25 Fastest Growing and Shrinking U.S. Cities 2000 - 2003
The Fastest Growing U.S. cities over 100,000:

Rank, City; 2003 Pop; 2000 pop; numerical change; percent change

1 Gilbert town, Arizona 145,250 109,949 35,301 32.1
2 North Las Vegas city, Nevada 144,502 115,488 29,014 25.1
3 Henderson city, Nevada 214,852 175,406 39,446 22.5
4 Chandler city, Arizona 211,299 176,643 34,656 19.6
5 Irvine city, California 170,561 143,072 27,489 19.2
6 Port St. Lucie city, Florida 105,507 88,774 16,733 18.8
7 Rancho Cucamonga city, California 151,640 127,743 23,897 18.7
8 Fontana city, California 151,903 128,937 22,966 17.8
9 Peoria city, Arizona 127,580 108,685 18,895 17.4
10 Cape Coral city, Florida 118,737 102,286 16,451 16.1
11 Joliet city, Illinois 123,570 106,656 16,914 15.9
12 Chula Vista city, California 199,060 173,553 25,507 14.7
13 Corona city, California 142,454 125,251 17,203 13.7
14 Aurora city, Illinois 162,184 143,148 19,036 13.3
15 Olathe city, Kansas 105,274 92,998 12,276 13.2
16 Raleigh city, North Carolina 316,802 282,956 33,846 12.0
17 Brownsville city, Texas 156,178 139,715 16,463 11.8
18 Antioch city, California 101,124 90,532 10,592 11.7
19 Bakersfield city, California 271,035 243,082 27,953 11.5
20 Laredo city, Texas 197,488 177,322 20,166 11.4
21 Stockton city, California 271,466 243,771 27,695 11.4
22 Riverside city, California 281,514 255,175 26,339 10.3
23 Moreno Valley city, California 157,063 142,379 14,684 10.3
24 Modesto city, California 206,872 188,864 18,008 9.5
25 McAllen city, Texas 116,501 106,431 10,070 9.5



The Fastest Shrinking U.S. Cities over 100,000:

Rank, City; 2003 Pop; 2000 pop; numerical change; percent change

1 St. Louis city, Missouri 332,223 348,189 -15,966 -4.6
2 Cincinnati city, Ohio 317,361 331,285 -13,924 -4.2
3 Detroit city, Michigan 911,402 951,270 -39,868 -4.2
4 Flint city, Michigan 120,292 124,943 -4,651 -3.7
5 Baltimore city, Maryland 628,670 651,154 -22,484 -3.5
6 Cleveland city, Ohio 461,324 477,472 -16,148 -3.4
7 New Orleans city, Louisiana 469,032 484,674 -15,642 -3.2
8 San Francisco city, California 751,682 776,733 -25,051 -3.2
9 Savannah city, Georgia 127,573 131,784 -4,211 -3.2
10 Evansville city, Indiana 117,881 121,582 -3,701 -3.0
11 Louisville city, Kentucky 248,762 256,207 -7,445 -2.9
12 Mobile city, Alabama 193,464 199,191 -5,727 -2.9
13 Pittsburgh city, Pennsylvania 325,337 334,563 -9,226 -2.8
14 Daly City city, California 100,819 103,625 -2,806 -2.7
15 Dayton city, Ohio 161,696 166,196 -4,500 -2.7
16 Buffalo city, New York 285,018 292,648 -7,630 -2.6
17 Birmingham city, Alabama 236,620 242,790 -6,170 -2.5
18 Jackson city, Mississippi 179,599 184,256 -4,657 -2.5
19 Philadelphia city, Pennsylvania 1,479,339 1,517,550 -38,211 -2.5
20 Sunnyvale city, California 128,549 131,844 -3,295 -2.5
21 Minneapolis city, Minnesota 373,188 382,747 -9,559 -2.5
22 Erie city, Pennsylvania 101,373 103,717 -2,344 -2.3
23 St. Paul city, Minnesota 280,404 286,840 -6,436 -2.2
24 Akron city, Ohio 212,215 217,070 -4,855 -2.2
25 South Bend city, Indiana 105,540 107,919 -2,379 -2.2

Ironically, some of the coolest cities in America are on the 2nd list.

btw, I doubt these figs are entirely accurate.

That some reason about few part of bay area goes population declined cuz of very expensive real estate, expensive parking space for apartment and expensive rent apartment or condo. This is totally wacked!

San Francisco and San Jose is worst to create new business and office space cuz of very expensive prices to lease or purchase new office or business. I checked out on Forbes or maginize.

^^A decline is a decline no matter what the reason is. Everycity on the decline is ALL built out and ALL of the cities that's growing has more room to build upon.

A lot of these numbers may be off come next census. While, I won't say the cities in the second list are growing, I have a feeling that they aren't shrinking as fast as projected.

^^A decline is a decline no matter what the reason is.

Whatever, some cities has good reason to decline though.

good reason? I call it supply and demand.

That some reason about few part of bay area goes population declined cuz of very expensive real estate, expensive parking space for apartment and expensive rent apartment or condo. This is totally wacked!

San Francisco and San Jose is worst to create new business and office space cuz of very expensive prices to lease or purchase new office or business. I checked out on Forbes or maginize.
The Bay Area's population is in decline, especially in SF, because of the expensive real estate and the dot-com bust. A lot of people are moving out of the Bay Area to places where there's cheaper homes and there's a few cities on that list, like Antioch (even though it's still the Bay Area, it's at the edge of Contra Costa County), Stockton and Modesto. A lot of people are also moving to the Sacramento suburbs. Actually rent for office space has gotten cheaper but is now turing around has is now starting to get expensive.

I didn't know Minneapolis was losing people. Why do they keep building giant condo towers and lofts?

Often times that is because the city of Mpls might have given some land to the ever growing suburbs. That was the case between Austin and San Marcos the other year, when the Austin MSA was growing by like 40% per 10 yrs, and yet the CITY was loosing people.

Ironically, some of the coolest cities in America are on the 2nd list.

btw, I doubt these figs are entirely accurate.

Oh yes, Flint is very cool.

I think the census is skewed in alot of ways. There is no way to account for everyone accurately, and the estimates seem ballooned for growth and decline in alot of places, people put way to much stock into the census and making a correlation with the vibrancy of a place.

The 2 major city in the chicago metro is on the growing list- (11th + 14th on the list)

Another good news- Gary, any chicago metro suburbs, or Illinois cities isn't on the shrinking list.

Illinois is the only state outside of the south/west that has cities thats growing. (OOPS, didnt see Kansas)

off topic- Peoria, AZ surpass Peoria, IL in population!

Also- Take that who saids that Chicago is shrinking....

Often times that is because the city of Mpls might have given some land to the ever growing suburbs.

That's not the case with Minneapolis. Compared to some of the other cities on that list, Minneapolis is having a HUGE condo and loft boom.

I didn't know Minneapolis was losing people. Why do they keep building giant condo towers and lofts?

me too about population in SF, I thought SF has increased to over 800,000. :bash:

What is dot-com bust? Never seen before.

The 2 major city in the chicago metro is on the growing list- (11th + 14th on the list)

Another good news- Gary, any chicago metro suburbs, or Illinois cities isn't on the shrinking list.

Illinois is the only state outside of the south/west that has cities thats growing. (OOPS, didnt see Kansas)

off topic- Peoria, AZ surpass Peoria, IL in population!

Also- Take that who saids that Chicago is shrinking....

Much of cities in S. California, Nevada and Arizona is suprassing most cities in South, Midwest and Northeast. Anaheim, Santa Ana and Riverside will suprassing St. Louis and, Fresno is alreadly suprassed Atlanta.

Tampa will suprassing St. Louis in before 2010.

^Not in coolness. ;)

^Not in coolness. ;)

hehe :)

Trust me, Anaheim and Santa Ana is cool and fun to do. Riverside is shitty sprawl over land and it's bored sometime.

Tampa can be enjoying and fun cuz of beaches.

West coast rule


Arizona, California, Nevada

West coast rule


Arizona, California, Nevada

:okay:

weird seeing MSP up there. MSP is a blossoming city from what I hear. Great jobs, education, parks..you name it. Only thing that could make people get the hell out of there is the cold and maybe the cost.

Both Minneapolis and St. Paul were supposedly losing population each year during the 90s, but by 2000 each had actually gained roughly 15,000 people in that decade. So, I think it's safe to state that these estimates are worthless.

Estimates are always speculation and worthless.



West coast rule


Arizona, California, Nevada

Seems like a pretty juvinile and provincial way to state things.....

Illinois is the only state outside of the south/west that has cities thats growing. (OOPS, didnt see Kansas)

This being the fastest growing places, many places wont be mentioned but even states with cities that arent doing so well in the population dept are growing, as I unserstand there are only a few STATES actually losing very much.

On a slightly unrelated note...didnt STL prove to be cutting way back on its population loss with a recount or something?

11 Joliet city, Illinois 123,570 106,656 16,914 15.9

The ole hometown is lookin' good! ;)

http://ww7.tiki.ne.jp/~canta/bb/jake.jpg
Joliet Jake

That some reason about few part of bay area goes population declined cuz of very expensive real estate, expensive parking space for apartment and expensive rent apartment or condo. This is totally wacked!

San Francisco and San Jose is worst to create new business and office space cuz of very expensive prices to lease or purchase new office or business. I checked out on Forbes or maginize.

The reason it's so expensive there is because of all the pseudo-environmentalists. They talk about "smart growth," but what they really mean is "Lets find a way to keep poor immigrants out of our city."

I wouldn't get too hyped up about these "estimates". In the 90s the census "estimated" that Huntsville grew by over 20,000 people, from around 159,000 to 182,000. When the real census came around, they found out that we lost 1000 people. So what I'm saying is, wait until 2010, because these "estimates" can be extremely wrong.

On a slightly unrelated note...didnt STL prove to be cutting way back on its population loss with a recount or something?

I know Baltimore challanged the Census' numbers and won. maybe St. Louis did too.

^Yes, St. Louis legally challenged the census estimates...and won. They amended their projections for St. Louis City. We are actually gaining residents at this time. It's no surprise to any of us in the city, because the evidence is clear that the dark days are over.

I think Baltimore is on pretty much the same boat.

not to sound rude...but can anyone on this forum speak english?

Who are you talking about? Anyways its a message board, we arent publishing a book.

The reason it's so expensive there is because of all the pseudo-environmentalists. They talk about "smart growth," but what they really mean is "Lets find a way to keep poor immigrants out of our city."

No, it's not this problem. SF ain't blame on poor immigrants.

I wouldn't get too hyped up about these "estimates". In the 90s the census "estimated" that Huntsville grew by over 20,000 people, from around 159,000 to 182,000. When the real census came around, they found out that we lost 1000 people. So what I'm saying is, wait until 2010, because these "estimates" can be extremely wrong.

Yeah, I agree about SF too.

An interesting thing is that the population losses for the losing cities are all under 5%, and these are center cities, too, not the MSAs, so these losses are not that drastic. Perhaps the era of massive urban declines is over and things are entering a bit of a steady-state in the "losing" cities on that list..

hehe :)

Trust me, Anaheim and Santa Ana is cool and fun to do. Riverside is shitty sprawl over land and it's bored sometime.

Tampa can be enjoying and fun cuz of beaches.

haha! totally agree, Anaheim and Santa Ana rock! Riverside IS shitty, nothing to do there it's just sprawl and deserty hills every once in a while, i would hate to live there.

Also- the most surprising city on the fastest growing city is Olathe. I would of never guess. I think Olathe will surpass Witcha or even Kansas City(KS) soon.

the one on the shrinking list beside SF and the twin cities, the next mosat surprising one is South Bend... Iono why...

yeah, i'm am absolutly sure that minneapolis has been gaining people all through the ninties and the population is growing even faster now....... I've seen figures directly contradictory to this ...*scurries off to hunt them down*

No, it's not this problem. SF ain't blame on poor immigrants.

SF wants to keep poor immigrants out, so they adopt "smart growth" policies which cause house prices to rise to unaffordable prices. In San Mateo County (which I believe is part of the SF MSA), house prices rose $2,000 a day over a monthlong period. The average house there now costs $896,000; in other areas of the country, the same house would be about a third of that. "Smart growth" makes the supply of available houses and land in X area fall drastically, which causes a drastically-increased demand and thus drastically-increased prices. I believe these elitist policies go by the name of "open space laws" in the Bay Area. The "tolerant" people of SF clearly disguise their elitism in environmentalism.

ok here's data for the minneapolis/st paul metro

Population, 1960-2000
1960 1970 1980 1990 2000
Total 1,646,709 2,026,947 2,198,190 2,538,834 2,968,806
Change 380,238 171,243 340,644 429,972
Percent Change 23.09% 8.45% 15.50% 16.94%

Source: Census 2000 analyzed by the Social Science Data Analysis Network (SSDAN).

In addition to that, the official us census report 2000 for the city of minneapolis showed growth of 14,235 people between 1990 and 2000 a growth rate of 3.6%. a link can be found here: http://www.ci.minneapolis.mn.us/planning/Census2000/docs/2000-Census-Rpt-One-1.pdf

Also, according to the city of minneapolis website the city of minneapolis grow about 4% between 2000 and 2004

whew....i'm done.

I'm surprised that DC don't have population decline since on list.

Remember people, these are city numbers and not metro numbers. Once a city is contained (can no longer annex) and there is no large undeveloped parcels of land, it is quite common for population loss to occur. Family sizes are becoming smaller, and larger families (the ones with kids) move to the suburbs. Taking their places are singles, and childless couples, and retirees......

Also, with gentrification, the households that are displaced usually have 4-6 people living in a unit, whereas the new household is usually 1-2 persons......

Therefore, population loss isn't necessarily a sign that a city is in decline, but rather that it is experiencing a shift in demographics.

Who are you talking about? Anyways its a message board, we arent publishing a book.


What am I talking about? Forget about "publishing a book," Some of these posts are unintelligible.

I must agree with Jive's post at the beginning of the thread; many of the "declining" cities are hella-cooler than the sprawl towns that are growing. I'd a million times rather live in St.Louis or Cinci than in Henderson, NV, or anywhere in California, for that matter.

The reason it's so expensive there is because of all the pseudo-environmentalists. They talk about "smart growth," but what they really mean is "Lets find a way to keep poor immigrants out of our city."
What in the world are you talking about. San Francisco isn't trying to keep immigrants out. SF has a large immigrant population and it's proud of that.

Basically what this list shows is that most metropolitan areas have some suburbs that are growing in population (list #1), while the urban core of those cities is gradually losing population (list #2.)

Even with metro Atlanta's massive growth over the last 35 years, the City of Atlanta lost some population, but has been gaining back some of that population over the last 10 years or so.

I think I know why Gary isnt on the shrinking list. The shrinking list lists cities of more than 100,000 people in it, and Gary has 99,961.

When I see the numbers coming from the border states, it makes me wonder how many are actually citizens of this country.

^ haha

Well, one thing that is interesting about New Orleans is that the demographics of the City are changing. While I don't think that the population is decreasing, much, anymore, income levels are definitely going up. From 2000 to 2003, New Orleans was the #1 city in per capita income growth in America. Why is this? Because homes are being renovated and replaced with younger individuals with higher incomes and forcing families with children to move out of the City into the suburbs which reflects a population decrease. An older home may be home to 4 or 5 individuals that the family has been renting or decides to sell for an inflated price (and they are selling like hotcakes) and the home gets renovated, the rent goes up (if it is rented) and hence, the home is replaced by 2 individuals that have a much higher income. This is a common occurence across America, particularly in older cities that have desirable properties to be bought and renovated to a higher scale....so you have to weigh what is happening and decide what is better. Who really knows the answer, other than the fact that this is occurring every day in cities all over America (including New Orleans).

I have no clue why Sanfrancisco is declining.. it's a very nice and modern city.
San Francisco and San Jose is worst to create new business and office space cuz of very expensive prices to lease or purchase new office or business.
I guess it's impossible to live in the city and work in the suburbs.

haha! totally agree, Anaheim and Santa Ana rock! Riverside IS shitty, nothing to do there it's just sprawl and deserty hills every once in a while, i would hate to live there.


I probably would never move to Riverside myself, but I think it's a pretty cool place to visit. I'm taking a summer class at RCC and every time I go into town, it's like a blast from the past. Everything is so War era, from the architecture to the way the city is planned you feel like you're back in the 30's or 40's. :)

I would say that Baltimore's shrinking has stoped. The housing market is so hot there now. It has been for the last two years. :) I can't wait to see the next census #'s. :D

I probably would never move to Riverside myself, but I think it's a pretty cool place to visit. I'm taking a summer class at RCC and every time I go into town, it's like a blast from the past. Everything is so War era, from the architecture to the way the city is planned you feel like you're back in the 30's or 40's. :)

haha, thats so true. kinda feels like some areas of mexico in a way. but once you get out of downtown its just endless suburbia and traffic