Omaha, Kansas City, and Birmingham.

Keep an eye on Los Angeles. There are ordinances either already enforced, or are under consideration, such as lowering the minimum size of lofts to a shrimpy 250 sq ft. (but who would wanna live in THAT?:sly:), reducing the amount of departments and associations the developer must go through before seeking a construction loan and breaking ground from 12 to 2 (can someone with more info tell me if that is right?), and lifting the requirement for buildings to have helipads on the rooftops (hence the flat skyline).

Bottom line: That place is gonna go high-rise beserk in the next decade.