US Cities - Population Ranking (Top 100)

[carlton]

Top 100 U.S. Cities (2006)

1. New York
2. Los Angeles
3. Chicago
4. Houston
5. Phoenix
6. Philadelphia
7. San Diego
8. San Antonio
9. Dallas
10. San Jose
11. Detroit
12. Jacksonville
13. Indianapolis
14. Columbus
15. San Francisco
16. Austin
17. Memphis
18. Fort Worth
19. Charlotte
20. El Paso
21. Baltimore
22. Milwaukee
23. Seattle
24. Boston
25. Denver
26. Las Vegas
27. Washington DC
28. Portland
29. Oklahoma City
30. Tucson
31. Nashville
32. Albuquerque
33. Long Beach
34. Sacramento
35. Fresno
36. Mesa
37. New Orleans
38. Virginia Beach
39. Cleveland
40. Kansas City
41. Atlanta
42. Omaha
43. Oakland
44. Miami
45. Honolulu
46. Tulsa
47. Colorado Springs
48. Arlington
49. Minneapolis
50. Wichita

51. Raleigh
52. Santa Ana
53. Anaheim
54. Tampa
55. Pittsburgh
56. St. Louis
57. Riverside
58. Toledo
59. Aurora
60. Bakersfield
61. Cincinnati
62. Stockton
63. Newark
64. Corpus Christi
65. Anchorage
66. Buffalo
67. Lexington
68. St. Paul
69. Plano
70. Henderson
71. Norfolk
72. Chandler
73. St. Petersburg
74. Lincoln
75. Glendale (Arizona)
76. Louisville
77. Jersey City
78. Greensboro
79. Fort Wayne
80. Scottsdale
81. Birmingham
82. Madison
83. Hialeah
84. Chesapeake
85. Baton Rouge
86. Chula Vista
87. Modesto
88. Paradise
89. Laredo
90. Garland
91. Lubbock
92. Orlando
93. Rochester
94. Durham
95. Akron
96. Reno
97. San Bernardino
98. Glendale (California)
99. Fremont
100. Irvine

Full List of Top 200 U.S. Cities

 

[Ian]

seems like these statistics are stagnating...maybe it would be interesting if the cities were ranked according to the fastest growing...to see which cities in the future might overtake the traditional population heavyweights like NY and LA

 

[carlton]

There were some significant shifts since 2005 ...

Phoenix overtook Philadelphia for #5
Charlotte moved from #20 (2005) to #19
Raleigh moved to #51 and is one of the fastest growing cities in the country.

 

[gmac17]

amazing to look at those numbers...some always surprise me.

boston at #24
pittsburgh at 55
st louis at 56

though some are misleading - houston is so big because it is so physically large, same with philly. buffalo is physically pretty small and they come in way down the list.

 

[Duckinla]

It doesn't match up with the way we think of population does it? Miami, Atlanta, Boston...all smaller than Long Beach, Fresno or Virginia Beach?

 

[carlton]

It doesn't match up with the way we think of population does it? Miami, Atlanta, Boston...all smaller than Long Beach, Fresno or Virginia Beach?

Somewhat misleading in that they rank the cities primarily by the "city proper (city limits)" population and do not take into account the larger metropolitan/suburban numbers. For example, Miami has around 400,000 city pop, but nearly 5 million in the surrounding sprawl. So it's much larger than its ranking would suggest.

 

[Duckinla]

It's the way we look at population that is misleading. Long Beach is bigger population than Miami whether you look inside the city limits or beyond. But that population gets thought of in terms of Los Angeles.

 

[shengmi]

Good list

 

[goldman]

thanks carlton, useful list

 

[nrmillions]

The list is much different if you count the largest cities by the city plus metropolitan area instead of just the actual city limit. Other city ranking lists do it that way. DC would be in the top 6, St. Louis would be in the top 20. Miami has over 6 million people when you count the suburbs and everything.