SkyscraperCity Forum banner

Which city could replace NYC as the nation's most populous city?

  • Chicago

    Votes: 9 11.5%
  • Los Angeles

    Votes: 61 78.2%
  • Phoenix

    Votes: 6 7.7%
  • Houston

    Votes: 2 2.6%
1 - 20 of 120 Posts

·
Blame it on...
Joined
·
514 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
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?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
89,150 Posts
Yes, LA is the only contender in this respect, because of the logic that it's the second biggest.

Chicago isn't going to do it definitely, and Houston and Phoenix are too small to magically explode to over 18 million in two or three decades. Then again...projections are almost always wrong anyway.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
28,994 Posts
The only way NYC loses its crown in the forseeable future, is that if an asteroid half the size of a football, explodes five miles above Manhattan.

If that happens, Ocala, FL will surpass NYC in population.

Other than the aforementioned scenario, I can't think of any reason NYC loses its crown.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
24,590 Posts
In metro population L.A will gain ground and maybe surpass NYC in about 30 years. Then again as metros sprawl and merge by then, they may be redefined NYC may one day include Philly. L.A may include San Diego.....

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......
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
3,649 Posts
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......

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. But LA could do the same and jump right back into second place easily, but this is all dreams and whimsicals. The day of increasing the size of the city limits has stopped in the last 50 years at least.

And last I heard Hollywood accually wanted to suceed from LA, or was it some other far flung area of the LA Megaloplis?

Anyway, due to its massive population base currently in place NYC will be the top dog in this country in my lifetime at least for the next 15 years or so.

Sorry I have a computer malfuntion that can not correct my spelling errors, I will fix is asap.:eek:hno:
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
14,322 Posts
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.:
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.

I suscribe to the San Francisco theory of city population: good things come in small packages. It's not a race.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,956 Posts
(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.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
14,322 Posts
(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.
dave, if that were to happen, it would probably be due to metro consolidation and other metros would become like Houston in that respect.
 
1 - 20 of 120 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top