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.
Nashville is now "bigger" than Boston, yet the two cities couldn't be more different in terms of built form. Still, it's more shocking that NYC grew by more people than the entire population of Baltimore, which is below 600,000 for the first time in over a century when the current city limits were annexed. Baltimore's peak density tracts are only around the 30K range.
Now Brooklyn boosters can argue that they're the "3rd largest city" with Chicago- both are literally neck and neck at 2.74 million, and I'll bet with trends, is larger than the Windy City now.
NYC's growth of 629,000 is just insane, considering it's not even sunbelt and it hasn't annexed new land nor does it has a suburban layout. It's a shining example of even if a city has people living in extremely close quarters, there still room for substantial growth.
I still think NYC just had a bad count in 2010(probably missed a lot of housing units).
Location: That star on your map in the middle of the East Coast, DMV
8,132 posts, read 7,575,946 times
Reputation: 5796
Quote:
Originally Posted by Borntoolate85
Nashville is now "bigger" than Boston, yet the two cities couldn't be more different in terms of built form. Still, it's more shocking that NYC grew by more people than the entire population of Baltimore, which is below 600,000 for the first time in over a century when the current city limits were annexed. Baltimore's peak density tracts are only around the 30K range.
Now Brooklyn boosters can argue that they're the "3rd largest city" with Chicago- both are literally neck and neck at 2.74 million, and I'll bet with trends, is larger than the Windy City now.
Boston's like America's 3rd or 4th most dense city above 500k, I don't think Nashville is breathing down it's shoulders any time soon.
The Omaha MSA grew 11.8% over this past decade, and added over 102,000 residents to its metropolitan area.
As I stated in an earlier post, the Omaha CSA moved just past the 1 million mark for the first time- 1,004,771. The MSA population is only about 32,000 away from that mark.
I was interested in seeing how Worcester would compare to Providence:
Worcester, MA - 206, 518 (+14.1%)
Providence, RI - 190, 934 (+7.2%)
I think it can be somewhat subjectively argued that Providence is the more interesting city of the two, with its dense, walkable downtown, outdoor activities and better climate, but Worcester did significantly better this time around. I'm guessing it had something to do with the fact that Worcester is generally safer, but it also has more land to grow. One can live in Worcester and still live in a somewhat safe, suburban neighborhood with mediocre schools. I'm not sure if that can be done as comfortably in Providence.
Worcester's higher population is almost exclusively tied to it having a far greater land mass. It is more than TWICE the size of Providence in land. Providence however has nearly twice the population density. The population of the cities and towns in and around each city is also quite different. Providence is bordered by many large population cities and towns such as Cranston, Pawtucket, East Providence, North Providence, and Johnston which all range from 29.5k to 82.9k. Worcester only has Shrewsbury with a population of 38.3k. Every other town bordering Worcester is less than 20k in population. That helps explain why the Providence metro has close to 700k more residents than the Worcester metro.
Worcester: Population 206,518 | Land Mass 37.36 sq miles
Providence: Population 190,934 |Land Mass 18.41 sq miles
Worcester: Population 206,518 | Land Mass 37.36 sq miles
Providence: Population 190,934 |Land Mass 18.41 sq miles
Another great example of why city pop. is a horrible comparison metric. Though to be fair 206k in 37sq mi is still slouch in density. Birmingham Alabama is 200k people in 146sq mi, which is an extreme example in the other direction.
Another great example of why city pop. is a horrible comparison metric. Though to be fair 206k in 37sq mi is still slouch in density. Birmingham Alabama is 200k people in 146sq mi, which is an extreme example in the other direction.
What’s more remarkable about Worcester is it has 1 suburb basically. Especially to the North and west the towns bordering Worcester has like 500 ppsm, while the city is 5600.
Boston's like America's 3rd or 4th most dense city above 500k, I don't think Nashville is breathing down it's shoulders any time soon.
Agreed. Even with slower growth in the Northeast compared to the Sun Belt, cities like DC, Philadelphia, NYC and Boston continue to densify--and at a quicker pace--given how new population/development is much more concentrated in their urban cores.
I'd actually love to see how overall density has changed in the past 10 years in big cities across the US based on the latest data. I'm hoping someone will have the time to break it down at some point.
There was still somewhat of a wide gap to fill, plus the O&G market fluctuations not related to Harvey have played a big part as well.
70,000 out of 1.2 million+ isn't exactly a wide gap. The 8,000 residents Houston added following Harvey was well short of what Houston usually produces in a normal year which could have put a huge dent in that 70,000 deficit.
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.
