Numerical Population Growth By City (2000-2010)

[599GTO]

Numerical Gains From 2000-2010:

- + 438,210: New York City
- + 328,644: Houston
- + 311,286: Phoenix
- + 247,907: San Antonio
- + 218,024: Fort Worth
- + 159,923: Charlotte
- + 148,899: Los Angeles
- + 138,978: Austin
- + 138,679: Atlanta
- + 136,524: Raleigh
- + 129,396: Dallas
- + 093,100: Las Vegas
- + 090,339: Albuquerque
- + 088,096: San Diego
- + 086,301: Jacksonville
- + 081,525: Miami
- + 078,562: San Jose
- + 070,013: Denver
- + 069,319: Nashville
- + 067,351: El Paso
- + 065,974: Boston
- + 065,783: Seattle
- + 064,948: Sacramento
- + 063,757: Columbus
- + 062,445: Oklahoma City
- + 061,736: Tucson
- + 053,060: Omaha
- + 047,998: San Francisco
- + 047,829: Orlando
- + 045,989: Tampa
- + 045,890: Kansas City
- + 045,749: Portland
- + 042,596: Philadelphia
- + 034,570: Washington DC
- + 031,446: Indianapolis
- + 029,873: Anchorage
- + 015,175: Louisville
- + 013,209: Oakland
- + 012,549: Corpus Christi
- + 010,860: Saint Louis
- + 009,217: Milwaukee
- + 005,578: Minneapolis
- + 004,152: Jersey City
- + 004,140: Honolulu
- + 002,003: Cincinnati

http://www.bizjournals.com/buffalo/d...e=&CPIorderBy=

[LMich]

To be clear - and I think something like this was already posted a month or two ago - these are estimates by Buffalo Business First, whatever that magazine/paper is worth. Did you post this to as a comparison when the actual Census numbers are released for cities?

[edluva]

so does anyone know when 2010 city/metro data wll be available?

[Steely Dan]

i heard one person say february, and another person say april. i have no idea which is correct, or even if either of them are.

[ColDayMan]

I'm just happy two out of three of my hometowns are in there.

[pesto]

It's shocking how much the south and west dominate the top 20, leaving aside NYC, which as always is a special case. And during most of this period it was hard to sell your house or get a loan on your new place, which must have restrained movement.

[Steely Dan]

^ keep in mind, as Lmich already pointed out, these numbers are just estimates from some entity calling itself "Buffalo Business First". though, the actual city numbers, when they're eventually released from the bureau sometime next year, will almost certainlyy indicate southern and western cities showing the most growth.

[Chicago103]

These are clearly estimates because if you look at the details of Chicago it says that it lost small amounts of population between 2000 and 2006 and it has been growing slightly since 2006. What would cause the city to gain population during a recession when it was losing before?

[seaskyfan]

I'd also be curious to know which population figures included annexations.

[sofresh808]

Originally Posted by Chicago103

These are clearly estimates because if you look at the details of Chicago it says that it lost small amounts of population between 2000 and 2006 and it has been growing slightly since 2006. What would cause the city to gain population during a recession when it was losing before?

More natural births than people relocating? I think the recession benefited the North by curtailing movement South, as people are most cautious to pack and leave than they are during better times.

[TarHeelJ]

Originally Posted by seaskyfan

I'd also be curious to know which population figures included annexations.

I'm not sure why that would matter...annexation growth is still population growth. I realize that some cities are able to annex populated areas while others are not, but I fail to see the big deal - unless it's some kind of contest?

[pesto]

I think the point is that annexation growth is not real growth when you talk about cities as legal entities. If LA annexes Long Beach and adds 500k people, that is a zero for the region although "LA City" has grown 500k.

[TarHeelJ]

Originally Posted by pesto

I think the point is that annexation growth is not real growth when you talk about cities as legal entities. If LA annexes Long Beach and adds 500k people, that is a zero for the region although "LA City" has grown 500k.

I agree, but what does that have to do with this list of cities? Does it somehow matter?

[seaskyfan]

Originally Posted by TarHeelJ

I agree, but what does that have to do with this list of cities? Does it somehow matter?

It's interesting to me since I'm interested in which cities are actually increasing density rather than just annexing.

[TarHeelJ]

Originally Posted by seaskyfan

It's interesting to me since I'm interested in which cities are actually increasing density rather than just annexing.

Okay...so which ones are increasing density? I guess you could look up the annexation records, or just check the area of a particular city from year to year. I only know for sure about Atlanta, where we haven't had a major annexation since 1952...but some cities are famous for annexing.

[STLgasm]

GO ST. LOUIS! Reversing 60+ years of population decline, 10,860 people at a time!

[Xing]

Originally Posted by STLgasm

GO ST. LOUIS! Reversing 60+ years of population decline, 10,860 people at a time!

It's going to have to pick up the pace, or it'll take forever to get back to where it was. My guess is that that number will double very soon.

[TarHeelJ]

Originally Posted by Xing

It's going to have to pick up the pace, or it'll take forever to get back to where it was. My guess is that that number will double very soon.

Do you think a city like St. Louis will ever get back to where it was? 60 years of population decline is a steep mountain to climb, and for these once-booming cities it may be more realistic to go for a more attainable goal.

Atlanta was in decline for about 30 years, and only in this past decade surpassed it's previous highest population numbers that it experienced in 1970...but that was a much less amazing feat than reversing 60 years of such population losses.

[Chase Unperson]

Originally Posted by pesto

I think the point is that annexation growth is not real growth when you talk about cities as legal entities. If LA annexes Long Beach and adds 500k people, that is a zero for the region although "LA City" has grown 500k.

Sure it is. Think about it. You have that Manu more people to tax and orovide services to. Annexation is unequivocal absolute growth

[TarHeelJ]

Originally Posted by Chase Unperson

Sure it is. Think about it. You have that Manu more people to tax and orovide services to. Annexation is unequivocal absolute growth

True...and it could also be regional growth if the area of annexation has added new residents from outside of the region. It's not as if all annexation growth can be defined as false growth.