2007 Census city numbers-125 largest cities in the US

[Snoshredder21]

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]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by LMich

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Rail Claimore

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]

Originally Posted by LMich

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]

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]

Originally Posted by dante2308

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]

I hope Detroit does sue the census bureau, and wins.

[dante2308]

Originally Posted by Gordo

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]

San Jose is in Northern California .

[Gordo]

Originally Posted by dante2308

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Gordo

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]

Originally Posted by dante2308

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]

Originally Posted by dante2308

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]

Originally Posted by Gordo

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]

Oh my god. Poor NOLA.

[LosAngelesSportsFan]

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.