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.
You made the same mistake again! Both cities over 10 million?
I think that Jacksonville has much more potential than just over a million simply because its land area is so huge.
Why can I never type in the correct population
Jacksonville is a unique city because its so big and 80% of its metro area is in Jacksonville itself. I just don't see so much rapid growth in the city that it would be much higher in population. Jacksonville definitely has the lowest metro population (other than El Paso which was mentioned once) as the large majority of metros are at 2,000,000. I've never seen the city in person to get a good grasp on what the city is like since a city on paper doesn't tell the whole story.
I completely agree with you that Texas is booming and multiple cities are growing and I think Austin is just exponentially growing and Dallas is growing too but not as fast and Houston seems to be growing slower but still growing but I don't believe its booming quite as quick as you're saying
Houston is the most susceptible to slowing down as oil makes-up such a huge part of its economy and oil has become very volatile lately. I think the prediction for it is to large (and I live there by the way). It will be interesting to see how Texas continues to grow. It is an oddity to see so many large cities growing so fast in one state at the same time. Perhaps Texas could look at states such as Florida and Califortwhich which have been in similar predicaments in recent decades and try to avoid some of the problems they encountered.
I don't think El Paso will ever grow fast enough for Texas to have six cities in the top 15 though. If it did, then that would be some achievement.
Jacksonville is a unique city because its so big and 80% of its metro area is in Jacksonville itself. I just don't see so much rapid growth in the city that it would be much higher in population. Jacksonville definitely has the lowest metro population (other than El Paso which was mentioned once) as the large majority of metros are at 2,000,000. I've never seen the city in person to get a good grasp on what the city is like since a city on paper doesn't tell the whole story.
Jacksonville has a lot of potential, but I don't really think it will see amazing growth in the near future either. But it could easily change courses and blow up like some other cities have. We will have to wait and see, 35 years is a long long time and a lot could happen to change the course of a city.
My predictions for largest U.S. city propers in the year 2050. Tell me if you think its a good list of predictions or not
1. New York City - 10,000,000
2. Los Angeles - 4,750,000
3. Houston - 4,250,000
4. Chicago - 2,750,000
5. Phoenix - 2,000,000
6. Dallas - 1,900,000
7. Philadelphia - 1,750,000
8. San Antonio - 1,800,000
9. San Diego - 1,500,000
10. Austin - 1,300,000
11. Charlotte - 1,200,000
12. Indianapolis - 1,090,000
13. Columbus - 1,075,000
14. San Jose - 1,050,000
15. San Francisco - 975,000
You forgot OKC. They'll engulf the whole state by 2017.
When I was creating this list I forgot Jacksonville. No idea how it slipped my mind but you're right that it should be on here. I don't necessarily think it will have up to 1.3 million but I think it will would be on the list for sure
Hmm, based on the current growth rate it should be right around 1.3 million, whether you use the intervals from 2013-2014, 2010-2014, or 2000-2010. Obviously 35 years is a long time, but there's no reason to think that Jax's growth will slow down anymore than it could increase.
My edits now:
Phoenix at ~ 1,750,000 though below Philly
14. Jacksonville - 10,050,000
15. San Jose - 10,025,000
San Francisco doesn't make the list but is still at 975,000. I think San Fran is so dense already and can't go anywhere beyond one million in population.
I don't think Jacksonville and San Jose would be 14 and 15 if they have ten million people in the city proper...
Hmm, based on the current growth rate it should be right around 1.3 million, whether you use the intervals from 2013-2014, 2010-2014, or 2000-2010. Obviously 35 years is a long time, but there's no reason to think that Jax's growth will slow down anymore than it could increase.
1.3 Seems a little out there for Jacksonville. Adding 450,000 new residents in 35 years is a bit much and while I do see large growth in the area I think for them to add almost 13,000 residents a year without doing any annexing (They're large enough already) for 35 straight years seems a bit out there.
I don't think Jacksonville and San Jose would be 14 and 15 if they have ten million people in the city proper...
- skbl17
I can't even tell you how many times I accidentally throw zeros into things. I'm a great typer but for some reason when it comes to zeros I fail tremendously.
You forgot OKC. They'll engulf the whole state by 2017.
The reason Oklahoma City isn't mentioned is because it has a lower population than all the other cities mentioned. Oklahoma City is at just over the 600,000 mark while all the other cities are at least over, or right by, the 850,000 mark. Even though OKC is experiencing large growth too, the other cities with higher starting populations now are growing just as fast, and in some cases (Austin) way faster.
Overlooked so far in the thread is the water supply issue which is going to greatly impact the "fast growing cities" in Texas as well as Phoenix and the California cities. They're not going to be able to handle the massive forecasted influx of current growth over that time period.
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.