HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > United States

About The Ads  This week the ad company used in the forum will be monitoring activity and doing some tests to identify any problems which users may be experiencing. If at any time this week you get pop-ups, redirects, etc. as a result of ads please let us know by sending an email to forum@skyscraperpage.com or post in the ads complaint thread. Thank you for your participation.


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #41  
Old Posted Aug 26, 2007, 7:17 AM
mhays mhays is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 17,479
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #42  
Old Posted Aug 26, 2007, 6:29 PM
BigBird9 BigBird9 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Minneapolis
Posts: 667
Quote:
Originally Posted by sirkingwilliam View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #43  
Old Posted Oct 23, 2007, 12:09 AM
fla_tiger's Avatar
fla_tiger fla_tiger is offline
TIGERS CHAMPS~2xBCS/6xCWS
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Miami/Baton Rouge
Posts: 1,898
Quote:
Originally Posted by soonermeteor View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #44  
Old Posted Oct 23, 2007, 8:04 PM
LMich's Avatar
LMich LMich is offline
Midwest Moderator - Editor
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Big Mitten
Posts: 31,744
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.
__________________
Where the trees are the right height
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #45  
Old Posted Oct 24, 2007, 11:45 PM
Avian001's Avatar
Avian001 Avian001 is offline
Architecture/Engineering
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: At the Edge of Reason
Posts: 563
Quote:
Originally Posted by mhays View Post
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.
__________________
"Architecture is the art of how to waste space." - Philip Johnson
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #46  
Old Posted Oct 25, 2007, 7:15 AM
tech12's Avatar
tech12 tech12 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Oakland
Posts: 3,124
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.

Last edited by tech12; Oct 25, 2007 at 7:30 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #47  
Old Posted Oct 25, 2007, 6:43 PM
PhxSprawler's Avatar
PhxSprawler PhxSprawler is offline
Desert Dweller
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Phoenix Metro Fringes
Posts: 702
Quote:
Originally Posted by LosAngelesSportsFan View Post
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%
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #48  
Old Posted Oct 25, 2007, 7:53 PM
andrewkfromaz's Avatar
andrewkfromaz andrewkfromaz is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 816
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.
__________________
It is impossible to defeat an ignorant man in argument.
~William G. McAdoo
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #49  
Old Posted Nov 5, 2007, 4:59 PM
MolsonExport MolsonExport is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 32,063
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #50  
Old Posted Nov 5, 2007, 11:31 PM
LMich's Avatar
LMich LMich is offline
Midwest Moderator - Editor
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Big Mitten
Posts: 31,744
Quote:
Originally Posted by MolsonExport View Post
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....)
__________________
Where the trees are the right height
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #51  
Old Posted Apr 8, 2008, 9:09 PM
JJG's Avatar
JJG JJG is offline
Funkytown's finest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Fort Worth, TX
Posts: 195
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #52  
Old Posted Apr 9, 2008, 2:53 AM
subterranean's Avatar
subterranean subterranean is offline
homesick alien
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Portland
Posts: 2,736
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobdreamz View Post
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.
__________________
SW Portland | NW Portland
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #53  
Old Posted Apr 10, 2008, 5:27 AM
weatherguru18 weatherguru18 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 294
Quote:
Originally Posted by JJG View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #54  
Old Posted Apr 10, 2008, 11:48 PM
JJG's Avatar
JJG JJG is offline
Funkytown's finest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Fort Worth, TX
Posts: 195
Quote:
Originally Posted by weatherguru18 View Post
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/20...ies-july-2007/
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #55  
Old Posted Apr 17, 2008, 5:40 PM
Evo5Boise's Avatar
Evo5Boise Evo5Boise is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Boise, ID
Posts: 1,159
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #56  
Old Posted Apr 17, 2008, 10:08 PM
subterranean's Avatar
subterranean subterranean is offline
homesick alien
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Portland
Posts: 2,736
Quote:
Originally Posted by Evo5Boise View Post
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...
__________________
SW Portland | NW Portland
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #57  
Old Posted Apr 18, 2008, 4:39 AM
LMich's Avatar
LMich LMich is offline
Midwest Moderator - Editor
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Big Mitten
Posts: 31,744
Who said anything about Boise?
__________________
Where the trees are the right height
Reply With Quote
     
     
End
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > United States
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 5:13 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.