Fodor's Travel Talk Forums - Most "Popular" American Cities, Ranked

Fodor's Travel Talk Forums (https://www.fodors.com/community/)

- United States (https://www.fodors.com/community/united-states/)

- - Most "Popular" American Cities, Ranked (https://www.fodors.com/community/united-states/most-popular-american-cities-ranked-276828/)

Jerry

Dec 1st, 2002 10:12 AM

Most "Popular" American Cities, Ranked

The topic of America's most popular or desirable cities is often debated here. Whether as a vacation destination or for possible relocation, the debate rages on as to how to rank cities by 'popularity'. The current issue of Money magazine ranks US cities (over 300,000 population) based on two things: population growth since 1990, and 2) the 'premium' people are willing to pay to live in a city...an odd way of looking at things, but this is the amount of EXTRA money people are willing to pay in order to be able to live in a city--a lack of affordability, but a sacrfice people are willing to accept. Of course looking at only these 2 factors is a narrow way of evaluating overall city quality, but interesting nonetheless. The fastast growing cities: 1-Las Vegas--97% increase vs 1990 2-Phoenix/Mesa--40% 3-Austin--38% 4-Charlotte 5-Arlington VA 6-Colorado Spgs 7-Anaheim 8-Fresno 9-Fort Worth 10-Denver 11-Dallas 12-Tucson 13-Jacksonville 14-Houston 15-San Antonio Housing Premium (disparity between cost of homes and local incomes--the extra amount of money people are willing to pay in order to live there) 1-Honolulu--$531,000 avg home price 2-San Francisco-$482 3-San Diego-$406K 4-Oakland-$370K 5-NYC-$341K 6-San Jose 7-Phila 8-Long Beach 9-Seattle 10-Santa Ana-$330K 11-Portland 12-Denver 13-LA 14-Miami 15-Boston The overall winner of this popularity contest was Las Vegas because its population growth has been so dramatic that it overshadows all other stats when averages are used. Next was SF, SD, Honolulu, NYC, Oakland, SJ, Austin, Denver. (I had read elsewhere at this forum that Dallas was the second fastest growing metro area, but it's not in the top 10 by these data).

nora	Dec 1st, 2002 10:17 AM

Las Vegas population is shrinking from its high. Probably more now than 1990 but a lot less than its peak a couple of years ago.

Vegan

Dec 1st, 2002 10:24 AM

Nora's comment is totally wrong. Population data for the city of LV as of July of each year: 1998 441,000 1999 465,000 2000 483,000 2001 501,000

Patrick

Dec 1st, 2002 10:29 AM

This study also assumes that only cities over 300,000 population are worth talking about. To many people, that high of a population is a turn-off to begin with. Naples, Florida has been declared the second fastest growing area in the country -- but isn't included in the figures above because it is so much smaller. I suppose that very fact is one of the factors that make it so popular and why it is growing so rapidly. The same is true of many other smaller cities.

xxx	Dec 1st, 2002 10:34 AM

Fastest growing metro area and fastest growing cities are two different things. Populations can triple by adding in the metro area. I'd rather be shot than have to live in Charlotte.

Jan	Dec 1st, 2002 11:18 AM

No question that growth and quality or desirability are not always tightly intertwined. Look at Fresno! What's it doing on a desirability list?

Jerry

Dec 1st, 2002 03:32 PM

Patrick, you are correct. Naples was the second fastest growing city by the 2000 census (1990-2000 growth) behind Las Vegas. But if you look at the city that's third in growth rate, it simply points up the fact that sometimes numbers are just numbers. Yuma AZ was third. One of the most desolate, ugly, uninteresting places I've ever been. BTW, Naples barely missed the list above with a population of 251,000.

me	Dec 2nd, 2002 07:35 AM

Dallas is not the second fastest growing city. Metro Dallas/Ft Worth did, however, have the 3rd highest growth in population in the 1990s, about 1.2 million people. Only New York and Los Angeles had higher population increases. Other metros with high pop increases were Atlanta, Phoenix, Las Vegas, etc. If a lot of people want to move to a metro area, and they stay there, its population inreases over a period of time. This constitutes evidence that the metro is desirable to a lot of people, for whatever reason. That does not mean that a particular person will like it. Taste varies.

bos	Dec 2nd, 2002 11:00 AM

Interesting post.... I am currently looking at relocating from Boston to Philly. Housing prices are almost cheap in comparison to prices in the Boston area. We can buy a mansion in Philly for the same price as my small 1 bedroom apartment in a crappy area around Boston.

flaws

Dec 11th, 2002 11:26 AM

This is good food for thought. As is always pointed out in threads like this, no one survey or ranking is perfect. One of the main flaws of this study is to assume that population growth is a sign of a vibrant, developing economy and region. You have to ask one key question: What kinds of workers (class) are fueling the growth? In the case of Las Vegas, it is the service class. This is low-wage, unskilled servers, cleaners, blackjack dealers, etc. In fact, LV has the highest % of service class personnel of any area in the country. Contrast that with Washington DC, which has the highest % of the "creative class" - engineers, architects, artists, high tech, etc. Tell me which area you think is developing a balanced, rich region and which is simply a low-middle class subdivision gone crazy? And as for Dallas, they have had some real growth, but some statistics are skewed by the large number of Mexican immigrants. While immigration typically has positive long-term effects on an area, it is not exactly a predictor of near-term regional success. Maybe the immigration in Dallas will help offset the lack of diversity. They ranked #60 overall on a recent study about how friendly an area is to gay/lesbian people.

Jan	Dec 11th, 2002 12:06 PM

Insightful comments all. I'll bite on the hook at the end though. Why would receptivity to gay and lesbian people correlate with quality of life in a city?

Nancy

Dec 11th, 2002 12:18 PM

To Bos: Your statement that "We can buy a mansion in Philly for the same price as my small 1 bedroom apartment in a crappy area around Boston". If your small 1 bedroom apartment costs about 5M then that would be a correct statement. *L* If you are referring to Center City Philly, there are no mansions, but small 1 bedroom apartments aren't cheap. Don't underestimate the value of real estate in Philly.

me	Dec 11th, 2002 12:21 PM

Flaws, Las Vegas is historically a service industry town, i.e. hotels and casinos. The bulk of its existing population serves that industry, but you don't know that its recent immigrants are service employees. I would guess not. I really wouldn't know if Dallas is friendly to gays/lesbians, but it does seem to have a lot of them... and there are no outward signs of a discontented Gay population. Dallas does have a lot of international immigrants, but also a lot of migrants from other states, about a 45%-55% split. The census estimates that in 1990 alone, about 150 thousand people moved to Dallas from other US states. The US migration to Dallas is remarkable since other cities its size are losing population to other states, i.e. more people moving out than moving in. Foreign migration to Dallas is not just Mexicans. About 40% of the Hispanic migration is from Central and South America, and there are also large communities from India, East Asia, the Middle East, Africa, you name it. Believe me, foreigners are just people, like anybody else. They are attracted to a city for the same reasons as Americans. The number of migrants to Dallas is only half of the picture, however. The other half is: how many stay, instead of moving away when they get the chance. In this area, Dallas also did well, since its overall population increase was third highest in the USA. It should go without saying that a city's ability to attract and keep migrants is a good indicator of its value to its people. On the other hand, if fewer people move to a city, or the ones that do move there leave when they have the chance, the city will have slow or no growth. You might reasonably conclude that the city has some problems with livability.

me	Dec 11th, 2002 12:33 PM

Flaws, I mentioned the year of 1990 in my post. Correct that, it should read 2000 instead. The 2000 Census developed that figure by asking a sample of people if they were living in the same address the year before. They then broke the answer into categories for a different address within the county, a different county within the state, or a different city. Since Dallas is not near a state boundary, the figure represents people moving from an out of state metro area to Dallas Metro, rather than a move within a metro, but across a state line.

flaws

Dec 11th, 2002 04:13 PM

<Since Dallas is not near a state boundary, the figure represents people moving from an out of state metro area to Dallas Metro, rather than a move within a metro, but across a state line> The last time I checked, Dallas was less than 200 miles from the Norman/Oklahoma City area. When I spent time in Tulsa, I knew a lot of people went to Dallas looking for work. I think it is safe to say that the regional draw of Dallas is significant. You are making some very broad leaps to say that they are getting people from other metropolitan areas. As far as Texas goes, Austin is far and away the big winner in terms of growth of the "creative class" of people, those who will create economic advancement and help stimulate a rich community. I would argue that the growth in this creative class of people is the bar from which a region's health should be measured, not the absolute number of people who moved in from the sticks.

Some people can't count

Dec 11th, 2002 04:58 PM

Dallas was 11th in growth rate according to the data cited at the beginning. Not 3rd. Austin's growth rate was much higher. So Dallas isn't even the fstaest growing city in its own state. "Other cities the size of Dallas are losing population..."? Well, that's obviously not true. According to the data cited Phoenix and las Vegas are obviously not losing population. They're #1 and #2 on the list.

me	Dec 11th, 2002 06:00 PM

Flaws, I'm trying to draw a distinction between migration within a metro area and people moving from one metro to another. Some metro areas are located in more than one state, so this would bias the figures for interstate migration for those metros. For example, Portland, Oregon/Vancouver Washington. Vancouver is basically a suburb of portland, and a move from Vancouver to Portland would not have the same demographic meaning as a move from, say, San Francisco to Portland. There are other examples, Boston's metro is mostly in Mass, but also actually overlaps New Hampshire, so the move to a suburb looks like a move out of the Boston Metro. In the case of Dallas, all out of state moves into the area would constitute migration from one metro to another. The Dallas/Ft Worth metro does not overlap another state. So its numbers for intrastate moves count as Dallas pulling people from some other metro, not just a suburb-to-suburb move within Dallas. Only a portion of the cross-state moves for other metros actually consist of a move from one metro to another. This is an important distinction if you want to evaluate the relative desirability of one metro over another.

flaws

Dec 11th, 2002 06:21 PM

I'm not going to get hung up on the technicalities of the census methodology, because it doesn't change my point at all. If Dallas is acquiring population from places like Waco, Oklahoma City, and Witchita Falls, that is great. My point is that I don't see a city like Dallas attracting talent out of a Boston or a San Diego. Sure, there might be an anecdote here or there, but it just ain't happening on the large scale. Why devote all of this thought to Dallas? My initial point was that those cities that attract and retain the CREATIVE people, the knowledge workers, are the ones that are really thriving. Those cities, according to a recent study by Carnegie Mellon, are: San Francisco Austin Seattle Boston Wash. DC and to lesser extents: Chicago Minneapolis New York Atlanta San Diego I'm signing out, I've made my point. Catch you all on a different thread. Later........

me	Dec 11th, 2002 06:30 PM

Some People Can't Count.... When I say "city", I'm talking about a metro area, not a municipality. Most metros are made up of dozens of municipalities, with arbitrarily drawn boundaries. Other cities in Dallas' population class, metro-wise, would be Philadelphia, Detroit, Boston. There are 5 US cities (metros) that are significantly larger, i.e., San Francisco, Washington-Baltimore, Chicago, LA and NY. Dallas metro currently has about 5 1/2 million, and should reach about 6 1/2 million by 2010. Austin metro has about 1 1/4 million. Las Vegas was about 1 1/2 million, Phoenix was pushing 3 million... they're not in the same class. A RATE of growth, increase per capita, is interesting in some ways, but is usually based on external factors (such as Las Vegas being close to LA, or Austin having some hi-tech industry in a hi tech boom period) and is not created by the city itself. Thus, it does not measure anything about the city. Typically, a high growth rate in a 10 year period is a fluke and is not repeated in the next 10 year census. The actual NUMBER of people that a city attracts is much more important. In Dallas' case, it has been sustaining its relatively high growth rate (25%) for the last 50 years. In the next 50 years, it could be comparable to LA in population. I'm sorry if you don't think that Dallas people are "creative". I think they are. One of them, a man named Jack Kilby, won the Nobel Prize in Physics last year. Another one won a talent search as the best singer in America. Dallas has a high school that produces more grammies than ever came out of Austin. But Austin is a fine city in many ways... no intent to disparage it...

me	Dec 11th, 2002 06:47 PM

Flaws, I think you're wrong about analyzing the census figures... a good demographer can mine them for gold. Dallas, according to many surveys, has about twice the hi-tech workforce of Austin, and is surpassed in hi-tech workforce only by Boston and San Francisco. Boston, unfortunately, has a very slow rate of growth, the influx of foreigners is almost matched by the outflow of its own people. San Francisco's economy is currently cratering, as is Seattle's. Hi-tech bubble burst, dot.come.and.gone. I'm familiar with these subjects because I work in the Dallas hi-tech "creative" industry myself. And the city's hi-tech industries are not as affected as Austin's or San Francisco's. Different industries, like aerospace, hi definition video, nanotechnology, things like that. And no, migration to Dallas is not just a local intrastate movement. It's primarily from out of state. I mentioned the figure before of 150,000 migrants from out of state in 2000. And the hi tech campus where I work has plenty of broad, flat Northeastern accents, as well as India and China accents. And about 100 others. A big melting pot. One thing in this thread is true, however. You can't measure the pull of a city, it's relative desirability, by just high numbers. You have to do some analysis. And also... even though Dallas-Ft Worth has the numbers, and is a highly desirable region for migrants to settle in, it's not everything for everyone. There will always be more tastes and preferences than any one place can satisfy.

jim	Dec 11th, 2002 06:52 PM

Say what you want. If I had to chose one, I'd take Austin way over Dallas. I also like this study's angle on the premium that one would pay to live in an area. If it was truly a financial decision (on where to live) everyone would be flocking to Omaha. But the disparity between housing and incomes could also simply be a sign of a housing bubble. And to say that Fresno is at all desirable.... now we're stretching it.

me	Dec 11th, 2002 07:05 PM

Jim, you're entitled to your taste. In my case, I lived in Austin for two months before I got enough of the place and returned to Dallas. It's a quaint town in some ways, but it's not a real city. Dallas had twice, three times as much of everything, and its sheer size and critical mass created things that Austin can't have at all. Dallas is very suburban, as is Austin, but it has a relatively dense urban pedestrian core, served by rail transit. You could live in Central Dallas well without a car... I will say one thing, though, The farther you are to the political Left, the better Austin looks.

me	Dec 11th, 2002 07:26 PM

Jim, the bit about people paying a premium to live in high priced housing areas is a bit misleading... High priced city areas are not growing much in population, especially compared to their suburbs. Take San Francisco Bay Area, for example. The real growth of population is in the cheap suburbs, not the astronomical-rent city areas. Central Boston also has high prices for housing. But Boston has very low growth, many people moving out. Their place is being taken by 3rd world immigrants who are willing to accept inferior housing, and less of it. The reason we have suburban sprawl in America is that people are not willing to accept expensive and rundown housing. They move to suburbs to find cheaper and better housing. The idea that masses of people are willing to pay a premium to live in exorbitantly priced areas is a myth. Well, maybe some of them are. Most are not. Why do some areas have expensive housing? The law of supply and demand. In this case, moderate demand, but little or no supply. The number of new housing units being built in inner city areas is not high enough. Developers focus on inner city areas in new cities like Dallas and Atlanta, and shy away from places like San Francisco and Boston. And yes, smaller cities like Omaha and Fresno, with underdeveloped core areas, will have more access to suburbs and cheaper housing.

BTilke

Dec 12th, 2002 01:20 AM

A comment about the Portland housing price listing: while Portland itself is fairly pricey (or "spendy" as the natives say), especially if you want to live in the NW hills, Lake Oswego, and other premium neighborhoods, it's actually quite inexpensive if you choose to live over the Columbia in Clark County, WA. If you search the leading local realtor sites (www.windermere.com or www.johnlscott.com) you'll find a large selection of decent homes for sale under $200k. People in Clark County also benefit from a geographical/financial benefit--Washingston state has no income tax (yet) and Oregon has no sales tax (yet). It's true that Clark County is starting to suffer from suburban sprawl (and the job market is still terrible). But we lived in the "old" part of Cascade Park, where the lots were nicely sized with trees and views of Mt. Hood, where the streets had wide sidewalks AND bike lanes (real bike lanes, not tiny ones that are nearly useless) and decent bus service. I walked, rode my bike, or took the bus almost everywhere, including downtown Portland. BTilke (now isn Europe)

flaws

Dec 12th, 2002 05:13 AM

Who is this "me" guy? Whatever we write, it all comes back to Dallas. Example message: "The Italian Riviera is a beautiful area" Response from "Me": "Say what you will about Italy, but the Dallas area added more new people than the Riviera, so Dallas must be a more attractive, desireable place to live" C'Mon. I worked with a national firm, and we have people based in 32 cities. I constantly interact with coworkers from other areas, and based on my conversations/observations, these are the areas that the young professionals are most attracted to right now: 1. Washington D.C. 2. Boston 3. Portland and Seattle 4. Austin 5. San Diego

bos	Dec 12th, 2002 05:19 AM

nancy you're out of you're clearly unaware of real estate prices in Boston. Our 1 bedroom 650 square foot apartment is worth about $550k. For that price we can get a full blown townhouse in the Rittenhouse Square area with something like 2500 square feet or a large 4 bedroom home in a very nice town on the Main Line. It may be pricey in Philly, but compared to Boston, it's CHEAP.

Nancy

Dec 12th, 2002 06:09 AM

Bos: I had no idea that the real estate in Boston is so high, so I apologize. 550K for a 650 sf apartment is almost obscene! My brother-in-law lives in a nice area of the main line and 2 years ago bought a 4 bedroom house, 5000 sf for $850K, and it's nothing spectacular. This same house in any other area but the main line would go for about $500K. The main line is all about addresses. For $550K you can get a fairly decent house in other suburbs of Philly and for 850K you could probably get something pretty close to a mansion.

me	Dec 12th, 2002 06:24 AM

Jerry.... There's an old saying: write about what you know. Since I live in the North Texas area, I'm going to refer to specific issues and facilities I know about locally. I've also lived in San Francisco and a little bit in LA and Phoenix, so I can add specifics from there to the discussion. Jerry, let me explain very carefully to you what my intention is, and what I am doing. I am putting accurate and reasoned information onto a public forum. I am doing it on a forum that is intended to disseminate information about cities and places. There is a lot of misinformation out there, and I intend to challenge it, and correct it. Many surveys have pointed out the lack of geographical knowledge among Americans, and I have seen the problem is pretty acute with regard to my city and region. Thank you for bringing up the issue of city popularity, because I think it is an excellent subject for discourse. I'm also interested in demographics and urban analysis, and the issue you raised is, as it happens, inherently interesting: does popularity relate to the value of a city? My answer would be, generally, Yes, but for specifics, not necessarily. Unpopularity, however, is always bad. If a large, Northeastern city has little or no growth, (I can think of several) that fact is a symptom of some major urban pathology. Something is very wrong with a city with a low growth rate.

me	Dec 12th, 2002 06:46 AM

Flaws, I don't know who you talk to, and who your friends are, but your views simply don't correspond to the numbers available. I'm saying that the census (and other demographic) figures give a very different impression than yours. In the last 10 years, the cities with the largest increase in jobs (and population) have been places like Atlanta, Dallas, Phoenix, Houston, Las Vegas, Washington DC (one of your towns) and Chicago. More or less in that order. California cities, Northeastern cities, they're pretty much out of the game as far as growth in America. These other cities are less important to the American people, because the numbers just aren't there. The people don't move there and the American economy doesn't pump much capital into there. Most of us think that those cities are a little worn out, shabby and poor. Of course there will always be small, narrowly defined groups of people with contrary opinions. They love things about the slow-grows and also rans that are very real to them, and meaningless to the rest of us. Well good, a lot of ingredients make for a better stew. Flaws, anytime you want to have a serious, meaningful discussion about different American cities... one that is based upon facts and figures and verifiable evidence, look me up.

me	Dec 12th, 2002 07:06 AM

To Bos... Why do you think real estate is so high in Boston? Any ideas? Also, is Boston building a lot of housing? Is it enough, does it meet the demand? I might think that certain Boston neighborhoods are more desirable than others, and a dwelling there would sell at a premium. If so, why don't Boston real estate developers create new neighborhoods with similar popularity? Do they know how to do that?

flaws

Dec 12th, 2002 07:16 AM

It is clear that we cannot have a dialogue on this topic. Our measures of success are different, period. "Me" believes that the end-all, be-all indicator of the health and vitality of a city is the absolute population growth, as according to the census. Who knows, he might be right. But I take a different approach. I believe that population growth is only part of the story, and the real measure of success if the QUALITY of the growth, who is being attracted to the area, and what kind of contributions those people bring to the community. The example I've used is that I'd rather have Austin's growth of talented, creative knowledge workers than Las Vegas' growth of mainly service-line workers. We have a core disagreement. But once again you've made your point that you love Dallas, so congrats.

flaw	Dec 12th, 2002 07:26 AM

"me" says: "Flaws, anytime you want to have a serious, meaningful discussion about different American cities... one that is based upon facts and figures and verifiable evidence, look me up. " After saying things like: "there are no outward signs of a discontented Gay population." "Dallas has a high school that produces more grammies than ever came out of Austin." "But Boston has very low growth, many people moving out. Their place is being taken by 3rd world immigrants who are willing to accept inferior housing, and less of it." To me, this sounds like some facts and verification are lacking. Anecdotal evidence can only take you so far, especially when you accuse others of not having any facts.

me	Dec 12th, 2002 08:49 AM

Flaws, you've expanded the discussion with your point about the 'quality" of the migration. By quality, I'll presume you mean the demographics of the population. Not to assume that some people are "inherently better" than others. Let's assume that we can prove thru statistics that Las Vegas' immigrants are all hotel workers and casino dealers and Austin's are all semiconductor engineers. Which group actually makes a better city? I honestly don't know the answer to that one. If you are an engineer and you only socialize with other engineers, do you really need to be in a city that imports 30,000 of them a year? How quickly do you change your circle of friends? There is, of course, a big problem if a city has a glut of engineers, and Austin is currently having that problem now. Hard times in hi tech there. In practice, however, immigration into a city is never so one-sided. Hi tech cities import engineers, to be sure, but also lawyers and doctors, sanitation workers, kitchen help... the whole range of workers. Perhaps what you really mean is not the number of immigrants, nor their demographics, but in fact the composition of the city itself? Perhaps there are certain hard to define qualities that make you personally prefer Austin to Las Vegas? If so, the immigration statistics are relatively meaningless. As they usually are, when applied to specific cases. Now Atlanta, Dallas, Houston and Phoenix are all high growth sunbelt cities. I'd think that choosing one on the basis of amount of growth would be foolish, since they are so dissimilar in character. If you like mass transit, Dallas or Atlanta. Deserts, Phoenix. Humidity and access to beaches, Houston. Compact, inner-city walkable neighborhoods, Dallas. The comparison is more obvious when you compare a high growth sunbelt city to a low growth rust belt city. If a large city is not growing, that means that its own people are leaving and no one is moving there. A reasonable question would be... what's wrong with the place?

me	Dec 12th, 2002 09:02 AM

Flaws, in reply to your second post... I'm not writing a master's thesis here, where I have to supply a lot of references and citations in the footnotes. The points I've alluded to, I believe to be true, or have read in reputable journals, etc. Not making this up, here. Re Dallas' gay population. We have our Gay Pride parade, and recently had a week-long gay/lesbian film festival. I didn't see any adverse public reaction. Did you? The Boston reference, I got out of an article in the Boston Globe. Other sources I've read illustrate the same problem. Boston has to export a certain amount of its unemployment. The Dallas High School for the Performing Arts has produced a lot of Grammies. Erikayh Badu, Roy Hargrove... maybe a couple of the Dixie Chicks. Dallas' sheer size and its media exposure guarantee a certain amount of national exposure. As I've mentioned before, my goal is to provide accurate information about my city and region.

oaklander

Dec 12th, 2002 03:40 PM

This is in response to the comment that housing is cheap in the suburbs of San Francisco. The truth is thats not true-at all. Our growth in homebuilding is coming from fringe metros not even in the bay area proper. $600,000 will not buy you an extraordinary house in any of the major corridors around the bay area-but it sure will buy a mini-mansion out in the central valley and sacramento area. This has created a supercommuter population that travel up to 100 miles each way back and forth from work-the NYtimes even reports that the worst commute in the nation is the one between the bay area and its surrounding metros. Most of my coworkers live in Stockton and Modesto-we dont even have the same tv stations! They leave at 4am and get home by 8pm deservedly There are 3 bay area cities in the top 10-and thats inspite of the dotcom implosion. folks the attitude here in the bay area is that its a temporary setback-when the valley does bounce back-itll be more powerful than ever-our history has shown this time and time again. The California Association of realtors stated that if housing prices didnt slow down, we'd have 4 counties with an average home price over 1 million dollars and 3 counties with prices in the $750K-$999K range-so this slowdown has been a welcome break for us.

All times are GMT -8. The time now is 03:10 PM.