Which US cities are most likely to have a population of 1 million people?

Heres a table of recent Census estimates

Rank City - Population

1. San Jose - 1,006,000 (edited)
2. Detroit - 912,062
3. San Fransisco - 808,976
4. Jacksonville - 807,815
5. Indianapolis - 798,382
6. Austin - 757,688
7. Columbus - 754,885
8. Fort Worth - 703,073
9. Charlotte - 687,456
10. Memphis - 669,651
11. Baltimore - 636,919
12. El Paso - 613,190
13. Boston - 609,023
14. Milwaukee - 604,477
15. Seattle - 602,00
16. Denver - 598,707
17. Nashville - 596,462
18. Washington D.C. - 591,833
19. Las Vegas - 558,383
20. Portland, OR - 557,706

San Jose is already over a million.
I think San Francisco could make it there eventually, but it'll be a while.

Rather than only considering the top 20 cities in population, it would be more accurate to consider the fastest growing cities that are also near 1 million in population. I definitely think that Atlanta has a much better chance of reaching 1 million long before most of the cities listed...unless some of them annex their way to 1 million.

I wonder why poll isn't working... I had it set up but it just won't show on this thread.

Last I heard, San Jose had just cracked the 1M mark.

Detroit and Baltimore are on the way down still (but Baltimore is slowing that trend).

Atlanta, as someone said, may not be a bad pick.

Fort Worth gained over 185,000 people from 2000-2009. If that rate keeps up it will reach 1 million pretty quickly. Having said that I'm not sure if it will be the next to reach that mark.

Which US cities are most likely to have a population of 1 million people?

Heres a table of recent Census estimates

Rank City - Population

1. San Jose - 948,279
2. Detroit - 912,062
3. San Fransisco - 808,976
4. Jacksonville - 807,815
5. Indianapolis - 798,382
6. Austin - 757,688
7. Columbus - 754,885
8. Fort Worth - 703,073
9. Charlotte - 687,456
10. Memphis - 669,651
11. Baltimore - 636,919
12. El Paso - 613,190
13. Boston - 609,023
14. Milwaukee - 604,477
15. Seattle - 602,00
16. Denver - 598,707
17. Nashville - 596,462
18. Washington D.C. - 591,833
19. Las Vegas - 558,383
20. Portland, OR - 557,706

I would say of those listed...Detroit, San Francisco, Jacksonville, Indianapolis, Columbus, Memphis, Baltimore, El Paso, Boston, Milwaukee, and Portland have very little chance of reaching 1 million anytime soon. Several of those have experienced/are experiencing negative growth, while several others have gaudy population figures that are very dependent on annexation for much of the growth. Some others are in much smaller metro areas that aren't experiencing much growth.

Since San Jose has already reached the mark...Austin seems to have the best chance, followed by Fort Worth, Seattle, or D.C.

Maybe Charlotte, Denver, Vegas, or Nashville...one of those could jump up to 1 million, but I think it will be many years away.

DC won't ever reach 1 million people unless some major rezoning is done. I don't see it happening.

cities i think where it could happen

1. San Jose - 948,279 already hit 1 million
2. Detroit - 912,062
3. San Fransisco - 808,976
4. Jacksonville - 807,815
5. Indianapolis - 798,382
6. Austin - 757,688
7. Columbus - 754,885
8. Fort Worth - 703,073
9. Charlotte - 687,456
10. Memphis - 669,651
11. Baltimore - 636,919
12. El Paso - 613,190
13. Boston - 609,023
14. Milwaukee - 604,477
15. Seattle - 602,00
16. Denver - 598,707
17. Nashville - 596,462
18. Washington D.C. - 591,833
19. Las Vegas - 558,383
20. Portland, OR - 557,706

cities i think where it could happen

1. San Jose - 948,279 already hit 1 million
2. Detroit - 912,062
3. San Fransisco - 808,976
4. Jacksonville - 807,815
5. Indianapolis - 798,382
6. Austin - 757,688
7. Columbus - 754,885
8. Fort Worth - 703,073
9. Charlotte - 687,456
10. Memphis - 669,651
11. Baltimore - 636,919
12. El Paso - 613,190
13. Boston - 609,023
14. Milwaukee - 604,477
15. Seattle - 602,00
16. Denver - 598,707
17. Nashville - 596,462
18. Washington D.C. - 591,833
19. Las Vegas - 558,383
20. Portland, OR - 557,706

I heard Florida is supposed to have a huge decrease in population due to new proposed taxes; so Jacksonville might not make the 1,000,000 mark.

I heard Florida is supposed to have a huge decrease in population due to new proposed taxes; so Jacksonville might not make the 1,000,000 mark.

I heard that Florida just lost over 50,000 people this year. I also heard it will grow again when economy gets better.

I didn't hear anything about San Jose hits 1 million people now. Source?

Fort Worth is the fastest growing city in the US and it is projected to surpass Austin as the fourth biggest city in Texas if trends continue. I am not sure if it will be the first one from the list but it is a good contender.

I didn't hear anything about San Jose hits 1 million people now. Source?

Courtesy of SFgate (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/05/01/BA0217CF10.DTL)

Salt Lake City is a city that will probably reach 1 million people eventually. It already has 1 million people in its metro area!

Salt Lake City is a city that will probably reach 1 million people eventually. It already has 1 million people in its metro area!

I'm not so sure about that...having a population of less than 200,000, Salt Lake City would have a long way to go. Maybe if by eventually you mean by 3000.

Being over a milllion people is fine for some of these cities such as San Jose which covers 175 square mile of land, but San Francisco is dense enough already at over 800,000 people on only 47 square miles of land. I don't think San Francisco being more densely populated would be an improvement.

Being over a milllion people is fine for some of these cities such as San Jose which covers 175 square mile of land, but San Francisco is dense enough already at over 800,000 people on only 47 square miles of land. I don't think San Francisco being more densely populated would be an improvement.


Every American city has plenty of room to add new residents. Yes, San Francisco is already densely populated, but certainly not uniformly so. There are areas of high density and areas of low density within the 47 square miles.

Every American city has plenty of room to add new residents. Yes, San Francisco is already densely populated, but certainly not uniformly so. There are areas of high density and areas of low density within the 47 square miles.

Parking already is a nightmare here with downtown parking rates rivaling Manhattan. Muni (our public transit) is a mess and not getting better anytime soon. More people will put more of a burden on streets and public transit. Enough people in town already. As to low dense areas which ones do you suggest we develope in San Francisco?

Parking already is a nightmare here with downtown parking rates rivaling Manhattan. Muni (our public transit) is a mess and not getting better anytime soon. More people will put more of a burden on streets and public transit. Enough people in town already. As to low dense areas which ones do you suggest we develope in San Francisco?

i hardly know much about SF districts,( so i dont know if this area is low-density) but what about around its Golden Gate Park, just bulldoze some houses, and build some low-rise to mid-rise residential living. I mean it already has the shape of Central Park!

Just throwing the idea out there, feel free to criticize my imagination....

cities i think where it could happen

1. San Jose - 948,279 already hit 1 million
2. Detroit - 912,062
3. San Fransisco - 808,976
4. Jacksonville - 807,815
5. Indianapolis - 798,382
6. Austin - 757,688
7. Columbus - 754,885
8. Fort Worth - 703,073
9. Charlotte - 687,456
10. Memphis - 669,651
11. Baltimore - 636,919
12. El Paso - 613,190
13. Boston - 609,023
14. Milwaukee - 604,477
15. Seattle - 602,00
16. Denver - 598,707
17. Nashville - 596,462
18. Washington D.C. - 591,833
19. Las Vegas - 558,383
20. Portland, OR - 557,706


I agree with this

i hardly know much about SF districts,( so i dont know if this area is low-density) but what about around its Golden Gate Park, just bulldoze some houses, and build some low-rise to mid-rise residential living. I mean it already has the shape of Central Park!

Just throwing the idea out there, feel free to criticize my imagination....

LOL, I'm sure the homeowners would love that idea, it's not like the area is blighted. All kidding aside, the point I'm making is that all cities shouldn't have to be over 1 million people. San Francisco doesn't need to have more high rises in residential neighborhoods just so it can surpass the 1 million mark. I'd much rather see the City solve it's transit and parking problems before expanding it's population.

I believe Jacksonville, Austin, Fort Worth, Charlotte, Seattle, Denver, and Las Vegas have high chance to hit 1 million people one day. All of these cities are experiencing rapid population growth in the past decade. That may change later on but never know... I think most of them will have one million residents maybe next two decades from now depending on their growth rates.

Parking already is a nightmare here with downtown parking rates rivaling Manhattan. Muni (our public transit) is a mess and not getting better anytime soon. More people will put more of a burden on streets and public transit. Enough people in town already. As to low dense areas which ones do you suggest we develope in San Francisco?


So you're trying to say that there is NO room in the city of San Francisco anywhere? Sorry, but that isn't true. The people will have to park in some less popular areas for better rates. :lol:

It's crowded in some areas, not crowded in others. Come on, you know it isn't ultra-dense everywhere - neither is NYC.

So you're trying to say that there is NO room in the city of San Francisco anywhere? Sorry, but that isn't true. The people will have to park in some less popular areas for better rates. :lol:

It's crowded in some areas, not crowded in others. Come on, you know it isn't ultra-dense everywhere - neither is NYC.


In Atlanta you have over 132 square miles of land with only 540,000 population. In San francisco we have over 800,000 people living on 47 square miles. That is nearly 3 times less land than Atlanta with a much larger population. Try tripling the population of Atlanta and add 600,000 more people to that tripled population and see what it does to parking and public transportation. You may want to have that extreme density -- possible, yes; but, I don't think that is always such a good thing.

In Atlanta you have over 132 square miles of land with only 540,000 population. In San francisco we have over 800,000 people living on 47 square miles. That is nearly 3 times less land than Atlanta with a much larger population. Try tripling the population of Atlanta and add 600,000 more people to that tripled population and see what it does to parking and public transportation. You may want to have that extreme density -- possible, yes; but, I don't think that is always such a good thing.


#1...we aren't talking about Atlanta, but people are always complaining about the lack of density. I would love for 1.5 million people to live in Atlanta, and I think that 1 million-plus is only a few years down the road.

#2...that isn't "extreme density".

#3...there is plenty of room in 47 square miles for MANY more people than the population of San Francisco.

#4...if you can't admit that, that's your problem.

If you want to make an arbitray comparison - Manhattan is 23 square miles with 1.7 million residents...half the size of San Francisco and twice the population. Now tell us all that there is no more room for people to live in your city.

Can or would someone post the top 20 list with the city's total square mile area to have a better idea on their growth? :) Next years' census is gonna have a lot of contested disputes with the city, state and federal fundings..! :cheers:

Can or would someone post the top 20 list with the city's total square mile area to have a better idea on their growth? :) Next years' census is gonna have a lot of contested disputes with the city, state and federal fundings..! :cheers:


1. San Jose - 948,279...175 sq mi
2. Detroit - 912,062...139 sq mi
3. San Fransisco - 808,976...47 sq mi
4. Jacksonville - 807,815...758 sq mi
5. Indianapolis - 798,382...362 sq mi
6. Austin - 757,688...252 sq mi
7. Columbus - 754,885...210 sq mi
8. Fort Worth - 703,073...293 sq mi
9. Charlotte - 687,456...242 sq mi
10. Memphis - 669,651...302 sq mi
11. Baltimore - 636,919...81 sq mi
12. El Paso - 613,190...249 sq mi
13. Boston - 609,023...49 sq mi
14. Milwaukee - 604,477...96 sq mi
15. Seattle - 602,00...84 sq mi
16. Denver - 598,707...153 sq mi
17. Nashville - 596,462...473 sq mi
18. Washington D.C. - 591,833...61 sq mi
19. Las Vegas - 558,383...131 sq mi
20. Portland, OR - 557,706...134 sq mi


In order of area:

1. Jacksonville - 807,815...758 sq mi
2. Nashville - 596,462...473 sq mi
3. Indianapolis - 798,382...362 sq mi
4. Memphis - 669,651...302 sq mi
5. Fort Worth - 703,073...293 sq mi
6. Austin - 757,688...252 sq mi
7. El Paso - 613,190...249 sq mi
8. Charlotte - 687,456...242 sq mi
9. Columbus - 754,885...210 sq mi
10. San Jose - 948,279...175 sq mi
11. Denver - 598,707...153 sq mi
12. Detroit - 912,062...139 sq mi
13. Portland, OR - 557,706...134 sq mi
14. Las Vegas - 558,383...131 sq mi
15. Milwaukee - 604,477...96 sq mi
16. Seattle - 602,00...84 sq mi
17. Baltimore - 636,919...81 sq mi
18. Washington D.C. - 591,833...61 sq mi
19. Boston - 609,023...49 sq mi
20. San Fransisco - 808,976...47 sq mi

Wow! Thanks WeimeLvr..! Some of these cities might have cow pastures within their city limits. Jacksonville might annex the Okeechobee swamp and the panhandle.. Watch out Disney!!! :) Is there a limit how big a city can be before it becomes state-size? e.g. Baltimore or Boston?

Wow! Thanks WeimeLvr..! Some of these cities might have cow pastures within their city limits. Jacksonville might annex the Okeechobee swamp and the panhandle.. Watch out Disney!!! :) Is there a limit how big a city can be before it becomes state-size? e.g. Baltimore or Boston?

Some states have limits on municipal annexation, but others don't. Most cities with huge areas like Jacksonville, Nashville, Louisville, etc. have consolidated with county government to become one entitiy...so the city population is actually the same as the county population. It's not a bad idea financially, but it overinflates the population so that the city appears to be larger than it really is.

#1...we aren't talking about Atlanta, but people are always complaining about the lack of density. I would love for 1.5 million people to live in Atlanta, and I think that 1 million-plus is only a few years down the road.

#2...that isn't "extreme density".

#3...there is plenty of room in 47 square miles for MANY more people than the population of San Francisco.

#4...if you can't admit that, that's your problem.

If you want to make an arbitray comparison - Manhattan is 23 square miles with 1.7 million residents...half the size of San Francisco and twice the population. Now tell us all that there is no more room for people to live in your city.

Sure it's possible, which neighborhoods do you want to tear down to replace with highrise condos?

Sure it's possible, which neighborhoods do you want to tear down to replace with highrise condos?

This argument is simply stupid. I've been all over San Francisco, and it is NOT completely inhabited throughout the city. Stop implying that it is - it isn't. Why is this so important to you?

The areas that are abandoned industrial sites would be a very good start...unless you are suggesting that residential neighborhoods should be replaced? There are plenty of abandoned buildings in San Francisco where NOBODY lives that could be rehabbed or demolished. How about one of these? :ohno:

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/16/20447577_82a5b70a80.jpg
http://www.flickr.com/photos/loupiote/20447577/


http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3273/2334423798_8dd9d6986b.jpg
http://www.flickr.com/photos/octoferret/2334423798/


http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2387/2063412967_a1c9a7d24d.jpg
http://www.flickr.com/photos/grimages/2063412967/


http://farm1.static.flickr.com/13/18322899_bf2af76db0.jpg
http://www.flickr.com/photos/loupiote/18322899/


http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2172/3534488121_788659a53f.jpg
http://www.flickr.com/photos/goodpotatoes/3534488121/


http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2357/2466696378_4714a0f2f5.jpg
http://www.flickr.com/photos/octoferret/2466696378/


http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2127/2529308753_203e63745e.jpg
http://www.flickr.com/photos/freya_gefn/2529308753/

Golden Gate Park really doesn't need to be that big. Perhaps they can slap some condos down there. Ocean Beach is excessively wide, too. It needs some towers with ocean (fog bank) views.

Golden Gate Park really doesn't need to be that big. Perhaps they can slap some condos down there. Ocean Beach is excessively wide, too. It needs some towers with ocean (fog bank) views.


Or better yet...one of the many abandoned industrial sites or delapidated buildings located all over the city - every city has them. Those would probably be a better choice than a park or beach...but that's just my opinion.

Golden Gate Park really doesn't need to be that big. Perhaps they can slap some condos down there. Ocean Beach is excessively wide, too. It needs some towers with ocean (fog bank) views.

Some towers along Ocean Beach would be fine by me, although I'm sure the nimby's in the outer neighborhoods would never allow it to happen.

As far as reducing the size of Golden Gate Park, good one! :lol:

Ocean Beach is excessively wide, too. It needs some towers with ocean (fog bank) views.

It's very difficult to build large developments along the California coast due to environmental laws, hence the fact that California doesn't have Florida-style condo and hotel towers lining its coast.

It's very difficult to build large developments along the California coast due to environmental laws, hence the fact that California doesn't have Florida-style condo and hotel towers lining its coast.

The point is...there is no need to build anything along the coast in San Francisco. There is PLENTY of space inside the city limits.

San Francisco, & for that matter the whole Bay Area, could use plenty more residential hi-rises, just to get to the level of say Vancouver or Toronto.

Yes, there's room for more hi-rises in the eastern neighborhoods & there's quite a bit going up in SOMA & the Mission Bay. Not much opposition owing to the lack of existing population.

Would be nice to see more hi-rises going up along the Geary corrider in the western districts....Not happning yet though owing to the nimbysm.

Wow never heard the arguement that Frisco is at capacity before to the best of my knowledge there are still surface parking lots, abandoned industrial sites and condemned buildings somewhere in the city

Wow never heard the arguement that Frisco is at capacity before to the best of my knowledge there are still surface parking lots, abandoned industrial sites and condemned buildings somewhere in the city


You are SO right...there definitely are plenty of places that could be developed/redeveloped in San Francisco - just like in every other city.

ya seriously I find it hard to believe that anywhere in the world really is at a point where it cant develop anymore, parking sucks in a lot of cities try leaving a car in philly overnight

Does your city have to annex more land to reach the 1M mark..? Or are you just waiting for "foreign" immigration to reach that goal? Does your city have
to build more urban or rural housing? How "high" or "far" does your city have to go before 1M..? I can't wait for the census figures!!!:)

I would say of those listed...Detroit, San Francisco, Jacksonville, Indianapolis, Columbus, Memphis, Baltimore, El Paso, Boston, Milwaukee, and Portland have very little chance of reaching 1 million anytime soon.

According to the State of California, SF has gained 70,000 new residents since 2000. Once I never thought it could happen but now I can see how SF actually could surpass 1 Million. Interesting.


State of California Estimates
Largest Cities(300,000+) 2009 Annual Percentage Change
1 Los Angeles 4,065,585 +1.1%
2 San Diego 1.353.993 +1.5%
3 San Jose 1,006,892 +2.2%
4 San Francisco 845,559 +1.2%
5 Fresno 495,913 +2.2%
6 Long Beach 492,682 +0.6%
7 Sacramento 481,097 +1.4%
8 Oakland 425,068 +1.4%
9 Santa Ana 355,662 +1.2%
9 Anaheim 348,467 +0.9%
10 Bakersfield 333,719 +1.9%
11 Riverside 300,430 +1.4%

since San Jose has already surpassed the 1 mill mark, people are picking it. the options would be much more interesting if SJ was deleted.

According to the State of California, SF has gained 70,000 new residents since 2000. Once I never thought it could happen but now I can see how SF actually could surpass 1 Million. Interesting.


State of California Estimates
Largest Cities(300,000+) 2009 Annual Percentage Change
1 Los Angeles 4,065,585 +1.1%
2 San Diego 1.353.993 +1.5%
3 San Jose 1,006,892 +2.2%
4 San Francisco 845,559 +1.2%
5 Fresno 495,913 +2.2%
6 Long Beach 492,682 +0.6%
7 Sacramento 481,097 +1.4%
8 Oakland 425,068 +1.4%
9 Santa Ana 355,662 +1.2%
9 Anaheim 348,467 +0.9%
10 Bakersfield 333,719 +1.9%
11 Riverside 300,430 +1.4%

Based on year 2000 housing stats, I calculated that San Francisco can hold 948,721 plus based on bedroom count. Some cities like Columbus and Memphis can hold over a million people. So in reality it wouldn't take many more buildings to get San Francisco as a place that can house 1 million. It's just not all housing is filled up to capacity like a 3 bedroom house has 1 person in it or 2 instead of 4.

since San Jose has already surpassed the 1 mill mark, people are picking it. the options would be much more interesting if SJ was deleted.
Then my choice on first to hit a million is Jacksonville.

since San Jose has already surpassed the 1 mill mark, people are picking it. the options would be much more interesting if SJ was deleted.

Yeah, San Jose hit a million before this thread was created. That's the reason why I didn't pick it.

I would say of those listed...Detroit, San Francisco, Jacksonville, Indianapolis, Columbus, Memphis, Baltimore, El Paso, Boston, Milwaukee, and Portland have very little chance of reaching 1 million anytime soon. Several of those have experienced/are experiencing negative growth, while several others have gaudy population figures that are very dependent on annexation for much of the growth. Some others are in much smaller metro areas that aren't experiencing much growth.

Since San Jose has already reached the mark...Austin seems to have the best chance, followed by Fort Worth, Seattle, or D.C.

Maybe Charlotte, Denver, Vegas, or Nashville...one of those could jump up to 1 million, but I think it will be many years away.

Indianapolis is actually growing, slowly, but surely, and our downtown is still attracting new residents.
It is one of the few midwestern cities that isn't losing people.
However, Indianapolis isn't growing like other cities, but hey! We have a lot of fresh water! :lol:

Indianapolis is actually growing, slowly, but surely, and our downtown is still attracting new residents.
It is one of the few midwestern cities that isn't losing people.
However, Indianapolis isn't growing like other cities, but hey! We have a lot of fresh water! :lol:


You're kidding about the fresh water, right? We have plenty around here as well...actually far more than we need.

Indianapolis is one that I wasn't sure about including on that list. It's kinda on the fence. For the record, I've visited once and was VERY impressed with downtown - Monument Circle, lots of pedestrian traffic, shopping, nightlife, etc. It's a much more vibrant city than most people give it credit for being.

memphis city, after its recount of sept '08, holds a population of over 729,000+.
i am unsure if this number includes lakeland, as it has always been in the city proper. suddenly, it is unaccounted for in many population quotes for memphis. the theory here is political "mess" and "over-padding" of some of the buzz cities. i noticed bureau quick facts has noted lakeland as having a july, 2008 population of over 11,000. i assume arlington is a county municipality, and its current population counts are going to shelby county. nevertheless, the most accurate memphis proper is listed as the above. i don't even think the number includes the >25% undercount of the almost 68,000 hispanics in the city. the justice department and the bureau of census, states that the 25% figure was the bare minimum for the recomputation of the memphis population. finally, approximately 1300 asians were missed in the recount of 2000, and never corrected. consequently, memphis will probably move back to the 15th or 16th---who knows, maybe larger---in the top 20 largest u.s. cities. greater memphis already has a population of 1,107,700.

memphis city, after its recount of sept '08, holds a population of over 729,000+.
i am unsure if this number includes lakeland, as it has always been in the city proper. suddenly, it is unaccounted for in many population quotes for memphis. the theory here is political "mess" and "over-padding" of some of the buzz cities. i noticed bureau quick facts has noted lakeland as having a july, 2008 population of over 11,000. i assume arlington is a county municipality, and its current population counts are going to shelby county. nevertheless, the most accurate memphis proper is listed as the above. i don't even think the number includes the >25% undercount of the almost 68,000 hispanics in the city. the justice department and the bureau of census, states that the 25% figure was the bare minimum for the recomputation of the memphis population. finally, approximately 1300 asians were missed in the recount of 2000, and never corrected. consequently, memphis will probably move back to the 15th or 16th---who knows, maybe larger---in the top 20 largest u.s. cities. greater memphis already has a population of 1,107,700.

since San Jose has already surpassed the 1 mill mark, people are picking it. the options would be much more interesting if SJ was deleted.

It is my first time to post poll thread. I tried to edit this poll thing to get rid of San Jose but I can't find anything to make some changes.

Some states have limits on municipal annexation, but others don't. Most cities with huge areas like Jacksonville, Nashville, Louisville, etc. have consolidated with county government to become one entitiy...so the city population is actually the same as the county population. It's not a bad idea financially, but it overinflates the population so that the city appears to be larger than it really is.

both post #28 and #29 are so very accurate and relevant. many of these number nuts spout off about msa's and csa's and how large their particular city has gotten, how urban, blah, blah, blah. a perfect example of the above is nashville-davidson county, tn. davidson county, tn has, since the early 60's fought continuing battles w/ consistent county and city population drops. in an effort to try to stop the county exodus, metropolitan gov was adopted in 1962 or so. this did not work. it did, however, give city leaders the right to give out a combined population number for nashville, the county seat, and davidson. it was still embarassing to city leaders to have to contend w/ the large disparity between both county and city numbers in nashville and the county and city population numbers in memphis-shelby county. nashville has always been the stepchild of memphis, and this has always been tough for nashville to swallow. in order to bolst what is termed "metropolitan" nashville, nashville has identified its msa as 13 counties---some almost two hours away and rural cow pastures. this area takes in almost half of the middle grand division of tennessee, even though most of the area is pig, cow, and vegetable-hay farms. the city of nashville would have one to believe that nashville-davidson county is approximately 1.5 million, instead of the 549,000 it actually is. the entire greater nashville region does not have an official population of 1.5 million. memphis, however, has approximately 729,000 in memphis proper, 910,000+ in shelby county, and 1,017,000 in its contigious suburbs. the memphis msa is estimated to be around 1.3 million. memphis annexed about 60 square miles about 4-6 years ago that wasn't needed nor wanted by most. memphis is urban, but a good deal of nashville---even in davidson county---remains rural. birmingham is another ridiculous example. it takes in cullman, ala, which is an hour outside birmingham, for its csa. it will be interesting to watch how these cities take in more and more ground and get less and less population for it.

to me, who was born in chicago, it is terribly misleading for many of these cities to list such distorted numbers. when you visit their cities, you quickly become aware of the distortion, and the reality of the lack of population.

Some states have limits on municipal annexation, but others don't. Most cities with huge areas like Jacksonville, Nashville, Louisville, etc. have consolidated with county government to become one entitiy...so the city population is actually the same as the county population. It's not a bad idea financially, but it overinflates the population so that the city appears to be larger than it really is.

both post #28 and #29 are so very accurate and relevant. many of these number nuts spout off about msa's and csa's and how large their particular city has gotten, how urban, blah, blah, blah. a perfect example of the above is nashville-davidson county, tn. davidson county, tn has, since the early 60's fought continuing battles w/ consistent county and city population drops. in an effort to try to stop the county exodus, metropolitan gov was adopted in 1962 or so. this did not work. it did, however, give city leaders the right to give out a combined population number for nashville, the county seat, and davidson. it was still embarassing to city leaders to have to contend w/ the large disparity between both county and city numbers in nashville and the county and city population numbers in memphis-shelby county. nashville has always been the stepchild of memphis, and this has always been tough for nashville to swallow. in order to bolst what is termed "metropolitan" nashville, nashville has identified its msa as 13 counties---some almost two hours away and rural cow pastures. this area takes in almost half of the middle grand division of tennessee, even though most of the area is pig, cow, and vegetable-hay farms. the city of nashville would have one to believe that nashville-davidson county is approximately 1.5 million, instead of the 549,000 it actually is. the entire greater nashville region does not have an official population of 1.5 million. memphis, however, has approximately 729,000 in memphis proper, 910,000+ in shelby county, and 1,017,000 in its contigious suburbs. the memphis msa is estimated to be around 1.3 million. memphis annexed about 60 square miles about 4-6 years ago that wasn't needed nor wanted by most. memphis is urban, but a good deal of nashville---even in davidson county---remains rural. birmingham is another ridiculous example. it takes in cullman, ala, which is an hour outside birmingham, for its csa. it will be interesting to watch how these cities take in more and more ground and get less and less population for it.

to me, who was born in chicago, it is terribly misleading for many of these cities to list such distorted numbers. when you visit their cities, you quickly become aware of the distortion, and the reality of the lack of population.

memphis, however, has approximately 729,000 in memphis proper, 910,000+ in shelby county, and 1,017,000 in its contigious suburbs. the memphis msa is estimated to be around 1.3 million. memphis annexed about 60 square miles about 4-6 years ago that wasn't needed nor wanted by most. memphis is urban...

Memphis' MSA is severely underrated due to objectionable criteria that defines a MSA & CSA. As of the 2000 census, only 1 slender county in Arkansas was included. That county being Crittenden which as of 2000 was over 50,000 and experiencing significant growth, especially Marion, AR. Just beyond that to the west, some 15-20 minutes from downtown Memphis is the Forrest City Micropolitan Statistical Area (St. Francis Co.) which as of 2000 was 30,000 in population. Just north of Crittenden & adjacent to Shelby Co.'s northwest corner is the Osceola/Blytheville Micro-SA (Mississippi Co.) which as of 2000 was 52,000 in population. Just north by northwest of Crittenden Co. is the 3 county Jonesboro-Paragould Combined Statistical Area (CSA) , its southern border some 25 minutes from downtown Memphis & as of a 2007 estimate had a population of 157,000 (w/ an increase of over 12,000 since the 2000 census). The adjacent Jonesboro-Paragould CSA is also connected via the soon to be commisioned Interstate-555. Finally for the Arkansas side is the Helena-West Helena Micro-SA (Phillips Co.), a 45 min drive from the Memphis city limit, but a worthy mention of almost 30,000 in population and accessable by bridge across the Mississippi River from the Clarksdale,MS Micro-SA (yet another 30,000+), which is directly south of Tunica Co.,MS (Memphis MSA). Additionally, 2 counties adjacent to Crittenden Co. are left out of these 4 AR Metro/Micro-SA's and are only 20-30 minutes from downtown Memphis. Cross Co.,AR (apx. 20,000) & Lee Co., AR (apx. 13,000).
Arkansas is just the most significant part of my dispute with census criteria concerning the Memphis MSA. I just accounted for 300,000 people in AR alone not being included when they are only a stone's throw from downtown Memphis with 3 of the 4 Statistical Areas having Interstate Hwys directly to them. Would some areas be rather considered part of a Combined Statistical Area (CSA)? Maybe, but that would only open the door to Stat-Areas in TN & MS. The current Memphis MSA is barely buffered by the corner of 1 MS county from being adjacent to the Tupelo Micro-SA consisting of 3 counties and its 2007 estimate is about 133,000 and growing. The Tupelo Micro-SA is also connected via the soon to be commissioned Interstate-22 with high growth expected to increase along the corridor. Then last, but not least is the Jackson-Humboldt, TN CSA which is a population of 162,000 according to a 2007 estimate and growing. Also, it is situated along the Interstate-40 corridor buffered by only Haywood Co.,TN which oddly isn't included with the Memphis MSA, but certainly will be as a new TVA Mega-Site has been announced for its southwest corner. Memphis is certainly the largest urban core within a 6 hour drive in all directions, save St. Louis. It is strangely denied by census criteria at a MSA level as it is said that the Statistical Areas that surround it seem to be more independent in nature when considering job exchange numbers, sharing non-existent buffer zones & ignoring categorical commerce, not to mention its huge Interstate Hwy Sytem that is being implemented as we speak (signage below). The Memphis MSA, encircled by some 13 Combined/ Metro/ Micro Statistical Areas, is becoming a power player at a regional level & other points inbetween. It is strange days at the Census Bureau with their invisible lines...
Existinghttp://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e2/I-40.svg/70px-I-40.svg.pnghttp://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/38/I-55.svg/70px-I-55.svg.pnghttp://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/59/I-69.svg/70px-I-69.svg.pnghttp://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a6/I-240.svg/88px-I-240.svg.png High Priority Corridor>http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/cd/US_72.svg/70px-US_72.svg.png Regional>http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/54/I-155.svg/88px-I-155.svg.png
Soon to be comissionedhttp://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d0/I-269.svg/88px-I-269.svg.pnghttp://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0c/I-555.svg/88px-I-555.svg.pnghttp://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1b/I-22.svg/70px-I-22.svg.png

There's quite a bit of room to build up in SF, but don't the residents have an innate aversion to buildings blocking their views?

The next city to reach 1,000,000 will be Fairfax, VA. It is currently a county of 1.2 million but it is considering becoming a city.

Memphis' MSA is severely underrated due to objectionable criteria that defines a MSA & CSA. As of the 2000 census, only 1 slender county in Arkansas was included. That county being Crittenden which as of 2000 was over 50,000 and experiencing significant growth, especially Marion, AR. Just beyond that to the west, some 15-20 minutes from downtown Memphis is the Forrest City Micropolitan Statistical Area (St. Francis Co.) which as of 2000 was 30,000 in population. Just north of Crittenden & adjacent to Shelby Co.'s northwest corner is the Osceola/Blytheville Micro-SA (Mississippi Co.) which as of 2000 was 52,000 in population. Just north by northwest of Crittenden Co. is the 3 county Jonesboro-Paragould Combined Statistical Area (CSA) , its southern border some 25 minutes from downtown Memphis & as of a 2007 estimate had a population of 157,000 (w/ an increase of over 12,000 since the 2000 census). The adjacent Jonesboro-Paragould CSA is also connected via the soon to be commisioned Interstate-555. Finally for the Arkansas side is the Helena-West Helena Micro-SA (Phillips Co.), a 45 min drive from the Memphis city limit, but a worthy mention of almost 30,000 in population and accessable by bridge across the Mississippi River from the Clarksdale,MS Micro-SA (yet another 30,000+), which is directly south of Tunica Co.,MS (Memphis MSA). Additionally, 2 counties adjacent to Crittenden Co. are left out of these 4 AR Metro/Micro-SA's and are only 20-30 minutes from downtown Memphis. Cross Co.,AR (apx. 20,000) & Lee Co., AR (apx. 13,000).
Arkansas is just the most significant part of my dispute with census criteria concerning the Memphis MSA. I just accounted for 300,000 people in AR alone not being included when they are only a stone's throw from downtown Memphis with 3 of the 4 Statistical Areas having Interstate Hwys directly to them. Would some areas be rather considered part of a Combined Statistical Area (CSA)? Maybe, but that would only open the door to Stat-Areas in TN & MS. The current Memphis MSA is barely buffered by the corner of 1 MS county from being adjacent to the Tupelo Micro-SA consisting of 3 counties and its 2007 estimate is about 133,000 and growing. The Tupelo Micro-SA is also connected via the soon to be commissioned Interstate-22 with high growth expected to increase along the corridor. Then last, but not least is the Jackson-Humboldt, TN CSA which is a population of 162,000 according to a 2007 estimate and growing. Also, it is situated along the Interstate-40 corridor buffered by only Haywood Co.,TN which oddly isn't included with the Memphis MSA, but certainly will be as a new TVA Mega-Site has been announced for its southwest corner. Memphis is certainly the largest urban core within a 6 hour drive in all directions, save St. Louis. It is strangely denied by census criteria at a MSA level as it is said that the Statistical Areas that surround it seem to be more independent in nature when considering job exchange numbers, sharing non-existent buffer zones & ignoring categorical commerce, not to mention its huge Interstate Hwy Sytem that is being implemented as we speak (signage below). The Memphis MSA, encircled by some 13 Combined/ Metro/ Micro Statistical Areas, is becoming a power player at a regional level & other points inbetween. It is strange days at the Census Bureau with their invisible lines...
Existinghttp://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e2/I-40.svg/70px-I-40.svg.pnghttp://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/38/I-55.svg/70px-I-55.svg.pnghttp://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/59/I-69.svg/70px-I-69.svg.pnghttp://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a6/I-240.svg/88px-I-240.svg.png High Priority Corridor>http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/cd/US_72.svg/70px-US_72.svg.png Regional>http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/54/I-155.svg/88px-I-155.svg.png
Soon to be comissionedhttp://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d0/I-269.svg/88px-I-269.svg.pnghttp://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0c/I-555.svg/88px-I-555.svg.pnghttp://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1b/I-22.svg/70px-I-22.svg.png

jr, i certainly ejoyed reading your take on the msa/csa issue. as i am sure you know, memphis wasn't even assigned a csa designation since being identified a full msa. this has never made any sense in the scheme of things. finally, this summer, after several of us had studied this fact, we contacted the powers that be and began pushing for answers from the u.s. bureau of census. interestingly enough, things have begun to change. they had no immediate explanation of the reasons nashville was treated so differently as a designated msa of approximately 1.4+, taking in about half or more of middle tn---some counties two county lengths away w/ two hours and no direct economic impacts on each other. i plan to give more information on this in future, as it is a political issue that needs to be immediately brought forth in the memphis mayoral election. taxes, revenue, etc., have so much to do w/ population counts, as no doubt you are aware. memphis is intentionally low-balled in numbers by politicians and others in this state, in particular from many nashville cheerleaders. their desire to be the largest city, county, msa, and csa has gotten out of hand.

just wanted you to know that i enjoy your posts and your information. i will have more on the other subject in a different forum. i have looked to find you on some other relevant forums; however, i have had no luck. urban and cd have nothing. would like to correspond sometime. i read your article on the sig tower and the fellow's reply about our "dying" memphis. i have wanted to send the posts to him w/ your info; however, i was fearful that i did not know how, and i would violate the toa. nevertheless, i always enjoy your input.

Memphis' MSA is severely underrated due to objectionable criteria that defines a MSA & CSA. As of the 2000 census, only 1 slender county in Arkansas was included. That county being Crittenden which as of 2000 was over 50,000 and experiencing significant growth, especially Marion, AR. Just beyond that to the west, some 15-20 minutes from downtown Memphis is the Forrest City Micropolitan Statistical Area (St. Francis Co.) which as of 2000 was 30,000 in population. Just north of Crittenden & adjacent to Shelby Co.'s northwest corner is the Osceola/Blytheville Micro-SA (Mississippi Co.) which as of 2000 was 52,000 in population. Just north by northwest of Crittenden Co. is the 3 county Jonesboro-Paragould Combined Statistical Area (CSA) , its southern border some 25 minutes from downtown Memphis & as of a 2007 estimate had a population of 157,000 (w/ an increase of over 12,000 since the 2000 census). The adjacent Jonesboro-Paragould CSA is also connected via the soon to be commisioned Interstate-555. Finally for the Arkansas side is the Helena-West Helena Micro-SA (Phillips Co.), a 45 min drive from the Memphis city limit, but a worthy mention of almost 30,000 in population and accessable by bridge across the Mississippi River from the Clarksdale,MS Micro-SA (yet another 30,000+), which is directly south of Tunica Co.,MS (Memphis MSA). Additionally, 2 counties adjacent to Crittenden Co. are left out of these 4 AR Metro/Micro-SA's and are only 20-30 minutes from downtown Memphis. Cross Co.,AR (apx. 20,000) & Lee Co., AR (apx. 13,000).
Arkansas is just the most significant part of my dispute with census criteria concerning the Memphis MSA. I just accounted for 300,000 people in AR alone not being included when they are only a stone's throw from downtown Memphis with 3 of the 4 Statistical Areas having Interstate Hwys directly to them. Would some areas be rather considered part of a Combined Statistical Area (CSA)? Maybe, but that would only open the door to Stat-Areas in TN & MS. The current Memphis MSA is barely buffered by the corner of 1 MS county from being adjacent to the Tupelo Micro-SA consisting of 3 counties and its 2007 estimate is about 133,000 and growing. The Tupelo Micro-SA is also connected via the soon to be commissioned Interstate-22 with high growth expected to increase along the corridor. Then last, but not least is the Jackson-Humboldt, TN CSA which is a population of 162,000 according to a 2007 estimate and growing. Also, it is situated along the Interstate-40 corridor buffered by only Haywood Co.,TN which oddly isn't included with the Memphis MSA, but certainly will be as a new TVA Mega-Site has been announced for its southwest corner. Memphis is certainly the largest urban core within a 6 hour drive in all directions, save St. Louis. It is strangely denied by census criteria at a MSA level as it is said that the Statistical Areas that surround it seem to be more independent in nature when considering job exchange numbers, sharing non-existent buffer zones & ignoring categorical commerce, not to mention its huge Interstate Hwy Sytem that is being implemented as we speak (signage below). The Memphis MSA, encircled by some 13 Combined/ Metro/ Micro Statistical Areas, is becoming a power player at a regional level & other points inbetween. It is strange days at the Census Bureau with their invisible lines...
Existinghttp://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e2/I-40.svg/70px-I-40.svg.pnghttp://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/38/I-55.svg/70px-I-55.svg.pnghttp://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/59/I-69.svg/70px-I-69.svg.pnghttp://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a6/I-240.svg/88px-I-240.svg.png High Priority Corridor>http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/cd/US_72.svg/70px-US_72.svg.png Regional>http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/54/I-155.svg/88px-I-155.svg.png
Soon to be comissionedhttp://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d0/I-269.svg/88px-I-269.svg.pnghttp://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0c/I-555.svg/88px-I-555.svg.pnghttp://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1b/I-22.svg/70px-I-22.svg.png

jr, i certainly ejoyed reading your take on the msa/csa issue. as i am sure you know, memphis wasn't even assigned a csa designation since being identified a full msa. this has never made any sense in the scheme of things. finally, this summer, after several of us had studied this fact, we contacted the powers that be and began pushing for answers from the u.s. bureau of census. interestingly enough, things have begun to change. they had no immediate explanation of the reasons nashville was treated so differently as a designated msa of approximately 1.4+, taking in about half or more of middle tn---some counties two county lengths away w/ two hours and no direct economic befinits to each other. i plan to give more information on this, as it is a political issue that needs to be immediately brought forth in the memphis mayoral election. taxes, revenue, etc., has so much to do w/ population counts, as no doubt you are aware. memphis is intentionally low-balled by politics in this state, in particular from nashville cheerleaders.

just wanted you to know that i enjoy your posts and your information. i will have more on the other subject in a different forum. i have looked to find you on some other relevant forums; however, i have had no luck. urban and cd have nothing. would like to correspond sometime. i read your article on the sig tower and the fellow's reply about our "dying" memphis. i have wanted to send the posts to him w/ your info; however, i was fearful that i did not know how, and i would violate the toa. nevertheless, i always enjoy your input.

jr, i certainly ejoyed reading your take on the msa/csa issue...

Thank you, it's a bizarre issue. Memphis has to be one of the most underrated major statistical areas in the nation. Its contiguous urban core is certainly around the 1 million mark (you quoted 1.1 million), but those numbers are hidden as the city cannot annex into 2 other states. After researching some of these numbers I would conclude the MSA, in reality, to be around 1.6 million & a CSA designation that tied in the Interstate corridors would come closer to the 2 million mark. Memphis is such a dynamic conversation and for those who know better, it has been dubbed "The Great Slow But Steady" in recent years. Even though it has shown some slight negative numbers with municipal & Shelby county populations, it's only because the large urban core is spilling into adjacent counties & states. While people still work in the city they will step across an invisble line to build their home -taking advantage of competitive tax rates (Memphis has the highest property taxes in TN and don't even think about competing with MS tax rates!). Hence, Desoto Co.,MS experiencing a higher growth rate than any county in TN. Also, to a lesser extent, the same is happening in Fayette, Tipton & Crittenden counties. Although, with the massive revitalization of downtown & midtown those numbers are being offset & slowed. I was astonished to see a statistic not long ago that showed the metropolitan GDP growth of Memphis to be a solid 5.5% from 1994-2004. So, when you take our "slow but steady" metro population growth and put it with a good solid metro GDP growth, what you are doing is creating a much stronger economic foundation. Metro Memphis hasn't seen huge expansions OR contractions of its economy or population, it just keeps slowly moving forward in safe mode. Some of these cities you see today with explosive suburbs that don't have the actual GDP growth to compensate will probably suffer thru long term trends in the future dealing with suburban ghettos, etc.. Especially if that GDP growth was based upon Bush-era economic expansion when 80% of the jobs created payed 7 or 8 bucks an hour while the country shed so many good middle-class jobs & wealth consolidated.
I read an article not to long ago in GOVERNING magazine with AC Wharton on its cover. Whether you agree or disagree with his views, he's got a 99% chance at being Memphis' next mayor. So, in this article he hit upon a political issue that is so critical for Memphis, yet has been ignored by previous leadership: funding. This issue is complicated for Memphis because it involves different local & county governments, 3 states & the federal government. Initiative must be taken to apply for & acquire more federal funds and also forcing the states to pay up. A good example of this is The Regional Medical Center. It has about 50 specialty areas of medicine & the second busiest trauma unit in the nation. It treats emergency patients from a 6 state radius and is often taken advantage of heavily by AR & MS (you will never be turned away if you don't have insurance). Yet, the good people of Memphis & Shelby county keep it open to serve comprehensive medicine to those who so desparately need it, often making up for state funding shortfalls on top of our own obligations (was anybody really suprised by TennCare's collapse?). Luckily, Memphis also offers the Church Health Center, a not-for-profit operated by a rotation of volunteering area doctors that provide essential services like preventive care, treatment & pre-natal. Of course, the Regional Medical Center is an extreme example of a funding issue Memphis might run into, but these complexities do occur. Although Memphis has a near $90 million budget surplus the county has racked up rather large debt, mainly because of its massive school building projects, but the debt is trending downwards for the 1st time in 10 or 15 years. I hope a Wharton led administration tackles some of these issues, as their plans seem to point in the right direction. I think Carol Chumney summed it up best in the mayoral debate the other night, "Memphis is a sleeping giant". If you look at a lot of factors just beneath the surface, I would second that statement.
...and hey man, you can private message my profile. I haven't added friends or anything to it, but I just like to check out development news, get an inside perspective on places that I'm not familiar with and spend a little time giving exposure to Memphis with my thread on the World Development News -> City/Metro Compilations Forum. :cheers: Also, I'm not on another site. I've checked out a couple though... Maybe later.

P.S.- Let me know about your inquiries with the Census on Memphis statistics. That's an issue I've wanted some answers for myself. I started looking for contact numbers to speak with someone about the issue, but I never finished my search. Please provide contact numbers if you have them. That was an interesting post you had about the disputed 2000 census too. It would not suprise me if that were the case for some reason or another.

You're kidding about the fresh water, right? We have plenty around here as well...actually far more than we need.

Indianapolis is one that I wasn't sure about including on that list. It's kinda on the fence. For the record, I've visited once and was VERY impressed with downtown - Monument Circle, lots of pedestrian traffic, shopping, nightlife, etc. It's a much more vibrant city than most people give it credit for being.


I am glad you liked Indy and thanks for giving it props.

I see the bloated-area cities as the ones to hit 1,000,000 next..why? In the case with Indianapolis/Marion County, there are huge swaths of vacant, undeveloped farmland in the southwest and southeastern portions of the city/county that will one day become womnderful, cul-de-sac filled subdivisions! I easily see another 200,000 people filling that space. The same is true for Jacksonville and Nashville. No need to annex as the space will eventually get filled in.

Not on the list: Albuquerque. Right now we're 525,000 strong but there are some major developments that will bring us to the 1 million mark in the next 30 years. Mesa del Sol: 100,000 + residents in the southeast part of town; West Mesa Sun Cal/ Atrisco Grant development: 300,000+ : SW Mesa, an ongoing development: 100,000 +. Additionally, Albuquerque has pushed urban infill as a priority which could ultimately add 50,000 + in the already built city. While we are not Las Vegas or Austin, we never stop growing, even in a bad economy.