Urban planning community

+ Reply to thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 46

Thread: 2010 Predictions for Top 10 cities

  1. #1
    Cyburbian ICT/316's avatar
    Registered
    May 2005
    Location
    Kansas (Lurking)
    Posts
    489

    2010 Predictions for Top 10 cities

    2010 TOP 10 U.S. Cities Population and Rank prediction (city limits only).
    These are my predictions and are based on no official source.


    2003 Rank City 2003 Pop.
    1. New York 8,085,000
    2. Los Angeles 3,819,000
    3. Chicago 2,869,000
    4. Houston 2,009,000
    5. Philadelphia 1,479,000
    6. Phoenix 1,388,000
    7. San Diego 1,266,000
    8. San Antonio 1,214,000
    9. Dallas 1,208,000
    10. Detroit 911,000


    2010 Rank City 2010 Pop. (Prediction)
    1. New York 8,300,000
    2. Los Angeles 4, 250,000
    3. Chicago 2,800,000
    4. Houston 2,175,000
    5. Phoenix 1,750,000
    6. San Antonio 1,425,000
    7. Philadelphia 1,400,000
    8. San Diego 1,375,000
    9. Dallas 1,325,000
    10. San Jose 925,000
    ( Note: 11th Detroit 850,000)

  2. #2
    Cyburbian ICT/316's avatar
    Registered
    May 2005
    Location
    Kansas (Lurking)
    Posts
    489
    Jumping ahead to 2020. Las Vegas will be in the top 10!

  3. #3
    Cyburbian jread's avatar
    Registered
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    739
    Quote Originally posted by ICT/316
    Jumping ahead to 2020. Las Vegas will be in the top 10!
    I imagine Austin may be up there as well by 2020. We're closing in on 700,000.

  4. #4
    Cyburbian ICT/316's avatar
    Registered
    May 2005
    Location
    Kansas (Lurking)
    Posts
    489

    Austin

    jread, good call on Austin 2020. How about this?

    Austin 2003 pop. 672,000 (44% increase from 1990)
    2010 pop. 819,000 (22% increase from 2003)
    2020 pop. 910,000 (11% increase from 2010) for 12th largest, betwwen Las Vegas and Detroit.
    I don't know what I'm talking about. Las Vegas just screws the whole thing up when I look at it again. It grew 100%!!! from 1990 to 2003! It's like a bottle rocket though. It's keeps going up, but it has to "POP" and come down as debris some day.

    Also, I can't believe that San Antonio is bigger than the "Big D"."San Anwhat?" Their in denial in Dallas. Ha

    Bill

  5. #5
    Cyburbian mgk920's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Appleton, Wisconsin
    Posts
    4,166
    Quote Originally posted by ICT/316
    jread, good call on Austin 2020. How about this?

    Austin 2003 pop. 672,000 (44% increase from 1990)
    2010 pop. 819,000 (22% increase from 2003)
    2020 pop. 910,000 (11% increase from 2010) for 12th largest, betwwen Las Vegas and Detroit.
    I don't know what I'm talking about. Las Vegas just screws the whole thing up when I look at it again. It grew 100%!!! from 1990 to 2003! It's like a bottle rocket though. It's keeps going up, but it has to "POP" and come down as debris some day.

    Also, I can't believe that San Antonio is bigger than the "Big D"."San Anwhat?" Their in denial in Dallas. Ha

    Bill
    IIRC, Dallas is nearly 100% landlocked by incorporated suburbs (Garland, Irving, etc). How close is it to being built out (under current zoning laws)?

    OTOH, Fort Worth, Houston, Austin, San Antonio, El Paso and most other Texas central cities have few, if any, suburbs to block their ways.

    Mike

  6. #6
    Cyburbian jread's avatar
    Registered
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    739
    This is true. San Antonio has an ENORMOUS corporate limits boundary will almost nothing blocking it from growing even larger. It's amazing how spread out that place is... very low-density. Their downtown situation is similar to Phoenix in that there is not much of a skyline.

    Also, I think that Houston may be much larger than your prediction for 2020. It seems that if I remember correctly, they added more to their population from 1990 to 2000 than Los Angeles did. Houston also has lots of room to keep growing while Los Angeles is packing in pretty tightly. I don't know if Houston will ever be as populated as L.A. (highly doubt it), but I believe its rate of growth will be faster.

    As for Austin, it is predicted by this site that the metro area will double in size within 20 to 40 years: http://www.envisioncentraltexas.com/...visionreal.php

  7. #7
    Cyburbian ICT/316's avatar
    Registered
    May 2005
    Location
    Kansas (Lurking)
    Posts
    489

    Texas

    Dallas has about 342.5 sq miles for a population density of 3,528 per sq. mile as of 2003. San Antonio has 407.6 sq. miles for a population density of 2,980 per sq. miles as of 2003. Pretty close for now as far as density, But like you and mgk920 said, there’s no suburbs to stop San Antonio! They’ll have more population and even less density in the future.

    Dallas may be able to grow to the S.E., but south Dallas isn’t its strong growth side. North side is. You never know, I’ve seen city growth in other cities area’s I never thought would ever have development.

    Bill

  8. #8
    Cyburbian illinoisplanner's avatar
    Registered
    May 2005
    Location
    The Fox Valley
    Posts
    4,651
    Blog entries
    1
    Is it just me or does there seem to be an ongoing battle between San Antonio and Austin for the benchmark as Central Texas' primary city. More recently, it seems Austin has stolen the spotlight, with growth and everything. San Antonio seems kind of ignored and underrepresented, even though it is in fact bigger than Austin. Is there a large hispanic population in SA by the way?? Also, I was surprised to find out that the Austin metro has more Best Buys than the San Antonio metro. San Antonio really needs to get back on their feet...improve their downtown or something. Make SeaWorld an attraction again. Get a baseball team. I don't know.
    "Life's a journey, not a destination"
    -Steven Tyler

  9. #9
    Cyburbian jmello's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Clayobyrne, CB
    Posts
    2,581
    Quote Originally posted by ICT/316
    Dallas may be able to grow to the S.E., but south Dallas isn’t its strong growth side. North side is.
    Isn't this mostly due to racial segregation? The north side is white, while the south side is black?

  10. #10
    Cyburbian mgk920's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Appleton, Wisconsin
    Posts
    4,166
    Quote Originally posted by jread
    This is true. San Antonio has an ENORMOUS corporate limits boundary will almost nothing blocking it from growing even larger. It's amazing how spread out that place is... very low-density. Their downtown situation is similar to Phoenix in that there is not much of a skyline.

    Also, I think that Houston may be much larger than your prediction for 2020. It seems that if I remember correctly, they added more to their population from 1990 to 2000 than Los Angeles did. Houston also has lots of room to keep growing while Los Angeles is packing in pretty tightly. I don't know if Houston will ever be as populated as L.A. (highly doubt it), but I believe its rate of growth will be faster.

    As for Austin, it is predicted by this site that the metro area will double in size within 20 to 40 years: http://www.envisioncentraltexas.com/...visionreal.php
    Might Houston pass up the City of Chicago to become #3 in the USA within the next 20-30 years?

    I do see Chicago going back into a population growth mode as more and more of the city is 'rediscovered' by developers, but with a landlocked border they are limited to rediscovering the neighborhods that they now have. I'll give the city (assuming no basket-case south suburbs are annexed) 3.25-3.3M people in 2035. Houston, OTOH, will just keep going on its merry way.

    Mike

  11. #11
    Cyburbian jread's avatar
    Registered
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    739
    Quote Originally posted by illinoisplanner
    Is it just me or does there seem to be an ongoing battle between San Antonio and Austin for the benchmark as Central Texas' primary city.
    Yes, I definitely see this battle you speak of.

    More recently, it seems Austin has stolen the spotlight, with growth and everything. San Antonio seems kind of ignored and underrepresented, even though it is in fact bigger than Austin.
    This is true. Austin's high-tech economy, younger population, etc. have drawn a lot of attention to it in recent years. San Antonio may be bigger but it's more of just a place to live and raise a family. Austin is more exciting and modern... it has a certain "feel" to it that nobody can explain, though everyone is drawn to it.

    Is there a large hispanic population in SA by the way??
    Understatement of the year, lol. Mexico has pretty much taken San Antonio back from Texas.

    Also, I was surprised to find out that the Austin metro has more Best Buys than the San Antonio metro.
    More techie-geeks here.

    San Antonio really needs to get back on their feet...improve their downtown or something. Make SeaWorld an attraction again. Get a baseball team. I don't know.
    I agree. San Antonio just kind of sits there and does nothing. They are getting a boost in their economy from a new Toyota factory, but more needs to be done still. I think the Riverwalk downtown is awesome and there are some other fun things to do in that area, but the rest of the city is extremely bland and uninteresting. I definitely couldn't live there.

  12. #12
    Cyburbian jread's avatar
    Registered
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    739
    Quote Originally posted by ICT/316
    jread, good call on Austin 2020. How about this?
    Just checked out the city demographer's site and your estimates are pretty close! Go to this site and click on "Population" at the top. It will open a spreadsheet of past numbers as well as future estimates up to 2035: http://www.ci.austin.tx.us/census/

  13. #13
    Cyburbian ChevyChaseDC's avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Philadelphia, PA
    Posts
    190
    All such predictions should be made with a grain of salt. Remember, planners and demographers from 75 years ago thought cities like Philadelphia and New York would just keep on growing at the same pace they did in the first half of the century. Economic changes, world events, disasters...a whole host of things can send seemingly prosperous cities into intractable decline. Even Detroit was a rapidly-growing boomtown once, too.

    I think that growth in desert cities like Las Vegas and Phoenix will be stifled - quickly - by water shortages. I think that Houston too will slow in growth as the oil and gas economy runs into trouble, along with the limitations of worsening traffic and air pollution.

    Finally, I think it's far more valid to think of entire metro regions, not just central cities. Phoenix is on the verge of surpassing Philadelphia in population, but Phoenix covers hundreds of square miles and is constantly annexing and expanding its borders, comprising a huge bulk of its urbanized area land mass and urbanized area population. Philadelphia, on the other hand, is surrounded by mature cities, boroughs, and townships, and is part of a much larger and more populous urbanized area than Phoenix...

  14. #14
    Cyburbian ICT/316's avatar
    Registered
    May 2005
    Location
    Kansas (Lurking)
    Posts
    489
    CCDC
    First, I did not ever mention that these “Top 10” cities would never stop growing at their present pace. Second, the thread covered the next 5 years (or 7 years from the statistics and predictions shown). It did not cover the 50 years of a half-century like you had mentioned about the other older cities. Third, it had nothing to do with “Metro” areas. It had nothing to do with the built environment of a Metro and mature suburbs. It was about central city population. I’m fully aware that cities like Washington, DC, Philadelphia, Boston and others have lost hundreds of thousands of people since their hay days and that as a whole their metropolitan areas continue to grow and prosper.
    One more thing, Philadelphia metro grew 4.6% from 1990-2000. Looks like their all moving to Phoenix (45% metro growth, 1990-2000). Good times.

    Bill
    jread, that prediction for Houston's population was for 2010 not 2020, when you mentioned that you thought it would be higher. Yes I agree, it will be higher.
    Last edited by ICT/316; 25 May 2005 at 11:50 AM.

  15. #15
    Cyburbian ChevyChaseDC's avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Philadelphia, PA
    Posts
    190
    Quote Originally posted by ICT/316
    CCDC
    First, I did not ever mention that these “Top 10” cities would never stop growing at their present pace.
    I know. Just rousing a little rabble.

    Quote Originally posted by ict/316
    Second, the thread covered the next 5 years (or 7 years from the statistics and predictions shown). It did not cover the 50 years of a half-century like you had mentioned about the other older cities.
    Some folks here are indeed talking about 20-40 years into the future.


    Quote Originally posted by ICT/316
    Third, it had nothing to do with “Metro” areas. It had nothing to do with the built environment of a Metro and mature suburbs. It was about central city population. I’m fully aware that cities like Washington, DC, Philadelphia, Boston and others have lost hundreds of thousands of people since their hay days and that as a whole their metropolitan areas continue to grow and prosper.
    One more thing, Philadelphia metro grew 4.6% from 1990-2000. Looks like their all moving to Phoenix (45% metro growth, 1990-2000). Good times.
    Again, I'm fully aware. However, I mentioned it because I think that metro areas serve as a more valid comparison with eastern cities since they're so fragmented by little suburban municipalties all over the place. Boston-proper, at about half a million people and about 50 square miles, is smaller than many western cities like San Antonio, Phoenix, even Tucson and Albuquerque. One walking around downtown Boston in the summer, or driving on area roadways, would not for a moment realize this, in this large metro region of 5.5 million.

    Let's not limit ourselves to "old" cities, either. Atlanta is a poster child for rapid sun-belt growth. But almost all of that growth takes place beyond the city limits. Though the city proper did grow some between 1990 and 2000 after losing population between 1980 and 1990, the suburban counties have just exploded. It's one of the three or four fastest growing large metros in the country, but that fact doesn't get reflected on a list that just measures central city growth. Just pointing that out.

    I'm pointing this stuff out because the vast majority of the population growth that is occurring in the very largest of the fast growing cities manifests itself in low-density, automobile-oriented development on the fringe. Suburbs. Except in Phoenix and San Antonio, they're in the central city.

    As much as some folks complain about sprawling western cities, their geographic growth is far more in line with their population growth than in eastern and northern metro areas. Though the Philadelphia region only grows slowly, low-density sprawl gobbles up the countryside at a torrid pace.

    So though the intent of this thread may have been originally to predict large central city populations, I'm trying to ruffle a few feathers.
    Last edited by ChevyChaseDC; 25 May 2005 at 7:13 PM.

  16. #16
    Cyburbian ICT/316's avatar
    Registered
    May 2005
    Location
    Kansas (Lurking)
    Posts
    489
    CCDC
    I agree about what you said about Boston. How, if you didn’t know where you were it would not seem you were in a massive metro of millions of people. I’ve never been there or to many older established and dense cities like Boston, Philly or NYC. It would be nice to just walk out the door and walk to get a gallon of milk as opposed to getting into your car and driving a 1/8 of a mile across a 10 lane Boulevard to the “Super Sprawl Mart”, that you can see from your front door.
    The older cities have quality, history, are people friendly and have Identity. Spacious, sprawling suburban driven cities (metro’s!) are so unforgiving to humans; it even for me is hard to believe so many people move to them (I know, good schools, low crime, back yards, retirement, new jobs ect.). But, like I said, it’s sad when you have to drive to the store across the street (if that’s what you want to call them) because walking would surely mean you vs. auto, having you lose!
    I’ve never been to Phoenix, but I bet an outsider could go crazy driving from Mile sectioned intersection to mile-sectioned intersection, looking at, W-Mart, Apple Cee’s, McD’s, Best Deal, Barnes and Royals and Super Car Blow Out Bonanza Lot (ON THE BIG CORNER OF 905th STREET N. and BACKWATER RURAL HEIGHTS PARKWAY, just 37 miles north of downtown!). “Are we going in circles?” “No straight line for 30 miles now.” There’s more character in one or two blocks of Jersey City, Baltimore or Philly than some 250+ sq mile suburban cities of the Sunbelt! That, I do agree with you on!

    Bill (Ramblimg)

  17. #17
    Member
    Registered
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Kerville,Texas
    Posts
    6
    What do you mean San Antonio needs to work on their downtown.San Antonio has one of the most vibrant downtowns in America.

    San Antowhat? San Antonio is a major North American tourist desination and convention city.The latest estimate shows over 20,000,000 visitors yearly.

    San Antonio is home to the 3 time world champions, SA SPURS!!!


    San Antonio's economy is very strong and diversified.It has 5 or 6 fortune 500 companies, 2 of them are fortune 100.

    AT&T / SBC,Valero/Ultramar Diamond Shamrock,USAA,Clear Channel World Wide,Tesoro Energy,HB Zachry are all fortunne 500 and HQ in S.A.

    So ,San Antonio is home to the largest commuincations,Oil refinning co(larger than EXXon),radio Advertising company in the nation.


    San Antonio city limits is about the same size as Dallas, Phoenix and San Diego and has about the same city population.Metro wise San Antonio has about 2 million.

    San Antonio corporate presence is much stronger now and on par or better than cities it's size.Other companies that have regional offices here or plants are; Boeing,Citi Bank,World Savings,Chase,Washington Mutual,Sony,Phillips and the list goes on.

    A huge Sports is complex planned which will include a new NFL stadium,MLB stadium,NASCAR racetrack, adjacent to the AT&T NBA arena.(Former SBC CENTER]

    Austin ahead of San Antonio, no way never.
    Last edited by Kerville Texan; 07 Dec 2005 at 3:25 PM.

  18. #18
    Cyburbian jread's avatar
    Registered
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    739
    It never fails... no matter what forum you go to, there are always the San Antonio guys who get REALLY defensive about their city. They especially hate when it's compared to Austin
    "I don't suffer from insanity... I enjoy every single minute of it!"

  19. #19
    Member
    Registered
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Kerville,Texas
    Posts
    6
    I'm not from San Antonio.I have lived in Austin and San Antonio ,and Austin people are pretty cocky when it comes to comparing both.WHen Austin has more than a lake and 6th street and a billion bats then try and compare it to San Antonio.San Antonio has history, culture,tons of entertainment.Comparing the number of Best Buys give me a freaking break.Who the heck cares.

  20. #20
    Cyburbian the north omaha star's avatar
    Registered
    Nov 2003
    Location
    at Babies R Us or Home Depot
    Posts
    1,260
    Any predictions for the midwest and great plains?

    Omaha (Will Omaha continue to try and sidestep KC's shadow?)
    Kansas City
    St. Louis
    Minneapolis
    Cleveland
    Cincinnati
    Indy
    Des Moines
    I am recognizing that the voice inside my head
    is urging me to be myself but never follow someone else
    Because opinions are like voices we all have a different kind". --Q-Tip

  21. #21
    Cyburbian mgk920's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Appleton, Wisconsin
    Posts
    4,166
    Quote Originally posted by the north omaha star
    Any predictions for the midwest and great plains?

    Omaha (Will Omaha continue to try and sidestep KC's shadow?)
    Kansas City
    St. Louis
    Minneapolis
    Cleveland
    Cincinnati
    Indy
    Des Moines
    I think that Columbus will be Ohio's most populous city within a couple of censi, as both Cincinnati and Cleveland are landlocked while Columbus is not.

    Mike

  22. #22
    Cyburbian jread's avatar
    Registered
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    739
    Quote Originally posted by Kerville Texan
    I'm not from San Antonio.I have lived in Austin and San Antonio ,and Austin people are pretty cocky when it comes to comparing both.WHen Austin has more than a lake and 6th street and a billion bats then try and compare it to San Antonio.San Antonio has history, culture,tons of entertainment.Comparing the number of Best Buys give me a freaking break.Who the heck cares.
    - music scene

    - highly-educated population

    - unique shops and neighborhoods

    - liberal and progressive


    There's a lot more to it than that...
    "I don't suffer from insanity... I enjoy every single minute of it!"

  23. #23
    Cyburbian the north omaha star's avatar
    Registered
    Nov 2003
    Location
    at Babies R Us or Home Depot
    Posts
    1,260
    Quote Originally posted by mgk920
    I think that Columbus will be Ohio's most populous city within a couple of censi, as both Cincinnati and Cleveland are landlocked while Columbus is not.

    Mike
    Mike,

    Columbus is the largest city in Ohio already.
    I am recognizing that the voice inside my head
    is urging me to be myself but never follow someone else
    Because opinions are like voices we all have a different kind". --Q-Tip

  24. #24
    Cyburbian mgk920's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Appleton, Wisconsin
    Posts
    4,166
    Quote Originally posted by the north omaha star
    Mike,

    Columbus is the largest city in Ohio already.
    Thanx. I neglected to check my new RMcN, but I thought that it was still a very close second. It is amazing what the ability to annex will do to a central city in a growing metro area.

    Mike

  25. #25
    Member
    Registered
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Columbus
    Posts
    19
    Quote Originally posted by mgk920
    Thanx. I neglected to check my new RMcN, but I thought that Columbus was still a very close second. It is amazing what the ability to annex will do to a central city in a growing metro area.

    Mike
    Looking at some of the cities that fall just short of the top 10 you can get a clear image of what cities (in 2004) might be contenders for the top 10 in the near future.

    Someone brought up what cities in the midwest will look like. In the midwest there are two cities to pay close attention to. Idianapolis (12th) and Columbus (15th). These two have the most economic growth in the city boundaries (for the large midwestern cities) and the most potential of getting even closer to the top 10.

    The 2004 estimated population of Indianapolis (12th largest city) is 784,242 (up from 781,870 in 2000)
    The 2004 estimated population of Columbus (15th largest city) is 730,008 (up from 711,470 in 2000) Soon I would expect Columbus to move to 14th place replacing Sanfrancisco (744,230) Jacksonville will most likely move to 12th from 13th and Detroit (11th now) will end up being pushed even futher down the chart to 15th or higher. Austin is the 16th largest city and will continue to move up further as well. Memphis the 17th shows no sign of population decline.

    Further down the road it is not really a question of if Columbus and Indianapolis will reach the one million mark but I am wondering when? Both are seeing steady growth in the central city and both cities have tons of square miles that are not even developed yet. When looking at Ohio cities it is interesting to note that even the ares outside of the city limits of Cleveland and Cincinnati are loosing population. Cleveland is seening the most metro decline. Annexation alone cannot reverse an economy. I know that for most of Columbus' population changes from 2000 are because of densification and filling out. While the metro continues to gain population as well.

    Below is a chart of the 2004 and 2000 population estimates of the top 20 most populated cities

    2004 (est) 2000 -/+ population change
    1 New York City 8,104,079 8,008,278 +

    2 LA 3,845,541 3,694,820 +

    3 Chicago 2,862,244 2,896,016 -

    4 Houston 2,012,626 1,953,631 +

    5 Philadelphia 1,470,151 1,517,550 -

    6 Phoenix 1,418,041 1,321,045 +

    7 San Diego 1,263,756 1,223,400 +

    8 San Antonio 1,236,249 1,144,646 +

    9 Dallas 1,210,393 1,188,580 +

    10 San Jose 904,522 894,943 +

    11 Detroit 900,198 951,270 +

    12 Indianapolis 784,242 781,870 +

    13 Jacksonville 777,704 735,617 +

    14 San Francisco 744,230 776,733 -

    15 Columbus 730,008 711,470 +

    16 Austin 681,804 656,562 +

    17 Memphis 671,929 650,100 +

    18 Baltimore 636,251 651,154 -

    19 Fort Worth 603,337 534,694 +

    20 Charlotte 594,359 540,828 +

+ Reply to thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast

More at Cyburbia

  1. Replies: 66
    Last post: 03 Nov 2010, 12:35 PM
  2. Predictions about suburbs
    Economic and Community Development
    Replies: 17
    Last post: 03 Feb 2009, 5:00 PM
  3. Replies: 13
    Last post: 19 Oct 2007, 7:35 PM
  4. Replies: 0
    Last post: 10 May 2005, 9:45 PM
  5. So now what? Predictions for 2003
    Friday Afternoon Club
    Replies: 17
    Last post: 22 Dec 2003, 9:04 AM