Skyscraper City Forum banner
1 - 20 of 81 Posts

·
In Time
Joined
·
3,070 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Biggest Urban Growth Is in South and West


By SAM ROBERTS
Published: June 28, 2007

Newark, for four decades a symbol of America’s urban decay, is growing faster than any major city in the Northeast, according to census figures released yesterday.

Newark’s population, which had been declining for 50 years, has increased 3.3 percent since 2000, including a 0.5 percent increase from 2005 to 2006. The city’s population now stands at 281,402.

According to figures from the Census Bureau, the biggest population growth nationwide occurred in urban hubs in the South and the West — now home to 7 of the 10 most populous cities — and especially in the metropolitan suburbs of those regions.

Phoenix, with a population of 1.5 million, officially edged out Philadelphia to become the nation’s fifth most-populous city, after New York, Los Angeles, Chicago and Houston.

Detroit, Cleveland, Pittsburgh, Buffalo, Rochester and other cities in the Rust Belt and upstate New York recorded population losses of more than 5 percent since 2000. But, except for Cleveland, these older cities recorded smaller losses since 2005, suggesting that their population declines may have been stanched. Columbus, Ohio, and Indianapolis gained population in the latest one-year period.

New York, the nation’s largest city, with more than 8.2 million people, recorded virtually no growth since 2005. But city officials said that the population was undercounted and that they would challenge the census figures, as they have done successfully in recent years.

“The July 1, 2006, number will likely be higher than it is now, indicating continued growth,” said Joseph J. Salvo, director of the City Planning Department’s population division.

Among cities of 100,000 or more, North Las Vegas, a suburb with a population of 197,567, recorded the fastest growth rate. It ballooned by 11.9 percent from 2005 to 2006.

Three cities in metropolitan Dallas — McKinney (which nearly doubled in population since 2000), Grand Prairie and Denton — also ranked in the top 10 fastest-growing cities of 100,000 or more. Two cities in metropolitan Phoenix and two cities in Florida were also in the top 10, along with one city in North Carolina and one in California.

While Phoenix grew more than any other city, adding 43,000 residents since 2005, five Texas cities (San Antonio, Fort Worth, Houston, Austin and Dallas) were also among the top numerical gainers.

The hurricane-ravaged New Orleans lost 51 percent of its population from July 1, 2005, to July 1, 2006.

William H. Frey, a demographer with the Brookings Institution, a nonpartisan research group in Washington, said he had detected a surge of small city growth, especially in the West. Of the 25 cities in the South and the West with populations over 500,000, he said, all but three showed gains this decade.

“Small Western cities, with populations below 250,000, grew by 11 percent in the first six years in this decade, substantially more than larger cities in the region,” Mr. Frey said.

Boston showed annual population gains from 2002 to 2005 but registered a 1 percent loss since 2005.

Since 2000, only two cities outside the South and the West — Joliet, Ill., and Olathe, Kan. — were among the 25 fastest-growing in the nation.

The gains in the West and the South demonstrate how the nation’s population has shifted over a century. Only 3 of the 10 most populous cities in 1910 — New York, Chicago and Philadelphia — remain on the latest list of the top 10. Three of the latest top 10 — Phoenix; San Jose, Calif.; and San Diego — were not even among the 100 most populous in 1910.


Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
754 Posts
Dallas-Ft. Worth just ain't slowing down. We're adding nearly 500 new residents a day.
 

·
In Time
Joined
·
3,070 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
Newark Rises, but Not Like Phoenix





By Sam Roberts
June 28, 2007

Newark, for four decades America’s poster child for urban decay, is growing faster than any major city in the Northeast, according to census figures released this morning. Its population, which has been declining for 50 years, increased by 3.3 percent since 2000, including 0.5 percent in the fiscal year ending last July 1.

Newark showed the highest growth from 2000 to 2006 of all northeastern cities with a population above 250,000, resisting apparent slowdowns in Stamford, Conn., and other nearby New York suburbs. The Census Bureau estimates that Newark’s population grew to 281,402 from 272,885.

With more than 8.2 million people — twice as big as Los Angeles, which ranks second — New York showed virtually no growth since 2005. But New York officials insist that the city’s population was undercounted and said that they would challenge the Census figures — as they have done successfully in recent years.

“The July 1, 2006, number will likely be higher than it is now, indicating continued growth,” said Joseph J. Salvo, director of the City Planning Department’s population division.

But the biggest demographic news of the day is this: Phoenix, with a population of 1.5 million, has finally overtaken Philadelphia as the nation’s fifth most populous city.

The new ranking means that among the nation’s 10 largest cities, only three — New York (No. 1), Chicago (No. 3) and Philadelphia (No. 6) — are outside the Sunbelt. Three of the top 10 — Los Angeles (No. 2), San Diego (No. 8) and San Jose (No. 10) — are in California, and three — Houston (No. 4), San Antonio (No. 7) and Dallas (No. 9) — are in Texas.

The Census Bureau, which calls the new ranking the “latest evidence of a decades-long population shift,” notes:

Nearly a century ago, in 1910, each of the 10 most populous cities was within roughly 500 miles of the Canadian border. The 2006 estimates show that seven of the top 10 — and three of the top five — are in states that border Mexico.


Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company
 

·
1981 Civic
Joined
·
2,911 Posts
The gains in the West and the South demonstrate how the nation’s population has shifted over a century. Only 3 of the 10 most populous cities in 1910 — New York, Chicago and Philadelphia — remain on the latest list of the top 10. Three of the latest top 10 — Phoenix; San Jose, Calif.; and San Diego — were not even among the 100 most populous in 1910.
That's a pretty dramatic shift in population. I can only imagine what the ten most populous cities will be in 2107.
 

·
In Time
Joined
·
3,070 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 ·
POP. TOP: NYC LARGEST BY FAR


By NEIL GRAVES

June 28, 2007 -- If subway straphangers can't get much elbow room anymore, it's because the city's population is still growing, according to a Census Bureau report released today.

The Big Apple, with 8.21 million residents, is still more than twice as large as the second-largest U.S. city, Los Angeles, at 3.84 million.

Gotham gained 24,337 people more than Los Angeles did since the 2004 headcount, the annual population report said.

Chicago, Houston and Phoenix rounded out the top five.

And the present-day New York dwarfs the town of the millennium year - there are 196,076 more people here than there were in 2000.

The largest growth came between 2000 and 2001, with an increase of about 60,000. Another 40,000 arrived between 2002 and 2003.

But the latest Census estimates seem to indicate that the trend is slowing down, as fewer than 1,000 more residents were counted between July 1, 2005 and July 1, 2006.

Nationally, what may be the biggest surprise is that Phoenix, with a population of 1.5 million, has moved into fifth place, passing Philadelphia.

Phoenix gained 43,000 residents over the past year, making the sun-scorched town smack in the middle of a desert the fastest-growing U.S. city.

The city with the steepest decline was, no surprise, New Orleans. The Crescent City lost slightly more than half of its population after Hurricane Katrina. It nose-dived from 452,170 to 223,388 - a 50.6 percent drop.

Phoenix's rise dramatized America's southwestern migration, with New York, Chicago and Philadelphia the only Eastern and Midwestern cities in the top 10.


Copyright 2007 NYP Holdings, Inc.
 

·
The Place
Joined
·
1,137 Posts
Krull, not to create any conflict here but LA surpassed the 4 million mark a few months back. So the information provided by Neil Graves maybe a little dated.
 

·
In Time
Joined
·
3,070 Posts
Discussion Starter · #9 ·
^ Whatever you say. I am just posting the articles. If you want to correct information feel free.
 

·
In Time
Joined
·
3,070 Posts
Discussion Starter · #10 ·
The fastest growing U.S. cities
From the Empire State to the Lone Star State - the cities that are growing the most.



By Les Christie, CNNMoney.com staff writer
June 28 2007: 12:36 PM EDT

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- What's the fastest-growing American city with more than half a million people?

If you guessed Ft. Worth, you are correct. Dallas' next-door neighbor added more than 20 percent to its population from July 2000 through July 2006, according to the latest estimates from the U.S. Census Bureau.

But if you answered New York, you were also correct. With 205,750 new citizens, Gotham added more residents than any city in the United States since 2000. That's enough new New Yorkers to fill a city the size of Boise, Idaho, bringing its total number to 8,214,826 - an all-time high.


New Yorkers are top transit users


New York is one of the few major old industrial towns that have not experienced a substantial shrinking in the number of its core residents. The top 10 cities of a hundred years ago would have included places like Baltimore (now at 631,366, the 19th largest), Boston ( 590,763, 22nd), Cleveland (444,313, 40th) and St Louis (347,181, 52nd).

Many of the older cities are only losing population from their core areas while the suburbs around them are still growing. But even taking into account total metro-area growth, the newer sunbelt cities are growing at a faster rate than older, industrial towns.

Each of the 10 biggest cities once lay within 500 miles of the Canadian border. Now, seven of the top 10 are sun-belt cities, closer to Chihuahua than Toronto.

Some of the nation's biggest cities today were mere blips on the radar at the turn of 20th-century America. Los Angeles, the nation's second largest city with 3,849,378 people, had a population of just over 100,000 in 1900.

Dallas, Houston, San Antonio, San Diego and San Jose, Calif. all had fewer than 100,000.

Phoenix, which 100 years ago was not even among the 100 most populous cities, grew by more than 40,000 residents during the 12 months ended July 1, 2006. Phoenix passed Philadelphia, which has lost about 70,000 residents during the 2000s, to become the fifth biggest American city.

The biggest loser of the 2000s, outside of New Orleans, where hurricane-related losses drove more than half the city's residents away, has been Detroit. Motown endured a net loss of 80,000 people during the 2000s, leaving the population at less than half of its 1950s heyday.

Cleveland (- 6.9 percent), Pittsburgh (-6.5 percent) and Buffalo (-5.7 percent) also continued to show big losses since 2000.


Americans still love to drive to work


The fastest growing of any of the cities of more than 50,000 population was McKinney, Texas, which lies in the path of the outward expansion of Dallas. It has nearly doubled in size since 2000 to 107,530.

Other growth spurts occurred in Gilbert, Arizona (73.9 percent to 191,517), North Las Vegas (71.1 percent to 197,567) and Port St Lucie, Florida (61.9 percent to 143,868).

North Las Vegas led the nation in growth rate for the 12 months ended July 1, 2006. Its population increased 11.9 percent. Second was McKinney at 11.1 percent and Port St. Lucie was third at 9.9 percent.

Twelve-month numerical leaders included Phoenix (43,192), San Antonio (33,084) and Ft. Worth (30,202).


Top 10 fastest growing large cities


City (pop. over 500,000) / State / Population / Percent growth

Ft. Worth / TX / 653,320 / 4.8%

Phoenix / AZ / 1,512,986 / 2.9%

Austin / TX / 709,893 / 2.7%

San Antonio / TX / 1,296,682 / 2.6%

Charlotte / NC / 630,478 / 2.3%

Albuquerque / NM / 504,949 / 2.1%

El Paso / TX / 609,415 / 1.9%

San Jose / CA / 929,936 / 1.6%

Denver / CO / 566,974 / 1.5%

Jacksonville / FL / 794,555 / 1.5%


© 2007 Cable News Network LP, LLLP.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,845 Posts
It's only a matter of time until Houston surpasses Chicago for the #3 spot.
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
6,478 Posts
Established older cities are automatically handicapped, BTW, in that the Census uses housing units only, I believe, meaning any city getting rid of a lot of empty, dilapidate housing is effectively and automatically undercounted. This also overcounts (at least for a time) those city adding massive amounts of housing, some of which aren't fully filled for some time.

This is unlike their county estimates, which are much more careful in that they use birth/death and migration records.

As we all know, these estimates are to be taken with a major grain of salts. Over the 90's, and I assume because of housing clearance, it was predicted to have lost 100,000 people only to be found as of the actual setences to have added almost that much, if I remember right. That's just one of many examples of how wrong these can be.
 

·
Texas-NoVA
Joined
·
2,265 Posts
Go Phoenix, and Arziona.
It is amazing how Phoenix keep growing, very soon it will merge with Tucson creating a huge metropolis
you happy about that type of sprawl. I mean, people talk about Austin-San Antonio and that's horrible in itself. But Phoenix and Tucson would be a disaster if they merged together.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,630 Posts
you happy about that type of sprawl. I mean, people talk about Austin-San Antonio and that's horrible in itself. But Phoenix and Tucson would be a disaster if they merged together.

what disaster? can you tell me please?

LA and Riverside have merged
San jose and SF
Dallas Fort worth.

that is call grow, if you don't know it.

In this forum, people think that if a city is not building like Hong Kong is a disaster.

People who like cities like New york are free to move there.
There are some that like Dallas, Atlanta, PHoenix etc.

no wonder those 3 cities are growing like crazy
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
518 Posts
what disaster? can you tell me please?

LA and Riverside have merged
San jose and SF
Dallas Fort worth.

that is call grow, if you don't know it.

In this forum, people think that if a city is not building like Hong Kong is a disaster.

People who like cities like New york are free to move there.
There are some that like Dallas, Atlanta, PHoenix etc.

no wonder those 3 cities are growing like crazy
You'll notice that there are two types of people on this forum:

1. People who use decent grammar, can form sentences that make sense, and support urban growth rather than suburbanization.

2. People who can barely write understandably and think all growth is good.

I think you're person #2.

Just take a moment to consider per capita energy/gas usage, per capita tree destruction, per capita road construction, per capita sewer construction and per capita land use for Dallas and Manhattan.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,240 Posts
what disaster? can you tell me please?

LA and Riverside have merged
San jose and SF
Dallas Fort worth.

that is call grow, if you don't know it.

In this forum, people think that if a city is not building like Hong Kong is a disaster.

People who like cities like New york are free to move there.
There are some that like Dallas, Atlanta, PHoenix etc.

no wonder those 3 cities are growing like crazy
Correct me if im wrong, but Phoenix and Tucson are over 100miles apart. I cant fathom a scenerio in which those two cities becoming one metropolis is a good thing.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
92 Posts
Correct me if im wrong, but Phoenix and Tucson are over 100miles apart. I cant fathom a scenerio in which those two cities becoming one metropolis is a good thing.
like it or not, it's going to happen... let's just hope it takes longer than expected rather then sooner than expected

of course we are talking about metro areas which are more like 70 miles apart right now.
 

·
Texas-NoVA
Joined
·
2,265 Posts
what disaster? can you tell me please?

LA and Riverside have merged
San jose and SF
Dallas Fort worth.

that is call grow, if you don't know it.

In this forum, people think that if a city is not building like Hong Kong is a disaster.

People who like cities like New york are free to move there.
There are some that like Dallas, Atlanta, PHoenix etc.

no wonder those 3 cities are growing like crazy

Dallas and Ft Worth downtown to downtown are only 30 minutes apart. City limit to city limit, they are ten miles apart. That is 90 miles closer to each other than Phoenix and Tucson so using that metro is not a good example and it hurts your argument. Also, I'm pretty sure that San Francisco and San Jose are closer to each other as well as Los Angeles and Riverside.

Seriously, do you really see those two cities merging? Does it look like it's close to merge within the next 50 years? Because if it is, than you are slowly but surely destroying the land in Arizona and traffic would be a nightmare for hundreds of miles.
 
1 - 20 of 81 Posts
Top