Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This list is missing Metro Detroit and a few others in the Midwest. Even with it's pathethic growth rates, Metro Detroit is growing (very slightly) and would probably be #14 on that list.
Actually metro Detroit CSA is losing something like 3,000 a year if my memory serves right (I don't have the spreadsheet in front of me). So it would definitely not be on the list of fastest growing. As for the 2050 projections, I only did them for the top 20 fastest growing. Fun fact: the fastest dying CSA is Cleveland with -6,000 a year!
Growth percentages would show what cities are growing the fastest. Not how many are added per year.
Not really because then I'll end up with stupid things like some small city in rural Arkansas doubling its population and topping my chart. Adding 500,000 people to a metro of 500,000 shouldn't be treated the same as adding 1,000 to a metro of 1,000. Numerical gains are far more telling of what cities are growing fast enough to catch other cities.
Not really because then I'll end up with stupid things like some small city in rural Arkansas doubling its population and topping my chart. Adding 500,000 people to a metro of 500,000 shouldn't be treated the same as adding 1,000 to a metro of 1,000. Numerical gains are far more telling of what cities are growing fast enough to catch other cities.
Well regardless of if you do % or numberical, these are just forecasts based off of today's growth. They'll all change wildly each year when you redo them. Chicago grew by 10,000 a year in the 70's and then 100,000 a year in the 90's.
Vegas grew by tens of thousands a year, and then it slowed to nothing, now it's creeping back. These will all change every single year depending on the economic and demographic situation of a city at any particular time. There's really no solid way to predict what will happen, but going off one single year is probably the bottom rung of possibilities.
Well regardless of if you do % or numberical, these are just forecasts based off of today's growth. They'll all change wildly each year when you redo them. Chicago grew by 10,000 a year in the 70's and then 100,000 a year in the 90's.
Vegas grew by tens of thousands a year, and then it slowed to nothing, now it's creeping back. These will all change every single year depending on the economic and demographic situation of a city at any particular time. There's really no solid way to predict what will happen, but going off one single year is probably the bottom rung of possibilities.
These are a two year period. You are more than welcome to extrapolate the 2000-2010 period average if that makes you feel better. It probably won't change much, metro area growth is a lot less volatile than city proper growth in the long run. I am willing to bet these projections are in the ballpark for most cities/metros, perhaps slightly high for cities with a current low COL. None of these sound unreasonable.
Statistics like these all remind me of the late 19th century when many northern cities were going through their booms, and as a result, made predictions about where their populations would be by the late 20th century. Needless to say, they were way off as they didn't account for the deindustrializing shift that would come about in the mid-century economy. The urban watershed of the 1950s taught many industrial cities, especially in the Rust-Belt, that growth is not infinite; it is predicated on the economy.
I can't help but feel the Sun-Belt will feel the wrath of an economic shift by the time we reached 2050, possibly from the shift of a new resource war as the oil dries up. Environmentally, the changing climate, rising sea levels, and growing scarcity of water might leave a city like Chicago, near one of the largest bodies of fresh water and surrounded by fertile soil, in an advantageous position to boom again.
The main difference between the booming Sunbelt cities vs the booming Rustbelt/Northeast cities is the popularity of the climate and a disdain for the colder climate. That is an advantage for the Sunbelt that I don't see changing and will cause those cities to continue growing.
I take this with a grain of salt, but for Austin sake I hope it never reaches that many. I'm all for growth but that's way to many. I can see Austin leveling out around 2.5 - 3.0 million people, as well as San Antonio.
San Antonio has about 2.3 million presently, and has grown by nearly 1 million people since 1990 and is now growing at much faster rate. In 36 years I wouldn't doubt it would reach 3.5 to 4.0 million people. That would equate to nearly 8 million people along the Austin-San Antonio corridor.
I would guess that by 2050, desalination will be much cheaper than it is today and many cities around the world will be relying on it. Especially the large cities in the Middle East. I don't really see the Sunbelt cities failing anytime soon, but the growth will eventually slow. But the warmer weather and mild winters will always be an advantage they have over Midwest and Northeast cities.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
