The largest cities in the U.S. (2009)

[Chris]

Most "megalopolises" in the northeast will eventually occur through merger of existing urban areas. For example, you only need around 300,000 additional people to have a solid merger of the NYC and Philadelphia metropolitan areas. Statistically, it would let NYC metro grow by around 5 million, while the actual population growth is only a few hundred thousand people.

For example Houston or Dallas-Fort Worth won't merge with any other significant city, so their population growth is much more impressive in my opinion.

I wonder how the Miami (better: South Florida) metropolitan area will grow. It's basically wedged between a huge swamp and the sea. It can only grow north and south, but that would create unacceptable commuting distances, it is already around 110 miles north-south. While not very obvious, the same seems to be happening on the west coast of Florida between Citrus County and Naples.

[golden eagle]

Really, the whole I-4 corridor and then up I-95 to Jacksonville and down to Brevard County (if not farther down). Heck, let's just say all of Florida from I-75 eastward!

[Hot Rod Hootenanny]

Most "megalopolises" in the northeast will eventually occur through merger of existing urban areas. For example, you only need around 300,000 additional people to have a solid merger of the NYC and Philadelphia metropolitan areas. Statistically, it would let NYC metro grow by around 5 million, while the actual population growth is only a few hundred thousand people.

For example Houston or Dallas-Fort Worth won't merge with any other significant city, so their population growth is much more impressive in my opinion.

Houston and Galveston are already one. I could see Houston "moving east" towards Beaumont, Port Arthur, and Orange and in turn a westward movement of Lake Charles towards Texas by 2050.  Hurricanes pending mind you.

[Hot Rod Hootenanny]

Columbus is the largest city proper in Ohio, but because it has annexed much of its suburban area, it only ranks as the 3rd largest metro area in the state.

What Columbus lacks to Cincy and Cleveland is a secondary city.  Cincinnati has Hamilton, and even Dayton (and Northern Kentucky), while Cleveland has Lorain-Elyria and Akron-Canton.  (Heck, as recently as the late 80s there was still the thought that one could see a megalopolis of Cleveland-Youngstown-Pittsburgh. Or so I was told in school back then)

[TheStranger]

Columbus is the largest city proper in Ohio, but because it has annexed much of its suburban area, it only ranks as the 3rd largest metro area in the state.

What Columbus lacks to Cincy and Cleveland is a secondary city.  Cincinnati has Hamilton, and even Dayton (and Northern Kentucky), while Cleveland has Lorain-Elyria and Akron-Canton.  (Heck, as recently as the late 80s there was still the thought that one could see a megalopolis of Cleveland-Youngstown-Pittsburgh. Or so I was told in school back then)

For that matter, it really does seem as if that "secondary" city is what does prop up a metro area that extra little bit (i.e. Long Beach and Anaheim for Los Angeles, the North County area for San Diego, Henderson for Vegas, Scottsdale/Mesa/et al. for Phoenix).

Not sure if Elk Grove and Roseville really fit the definition for Sacramento, though most of the new development has been in those two suburbs as of late.

[golden eagle]

I'm thinking a megaloposis could form from DFW to San Antonio along the I-35 corridor. San Antonio and Austin are growing toward each other and Austin is growing toward Killeen, Temple and Waco.

There's also one forming along the Gulf Coast from Baton Rouge to Fort Walton Beach. But just like the Houston-to-Lake Charles corridor, the risk of hurricanes could blow it (no pun intended) away.

[Scott5114]

It would be really interesting to see Oklahoma City and Tulsa grow into one another, but I don't see it happening. Oklahoma City seems to grow in every direction but northeast; once you get on the Turner Turnpike urbanization comes to a dead stop (do the tolls and lack of interchanges make development less lucrative? There's no access to the "outside world" until Wellston, so there's no reason to build alongside the turnpike.)

If any sort of shitty "megalopolis" develops in Oklahoma (it is in Oklahoma so you know it'll be sort of a disappointment as megalopoli go), it'd probably be more along the lines of OKC—Lawton, since you have Chickasha in the middle there to facilitate the connection. From Chickasha, the chain would go Amber-Bridge Creek-Newcastle-Oklahoma City (barring the development of some new town along the corridor). Of course you also have the challenge of tolls and lack of access here, too.

[TheStranger]

It would be really interesting to see Oklahoma City and Tulsa grow into one another, but I don't see it happening. Oklahoma City seems to grow in every direction but northeast; once you get on the Turner Turnpike urbanization comes to a dead stop (do the tolls and lack of interchanges make development less lucrative? There's no access to the "outside world" until Wellston, so there's no reason to build alongside the turnpike.)

What's the geography like in the northeast area?  I get the sense that in California, the lack of a true SF-LA megalopolis is mostly geographically influenced (lots of hills and a few big grades left on 101, the Grapevine along 5); for the areas that seem "easy" to develop but haven't, those tend to be too far for commutes and too valuable still as farmland (I-5 between Route 99 in Wheeler Ridge and I-205 in Tracy). 

In that vein, the Route 99 corridor isn't really a "megalopolis" of Bakersfield-Fresno-Stockton-Sacramento despite the large size of all four communities, due to the continuing prevalence of large-scale farming in the Valley (thus explaining why Sacramento-Stockton is not one metro area).

[TheStranger]

Here's a nice little graphic from Wikipedia that shows some of the areas where growth has coalesced:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:MapofEmergingUSMegaregions.png

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megaregions_of_the_United_States

[Chris]

According to that methodology, half of Europe would be one megaregion. In my opinion, it means nothing, just some stuff for people who like meaningless numbers.

The MSA definitions are already flawed because it calculates metro size based on the county subdivision. Some MSA's have several counties with one population center, where the other 80% of the area is rural, especially an issue when you're comparing the area of an MSA to another.

Especially on this side of the pond, people like to say; "look, Dallas is more than half the size of the Netherlands yet has only 6 million inhabitants, typical American waste of space".
While if you look closer, you'll see half or more of the DFW MSA area is rural.


Population densities:

Collin County: 862 / sq mi
Dallas County: 2,691 / sq mi
Delta County: 8 / sq mi
Denton County: 689 / sq mi
Ellis County: 119 / sq mi
Hunt County: 39 / sq mi
Johnson County: 205 / sq mi
Kaufman County: 34 / sq mi
Parker County: 124 / sq mi
Rockwall County: 334 / sq mi
Tarrant County: 1,990 / sq mi
Wise County: 21 / sq mi

In my opinion, anything under 500 people / sq mi can hardly be considered urban. That leaves us a 4-county core of the metropolitan area.

[Truvelo]

Dallas is more than half the size of the Netherlands yet has only 6 million inhabitants, typical American waste of space

One of the reasons for this is the much larger lots houses are built on in the US, particularly the more recent subdivisions. Europe, in contrast, has more smaller properties. In Holland there's also a much higher proportion of apartments in the cities than houses. Chris may know the exact figure but a very rough estimate of somewhere like Rotterdam may be as high as 1 house for every 9 apartments. In this scenario there's a much higher population density for any given area of land. An extreme example may be an upmarket subdivision on the edge of a large US city with large McMansions that each sit on the same area of land as a single apartment block in a Dutch city that houses 200 families.

[Chris]

Most Dutch live in rowhouses, also in the cities. Only the older neighborhoods around the city center are typically 3 - 4 story apartments, generally inhabited by immigrants and low-income households. High-rise living is certainly not a large proportion in the Netherlands, as it is for example in eastern Europe. Most high-rises are social housing with loads of unemployed people and is generally seen as the least attractive housing in the Netherlands.

However, housing is generally expensive in the Netherlands, don't be surprised if you have to pay $ 400,000 for a 20 x 25 feet 3-story rowhouse with a 6 feet front yard and a 30 feet backyard... Detached homes are only affordable to the upper class. American-size detached homes are generally around $ 800,000 - 1 million in the Netherlands.

[golden eagle]

How are metro areas configured in New England? In the rest of the U.S., they're grouped by counties and parishes. However, you may have more than one metro in the same county in New England.

[huskeroadgeek]

How are metro areas configured in New England? In the rest of the U.S., they're grouped by counties and parishes. However, you may have more than one metro in the same county in New England.

Some whole counties are used while others are split up by townships. Counties as a whole in New England have less importance than they do in other parts of the country-in Connecticut and Rhode Island they function as little more than geographic designations.

[golden eagle]

I was thinking of the largest cities of several states that could be in danger of losing that title and let me see what you think or if there may be others to add:

Alabama: Birmingham's population keeps dropping, but Mobile is back on the rise after a steady decline. Montgomery also has its rises and falls. There's around 28k-population difference between Montgomery and Birmingham. However, Huntsville has been growing faster than any other major urban area in Alabama. I think they'll overtake Mobile in with ten years (if not before then), Montgomery not too long after that, then even Birmingham. It may be possible that Montgomery overtakes Birmingham first and then Huntsville.

Tennessee: Memphis' population has risen since 2000, but that was mainly because of annexation. However, the numbers have been steadily declining since then. Nashville has risen above 600K for the first time. I think it's possible within ten years that Nashville will overtake Memphis.

Utah: Could it be possible that surburban West Valley City (125K) could get ahead of parent city Salt Lake City (183K)? That may could end up being the first suburb to be larger than the parent city, at least in modern times.

In Kentucky, had Louisville not merged with Jefferson County, Lexington would've been the largest city a while back.

Down the road, it may be possible for Little Rock (191K) to be surpassed by Fayetteville (77K). Little Rock is growing, but Fayetteville has been growing at a faster pace. In Mississippi, it may take a few decades, but Southaven (45K and one of the state's fastest-growing cities) could end up being bigger than Jackson (175K and declining).  

In most other states, the population between the largest and second-largest city is so huge that it would take several generations for the second-largest to surpass the largest. I don't see Tucson bigger than Phoenix anytime soon or Fort Wayne bigger than Indianapolis. Even Grand Rapids won't be bigger than Detroit in my lifetime and Detroit has been falling like a rock!

[Chris]

Utah: Could it be possible that surburban West Valley City (125K) could get ahead of parent city Salt Lake City (183K)? That may could end up being the first suburb to be larger than the parent city, at least in modern times.

Virginia Beach is also much larger than Norfolk.

[huskeroadgeek]

Utah: Could it be possible that surburban West Valley City (125K) could get ahead of parent city Salt Lake City (183K)? That may could end up being the first suburb to be larger than the parent city, at least in modern times.

Virginia Beach is also much larger than Norfolk.

Good point-that's actually probably the first case of a suburb becoming larger than the main city.  Virginia Beach is such an integral part of the Hampton Roads area that it's kind of forgotten now that Norfolk was for a long time the main city in the area and the largest city in the state. Virginia Beach grew partially by its location and partially by annexation-it orginally was an unincorporated area from the early 20th century and was later incorporated as a small independent city in 1952, but increased its population greatly when it merged with surrounding Princess Anne County in 1963. It has continued to grow since that time due to its favorable location.

[huskeroadgeek]

Some other relatively recent changes in largest city status:

Florida: Jacksonville was the largest city in the early part of the 20th century but was pased up by Miami in the 1940 census. Jacksonville regained the title in the 1970 census after it combined with surrounding Duval County and will likely continue to hold it for a long time as it is well ahead of any other city in the state.

Kansas: Not a change in largest city status since Wichita has been and appears likely to continue to be the largest city in the state for a long time to come, but Overland Park has gone from not existing before 1960 to now being the 2nd largest city in the state.

Louisiana: Population shifts due to Hurricane Katrina were thought at one time likely to allow Baton Rouge to pass up New Orleans as the largest city in the state for the first time, but recent estimates indicate that probably won't be the case when the 2010 Census figures come out.

Missouri: St. Louis was long the largest city in the state, probably since statehood, but was passed up by Kansas City sometime in the early 80s(St. Louis was only barely ahead of Kansas City in the 1980 Census)

Nevada: Reno was the largest city in Nevada until Las Vegas passed it up sometime in the 1950s.

Ohio: Cleveland was long the largest city in Ohio until Columbus passed it up sometime in the 1980s.

Virginia: As noted above, Norfolk was long the largest city in the state until passed up by Virginia Beach in the early 1980s(Norfolk was only barely ahead of Virginia Beach in the 1980 Census)

West Virginia: Huntington and Charleston have traded for the title a few times. Huntington was the largest city for most of the 20th century until Charleston won the title in the 1960 Census. Then Huntington won it back in the 1970 Census but Charleston won it back again in the 1980 Census and has held it since (pending the 2010 Census-the two cities are very close in population).

Wyoming: Cheyenne had been the largest city in the state until Casper passed it up in the 1980 Census, but Cheyenne won the title back in the 1990 Census, held it in the 2000 Census and appears likely to continue to hold it in the 2010 Census.

[golden eagle]

I was not aware that Virginia Beach was a suburb.

When I was living in Georgia, the chairman of the Gwinnett County Commission had came up with the idea of the city of Gwinnett. Basically, take all the unincorporated areas of the county and make it one big city. Were that to happen now, it'd be bigger than Atlanta. I doubt this would ever come to fruition, but at least something to think about.

While I did note that many states have quite a large gap between the largest and second-largest city, what will be interesting to see a shuffling at other positions. For instance, how long will Tucson hang up to #2 in Arizona before getting passed by cities like Mesa or even over up-an-coming locales like Chandler and Gilbert? In Texas, Dallas is now the third-largest city in the state, but could it get passed by by Austin or could Austin be outpaced by Fort Worth or El Paso? In Illinois, Rockford was sent down to #3 after getting passed by Aurora, but Naperville and Joliet could send Rockford down to #5 before too long.

[huskeroadgeek]

Virginia Beach wouldn't be considered a suburb of Norfolk now, but it certainly would have been before its fast growth began in the 1960s/1970s.

Interesting comment about Gwinnett County-there have been a couple of other proposals that would have changed rankings in other states. In 2002, the San Fernando Valley portion of Los Angeles voted to secede from the rest of the city, but it was a non-binding vote and the LA City Council refused to support the idea. Had it passed, the new city would have become probably the 3rd largest city in the state, just behind San Diego and definitely among the 10 largest in the country. Similar to the Gwinnett County proposal was one that a member of the Kansas State Legislature proposed back in 2006 to merge the governments of all of the cities in Johnson and Wyandotte Counties-most of the Kansas portion of metro Kansas City-into one large city. Such a city would far surpass Wichita as the largest city in the state and be in the top 20 largest cities in the country. The proposal got very little support however and is unlikely to ever happen.

[deathtopumpkins]

Speaking as someone who lives here, Virginia Beach is most certainly a suburb.

While it may be home to the region's two tallest buildings, and may be the most populous, at least 95% of the land area consists of low-density development, and quite a bit of the southern portion of the city is still rural. In  contrast, Norfolk has large areas of medium- and high-density development, and most of its low-density areas are still a lot denser than Va Beach because they are older. I can't think of a single area of the city that was only recently developed. Additionally, if you look at traffic patterns the majority of traffic is going westbound on I-264 in the morning and eastbound in the evening... the interstates are built favoring traffic from Va Beach to the Naval Base in Norfolk and downtown Norfolk.

Due to the whole nature of development in Hampton Roads, however, it's not really a good example to use of typical city structure. There are 7 urban cores in the region.

[golden eagle]

Now that I think about it, there was a proposal in the mid-90s to consolidate all of Harrison County, MS. The new city (can't remember the name) would've made it the largest city in Mississippi (this was at least a decade before Katrina).

There has been some talk about Memphis and Shelby County consolidating. I found a Commercial-Appeal article about it. Seems like the suburbs are more against it. But even if Memphis and Shelby merge and, for example, Germantown and Collierville stay independent, a consolidated Memphis-Shelby County would put it around 750K at the least. It would make it a little harder for Nashville to overtake.

Going back to state rankings, Ann Arbor is now the fifth-largest city in Michigan (having passed Flint) and is within a hair's breath of beating out Lansing at #4. I'm really surprised Ann Arbor isn't larger than it is, given the University of Michigan is there. With all the bigger cities falling, Ann Arbor has been somewhat steady in its population.

[golden eagle]

Speaking as someone who lives here, Virginia Beach is most certainly a suburb.

While it may be home to the region's two tallest buildings, and may be the most populous, at least 95% of the land area consists of low-density development, and quite a bit of the southern portion of the city is still rural. In  contrast, Norfolk has large areas of medium- and high-density development, and most of its low-density areas are still a lot denser than Va Beach because they are older. I can't think of a single area of the city that was only recently developed. Additionally, if you look at traffic patterns the majority of traffic is going westbound on I-264 in the morning and eastbound in the evening... the interstates are built favoring traffic from Va Beach to the Naval Base in Norfolk and downtown Norfolk.

Due to the whole nature of development in Hampton Roads, however, it's not really a good example to use of typical city structure. There are 7 urban cores in the region.

Since you live there, I can't dispute what you say. It's just that to outsiders like myself, we would think that Norfolk would be the suburb to Virginia Beach.

[agentsteel53]

It's just that to outsiders like myself, we would think that Norfolk would be the suburb to Virginia Beach.

hah, outsiders like me are happy if the entire thing sinks into the sea ...

[deathtopumpkins]

It's just that to outsiders like myself, we would think that Norfolk would be the suburb to Virginia Beach.

hah, outsiders like me are happy if the entire thing sinks into the sea ...

Trust me, that would make some locals happy too!  Sure would me.