Jump to content

Phoenix Tops Nation In Total Growth

Recommended Posts

Here's another new population related article:


And the top ten:


San Jose bumped Detroit to become the 10th-largest city. Population changes of the biggest U.S. cities from 2000 to 2004:

City 2004 pop. Change

New York 8,104,079 1.2%

Los Angeles 3,845,541 4.1%

Chicago 2,862,244 -1.2%

Houston 2,012,626 2.8%

Philadelphia 1,470,151 -3.1%

Phoenix 1,418,041 7.3%

San Diego 1,263,756 3.3%

San Antonio 1,236,249 7.4%

Dallas 1,210,393 1.8%

San Jose 904,522 1.0%

Source: Census Bureau July 1, 2004, estimates

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wounder what is making San Antonio just burst in growth?

I'm not sure why, but I know they've got lots of jobs coming, from a new NSA campus, Washington Mutual regional hq, the toyota plant. Plus houses are still affordable, it's in the center of the country, and to the west you got the hill country. I guess everywhere in the Texas Triangle is growing like mad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SA tops Texas for fastest growth.

Census: San Antonio ranks among top-growing cities in U.S.

San Antonio is the third-fastest growing city in America and the fastest growing city in Texas, according to figures released Thursday by the U.S. Census Bureau.

From July 1, 2003 to July 1, 2004, San Antonio gained 22,095 new residents, an increase of 1.8 percent.

The Alamo City's estimated population as of 2004 stands at nearly 1.24 million. In the official 2000 census, San Antonio had a population of 1.14 million, making it the eighth largest city in America.

Among the fastest-growing cities, however, only Phoenix and Los Angeles gained more new residents than San Antonio. Phoenix gained 29,826 new people, while L.A. gained 26,128 additional people.

Rounding out the top five were Las Vegas with 17,923 and Fort Worth with 17,872 people. Elsewhere in Texas, El Paso gained 10,012 people and Austin gained 8,386. The two Texas cities ranked 13th and 22nd on the list, respectively.

To compile the list, the U.S. Census Bureau examined cities with populations in excess of 100,000 and ranked them according to the number of new residents.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Although not entirely the reason why, one has to consider the 60-80 square miles that the city annexed some years ago. Obviously, the area is very healthy, however. Just as the Houston area was very healthy during the 70s. The northern burbs that are being incorporated into SA's municipal boundaries are having a two-fold affect:

1) They make the city's overall density rate smaller than it was 30 years ago.

2) They improve the city's overall crime rate and poverty rates from what they were 30 years ago.

If any city has been helped by annexation from a property tax revenue generating stand point, it is San Antonio. I don't know how long this lasts, though. There comes a point where annexation creates as many problems as it solves from a city management standpoint.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i always thought houston had more like 4 million people?  are these figures the city PROPER or do they factor in the metropolitan area of the cities in question?


City is a little over 2 mil

Metro is a little over 5 mil

That gives an idea of if you see numbers what they are for. so those numbers posted earlier were city.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Create New...