Blame it on...
In the next 20 to 30 years, will New York lose its place as the nation's most populous city? Also, which U.S.city has the greatest capability of gaining this city's long-standing title?
In terms of city proper....No chance in hell. NYC was built to house lots of people in a small area, this is why their density levels smoke L.A., San Fran, Chicago....... L.A. or any other city would basically have to knock everything down and build large multi unit dwellings......
of course, the suburbs would have no part of it and the city no desire to do it as well. Point is, Chicago really doesn't give a rat's ass over the meaningless of being The Largest City In The United States. My sense is that we are incredibly happy with the statistics of a city with approximately 3 million people in a metro area of about 9 million. Those, to us, are highly functional numbers...big enough to offer all you could want in a city and metro area, but not so big to make it unmanagable.Not that this would ever really happen but if the city of Chicago decided to anax large populations in the burbs it could easily become the second city once again.:
dave, if that were to happen, it would probably be due to metro consolidation and other metros would become like Houston in that respect.(this is on the assumption that we are talking about cities, not metros)
The only city with any chance at all would be Houston just because it boundaries are so huge that it could theoretically do it. Maybe in 100 years and with a complete change in the way the city is designed, but they do have the room to do it at 600 square miles. NYC is only 322 square miles so Houston would only need to bump itself up to half of NYC's density to pass it in population. Right now NYC is 8 times as dense as Houston so Houston has a looooong way to go.
But I do not think it will ever happen, its just that Houston is probably the only city in the US where its even possible without huge annexations.