Here are the 2004 population estimates for the 10 largest CSA's in the U.S.
RANK CMSA 2004
1 New York-Newark-Bridgeport, NY-NJ-CT-PA 21858830
2 Los Angeles-Long Beach-Riverside, CA 17516110
3 Chicago-Naperville-Michigan City, IL-IN-WI 9608458
4 Washington-Baltimore-Northern Virginia, DC-MD-VA-WV 7986615
5 San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland, CA 7159693
6 Philadelphia-Camden-Vineland, PA-NJ-DE-MD 5951797
7 Dallas-Fort Worth, TX 5899336
8 Boston-Worcester-Manchester, MA-NH 5809111
9 Detroit-Warren-Flint, MI 5428855
10 Houston-Baytown-Huntsville, TX 5280752

What will change in 25 years?
Will New York still be the largest?
Will Chicago still come in 3rd?
Look into your crystal ball....

I think Baltimore/Washington will grow, but not enough to surpass Chicago, but State and District officals are projecting a huge population increase by 2020. The University System of Maryland is already urging its schools to do what they can to accomodate more students without risking a lower academic standard.

Of the curent top-10, I think only the Detroit Metro has the chance of slipping out of the top-10.

This is what I think.

1. Los Angeles
2. New York
3. Chicago
4. Dallas/Fort Worth
5. D.C./Baltimore
6. San Francisco/San Jose
7. Houston
8. Atlanta
9. Miami
10.Phoenix

MSA

1. Los Angeles
2. New York
3. Chicago
4. Dallas/Fort Worth
5. Houston
6. Atlanta
7. Miami
8. Phoenix
9. Philadelphia
10.Washington D.C.

Detroit won't slip out of the top ten because by 2025 chances are that Toledo, Jackson, and other nearby cities will probably be included in the CSA.

Right now, Ann Arbor, South Lyon-Brighton-Howell, and Detroit are all separate Urban Areas. In 20 years they will most likely have merged into one giant urban area. So, assuming the current definitions are the same in 2025, this is probably what the Detroit-Toledo-Flint CSA will look like:

Detroit-Ann Arbor-Warren MSA - 4,978,952 (2004 population)
Wayne County - 2,016,202
Oakland County - 1,213,339
Macomb County - 822,660
Washtenaw County - 339,191
Livingston County - 177,538
St. Clair County - 170,916
Lenawee County - 101,768
Lapeer County - 92,510
Sanilac County - 44,828

Jackson MSA - 162,973 (2004 population)
Jackson County - 162,973

Flint MSA - 443,947 (2004 population)
Genessee County - 443,947

Toledo-Monroe MSA - 840,170 (2004 population)
Lucas County - 450,632
Monroe County - 152,552
Wood County - 123,278
Ottawa County - 41,407
Fulton County - 42,919
Henry County - 29,382

Detroit-Toledo-Flint CSA - 6,426,042 (2004 population)

So even if ALL growth stops, it still has a pretty good chance it will remain in the top 10. But that's not the case as the region is growing. If the growth rates of the last four years remain the same until 2010, the population of the region will be about 6.52 million. 15 years after that it will probably reach about 7 million.

Here are the 2004 population estimates for the 10 largest CSA's in the U.S.
RANK CMSA 2004
1 New York-Newark-Bridgeport, NY-NJ-CT-PA 21858830
2 Los Angeles-Long Beach-Riverside, CA 17516110
3 Chicago-Naperville-Michigan City, IL-IN-WI 9608458
4 Washington-Baltimore-Northern Virginia, DC-MD-VA-WV 7986615
5 San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland, CA 7159693
6 Philadelphia-Camden-Vineland, PA-NJ-DE-MD 5951797
7 Dallas-Fort Worth, TX 5899336
8 Boston-Worcester-Manchester, MA-NH 5809111
9 Detroit-Warren-Flint, MI 5428855
10 Houston-Baytown-Huntsville, TX 5280752



10 Miami???......5.3 Million

Here are some projected numbers for 2025 based on this particular organization which takes into account current immigration rates, migration, births, and deaths, economic forecasts........

1) New York City CSA:
25,900,000
http://www.fairus.org/Research/Research.cfm?ID=842&c=9

2) Los Angeles CSA:
22,100,000 (a bit low IMO)
http://www.fairus.org/Research/Research.cfm?ID=842&c=9

3) Chicago CSA:
11,920,000
http://www.fairus.org/Research/Research.cfm?ID=842&c=9

4) D.C./Baltimore CSA:
10,345,000
http://www.fairus.org/Research/Research.cfm?ID=752&c=9

5) Dallas Fort Worth Arlington CSA:
9,945,000
http://www.fairus.org/Research/Research.cfm?ID=871&c=9

6) Bay Area CSA:
9,500,000
http://www.fairus.org/Research/Research.cfm?ID=1258&c=9

7) Atlanta, Georgia MSA:
9,356,000 (yeah right!)
http://www.fairus.org/Research/Research.cfm?ID=777&c=9


8) Phoenix/Mesa/ Scottsdale MSA:
8,268,000 (doubt it!)
http://www.fairus.org/Research/Research.cfm?ID=732&c=9

9) Houston/ Galveston Brazoria CSA:
8,179,000
http://www.fairus.org/Research/Research.cfm?ID=875&c=9


10) Las Vegas, Nevada MSA
7,112,000 (not gonna happen)
http://www.fairus.org/Research/Research.cfm?ID=822&c=9

11) Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City CSA
6,992,000
http://www.fairus.org/Research/Research.cfm?ID=833&c=9

12) Boston-Worcester-Lawrence, Massachusetts CSA:
6,800,000
http://www.fairus.org/Research/Research.cfm?ID=801&c=9


13) Miami Fort/Lauderdale CSA:
6,295,000
http://www.fairus.org/Research/Research.cfm?ID=732&c=9


14) Detroit-Ann Arbor-Flint, Michigan CSA:
6,191,000
http://www.fairus.org/Research/Research.cfm?ID=810&c=9

15) Seattle-Tacoma-Bremerton, Washington CSA:
5,568,000
http://www.fairus.org/Research/Research.cfm?ID=887&c=9

16) Denver-Boulder-Greely, Colorado CSA:
5,009,000
http://www.fairus.org/Research/Research.cfm?ID=740&c=9

This is stupid. A city like Portland may be in the top ten... who knows? The only thing I would probably be sure about is that New York City will still be number one.

Wow, what would it be like to have New York surpassed by Los Angeles? I guess it's fairly likely to happen in the metro, if not the city proper. What's LA proper's capacity for growth, anyway?

Hey sweetkisses,

Of course all this is is projections, forecasts, based on estimates. I think it's interesting to see which metro areas are seeing growth, both demographically, and economically.

What's so stupid about that?

^Plenty of room for LA to grow and to the delight of most people here, the growth in LA is now a vertical growth instead of a horizontal growth since most of the land is already developed.

I think LA will be number one by 2025, or very close to being number 1. The LA long term planning report has 6 million more people moving to LA county by 2025, so add that to the amazing growth in Riverside and SB, as well as the OC and ventura, you get a metro that will have a pop around 24 - 28 million.

by 2025 Boston and Providence will almost certainly be in the same CSA with a population between 8 and 9 million.

^
Remember, most population projections base their forecast on current MSA/CSA definitions, and do not take into consideration the merging two or more csa's or msa's which can (and will) happen within the next couple of decades.
Such as......
NYC and Philly 30,000,000?
L.A. and San Deigo 26,000,000?
Chicago, Rockford, and Miluakee 15,000,000?

Don't forget the Atlanta-Birmingham-Macon-Charlotte-Nashville-Marrietta,-Sandy Springs CSA. That should be reality somewhere by 2015.

I've heard another projection that puts Atlanta at around 6 million by 2025. To me that sounds more likely. However, at the rate of current sprawl it may swallow or merge with other nearby metro bumping it's population upwards.

IMO, I'm pretty sure the top four will remain the same. The 6-15 positions will really depend on the cycles of economic, civic, and political actions of the cities, and what CSAs absorb. That's Dallas, Houston, Atlanta, Miami, Philly, Boston, Detroit, SF, Phoenix, Seattle, Las Vegas.

Here are some projected numbers for 2025 based on this particular organization which takes into account current immigration rates, migration, births, and deaths, economic forecasts........

16) Portland-Salem, Oregon CSA:
4,060,000
http://www.fairus.org/Research/Research.cfm?ID=858&c=9

You need to change your rankings because the same site projects the Minneapolis-St. Paul MSA to be 4,432,000 and Minneapolis-St. Paul-St. Cloud CSA will be close to 4.8 million.

Hey sweetkisses,

Of course all this is is projections, forecasts, based on estimates. I think it's interesting to see which metro areas are seeing growth, both demographically, and economically.

What's so stupid about that?
ok maybe stupid isnt the right word...I dunno

LV with 7 million? are you sure they didnt annex the imperal empire of California or Flagstaff.

Btw Chicago will Annex Grand Rapids, Green Bay, Wisocnsin Dells, Freeport, South Bend, Bloomington-Normal by 2025(that includes MIlwukee, Madison, and Rockford).

Maybe about 17,000,000 million huge mega city.

it will annex Green Bay!!???? My god man.....it aint gonna stretch that far for a longggggggggg time. Milwaukee will definely be a part of the Chicago region. I also think that Chicago will expand into Rockford...which will merge with Janesville-Beloit, and then Madison. There will need to be some major infill between Madison and Milwaukee--which seems possible with the people moving out into Waukesha or Occonomowoc. Oh by the way....why annex Wisconsin Dells? I read in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel that Six Flags has created a water park in Gurnee to steal away the huge amount of Chicagoians and Milwaukeeans who annulaly visit the Dells. Bastards :)

Yeah, Chicago having Green Bay in it's CSA seems a little messed up.

Yep, there is a brand new waterpark next to six flags in Gurnee, IL!! But, its closer to Chicago + MILWukee than the dells. Beside, this could help with the Racine+Kenosha into one metro.

I was exxergerating Green Bay+ Dells.

Back on topic, Chicago will stay #3! LA+NYC will fight eachother for first.

Sprawl Queen(Altanta) getting over 9 million??? Thats quite sad. With like 8.5 million suburbs and nearly 1 million AtL in 2025(and thats streching Atl's population), feels like a metro without a core.


Phoenix getting 8.2 million and its in the middle of the state. The whole state will be a metro? (and the state is only 5 million today).

So if Phoenix, LA, and LV comind by 2025, they would have...38 million people in the desert, and that didnt include some of Mexico's northern cities.

Why isnt the bay area with the central valley?

6 million in Miami is quite dense! Especially with the ocean on the east. Everglades on the west. the only way it could grow is density or north.

So if Phoenix, LA, and LV comind by 2025, they would have...38 million people in the desert, and that didnt include some of Mexico's northern cities.


We'll be living on Mars before that happens.

^ ya i dont know how he got the idea LA LV and Pheonix would merge?!? There is so much desert and open space between the cities, hundreds of miles worth that will never be developed because it is federally protected land as well as the fact that its the desert.

You need to change your rankings because the same site projects the Minneapolis-St. Paul MSA to be 4,432,000 and Minneapolis-St. Paul-St. Cloud CSA will be close to 4.8 million.
Yeah I missed Minneapolis. O.K. lets put Minneapolis in place of Portland at #16.

yeah, LA's growth is starting to look vertical, instead of horizontal suburbs...I anticipate what it looks like in 2025.

You need to change your rankings because the same site projects the Minneapolis-St. Paul MSA to be 4,432,000 and Minneapolis-St. Paul-St. Cloud CSA will be close to 4.8 million.

Actually, I just did a little more research and found that Denver/Boulder will have 5 million by 2025. That puts them as in the #16 spot.

Sombody said something about LA and SD joining together.

The day that happens is the day that I leave this city. We have been watching our neighbor to the north and we don't like what we've see so far. No offence, but thank God for camp pendleton.:cheers:

Anyways, what about Tijuana and SD? It could happen accept for the whole border thing. lol :)

^
If not for Camp Pendelton, L.A. and San Diego would have combined a long time ago. The only other way would be the inland route, which is rather difficult because of the terrain, but it seems to be happening . Albeit, slowly.

Here is a BIG map of all the CSA's in the U.S. It also shows the urbanized area of each. Look at how close L.A. and San Diego are...
http://ftp2.census.gov/geo/maps/metroarea/us_wall/Jun2003/cbsa_csa_us_0603_rev_large.gif

feels, like LA is close to LV and its only 3 hours from LV to PHX. O nvm mind about PHX + LA.

But LA and LV is reasonable.

How is PHX going to be 8 million? Did they annex the state of Arizonia?

LA and Vegas is not reasonable. Look at the map above and notice that there is a 250 mile gap between LA and Vegas that is not developed nor will be in the next 200 years

^
No way in hell Vegas and L.A. It would be like Detroit and Chicago merging. Impossible! Do you know how much land you're talking about!
Remember everyone, the government will eventually step in to slow down sprawl once it becomes detrimental to a region (we'd hope). They've already done it in Portland, and in New Jersey to save valuable farmland.

Azn_chi_boi, I don't think you realize just how much open space there is out there. Grand Rapids and Chicago will never be in the same CSA. Las Vegas and Los Angeles will never be in the same CSA.

People seem to forget that Las Vegas is pretty much trapped and a valley, and the little space it could actually sprawl outside of the valley is to the east (away from Los Angeles).

Not to mention the GIANT, PRACTICALLY UNINHABITABLE DESERT in between them.

BUT LA's metro go up to the Nevada stateline, so does LV.

Even though me too, I think most of the people dont even live inside that part of the metro.

What you people don't seem to understand is that within the borders of Phoenix and its outlying suburbs, there is TONS of undeveloped land. The city of Chandler has fixed borders, surrounded by Indian reservation to the south, Phoenix to the west, Tempe and Mesa to the north, and Gilbert to the east. But despite that, we have at least 40% undeveloped farmland that is turning over to housing subdivisions, and bloody fast. Our houe here was build in five months flat! Albeit with probably shoddy construction and second-rate craftmanship. The east valley is growing at a startling rate, including the cities of Mesa, Tempe, Gilbert, Snobbsdale, excuse me, Scottsdale, and Fountain Hills. The west valley including Peoria, Glendale and Avondale have also stepped up in the past few years. The next thing to account for is the growing market for mid and high rise residential develoment in our dud of a downtown. The city council just approved a 30-story condo in downtown, our third tallest building!!!-that's pretty thrilling. A slew of multifamily develoment is taking place around mountains and our Mill Avenue area by ASU. The city of Buckeye to the southeast of phx will be over 800 square miles by 2010, and just think of what they can do with that!

Now, LA being over 25 mil, pleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeease. Their housing prices are through the roof and people are fleeing there for AZ fast! Unless the Coachella valley and PS-Indio grow into LA-Riverside, that is highly unlikely.

I think DC-Balt will jump a few places too

Screw those other people's predictions, here's mine . . .

Possibilty 1 - Current Growth
1.) New York City
2.) Los Angeles
3.) Chicago
4.) Dallas-Fort Worth
5.) San Francisco Bay Area
6.) Baltimore-Washington
7.) Atlanta
8.) Houston
9.) Phoenix
10.) Boston

Possibility 2 - Huge Sprawl
1.) Los Angeles-San Diego
2.) New York City-Hartford
3.) Chicago-Milwaukee
4.) Dallas-Fort Worth
5.) Atlanta-Chattanooga-Macon-Columbus
6.) San Francisco Bay Area-Sacramento
7.) Houston
8.) Boston-Providence-Barnstable
9.) Detroit-Toledo
10.) Baltimore-Washington

Possibility 3 - Slowed Growth
1.) New York City
2.) Los Angeles
3.) Chicago
4.) San Francisco Bay Area
5.) Baltimore-Washington
6.) Dallas-Fort Worth
7.) Atlanta
8.) Houston
9.) Boston
10.) Detroit

What you people don't seem to understand is that within the borders of Phoenix and its outlying suburbs, there is TONS of undeveloped land. The city of Chandler has fixed borders, surrounded by Indian reservation to the south, Phoenix to the west, Tempe and Mesa to the north, and Gilbert to the east. But despite that, we have at least 40% undeveloped farmland that is turning over to housing subdivisions, and bloody fast. Our houe here was build in five months flat! Albeit with probably shoddy construction and second-rate craftmanship. The east valley is growing at a startling rate, including the cities of Mesa, Tempe, Gilbert, Snobbsdale, excuse me, Scottsdale, and Fountain Hills. The west valley including Peoria, Glendale and Avondale have also stepped up in the past few years. The next thing to account for is the growing market for mid and high rise residential develoment in our dud of a downtown. The city council just approved a 30-story condo in downtown, our third tallest building!!!-that's pretty thrilling. A slew of multifamily develoment is taking place around mountains and our Mill Avenue area by ASU. The city of Buckeye to the southeast of phx will be over 800 square miles by 2010, and just think of what they can do with that!

Now, LA being over 25 mil, pleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeease. Their housing prices are through the roof and people are fleeing there for AZ fast! Unless the Coachella valley and PS-Indio grow into LA-Riverside, that is highly unlikely.

I think DC-Balt will jump a few places too


Even though a lot of people left LA, more came to LA or were born, because the population went up significantly. We had the second highest growth in the country.

Baltimore-Washington with pretty high prices is still getting bigger, and faster then the Bay Area, if there's one metro that's gonna fall in pop. it's the bay area IMO. I doubt DC-Balt. will lose the number 4 spot, it'll be close though. NYC and Philly will for sure be qualified enough to merge by 2025.

I think the top 4 are the same, with Dallas being 5th, SF 6th, ATL 7th, Bos 8th, PHX 9th, HOU 10th

Orlando and Daytona Beach might merge with Tampa, and maybe even with Miami by 2025, to make Miami in the top 10

Baltimore-Washington with pretty high prices is still getting bigger, and faster then the Bay Area, if there's one metro that's gonna fall in pop. it's the bay area IMO. I doubt DC-Balt. will lose the number 4 spot, it'll be close though. NYC and Philly will for sure be qualified enough to merge by 2025.

I think the top 4 are the same, with Dallas being 5th, SF 6th, ATL 7th, Bos 8th, PHX 9th, HOU 10th

You think Houston really is going to grow that slow? its on pace to pass Boston in about another 10 years and is actually growing as fast as Atlanta in raw numbers. I don't see Phoenix cracking the top 10 yet.

Orlando and Daytona Beach might merge with Tampa, and maybe even with Miami by 2025, to make Miami in the top 10

That will NOT happen. First off Miami is already in the top 10 now. Jupiter, Florida, which is the metro's most northern most city i believe, is 150 miles south of Orlando so that won't be happening. Orlando and Daytona Beach is 85 miles apart I think and it's probably the same between Orlando and Tampa. So I don't see that happening as well.

In 2025, Las Vegas will certainly not be in the top 10 MSAs. They are in a HUGE water crisis, and the southern Rockies are still in a nine-going-on-ten year drought! There are already restrictions on water useage now, and if the drought gets worse and growth continues, the results would be bad to say the least. Besides, LV gets fewer than four inches of rainfall a year! The topography would also not permit that type of growth.

I still hold steady that LA surpassing NYC in pop by 2025 is preposterous. They'd have to grow enough to annex or merge with San Diego, Santa Barbara, Palm Springs, Indio, Hemet, El Centro, Victorville, Salton City, Palmdale, Hesperia, and all those other cities on the otherside of the San Gabriel Mountains and San Bernadino Valley. As for Dallas and Houston, they will easily jump a few spots due to the abundance of land the Big-T has to offer. Relatively inexpensive land and lots of it will surely fuel their growth.

In 2025, Las Vegas will certainly not be in the top 10 MSAs. They are in a HUGE water crisis, and the southern Rockies are still in a nine-going-on-ten year drought! There are already restrictions on water useage now, and if the drought gets worse and growth continues, the results would be bad to say the least. Besides, LV gets fewer than four inches of rainfall a year! The topography would also not permit that type of growth.

I still hold steady that LA surpassing NYC in pop by 2025 is preposterous. They'd have to grow enough to annex or merge with San Diego, Santa Barbara, Palm Springs, Indio, Hemet, El Centro, Victorville, Salton City, Palmdale, Hesperia, and all those other cities on the otherside of the San Gabriel Mountains and San Bernadino Valley. As for Dallas and Houston, they will easily jump a few spots due to the abundance of land the Big-T has to offer. Relatively inexpensive land and lots of it will surely fuel their growth.


With this I am in agreement. Strains on a regions natural resources will make it more costly or even impossible to sustain such growth. Phoenix, Las Vegas, part of Texas and Southern California will have to deal with these impending problems if their growth rate continues to soar. I'm sure they will find ways to get water to these areas, but it definetly wont be cheap.

1 New York - Hartford 26 million
2 Los Angeles - San Diego 24 million
3 Chicago - Milwaukee 13 million
4 Washington - Baltimore 11 million
5 San Francisco - San Jose 9 million
6 Dallas - Fort Worth 8 million
7 Boston - Providence 8 million
8 Miami 8 million
9 Atlanta 7 million
10 Houston 7 million

Philadelphia 7 million
Phoenix 7 million
Detroit 6 million

Just a guess - & assuming current cities continue sprawling...

(but hopefully I won't be proccessed into soylent green)

tells ya who has good mayors and normally taxed residents.

Detroit will have a lot more than 6 million by 2025. Right now there is 5.5 million people in the metro. Jackson and Toledo will add another 1 million and a few outlier counties like Lenawee and Sanilac will be added.

By 2025, Detroit will have no less than 7 million, and probably a lot more than that.

I thought Detroit Metro was losing people like crazy. Is it just the city of Detroit thats losing numbers then?

Hmmmm...I see alot of talk here about sprawl but with that in mind it should be noted that the days of sprawl as we know it are coming to an end.

Thanks to the economic slump that ravaged the Eastern cities in the 70s,80s and 90s many urban areas were vacated and essentially left to rot. As a result, areas that were once industrial wastelands near city centers are now being rejuvenated and turned into residential areas. The result of THAT is a new appreciation for urban living which is becoming a trend. In short, there is now a demand for space in these areas where there was none before. These redevelopements are also benefitial for a number of reasons : They are high density, they appeal to a younger demographic, they are centrally located (people are really sick of commutes), and the services are already in place and established. In short, they are prime locations that are becoming more and more appealing as their popularity grows. As well, even brand new areas are no longer based along the lines of low density developement and high density infrastructure. And this new style is far more profitable from a developer's perspective.

So no, the cities still have lots of outward growth left to do. However, the rate at which surrounding farmland is swallowed up will definitely be decreasing until we see a stagnation in the process. While I doubt we'll see any retraction of the physical cities for some time to come the likelihood of the current urban centers breaching vast lands in between until they are in physical contact is probably not going to happen. By 2025 it's more reasonable to believe that sprawl will be a thing of the past if not on it's last legs so to speak.

Yeah, the metro is growing, and only the city and county it's in is losing people. It's not growing very fast, but is sprawling faster so it will include more counties in the future.

Detroit grew by about 6% between 1990 and 2000 and will probably see similar numbers between 2000 and 2010. However, much of the growth is occuring on the outskirts in areas like Washtenaw, Livingston, northern Oakland and Macomb, etc. And due to this major sprawl occuring, Detroit's urban area will take over Brighton-Howell and Ann Arbor by 2025. That will allow for a few outlier counties like Lenawee (100,000+) and Sanilac (45,000+) which are currently not included with the metro to be added. Also, it will allow for adjacent MSAs like Toledo (800,000+) and Jackson (170,000+) to be included in the Detroit CSA as commuting rates between them grow. Alreadly about 14% of Jackson County workers commute to the Detroit-Ann Arbor area. Only about 7% of Toledo area (including Monroe County) workers commute to Detroit-Ann Arbor, however as more and more people move to Monroe County the number will rise over the years. There's no doubt that by 2025 closer to 15% of Toledo workers will commute to Ann Arbor and Detroit.

With this I am in agreement. Strains on a regions natural resources will make it more costly or even impossible to sustain such growth. Phoenix, Las Vegas, part of Texas and Southern California will have to deal with these impending problems if their growth rate continues to soar. I'm sure they will find ways to get water to these areas, but it definetly wont be cheap.

Southern Cali and LV have the water problems, phx doesnt. LV is sprawling over desert. This means that once uninhabited (or uninhabitable) land is being developed into subdivions, hotels, golf courses, and the like, all of which consume billions of gallons of water a day. Southern California has developed all farmland, and is now pushing into the San Fernando and San Bernadino valleys which were undeveloped and untouched by farms. With reservoir levels along the Colorado River at record lows, and the danger of draining Lake Mead completely, These two regions cannot sustain their 1990s level growth any longer.

In the case of Phoenix, the areas being developed are farms, which actually used MORE water than subdivions of the same size. One acre of cultivated land uses more water than an acre of homes complete with zeroscape and even a few pools and irrigated lawns. Phoenix will not experience the water crises faced by lv and socal for a long time when farm land is completely built over. Until then, it will continue to grow. The valley is what the LA basin was thirty years ago.

Don't forget the Atlanta-Birmingham-Macon-Charlotte-Nashville-Marrietta,-Sandy Springs CSA. That should be reality somewhere by 2015.

You are joking.....right?

You are joking.....right?

More like sarcasm lol

In 2025, Las Vegas will certainly not be in the top 10 MSAs. They are in a HUGE water crisis, and the southern Rockies are still in a nine-going-on-ten year drought! There are already restrictions on water useage now, and if the drought gets worse and growth continues, the results would be bad to say the least. Besides, LV gets fewer than four inches of rainfall a year! The topography would also not permit that type of growth.

I still hold steady that LA surpassing NYC in pop by 2025 is preposterous. They'd have to grow enough to annex or merge with San Diego, Santa Barbara, Palm Springs, Indio, Hemet, El Centro, Victorville, Salton City, Palmdale, Hesperia, and all those other cities on the otherside of the San Gabriel Mountains and San Bernadino Valley. As for Dallas and Houston, they will easily jump a few spots due to the abundance of land the Big-T has to offer. Relatively inexpensive land and lots of it will surely fuel their growth.

Isn't Palmdale and Victorville in L.A. County?

Palmdale is in LA county but Victorville is in SB county

By 2025 Boston/Providence will have more than 8 million. Boston already has 5.8 million and Providence is at 1.6 million. Combined they are already almost 7.5 million. Boston is projected to grow nearly a million by 2025 and Providence about 350,000. That makes an estimate of 8.85 million reasonable.

The map posted earlier shows how their urbanized arreas overlap extensively.

Yeah it will be a while until CLT and ATL combine, it takes at least 4 hours to drive that distance anyways, and there is countryside in between.

Isn't SF-SJ going to be combined with Sacremento, and from a CSA of around 12 million ppl'?

yes soon. IF chicago and MIL combind then its guarentee that SF and SAc is going to combind. 12 million.. wow. Tied with Chicago soon.

I think NYC will still be on top. Even though Philly and NYC are very different I think the government will combine them anyway like they do DC and like they will SD and LA. And NYC will take up Hartford and Albany I bet too.

Its pretty hard to beleive any of those cities will gain as much as that list noted. Thats just seems like unrealistic growth.

^ In order for alot of these numbers to happen would be an assumption that EVERYONE wants to live in the US, in a major city, and people will live to 200 years old.

LOL, seriously some of these numbers are dreams. It is all pure speculation anyways, the census says Florida is going to grow by what was it, 12+ million people in 25 years, where the hell are all these people coming from.

Personally I dont see why so many people are crazy about rapid growth, it could also rapidly deteriorate your quality of life. I have social issues though so I guess it is just me, but I would never want to walk down a street like you see in china with 2 million other people, being in a semi crowded mall even makes me claustrophobic.

Too many people living so close to me seems to be exactly the opposite of great, could pose sanitation issues. Then the discussions about metros merging with metros decently far away is sad too ... unless we have cars that go 800 mph I dont think that if you lived in a downtown of some of these metros that you would ever come in contact with the population on the edges.

Yeah it will be a while until CLT and ATL combine, it takes at least 4 hours to drive that distance anyways, and there is countryside in between.

:lol: That's THE funniest shit I've read in some time! How could a thinly populated metro like Atlanta..or ANY metro for that matter..EVER combine with an area 4 HOURS AWAY? :lol:

LOl....... yea.. thats like Chicago to STL...

4hours... that is one crazy sprawl!!

Yeah it will be a while until CLT and ATL combine, it takes at least 4 hours to drive that distance anyways, and there is countryside in between.

I do think the notion of the Carolina based megalopolis has been taken too seriously as being a real event. Though the growth is phenomenal, and certainly there is a consistant band of lower density development (+ 100 people square mile) accented by several urban areas - the reality is that the I-85 corridor is not developing as a megalopolis, but rather a sprawlopolis if you will. Not to discount the progress made in the urban cores of cities such as Charlotte or Greenville SC, but the low density development is not comparable to the other urban corridors in progress in California, Florida, the Northeast & in various locations in the Midwest.

But lastly - it should be emphasized that the MSA or even the CSA would never recognize such a congregation. It will take far more than simply sporadic subdivsions & shopping centers for such an event to occur - but a consistant belt of population beyond 1000 people per square mile for the possibility to even be debated. So - I don't think the concept is worth even considering currently and most likely in our lifetime. It may still be a number of decades until the possibility of any NYC consolidation with a neighboring metro will occur, and likely the case for the other emerging megalopolises within this century.

A major problem with today's definition of CSA is that it depends on county and city geography. This works fairly well in states where the size of the counties are small or where metro areas are far apart but when these factors are not present the actual numbers are not accurate. For example, look at Phoenix and Tucson where small cities closer to Tucson are included in the Phoenix CSA. Would it not be better for CSAs to be defined by zip codes so that divisions of counties could be made to allocate residents to their proper CSA?

my list, in this order:

new york city
los angeles
chicago
phoenix
atlanta
san francisco
las vegas
houston
seattle
philadelphia

my list, in this order:

new york city
los angeles
chicago
phoenix
atlanta
san francisco
las vegas
houston
seattle
philadelphia

where did Dallas,DC-Bmore,and Miami go?

my list, in this order:

new york city
los angeles
chicago
phoenix
atlanta
san francisco
las vegas
houston
seattle
philadelphia

Uhm... interesting list. Seattle is about to undergo a massive boom I suppose, and Las Vegas will continue it's unprecedented growth rate along with Phoenix and Atlanta for that matter.

My list:

1. New York City
2. Los Angeles
3. Chicago
4. Washington-Baltimore
5. Boston
6. Bay Area
7. Dallas/Fort Worth
8. Houston
9. Miami
10. Atlanta

Close behind:
11. Detroit
12. Phoenix
13. Seattle
14. San Diego
15. San Antonio/Austin

^ Good List, best I seen so far

Thanks. I thought it was good when I made it.

my list, in this order:

new york city
los angeles
chicago
phoenix
atlanta
san francisco
las vegas
houston
seattle
philadelphia

I think you forgot Dallas.

Los Angeles
New York
Chicago
Dallas/Ft Worth
Baltimore/D.C.
San Francisco
Houston
Atlanta
Philadelphia
Boston

LA has more potential to surpass NY's metro. Only 3.5 million separates the two.

my list, in this order:

new york city
los angeles
chicago
phoenix
atlanta
san francisco
las vegas
houston
seattle
philadelphia

HAhahah. DC/Balitimore, a metro pushing 8 million RIGHT NOW is not on the list? NO DFW??
:bash:

All the top ten metros will probably have 7-8 million in 2025.

All the top ten metros will probably have 7-8 million in 2025.

Only or do you mean at least?

don't know 1 and 2,#3chicago and 4-10 i don't give a shit about

LA
NY
Chicago
DC/Baltimore
DFW
SF bay area
Houston
phoenix
Atlanta
Boston

Miami
Philadelphia
Seattle
San Diego

It is a relatively small gap to close in on but I SEVERELY doubt LA will take over NYC. If it does...uhm ill eat my hat....

my list


nyc.....................always number one (the feds will make sure of it)
los angeles............immigration will keep its numbers up
chi-town...............business is good in chi town, it will grow but always be 3


d.c-baltimore.........these two will, combine again, and d.c. metro will keep take it to 4
dallas-fort worth....largest metro in the south, and one of the fastest growing...no
way any other metro will catch up thats behind it especially with
fw's growth.
boston.................growing okay, and will continue to keep its lead on many metros,
but will be overtaken as years go on, but will never drop out of the
top 10
miami-ft. lauderdale.....is exploding, look for this to be the toronto of the south, with nowhere to go but up, will eventually pass boston.
atlanta........growth will eventually level out, but will still stay ahead of others, and pass many
philly........dont know, just had to find a place for them
bay area......housing prices, and tech bubble bursting will drive this area down.
houston........see LA, also business is good, but they will jump in and out of the top ten

With respect to your great country. ???? The question I read asked what would be the 10 largest metro areas .....Viewing replies I think your question was maybe refering to metros within the USA.

this is the local US forum ^

just for USA stuff

It is a relatively small gap to close in on but I SEVERELY doubt LA will take over NYC. If it does...uhm ill eat my hat....


me too

Thanks. I thought it was good when I made it.

It's not bad, except the glaring absence of Philadelphia...

It's not bad, except the glaring absence of Philadelphia...

LOL... I didnt catch that..probably an accident, that he forgot.

i think la can pass nyc in terms of population but not before 2030 , by then la must have 23 million and nyc the same pop

If the San Bernadino/Riverside MSA folds into LA-Anaheim-Glendale MSA, LA will overtake NY metro by my caculations around 2050. Of course that's if growth trends for both stay the way they are.

Sombody said something about LA and SD joining together.

The day that happens is the day that I leave this city. We have been watching our neighbor to the north and we don't like what we've see so far. No offence, but thank God for camp pendleton.:cheers:

)

Curious.......what have you seen? Too much growth? Too much density? Too much expanded transit?

don't know 1 and 2,#3chicago and 4-10 i don't give a shit about

Hey wait......enjoyed your comment but why are you boycotting the LA Forum?

When this thread was started, I probably would have put Las Vegas and Phoenix in the top ten. And who knows, they still could be. Or they could just be shadows of their former selves in 25 years.

Wow! I started this thread four years ago! :lol:

Thinks for bringing it back from the dead...

I think most cities on top 10 US cities will stay same or change the place by 2025. I believe that Seattle metro area will climb up to around 10th place by 2025. Seattle metro area is expecting to have two million residents addition by 2020.

i think following populations are possible by 2025

la 25 million

nyc 25 million

chicago millwaukee 13 million #

atlanta 8 million

wash baltimore 9 million

phoenix 6 million

bay area 8,6 million

miami 8 million

are the numbers okay or not ??

Wow! I started this thread four years ago! :lol:

Thinks for bringing it back from the dead...


i

are the numbers okay or not ?? Texans will fight for positon vs ATL either it be DWF or Houston. Either way all of them will fall short of the Big Three.






I think it is pretty obvious the Big Three will not change their position, or could there be a debate about the leading role of NYC or LA depending upon boarders of CSA's.

There is no competitor real competitor to the commanding leader of number three which is Chicagoland CSA proper.

It looks strong to a hold number three for the next 50 years in my math book.








Think water reserves.

i think following populations are possible by 2025

la 25 million

nyc 25 million

chicago millwaukee 13 million #

atlanta 8 million

wash baltimore 9 million

phoenix 6 million

bay area 8,6 million

miami 8 million

are the numbers okay or not ??

Baltimore/Washington already has about 8.5 million so I'd expect us to break 10 mill by 2025 given our strong growth rate. Chicago and Milwaukee probably wont even be as integrated in 2025 as Balt and Washington are now so the chances of them being combined are slim to none, but alas that discussions already been had a dozen times over...but there's just no precedence for a metro area connecting distances so far apart, especially outside the West Coast. The 190 mile drive from Michigan City, Indiana to West Bend, Wisconsin is only 10 miles short of the distance from the White House to Wall Street and more than double the distance between Philly and NYC and I don't see them combining on your list.

I think all this talk of Orlando and miami combining....Phoenix and L.A combining...are crazy. Think back for the last 20 years. Sprawl ruled. Now we have a better idea of how bad that was. We still build the majority of our developments like that, but more and more we are learning, more and more our officials are stopping development from encroaching on traditional woodlands. I don't think our past expansion will last, thank god.

With that said, I'm really looking forward to Chicago and Milwaukee combing :D

I think all this talk of Orlando and miami combining....Phoenix and L.A combining...are crazy. Think back for the last 20 years. Sprawl ruled. Now we have a better idea of how bad that was. We still build the majority of our developments like that, but more and more we are learning, more and more our officials are stopping development from encroaching on traditional woodlands. I don't think our past expansion will last, thank god.

With that said, I'm really looking forward to Chicago and Milwaukee combing :D

Phoenix and LA will NEVER combine. if that happens, the world has already ended.

If the San Bernadino/Riverside MSA folds into LA-Anaheim-Glendale MSA, LA will overtake NY metro by my caculations around 2050. Of course that's if growth trends for both stay the way they are.

By then LA CSA will be getting closer to 30 Mill.

Sombody said something about LA and SD joining together.

The day that happens is the day that I leave this city. We have been watching our neighbor to the north and we don't like what we've see so far. No offence, but thank God for camp pendleton.:cheers:

As if LA really is trying to seek SD's approval. :okay:

The level of hostility with which you speak of LA is really something. Man, I wish I could do the same for SD! :lol:

As if LA really is trying to seek SD's approval. :okay:

The level of hostility with which you speak of LA is really something. Man, I wish I could do the same for SD! :lol:

To be fair he seems to hate on his own city too. After all, he is planning on leaving it if the census decides to combine San Diego with LA in some way for statistical purposes...he really doesn't sound too attached.

wash baltimore 9 million

wtf, It's already close to 9 million... :lol: I would say 10 million and they will both be consolidated into the same metro..

I believe that the area will eventually go from D.C. to Philadelphia, as long as there is transit between Baltimore and Philadelphia. Maryland is already planned to grow quite rapidly between Baltimore and Philadelphia anyways. I hope that Maryland constructs a resort city with Casinos somewhere so that it will cause a even bigger boom...Also MD is in 3 of the nations largest metropolitans officially: D.C., Baltimore, and Philadelphia.

Eh? I don't see Baltimore and Philly ever merging. There's a better chance of Philly merging with New York than with Baltimore.

what about Atlanta ? ^^

http://businesscommunication.org/images/atlanta_ga_skyline400.jpg

I think we will see one mega city BosWash in 25 years stretching form Boston to Washington DC

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

http://pages.infinit.net/syrius/boswash.jpg

In 25 years the Northeastern corridor will hardly look any different in terms of its footprint. A lot of the land that is developable is developed, and much of the rest is protected.

As if LA really is trying to seek SD's approval. :okay:

:

The nerve!

Chicago and Milwaukee probably wont even be as integrated in 2025

Probably not by 2025, maybe by 2040. That will depend on commuter trends..... Rockford might be in Chicago's CSA by 2020 or 2030.

but alas that discussions already been had a dozen times over...

Yup :) Wasn't with you I believe under a different name, right?


but there's just no precedence for a metro area connecting distances so far apart, especially outside the West Coast. .

City limit to city limits Chicago and Milwaukee are about 76 miles apart.

Trenton and NYC are 67 miles apart city limitis to city limits and Trenton is in NYC's CSA...

Also L.A. to Riverside is over 60 miles and Riverside is part of the Los Angeles CSA, so in a nutshell, there is a precedent when it comes to distance.



Btw,

Chicago's CSA will have 10 milliton by 2010 or 2011, and by 2025 probably about 11.5 million (not including Rockford or Milwaukee)


Also, I think Dallas and Houston will be passing the Washington/Baltimore CSA by 2030 or 2040 if their growth rates remain constant.

01 Los Angeles
02 New York
03 Chicago
04 Dallas
05 Atlanta

06 Houston
07 Phoenix
08 Washington
09 Miami
10 Riverside-San Bernardino

I don't see Baltimore and Philly merging either. It's about double the distance between Baltimore and Philly as it is between DC and Baltimore. Wilmington would be first to get merged but Wilmington is 70 miles and I don't see that corridor developing heavily enough. Unless there is a lot of major transit and another economic activity center besides the BRAC developments, I don't see it happening anytime soon. The growth that the country has seen sprawl-wise in the past few decades is not going to come back. I think suburbs and commercial corridors will be seeing a lot of growth and density. I don't even see the area between Fredericksburg, VA and the northern suburbs of Richmond, VA growing enough for DC and Richmond to truly merge. Hopefully the area around Ft. Meade and Laurel and those areas will get denser in a good way in the future to further connect DC and Baltimore. I know it will grow, but it has to be managed right. It's not always easy when you're dealing with the gov't. Konterra looks nice but I'm more concerned with the Ft. Meade area which right now is needs a lot of work but could turn out well if it's planned well.

Philadelphia's moderate-density sprawl extends all the way to Newark, DE. Cecil County is basically the buffer between the two cities.

Granted, that doesn't mean anything, as it would never be recognized as a single metropolitan area regardless of the built environment.

01 Los Angeles
02 New York
03 Chicago
04 Dallas
05 Atlanta

06 Houston
07 Phoenix
08 Washington
09 Miami
10 Riverside-San Bernardino

Forgot a few cities in this list there.:)

Forgot a few cities in this list there.:)

No, I just think they'll drop out of the top 10 by 2025. Philadelphia I have at #11, and Boston at about #12 or #13.

Phoenix went from 3,251,876 in 2000 to 4,281,899 in 2008 for a +31.67% jump. Crude extrapolation of that growth rate would result in a population of 5,637,976 in 2016 and 7,423,524 in 2024. Riverside-San Bernardino went from 3,254,821 in 2000 to 4,115,871 in 2008 for a +26.45% jump. The corresponding figures using extrapolation would result in a population of 5,204,519 in 2016 and 6,581,114 in 2024.

In 2008, Philadelphia had 5,838,471 while Boston had 4,522,858. Their populations barely budged since 2000. Obviously, Riverside-San Bernardino and Phoenix can't grow rapidly like that forever, and Philly and Boston might start to grow quicker, but it's my contention that these 2 east coast cities will get bumped out of the top 10 by 2025 by the 2 sun belt metros. The data I used can be found at the link below:

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

There's no way Phoenix will grow to over 7 million people. Even if it adds around 100,000 a year every year between now and 2025 it would only reach about 6 million, but even then, I think the growth rate for the next decade at least will amount to less than half of its mid-2000's peak. There is a glut of housing on the market, tight credit is making it harder to get loans. Construction jobs (which the metro area heavily relied on) are few and far between. I wouldn't be surprised to see the metropolitan population peak at less than 5 million.

^^

I think Phoenix will peak between 6 and 7 million.... I can't imagine a sustainable metro region any larger right smack in the middle of the desert.


For the short term, I bet that the annual growth of Phoenix will still be in the top 3 for at least the next 5 years... Even with the housing bubble.

Dallas-Fort Worth had the largest numeric gain of any metro area between 2006 and 2007, increasing by 162,250, according to July 1, 2007, estimates of metro area population size and growth released today by the U.S. Census Bureau. Atlanta (151,063), Phoenix (132,513) and Houston (120,544) rounded out the metro areas with a gain of at least 100,000.


http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/img/2007metro_numerical.png

I've heard another projection that puts Atlanta at around 6 million by 2025. To me that sounds more likely. However, at the rate of current sprawl it may swallow or merge with other nearby metro bumping it's population upwards.


Atlanta will pass 6 million by 2012 I predict, if not sooner, depending on the economy.

Atlanta has little over 5.5 million people now. Atlanta has added nearly 1 million this decade alone.

^^

I think Phoenix will peak between 6 and 7 million.... I can't imagine a sustainable metro region any larger right smack in the middle of the desert.


For the short term, I bet that the annual growth of Phoenix will still be in the top 3 for at least the next 5 years... Even with the housing bubble.

Dallas-Fort Worth had the largest numeric gain of any metro area between 2006 and 2007, increasing by 162,250, according to July 1, 2007, estimates of metro area population size and growth released today by the U.S. Census Bureau. Atlanta (151,063), Phoenix (132,513) and Houston (120,544) rounded out the metro areas with a gain of at least 100,000.


http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/img/2007metro_numerical.png


Then again everything is possible. Who would have imagined a sustainable LA metro the size it is today?!

01 Los Angeles
02 New York
03 Chicago
04 Dallas
05 Atlanta

06 Houston
07 Phoenix
08 Washington
09 Miami
10 Riverside-San Bernardino


Good list, I would replace Riverside San Bernadino with Boston or Philadelphia ranking 10.

what about Atlanta ? ^^

http://businesscommunication.org/images/atlanta_ga_skyline400.jpg


Atlanta outskirts will probably boarder Macon to the South, Birmingham to the West by 2025.

My list:

1. New York City
2. Los Angeles
3. Chicago
4. Washington-Baltimore
5. Boston
6. Bay Area
7. Dallas/Fort Worth
8. Houston
9. Miami
10. Atlanta

Close behind:
11. Detroit
12. Phoenix
13. Seattle
14. San Diego
15. San Antonio/Austin

I do not believe Boston, San Francisco, Washington will rank that high in 2025. Their population are not growing as fast and they are not inexpensive cities to live in. Booming cities in the sunbelt will dominate the list for the most part by 2025.

Yep, there is a brand new waterpark next to six flags in Gurnee, IL!! But, its closer to Chicago + MILWukee than the dells. Beside, this could help with the Racine+Kenosha into one metro.

I was exxergerating Green Bay+ Dells.

Back on topic, Chicago will stay #3! LA+NYC will fight eachother for first.

Sprawl Queen(Altanta) getting over 9 million??? Thats quite sad. With like 8.5 million suburbs and nearly 1 million AtL in 2025(and thats streching Atl's population), feels like a metro without a core.


Phoenix getting 8.2 million and its in the middle of the state. The whole state will be a metro? (and the state is only 5 million today).

So if Phoenix, LA, and LV comind by 2025, they would have...38 million people in the desert, and that didnt include some of Mexico's northern cities.

Why isnt the bay area with the central valley?

6 million in Miami is quite dense! Especially with the ocean on the east. Everglades on the west. the only way it could grow is density or north.

Lol. Atlanta has a core, with different sub cores like Buckhead, Marietta, Gainesville. It is the same development pattern as Los Angeles with a core and several sub cores. I think the queen of sprawl is between Houston and Phoenix. Atlanta is not sprawling as fast, and is actually densifying alot in the core and surrounding areas right now.

Lol. Atlanta has a core, with different sub cores like Buckhead, Marietta, Gainesville. It is the same development pattern as Los Angeles with a core and several sub cores. I think the queen of sprawl is between Houston and Phoenix. Atlanta is not sprawling as fast, and is actually densifying alot in the core and surrounding areas right now.

Actually, you can use the same argument for Houston with the Texas Medical Center, Uptown-Galleria, Memorial, East Houston, and of course Downtown densifying alot. Houston is sprawling as fast as Atlanta.

Lol. Atlanta has a core, with different sub cores like Buckhead, Marietta, Gainesville. It is the same development pattern as Los Angeles with a core and several sub cores. I think the queen of sprawl is between Houston and Phoenix. Atlanta is not sprawling as fast, and is actually densifying alot in the core and surrounding areas right now.

Are you kidding me?;) When Los Angeles "sprawls", it builds neighborhoods with densities of 15,000-20,000 ppsm. When Atlanta sprawls it builds neighborhoods with densities of 2,000-5,000 ppsm. Even Phoenix builds much denser sprawl than Atlanta.

Atlanta by far is the King of Sprawl. There's no competition. Not even Houston and Dallas compare...

Don't remember if I posted this yet....

MSA population projections for 2030 based on 2000-2007 growth rates.

Based on the two series, Chicago looks to be the most steady... Also NYC of the top 10 seems to be pretty steady growth.

http://img7.imageshack.us/img7/5261/usmsa2030projections.jpg

My list:

1. New York City
2. Los Angeles
3. Chicago
4. Washington-Baltimore
5. Boston
6. Bay Area
7. Dallas/Fort Worth
8. Houston
9. Miami
10. Atlanta

Close behind:
11. Detroit
12. Phoenix
13. Seattle
14. San Diego
15. San Antonio/Austin


Close behind at San Antonio???

WTF are you smoking??

Right now, San Antonio's metro is 28th largest in the US. Where do you figure it would jump ahead of a growing metro like Minneapolis/St.Paul???

Given than Minneapolis/St.Paul is larger than San Diego and is growing faster than that city, how do you figure that San Antonio would ever catch up to Minneapolis???

He's combining San Antonio and Austin, which won't happen by 2025, if ever.

He's combining San Antonio and Austin, which won't happen by 2025, if ever.
Thanks, Hudkina.

It seems like for the NYC metro cited at 18mil that would be the CSA, right? So why is it that they always cite LA at having 10-12 mil which is only its MSA? Help please!
Is this rooted in the LA can never be as big as NY bias?

Huh?

The New York MSA has an estimated population of 19,006,798 as of 2008. The Los Angeles MSA has an estimated population of 12,872,808 as of 2008.

The New York CSA has an estimated 22,154,752 as of 2008, while the Los Angeles CSA has an estimated 17,786,419 as of 2008.

^^

L.A's MSA has actually gone down since 2007??


Btw,


Chicago's MSA is estimated at 9,569,624 and the CSA is estimated at 9,793,036 as of July of 2008....

No the estimates for 2007 are actually 12,784,612.

I'm not sure where demographia got that number...

It seems like for the NYC metro cited at 18mil that would be the CSA, right? So why is it that they always cite LA at having 10-12 mil which is only its MSA? Help please!
Is this rooted in the LA can never be as big as NY bias?

i have to agree with the NY bias. i noticed that all the list made by east coast people put NY at #1 while everyone else from around the world and the west coast put LA at #1.

Good list, I would replace Riverside San Bernadino with Boston or Philadelphia ranking 10.

Riverside and San Bernadino are and always will be included with LA so i dont know why they were annexed.

Southern Cali and LV have the water problems, phx doesnt. LV is sprawling over desert. This means that once uninhabited (or uninhabitable) land is being developed into subdivions, hotels, golf courses, and the like, all of which consume billions of gallons of water a day. Southern California has developed all farmland, and is now pushing into the San Fernando and San Bernadino valleys which were undeveloped and untouched by farms. With reservoir levels along the Colorado River at record lows, and the danger of draining Lake Mead completely, These two regions cannot sustain their 1990s level growth any longer.

In the case of Phoenix, the areas being developed are farms, which actually used MORE water than subdivions of the same size. One acre of cultivated land uses more water than an acre of homes complete with zeroscape and even a few pools and irrigated lawns. Phoenix will not experience the water crises faced by lv and socal for a long time when farm land is completely built over. Until then, it will continue to grow. The valley is what the LA basin was thirty years ago.

Socal's water problem is a big right now but there are plans to use reclaimed water along with desalination. after the infrastructure is in place LA can go as high as the sky. (which it is by the way. recent housing starts released by the housing department showed that new development for housing showed multi family units such as condos making about 75% of new construction.)

It is a relatively small gap to close in on but I SEVERELY doubt LA will take over NYC. If it does...uhm ill eat my hat....

LA will over take NY no matter what NY, and the fed says. with illegal immigration LA most likely has already passed NY :) the shear area of LA is bigger than NY not to mention NY's cost to develop and high living expenses are a bigger drag than LA's water problem. relatively speaking its cheaper to build in LA than in NY. not to mention we have better weather than NY, while they freeze on New Years we go to the beach in shorts.:cheers:

i have to agree with the NY bias. i noticed that all the list made by east coast people put NY at #1 while everyone else from around the world and the west coast put LA at #1.

What the heck are you talking about!
:lol:

Apparently you don't know the difference between an MSA and a CSA:nuts:

No the estimates for 2007 are actually 12,784,612.

I'm not sure where demographia got that number...

No. according to the cenus in July 2007 L.A's MSA had 12,875,587 confirming demographia's data....


http://www.census.gov/popest/metro/tables/2007/CBSA-EST2007-01.csv

Well they must have adjusted those numbers then, because the data they released for July 2008 says otherwise:

http://www.census.gov/popest/metro/tables/2008/CBSA-EST2008-01.csv

I guess that makes sense to adjust down though, as I'm sure the economy really put a damper on growth in the last couple of years.

No but seriously. Most #'s that I've seen quoted for NYC MSA is in the 16 mil area while LA MSA is in the 12 mil. When it comes to CSA you must include San Bernadino/Riverside to LA and that takes it up to (I've seen quoted) in the 18-19 mil #'s while NYC MSA is cited at 22 mil. It seems that while they are using the partial CSA #'s for NYC they are exclusively using only MSA #'s for LA.

Who are you talking about when you say "they"?

The New York MSA has around 19 million as of 2008, up from about 18.3 million in 2000. It's as simple as that. Any other data is either wrong or outdated.

Also, while Los Angeles metropolitan boundaries won't grow beyond the five counties that make up the CSA (except possibly through San Diego), New York will continue to grow outward, expanding into neighboring areas.

For example, assuming that the Bridgeport-Stamford UA and the New Haven UA merge with the New York UA by 2010, its possible that as many as five counties will be added to the MSA that are currently in the CSA. Fairfield and New Haven Counties would become "core" counties of the the New York MSA and Litchfield County as well as Orange/Dutchess Counties will meet the 25% commuter threshold to be included in the MSA.

That means that after the 2010 Census the New York MSA could be as large as 22 million. Assuming that Mercer County isn't merged with Philadelphia, the CSA would have about 22.6 million. But even then, the Hartford MSA could possibly join the CSA as in 2000, it met the minimum of 15% to be included with the CSA, so in reality the CSA could be as much as 1.8 million higher than the MSA or just shy of 24 million people.

Assuming Riverside and San Bernardino merge with the Los Angeles MSA, that would put the Los Angeles MSA at a little over 17 million with the CSA around 18 million.

So basically this is what we could see for 2010:

New York MSA - 22 million
Los Angeles MSA - 17 million

New York CSA - 24 million
Los Angeles CSA - 18 million

That means that after the 2010 Census the New York MSA could be as large as 22 million. Assuming that Mercer County isn't merged with Philadelphia, the CSA would have about 22.6 million. But even then, the Hartford MSA could possibly join the CSA as in 2000, it met the minimum of 15% to be included with the CSA, so in reality the CSA could be as much as 1.8 million higher than the MSA or just shy of 24 million people.


Interesting to hear. :shocked:

I didn't think Hartford would be anywhere close to being part of the NYC CSA anytime soon. I thought that it would eventually merge with Springfield first, we have more links with them than NYC and the commuting % between us (I think) was just shy of the level for combining. Although obviously the only reason I think we'd be merged into the NYC CSA in the first place is probably the connections with New Haven County, Hartford is just too far from New York to be considered part of the "metro". Not until better transportation links are made, at least.

Yeah, most of the metro interaction would be between Hartford County/Middlesex County and Litchfield County/New Haven County. Hartford certainly isn't a suburb of New York.

Keep in mind that the employment interchange rate was only 15.6%. For two adjacent MSAs to form a CSA that number needs to be at least 15%, but only if local delegates from both areas agree to a merger. That number could drop below 15% between 2000 and 2010 or delegates from one or both metropolitan areas could be against any such merger.

Well they must have adjusted those numbers then, because the data they released for July 2008 says otherwise:

http://www.census.gov/popest/metro/tables/2008/CBSA-EST2008-01.csv

I guess that makes sense to adjust down though, as I'm sure the economy really put a damper on growth in the last couple of years.

Especially with the housing market in California....


Here is a table that shows population change from 2000 to the 2008 estimates for MSA's. L.A. doesn't seem to have a shot in catching up to NYC's MSA anytime soon... Growth rates between the two MSA's are nearly equal.... It looks as if most of the future growth for the L.A. CSA is going to be in the San Bernardino/Riverside MSA... They are (or were) booming!

I'm also amazed at Phoenix, Houston, Dallas', and Atlanta's growth rate...

Basically, the top three wont change anytime soon. Fourth will most likely be Dallas, but #5-6 is a toss up between Houston, Atlanta, and Miami.... most likely being #7.... The #8 and 9 will be either Philly or the D.C MSA... in the coming years as Philly will most definitely fall back. The #10 spot will be Phoenix, but that could be temporary as it is still growing fast, and may potentially push up to the #7 spot by 2020.

http://img23.imageshack.us/img23/3171/2008msapopulationestima.jpg



No but seriously. Most #'s that I've seen quoted for NYC MSA is in the 16 mil area while LA MSA is in the 12 mil. When it comes to CSA you must include San Bernadino/Riverside to LA and that takes it up to (I've seen quoted) in the 18-19 mil #'s while NYC MSA is cited at 22 mil. It seems that while they are using the partial CSA #'s for NYC they are exclusively using only MSA #'s for LA.

Nowhere have I seen the NYC MSA at 16 million, not since say 1990.... or more like 1980 when the census had PMSA and CMSA definitions.

I'm not following you when you say partial CSA # for NYC??


Official census data from 2008 should clear things up... Scroll to the right to see the latest estimates...


http://www.census.gov/popest/metro/files/2008/CSA-EST2008-alldata.csv

Here is a table showing the 2000 census and the 2007 population estimates for the top 10 CSA's

L.A may have a chance at approaching NYC in the CSA category in say 40 or 50 years. So will Washington/Baltimore have a chance of aproaching Chicago's CSA population in 40 or 50 years... Using current growth rates...

http://img13.imageshack.us/img13/3585/2007csapopulationestima.jpg

So my question may has been answered by the above charts though it all seems somewhat suspect. For instance, the NYC MSA consists of areas including 3 states at roughly 19 million people. On the other hand the CSA consists of areas including 4 states with just a bump of about 3 mil to bring it to around 22 mil. On the one hand, the LA MSA consists of the usual suspects at 13 mil but when the CSA is counted it jumps nearly 5 mil to 18. If not anything else, this is a very interesting way of slicing up MSA's and CSA's.

The reason is that they sliced up the urbanized areas. Instead of having the Bridgeport-Stamford UA and the New Haven UA be a part of the New York UA like they should be, the Census Bureau separated them. Because of this (and the fact that 25% of the residents of those counties don't commute to the core counties of the New York MSA) they are separate MSAs. In the same vein, the Riverside-San Bernardino UA should be a part of the Los Angeles UA and for the same reasons they aren't included in the Los Angeles MSA.

Hopefully in 2010 these will be fixed and San Bernardino and Riverside Counties will be added to the Los Angeles MSA, while Fairfield, New Haven, Litchfield, Dutchess, and Orange Counties will be added to the New York MSA.

But ultimately there is no bias for New York or against Los Angeles.

So my question may has been answered by the above charts though it all seems somewhat suspect. For instance, the NYC MSA consists of areas including 3 states at roughly 19 million people. On the other hand the CSA consists of areas including 4 states with just a bump of about 3 mil to bring it to around 22 mil. On the one hand, the LA MSA consists of the usual suspects at 13 mil but when the CSA is counted it jumps nearly 5 mil to 18. If not anything else, this is a very interesting way of slicing up MSA's and CSA's.

You should consider this a good thing. Maybe not for the sake of population counting, but in other areas. The good thing at least for LA is that the entire metro is in the same state and divided into a handful of counties, which (at least it should) make it easier to plan projects and infrastructure ideas. In the NYC metro, that responsibility is between three (and four if you count that sliver of PA) states with different priorities, governments, and outlooks.

Based on the current growth trend the LA CSA will overtake NY by 2033... The growth rate of LA is 3 times NY. On another note, numerically the City Of Angels still the fastest growing city in the US, adding another 218,000 people since the last census in 2000.

You shouldn't base on current trends, it isn't feasible. I am not saying that LA's metro will never surpass NY's, but it's too optimistic.

Here's a ludicrous, but still valid comparison. If Connecticut kept growing at the 2.6%/year rate it did in the 1950s, it would have more than 6.45m people in 2000. It only grew to 3.4m actually by 2000, just a bit less than half. It is possible for fast growing places to fall off and stagnate and decline, it has happened to several cities and will in the future. Sunbelt cities are not immune to this...

Based on the current growth trend the LA CSA will overtake NY by 2033... The growth rate of LA is 3 times NY. On another note, numerically the City Of Angels still the fastest growing city in the US, adding another 218,000 people since the last census in 2000.

This is true. However, the vast majority of growth in the L.A. CSA now is within the San Bernardino/Riverside MSA. To be honest, I don't know how much room is physically left to sustain such explosive growth in San Bernardino/Riverside. I know to the east is nothing but desert.... NYC has no physical restrictions that would impede it from absorbing other MSA in all directions (aside from the Atlantic of course)...


For us in Chicagoland, Rockford will most likey join Chicago's CSA by 2020 or 2030 the latest. Milwaukee shortly thereafter.

Whoever said NY MSA was at 16 million is living in the 80's for quite a few years now every number I've heard for it was 18 million with the CSA at 21 million but that was before 2008. I believe both have jumped.

In the same vein, the Riverside-San Bernardino UA should be a part of the Los Angeles UA and for the same reasons they aren't included in the Los Angeles MSA.

Hopefully in 2010 these will be fixed and San Bernardino and Riverside Counties will be added to the Los Angeles MSA, while Fairfield, New Haven, Litchfield, Dutchess, and Orange Counties will be added to the New York MSA.



Well I'm quite fond of the 80's so I guess that would have been me. But "hud" if the SB/Riverside areas are to be counted in the LA MSA what will be left to fill up the CSA? Ventura? San Diego?

Ventura County via the Oxnard MSA. But even then, the Thousand Oaks UA could be absorbed by the Los Angeles UA, which in turn would add Ventura County to the MSA, effectively giving the Los Angeles MSA a population of 18 million, but that's a long shot.

As far as the CSA, a metropolitan area doesn't necessarily have to have a CSA. Miami is an example of that. Los Angeles is surrounded by mountains, desert, and the Ocean, and the next closest major metros are San Diego and Bakersfield. Neither metro is even remotely close to having a large enough employment interchange for that to happen. Even if all five counties in the current Los Angeles CSA were absorbed into the Los Angeles MSA, the employment interchange rate between the San Diego MSA and the Los Angeles MSA was only 4.7% in 2000. That nees to be a minimum of 15% to be included at the request of local delegates, and at least 25% for automatic inclusion.

Hey Hud,


Where on the cenus website can I find employment interchange rates? I'm curious to see what the curren rates are between Chicago and Milwaukee...

There is no "current" data. The best you'll do is data from 2000. Granted, for Racine County needs to join the Milwuakee MSA before the Milwaukee MSA joins Chicago in a CSA.

In any case the data is here:

http://www.census.gov/population/www/cen2000/commuting/index.html

To find the employment interchange rate you have to find the percentage of people in the smaller MSA who commute to the large MSA and add it to the percentage of jobs in the smaller MSA held by people who live in the larger MSA.

^^

Thanks

Chicago's 6 county area projections revised as of 2006.... This definition is smaller than the MSA definition set by the Census, because it exlcudes Northwest Indiana and other metro municipalities in Southeast Wisconsin..... it's more like the Urbanized area.... but it will be over 10 million, Chicago city proper will be over 3.25 million.

http://www.nipc.org/rpbchicago/data/forecast/2030_revised/ENDORSED_2030_forecasts_9-27-06.pdf


http://img22.imageshack.us/img22/1678/revised2030populationch.jpg

Based on the current growth trend the LA CSA will overtake NY by 2033... The growth rate of LA is 3 times NY. On another note, numerically the City Of Angels still the fastest growing city in the US, adding another 218,000 people since the last census in 2000.

Actually the growth of the LA area has really slowed down since the 1990s. The Inland Empire, until quite recently noted for its rapid growth & sprawl has turned into Foreclosure Central. Thats not a bad thing, as LA has started building up rather than out. LA is likely to narrow the metro population gap with NYC, but its not about to catch up, let alone pass it, anytime soon.

This is true. However, the vast majority of growth in the L.A. CSA now is within the San Bernardino/Riverside MSA. To be honest, I don't know how much room is physically left to sustain such explosive growth in San Bernardino/Riverside. I know to the east is nothing but desert.... NYC has no physical restrictions that would impede it from absorbing other MSA in all directions (aside from the Atlantic of course)...


For us in Chicagoland, Rockford will most likey join Chicago's CSA by 2020 or 2030 the latest. Milwaukee shortly thereafter.

Tokyo's MSA urban footprint is smaller than LA and holds more than double LA's population... I don't see why that is problem for now. LA still has a lot of room for growth especially vertically.

Tokyo's MSA urban footprint is smaller than LA and holds more than double LA's population... I don't see why that is problem for now. LA still has a lot of room for growth especially vertically.

Do you honestly believe that we here in America will ever adopt the urban landscape of European or Asian cities? No way, there is too much open land.... At least not in the next 50 years.... Suburbanization still rules here... people want there back yards, two car garages and subdivisions....unfortunately....:ohno:

As for L.A.'s growth, it will continue, especially in the Inland Empire (not explosive growth which it has experienced in recent years). Will L.A. surpass NYC? Probably not...

I just noticed this. Why is there a Houston CSA? Galveston and Conroe is already included in it's MSA and the difference between Houston's MSA and Houston's CSA is only a little under 1000 whereas other areas has a difference of as low as 200,000 to as much as 5 million. Kind of interesting.

The Houston CSA includes the Houston MSA plus the Huntsville MSA and the Bay City MSA.

The 2008 estimate for the Houston MSA is 5,728,143. The estimate for the Huntsville MSA is 64,212 while for the Bay City MSA it is 37,265.

When you add the three together you get the Houston CSA with an estimated 5,829,620.

Do you honestly believe that we here in America will ever adopt the urban landscape of European or Asian cities?

Actually George I do believe that we will adopt similar patterns of living if the proper infrastructure is implemented and continued limitations are put on car usage like tolling roads, lessening parking availability, the rising cost and limited supply of traditional fuel........ And in the sunnier cities we're seeing the phenomena of infill development. So long as the infill development is done properly through where needed changes in zoning, building close to transit and providing less parking for some sort of trade off like affordable housing, we're going to witness in our lifetimes perhaps the changing of these cities from once semi-suburban R1 zoned type places to moderately bustling and intensly bustling cities. A credit to many of the sun cities they are proposing, planning and building ambitious rail and transit projects. It's going to be an interesting century.

^^

Always the optimist Klamedia.... I hope you are right....but as of now, sprawl is still outpacing even the infill that is occurring in many cities out west and elsewhere...


http://www.medscape.com/content/2004/00/48/75/487573/art-ehp487573.fig1.gif

The Houston CSA includes the Houston MSA plus the Huntsville MSA and the Bay City MSA.

The 2008 estimate for the Houston MSA is 5,728,143. The estimate for the Huntsville MSA is 64,212 while for the Bay City MSA it is 37,265.

When you add the three together you get the Houston CSA with an estimated 5,829,620.

Ahh I see the mistake I made. I looked at the 2008 MSA numbers and they were matched up with the 2007 CSA numbers on wikipedia.

^^

Always the optimist Klamedia.... I hope you are right....but as of now, sprawl is still outpacing even the infill that is occurring in many cities out west and elsewhere...


http://www.medscape.com/content/2004/00/48/75/487573/art-ehp487573.fig1.gif

:(

I lived in Ventura, CA before... Ventura/Oxnard isn't THAT sprawl compared to other metro areas. Yes, Ventura and Oxnard have been building suburban homes but still have small town feeling since they still have plenty of farmlands. Also Ventura has growth management that limit up to 300 new homes per year. I suggest you guys to look at Ventura/Oxnard on google map and you will see it isn't THAT sprawl.

I lived in Ventura, CA before... Ventura/Oxnard isn't THAT sprawl compared to other metro areas. Yes, Ventura and Oxnard have been building suburban homes but still have small town feeling since they still have plenty of farmlands. Also Ventura has growth management that limit up to 300 new homes per year. I suggest you guys to look at Ventura/Oxnard on google map and you will see it isn't THAT sprawl.

Oxnard is one of the densest cities in California, however, the rest of Ventura County is a sprawling mess, particularly the Thousand Oaks-Simi Valley area.

LA's growth will probably be more like Northern California's in the next 20 years or so.

Oxnard is one of the densest cities in California, however, the rest of Ventura County is a sprawling mess, particularly the Thousand Oaks-Simi Valley area.

Only reason why Oxnard is considered as one of the densest cities in California because of the average number of households is around 8 people per one bedroom apartment. I personally think Oxnard is worst planned city in Ventura County because they didn't planning it right by kept approving numerous of proposed developments without doing their homework first. That is why we are seeing number of empty shopping centers, warehouses, some low rise office buildings, poor planned neighborhoods, traffics got worsen and high crime.

^^
http://www.medscape.com/content/2004/00/48/75/487573/art-ehp487573.fig1.gif


Any city on this list is not exactly in an envious position

Any city on this list is not exactly in an envious position

True... but in defense of Raleigh, there's quite a bit of push for increased downtown density. A new tallest was recently completed a few months ago along with an incredibly cool new convention center a few blocks away. Plenty of other projects are well underway as well and given the times we're in, I'd say it's quite impressive what they've done and are doing here.

Another thing to keep in mind is that most of these are multiple cities. I've been to Durham once. The moment you include a second large city in a metro area, you dramatically increase the amount of sprawl to account for.

Based on the current growth trend the LA CSA will overtake NY by 2033... The growth rate of LA is 3 times NY. On another note, numerically the City Of Angels still the fastest growing city in the US, adding another 218,000 people since the last census in 2000.

There's a huge misconception in this thread that Los Angeles is growing very fast. This may have been the case in the 20th century due to historical reasons (WWII and Cold War arms industries, aerospace, light manufacturing, mass media, growth in shipping and trade with Asia, etc), but this is no longer the case in the 21st. Los Angeles will NOT overtake New York City. So, everyone, let's please stop with the nonsense. And BTW, someone mentioned earlier that "all the east coast people are biased". I'm not East Coast, and I can tell you, New York will remain the largest city and urban agglomeration in the United States for a very long time to come. New York is New York. This will not change.

Let's please take a look at actual facts and figures, instead of making assumptions fed to us by pop culture. According to this wikipedia article which draws all its numbers from US government sources (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_metropolitan_areas), the Los Angeles MSA grew very slowly between 2000 and 2008, at a rate of 4.1%, barely faster than New York MSA (3.73%), and in fact slower than Chicago MSA (5.18%). When it comes to population growth, Los Angeles now resembles cities in the Northeast and Midwest. Some MSAs that experienced fast growth were Dallas (22.06%), Houston (21.48%), and Atlanta (26.56%).

Everyone needs to stop guessing, and take a look at the chart that Chicagogeorge posted in on page 7 of this thread. Both New York and Los Angeles will experience modest growth by 2030, as will other cities. A lot of people are inflating the population growth of particular cities, or even the country as a whole. Subsequently, the American fertility rate has declined in recent years, and immigration has also started to decline (and will probably continue to do so), and domestic migration to both NYC and LA is also quite slow. So a lot of these outlandish population projections for New York and Los Angeles pushing 25, even 30 million, will most likely not come to fruition. And someone mentioned earlier that illegal immigration will be the engine for LA's growth. WRONG WRONG WRONG. Los Angeles does not receive significantly more immigrants (in proportion to population) than other major American cities. In fact the second largest Mexican immigrant population in the US (after Los Angeles) resides in Chicago, which is no where near the Mexican border.

Finally I need to touch on Las Vegas. For those of you who think Las Vegas will ever become a big city: you've gotta be kidding me. I don't care if this city grows a thousand percent for the next one hundred years....it's NOT a big city, and it will never be one either. Las Vegas is a mid-size city that's supported entirely by the tourism/casino industries. And that's it. There's not many job prospects in Las Vegas. Las Vegas doesn't have the political and economic conditions that Los Angeles had in the 20th century, or Chicago had in the 19th. Las Vegas is a major leisure destination that's reliant on one industry (the tourism-casino-convention industry); it's experienced some pretty fantastic growth in recent decades, but it's still smaller than Cleveland, and its fast growth will start to significantly slow down. In fact, it has already, with the financial and real estate crises.

Are we referencing material from 2002 - 7 years old? Much has changed in 7 years...


^^

Always the optimist Klamedia.... I hope you are right....but as of now, sprawl is still outpacing even the infill that is occurring in many cities out west and elsewhere...


http://www.medscape.com/content/2004/00/48/75/487573/art-ehp487573.fig1.gif

60,000 jobs are coming to the Baltimore/Washington area by 2015!!!
This is brought to us by the Defense Base Closure and Realignment (brac)
process. This along with a better local economy will help propell the area
in total numbers for the cmsa.

And BTW, someone mentioned earlier that "all the east coast [people are biased]".* I'm not East Coast, and I can tell you, New York will remain the largest city and urban agglomeration in the United States for a very long time to come. New York is New York. This will not change.

New York is the largest metro area in the US...this will not change. ok.
New York is the largest city in the US....this will not change. ok.
New York is New York and this will not change. ummhmm.*

Just for the record I've read nowhere on this thread that the city of Los Angeles would overtake New York City. Really all that has been projected is if the presently considered CSA of Los Angeles e.g. San Bernadino was folded into the MSA of Los Angeles because of the assumed strong commuter patterns then the then MSA of LA would overtake the present MSA of New York City but still taking perhaps a good 10-20 years for that to happen. And of course these were all assumptions made on the explosive population growth of the SBino/Riverside areas that have since slowed.
Also I think some of the further assumptions about LA's growth is based on the regions track record. LA may have slowed (thank god) in the last decade but this has happened before in the 60's and 70's but following decades usually see a boon of growth again leading many to believe that this is the region's cycle of growth. So up to this point looking at the track record of an LA to the track record of NYC over the past 100 years would lead many to believe that the region will continue to perform in similar fashion. I personally believe that there exists no way that LA can continue the insane sustained growth that it saw throughout the 20th century.

The desirable parts of LA are all built up along the coast. You can live in the hot inland desert, but it's not really worth dealing with California's other hassles like high taxes, traffic, and mediocre public schools to do it, when you could just move to Arizona or Las Vegas for the same thing but lesser cost. This is why all the property prices have collapsed so badly in the Inland Empire.

But you can argue that Phoenix and Las Vegas have collapsed even more.

Las Vegas is paradise though. ;)

Las Vegas is paradise though. ;)

make no mistake, californian transplants in vegas prefer california. every single one of my friends in HS moved back to california as soon as they graduated, every single one.

Here are the 2004 population estimates for the 10 largest CSA's in the U.S.
RANK CMSA 2004
1 New York-Newark-Bridgeport, NY-NJ-CT-PA 21858830
2 Los Angeles-Long Beach-Riverside, CA 17516110
3 Chicago-Naperville-Michigan City, IL-IN-WI 9608458
4 Washington-Baltimore-Northern Virginia, DC-MD-VA-WV 7986615
5 San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland, CA 7159693
6 Philadelphia-Camden-Vineland, PA-NJ-DE-MD 5951797
7 Dallas-Fort Worth, TX 5899336
8 Boston-Worcester-Manchester, MA-NH 5809111
9 Detroit-Warren-Flint, MI 5428855
10 Houston-Baytown-Huntsville, TX 5280752

What will change in 25 years?
Will New York still be the largest?
Will Chicago still come in 3rd?
Look into your crystal ball....

Methinks Denver is looking up.

There's a huge misconception in this thread that Los Angeles is growing very fast. This may have been the case in the 20th century due to historical reasons (WWII and Cold War arms industries, aerospace, light manufacturing, mass media, growth in shipping and trade with Asia, etc), but this is no longer the case in the 21st. Los Angeles will NOT overtake New York City. So, everyone, let's please stop with the nonsense. And BTW, someone mentioned earlier that "all the east coast people are biased". I'm not East Coast, and I can tell you, New York will remain the largest city and urban agglomeration in the United States for a very long time to come. New York is New York. This will not change.



I think this is what most people have been referring to in regards to LA surpassing NYC in our lifetimes.

The NYC CSA - 21,961,994 grew at a rate of 2.81% between 2000-07.
The LA CSA - 17,755,322 grew at a rate of 8.44% between 2000-07.

If these numbers were to stay the same we would see the LA CSA surpass the NYC CSA sometime in the late 2040's-2050's.
So yes New York will always be New York it just may not always be the largest CSA.
Discuss.
http://www.census.gov/population/www/metroareas/metrodef.html

With regards to growth rates. If we look at the MSA for a moment instead of the CSA population growth rates between NYC and L.A. they are much closer. From 2000-2008, NYC grew by 653,444 or 3.6%, L.A. grew from 471,778 or 3.8%
http://www.demographia.com/db-metmic2004.pdf

Now back to the CSA's... klamedia is right that the growth rate for L.A.'s CSA outpaced NYC's CSA from 2000 to 2007, but two things. First, The vast majority of growth that occurred during the first 3 years of the 2000-2007 period, and second, the vast majority of growth occurred 50+ miles west of Los Angeles in the San Bernadino/Riverside MSA.
http://www.census.gov/popest/metro/files/2008/CSA-EST2008-alldata.csv

The Inland Empire exists solely as an extension of the Los Angeles area and is the natural progression of the suburban expansion of Los Angeles. Part of the reason for the slow growth in the actual Los Angeles MSA is the availability of developable land.

Yes, San Bernardino and Riverside exist solely as an extension of Los Angeles, and commuting patterns squarely place them in the Los Angeles metropolitan area. And yes, if we take a look at CSA's, rather than MSA's, Los Angeles grew 8% versus New York's 3% (estimated)...but LA's 8% is still relatively slow, especially compared to the 18+ % of some other cities like Dallas and Atlanta and let's not assume that current growth rates will remain the same. The overall US population growth is starting to slow due to both declining birth rates and declining immigration. And the Los Angeles CSA is still 4 million behind New York's CSA. And what I mean by "New York will always be New York", is that: New York is the de facto capital of the United States; it's role is not being taken over by post-industrial Los Angeles.

And what I mean by "New York will always be New York", is that: New York is the de facto capital of the United States; it's role is not being taken over by post-industrial Los Angeles.

The de facto capital of the United States is the same as its real capital: Washington

And what I mean by "New York will always be New York", is that: New York is the de facto capital of the United States; it's role is not being taken over by post-industrial Los Angeles.

First of all, I don't think LA ever wants or wanted to be the de facto capitol of the US......that notion doesn't even exist in its DNA. Besides we would never be able to weasel ourselves into siphoning water off the Great Lakes if Chicago caught wind of it.

From a city with no natural harbor, no water and at the time no real industry, not even a California "rush" city, prone to earthquakes, wildfires and mudslides.....being the de facto capitol of the US was and still is the furthest thing from an LA mindset.

New York will continue to be New York, until it isn't but I don't see that happening anytime soon. Whenever or if ever that does happen and NYC has to relinquish the title of "capitol" I don't believe it will be to a Los Angeles, in fact I don't even think LA would even be aware that it was happening, shit we'd probably end up missing it because we'd either be out surfing or too busy working the room. Just leave that to those other cities that desperately feel like they have something to prove.

Besides, LA is already the Capitol of the "3rd World", why would it crave something so insiginificant like being the capitol of the US? Or even worse, "the center of the universe" title?

If you just let us make our movies, get our boob jobs and eat off of taco trucks LA will be good! Trust.

NYC= Superman
LA= Mothra......with the trippy twins in tow.
No comparison.

A lot of this is off topic. Let's not get into a NY vs. LA debate thank you all very much. I'm sure most denizens in either metro cares at all how important they are and worry much more about putting food on the table and getting that electric bill paid... The title asks what will be the 10 largest metros in 2025...intelligible discussion is encouraged and nonsense pissing matches and asinine retorts are not. Please, please, please be civil this is not a contest.



Capital*

edict

edit*

Pissing match? How about figuring out who can produce the longest terd?

Thanx for finally speaking up "NYGIRL" but if you were really that concerned you would have said something back on page 5, any idiot could see where the thread was clearly heading. I tried to squash the budding city vs city thing on the previous page when "skyduster" made the "New York will always be New York"(wtf) comment but not a peep from you. Oh well, glad to see you come to the rescue........a bit too late.

thanks*
turd*

Wow a quick change of heart.;)

Pissing match? How about figuring out who can produce the longest terd?

Thanx for finally speaking up "NYGIRL" but if you were really that concerned you would have said something back on page 5

When that happens it is up to you to either come to one of us or report the post by clicking that little triangle under the avatar of the poster you wish to bring to our attention. I haven't gone back three pages I see it now. The original poster had begun the thread with a legitimate post the problem is the immaturity of members who start a flame war and those who take it personally and then engage in it.

It depends on oil prices and whether or not we have a replacement. If transportation costs go up we may see a resurgance of the Northeren cities like Boston, Detroit, Cleveland, Buffalo etc. If transportation prices are similar than it will be all sunbelt growth and I wouldnt be surprised if LA takes over NY as the nation's largest city.

Now JohnFlint1985,

If you said that BosWash stretched from B-ton to DC, how come the pic you showed us had the Richmond and Hampton Roads areas on it, HMM?

It depends on oil prices and whether or not we have a replacement. If transportation costs go up we may see a resurgance of the Northeren cities like Boston, Detroit, Cleveland, Buffalo etc.

Actually, Boston has been doing quite well in recent decades. Its in a different class from the other northern cities you've mentioned.

A lot of people are assuming that gas prices or real estate prices or what ever will ultimately cause the rise or decline in the city of the future. Personally, I don't. Today's city model is Los Angeles end of story. It will be multi-nodel with at least some mass transit, but plenty of industry, corporate headquarters, manufacturing and of course commerical businesses located throughtout the metropolitan areas not just the core. That's not to say that city cores aren't going to expand and grow because they certainly are, but the fact remains that the vast majority of growth will always be in the suburbs.

This model is exctinct.


http://www.gapersblock.com/detour/gfx/12262003_map.jpg


Bedroom suburbs will exist, but more and more satellite cities that are semi-independent from the "host" city will be the norm.....


If the map didn't say 'Downtown" on it, it would be hard to tell where the city center is...

http://0.tqn.com/d/gocalifornia/1/0/q/A/3/la-map-fwy-names.jpg



As with this.... the future.

http://www.houstonareaweb.com/freeways/houston_freeway_map2.gif

^^

Multinodal but with high density corridors between nodes. Not everyone will be able to afford to commute way out by car or be able to afford cars that run on electricity or some other alternative, at least for over a decade. Transit systems will be expanded and densifying neighborhoods go with that. As always, the wealthy can live however or wherever they want.

Actually, Boston has been doing quite well in recent decades. Its in a different class from the other northern cities you've mentioned.

I would not associate Boston with Cleveland, Detroit, Buffalo, etc. It has a solid economy and its population will grow.

^^

Multinodal but with high density corridors between nodes.

Agreed like Los Angeles



Not everyone will be able to afford to commute way out by car or be able to afford cars that run on electricity or some other alternative, at least for over a decade. Transit systems will be expanded and densifying neighborhoods go with that. As always, the wealthy can live however or wherever they want.


That's really what I'm hoping for. We all know expressways will continue to expand in every major metropolitan area, such as the "Illiana" Expressway (which will lessen congestion on through the East West Corridor) that seems to be almost a done deal...

http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=news/local&id=7488383

http://www.billburmaster.com/rmsandw/illinois/images/illianaexpy.jpg


Hopefully we will see a growth in commuter rail along with that. My consolation in the Chicago area is that Metra, our commuter rail system, actually has their act together (as opposed to the CTA which is a bureaucratic cluster fuck, wish to god they'd get their act together and build the "fabeled" Circle Line) and they will be expand lines in all directions in the coming years.

Current routing lines:

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_rNGHGDmZH2k/R5bYszrh3VI/AAAAAAAAAV0/2FwbWrLahDk/s400/metra+routes.gif


This will alleviate a lot of congestion on our suburbs once completed.

http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b8/chicagogeorge/Untitled-17.jpg?t=1280075500

If I do the math based only on the average numerical growth between 2000-2009, then these are the biggest MSAs in 2030. Only those over 2.5 million by then shown

1-New York City 20,742,920
2-Los Angeles 13,985,107
3-Chicago 10,660,515
4-Dallas-Fort Worth 9,367,611
5-Houston 8,499,664
6-Atlanta 8,259,598
7-Washington 7,005,064
8-Miami 6,763,289
9-Phoenix 6,896,771
10-Philadelphia 6,609,865
11-Riverside 6,162,695
12-Boston 5,022,841
13-San Francisco 4,740,641
14-Detroit 4,277,358
15-Seattle 4,237,276
16-Minneapolis 3,942,276
17-San Diego 3,587,674
18-Tampa 3,547,603
19-Denver 3,387,932
20-Las Vegas 3,091,583
21-Orlando 3,075,455
22-Baltimore 3,002,118
23-Portland 2,955,218
24-San Antonio 2,895,482
25-Sacramento 2,871,485
26-Austin 2,730,248
27-Charlotte 2,690,774
28-Kansas City 2,591,794
29-Cincinnati 2,538,768

Obviously predicting population numbers for 20 years in the future isnt as easy as averages. Cities like Las Vegas have a high average due to high growth in the early decade but recent events in housing might make it unrealistic to say that Las Vegas will maintain those rates for the next 20 years. Likewise places like Cleveland and Pittsburgh seem to be slowing in decline making their estimates for 2030 possibly lower then the actual population will be. Then you have to take into account that the metros will obviously expand and gobble up nearby counties that we now see as empty and aren't even part of the MSA so that complicates things. Tampa will have 3.5 million in 2030 pending Sarasota-Bradenton isn't added to the MSA in 2010 or Riverside isn't added to Los Angeles. These numbers are just another tool for gauging around what the population will be, not a crystal ball.

:lol:

1-New York City 21,490,000
2-Los Angeles 21,250,000
3-Chicago 10,810,000
4-Dallas-Fort Worth 9,560,000
5-San Francisco 8,870,000
6-Houston 8,820,000
7-Atlanta 8,560,000
8-Philadelphia 6,710,000
9-Washington 6,580,000
10-Miami 6,560,000
11-Phoenix 6,370,000
12-Boston 5,450,000
13-Seattle 5,280,000
14-Detroit 4,590,000
15-San Diego 4,330,000
16-Denver 4,280,000
17-Minneapolis 3,870,000
18-Las Vegas 3,650,000
19-Tampa 3,610,000
20-Baltimore 3,450,000
21-San Antonio 3,380,000
22-St Louis 3,360,000
23-Portland 3,320,000
24-Orlando 3,150,000
25-Austin 2,870,000
26-Sacramento 2,720,000
27-Charlotte 2,680,000
28-Cincinnati 2,550,000
29-Kansas City 2,460,000
30-Pittsburgh 2,320,000
31-Cleveland 1,960,000
32-Indianapolis 1,950,000
33-Nashville 1,920,000
34-Columbus 1,880,000
35-Virginia Beach-Norfolk 1,840,000
36-Providence 1,720,000
37-Milwaukee 1,700,000
38-Jacksonville 1,680,000
39-Raleigh NC 1,540,000
40-Salt Lake City 1,510,000
41-Memphis 1,490,000
42-Oklahoma City 1,470,000
43-Louisville 1,430,000
44-Richmond 1,400,000
45-Tucson 1,380,000
46-Hartford 1,330,000
47-New Orleans 1,270,000
48-Birmingham 1,240,000
49-Buffalo 1,140,000
50-Fresno 1,130,000
51-Albuquerque 1,100,000
52-Bakersfield 1,070,000
53-McAllen TX 1,060,000
54-Tulsa 1,040,000
55-El Paso 1,020,000
56-Honolulu 980,000
57-Omaha 970,000
58-Columbia SC 950,000
59-Bridgeport CT 930,000
60-Allentown PA 920,000

^^

Where did you get those estimates?

I guess they look pretty reasonable. Quick question Are those MSA or CSA estimates? I notice San Fran at 8.8 million, but that isn't possible unless you are talking about CSA and even then it's a long shot. However DC and Baltimore are listed separately, so I guess it must be an MSA data sheet.

^^

Where did you get those estimates?

I guess they look pretty reasonable. Quick question Are those MSA or CSA estimates? I notice San Fran at 8.8 million, but that isn't possible unless you are talking about CSA and even then it's a long shot. However DC and Baltimore are listed separately, so I guess it must be an MSA data sheet.

CSA for San Fran and LA, MSA for Wash DC and B'more. It's easier to conjoin the California metros than the Wash/Baltimore because those metros are still quite distinct in character. Arbitrary? You betcha!

Not posting estimates, but just my top 10:

1. NYC
2. LA
3. Chicago
4. Dallas-Fort Worth
5. Houston
6. Washington DC
7. Atlanta
8. Miami
9. Phoenix
10. Philly

46-Hartford 1,330,000
47-New Orleans 1,270,000
48-Birmingham 1,240,000
49-Buffalo 1,140,000
50-Fresno 1,130,000
51-Albuquerque 1,100,000
52-Bakersfield 1,070,000
53-McAllen TX 1,060,000
54-Tulsa 1,040,000
55-El Paso 1,020,000


Interesting estimates.

But where's Rochester NY?
Should be around here somewhere.

Green Bay in Chicago's MSA? That's insane. Why on this Earth would anyone commute 10 hours round trip between Green Bay and Chicago?

If Washington and Baltimore are combined into a single MSA (which it will) it would be inevitable that they would take the fourth place position.

"BalWashing"

"BalWashing"

More like BWI. :nuts:

"BalWashing"

Wow "milq"!:lol:

San Antonio and Austin would become one by this point.. Giving it a population of over 6,000,000 and by then sa and Austin population should grow as well... Sa is the third fastest growing city in the US behind la and ny....

ajarreguin3: "Sa is the third fastest growing city in the US behind la and ny...."

^^ You really should do a little research before you start typing up information that is completely incorrect.

Yeah ^^ that annoyed me as well.

San Antonio and Austin would become one by this point.. Giving it a population of over 6,000,000 and by then sa and Austin population should grow as well... Sa is the third fastest growing city in the US behind la and ny....

Sorry but where are you getting that a combined San Antonio and Austin would have a combined 6 million people?

And where are you getting the notion that they will even combine. A CSA is almost certainly unlikely, an MSA is completely out of question.

And where are you getting the notion that they will even combine. A CSA is almost certainly unlikely, an MSA is completely out of question.

Yeah, the chances are zero... :crazy:

http://www.thecorridor.org/images/map-rail-sh130.jpg http://lonestarrail.com/images/temp/map/map-large.jpg

No sign whatsoever of the two metros integrating.

Yeah, the chances are zero... :crazy:

http://www.thecorridor.org/images/map-rail-sh130.jpg http://lonestarrail.com/images/temp/map/map-large.jpg

No sign whatsoever of the two metros integrating.

Philadelphia and New York are about as far apart as Austin and San Antonio and yet despite the numerous transit links between those cities they are still in separate MSA's and CSA's respectively. Same scenario for Chicago-Milwaukee as well.

Philadelphia and New York are about as far apart as Austin and San Antonio and yet despite the numerous transit links between those cities they are still in separate MSA's and CSA's respectively.

Residents of Princeton, Trenton, Mercerville, Willingboro, Bucks County, etc either commute to Philadelphia or New York. And those are Philadelphia suburbs! The reason for the Census Bureau not consiolidating those metros is entirely political. The two are conjoined in many ways, a condition that has not favored Philadelphia at all. Perhaps there will be resistance to a CSA in Austin/San Antonio but Those cities do not have a 300 year old urban rivalry and 300 years of intense self-identification issues like Philly and NYC.

1. Los Angeles (counting IE, obviously)
2. New York
3. Chicago
4. Baltimore/Washington
5. DFW/San Fran?
6. Philly
7. Boston
8. Houston
9. Miami
10. Phoenix

Commuting patterns are a tricky thing when it comes to determining CSAs. I've known people to commute between these MSAs:

Richmond and Washington
Richmond and Hampton Roads
Wilmington and Washington
Athens and Atlanta
Macon and Atlanta

... yet I don't foresee these being consolidated into CSAs any time soon. Much of it, like desertpunk said ^^, has a lot to do with politics... others just don't have anything in common (services, a regional identity) except that people commute from one to the other.

yet I don't foresee these being consolidated into CSAs any time soon. Much of it, like desertpunk said ^^, has a lot to do with politics... others just don't have anything in common (services, a regional identity) except that people commute from one to the other.

On the contrary, the standards created in 2003 were designed to be as scientific and unbiased as possible. They created a formula and plugged in the data.

Essentially an MSA consists of all the counties where at least 50% of the population or 5,000 people live within a particular urbanized area (assuming it is the largest urbanized area within the county) as well any counties where at least 25% of the workforce commutes to the counties that meet the requirements above.

Two adjacent MSAs form a CSA if the employment interchange rate is at least 25% (or 15% if local delegates from each MSA agree to such a merger). To find the employment interchange rate, you take the percentage of workers who commute from the smaller MSA to the larger MSA and add it to the percentage of jobs in the smaller MSA held by people who commute from the larger MSA.

In the case of Austin and San Antonio, you get these numbers for 2000:
Of the 649,645 workers living in the Austin MSA, only 4,566 commuted to the San Antonio MSA. That means that just 0.7% of the Austin MSA workforce commuted to the San Antonio MSA. On the flipside, of the 669,064 people who worked in the Austin MSA, only 10,498 commuted from the San Antonio MSA. Only 1.6% of the people who work in the Austin MSA commuted from the San Antonio MSA. When you add those two numbers together you get 2.3%. That number should be 25% for the two to automatically form a CSA and at least 15% if delegates from both cities agree to a merger.

And even though a lot of development has occured in the counties between the two cities, that doesn't necessarily mean that number will go up. Most of the metropolitan development in Austin has occured to the north and east. That means that more of the jobs and workers in the Austin MSA are now further away from the San Antonio MSA than was the case in 2000.

BTW, to give you an example of the numbers of an actual CSA, I'll use Los Angeles and the Inland Empire.

Of the 1,249,224 workers who lived in the Riverside-San Bernardino MSA, 228,764 commuted to the Los Angeles MSA. That means that 18.3% of the Riverside-San Bernardino MSA workforce commuted to the Los Angeles MSA. On the otherhand, of the 1,076,021 jobs in the Riverside-San Bernardino MSA, 122,318 were held by residents of the Los Angeles MSA. That accounts for 11.4% of the Riverside-San Bernardino MSA employment base. When you add those two numbers together you get 29.7%. That's more than enough for the two MSAs to from a CSA, and therefore they are a CSA.;)

Residents of Princeton, Trenton, Mercerville, Willingboro, Bucks County, etc either commute to Philadelphia or New York. And those are Philadelphia suburbs! The reason for the Census Bureau not consiolidating those metros is entirely political. The two are conjoined in many ways, a condition that has not favored Philadelphia at all. Perhaps there will be resistance to a CSA in Austin/San Antonio but Those cities do not have a 300 year old urban rivalry and 300 years of intense self-identification issues like Philly and NYC.


CSAs that are simply not going to happen:


Chicago-Milwaukee

Los Angeles-San Diego

New York-Philadelphia


Nor should they IMO.

CSAs that are simply not going to happen:


Chicago-Milwaukee

Los Angeles-San Diego

New York-Philadelphia


Nor should they IMO.

I don't know about that.... L.A. and San Deigo might not, there is Camp Pendleton in between, Philly and NYC, and don't know what their commuter exchanges are but in terms of urbanization they alread basically touch. Same can be said for Chicago and Milwaukee.


There is talk of a high speed commuter rail being built from Chicago to Milwaukee

Project Milwaukee: Regional Transportation Key to Future Success
By LaToya Dennis
June 8, 2011

We now continue our series, Project Milwaukee – Southern Connections. All week, we’re exploring the corridor extending from Milwaukee to Chicago. Economic development experts say regions will fare best in the new global economy. A key ingredient to a successful region is efficient transportation, and more people than ever before are traveling in the corridor between Milwaukee and Chicago. WUWM’s LaToya Dennis explores the options that exist today and what the future seems to demand
http://www.wuwm.com/programs/news/view_news.php?articleid=8642


KRM Commuter rail
The Kenosha-Racine-Milwaukee (KRM) commuter rail service would be a separately operated extension of the Chicago - Kenosha Metra (though some trains would travel along the tracks used by the Metra/Union Pacific North Line to Chicago with a stop in Waukegan) and travel north to downtown Milwaukee. The cost of the 35-mile route is estimated at $200 million
http://maps.sewrpc.org/KRMonline/




This is from another forum:


The only numbers available for commuting patterns are from 2000, so they're very outdated. After glancing at the numbers from 2000, as well as the ACS 2006-08 estimates, it appears that 8.63% of Racine Co.'s workforce commutes to counties within Chicago's CSA. The threshold for CSA status is only 5%, so Racine Co. could very well be added to Chicago's CSA after the 2010 Census. That would put Chicago's CSA right at Milwaukee Co.'s doorstep, and it would only be a matter of time after that.



Racine County Total Commuters 95,480 Racine Co. to Chicago CSA: 8,246; 8.63



and where his data came from

http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/ADPTable?_bm=y&-context=adp&-qr_name=ACS_2008_3YR_G00_DP3YR3&-ds_name=ACS_2008_3YR_G00_&-tree_id=3308&-redoLog=true&-_caller=geoselect&-geo_id=05000US55101&-format=&-_lang=en


Even Walworth County might end up in Chicago's CSA soon

Walworth Co. to Chicago CSA: 6,337; 12.27%


http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/ADPTable?_bm=y&-context=adp&-qr_name=ACS_2008_3YR_G00_DP3YR3&-ds_name=ACS_2008_3YR_G00_&-tree_id=3308&-redoLog=true&-_caller=geoselect&-geo_id=05000US55127&-format=&-_lang=en



It's definitely nearly built to the max along the lake

http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b8/chicagogeorge/chicagometromilwaukee.gif



Btw, I recall us having a conversation several years ago about this very same topic. I noticed you didn't include the Bay Area, and Sacramento in your CSA that wont merge? Do you believe that they might?

I don't know what the commuter patterns are, but it definitely looks as if there is more open space between the Bay area and Sacramento (obviously geography plays a role) than there is between Chicago and Milwaukee, and NYC with Philly....

http://i56.tinypic.com/2luv48.png

Racine sits between any possible connection between Chicago and Milwaukee. The same is true for Trenton between New York and Philadelphia. Granted, even if Trenton merged with Philadelphia and Racine merged with Milwaukee, the numbers just don't support a consolidation.

As for Sacramento and the Bay Area, it like San Antonio-Austin is a VERY weak connection. The only central valley city that has a real chance of forming a CSA is Stockton. In fact, if San Francisco and San Jose merge into a single MSA, then Stockton will almost certainly be included in a CSA.