The US Census Bureau recently released their annual city population estimates for 2018. I'll list the top 10, but the rest can be seen here (https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?src=bkmk). Here's the top 10 (with 2010 figures in parentheses):
1 New York 8387748 (8175133)
2 Los Angeles 3990456 (3792621)
3 Chicago 2705994 (2695598)
4 Houston 2325502 (2099451)
5 Phoenix 1660272 (1445632)
6 Philadelphia 1584138 (1526006)
7 San Antonio 1532233 (1327407)
8 San Diego 1425976 (1307402)
9 Dallas 1345047 (1197816)
10 San Jose 1030119 (945942)
No change in the top ten from last year's estimates. Los Angeles is inching closer to 4 million people. It would be only the second city to ever achieve that feat.
The gap between Chicago and Houston has been cut drastically. I think it's very conceivable that within the next ten years, Houston will become the nation's third-largest city.
San Jose is #10, but Austin (#11) is nipping at its heels. At 964,254, Texas' capitol city is poised to become the next millionaire city. Elsewhere outside the top ten, Jacksonville top the 900k mark. However, #13 Fort Worth (895,008) and #14 Columbus (892,533) and #15 San Francisco (883,305) are giving Florida's largest city a run at its money. Charlotte at #16 (872,498) could make a run at the top ten in the near future.
Some other notables: Detroit has fallen to #23. Memphis, once a top 20 city, has fallen to #26.
Cleveland has fallen out of the top 50.
Shortly, I will post some interest state results in the replies.
Some state results I found interesting (get more results here (https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/demo/popest/2010s-total-cities-and-towns.html)):
ALABAMA
Birmingham (estimated 209880, down from 212,237) is still the state's largest city, but I believe it's in danger of losing that status. #2 Montgomery (198,218) is in danger of slipping down, as Huntsville has now exactly 900 fewer people than Montgomery. Within 5-10 years, Huntsville will be Alabama's biggest city, though Birmingham will be the largest metro still.
ARKANSAS
Little Rock (197,881) will be #1 for the foreseeable future, but the real fun is the cities ranked below it. #2 Fort Smith has slowly risen to 87,845 (up from 86,209), but #3 Fayetteville (86,751, up from 73,580) and #4 Springdale (both part of the booming Northwest Arkansas region) are quickly rising. Even #5 Jonesboro (76,990, up from 67,263) is getting in on the action. Two other NWA cities, Bentonville and Rogers, are also growing very rapidly. Add in Conway (near Little Rock), Fort Smith may not be in the top five of Arkansas cities in the very near future.
INDIANA
Not long ago, Gary was the second largest city in the state. Due to many issues (primarily de-industrialization), Gary has now fallen to #9. Other growing cities like Lafayette and Noblesville) could send Gary below the top ten. How the mighty have fallen.
I know that in Michigan Sterling Heights and Warren are neck-and-neck in population and they border each other in Metro Detroit. Both have around a 130,000 people. Flint used to be the second largest city in the state now I believe it's 7th or 8th.
Kenosha is Wisconsin's fourth city to hit 100k, and could pass Green Bay for 3rd largest if trends continue. Appleton is quickly gaining on Racine for the 5 spot at around 75k, and Waukesha isn't far behind, meaning that Racine could fall as far as 7th soon. Eau Claire recently passed Oshkosh (I think in 2016 or 17) for 8th.
Quote from: golden eagle on June 16, 2019, 08:54:10 PM
Some state results I found interesting (get more results here (https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/demo/popest/2010s-total-cities-and-towns.html)):
ALABAMA
Birmingham (estimated 209880, down from 212,237) is still the state's largest city, but I believe it's in danger of losing that status. #2 Montgomery (198,218) is in danger of slipping down, as Huntsville has now exactly 900 fewer people than Montgomery. Within 5-10 years, Huntsville will be Alabama's biggest city, though Birmingham will be the largest metro still.
ARKANSAS
Little Rock (197,881) will be #1 for the foreseeable future, but the real fun is the cities ranked below it. #2 Fort Smith has slowly risen to 87,845 (up from 86,209), but #3 Fayetteville (86,751, up from 73,580) and #4 Springdale (both part of the booming Northwest Arkansas region) are quickly rising. Even #5 Jonesboro (76,990, up from 67,263) is getting in on the action. Two other NWA cities, Bentonville and Rogers, are also growing very rapidly. Add in Conway (near Little Rock), Fort Smith may not be in the top five of Arkansas cities in the very near future.
INDIANA
Not long ago, Gary was the second largest city in the state. Due to many issues (primarily de-industrialization), Gary has now fallen to #9. Other growing cities like Lafayette and Noblesville) could send Gary below the top ten. How the mighty have fallen.
For Gary US Steel went from 30,000 employees in 1970 to 6,000 employees in 1990. Similar to how Flint, Michigan went from 80,000 GM workers in 1978 to around 5,000 today.
Problem with cities is many have suburbs...is there an MSA list?
Quote from: texaskdog on June 16, 2019, 10:14:59 PM
Problem with cities is many have suburbs...is there an MSA list?
Somewhere on the site.
TENNESSEE
In addition to being the capitol city, Nashville recently became the state's largest city, and unless Memphis changes its fortunes around, Nashville may never relinquish this distinction for years to come. Knoxville is in a distant third, but Chattanooga is gaining on them. But Chattanooga and Knoxville cannot rest easily because Clarksville and Murfreesboro, both near Nashville, are quickly rising among the ranks. Within the next 20 years, I expect them both to be top-four cities in Tennessee.
Quote from: golden eagle on June 16, 2019, 08:24:21 PM
The US Census Bureau recently released their annual city population estimates for 2018. I'll list the top 10, but the rest can be seen here (https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?src=bkmk). Here's the top 10 (with 2010 figures in parentheses):
1 New York 8387748 (8175133)
2 Los Angeles 3990456 (3792621)
3 Chicago 2705994 (2695598)
4 Houston 2325502 (2099451)
5 Phoenix 1660272 (1445632)
6 Philadelphia 1584138 (1526006)
7 San Antonio 1532233 (1327407)
8 San Diego 1425976 (1307402)
9 Dallas 1345047 (1197816)
10 San Jose 1030119 (945942)
Philadelphia had just over 2 million in 1950 and 1960, and was the 4th largest city.
I think that New York, Los Angeles and Chicago have been 1, 2 and 3 respectively since the 1920s. Interesting that these cities are actually growing again.
Quote from: Beltway on June 17, 2019, 12:14:10 AM
Quote from: golden eagle on June 16, 2019, 08:24:21 PM
The US Census Bureau recently released their annual city population estimates for 2018. I'll list the top 10, but the rest can be seen here (https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?src=bkmk). Here's the top 10 (with 2010 figures in parentheses):
1 New York 8387748 (8175133)
2 Los Angeles 3990456 (3792621)
3 Chicago 2705994 (2695598)
4 Houston 2325502 (2099451)
5 Phoenix 1660272 (1445632)
6 Philadelphia 1584138 (1526006)
7 San Antonio 1532233 (1327407)
8 San Diego 1425976 (1307402)
9 Dallas 1345047 (1197816)
10 San Jose 1030119 (945942)
Philadelphia had just over 2 million in 1950 and 1960, and was the 4th largest city.
I think that New York, Los Angeles and Chicago have been 1, 2 and 3 respectively since the 1920s. Interesting that these cities are actually growing again.
Detroit was larger than Los Angeles until 1950. Philadelphia was larger than Los Angeles until
1960.
Chicago has been up and down in recent years. From 1980-1990, it lost about a quarter million people, gained about 100k back by 2000, but lost about 200k in 2010.
New York's population took a beating in the 70s, losing 10% of its population. The numbers started reversing itself in the 80s and haven't looked back since.
It was about 1984 when Los Angeles passed Chicago. I remember seeing an article back when I was about middle school age.
I think that was also when Columbus passed Cleveland.
The world turned upside down.
Quote from: texaskdog on June 16, 2019, 10:14:59 PM
Problem with cities is many have suburbs...is there an MSA list?
That is really the point. While it is a nice trivia as to which city is ranked here or there, different laws in different states about expanding city lines (and many cities being on state lines) mean that the MSA population is really the much more important statistic from a planning or political perspective.
Personally I find the TV DMA to be the best measure of a region's growth relative one to another.
BTW, the major point the you usually get out of census estimates is just how wrong they are when the actual count is done in two year. Much like political polls.
A ranking of metropolitan areas might seem more accurate. Cleveland basically has fixed boundaries, but Columbus was able to annex all over the place. Cities in Texas can also annex, but in New England, they can't.
It's less common for cities to deannex, though I think Memphis is deannexing that huge undeveloped area on the southwest.
The problem with metropolitan areas though is that parts of them seem to be not really what people would consider part of the city that they are centered on. Is northern Kentucky part of Cincinnati or not? Should the census bureau just rank places that are city-sized but not necessarily coterminous with actual ctiies (like how they do CDP's for unincorporated areas)?
Quote from: SP Cook on June 17, 2019, 09:59:30 AM
Personally I find the TV DMA to be the best measure of a region's growth relative one to another.
Some of those DMA definitions are downright goofy.
For years, I've been working on systems to try to identify DMA-like areas for radio, but I've never really come up with anything accurate. I planned on working on it some later today.
Quote from: SP Cook on June 17, 2019, 09:59:30 AM
Quote from: texaskdog on June 16, 2019, 10:14:59 PM
Problem with cities is many have suburbs...is there an MSA list?
That is really the point. While it is a nice trivia as to which city is ranked here or there, different laws in different states about expanding city lines (and many cities being on state lines) mean that the MSA population is really the much more important statistic from a planning or political perspective.
Personally I find the TV DMA to be the best measure of a region's growth relative one to another.
BTW, the major point the you usually get out of census estimates is just how wrong they are when the actual count is done in two year. Much like political polls.
Please don't insert politics into any discussion on here. Thank you.
I know the city of Detroit has fallen to 23rd at one time the 4th largest city in the country. Detroit at one time had 1.8 million people, today it's a little over 600,000. Now the metro area has more people today than it did when Detroit was at its peak population which is still at least the 12th largest metro area.
Quote from: Flint1979 on June 17, 2019, 12:28:34 PM
I know the city of Detroit has fallen to 23rd at one time the 4th largest city in the country. Detroit at one time had 1.8 million people, today it's a little over 600,000. Now the metro area has more people today than it did when Detroit was at its peak population which is still at least the 12th largest metro area.
Detroit is the poster child for mid-20th century urban sprawl. Nobody wanted to live in the city past the 1950s. Even though the Metro Area is still large it's growth has largely gone into stagnation.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 17, 2019, 12:45:14 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on June 17, 2019, 12:28:34 PM
I know the city of Detroit has fallen to 23rd at one time the 4th largest city in the country. Detroit at one time had 1.8 million people, today it's a little over 600,000. Now the metro area has more people today than it did when Detroit was at its peak population which is still at least the 12th largest metro area.
Detroit is the poster child for mid-20th century urban sprawl. Nobody wanted to live in the city past the 1950s. Even though the Metro Area is still large it's growth has largely gone into stagnation.
That's pretty true everyone that stayed simply couldn't get out. Now the inner ring suburbs are the same way the city is. The metro area isn't really gaining any population but it's not losing much either. Now everyone out in Macomb County north of M-59 is where they're moving. Like Shelby Township and Macomb Township.
Quote from: texaskdog on June 16, 2019, 10:14:59 PM
Problem with cities is many have suburbs...is there an MSA list?
It does skew things a bit, yeah. While Georgia's top six by population (Atlanta, Augusta, Columbus, Macon, Savannah, Athens) are core cities, numbers 7, 8, 9, 10, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, and 20 are all various Atlanta suburbs, four of which were just incorporated this decade.
Meanwhile, Atlanta stands at just over 498,000 in the estimate, up about 6300 from the previous year. Since that estimate was on July 1 of last year, it's likely that the city is now finally over the 500,000 mark for the first time.
One of the more notable results from the city population estimates is that the strong growth of New York City since 2010 has abruptly turned into a significant decline (-77,000 compared to 2016, but still +223,000 since 2010).
Quote from: golden eagle on June 16, 2019, 10:59:16 PM
TENNESSEE
In addition to being the capitol city, Nashville recently became the state's largest city, and unless Memphis changes its fortunes around, Nashville may never relinquish this distinction for years to come. Knoxville is in a distant third, but Chattanooga is gaining on them. But Chattanooga and Knoxville cannot rest easily because Clarksville and Murfreesboro, both near Nashville, are quickly rising among the ranks. Within the next 20 years, I expect them both to be top-four cities in Tennessee.
However, if Tennessee still had its license plate numbering system based on the first numeric digit or two indicating county (1=largest, 2=2nd largest...), Shelby County would still have a comfortable margin of being county #1.
That being said, I hadn't appreciated that the Nashville metro area now has a population of 2 million.
Quote from: Flint1979 on June 16, 2019, 09:00:59 PM
...Flint used to be the second largest city in the state ...
cough cough [Grand Rapids] cough.
Quote from: GaryV on June 17, 2019, 04:44:18 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on June 16, 2019, 09:00:59 PM
...Flint used to be the second largest city in the state ...
cough cough [Grand Rapids] cough.
Yeah now it is. Flint's 1960 population was 196,940, GR's 1960 population was 177,313.
Quote from: bandit957 on June 17, 2019, 10:03:18 AM
Quote from: SP Cook on June 17, 2019, 09:59:30 AM
Personally I find the TV DMA to be the best measure of a region's growth relative one to another.
Some of those DMA definitions are downright goofy.
Agreed. DMAs are problematic for comparing urban/metro areas since physical geography comes into play (especially in the West) - where broadcast signals reach (or used to reach), and spacing/distribution of cities large enough to support network TV stations. No one would ever consider Burns, OR to be any part of the Portland metro/urban area/sphere of influence, but it's in the Portland DMA.
Quote from: Chris on June 17, 2019, 03:31:15 PM
One of the more notable results from the city population estimates is that the strong growth of New York City since 2010 has abruptly turned into a significant decline (-77,000 compared to 2016, but still +223,000 since 2010).
This to me points up the un-reliability of the Census estimates. The original 2017 estimate for New York was 8,622,698. With the release of the 2018 data, they revised the 2017 number down to 8,438,271. So without explanation, they decided they were off by nearly 200,000 people last year.
It's not just the Census Bureau, though. States do their own estimates, which often vary significantly from Federal estimates. For example, California's estimates in the 1990s were consistently higher than the Census Bureau's, and when the 2000 Census data was released, the results tracked much closer to what the state had been estimating. This was reversed in the 2000s; the Census estimates were closer to tracking the 2010 numbers than the state estimates.
Even after each Census, localities have the opportunity to challenge the results, and often result in counts changing by thousands of people.
In short, they're just estimates, and should all be taken with a grain of salt.
Quote from: bandit957 on June 17, 2019, 10:00:11 AM
A ranking of metropolitan areas might seem more accurate. Cleveland basically has fixed boundaries, but Columbus was able to annex all over the place. Cities in Texas can also annex, but in New England, they can't.
It's less common for cities to deannex, though I think Memphis is deannexing that huge undeveloped area on the southwest.
The problem with metropolitan areas though is that parts of them seem to be not really what people would consider part of the city that they are centered on. Is northern Kentucky part of Cincinnati or not? Should the census bureau just rank places that are city-sized but not necessarily coterminous with actual ctiies (like how they do CDP's for unincorporated areas)?
Metropolitan areas are also tricky, since they're county-based. So you get the San Bernardino County problem, where Needles is part of the Riverside metro area, even though it's 150+ miles of desert away from even the exurbs of the urban area.
On the other hand, using Census-defined Urban Areas are also problematic, since physical geography might separate two areas that are deeply tied together socially/culturally.
In my opinion, all Census-defined areas are problematic, since their primary data point is commuting patterns. This may have worked in 1960, when most households were single-income, and most people commuted to a commercial core for their job. With the rise of multiple-income households (including multiple incomes from one person), the "gig economy," telecommuting and hyper-commuting, this metric is a lot less clear than it used to be. Also, it ignores the rest of people's lives: where they go for shopping, entertainment and leisure, etc.
The Bay Area is a good example of this. The "real world" definition has always been the nine counties that touch San Francisco Bay (and many state and local agencies use this definition), and the region is very close-knit from a social, cultural, economic, and media standpoint. But there is no Census-defined area (or combination of areas) that contains just those nine counties. Therefore, the data presents the Bay Area as much smaller than it really is (using the San Francisco-Oakland Urban Area) or much larger than it really is (using the San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland Combined Statistical Area).
Quote from: DTComposer on June 17, 2019, 07:06:08 PM
Metropolitan areas are also tricky, since they're county-based. So you get the San Bernardino County problem, where Needles is part of the Riverside metro area, even though it's 150+ miles of desert away from even the exurbs of the urban area.
On the other hand, using Census-defined Urban Areas are also problematic, since physical geography might separate two areas that are deeply tied together socially/culturally.
It might be more accurate if they come up with metropolitan areas that use townships and MCD's instead of counties. They already do this for New England as an alternative to the county-based areas.
Quote from: bandit957 on June 17, 2019, 07:11:22 PM
Quote from: DTComposer on June 17, 2019, 07:06:08 PM
Metropolitan areas are also tricky, since they're county-based. So you get the San Bernardino County problem, where Needles is part of the Riverside metro area, even though it's 150+ miles of desert away from even the exurbs of the urban area.
On the other hand, using Census-defined Urban Areas are also problematic, since physical geography might separate two areas that are deeply tied together socially/culturally.
It might be more accurate if they come up with metropolitan areas that use townships and MCD's instead of counties. They already do this for New England as an alternative to the county-based areas.
Don't forget CCDs.
Quote from: bandit957 on June 17, 2019, 07:11:22 PM
Quote from: DTComposer on June 17, 2019, 07:06:08 PM
Metropolitan areas are also tricky, since they're county-based. So you get the San Bernardino County problem, where Needles is part of the Riverside metro area, even though it's 150+ miles of desert away from even the exurbs of the urban area.
On the other hand, using Census-defined Urban Areas are also problematic, since physical geography might separate two areas that are deeply tied together socially/culturally.
It might be more accurate if they come up with metropolitan areas that use townships and MCD's instead of counties. They already do this for New England as an alternative to the county-based areas.
Not everywhere uses or has townships.
Quote from: SP Cook on June 17, 2019, 09:59:30 AM
BTW, the major point the you usually get out of census estimates is just how wrong they are when the actual count is done in two year. Much like political polls.
Would love to see the data to support your claim of how wrong the annual estimates are.
Quote from: cabiness42 on June 18, 2019, 11:50:33 AM
Quote from: SP Cook on June 17, 2019, 09:59:30 AM
BTW, the major point the you usually get out of census estimates is just how wrong they are when the actual count is done in two year. Much like political polls.
Would love to see the data to support your claim of how wrong the annual estimates are.
One real world example is Phoenix. The population estimates had the city passing Philadelphia but came way down by the time the official census was done in 2010. I would attribute that instance to a lot of people not claiming Phoenix as their primary residence (Snow Birds).
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 18, 2019, 01:11:29 PM
Quote from: cabiness42 on June 18, 2019, 11:50:33 AM
Quote from: SP Cook on June 17, 2019, 09:59:30 AM
BTW, the major point the you usually get out of census estimates is just how wrong they are when the actual count is done in two year. Much like political polls.
Would love to see the data to support your claim of how wrong the annual estimates are.
One real world example is Phoenix. The population estimates had the city passing Philadelphia but came way down by the time the official census was done in 2010. I would attribute that instance to a lot of people not claiming Phoenix as their primary residence (Snow Birds).
That doesn't make the annual estimates wrong. The annual estimates are based on ACS data, which uses different residency criteria (currently staying at address 2+ months) than the census (where you live most of the year). A snowbird who lives in Phoenix between 2 and 6 months would correctly be counted if they received an ACS form while in Phoenix but correctly not counted if they received their census form while in Phoenix.
If you are looking purely at the data for data's sake, it creates an inaccuracy. If you are looking at the data from an urban planning standpoint, getting the data both ways is helpful for Phoenix to understand the number of snowbirds.
Quote from: Brandon on June 18, 2019, 07:09:01 AM
Quote from: bandit957 on June 17, 2019, 07:11:22 PM
Quote from: DTComposer on June 17, 2019, 07:06:08 PM
Metropolitan areas are also tricky, since they're county-based. So you get the San Bernardino County problem, where Needles is part of the Riverside metro area, even though it's 150+ miles of desert away from even the exurbs of the urban area.
On the other hand, using Census-defined Urban Areas are also problematic, since physical geography might separate two areas that are deeply tied together socially/culturally.
It might be more accurate if they come up with metropolitan areas that use townships and MCD's instead of counties. They already do this for New England as an alternative to the county-based areas.
Not everywhere uses or has townships.
Most states that use townships are in the Northeast and Midwest
Quote from: cabiness42 on June 18, 2019, 11:50:33 AM
Quote from: SP Cook on June 17, 2019, 09:59:30 AM
BTW, the major point the you usually get out of census estimates is just how wrong they are when the actual count is done in two year. Much like political polls.
Would love to see the data to support your claim of how wrong the annual estimates are.
If you google "syracuse NY population", google comes up with the graph of few upstate cities (you may click "explore more" under the graph and add more cities). There are noticable bumps around 2000 and 2010 for upstate cities estimates, either up or down. Not huge, but noticable.
I assume you can do the same for cities near you.
Quote from: kalvado on June 19, 2019, 10:55:03 AM
Quote from: cabiness42 on June 18, 2019, 11:50:33 AM
Quote from: SP Cook on June 17, 2019, 09:59:30 AM
BTW, the major point the you usually get out of census estimates is just how wrong they are when the actual count is done in two year. Much like political polls.
Would love to see the data to support your claim of how wrong the annual estimates are.
If you google "syracuse NY population", google comes up with the graph of few upstate cities (you may click "explore more" under the graph and add more cities). There are noticable bumps around 2000 and 2010 for upstate cities estimates, either up or down. Not huge, but noticable.
I assume you can do the same for cities near you.
Yes, the changes in the census year are almost always way bigger than the other year-on-year changes, sometimes erasing or reversing the gain or loss for the entire ten year period.
Using Rochester as an example, every year between 2000 and 2010 showed a small loss. Then all of a sudden in 2010 there was a gain of around 2,000 people. Same with the 1990's; losses posted every year but then a gain of around 5,000 in 2000.
I have seen this across many cities in many areas of the country.
Quote from: cabiness42 on June 18, 2019, 11:50:33 AM
Quote from: SP Cook on June 17, 2019, 09:59:30 AM
BTW, the major point the you usually get out of census estimates is just how wrong they are when the actual count is done in two year. Much like political polls.
Would love to see the data to support your claim of how wrong the annual estimates are.
From my earlier post:
Quote from: DTComposer on June 17, 2019, 06:48:27 PM
The original 2017 estimate for New York was 8,622,698. With the release of the 2018 data, they revised the 2017 number down to 8,438,271. So without explanation, they decided they were off by nearly 200,000 people last year.
So either the 2017 number was way off, or the 2018 number will prove to be way off, or perhaps both.
In Michigan it's either City or Township. All of the villages are a part of a Township.