Urban planning community

+ Reply to thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 26 to 46 of 46

Thread: 2010 Predictions for Top 10 cities

  1. #26
    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. Indianapolis (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 San francisco (744,230) Indianapolis (now 12th) will be neck in neck with Jacksonville (now 13th) putting either at 12th and 11th and Detroit (11th now) will end up being pushed even further down the chart to maybe 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.

    Regarding the midwest again; 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? I wouldn't expect this before 2010 but sometime after. 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 some of the areas outside of the city limits of Cleveland and Cincinnati are loosing population. Cleveland is seeing the entire metro decline in population. Annexation alone cannot reverse a metros economy. In Columbus the metro continues to gain population as the city does.


    http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0763098.html link here
    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 +
    Last edited by streetcreed; 09 Dec 2005 at 3:39 AM.

  2. #27
    Member
    Registered
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Columbus
    Posts
    19
    Double Post. sorry

  3. #28
    Cyburbian jread's avatar
    Registered
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    739
    I think that we should also account for the large amount of people Houston has recently gained due to hurricane Katrina. It seems like I remember hearing that nearly 200,000 people relocated to the Houston area... all at once.
    "I don't suffer from insanity... I enjoy every single minute of it!"

  4. #29
    Cyburbian mgk920's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Appleton, Wisconsin
    Posts
    4,172
    Quote Originally posted by jread
    I think that we should also account for the large amount of people Houston has recently gained due to hurricane Katrina. It seems like I remember hearing that nearly 200,000 people relocated to the Houston area... all at once.
    Assuming that they are pretty much all inside of the city limits, that would increase Houston from 2,012,626 to about 2,210,000. I would also add between 25K and 50K to San Antonio's population due to permanant storm relocations.

    Although it may still be below that 'top 20' list, how much has the Baton Rouge, LA area likely grown (city limits and metro) due to that storm?

    Mike

  5. #30
    Member
    Registered
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Kerville,Texas
    Posts
    6
    Don't get me wrong, Austin is a great city as well, still maturing.San Antonio just has so much more.The infrastructure is just so much larger.Austin doesn't even have a Zoo or any kind of theme parks, sports franchises etc.The good thing is that these two cities will be merged in 25 years.

  6. #31
    I wonder why Louisville isn't on that list -- at 700,050, it would rank 16th.
    On pitching to Stan Musial:
    "Once he timed your fastball, your infielders were in jeopardy."
    Warren Spahn

  7. #32
    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 Gedunker
    I wonder why Louisville isn't on that list -- at 700,050, it would rank 16th.
    Louisville has 700,000 people? Where have I been?
    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

  8. #33
    Cyburbian zman's avatar
    Registered
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    9,029
    Blog entries
    2
    Glad to see Denver is not on there, of course, that is hard b/c the City Limits cannot expand (unless they want to build an airport in Kansas )
    Of course, I would like to see predictions for the Denver metro area and the numbers there now as well as the future.
    You get all squeezed up inside/Like the days were carved in stone/You get all wired up inside/And it's bad to be alone

    You can go out, you can take a ride/And when you get out on your own/You get all smoothed out inside/And it's good to be alone
    -Peart

  9. #34
    Cyburbian jmello's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Clayobyrne, CB
    Posts
    2,581
    Quote Originally posted by the north omaha star
    Louisville has 700,000 people? Where have I been?
    IIRC, the city recently merged withe the county. Or, was that Lexington?

  10. #35
    Quote Originally posted by the north omaha star
    Louisville has 700,000 people? Where have I been?
    Quote Originally posted by jmello
    IIRC, the city recently merged with the county. Or, was that Lexington?
    Louisville did indeed consolidate with Jefferson County, *increasing* its population to 700k. And jmello is also correct: Lexington/Fayette County have a unified government system in place.

    Louisville's MSA is right at 1 million which includes the four gedunkers.
    On pitching to Stan Musial:
    "Once he timed your fastball, your infielders were in jeopardy."
    Warren Spahn

  11. #36
    Cyburbian ICT/316's avatar
    Registered
    May 2005
    Location
    Kansas (Lurking)
    Posts
    490
    There are sometimes phenomena’s that happen to drastically change city populations. Usually these may be short term events. After September 11th, I could of swore that NYC was going to lose a noticeable amount in it’s population. May be something like 100K to 250K. It seemed so devastating and traumatic (and it was!) that I believed fear would cause this. It did not happen. In fact the population continued to grow.
    New Orleans is obviously another example. I would say it is save to say that the cities population will not be the same any time in the near future.
    Houston and Baton Rogue are other examples. Consolidating cities and counties is another (more notice of course) example that can rapidly and unexpectedly change the “list” of most populated cities.

    Bill

    __________________

    “Ladies and gentlemen, can I please have your attention. I've just been handed an urgent and horrifying news story. I need all of you, to stop what you're doing and listen. Cannonball!”

    - Ron Burgundy

  12. #37
    Cyburbian jresta's avatar
    Registered
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Philadelphia, PA
    Posts
    1,472
    Philly's decline is over. The latest census estimates show that and I'm confident that by 2010 we'll be back up to 1.5 million. I think we'll level off at 1.6 million. There's just way too much new construction and rehab/loft conversions going on - nearly everywhere in the city - to think otherwise.

    I think some people are putting way too much stock in the continued availability of cheap gas and water. If either of them become scarce Phoenix is finished.
    Indeed you can usually tell when the concepts of democracy and citizenship are weakening. There is an increase in the role of charity and in the worship of volunteerism. These represent the élite citizen's imitation of noblesse oblige; that is, of pretending to be aristocrats or oligarchs, as opposed to being citizens.

  13. #38

    Registered
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    Posts
    1,548
    Quote Originally posted by jresta
    Philly's decline is over. The latest census estimates show that and I'm confident that by 2010 we'll be back up to 1.5 million. I think we'll level off at 1.6 million. There's just way too much new construction and rehab/loft conversions going on - nearly everywhere in the city - to think otherwise.
    Conversely, I think Detroit's population decline is far from over. I think Detroit will bottom out at about 700,000 or 750,000, in about 2030.

    However, there is a wild card in this. Detroit has one of the largest Arab populations of any major metro area, especially among Chaldeans (Iraqi Christians). I'd be willing to bet that, whatever the outcome of the Iraq War, there will be thousands of pro-American Iraqi immigrants moving here after the war's over and many of them will come to Detroit.

    Sounds kinda crazy but entirely plausible.

  14. #39
    Cyburbian jmello's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Clayobyrne, CB
    Posts
    2,581
    Quote Originally posted by jresta
    Philly's decline is over. The latest census estimates show that and I'm confident that by 2010 we'll be back up to 1.5 million. I think we'll level off at 1.6 million. There's just way too much new construction and rehab/loft conversions going on - nearly everywhere in the city - to think otherwise.
    Don't count your chickens....

    Boston (and Massachusetts) has experienced even more of a new housing boom and its population has remained stagnant and/or decreased in recent years. Don't underestimate the demographic influence of shrinking urban households.

  15. #40
    Cyburbian jordanb's avatar
    Registered
    May 2003
    Location
    City of Low Low Wages!
    Posts
    3,236
    Population isn't gained in mature American central cities by more housing, it's gained by crowding. Chicago actually did gain population in the 1990s (about 133,000 people, despite Census estimates that it had lost people). But nearly all the increase were immigrants. Yuppies tend to take up a lot of room so gentrifying areas are typically more likely to lose than gain population. And even with a big building boom of condo towers, there's usually a lot of building for not a lot of increase in people.

    New York and San Francisco gained significant population in the 1990s without large building booms, principally because even the yuppies are willing to crowd to get into those cities.

  16. #41
    Member
    Registered
    Apr 2007
    Location
    San Antonio, Texas 78259
    Posts
    1

    Austin and San Antonio

    Quote Originally posted by jread View post

    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.



    Understatement of the year, lol. Mexico has pretty much taken San Antonio back from Texas.



    More techie-geeks here.



    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.

    Yes, I definitely see this battle you speak of.
    I really concur on some of your statements that Austin has a can do attitude compared to San Antonio. San Antonio needs to build more skyscrapers downtown. Austin is the most overrated city in Texas, other than UT & Capitol(belongs to all of Texas) the city streets are horrendous. San Antonio has better neighborhood, more character and charm and currently just booming at the seams. Both are bless with being in the Hill Country. Austin does have great entertainment,better liberal attitudes about sex but San Antonio has better restaurants, culture and nightclubs throuhout the city.

  17. #42
    Cyburbian jresta's avatar
    Registered
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Philadelphia, PA
    Posts
    1,472
    Quote Originally posted by jmello View post
    Don't count your chickens....

    Boston (and Massachusetts) has experienced even more of a new housing boom and its population has remained stagnant and/or decreased in recent years. Don't underestimate the demographic influence of shrinking urban households.
    Boston doesn't have 26,000 abandoned homes, 31,000 vacant lots, and 3,000 abandoned commercial and industrial sites (most of which could fit 100+ units)
    That's probably not the case in Chicago either.

    This is a city built for 2.5 million that has 1.5 million people. Dropping household density by .3 people per unit makes up 1/5 of that difference. It's especially off-base considering that new development is typically 50% more dense than what it is replacing.
    Indeed you can usually tell when the concepts of democracy and citizenship are weakening. There is an increase in the role of charity and in the worship of volunteerism. These represent the élite citizen's imitation of noblesse oblige; that is, of pretending to be aristocrats or oligarchs, as opposed to being citizens.

  18. #43
    Cyburbian CJC's avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2007
    Location
    San Francisco, CA
    Posts
    1,689
    I wouldn't count on San Jose dropping out of the top 10 either.

    http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_5798587

  19. #44
    Cyburbian TexanOkie's avatar
    Registered
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Oklahoma City
    Posts
    2,904
    Back to comparing San Antonio to Dallas...

    I wouldn't. The comparisons to Austin are more accurate as far as size. Both have similar-sized metro areas (between 1.5 and 2 million) and GDP's.

    Dallas, on the other hand, has a metro population of about 4 million (not including the 2 million more on the Fort Worth-oriented side of the metro), which makes it ripe for comparison with Houston (metro approx. 5 million, with lower density than and similar GDP to Dallas [what Dallas lacks in dollar value it makes up for in economic diversification]) than San Antonio.

  20. #45
    Cyburbian eightiesfan's avatar
    Registered
    May 2005
    Location
    San Francisco, CA
    Posts
    110
    The Atlanta Metro seems to be growing at a pretty rapid pace as well, I think we may see it jump up quite a bit.
    Regrets, I've had a few; But then again, too many to mention.

  21. #46
    Cyburbian ICT/316's avatar
    Registered
    May 2005
    Location
    Kansas (Lurking)
    Posts
    490
    Quote Originally posted by ICT/316 View post
    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)
    So here is an update on this thread. The left is the actual 2010 census ranking and population for the top 10 largest cities for their city limits population, not their metro populations. The right side was my 2005 predictions and the difference.

    Bill

    2010 Census

    Rank City 2010 pop. My '05 ranking, pop. and actual difference from prediction
    1. New York 8,175 k 1. 8,300 k 125 k
    2. Los Angles 3,792 k 2. 4,250 k 458 k (ouch!)
    3. Chicago 2,695 k 3. 2,800 k 105 k
    4. Houston 2,099 k 4. 2,175 k 76 k
    5. Philadelphia 1,526 k 7. 1,400 k 126 k
    6. Phoenix 1,445 k 5. 1,750 k 305 k
    7. San Antonio 1,327 k 6. 1,425 k 98 k
    8. San Diego 1,307 k 8. 1,375 k 68 k
    9. Dallas 1,099 k 9. 1,325 k 226 k
    10. San Jose 945 k 10. 925 k 20k

+ Reply to thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2

More at Cyburbia

  1. Replies: 66
    Last post: 03 Nov 2010, 1:35 PM
  2. Predictions about suburbs
    Economic and Community Development
    Replies: 17
    Last post: 03 Feb 2009, 6:00 PM
  3. Replies: 13
    Last post: 19 Oct 2007, 8:35 PM
  4. Replies: 0
    Last post: 10 May 2005, 10:45 PM
  5. So now what? Predictions for 2003
    Friday Afternoon Club
    Replies: 17
    Last post: 22 Dec 2003, 10:04 AM