One of my favorite times of the year, as the U.S. Census Bureau released city population estimates for 2016. Here are the top ten largest cities:
New York: 8,537,643
Los Angeles: 3,977,323
Chicago: 2,704,968
Houston: 2,303,483
Phoenix: 1,615,017
Philadelphia: 1,567,872
San Antonio: 1,493,510
San Diego: 1,406,630
Dallas: 1,317,350
San Jose: 1,025,360
No surprises here, but Houston has closed a nearly 600k-person gap to just above 400k with Chicago. San Antonio is quickly approaching Philadelphia, taking a near 200k gap to around 75k. Columbus overtook Indianapolis as the nation's 14th largest city. Source (https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2017/cb17-81-population-estimates-subcounty.html)
When looking at state results, there are interesting things going on. Nashville is now Tennessee's largest city at 660,338; compared to Memphis' 652,717.
Charleston is now South Carolina's biggest city, edging out Columbia by a mere 76 people! Charleston is at 134,385, while Columbia sits at 134309.
Huntsville is now Alabama's third largest city, pushing Mobile down to fourth place, with 173 people separating the two. Huntsville is just under 7000 less than Montgomery. I believe Huntsville will be Alabama's largest city within the next ten years.
For state numbers: https://www.census.gov/data/tables/2016/demo/popest/total-cities-and-towns.html
I haven't looked at all the numbers, but will have more time this weekend to parse through.
Quote from: golden eagle on May 26, 2017, 01:23:15 AM
Charleston is now South Carolina's biggest city, edging out Columbia by a mere 76 votes! Charleston is at 134,385, while Columbia sits at 134309.
Those aren't votes.
I was looking at the Montana election while writing this. Thanks for catching that.
Huntsville might be the second-largest city by the end of the decade, but the Birmingham Metro area is still much larger in population than the Huntsville-Decatur / North Central Alabama area.
Detroit still is losing population, down to 672,795 from 1.8 million in the 1950s. That's absolutely incredible to me that a city of that size really can depopulate like that when a war or natural disaster wasn't involved. Phoenix looks on pace to hit two million maybe in 15-20 years at this rate, Houston is closing in Chicago.
Wait, was this the first time Phoenix surpassed Philadelphia?
ETA: Yes, it was. That's rather significant.
Quote from: Rothman on May 26, 2017, 07:59:23 AM
Wait, was this the first time Phoenix surpassed Philadelphia?
No, in the last decade there was some conjecture estimates that Phoenix was at 1.7 million but it was WAY off. If I had to speculate, I would venture the snowbird crowd probably had something to do with that assumption that the number was so high.
Many people, myself included, think Chicago may become the next Detroit.
Only time will tell.
I still think it's funny that the largest city in the Bay Area is not San Francisco! When was the last time it was, 1989?
As for Chicago being the next Detroit, I have to disagree on that prediction. It will still remain the largest city in the Midwest for many years, as new people come in to replace those who have moved out. Besides Detroit, other cities like Cincinnati, Cleveland, Baltimore and New Orleans have suffered major losses as well.
I'd argue Chicago has already bottomed out since it has dropped from 3.6 million to a slight rebound on the last census to about 2.7 million. I'm with everyone on the Midwest Rust Belt thing but really Detroit really has dropped to a level unseen pretty much anywhere before in North America. The whole city basically is a giant ruin, you'll never so much abandonment on that large of a scale. Gary, Indiana is probably the next closest analog with small cities dropping from 178,000 to 76,000 from 1960.
Quote from: Henry on May 26, 2017, 09:34:08 AM
I still think it's funny that the largest city in the Bay Area is not San Francisco! When was the last time it was, 1989?
I believe 1988 was the first year the estimates put San Jose ahead.
Quote from: Henry on May 26, 2017, 09:34:08 AMBesides Detroit, other cities like Cincinnati, Cleveland, Baltimore and New Orleans have suffered major losses as well.
Detroit gets the most notoriety since it was over 1 million people and for many years was the 4th or 5th largest city in the country. But Cleveland's drop has been comparable, and St. Louis' even more so:
Detroit
1950: 1,849,568 (5th largest)
2016: 672,795 (23rd largest, 63.6% drop in population)
Cleveland
1950: 944,808 (7th largest)
2016: 385,809 (51st largest, 59.1% drop in population)
St Louis
1950: 896,796 (8th largest)
2016: 311,404 (61st largest, 65.2% drop in population)
Baltimore (35.2% drop) and New Orleans (37.6% drop) have seen significant losses, but not nearly to level of those other three (and New Orleans was certainly exacerbated by Katrina, as it has seen a 14% gain in population since 2010).
Quote from: Rothman on May 26, 2017, 07:59:23 AM
Wait, was this the first time Phoenix surpassed Philadelphia?
ETA: Yes, it was. That's rather significant.
I was wondering why the Census press release didn't mention this when talking about other milestones. Then I went into the Factfinder and found that, since they revise their previous years' statistics when they release new data, they now say Phoenix passed Philadelphia in 2015.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 26, 2017, 08:03:50 AM
Quote from: Rothman on May 26, 2017, 07:59:23 AM
Wait, was this the first time Phoenix surpassed Philadelphia?
No, in the last decade there was some conjecture estimates that Phoenix was at 1.7 million but it was WAY off. If I had to speculate, I would venture the snowbird crowd probably had something to do with that assumption that the number was so high.
Philadelphia was bigger in the 2015 estimates.
Quote from: inkyatari on May 26, 2017, 09:24:19 AM
Many people, myself included, think Chicago may become the next Detroit.
Only time will tell.
Chicago has a much more diverse economic base. Detroit "motor city" reliant heavily on the automobile industry. And Chicago is the cultural capital of the Midwest.
Detroit, Cleveland, St Louis are all somewhat satellites of Chicago... Much like Southern cities are satellites of Atlanta.
It will take a long time and catastophy for Chicago to have a drastic downturn
LGMS428
Carmel and Fishers, IN, have both surpassed 90K this year, and will probably pass South Bend within the next 10 years to become Indiana's 4th and 5th largest cities (Indy, Ft. Wayne, Evansville).
Gary had notoriously gone from the second largest city in Indiana to the second largest city in Lake County (Hammond) sometime before the last census, but they're both declining at roughly the same rate at this point. In fact, a quick search showed that Crown Point and Valparaiso are among the only growing cities in the NWI region.
While these numbers are fun, and do have some meaning, because what a "city" is is do different from place to place, you can learn more about the economic health of different places by looking at the population of the entire metropolitan area. Another good measure is Neilsen's TV DMA, which is the number of people that get TV from a particualr city's set of stations, which is more or less the cultural influence of a particular city.
Another measure I find useful is to look at the every 10 year House districts. There are some gaps, due to gerrymanders, but more or less you can see how many CDs a particular city and its hinterland have over time, which will be a function (since the total since 1910, with a nitpick exception, is a constant) it clearly shows one area relative to another. For example people always say Pittsburgh is not doing too bad, which is true, if you just look at the city. But the number of people in the surrounding region over which Pittsburgh is the central focus, has colapsed.
As to Chicago, no, Detroit has always been a one-industry town and that one industry has plenty of wounds, both self-inflicted and otherwise. Chicago is much more diverse. I honestly do believe that Detroit will become a wasteland in the next 100 years.
Anyway in WV, Charleston and Huntington have been bleeding population for decades, as has the state as a whole, and have been near a tie. Huntington is bleeding slightly slower recently and is only 1025 behind. If you project it out, the two should be almost exactly tied by the next Census.
Fastest growing large cities, according to The Seattle Times (http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/data/seattle-once-again-nations-fastest-growing-big-city-population-exceeds-700000/):
(https://static.seattletimes.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/ef9fab1a-400e-11e7-8d06-09b1cec0d713-960x960.jpg)
Seattle finally broke the 700,000 barrier!
Quote from: SP Cook on May 26, 2017, 02:26:24 PM
Another measure I find useful is to look at the every 10 year House districts. There are some gaps, due to gerrymanders, but more or less you can see how many CDs a particular city and its hinterland have over time, which will be a function (since the total since 1910, with a nitpick exception, is a constant) it clearly shows one area relative to another.
Yet Detroit still has 2 Congressional Districts (although they extend beyond the city limits) even though Michigan has been losing districts for the last 2 or 3 cycles. This is due to the Voting Rights Act. They have to try their best to maintain the number of minority-majority districts.
With 14 districts and just shy of 10M residents, the "average" district population is 709k. Detroit's population would easily fit into 1 district with enough left over to add in a small suburb or 2.
I was reading this thinking, hey, will NYC ever be passed? Then I read the numbers more closely.
Quote from: Henry on May 26, 2017, 09:34:08 AM
I still think it's funny that the largest city in the Bay Area is not San Francisco! When was the last time it was, 1989?
It still "feels" like it is; it's certainly the most urban location in the Bay Area, and far more like a Boston, Philadelphia or even NYC than San Jose is.
This gets me thinking: is there any way we could rank cities by how big they "feel"? Such a ranking would certainly place San Francisco in the top 5 nationally, and such cities as Boston, New Orleans and Wilmington, DE would move a good ways up the list from where population alone would place them.
iPhone
Quote from: empirestate on May 26, 2017, 11:40:20 PM
Quote from: Henry on May 26, 2017, 09:34:08 AM
I still think it's funny that the largest city in the Bay Area is not San Francisco! When was the last time it was, 1989?
It still "feels" like it is; it's certainly the most urban location in the Bay Area, and far more like a Boston, Philadelphia or even NYC than San Jose is.
This gets me thinking: is there any way we could rank cities by how big they "feel"? Such a ranking would certainly place San Francisco in the top 5 nationally, and such cities as Boston, New Orleans and Wilmington, DE would move a good ways up the list from where population alone would place them.
iPhone
Population density? San Francisco would only be second to NYC in that regard.
Quote from: empirestate on May 26, 2017, 11:40:20 PM
Quote from: Henry on May 26, 2017, 09:34:08 AM
I still think it's funny that the largest city in the Bay Area is not San Francisco! When was the last time it was, 1989?
It still "feels" like it is; it's certainly the most urban location in the Bay Area, and far more like a Boston, Philadelphia or even NYC than San Jose is.
This gets me thinking: is there any way we could rank cities by how big they "feel"? Such a ranking would certainly place San Francisco in the top 5 nationally, and such cities as Boston, New Orleans and Wilmington, DE would move a good ways up the list from where population alone would place them.
iPhone
Way to opinion based.
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on May 27, 2017, 12:40:23 AM
Quote from: empirestate on May 26, 2017, 11:40:20 PM
Quote from: Henry on May 26, 2017, 09:34:08 AM
I still think it's funny that the largest city in the Bay Area is not San Francisco! When was the last time it was, 1989?
It still "feels" like it is; it's certainly the most urban location in the Bay Area, and far more like a Boston, Philadelphia or even NYC than San Jose is.
This gets me thinking: is there any way we could rank cities by how big they "feel"? Such a ranking would certainly place San Francisco in the top 5 nationally, and such cities as Boston, New Orleans and Wilmington, DE would move a good ways up the list from where population alone would place them.
iPhone
Way to opinion based.
Well, that's the whole point–could a system be devised to create this ranking in a way that
isn't purely based on opinion?
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 26, 2017, 11:44:53 PM
Population density? San Francisco would only be second to NYC in that regard.
That's surely part of the equation, but not all of it. I still think Chicago would rank ahead of San Francisco, whereas a lot of very tiny communities with high densities should not even place on the list. There are actually five municipalities more dense than NYC (and more than a dozen between it and SF, actually) in the U.S., but there's no question that NYC belongs on top.
There are a variety of "global city (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_city#Global_Power_City_Index)" indices which use various objective criteria to determine the relative preeminence of cities.
The Globalization and World Cities Research Network numbers, for example, rank New York as the lone Alpha++ city in the U.S.–a rank it shares with only London internationally.
Chicago is in the company of Los Angeles as Alpha cities; Washington, San Francisco, and Miami are Alpha-. The various Beta ranks include such cities as Boston, Atlanta, Dallas, Houston, Philadelphia, Denver, and Minneapolis. Gammas include St. Louis, Phoenix, and Tampa.
These rankings are typically based in the economic self sufficiency of the city, but they probably correlate pretty well with how "big" the city feels.
The 2014 population estimates of California's largest cities (in millions) - courtesy of Google search:
1. Los Angeles (3.977) - almost 4 mil could be 5 mil taken the account of second-home & uncounted residents.
2. San Diego (1.381) - slowed down. Neighboring city Tijuana, Baja Cal. Mexico has similar population.
3. San Jose (1.016) - surpassed a million, also slowed down, Northern Cal's largest city.
4. San Francisco (852,469) - city/county consolidation, has grown faster in the 2000s/10s.
5. Fresno (515, 486) - now larger than the state capital Sacramento, 6th place with 485,199.
7. Long Beach (473, 499) - still growing, but slower than in the mid 20th century period.
8. Oakland (413,755) - now called the New Brooklyn, black majority population (1990) declined to 20%.
9. Bakersfield (368,759) - the Dubai of America, due to oil economics, but not really a prosperous area.
10. Anaheim (346,997) - nearby Orange County seat Santa Ana, 11th place at 334,909.
12. Riverside (340.000) - in previously rapid-growth Inland Empire region in Southern Cal.
and 13. Stockton (320,000) - worst city in America (if you don't count Detroit on the list).
Riverside county's other largest cities are Moreno Valley at 210,000, Corona at 198,000, Temecula at 130,000 and Murrieta at 110,000. San Bernardino in its namesake county north of San Bernardino has 235,000 people, Fontana at 215,000 and Ontario at 168,000 (shrank, while Fontana booms and San Bernardino rebounds), and Rancho Cucamonga has 165,000. The rapid-growing Victorville area: Victorville and Hesperia each now have over 100,000 residents...and two non-incorporated towns Cabazon (Riv) and Landers (SB) are 1,000-2,500.
Locally, my hometown Indio is the largest of the Palm Springs area: 97,000 - double of Palm Springs and Palm Desert, the 2nd largest is Cathedral City with 61,000 and Coachella south of Indio now has 43,000 residents. The towns of La Quinta have 43,000 as well, then Desert Hot Springs (the worst non-major city in America) is home to 25,000, and affluent gated communities of Rancho Mirage at 16,000 and tiny Indian Wells at 6,100. Way to the east in the Colorado River (Ca-Az state line) is Blythe, home to 25,000 residents and what a long drive on the I-10 it is.
Quote from: briantroutman on May 27, 2017, 01:48:57 AM
There are a variety of "global city (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_city#Global_Power_City_Index)" indices which use various objective criteria to determine the relative preeminence of cities. [...] These rankings are typically based in the economic self sufficiency of the city, but they probably correlate pretty well with how "big" the city feels.
You're right, I've seen those before, and indeed they are probably the closest to what I'm thinking of. (Incidentally, Pittsburgh is another city that would rank well above its population class.) The trick is how to handle something like St. Louis or Detroit, cities which still have their "bigness" but have declined dramatically in population and probably also in their global ranking.
Quote from: Desert Man on May 27, 2017, 07:51:32 AM
The 2014 population estimates of California's largest cities (in millions) - courtesy of Google search:
1. Los Angeles (3.977) - almost 4 mil could be 5 mil taken the account of second-home & uncounted residents.
But of course, you don't count second homes; the whole idea of enumerating population is that each person is counted once.
Quote12. Riverside (340.000) - in previously rapid-growth Inland Empire region in Southern Cal.
Riverside, I observe, also has the benefit of huge areas of annexation in which an awful lot of new residents can fit. I have relatives living there, a good half-hour from the center of town, but still inside city limits.
Quoteand 13. Stockton (320,000) - worst city in America (if you don't count Detroit on the list).
...then Desert Hot Springs (the worst non-major city in America) is home to 25,000...
What's your basis for worst cities ranking?
Stockton went through bankruptcy and, from my understanding, has high crime issues. Yet, it's still growing.
Quote from: golden eagle on May 27, 2017, 12:21:23 PM
Stockton went through bankruptcy and, from my understanding, has high crime issues. Yet, it's still growing.
That's more or less a result of cheaper living costs from the Bay Area. People will LITERALLY commute to either Oakland and San Francisco from Stockton. The city has an extremely high poverty in the 30% and traditionally a crime rate in the top 10 for major US Cities.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 27, 2017, 03:05:37 PM
Quote from: golden eagle on May 27, 2017, 12:21:23 PM
Stockton went through bankruptcy and, from my understanding, has high crime issues. Yet, it's still growing.
That's more or less a result of cheaper living costs from the Bay Area. People will LITERALLY commute to either Oakland and San Francisco from Stockton. The city has an extremely high poverty in the 30% and traditionally a crime rate in the top 10 for major US Cities.
IIRC, Stockton annexed most of the land to its immediate north (north of Hammer Lane) in order to encompass a number of planned housing developments, many of which are now on the ground. That's about the farthest commute (at least from the South Bay/Silicon Valley) that can be considered reasonable -- the ACE commute line terminates in central Stockton (a saving grace of having to live within Stockton city limits). Lodi, just north of there (as in
"Oh Lord, stuck in Lodi again!"), besides being a relatively recent wine-tasting destination, also serves as an outer exurb for North Bay commuters (straight down CA 12), since housing prices remain relatively low in the general region. As long as housing costs remain exorbitant near the coast, Stockton and environs will likely witness regular if not spectacular growth patterns.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 27, 2017, 03:05:37 PM
Quote from: golden eagle on May 27, 2017, 12:21:23 PM
Stockton went through bankruptcy and, from my understanding, has high crime issues. Yet, it's still growing.
That's more or less a result of cheaper living costs from the Bay Area. People will LITERALLY commute to either Oakland and San Francisco from Stockton. The city has an extremely high poverty in the 30% and traditionally a crime rate in the top 10 for major US Cities.
How far is it?
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on June 01, 2017, 08:24:33 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 27, 2017, 03:05:37 PM
Quote from: golden eagle on May 27, 2017, 12:21:23 PM
Stockton went through bankruptcy and, from my understanding, has high crime issues. Yet, it's still growing.
That's more or less a result of cheaper living costs from the Bay Area. People will LITERALLY commute to either Oakland and San Francisco from Stockton. The city has an extremely high poverty in the 30% and traditionally a crime rate in the top 10 for major US Cities.
How far is it?
Via I-580, I-205, and I-5 it's 74 miles from the I-80/580/880 interchange in west Oakland to the I-5/CA 4 interchange in Stockton. From what might be considered central "Silicon Valley" (the 101/237 interchange in Sunnyvale) to the same point in Stockton is 77 miles (via 237, 880, 262, 680, and onto 580 in Dublin). Some mileage can be saved by cutting over on surface roads, but at peak commute hours, those can be as congested as the nearby freeways. BTW, add 8 miles to the Oakland distance to get to downtown S.F. And don't consider CA 4 to be a viable alternative; it's still a work in progress in the Brentwood area, and the 2-lane segment through the Delta is best reserved for the adventurous or masochistic!
Quote from: formulanone on May 26, 2017, 07:34:01 AM
Huntsville might be the second-largest city by the end of the decade, but the Birmingham Metro area is still much larger in population than the Huntsville-Decatur / North Central Alabama area.
Keep in mind that the city of Birmingham itself only had 212,461 people as of 2015, and has been steadily dropping in population since the 1960s. So while the Birmingham Metro Area does have about 1/4 of the state's ~4 million people, Huntsville may still become the state's largest city in the next decade or two, should the current trends continue. However, Birmingham has started redeveloping their downtown in recent years, when may help bring people back into the city.
Though either way, it'll be a long time before the Huntsville-Decatur Statistical Area (Huntsville Metro Area?) is larger than the Birmingham Metro Area.
Quote from: webny99 on June 01, 2017, 11:47:45 PM
Quote from: Desert Man on May 27, 2017, 07:51:32 AM
5. Fresno (515, 486) - now larger than the state capital Sacramento, 6th place with 485,199.
:wow: That, IMO, is more surprising than San Jose being larger than San Fran. San Fran is landlocked. Sacramento isn't.
This is the NY equivalent of Utica or Binghamton passing Albany.
Part of the reason the incorporated-city Fresno population is larger than that of Sacramento is that Fresno has only one sizeable adjoining incorporated suburb (Clovis), while Sacramento is largely hemmed in by Elk Grove, Rancho Cordova, Carmichael, and Citrus Heights -- not to mention the fact that the city is bounded on the west by the Sacramento River, which is the county line (in CA, incorporated cities don't cross county lines). There's just more room -- and directions -- for Fresno to grow (most of the growth occurs along the northern and eastern perimeters; west encroaches on large agribusiness tracts). Sacramento metro is quite massive, including southwest Placer County, which contains Roseville (well over 100K population) and Lincoln (exceptionally fast-growing). While Sacramento
is the clearly central city, it's not the only game in town within its metro region; while Fresno itself does dominate its metro area.
Quote from: sparker on June 02, 2017, 12:35:45 AM
Quote from: webny99 on June 01, 2017, 11:47:45 PM
Quote from: Desert Man on May 27, 2017, 07:51:32 AM
5. Fresno (515, 486) - now larger than the state capital Sacramento, 6th place with 485,199.
:wow: That, IMO, is more surprising than San Jose being larger than San Fran. San Fran is landlocked. Sacramento isn't.
This is the NY equivalent of Utica or Binghamton passing Albany.
Part of the reason the incorporated-city Fresno population is larger than that of Sacramento is that Fresno has only one sizeable adjoining incorporated suburb (Clovis), while Sacramento is largely hemmed in by Elk Grove, Rancho Cordova, Carmichael, and Citrus Heights
But other than Elk Grove, Sacramento is mostly surrounded by CDPs, not incorporated cities. Rio Linda, North Highlands, Arden-Arcade, Florin, Carmichael, etc. - all unincorporated. The incorporated cities (Citrus Heights, Rancho Cordova) are "buffered" from Sacramento by these CDPs. If Sacramento just annexed the Florin-Parkway area (which it surrounds on three sides) it would add over 80,000 to the city. Arden-Arcade is over 90,000; Carmichael is over 60,000.
I don't know if those areas don't have the tax base to be viable as incorporated cities, and if not, what their aversion to annexing to another city is (I lived in Carmichael for 2 years and Sacramento for 5, but it was decades ago), but Sacramento could easily top 600,000 or more by taking in some of the adjacent CDPs.
The Fresno urban area, on the other hand, has very little outside the incorporated cities of Fresno and Clovis.
Surprisingly Sacramento and Fresno are similar in size at about 100 and 110 square miles for each. The population density of Sacramento is slightly higher, but it is way closer than what I thought. Based off 2016 estimates Sacramento is the 27th largest Metro Area at 2.3 million people while Fresno way below in the 56th spot at about 980,000 residents.
That said Metro Fresno is pretty close to beginning to merge with some other MSAs:
276: Hanford-Corcoran 149,785
112: Visalia-Porterville 460,473
263: Madera 154,697
Quote from: SP Cook on May 26, 2017, 02:26:24 PM
While these numbers are fun, and do have some meaning, because what a "city" is is do different from place to place, you can learn more about the economic health of different places by looking at the population of the entire metropolitan area. Another good measure is Neilsen's TV DMA, which is the number of people that get TV from a particualr city's set of stations, which is more or less the cultural influence of a particular city.
Another measure I find useful is to look at the every 10 year House districts. There are some gaps, due to gerrymanders, but more or less you can see how many CDs a particular city and its hinterland have over time, which will be a function (since the total since 1910, with a nitpick exception, is a constant) it clearly shows one area relative to another. For example people always say Pittsburgh is not doing too bad, which is true, if you just look at the city. But the number of people in the surrounding region over which Pittsburgh is the central focus, has colapsed.
As to Chicago, no, Detroit has always been a one-industry town and that one industry has plenty of wounds, both self-inflicted and otherwise. Chicago is much more diverse. I honestly do believe that Detroit will become a wasteland in the next 100 years.
Anyway in WV, Charleston and Huntington have been bleeding population for decades, as has the state as a whole, and have been near a tie. Huntington is bleeding slightly slower recently and is only 1025 behind. If you project it out, the two should be almost exactly tied by the next Census.
Population numbers for the "city" itself is an incredibly poor measure of how "big" a city is and it's a metric that disadvantages cities in the Northeast, which tend to be smaller but more dense. Sunbelt cities do a great job of adding population by annexation, a luxury that older cities don't really have.
If you switch this list to "largest metropolitan areas," Phoenix falls out of the top 10 entirely while DC and Boston jump up.
Quote from: The Nature Boy on June 02, 2017, 09:16:38 AM
Quote from: SP Cook on May 26, 2017, 02:26:24 PM
While these numbers are fun, and do have some meaning, because what a "city" is is do different from place to place, you can learn more about the economic health of different places by looking at the population of the entire metropolitan area. Another good measure is Neilsen's TV DMA, which is the number of people that get TV from a particualr city's set of stations, which is more or less the cultural influence of a particular city.
Another measure I find useful is to look at the every 10 year House districts. There are some gaps, due to gerrymanders, but more or less you can see how many CDs a particular city and its hinterland have over time, which will be a function (since the total since 1910, with a nitpick exception, is a constant) it clearly shows one area relative to another. For example people always say Pittsburgh is not doing too bad, which is true, if you just look at the city. But the number of people in the surrounding region over which Pittsburgh is the central focus, has colapsed.
As to Chicago, no, Detroit has always been a one-industry town and that one industry has plenty of wounds, both self-inflicted and otherwise. Chicago is much more diverse. I honestly do believe that Detroit will become a wasteland in the next 100 years.
Anyway in WV, Charleston and Huntington have been bleeding population for decades, as has the state as a whole, and have been near a tie. Huntington is bleeding slightly slower recently and is only 1025 behind. If you project it out, the two should be almost exactly tied by the next Census.
Population numbers for the "city" itself is an incredibly poor measure of how "big" a city is and it's a metric that disadvantages cities in the Northeast, which tend to be smaller but more dense. Sunbelt cities do a great job of adding population by annexation, a luxury that older cities don't really have.
If you switch this list to "largest metropolitan areas," Phoenix falls out of the top 10 entirely while DC and Boston jump up.
Metro areas as currently defined don't work either, as they are defined by counties. You get people included who are far away from the metro area but happen to be in the same county, and you also have people who could possibly be in two metro areas (like Boston and Providence) but can only be counted in one, with the border between them arbitrarily being defined by county.
Quote from: 1 on June 02, 2017, 09:42:45 AM
Quote from: The Nature Boy on June 02, 2017, 09:16:38 AM
Quote from: SP Cook on May 26, 2017, 02:26:24 PM
While these numbers are fun, and do have some meaning, because what a "city" is is do different from place to place, you can learn more about the economic health of different places by looking at the population of the entire metropolitan area. Another good measure is Neilsen's TV DMA, which is the number of people that get TV from a particualr city's set of stations, which is more or less the cultural influence of a particular city.
Another measure I find useful is to look at the every 10 year House districts. There are some gaps, due to gerrymanders, but more or less you can see how many CDs a particular city and its hinterland have over time, which will be a function (since the total since 1910, with a nitpick exception, is a constant) it clearly shows one area relative to another. For example people always say Pittsburgh is not doing too bad, which is true, if you just look at the city. But the number of people in the surrounding region over which Pittsburgh is the central focus, has colapsed.
As to Chicago, no, Detroit has always been a one-industry town and that one industry has plenty of wounds, both self-inflicted and otherwise. Chicago is much more diverse. I honestly do believe that Detroit will become a wasteland in the next 100 years.
Anyway in WV, Charleston and Huntington have been bleeding population for decades, as has the state as a whole, and have been near a tie. Huntington is bleeding slightly slower recently and is only 1025 behind. If you project it out, the two should be almost exactly tied by the next Census.
Population numbers for the "city" itself is an incredibly poor measure of how "big" a city is and it's a metric that disadvantages cities in the Northeast, which tend to be smaller but more dense. Sunbelt cities do a great job of adding population by annexation, a luxury that older cities don't really have.
If you switch this list to "largest metropolitan areas," Phoenix falls out of the top 10 entirely while DC and Boston jump up.
Metro areas as currently defined don't work either, as they are defined by counties. You get people included who are far away from the metro area but happen to be in the same county, and you also have people who could possibly be in two metro areas (like Boston and Providence) but can only be counted in one, with the border between them arbitrarily being defined by county.
City lines can be arbitrarily too.
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on June 02, 2017, 09:46:42 AM
Quote from: 1 on June 02, 2017, 09:42:45 AM
Quote from: The Nature Boy on June 02, 2017, 09:16:38 AM
Quote from: SP Cook on May 26, 2017, 02:26:24 PM
While these numbers are fun, and do have some meaning, because what a "city" is is do different from place to place, you can learn more about the economic health of different places by looking at the population of the entire metropolitan area. Another good measure is Neilsen's TV DMA, which is the number of people that get TV from a particualr city's set of stations, which is more or less the cultural influence of a particular city.
Another measure I find useful is to look at the every 10 year House districts. There are some gaps, due to gerrymanders, but more or less you can see how many CDs a particular city and its hinterland have over time, which will be a function (since the total since 1910, with a nitpick exception, is a constant) it clearly shows one area relative to another. For example people always say Pittsburgh is not doing too bad, which is true, if you just look at the city. But the number of people in the surrounding region over which Pittsburgh is the central focus, has colapsed.
As to Chicago, no, Detroit has always been a one-industry town and that one industry has plenty of wounds, both self-inflicted and otherwise. Chicago is much more diverse. I honestly do believe that Detroit will become a wasteland in the next 100 years.
Anyway in WV, Charleston and Huntington have been bleeding population for decades, as has the state as a whole, and have been near a tie. Huntington is bleeding slightly slower recently and is only 1025 behind. If you project it out, the two should be almost exactly tied by the next Census.
Population numbers for the "city" itself is an incredibly poor measure of how "big" a city is and it's a metric that disadvantages cities in the Northeast, which tend to be smaller but more dense. Sunbelt cities do a great job of adding population by annexation, a luxury that older cities don't really have.
If you switch this list to "largest metropolitan areas," Phoenix falls out of the top 10 entirely while DC and Boston jump up.
Metro areas as currently defined don't work either, as they are defined by counties. You get people included who are far away from the metro area but happen to be in the same county, and you also have people who could possibly be in two metro areas (like Boston and Providence) but can only be counted in one, with the border between them arbitrarily being defined by county.
City lines can be arbitrarily too.
Especially in Sun Belt states where there is often a surplus of unincorporated land. City lines can change frequently, county lines RARELY change.
If Boston, a relatively small city in terms of land, were to behave like a Southern or Sunbelt city and annex all of Suffolk County (it practically did in the 19th century so it wouldn't get much from this) then its population rises to 778,121. If it annexes Cambridge and Somerville then it goes to 966,716. This combined entity would still just be 131.33 square miles, still smaller than Charlotte (297.7) or Phoenix (517.9).
Quote from: empirestate on May 26, 2017, 11:40:20 PM
Quote from: Henry on May 26, 2017, 09:34:08 AM
I still think it's funny that the largest city in the Bay Area is not San Francisco! When was the last time it was, 1989?
It still "feels" like it is; it's certainly the most urban location in the Bay Area, and far more like a Boston, Philadelphia or even NYC than San Jose is.
This gets me thinking: is there any way we could rank cities by how big they "feel"? Such a ranking would certainly place San Francisco in the top 5 nationally, and such cities as Boston, New Orleans and Wilmington, DE would move a good ways up the list from where population alone would place them.
iPhone
I find the Primary Statistical Areas to be the best representation of how big a city feels:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_primary_statistical_areas_of_the_United_States (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_primary_statistical_areas_of_the_United_States)
1. NYC
2. LA
3. Chicago
4. DC/Baltimore
5. SF Bay Area
6. Boston
7. DFW Metroplex
8. Philly/Delaware Valley
9. Miami/S. Fla.
10. Houston
11. Atlanta
12. Detroit
13. Seattle
14. Phoenix
15. Twin Cities
16. Cleveland
17. Denver
18. San Diego
19. Portland
20. Orlando
21. Tampa Bay Area
22. St. Louis
23. Pittsburgh
24. Charlotte
25. Sacramento
That's a pretty good representation of how "big" American cities feel, based on my travel experience.
Quote from: TXtoNJ on June 02, 2017, 11:07:25 AM
Quote from: empirestate on May 26, 2017, 11:40:20 PM
Quote from: Henry on May 26, 2017, 09:34:08 AM
I still think it's funny that the largest city in the Bay Area is not San Francisco! When was the last time it was, 1989?
It still "feels" like it is; it's certainly the most urban location in the Bay Area, and far more like a Boston, Philadelphia or even NYC than San Jose is.
This gets me thinking: is there any way we could rank cities by how big they "feel"? Such a ranking would certainly place San Francisco in the top 5 nationally, and such cities as Boston, New Orleans and Wilmington, DE would move a good ways up the list from where population alone would place them.
iPhone
I find the Primary Statistical Areas to be the best representation of how big a city feels:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_primary_statistical_areas_of_the_United_States (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_primary_statistical_areas_of_the_United_States)
1. NYC
2. LA
3. Chicago
4. DC/Baltimore
5. SF Bay Area
6. Boston
7. DFW Metroplex
8. Philly/Delaware Valley
9. Miami/S. Fla.
10. Houston
11. Atlanta
12. Detroit
13. Seattle
14. Phoenix
15. Twin Cities
16. Cleveland
17. Denver
18. San Diego
19. Portland
20. Orlando
21. Tampa Bay Area
22. St. Louis
23. Pittsburgh
24. Charlotte
25. Sacramento
That's a pretty good representation of how "big" American cities feel, based on my travel experience.
It still raises a lot of anomalies for me. In my imagined ranking, Pittsburgh would be much higher than Phoenix, LA wouldn't be #2, Philly would be above Boston and certainly DC, etc. And then you have the problem of combining cities that should rank separately: does DC feel bigger than Baltimore, or vice-versa? Tampa, or St. Pete? Dallas, or Fort Worth? And how do we reconcile the inaugural issue of San Jose vs. San Francisco, if we just lump them together? At the least, this system gives them equivalent ranking, whereas my whole point is that they aren't equivalent.
Quote from: webny99 on June 02, 2017, 10:36:18 AM
I'd agree, to put things in perspective you need to look at the MSA rather than the city population.
Many southern and western cities include most of the suburbs in the city population itself. *cough* San Antonio.
Personally, I don't like this method of artificially pumping city size. Perhaps I'm biased but I like each suburb to have it's own unique name and character.
While I can understand your point of view, I think having the suburbs in the same city helps keep the city centre in better shape, since the suburbs' taxes help support the downtown area. If the suburbs are their own cities, than the downtown can lose a lot of its tax base when people move to the suburbs.
Neighbourhood names can still keep some character to different areas of the city. For example, people in Toronto still refer to the old names from before amalgamation, like Etobicoke, North York, Scarborough, etc.
Quote from: DTComposer on June 02, 2017, 03:41:18 AM
..........Sacramento could easily top 600,000 or more by taking in some of the adjacent CDPs.
The fact that they haven't speaks volumes. Also, Sacramento County has been less than cooperative regarding giving up any of its territory that yields tax revenue (I was living in Roseville back when they were fighting tooth & nail to keep Sunrise Mall under county jurisdiction -- when it was smack in the middle of Citrus Heights, then in the process of incorporation). Nevertheless, at this juncture it's likely Sacramento has enough on its plate with the territory it presently encompasses and is not looking to add more places to maintain, educate, and police just to attain a higher position on a list!
Quote from: webny99 on June 01, 2017, 11:47:45 PM
Quote from: Desert Man on May 27, 2017, 07:51:32 AM
5. Fresno (515, 486) - now larger than the state capital Sacramento, 6th place with 485,199.
:wow: That, IMO, is more surprising than San Jose being larger than San Fran. San Fran is landlocked. Sacramento isn't.
This is the NY equivalent of Utica or Binghamton passing Albany.
Albany's suburb, Colonie NY (83200 per estimate, +2% since 2010) , is about to pass landlocked Albany NY (98100, +0.27% since 2010) within next 20-30 years if current trend holds. Probably sooner than that, as Albany does everything to make city go the way of Detroit. So never say never....
Quote from: 7/8 on June 02, 2017, 03:06:06 PM
Quote from: webny99 on June 02, 2017, 10:36:18 AM
I'd agree, to put things in perspective you need to look at the MSA rather than the city population.
Many southern and western cities include most of the suburbs in the city population itself. *cough* San Antonio.
Personally, I don't like this method of artificially pumping city size. Perhaps I'm biased but I like each suburb to have it's own unique name and character.
While I can understand your point of view, I think having the suburbs in the same city helps keep the city centre in better shape, since the suburbs' taxes help support the downtown area. If the suburbs are their own cities, than the downtown can lose a lot of its tax base when people move to the suburbs.
Neighbourhood names can still keep some character to different areas of the city. For example, people in Toronto still refer to the old names from before amalgamation, like Etobicoke, North York, Scarborough, etc.
I am a bit split on that. Over here in upstate NY, area's namesake city is pretty urbanist. Spending a lot on police (per capita it is more than NYC), knee deep in fiscal problems, love their school with 60% graduation rate and dream about demolition of through-city 3di. I am not sure what would happen if city annexes the rest of the county. Apparently that would solve at least some of city fiscal problems, but more suburban votes would overcome urbanist trends, and there would be two groups of pissed off people: current residents of the city, and current residents of suburbs.
Commuter tax is the dream of the city, but only as taxation without representation...
Quote from: 7/8 on June 02, 2017, 03:06:06 PM
Quote from: webny99 on June 02, 2017, 10:36:18 AM
I'd agree, to put things in perspective you need to look at the MSA rather than the city population.
Many southern and western cities include most of the suburbs in the city population itself. *cough* San Antonio.
Personally, I don't like this method of artificially pumping city size. Perhaps I'm biased but I like each suburb to have it's own unique name and character.
While I can understand your point of view, I think having the suburbs in the same city helps keep the city centre in better shape, since the suburbs' taxes help support the downtown area. If the suburbs are their own cities, than the downtown can lose a lot of its tax base when people move to the suburbs.
Neighbourhood names can still keep some character to different areas of the city. For example, people in Toronto still refer to the old names from before amalgamation, like Etobicoke, North York, Scarborough, etc.
I really do not want to live in Boston. I will keep living in Needham, thanks very much.
Quote from: 7/8 on June 02, 2017, 03:06:06 PM
Quote from: webny99 on June 02, 2017, 10:36:18 AM
I'd agree, to put things in perspective you need to look at the MSA rather than the city population.
Many southern and western cities include most of the suburbs in the city population itself. *cough* San Antonio.
Personally, I don't like this method of artificially pumping city size. Perhaps I'm biased but I like each suburb to have it's own unique name and character.
While I can understand your point of view, I think having the suburbs in the same city helps keep the city centre in better shape, since the suburbs' taxes help support the downtown area. If the suburbs are their own cities, than the downtown can lose a lot of its tax base when people move to the suburbs.
Neighbourhood names can still keep some character to different areas of the city. For example, people in Toronto still refer to the old names from before amalgamation, like Etobicoke, North York, Scarborough, etc.
You see this in some places in the US. Detroit would certainly be in better shape if it could get taxes from more affluent Oakland County. Suburban flight devastated a lot of cities like Detroit and Cleveland.
I'm not against the practice. I just don't think that city population totals are an adequate indicator of how "large" a city is.
Quote from: 1 on June 02, 2017, 09:42:45 AM
Quote from: The Nature Boy on June 02, 2017, 09:16:38 AM
Quote from: SP Cook on May 26, 2017, 02:26:24 PM
While these numbers are fun, and do have some meaning, because what a "city" is is do different from place to place, you can learn more about the economic health of different places by looking at the population of the entire metropolitan area. Another good measure is Neilsen's TV DMA, which is the number of people that get TV from a particualr city's set of stations, which is more or less the cultural influence of a particular city.
Metro areas as currently defined don't work either, as they are defined by counties. You get people included who are far away from the metro area but happen to be in the same county, and you also have people who could possibly be in two metro areas (like Boston and Providence) but can only be counted in one, with the border between them arbitrarily being defined by county.
Redefining metro areas has merit, especially when it comes to western areas. How else can Blythe and Needles, CA, be in the Riverside-San Bernardino metro when those two towns are 160-165 miles (as the crow flies) from R/SB? R/SB counties combined are larger than ten states. Also, how does Tonopah, NV (Nye County) be included in Las Vegas' metro when it's so far from Las Vegas?
I don't think using DMA boundaries are the way to go since counties in a DMA may be too far away to have significant commuter ties to the central city. Palm Springs, in Riverside County, has a separate DMA from the western part of the county.
Quote from: golden eagle on June 09, 2017, 01:18:23 PM
Quote from: 1 on June 02, 2017, 09:42:45 AM
Quote from: The Nature Boy on June 02, 2017, 09:16:38 AM
Quote from: SP Cook on May 26, 2017, 02:26:24 PM
While these numbers are fun, and do have some meaning, because what a "city" is is do different from place to place, you can learn more about the economic health of different places by looking at the population of the entire metropolitan area. Another good measure is Neilsen's TV DMA, which is the number of people that get TV from a particualr city's set of stations, which is more or less the cultural influence of a particular city.
Metro areas as currently defined don't work either, as they are defined by counties. You get people included who are far away from the metro area but happen to be in the same county, and you also have people who could possibly be in two metro areas (like Boston and Providence) but can only be counted in one, with the border between them arbitrarily being defined by county.
Redefining metro areas has merit, especially when it comes to western areas. How else can Blythe and Needles, CA, be in the Riverside-San Bernardino metro when those two towns are 160-165 miles (as the crow flies) from R/SB? R/SB counties combined are larger than ten states. Also, how does Tonopah, NV (Nye County) be included in Las Vegas' metro when it's so far from Las Vegas?
I don't think using DMA boundaries are the way to go since counties in a DMA may be too far away to have significant commuter ties to the central city. Palm Springs, in Riverside County, has a separate DMA from the western part of the county.
The Census Bureau has Urban Areas/Urban Clusters, which should be the building blocks for metro areas. However, even these are flawed and subject to arbitrary criteria and adjustments by the Bureau:
Look at a satellite photo of the area between Menlo Park and Mountain View - a continuous swath of development. Somewhere in there, the Bureau has decided, is the dividing line between the San Francisco and San Jose urban areas. In 2000 they had that boundary dividing the city of Palo Alto in half, using their commuting data as rationale. However, in 2010 they moved the boundary to coincide with the Santa Clara/San Mateo county line (also the boundary between the MSAs), not because the commuting data had shifted, but because it was cleaner. So, they decide commuting data is the basis of defining urban areas, except when they don't.
But the real issue for me is using commuter data at all, or at least to the exclusion of other factors. Commuter data may have worked well in an older model where most if not all metro areas had one dominant employment center, and most households had one wage-earner with one job; but with many areas now having multiple large employment centers, multiple-job households with those jobs often in locations distant from one another, telecommuting, long-distance commuting, etc., I feel it is outdated. We should be able to use other socio-cultural factors - DMAs, perhaps, but also where people shop, dine, play, etc. Newspaper circulation, while not what it once was, could also be factored in. And of course, just the idea that the continuous built-up area mentioned above is somehow part of two distinct urban areas seems silly when you apply the eye test. Could you drive down that stretch of US-101 and tell me when you've entered a new urban area?
In the current system the result is things like:
-There is no Census Bureau-defined area that matches the nine-county definition of the Bay Area that is used "in real life";
-As mentioned above, small towns like Blythe, isolated by 150+ miles of desert, are included in the Riverside-San Bernardino metro area;
-Medium-sized urban areas like Santa Barbara and Santa Maria, who have virtually no commuting ties (they're 75 miles apart), are in the same metro area because they're in the same county.
Again, this is more of an issue in the West with its large and strangely-shaped counties.
Certainly the Census Bureau is aware of the problem with metro area definitions–they've essentially been redesigning the system with every decennial census since urban areas were first introduced. But the necessities and/or hindrances of bureaucracy seem to stymie any successful solution; the closest they've come is realizing that county-based metro areas don't make sense in New England, where towns are the basic building block.
Well, I guess I'll do a run down of CT
- 1. Bridgeport, 145,936
- 2. New Haven, 129,934
- 3. Stamford, 129,113
- 4. Hartford, 123,243
- 5. Waterbury, 108,272
Well, except for Stamford, all the cities were either stagnant in growth, or went down in population.
Quote from: JJBers on June 10, 2017, 01:06:34 PM
Well, I guess I'll do a run down of CT
- 1. Bridgeport, 145,936
- 2. New Haven, 129,934
- 3. Stamford, 129,113
- 4. Hartford, 123,243
- 5. Waterbury, 108,272
Well, except for Stamford, all the cities were either stagnant in growth, or went down in population.
I believe Stamford will send up being the largest city in Connecticut.
My rundown of PA:
1. Philadelphia, 1,567,872 (increase of 41,866)
2. Pittsburgh, 303,625 (decrease of 2,079)
3. Allentown, 120,443 (increase of 2,411)
4. Erie, 98,593 (decrease of 3,193)
5. Reading, 87,575 (decrease of 507)
6. Scranton, 77,291 (increase of 1,202)
7. Lancaster, 59,218 (decrease of 104)
8. Harrisburg, 48,904 (decrease of 624)
9. Altoona, 44,589 (decrease of 1,731)
10. York, 43,859 (increase of 141)
11. Wilkes-Barre, 40,569 (decrease of 929)
Aside from Philadelphia, every city/borough was stagnant in growth. I threw on Wilkes-Barre because I could. It needs to always be with Scranton.
Illinois, the basketcase of the nation, and the only state other than West Virginia to lose population...
1. Chicago: 2,704,958
2. Aurora: 201,110
3. Joliet: 148,262
4. Rockford: 147,651
5. Naperville: 147,122
6. Springfield: 115,715
7. Peoria: 114,265
8. Elgin: 112,123
9. Waukegan: 88,182
10. Champaign: 86,637
Of these, since last year's estimate, only Aurora, Joliet, Naperville, Elgin, and Champaign grew.
Other notables:
Largest Town: 11. Cicero: 82,992
Largest Village: 13. Arlington Heights: 75, 525
In fact, Illinois (in which "village" refers to the type of government, not the size of the municipality) has 11 villages over 50,000 in population. And, there are 1,297 incorporated places in the state (more than Texas) listed on the Census Bureau website.
https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?src=bkmk
Quote from: Brandon on June 16, 2017, 10:38:51 AM
Illinois, the basketcase of the nation, and the only state other than West Virginia to lose population...
Actually Connecticut joins the group this year
Quote from: golden eagle on June 15, 2017, 11:00:36 PM
Quote from: JJBers on June 10, 2017, 01:06:34 PM
Well, I guess I'll do a run down of CT
- 1. Bridgeport, 145,936
- 2. New Haven, 129,934
- 3. Stamford, 129,113
- 4. Hartford, 123,243
- 5. Waterbury, 108,272
Well, except for Stamford, all the cities were either stagnant in growth, or went down in population.
I believe Stamford will send up being the largest city in Connecticut.
As Stamford hosts a multitude of corporate HQ's, it is likely the above statement will be correct within a decade or two. I'm not privy to CT's rules or historic stand regarding incorporated cities' land annexation policies, but if Stamford's coffers are in the black due to aggregate collected taxes (although it's likely that whatever corporate taxes there are remain just low enough to actually be attractive to firms looking to establish offices) city expansion -- both current and/or planned -- might portend well for population increases, which of course would require expansion of city-provided services and utilities as well. It might be that Stamford is the exception to the CT stagnation phenomenon -- they must have an effective PR apparatus! Or, alternately, the simplest of answers: corporations doing business with one another prefer to locate in the same vicinity.
Quote from: sparker on June 16, 2017, 09:56:31 PM
Quote from: golden eagle on June 15, 2017, 11:00:36 PM
Quote from: JJBers on June 10, 2017, 01:06:34 PM
Well, I guess I'll do a run down of CT
- 1. Bridgeport, 145,936
- 2. New Haven, 129,934
- 3. Stamford, 129,113
- 4. Hartford, 123,243
- 5. Waterbury, 108,272
Well, except for Stamford, all the cities were either stagnant in growth, or went down in population.
I believe Stamford will send up being the largest city in Connecticut.
As Stamford hosts a multitude of corporate HQ's, it is likely the above statement will be correct within a decade or two. I'm not privy to CT's rules or historic stand regarding incorporated cities' land annexation policies, but if Stamford's coffers are in the black due to aggregate collected taxes (although it's likely that whatever corporate taxes there are remain just low enough to actually be attractive to firms looking to establish offices) city expansion -- both current and/or planned -- might portend well for population increases, which of course would require expansion of city-provided services and utilities as well. It might be that Stamford is the exception to the CT stagnation phenomenon -- they must have an effective PR apparatus! Or, alternately, the simplest of answers: corporations doing business with one another prefer to locate in the same vicinity.
In Connecticut, there is no way to expand. The whole state is incorporated, unlike California, towns/cities don't grow as fast.
I think one of the reasons it's growing is also the fact that the NYC suburbs are creeping into the city.
OK then -- Stamford: it's infill time! If indeed incorporated cities there are limited to their extant boundaries, then in order to accommodate increased residents, there's only that route -- or going up. Having said that -- and having been through the city a dozen or so times -- I don't think that there's any way to fit much more than 150K folks into the city limits; it may pass Bridgeport on its own in time, but the more likely scenario to #1 is population decreases elsewhere.
Quote from: sparker on June 16, 2017, 11:53:26 PM
OK then -- Stamford: it's infill time! If indeed incorporated cities there are limited to their extant boundaries, then in order to accommodate increased residents, there's only that route -- or going up. Having said that -- and having been through the city a dozen or so times -- I don't think that there's any way to fit much more than 150K folks into the city limits; it may pass Bridgeport on its own in time, but the more likely scenario to #1 is population decreases elsewhere.
Hartford has that covered, it's gone from 175k in 1960 to 123k in 2016.
Quote from: JJBers on June 16, 2017, 10:02:53 PM
Quote from: sparker on June 16, 2017, 09:56:31 PM
Quote from: golden eagle on June 15, 2017, 11:00:36 PM
Quote from: JJBers on June 10, 2017, 01:06:34 PM
Well, I guess I'll do a run down of CT
- 1. Bridgeport, 145,936
- 2. New Haven, 129,934
- 3. Stamford, 129,113
- 4. Hartford, 123,243
- 5. Waterbury, 108,272
Well, except for Stamford, all the cities were either stagnant in growth, or went down in population.
I believe Stamford will send up being the largest city in Connecticut.
As Stamford hosts a multitude of corporate HQ's, it is likely the above statement will be correct within a decade or two. I'm not privy to CT's rules or historic stand regarding incorporated cities' land annexation policies, but if Stamford's coffers are in the black due to aggregate collected taxes (although it's likely that whatever corporate taxes there are remain just low enough to actually be attractive to firms looking to establish offices) city expansion -- both current and/or planned -- might portend well for population increases, which of course would require expansion of city-provided services and utilities as well. It might be that Stamford is the exception to the CT stagnation phenomenon -- they must have an effective PR apparatus! Or, alternately, the simplest of answers: corporations doing business with one another prefer to locate in the same vicinity.
In Connecticut, there is no way to expand. The whole state is incorporated, unlike California, towns/cities don't grow as fast.
I think one of the reasons it's growing is also the fact that the NYC suburbs are creeping into the city.
Incorparated towns in mass became part of Boston.
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on June 17, 2017, 11:04:25 AM
Quote from: JJBers on June 16, 2017, 10:02:53 PM
Quote from: sparker on June 16, 2017, 09:56:31 PM
Quote from: golden eagle on June 15, 2017, 11:00:36 PM
Quote from: JJBers on June 10, 2017, 01:06:34 PM
Well, I guess I'll do a run down of CT
- 1. Bridgeport, 145,936
- 2. New Haven, 129,934
- 3. Stamford, 129,113
- 4. Hartford, 123,243
- 5. Waterbury, 108,272
Well, except for Stamford, all the cities were either stagnant in growth, or went down in population.
I believe Stamford will send up being the largest city in Connecticut.
As Stamford hosts a multitude of corporate HQ's, it is likely the above statement will be correct within a decade or two. I'm not privy to CT's rules or historic stand regarding incorporated cities' land annexation policies, but if Stamford's coffers are in the black due to aggregate collected taxes (although it's likely that whatever corporate taxes there are remain just low enough to actually be attractive to firms looking to establish offices) city expansion -- both current and/or planned -- might portend well for population increases, which of course would require expansion of city-provided services and utilities as well. It might be that Stamford is the exception to the CT stagnation phenomenon -- they must have an effective PR apparatus! Or, alternately, the simplest of answers: corporations doing business with one another prefer to locate in the same vicinity.
In Connecticut, there is no way to expand. The whole state is incorporated, unlike California, towns/cities don't grow as fast.
I think one of the reasons it's growing is also the fact that the NYC suburbs are creeping into the city.
Incorparated towns in mass became part of Boston.
metro area
Quote from: JJBers on June 17, 2017, 11:06:14 AM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on June 17, 2017, 11:04:25 AM
Incorparated towns in mass became part of Boston.
metro area
No, really: places like Hyde Park, Roxbury and Dorchester are former towns that were annexed by the city of Boston.
Quote from: Desert Man on May 27, 2017, 07:51:32 AM
The 2014 population estimates of California's largest cities (in millions) - courtesy of Google search:
1. Los Angeles (3.977) - almost 4 mil could be 5 mil taken the account of second-home & uncounted residents.
2. San Diego (1.381) - slowed down. Neighboring city Tijuana, Baja Cal. Mexico has similar population.
3. San Jose (1.016) - surpassed a million, also slowed down, Northern Cal's largest city.
4. San Francisco (852,469) - city/county consolidation, has grown faster in the 2000s/10s.
5. Fresno (515, 486) - now larger than the state capital Sacramento, 6th place with 485,199.
7. Long Beach (473, 499) - still growing, but slower than in the mid 20th century period.
8. Oakland (413,755) - now called the New Brooklyn, black majority population (1990) declined to 20%.
9. Bakersfield (368,759) - the Dubai of America, due to oil economics, but not really a prosperous area.
10. Anaheim (346,997) - nearby Orange County seat Santa Ana, 11th place at 334,909.
12. Riverside (340.000) - in previously rapid-growth Inland Empire region in Southern Cal.
and 13. Stockton (320,000) - worst city in America (if you don't count Detroit on the list).
Riverside county's other largest cities are Moreno Valley at 210,000, Corona at 198,000, Temecula at 130,000 and Murrieta at 110,000. San Bernardino in its namesake county north of San Bernardino has 235,000 people, Fontana at 215,000 and Ontario at 168,000 (shrank, while Fontana booms and San Bernardino rebounds), and Rancho Cucamonga has 165,000. The rapid-growing Victorville area: Victorville and Hesperia each now have over 100,000 residents...and two non-incorporated towns Cabazon (Riv) and Landers (SB) are 1,000-2,500.
Locally, my hometown Indio is the largest of the Palm Springs area: 97,000 - double of Palm Springs and Palm Desert, the 2nd largest is Cathedral City with 61,000 and Coachella south of Indio now has 43,000 residents. The towns of La Quinta have 43,000 as well, then Desert Hot Springs (the worst non-major city in America) is home to 25,000, and affluent gated communities of Rancho Mirage at 16,000 and tiny Indian Wells at 6,100. Way to the east in the Colorado River (Ca-Az state line) is Blythe, home to 25,000 residents and what a long drive on the I-10 it is.
Wow I never thought that Fresno is bigger than Sacramento though for California's largest Inland city.
I don't know where to post that news but I saw these articles from the Chicago Sun-Times and CBS Chicago about Chicago population change.
http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2017/09/15/hispanic-population-surges-in-chicago/
http://chicago.suntimes.com/chicago-politics/census-hispanics-surpass-blacks-as-chicagos-2nd-largest-racial-group/
-As mentioned above, small towns like Blythe, isolated by 150+ miles of desert, are included in the Riverside-San Bernardino metro area;
Blythe and La Paz county AZ is closer to Yuma (AZ) and Imperial (CA) counties, but Blythe is part of Riverside county with the closest government offices in Indio.
Needles in San Bernardino county, CA should be treated like a part of the Las Vegas metro area like Pahrump. More like the Kingman-Mohave county AZ area, the place across the Colorado River.
You could well have Needles annexed by Nevada and Blythe by Arizona, despite the Colorado River as a natural barrier is used as a state boundary.
Quote from: Desert Man on September 26, 2017, 10:21:57 PM
-As mentioned above, small towns like Blythe, isolated by 150+ miles of desert, are included in the Riverside-San Bernardino metro area;
Blythe and La Paz county AZ is closer to Yuma (AZ) and Imperial (CA) counties, but Blythe is part of Riverside county with the closest government offices in Indio.
Needles in San Bernardino county, CA should be treated like a part of the Las Vegas metro area like Pahrump. More like the Kingman-Mohave county AZ area, the place across the Colorado River.
You could well have Needles annexed by Nevada and Blythe by Arizona, despite the Colorado River as a natural barrier is used as a state boundary.
In regards to Needles it is more part of the Bullhead City metro area. Wasn't there some movement a couple years ago to try to get Congress to change the state line with Nevada to get Needles within Clark County? I want to say that there was some sort of similar push for Wendover, UT to be shifted into Nevada also.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on September 27, 2017, 12:31:13 AM
Quote from: Desert Man on September 26, 2017, 10:21:57 PM
-As mentioned above, small towns like Blythe, isolated by 150+ miles of desert, are included in the Riverside-San Bernardino metro area;
Blythe and La Paz county AZ is closer to Yuma (AZ) and Imperial (CA) counties, but Blythe is part of Riverside county with the closest government offices in Indio.
Needles in San Bernardino county, CA should be treated like a part of the Las Vegas metro area like Pahrump. More like the Kingman-Mohave county AZ area, the place across the Colorado River.
You could well have Needles annexed by Nevada and Blythe by Arizona, despite the Colorado River as a natural barrier is used as a state boundary.
In regards to Needles it is more part of the Bullhead City metro area. Wasn't there some movement a couple years ago to try to get Congress to change the state line with Nevada to get Needles within Clark County? I want to say that there was some sort of similar push for Wendover, UT to be shifted into Nevada also.
That's part of what seems to be a perpetual conversation within the desert areas of San Bernardino County about the plight of far-flung towns within the county and the distance from the administrative centers located in San Bernardino itself. Much of that comes from the Yucca Valley/29 Palms area; some activists from that region have suggested that their area, along with the part of San Bernardino County closest to the Colorado River/state line, be "spun off" into a separate county, with 29 Palms being the county seat. That in turn has led to a multitude of separate proposals emanating from the Victorville/Apple Valley area with the aim being that the entire desert section of the county would secede, leaving the Inland Empire section of the county, along with the Lake Arrowhead/Big Bear Lake mountain areas, as the remaining San Bernardino County. Given that San Bernardino County is by far the largest county jurisdiction in the nation (one could fit all of New England save Maine into that one county by virtue of sheer square mileage!), there have been at least as many various proposals to split it up as there have been for California itself; most of these have been prompted by the isolation of the outlying towns (Needles, Baker, and others) from centralized county services.
Quote from: sparker on September 28, 2017, 03:15:43 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on September 27, 2017, 12:31:13 AM
Quote from: Desert Man on September 26, 2017, 10:21:57 PM
-As mentioned above, small towns like Blythe, isolated by 150+ miles of desert, are included in the Riverside-San Bernardino metro area;
Blythe and La Paz county AZ is closer to Yuma (AZ) and Imperial (CA) counties, but Blythe is part of Riverside county with the closest government offices in Indio.
Needles in San Bernardino county, CA should be treated like a part of the Las Vegas metro area like Pahrump. More like the Kingman-Mohave county AZ area, the place across the Colorado River.
You could well have Needles annexed by Nevada and Blythe by Arizona, despite the Colorado River as a natural barrier is used as a state boundary.
In regards to Needles it is more part of the Bullhead City metro area. Wasn't there some movement a couple years ago to try to get Congress to change the state line with Nevada to get Needles within Clark County? I want to say that there was some sort of similar push for Wendover, UT to be shifted into Nevada also.
That's part of what seems to be a perpetual conversation within the desert areas of San Bernardino County about the plight of far-flung towns within the county and the distance from the administrative centers located in San Bernardino itself. Much of that comes from the Yucca Valley/29 Palms area; some activists from that region have suggested that their area, along with the part of San Bernardino County closest to the Colorado River/state line, be "spun off" into a separate county, with 29 Palms being the county seat. That in turn has led to a multitude of separate proposals emanating from the Victorville/Apple Valley area with the aim being that the entire desert section of the county would secede, leaving the Inland Empire section of the county, along with the Lake Arrowhead/Big Bear Lake mountain areas, as the remaining San Bernardino County. Given that San Bernardino County is by far the largest county jurisdiction in the nation (one could fit all of New England save Maine into that one county by virtue of sheer square mileage!), there have been at least as many various proposals to split it up as there have been for California itself; most of these have been prompted by the isolation of the outlying towns (Needles, Baker, and others) from centralized county services.
Really San Bernardino County could have been split into three counties a long time ago. Needles just wants the gambling revenue, if it was going to really push for jumping states than Mohave County in Arizona would serve them better...even though it doesn't stand a chance in hell of ever happening. Essentially I could foresee San Bernardino, Victorville, and Blythe becoming the seats of the respective county units. The names for counties could be a cake walk with the Mojave County for the Victorville seat and Sonoran County for the Blythe.
Indio ties with Santa Ana, CA as the most Hispanic/Latino percentage "major" cities in the state, Indio is like 75% similar to Santa Ana. Nearby Coachella is 95%, and all the towns in the eastern Coachella Valley (Thermal, Mecca and Oasis) are 2nd-4th place most Hispanic/ Latino in the state after Calexico on the border with Mexicali (98%). All 7 incorporated cities in Imperial county are 90% Mexican-American or Hispanic, peaking in the farm labor harvest seasons. I understand farm towns in Central and Southern CA are largely of Mexican descent, but major cities like Los Angeles, south/eastern LA county like East L.A. and Long Beach, most of the San Bernardino-Riverside area, and the southern San Diego area (San Ysidro near Tijuana) are majority or totally Latino areas.
Quote from: sparker on September 28, 2017, 03:15:43 AM
one could fit all of New England save Maine into that one county by virtue of sheer square mileage!
Not meaning to hijack, but I always enjoy comparative phrases like this. Since Maine makes up a substantial percentage of the area of New England, this is like saying "enough to cover your entire body except for the legs" or "enough to clean your entire house minus the floors". :)