Largest cities in U.S. according to 2004 pop. census





interesting. Texas has 11 in the top 100 and three in the top 10. Amarillo, Pasadena and Brownsville landed just out of the 100. Austin is growing ALOT.
 
cat daddy said:
This list is interesting, but a better list would be one that gives you the MSA numbers. So many cities are now "landlocked" so they can not grow. Atlanta, New Orleans and Miami are good examples of this. They are locked in by the burbs or natural barries.

http://www.urbanplanet.org/forums/lofiversion/index.php/t10509.html
Click to expand...
Looking at this is misleading because if you look at Miami-Ft Lauderdale, that's a huge aread they are including. I can understand L.A.-Long Beach-Santa Ana because that looks like one big city. Some of these places grouped together are miles apart, though.
 
cat daddy said:
This list is interesting, but a better list would be one that gives you the MSA numbers. So many cities are now "landlocked" so they can not grow. Atlanta, New Orleans and Miami are good examples of this. They are locked in by the burbs or natural barries.

http://www.urbanplanet.org/forums/lofiversion/index.php/t10509.html
Click to expand...

Yeah. Metro numbers are so skewed though. Like Atlanta, the city is about 400-500K (?) but the metro area population is about more than the entire population of the states of Alabama or Mississippi. Also now days they have what are called Consolidated MSAs which take into account a metro area's general realm of economic influence, so in Alabama for example the Dothan CMSA is 225K+ as opposed to its metro population of about 138K or its city proper population of about 55K. And Columbus Georgia's CMSA includes Auburn-Opelika and Tuskegee with a population of about 500K as opposed to its 300K+ metro area population. Montgomery on the other hand has no CMSA, only an MSA of about 340K+. Then there's the Birmingham CMSA which gobbles up most of central alabama and is 1.1M something,, but the land-locked city proper population of Birmingham 238K and dropping like a rock. :confused: Montgomery city proper should surpass Birmingham in 10 years, 20 max.
 
Montgomery has also added 9,000 acres to the city which comes within 2 miles of the Macon/Bullock county lines. The 2010 census is going to look crazy in Bama. 9,000 extra acres keeps Montgomery from becoming "land-locked". And more people were added to those 9,000 acres. :nod2:
 
cat daddy said:
This list is interesting, but a better list would be one that gives you the MSA numbers. So many cities are now "landlocked" so they can not grow. Atlanta, New Orleans and Miami are good examples of this. They are locked in by the burbs or natural barries.

http://www.urbanplanet.org/forums/lofiversion/index.php/t10509.html
Click to expand...

The suburban areas are continuing to grow in Metro Atlanta and there is nothing but "land for days." Don't let the population of the city fool you. Atlanta has the 11th largest populated metropolitan area in the United States. What is different is the metro area is carved up into a myriad of municipalities where as some other cities take up the bulk of their metropolitan area.
 
HORNETSWARM said:
Montgomery has also added 9,000 acres to the city which comes within 2 miles of the Macon/Bullock county lines. The 2010 census is going to look crazy in Bama. 9,000 extra acres keeps Montgomery from becoming "land-locked". And more people were added to those 9,000 acres. :nod2:
Click to expand...

Yep. Much of the growth in East Montgomery now going on in the city limits of Montgomery is thanks to Emory Folmar. Pike Road is going to be a problem though,, especially once the "Ivan Allen" of Montgomery (mayor Bobby Bright) moves on to become either a senator or governor and Montgomery gets its first black mayor. You mark my words; we'll soon see Snowdown incorporate and possibly the Waugh area and Pike Road will spread west along the proposed outer loop those maggots. Many in Autauga and Elmore county than GOD for the Alabama river and natural/county line barriers to Montgomery pushing north or else we'd see an array of cities land locking Montgomery to the north.
 
What many people don't know is San Antonio is one of the largest cities in the US.

So there are only 9 cities in the US with 1 or more million people? Man, Mexico city has 25 million alone.
 
DC is 27th

&

St. Louis is 52?

:confused: I would have thought DC would have been in the top 10.
 
BandFan said:
DC is 27th

&

St. Louis is 52?

:confused: I would have thought DC would have been in the top 10.
Click to expand...

That's why I posted the list of the largest Metro areas. DC is #9 on that list and The Lou is 18.

Both cities are land locked and will not grow. But the burbs around them can continue to grow provided the economy of the respective regions continue to prosper.
 



There are more people in Memphis and Nashville than Atlanta. I didn't know Atlanta was that small. By the way, suburbs don't count.
 
DC is only 7 square miles. The area however is huge, especially if you add Baltimore to the mix.

NICE
 
Where was St. Louis and Kansas City?

I didn't know Detroit was under the 1M population mark.

:eek: @ New York. 8 million plus...wow!
 
I new by posting this topic, that it would interest many of you. I have looked at population trends for a long time all over the U.S.--The two cities that shocked me most were San Jose's increased population by becoming the tenth largest city in the nation, and by San Francisco dropping in the teens. I am also aware of the fact that Atlanta has the four fastest growing counties in the nation out of the top ten.
 
I'm sure you'll are aware that Jacksonville, Florida is still the largest city in the nation in terms of area. And also that Memphis, Nashville and New Orleans have had more people living in the city than Atlanta since the 1990 census. (Not metro areas).
 
northern tiger said:
There are more people in Memphis and Nashville than Atlanta. I didn't know Atlanta was that small. By the way, suburbs don't count.
Click to expand...

The burbs have to be factored in. Many cities form regional partnerships with the suburbs for many reasons. One would be rapid transit.
 
cat daddy said:
The burbs have to be factored in. Many cities form regional partnerships with the suburbs for many reasons. One would be rapid transit.
Click to expand...
Cities and suburbs have their own rapid transit system.


Cities and suburbs have their own rapid transit system. The only city where the suburban area really puts a city over is L. A.. In most larger urban areas the city's population out numbers it's surrounding suburbs.
 
northern tiger said:
Cities and suburbs have their own rapid transit system.


Cities and suburbs have their own rapid transit system. The only city where the suburban area really puts a city over is L. A.. In most larger urban areas the city's population out numbers it's surrounding suburbs.
Click to expand...

The Bart system of what I'm referring to is a perfect example. It cross both city and county boundaries. It is not owned by the city of SF, but by the region. Cities of SF/Oakland and the suburbs.

MARTA in the Atlanta area is another one. It is used by more than just the City of Atlanta.
 
nt,
It is very shortsighted to not consider the suburbs when taking a look at cities. I know of no city whose impact ends (and begins) directly at the city limits.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top