Skip to content

Raw data: The fastest growing cities in the United States

This chart shows the growth rate of the 22 largest cities in America. Note that these are actually MSAs, Metropolitan Statistical Areas, and include most of the suburbs that surround the cities.

The only two cities that have lost population since 1970 are Cleveland and Pittsburgh. Detroit cut it close, but squeaked by with a 7% increase.

31 thoughts on “Raw data: The fastest growing cities in the United States

  1. Doctor Jay

    You know, I've heard endless breathless recountings of how California is too expensive and people are moving away in droves.

    And yet, three cities in CA make the top 20: San Diego, LA and SF.

    Covid and WFH has made driving the freeway a lot more bearable, but man, I kind of wish for slower growth. If only.

    1. Dr_Diatom

      But the analysis only looked at the top 22 largest MSAs, so being in the top 20 isn’t really meaningful.

  2. jharp

    Just returned from a 5 day trip to Cleveland, my favorite city in America. And it is looking prosperous.

    My 2nd and 3rd favorites?

    Detroit and Pittsburgh.

    Don’t let the naysayers discourage you. All three are terrific places.

    1. Jerry O'Brien

      It makes sense. These cities built beautiful structures and infrastructure and great community institutions when they had booming economies. Now the economies have changed and some people have left for better work opportunities, but the beautiful structures and institutions are mostly intact, I would guess. And the traffic's lighter!

    1. bebopman

      And people will start moving in the other direction. As Minnesota becomes Oklahoma (no insult to Minnesota intended)..

      In a couple of years I hope to be going south, back to Albuquerque from Denver. I can only hope that drier heat does make a difference. ( it’s why swamp coolers work so well in Albuquerque.) … but fewer people living in the southern states would be ok with me when I’m looking for a house. I don’t even see how people can stand Arizona as it is now. Must be state line to state line air conditioners.

        1. Salamander

          Maybe not, but after last week's episode, I will just HAVE to drive out to the Cottonwood Mall (not the one in "Omaha"!) and get myself a cinnabon.

  3. Pingback: People are acting as if they don’t notice that climate change is well underway | Later On

  4. Rattus Norvegicus

    And my little burgh, not the whole MSA, just the burgh, has grown by 340% since 1970. Doubled in size since 2001.

  5. cmayo

    OK now go look at the housing units increase over the same time period and then try telling us again about how we don't have a housing shortage.

  6. Jasper_in_Boston

    I strongly prefer using combined statistical areas (CSAs) for such purposes. Why? MSAs vary widely in how they define the extent of different metros, but CSAs capture "everything" plausibly regarded as being part of a metro. Quoting from memory, but the difference between (to use one example) the Atlanta MSA and CSA is something like 15%. The latter basically just includes some low-density rural counties that aren't included in the former. Miami is similar. Ditto Seattle, or Houston.

    But the difference between the San Francisco MSA and CSAs exceeds 100%. (It goes from roughly 4.5 million to nearly 10 million). Same thing for DC. And several others.

    For some purposes the narrower definition of US metropolitan regions is definitely preferred. But for a lot of metro-metro comparisons, the wider definition is better, because in US metros, most of the growth is now in outlying areas. Given the disparities in definitional criteria as described above, you get (in my view, anyway) an inaccurate snapshot of the population growth being experienced by a lot of metros when you use the narrower definition. So using CSA gives a more precise "like to like" comparison.

    (FWIW a few US metros, Tampa is one example, I think, don't currently meet OMB's criteria for a combined statistical area, so you go with MSA. The catchall term for the "largest" defined metro is "primary statistical area." IIRC Greater Phoenix was similar to Tampa in this regard, but as of the latest census it's now a CSA. Way to go, Phoenix!).

    1. Jasper_in_Boston

      PS: I didn't catch the start date when I wrote the above, so, yes, for longish time comparisons, CSA data is going to be difficult to compile.

      1. Jasper_in_Boston

        PPS: Both Boston and Baltimore MSAs have grown faster than LA or San Francisco since 1970? Really?

        These figures aren't plausible (definitely not for Boston: 280% since 1970?...can't be) unless there's been major changes to the territory defining that MSA. Unless my math skills are a lot worse than I thought, the graph implies the Boston MSA has gone from something like 1.8 million to 4.7 million since then. A quick google suggests the actual figure in 1970 was 3.7 million, implying an expansion of about 30%. Which sounds about right.

        1. HokieAnnie

          Baltimore's southern 'burbs turned into DC's northern 'burbs, lots of growth between DC and Baltimore since 1970.

          1. Jasper_in_Boston

            Baltimore in its entirely is part of Greater DC (DC-Balt-NoVA Combined statistical area); latest figures indicate it has surprised Chicago to become the nation's third largest metro, topping 10 million. But Kevin's citing MSAs, not CSAs. The data look off to me.

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combined_statistical_area
            (Figures above don't show 2022 update).

            I haven't been able to find a link to check his statistics. It's possible the rankings are right by it's the left axis that's throwing me? You really think the Baltimore MSA is double the size it was 50 years ago? That's a lot! Especially when the core component (Baltimore City) has decline by something like 45%. Anway, he's definitely off on the Boston figure. The Boston CSA is only up about 30% since 1970, and according to his chart it's grown faster than the Baltimore MSA.

  7. Vog46

    In the FWIW department -
    Tampa, Miami, Houston, parts of Boston and New York will be in a world of hurt once sea level rise gets REALLY serious................
    I am not familiar with the topography of the west coast cities
    But Florida is really gonna feel the affects of ANY rise in sea levels

    1. Salamander

      Given its role in Presidential elections for well over a century, it will be good to get rid of it.

      On the other hand, the giant pythons will then move north...

    2. lawnorder

      Along most of the West Coast, the ground rises quite rapidly from the seashore. Of course, it's the flat areas close to the ocean that tend to have the highest population concentrations, so quite a number of people will be displaced as sea levels rise, but they won't have to be displaced very far. Fortunately, sea level rise is a slow process. A shoreline that moves inland by a block every couple of decades is something that can be dealt with.

  8. jimminy

    WTF?

    My wife and I are already climate refugees, having left Houston in 2006. Our former hous has flooded twice since then.

    The triggering incident for the wife was Katrina and Rita. For me it was when a guy drove through an intersection 2 blocks from my home. The press didn't follow up, but it turned out that the deceased heard an ambulance on the cross street and didn''t proceed when the light turned green. The guy behind him shot him in the back of the head in an act of road rage. Add Texas to the list of shit-hole states.

Comments are closed.