Urban planning community

+ Reply to thread
Results 1 to 14 of 14

Thread: New names in the "100 largest" cities. 2010.

  1. #1
    Cyburbian ICT/316's avatar
    Registered
    May 2005
    Location
    Kansas (Lurking)
    Posts
    490

    New names in the "100 largest" cities. 2010.

    What city or cities do you think will be on the list of 100 largest U.S. cities (city limit populations only, not metro populations) that have a “DIRECTIONAL” name in them before or at the 2010 census? I believe that North Las Vegas, Nv. Will be the first city with a direction in it’s name to be on the list. Anyone else?

    Also, that list will include many more suburban cities, as they push down the older primary cities off the list. The list will probably be nearly 40% suburban cities. Norfolk is the primary city in the Hampton Roads area, but Virginia Beach a suburb, now is larger and has it’s own identity. Overland Park, Ks in Johnson County is larger than Kansas City, Ks. There are other examples out there and it will continue. Have any other examples?

  2. #2
    It won't be long before Livionia and Sterling Heights are larger than Detroit.

  3. #3
    Cirrus's avatar
    Registered
    Aug 2003
    Location
    DC / Arlington
    Posts
    299
    San Jose is bigger than San Francisco.

  4. #4
    Cyburbian mgk920's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Appleton, Wisconsin
    Posts
    4,166
    Quote Originally posted by ICT/316
    What city or cities do you think will be on the list of 100 largest U.S. cities (city limit populations only, not metro populations) that have a “DIRECTIONAL” name in them before or at the 2010 census? I believe that North Las Vegas, Nv. Will be the first city with a direction in it’s name to be on the list. Anyone else?

    Also, that list will include many more suburban cities, as they push down the older primary cities off the list. The list will probably be nearly 40% suburban cities. Norfolk is the primary city in the Hampton Roads area, but Virginia Beach a suburb, now is larger and has it’s own identity. Overland Park, Ks in Johnson County is larger than Kansas City, Ks. There are other examples out there and it will continue. Have any other examples?
    Not necessarily by 2010, but IMHO, by 2020 or so, Colorado Springs, CO will be more populous than Denver. The difference is in their ability to annex land.

    I also think that the Denver suburb of Aurora will be in that mix by then, too. Again, the difference being in their respective ability to annex.

    Here in the midwest, I'm looking for Joliet, IL to be the next 'up and comer'. It is on the 'frontier' of the Chicagoland metro area and has clear paths (no other incorporated cities or villages in the way) and good access in several directions for future growth, especially westward.

    Mike
    Last edited by mgk920; 05 May 2005 at 10:38 AM.

  5. #5
    Cyburbian plankton's avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2003
    Location
    coastal rainforest
    Posts
    749
    Quote Originally posted by Super Amputee Cat
    It won't be long before Livionia and Sterling Heights are larger than Detroit.
    I know I've been outta Detroit for 10+ years, but Sterling Heights?!? Really? Isn't Big Beaver Road beyond its capacity by now? I would expect that Troy is bigger than SH but I am not familiar with the numbers. Prediction: Detroit's population will exceed 1M in 2010.
    (Confession: I really just wanted an excuse to mention Big Beaver Road )

  6. #6
    Cyburbian ICT/316's avatar
    Registered
    May 2005
    Location
    Kansas (Lurking)
    Posts
    490

    Springs & Chicagoland

    mgk920, I agree that Colorado Springs will be bigger than Denver. Their current city limits includes probably 50+ sq. miles of undeveloped and they have a lot more to go towards the north and west. No suburbs to block growth. 30% of Denver is DIA.

    Also, what about Aurora,Ill. In Chicagoland? Their setting at 162,000 from 99,000 in 1990? Joliet is really going to benefit from the NASCAR track, too.

    Another "Directional" named city, by 2015-2020, would be West Valley City,Ut. Currently at 112,000.

  7. #7
    Cyburbian mgk920's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Appleton, Wisconsin
    Posts
    4,166
    Quote Originally posted by ICT/316
    mgk920, I agree that Colorado Springs will be bigger than Denver. Their current city limits includes probably 50+ sq. miles of undeveloped and they have a lot more to go towards the north and west. No suburbs to block growth. 30% of Denver is DIA.

    Also, what about Aurora,Ill. In Chicagoland? Their setting at 162,000 from 99,000 in 1990? Joliet is really going to benefit from the NASCAR track, too.
    I did not include Aurora, IL because they are running out of annexable land. The next suburbs to the west (Elburn and Sugar Grove) have already taken over from Aurora in westward development in that area.

    Mike

  8. #8
    Cyburbian DetroitPlanner's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Where the weak are killed and eaten.
    Posts
    6,186
    Quote Originally posted by Super Amputee Cat
    It won't be long before Livonia and Sterling Heights are larger than Detroit.
    Sorry to burst your bubble but Livonia has started to shrink and even Sterling Heights has leveled off.

  9. #9
    Cyburbian jordanb's avatar
    Registered
    May 2003
    Location
    City of Low Low Wages!
    Posts
    3,236
    Quote Originally posted by mgk920
    I did not include Aurora, IL because they are running out of annexable land. The next suburbs to the west (Elburn and Sugar Grove) have already taken over from Aurora in westward development in that area.

    Mike
    Inner-city Aurora is still pretty abandoned. With a Metra station and a beautiful riverfront, I could see a lot of infill going in.

  10. #10
    Cyburbian urbanchik's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Detroit, MI
    Posts
    120
    Quote Originally posted by plankton
    I know I've been outta Detroit for 10+ years, but Sterling Heights?!? Really? Isn't Big Beaver Road beyond its capacity by now? I would expect that Troy is bigger than SH but I am not familiar with the numbers. Prediction: Detroit's population will exceed 1M in 2010.
    (Confession: I really just wanted an excuse to mention Big Beaver Road )
    You mean "Exit 69"?
    I am not kidding, folks. Big Beaver Road is actually exit 69 on I-75.

    I do not think Detroit will reach 1 million by 2010. Current population is like 910,000 according to estimates. Would have to increase by 10%!
    urbanchik

  11. #11
    Cyburbian ICT/316's avatar
    Registered
    May 2005
    Location
    Kansas (Lurking)
    Posts
    490
    Quote Originally posted by ICT/316 View post
    What city or cities do you think will be on the list of 100 largest U.S. cities (city limit populations only, not metro populations) that have a “DIRECTIONAL” name in them before or at the 2010 census? I believe that North Las Vegas, Nv. Will be the first city with a direction in it’s name to be on the list. Anyone else?

    Also, that list will include many more suburban cities, as they push down the older primary cities off the list. The list will probably be nearly 40% suburban cities. Norfolk is the primary city in the Hampton Roads area, but Virginia Beach a suburb, now is larger and has it’s own identity. Overland Park, Ks in Johnson County is larger than Kansas City, Ks. There are other examples out there and it will continue. Have any other examples?
    Well, it looks like NORTH LAS VEGAS will be the first “Directional” named city to be on the top 100 U.S. cities population list for 2010! It had an estimated population of 214,000 people as of July 2007. Source: (http://www.ci.north-las-vegas.nv.us/About/FAQ.shtm). That puts it currently between 88th-100th, depending on other cities current estimates. By 2010 it will probably have about 222K. Remember that’s city limit and not metro populations.

    I think this is really a unique addition to the list. It has also seemed that “Directional” named cities are some what over looked (unless you live there!) by their better known counterparts. Who will be next? And to continue, that list will probably include several new suburban cities has our demographics change.

    Bill

  12. #12
    Cyburbian Otis's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Upper left edge
    Posts
    3,807
    The listing seems meaningless to me. Virginia Beach is bigger than Norfolk. Of course, since Norfolk can't annex because the surrounding counties, relatively huge areas notable primarily for unmitigated sprawl, became cities so they wouldn't be forced into any kind of de facto (busing) or de jure consolidation with Norfolk. A product of pure racism.

    Denver and Colorado Springs. So what? It's truly the metro areas that count in terms of the critical mass needed for various urban functions and features (I'm not talking about governmental functions here), not whether some particular chunk of the metro area has a bigger population than some other part. Look at all the cities in the LA metro area. And so what if San Jose is bigger than San Francisco? Does it have what SF has to offer as the real heart of the metro area? (How big is South San Francisco, another directional city, by the way?) Look at Washington, DC. 69 square miles and that's it. The surrounding counties in Virginia and Maryland individually have bigger populations and budgets than some states. But it is the Washington metro area as a whole that has the vitality and features that make it an important place for the population of the area (being the seat of government aside).

    So, IMHO, if you want to look at a meaningful list of cities based on population, you have to look at the metro areas. Everything else is just trivia.

  13. #13
    Cyburbian ICT/316's avatar
    Registered
    May 2005
    Location
    Kansas (Lurking)
    Posts
    490
    Quote Originally posted by Otis View post
    The listing seems meaningless to me. Virginia Beach is bigger than Norfolk. Of course, since Norfolk can't annex because the surrounding counties, relatively huge areas notable primarily for unmitigated sprawl, became cities so they wouldn't be forced into any kind of de facto (busing) or de jure consolidation with Norfolk. A product of pure racism.

    Denver and Colorado Springs. So what? It's truly the metro areas that count in terms of the critical mass needed for various urban functions and features (I'm not talking about governmental functions here), not whether some particular chunk of the metro area has a bigger population than some other part. Look at all the cities in the LA metro area. And so what if San Jose is bigger than San Francisco? Does it have what SF has to offer as the real heart of the metro area? (How big is South San Francisco, another directional city, by the way?) Look at Washington, DC. 69 square miles and that's it. The surrounding counties in Virginia and Maryland individually have bigger populations and budgets than some states. But it is the Washington metro area as a whole that has the vitality and features that make it an important place for the population of the area (being the seat of government aside).

    So, IMHO, if you want to look at a meaningful list of cities based on population, you have to look at the metro areas. Everything else is just trivia.

    Thanks for the positive input. I’ll turn to you for all the answers to my trivial questions and meaningless thoughts. You’re awesome.

    Bill

  14. #14
    Cyburbian Otis's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Upper left edge
    Posts
    3,807
    I'll try to remember to agree with everything from now on.

    What was the point you were trying to make? Just that soon there would be a city with a direction in its name among the largest cities in the U.S.? OK. I guess that's interesting.

    How many have a color in their name? Like Greenville or Greensboro? Or Amarillo.

    By the way, East St. Louis was the 92nd largest city in the U.S. in 1910.
    Last edited by Otis; 19 Oct 2007 at 7:49 PM.

+ Reply to thread

More at Cyburbia

  1. Replies: 15
    Last post: 04 Feb 2008, 5:45 PM
  2. Replies: 8
    Last post: 28 Sep 2007, 10:45 AM
  3. Replies: 25
    Last post: 23 May 2006, 5:33 PM
  4. Replies: 81
    Last post: 27 Dec 2004, 12:47 AM