[ExYankee]

During the period 2000-2003, these 100 US cities (culled from the top 200) grew by the greatest number of people:

1 Los Angeles California 125,131
2 New York New York 77,464
3 San Antonio Texas 70,079
4 Phoenix Arizona 67,371
5 Houston Texas 56,059
6 Fort Worth Texas 50,428
7 Charlotte North Carolina 43,830
8 San Diego California 43,353
9 Raleigh North Carolina 40,709
10 Henderson Nevada 39,471
11 Las Vegas Nevada 38,583
12 Sacramento California 38,317
13 Jacksonville Florida 38,164
14 Mesa Arizona 36,001
15 Gilbert town Arizona 35,553
16 Chandler Arizona 34,718
17 North Las Vegas Nevada 29,014
18 Stockton California 27,695
19 Irvine California 27,489
20 Riverside California 26,348
21 Chula Vista California 25,504
22 Bakersfield California 23,978
23 Rancho Cucamonga California 23,897
24 Fresno California 23,803
25 Albuquerque New Mexico 23,249
26 Fontana California 22,974
27 Arlington Texas 22,038
28 Tucson Arizona 20,959
29 Laredo Texas 20,912
30 El Paso Texas 20,451
31 Plano Texas 19,961
32 Dallas Texas 19,738
33 Peoria Arizona 19,216
34 Aurora Illinois 19,194
35 Modesto California 18,016
36 Corona California 17,488
37 Joliet Illinois 17,349
38 Oklahoma Oklahoma 17,171
39 Columbus Ohio 16,962
40 Brownsville Texas 16,456
41 Cape Coral Florida 16,451
42 Austin Texas 15,449
43 Scottsdale Arizona 15,284
44 Moreno Valley California 14,682
45 Miami Florida 14,345
46 Omaha Nebraska 14,260
47 Virginia Beach Virginia 14,210
48 Tampa Florida 14,200
49 Glendale Arizona 14,026
50 Aurora Colorado 14,025
51 Long Beach California 13,938
52 Fort Wayne Indiana 13,768
53 Reno Nevada 13,402
54 Orlando Florida 13,385
55 Santa Clarita California 11,654
56 Chesapeake Virginia 11,650
57 Pembroke Pines Florida 11,500
58 Durham North Carolina 11,341
59 Overland Park Kansas 11,288
60 Palmdale California 11,089
61 Anchorage Alaska 10,668
62 Fort Lauderdale Florida 10,520
63 Oxnard California 10,514
64 Madison Wisconsin 10,378
65 Wichita Kansas 10,333
66 Lincoln Nebraska 10,013
67 San Bernardino California 9,956
68 Sioux Falls South Dakota 9,859
69 Colorado Springs Colorado 9,558
70 Naperville Illinois 9,536
71 Coral Springs Florida 9,456
72 Portland Oregon 9,423
73 Ontario California 9,395
74 Grand Prairie Texas 9,244
75 Honolulu CDP Hawaii 8,492
76 Vancouver Washington 8,094
77 Norfolk Virginia 7,324
78 Thousand Oaks California 7,187
79 Pasadena California 7,178
80 Lancaster California 7,178
81 Fort Collins Colorado 7,088
82 Lubbock Texas 6,917
83 Atlanta Georgia 6,545
84 Lexington-Fayette Kentucky 6,286
85 Oceanside California 6,053
86 Huntsville Alabama 6,021
87 Salem Oregon 5,990
88 Santa Rosa California 5,791
89 El Monte California 5,775
90 Simi Valley California 5,764
91 Seattle Washington 5,727
92 Glendale California 5,526
93 Fullerton California 5,246
94 Greensboro North Carolina 5,219
95 Amarillo Texas 4,985
96 Mesquite Texas 4,747
97 Torrance California 4,675
98 Pomona California 4,674
99 Huntington Beach California 4,654
100 Santa Ana California 4,533

 

[marathon]

"Fastest" growing would more accurately be % growth.

These are the cities that had the largest net increases...

Also, Bolingbrook, IL increased by 9830, placing it between Sioux Falls and Colorado Springs

 

[chicagogeorge]

Los Angeles numeric growth rate is quite impressive!

 

[hauntedheadnc]

Percentage growth is a more accurate measure, certainly, but raw numbers are nothing to sneeze at. Some of these cities are posing incredible numbers.

 

[Azn_chi_boi]

Illinois fastest growing cities..all Chicago big suburb.

34 Aurora Illinois 19,194
37 Joliet Illinois 17,349
70 Naperville Illinois 9,536

Aurora is 2nd in ILLINOIS for the most populated.
Joliet is 5th in ILLINOIS for the most populated.
Naperville is 4th in ILLINOIS for the most populated.

Here is the list of cities in the NE.


2 New York New York 77,464


MIDwest!!!!

34 Aurora Illinois 19,194
37 Joliet Illinois 17,349
46 Omaha Nebraska 14,260
64 Madison Wisconsin 10,378
65 Wichita Kansas 10,333
66 Lincoln Nebraska 10,013
70 Naperville Illinois 9,536

 

[marathon]

Illinois fastest growing cities..all Chicago big suburb.

34 Aurora Illinois 19,194
37 Joliet Illinois 17,349
70 Naperville Illinois 9,536

Aurora is 2nd in ILLINOIS for the most populated.
Joliet is 5th in ILLINOIS for the most populated.
Naperville is 4th in ILLINOIS for the most populated.

Here is the list of cities in the NE.


2 New York New York 77,464


MIDwest!!!!

34 Aurora Illinois 19,194
37 Joliet Illinois 17,349
46 Omaha Nebraska 14,260
64 Madison Wisconsin 10,378
65 Wichita Kansas 10,333
66 Lincoln Nebraska 10,013
70 Naperville Illinois 9,536

You left out Bolingbrook, IL as well with 9830

 

[Azn_chi_boi]

Then why isn't Bolingbrook on the list of fastest growing US cities?

 

[marathon]

Because it was left out

http://factfinder.census.gov/servle...ityTown=bolingbrook&_county=bolingbrook&_zip=

 

[nostyle]

7 Charlotte North Carolina 43,830

Worth noting here is that Charlotte has annexed 16.5 square miles between 2001 and 2003. I guess it's not a ton, but it certainly upped the city population at least a bit.

 

[teshadoh]

It's not monumental - but I'm pretty damn proud of this:

83 Atlanta Georgia 6,545

Anyways, the list is interesting - sad to not see Chicago isn't near the top due to it's size...

 

[nostyle]

TheBrad, I'm not very familiar with Atlanta's population trends. Has Atlanta city proper been struggling to gain population lately? I was under the impression that both metro Atlanta and Atlanta city proper were packing in plenty of people as of late.

 

[ChrisLA]

Los Angeles numeric growth rate is quite impressive!

Yeah and we're feeling the effects of this growth, high housing cost and god aweful traffic worst than I could imagined. It was already bad, but now I hate to go anywhere far from home. Rush hour seems to run 20 out of our 24hr day, it just never seems to let up.

 

[teshadoh]

TheBrad, I'm not very familiar with Atlanta's population trends. Has Atlanta city proper been struggling to gain population lately? I was under the impression that both metro Atlanta and Atlanta city proper were packing in plenty of people as of late.

Beginning in 1996, Atlanta has reversed a roughly 30 year consistent trend of population loss. White flight in the 1960's, urban decay in the 1970's, redevelopment in the 1980's, and gentrification beginning in the 1990's lead to this population loss. Atlanta had peaked over 500,000 in the 1960's before it's near collapse.

But you were asking 'lately' - sorry if that didn't answer your question. Though 6500 people in 3 years might not seem immense for a large municipality such as Charlotte, Atlanta being a de facto island city this is a large population gain. Population gain / loss can be misleading - which is why I consider this a promising growth - gentrification which is spreading now over the eastern & southern neighborhoods typically lowers the population. Also, and this is unfortunate, the city is experiencing a loss in lower income minority groups who are now moving to more affordable areas in the suburbs. So not only are poor families (example a household of 6) being displaced by a wealthier home owner (quite often only a household of 2) - they are often further coerced to leave the city. But the population loss of lower income groups could also be attributed to other reasons - they may be experiencing an improvement in their income, but because the city isn't welcome to middle income families they are choosing to move to the suburbs.

 

[Azn_chi_boi]

Anyways, the list is interesting - sad to not see Chicago isn't near the top due to it's size...

you use so many negatives, that I dont know what you are trying to say.

The census hates chicago...lies so much.... saying chicago lose so many people in the 90's but yet after the 2000 census chicago grew about 100,000 people...

 

[teshadoh]

you use so many negatives, that I dont know what you are trying to say.

The census hates chicago...lies so much.... saying chicago lose so many people in the 90's but yet after the 2000 census chicago grew about 100,000 people...

Sorry you didn't understand - I don't think I was using a double negative but nonetheless, thank you for your english lesson. My intent of course is that I feel it's unfortunate that Chicago wasn't near the top of the list. But using some deductive reasoning most would assume that was my intent.

But sorry to hear about the Census Bureau's grudge against Chicago - do you happen to know why the Census Bureau hates Chicago? Did Chicago steal the Census' girlfriend or something? Maybe Chicago could round up some friends - Milwaukee, Detroit, Pittsburgh, etc. and take the Census Bureau out.

 

[marathon]

My intent of course is that I feel it's unfortunate that Chicago wasn't near the top of the list.)

Which really points out why numerical increase, although useful, isn't nearly as good a measure as % growth as an indicator.

For a huge city like Chicago, a difference in % change from -1% to 1%, a fairly insignificant difference really, can make the difference of making this chart or a chart of cities with the largest numerical decrease.

The other big reason that a % age increase is a better indicator is that you can have two cities...one with 500,000 people and one with 50,000 people. Now both can increase their populations by 10,000, but the former is a 2% increase, while the latter is a 20% increase. Now which of those is more impressive growth?

 

[Azn_chi_boi]

Let say if you compare New York New York 77,464
to 15 Gilbert town Arizona 35,553.

NYC have a higher numerical increase compare to Gilbert, but Gilbert have a higher percentage increase than NYC, because Gilbert's population is very small.

 

[cwilson758]

I find it hard to believe that Indy isn't on this list!

 

[marathon]

Let say if you compare New York New York 77,464
to 15 Gilbert town Arizona 35,553.

NYC have a higher numerical increase compare to Gilbert, but Gilbert have a higher percentage increase than NYC, because Gilbert's population is very small.

Yep.

There are about a dozen Chicago suburbs that should be on this list because they've grown by at least 5000 people between 2000 and 2003, but except for Joliet, Aurora, and Naperville, they are absent because this list includes only cities over 100,000 people. The cities in which this type of numerical increase is truly impressive are the cities not on this list...

 

[teshadoh]

Which really points out why numerical increase, although useful, isn't nearly as good a measure as % growth as an indicator.

I just see numerical increase being useful for larger cities that will obviously not indicate a large percentage increase - as the case would be for cities above 250k. I would generally assume to see the largest cities in the US near the top & I was unaware there was any population decline for Chicago. Now that I actually viewed Chicago's population - according to estimates it is a loss of around 27k. Hopefully this is just a case of innaccurate recording of the number of housing permits or any other documentation used to estimate population. Nonetheless, I wouldn't see any reason why this trend would continue - certainly the city will regain this estimated population loss.

As for age growth - I'm assuming you are reffering to ages 18 to 65?