Los Angeles: a seaport in SW California. 2,966,763 with suburbs 6,997,000; 452 sq miles.
So what gives? New census information? Inaccurate census information? I find it hard to believe that Chicago could have slipped into second and I missed hearing about it, living in the Chicago suburbs. I tried looking on the web for more info, but all the data either stopped at 1990 or else included entire metropolitian areas.
“I guess one person can make a difference, although most of the time they probably shouldn’t.”
From what you’ve posted, I’m starting to thiink the editors were drunk. That means that from whenever they got their data to now, Chicago has lost some 200,000 people. I don’t think there’s been any years where Chicago experienced negative growth.
“I guess one person can make a difference, although most of the time they probably shouldn’t.”
Chicago city or metro? If metro is growing, Chicago as the central city might indeed be losing population as residential land use makes way for commercial.
What is the obsession with municipal populations on this board, anyway? It’s like weiner size. It doesn’t matter. The metro population is a better measure of a city’s size.
Dee da dee da dee dee do do / Dee ba ditty doh / Deedle dooby doo ba dee um bee ooby / Be doodle oodle doodle dee dohhttp://members.xoom.com/labradorian/
Nothing really, except that the dictionary had Chicago listed as 2nd instead of 3rd and city size is determined by population within city limits. The “fascination” with it is that’s how they measure it, so metropolitian size is irrelevant to what I’m asking (i.e. if the dictionary was wrong).
“I guess one person can make a difference, although most of the time they probably shouldn’t.”
Chicago is still called the Second City, because the term was never strictly about population. It was about Chicago admitting that it was never going to be as grand a city as New York. But Chicago has not, nor will it ever, capitulate 2nd place to Los Angeles. The Second City is not a measurable ranking, it’s a mentality. It’s not about the numbers; it’s about being proud of being humble.
Los Angeles will never be the Second City, because Langlers will never decide that 2nd place is good enough for them.
The largest metro area is the New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island Metro Area (officially a Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical Area and it also includes parts of Connecticut and Pennsylvania). #2 is the LA-Riverside-Orange County CMSA. #3 is the Chicago-Gary-Kenosha CMSA.
The fastest growing Metro area right now is Las Vegas. The second fastest is Laredo, TX. Any thoughts on why people are moving to Laredo?
Laredo, per se, has very little to offer. It’s my least favorite city in America (don’t get me started on why!!!) However, it IS right on the Mexican border, and I’d be willing to bet that most of the increases in Laredo’s population have come at Mexico’s expense. It’s easy, quick and safe to cross the border in Laredo, and people do it every day.
Now, I agree with the people who say “city population” is far less meaningful than “metropolitan population.” San Antonio illustrates the point. If you go by city population alone, San Antonio is one of the 10 largest cities in America. But San Antonio has virtually no suburbs worth mentioning. Thus, MANY cities with far smaller populations (Austin and Sacramento, for instance) are MUCH more heavily populated than San Antonio.