# NYC Pop in 2025: 9.4M



## LLoydGeorge (Jan 14, 2006)

The population of the 5 boroughs of NYC will be 9.4m in 2025, which is the 400th anniversary of the "official" establishment of NY as a city.

From the Feb. 19, 2006 edition of _The NY Times_:

"By 2025, Planners See a Million New Stories in the Crowded City" 

By SAM ROBERTS
Published: February 19, 2006

With higher birth rates among Hispanic and Asian New Yorkers, immigrants continuing to gravitate to New York City and a housing boom transforming all five boroughs, the city is struggling to cope with a phenomenon that few other cities in the Northeast or Midwest now face: a growing population. It is expected to pass nine million by 2020.

Population Boom New York might need an extra million or so slices of cake for its 400th birthday party in 2025. 

Estimated today at a record 8.2 million, the population is expected to reach nearly 9.4 million in 2025. But that projected growth poses potential problems that New York is just starting to grapple with: ensuring that there are enough places in which to live, work, attend school and play and that transportation and energy are adequate.

Elaborating on Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg's disclosure last month that city planners were drafting a strategy to cope with this expected growth, Daniel L. Doctoroff, the deputy mayor for economic development, said the city could accommodate a million additional people or more, but only if it began planning for their needs now. 

"We have the capacity through rezoning and underutilized land to go well over that number," he said. "But you cannot simply divorce the issue of growth from the infrastructure required to support it. It opens up great opportunities only if the growth is smart, if we have the things that make cities worth living in." 

Mr. Doctoroff said the strategy would explore opportunities for growth both citywide and in 188 individual neighborhoods. It would determine how land use regulations and other constraints might be altered to create sufficient housing, schools, subway routes and parks, preserve factory jobs and identify sites for less desirable but necessary structures, including power plants. 

Last month, the New York Building Congress, a trade group, estimated that proposed development, including the World Trade Center site and the Hudson Yards in Manhattan and the Atlantic Terminal area in Brooklyn, would generate a 21 percent increase in jobs by 2025. That, the group said, would require new sources of electricity. 

In his State of the City address last month, Mr. Bloomberg said that he would present a "strategic land use plan" in April. That will explore the potential for growth, identify the constraints and recommend how to provide the housing, transportation, energy and other public works, including parks, to accommodate a larger population, the mayor said. 

"Making sure that every community shares in the New York we are building also requires us to look to the future and plan for the future in ways we haven't dared in decades," the mayor said. 

Among the goals of the plan, Mr. Doctoroff said, are to produce greater geographic diversity — more jobs in Downtown Brooklyn, Flushing and Jamaica in Queens, the South Bronx, Harlem and the Far West Side — and to preserve manufacturing jobs. 

City officials rarely engage in long-range planning, particularly for growth. A short-lived proposal for "planned shrinkage" was advanced in the mid-1970's, sandwiched between a comprehensive statement of urban challenges and potential solutions in 1969 and a candid but still largely optimistic assessment in 1987. 

"This will be different," Mr. Doctoroff said. "Much more practical."

New York has ranked first in population among American cities since the first census in 1790. Almost steadily since the 1940's, more people have been leaving the city for other parts of the country than have arrived here from other areas of the nation. 

Growth in the 1980's and especially the 1990's has been largely driven by immigration. Foreigners are expected to account for much of the growth in the next two decades, growth that, according to the forecasts, would keep New York in first place among the nation's cities and maintain the New York metropolitan region either as the largest or, at least, tied with Los Angeles. 

One recent study, by Regina Armstrong of Urbanomics, a consultant to the New York Metropolitan Transportation Council, an intergovernmental planning group, also projects that by 2025, the Bronx will be home to 1.5 million people and Brooklyn to 2.8 million — surpassing their mid-20th century peaks.

Queens will have 2.8 million people, the study says, and Staten Island nearly 600,000 — records for both boroughs. Manhattan, with 1.7 million, will still be short of the more than two million people who lived there early in the last century, many in densely packed tenements. Other projections computed by state demographers suggest that by 2020, Queens will overtake Brooklyn as the most populous borough. 

Skip to next paragraph 

Population Boom The Urbanomics projections say that among non-Hispanic whites, births will again outnumber deaths beginning after 2010 and that their net migration from the city will peak by 2015 and that the number of black residents will begin to decline in 2015. They also say that after 2010 more Hispanic people will be leaving New York than arriving but that their birthrates will remain high, and that the number from Asia will continue to increase. After 2025, the population is projected to then expand more slowly, to nearly 9.5 million in 2030, for a 16 percent increase since 2005. 

Compared to the last five years, according to the projections, between 2025 and 2030 among Asians the total of births over deaths will more than double, and the net migration — people arriving versus leaving — will more than triple. 

Population projections are notoriously subject to caveats and variables — no one can predict the impact of terrorism, a possible resurgence in crime, medical advances or epidemics, the global economy or the effects of technological changes on jobs. 

Historically, those predictions tend to have overestimated growth, inspired, in part, by the optimism of the moment or to justify the ambitious agendas of developers and utility executives.

"The overall driving concept is that a favorable employment situation in the New York region will attract an increase in population," said Prof. Joel E. Cohen, who heads the Laboratory of Populations at the Rockefeller University. 

"I am not saying these projections are better or worse than lots of local area projections. They just should be taken with large grains of salt. Historical analyses of how projections made in the past have done when the future came around have shown much larger errors than anticipated by the people who made the projections."

The latest official census figures actually showed a slight decline in New York State's population. But, on the basis of housing construction, the city has successfully challenged recent city estimates, and the Census Bureau has accepted the city's figure of 8,168,338 as of 2004. New census estimates are due out next month. 

While some demographers question how long growth will continue, state and city officials say they generally agree with the overall projections. 

"We're in the same ballpark," said Joseph J. Salvo, director of the Department of City Planning's population division.

Robert D. Yaro, president of the Regional Plan Association, said that with nearby suburbs nearly saturated, the city was no longer at as much of a competitive disadvantage. Still, he said, "New York's got to find a place to put another 1.2 to 1.5 million New Yorkers," adding, "One way to keep these forecasts from happening is to make it prohibitively expensive to live and work here."


----------



## chicagogeorge (Nov 30, 2004)

Great article! 
NYC will always be the Big Apple!


----------



## liat91 (Apr 11, 2005)

All depends on immigration. My guess 8.5 million by then. Anyway it's seems the newcomers we are getting are either very successful immigrants or domestic professionals.


----------



## krull (Oct 8, 2005)

:nocrook: Wow fantastic news! 

All I have heard from others was that the city was not going to grow more, blah, blah, blah... hopefully this prove them wrong! :yes:

Also the city will become wealthier aswell. We need more housing built!


----------



## krull (Oct 8, 2005)




----------



## LLoydGeorge (Jan 14, 2006)

liat91 said:


> All depends on immigration. My guess 8.5 million by then. Anyway it's seems the newcomers we are getting are either very successful immigrants or domestic professionals.


NY already has 8.2m people in the city, it will grow by more than 300,000 in 19 years.


----------



## A42251 (Sep 13, 2004)

^They show a famous landmark for every borough except Staten Island, for which they show a non-descript, suburban style house that you would find anywhere in the country. LOL!


----------



## Guest (Feb 19, 2006)

Does anyone have those analysis for LA, SF, Chicago, Miami or LV ?


----------



## krull (Oct 8, 2005)

A42251 said:


> ^They show a famous landmark for every borough except Staten Island, for which they show a non-descript, suburban style house that you would find anywhere in the country. LOL!


Hahaha... That is true. :lol:


----------



## UrbanSophist (Aug 4, 2005)

michal-skoczen said:


> Does anyone have those analysis for LA, SF, Chicago, Miami or LV ?


Yeah. They're not so fortunate.


----------



## deadmaker7 (Apr 28, 2005)

A42251 said:


> ^They show a famous landmark for every borough except Staten Island, for which they show a non-descript, suburban style house that you would find anywhere in the country. LOL!


 Yeah, also SI has the biggest rate of growth. I wonder how close it is to being 100% built. Many older suburban areas have been this way for years now. Not gonna be long, considering that most of the growth in SI is just like in that picture.


----------



## I-275westcoastfl (Feb 15, 2005)

You mean people can actually afford to live in New York? :eek2:


----------



## Yankee BOY (Nov 26, 2004)

damn whats happening to the black population


----------



## ROCguy (Aug 15, 2005)

That article before had said that all of the races would see increases in population except for blacks, and white population growth was projected to be low. That chart above contradicts it. And what's happening to all of the black people? They are moving to Atlanta.


----------



## krull (Oct 8, 2005)

^ There are lots of older Whites and Blacks that live in NYC and by the year 2025 they will be dead. At the same time not alot of the new immigrants will be new Whites or new Blacks. Maybe a little, but they will be overshadow by the majority of new Hispanics and new Asians. So in a way most of the lost of the 880,000 white people will be because of death.


----------



## krull (Oct 8, 2005)

Lets see... according to

http://aging.state.ny.us/explore/population/Census2000SF1/table_5.htm

In 2000, there were 1,252,206 older people (60-Plus) in NYC. And the majority of older people are Whites, who count for 768,490. So I think most of them will be dead by 2025.

Plus you can count all the other thousands of deaths that young and middle age Whites will have by 2025.


----------



## A42251 (Sep 13, 2004)

deadmaker7 said:


> Yeah, also SI has the biggest rate of growth. I wonder how close it is to being 100% built. Many older suburban areas have been this way for years now. Not gonna be long, considering that most of the growth in SI is just like in that picture.


I read that they are considering zoning laws that would severely limit new development on SI as a concession to the borough's NIMBYs.


----------



## ROCguy (Aug 15, 2005)

^^ If you go to google earth and look at the satelite view over Statn Island, it looks fully developed.


----------



## emutiny (Dec 29, 2005)

krull said:


> Lets see... according to
> 
> http://aging.state.ny.us/explore/population/Census2000SF1/table_5.htm
> 
> ...


New york probably has millions of baby boomers who have made a career in manhattan and will stay there and become the new older population.


----------



## BellevueWolverine (Nov 18, 2005)

liat91 said:


> All depends on immigration. My guess 8.5 million by then. Anyway it's seems the newcomers we are getting are either very successful immigrants or domestic professionals.


LOL, so you really believe that NYC's pop is going to increase by 300,00 in about 20 years, haha, get real



A42251 said:


> ^They show a famous landmark for every borough except Staten Island, for which they show a non-descript, suburban style house that you would find anywhere in the country. LOL!


hahaha, seriously, you think they could have done staten island at least a little justice lol


----------



## globill (Dec 4, 2005)

some boring stats

Immigrant arrivals by region 1994, in the middle of NYC's boom decade
South 110,312
Midwest 80,741
NY 128,406

2004
South 144,723
Midwest 114,223
NY 102390

1995-17.8% of immigrants to the US started out in NY.
1996- 16.82%
1997- 15.49%
1998- 14.75%
1999- 14.99%
2000- 12.48%
2004 10.8% 

See a pattern? If one were to extrapolate this out 20 years, how many immigrants will choose to move to NY?

This trend will, most likely continue, and NYC will most likely begin to shrink rather quickly within 5 to 10 years. 

That's my prediction.


----------



## M. Brown (Jul 5, 2004)

Yankee BOY said:


> damn whats happening to the black population


We're moving to the burbs.  But seriously I think there is a large number of blacks moving from the city to the suburbs. That and the fact that there arent many immigrating into the country. At least I dont think there are.


----------



## centreoftheuniverse (Nov 16, 2005)

globill said:


> I have studied immigration for over 15 years and wrote a major research paper on Asian immigration at university (specifically comparing Filipino, Korean, and Vietnamese communities in the staes). I have lived in 5 countries and 8 US states. I also have a Master's Degree in Asian Studies from a leading university in East Asia and am very informed about the push and pull that affects migration to and from Asia and the States, from both the American and Asia perspective.


globill, may I ask which university did you received your degree from?


----------



## crawford (Dec 9, 2003)

globill said:


> some boring stats
> 
> Immigrant arrivals by region 1994, in the middle of NYC's boom decade
> South 110,312
> ...


The claimed academic is either trolling or has very limited cognitive abilties.

Your numbers are false. State your source. Immigration to NYC has risen since the late 1990's, as it has nationwide. 

The 1990's were not a boom decade. The Census growth is largely due to different methodology and is only about half actual population growth. The post-2000 growth uses the same methodology and is therefore 100% real growth.

Even more idiotic is your claim of outflow. Outflow occurs because of immigration. If immigration were to decrease, outflow would decrease because people wouldn't be priced out of the city or feel isolated because of dramatic neighborhood changes.

Perhaps the claimed "researcher" should delve further into immigration patterns. He would find that many immigrants once entered NYC and then moved to places like Tennessee. Now the reverse happens, which fuels foreign-born growth but not direct immigration inflows. Same thing is happening in LA and in London. Of course, this little fact makes the "researcher" look like a complete fool.


----------



## nygirl (Jul 14, 2003)

:sleepy:


globill said:


> some boring stats
> 
> Immigrant arrivals by region 1994, in the middle of NYC's boom decade
> South 110,312
> ...


So basically in a very short period, ny will shrink and slowly become insignificant. Kind of reminds me of all the die hard angelino forumers swearing up and down that every new yorker is moving to LA. ( Total bullshit as well)
Smells like a troll , someone get the vacuume cleaner


----------



## TalB (Jun 8, 2005)

First off, NYC will always be the major center for immigrants as it was for the last 150 years. It's population boom is dominated mainly by those who are comming here to start a new life wheather it's from another town, county, state, or even country. That is also the reason why Manhattan has placed a skyscraper boom since the late 1880's. BTW, NYC has been the largest city in the US since 1823.


----------



## globill (Dec 4, 2005)

crawford said:


> The claimed academic is either trolling or has very limited cognitive abilties.
> 
> Your numbers are false. State your source. Immigration to NYC has risen since the late 1990's, as it has nationwide.
> 
> ...



My source is the Yearbook of Immigration Statistics for 2004. Name-calling, troll fool......whatever.

http://uscis.gov/graphics/shared/statistics/yearbook/index.htm

I believe the numbers can be found in the PDF file in Chart 11. The real fools are those that don't realize a major shift is underway in immigration. Namely that immigrants are year by year increasingly bypassing traditional ports of entry. Places like Atlanta and North Carolina are seeing massive increases in immigration, as are places like Nebraska and Minnesota.

The fact that NY's immigration numbers have fallen well below those of the Midwest and South is truly historic. And once pockets of mutual support and economic networks are in place in hundreds of cities, existing immigrants living in NYC will have much greater options to leave crowded over-priced places for more spacious, lower-cost options. Technology also will help speed this along.

Stop calling people names when they disagree with you. My numbers are from government sources. Yours are from pie-in-the-sky planner's dreams.


----------



## globill (Dec 4, 2005)

nygirl said:


> :sleepy:
> 
> So basically in a very short period, ny will shrink and slowly become insignificant. Kind of reminds me of all the die hard angelino forumers swearing up and down that every new yorker is moving to LA. ( Total bullshit as well)
> Smells like a troll , someone get the vacuume cleaner


I have no WISH that NYC will shrink, in fact I could care less. It's the planners that write such a ridiculous prediction that have a wish.

Why can't some of you New Yorkers simply ACCEPT that intelligent people can disagree without tossing names out or altering people's quotes??

It is not my wish that New York will more or less tread water in population over the next 20 yearts, it is my BELIEF. Do you understand the difference???

Or are you,like Crawford, unwilling to accept the notion that people disagree. For that's a major step in socialization, usually happens around the age of four or five.

Grow up.


----------



## nygirl (Jul 14, 2003)

I'm gonna go with crawford. You are ridiculous. You're stats are... well they are you're stats. Who are you? Why shouldn't crawford challenge you? 

It seems to be the envious wishes of alot of people here on ssc. What makes you different, is you post numbers that others in here ( everyone) call you out on. Do not get defensive. Take it. You put it out there. 

Then again we like tossing names out. 
I also understand the difference in belief and wishful thinking. But dude, ny will start shrinking dramatically in the next 5-10 years? Thats wacky, and you are wacky if you dont think that people are going to aggressivley disagree with you.
I highly doubt it , and i don't need to take a 10 year bullshit course, or read stats to come to my conclusions. 
Not a good start..


----------



## krull (Oct 8, 2005)

globill said:


> This trend will, most likely continue, and NYC will most likely begin to shrink rather quickly within 5 to 10 years.
> 
> That's my prediction.




:lol: Hahaha... globill, I can see you are still trolling around with your "expertise."

Anyway, those stats don't mean a thing, because yes other parts of the country is gaining population but that doesn't prove that NYC is still not growing! Didn't you see that the population has grown to a record high on the last census or where you stuck doing your 'research paper' or whatever you claim you do? 

Stop been so envious of NYC and yes stop trolling with your made up predictions. :weirdo:


----------



## globill (Dec 4, 2005)

nygirl said:


> I'm gonna go with crawford. You are ridiculous. You're stats are... well they are you're stats. Who are you? Why shouldn't crawford challenge you?
> 
> It seems to be the envious wishes of alot of people here on ssc. What makes you different, is you post numbers that others in here ( everyone) call you out on. Do not get defensive. Take it. You put it out there.
> 
> ...



But you eagerly accept the false premise that NYC will grow by over 1,000,000 people in the next 2 decades because...???.....

it validates your identity as a girl in "the center of the universe". such ptolomeic thinking is one of the more unfortunate aspects of NYC, an otherwise amazing place.


more boring stats.... here we have the percentage of immigation totals from 2002/1993

N.Hamp 245%
Nevada 235%
Kentucky 215%
Iowa 213%
Georgia 201%
Arkansa 193%
N.Carolina 187%
Missouri 185% 
Nebraska 185%
Minnesota 182% 
Colorado 181%
Arizona 181%
Idaho 176%
Oregon 167%
S. Dakota 166% 
Delaware 164%
Virginia 154% 
Indiana 151%
Maine 151%
Utah 150%
Washington 150%
Florida 148%
Michigan 146%
Oklahoma 144%
Vermont 142%
Maryland 141%
Kansas 140%
S. Carolina 135%
Tennessee 133%
Texas 131%
Ohio 130%
N. Dakota 129%
Wisconsin 126%
Miss. 127%
Mass. 126%
Alaska 122%
New Jersey 115%
Pennsyl. 115%
Alabama 112%
California 112%
Connect. 103%
Illinois 102%
New Mex. 100%
Rh. Island 97% 
W. Virginia 92%
Louisiana 86%
Montana 83%
*New York 76%*
DC 75%
Hawaii 65%


----------



## krull (Oct 8, 2005)

^ Still those stats don't mean a thing... what it does mean is that immigration is not only growing in NYC but also all over the USA! :|

Sorry but your predictions are still weak.


----------



## globill (Dec 4, 2005)

No, it means that immigration to NY is shrinking. And the trend in immigration is AWAY from places like NYC and Chicago. 

20 years from now, NYC and Chicago will most likely be wealthy enclaves of urbanity and decreasing crime, much like central London or Paris.....They will probably begin to see increasing domestic in-migration of wealthier people AND domestic out-migration of working-class and poor people gathers apace. And both will become largely TOO EXPENSIVE for immigrants, who will be heading to other, cheaper parts of the country.

Either way, New York's population will likely be well below the predicted 9.4 million....well, well below......





Just more predictions. Make of it what you will.


----------



## krull (Oct 8, 2005)

^ How can you still contradict the story on the first page? It has been written and review by better expertise than what you claim to be or do. Sorry but sometimes there will be people (like you) who contradicts a good story because face it... you are either jelous of some cities (Like NYC) that tend to grow and flourish with population. LOL!

Sorry but your predictions are still a joke.


----------



## LLoydGeorge (Jan 14, 2006)

globill said:


> But you eagerly accept the false premise that NYC will grow by over 1,000,000 people in the next 2 decades because...???.....
> 
> it validates your identity as a girl in "the center of the universe". such ptolomeic thinking is one of the more unfortunate aspects of NYC, an otherwise amazing place.
> 
> ...


Those "stats" deal with states, not cities. NYC and NYS are two very different entities.


----------



## globill (Dec 4, 2005)

actually, in terms of immigration, NYC is generally the larger part of NY state. My guess...which is just a guess and not a prediction...

is that NYC represents at least 80% of NYstate's immigrants.


----------



## krull (Oct 8, 2005)

^ then I guess 80% of the 76% growth happened in NYC. Then that is a huge grow for just a city. :eek2:


----------



## krull (Oct 8, 2005)

Also...



globill said:


> NYC is generally the larger part of NY state


LOL! :nuts:

Look at a map again... NYC is not the larger part of NY State. Maybe of population, Yes. But in terms of land... NOPE. The rest of the State is hundreds of times larger than NYC.


----------



## krull (Oct 8, 2005)

Here I will help you 'Mr. Expert' (globill)... 

Here is the state of New York. As you can see it is seperated by regions in the state. Now you can clearly see that NYC has the 5 boroughs... even if when combined and compare to other regions, it is still much smaller than most regions.


----------



## globill (Dec 4, 2005)

krull said:


> ^ then I guess 80% of the 76% growth happened in NYC. Then that is a huge grow for just a city. :eek2:



Ok, I see I am dealing with either linguistically or mathematically challenged folk.

the 76% means that the number of immigrants settling in New York state in 2002, is 76% of the same group in 1993. 76% off 100% implies a lower number.

The only places in the States with a lower percentage of immigrant growth (or shrinkage in NY's case) are DC and Hawaii.


This trend will, imho, accelerate.

I hope one of the government-funded writers of this fiction (NYC at 9.4 million) reads this......


NYC will shrink quite dramatically in the next 2 decades.


----------



## globill (Dec 4, 2005)

krull said:


> ^ How can you still contradict the story on the first page? It has been written and review by better expertise than what you claim to be or do. Sorry but sometimes there will be people (like you) who contradicts a good story because face it... you are either jelous of some cities (Like NYC) that tend to grow and flourish with population. LOL!
> 
> Sorry but your predictions are still a joke.



You remind me of people in unfree countries who treat what they read in newspapers and see on TV as close to the word of God. REREAD the article closely and you will see that my opinion regarding NYC's future population is more than included in the "expert's" possibilities.

New York is slowly dying as an immigrant destination. I have posted numbers to this effect. If the decrease continues at the same pace, New York will be the chosen home of less than 50,000 people per yea by 2025, way below places like Texas and Florida and hardly enough to make up for domestic out-migration. Did the researchers of this report follow this logical thinking or did they conjure up a bunch of b/s scenarios...in order to bolster their own job security????? you be the judge.

The response to my well-thought out and justified opinions, supported by relevant data, has been a lot of wailing and whining, with a good dose of name-calling to boot.

Funny.

Apparently, that old adage about the truth hurting seems to be true.


----------



## krull (Oct 8, 2005)

globill said:


> Ok, I see I am dealing with either linguistically or mathematically challenged folk.
> 
> the 76% means that the number of immigrants settling in New York state in 2002, is 76% of the same group in 1993. 76% off 100% implies a lower number.
> 
> ...



LOL - You are such a joke!

I know what 76% mean! But you said that 80% of that growth of immigrants in the State went to NYC. That is what you said. Not me.

So in other states the growth went up more than the New York State, and I agree. You know like in some cities and suburbs and all. But again I remind you of what you said... 




globill said:


> actually, in terms of immigration, NYC is generally the larger part of NY state. My guess...which is just a guess and not a prediction...
> 
> is that NYC represents at least 80% of NYstate's immigrants.


LOL - there you go! you just said it... NYC got 80%! WOW! that is a big number of growth for just one city!


----------



## krull (Oct 8, 2005)

globill said:


> You remind me of people in unfree countries who treat what they read in newspapers and see on TV as close to the word of God. REREAD the article closely and you will see that my opinion regarding NYC's future population is more than included in the "expert's" possibilities.
> 
> New York is slowly dying as an immigrant destination. I have posted numbers to this effect. If the decrease continues at the same pace, New York will be the chosen home of less than 50,000 people per yea by 2025, way below places like Texas and Florida and hardly enough to make up for domestic out-migration. Did the researchers of this report follow this logical thinking or did they conjure up a bunch of b/s scenarios...in order to bolster their own job security????? you be the judge.
> 
> ...



WHAT!!! 

You are the one that is coming up with ignorant predictions! LOL - You are the one that needs to REREAD the article.

Also why do you keep comparing the *CITY OF NEW YORK * with *STATES*? 

Now I can see how ignorant your study is, 'Mr Expert' in the field.


----------



## mad_nick (May 13, 2004)

Immigrants with NY state as intended residence (from the pdf globill posted)

1995	128406
1996	154095
1997	123716
1998	96559
1999	96979
2000	106061
2001	114116
2002	114827
2003	89661
2004	102390

Hardly any conclusive evidence of declining immigration, it's been pretty stable for the past 8 years.


----------



## BellevueWolverine (Nov 18, 2005)

globill said:


> Actually, countless Asian fmilies, particularly Korean and Chinese, waqnt to have their children live in the states until they are 6 or 7, and fluent in English. Then they bring them back home with a hugely beneficial skill for their future.
> 
> There are countless schools for these returnees in places like Tokyo, Seoul, Hong Kong and Taipei.


 :? :? :? 

"countless asian families, praticularly korean and chinese"??????

i dont know about chinese, but i know for sure thats not the case with koreans. And believe me, I've lived in almost every well concentrated korean city in the US, bayside queens, fort lee, annandale, champagne, san jose, lakewood, cerritos, tacoma, federal way, and now a suburb of seattle with a large number of koreans. haha yup, I moved around a lot. But if you think about the number of asians in queens alone that are part of the 1.5 - 2.0 generation, just think about the baby boom you will have among those asians in the next 5-10 years and I can assure you, they have NO PLANS to move back to korea.

but I can see what you are saying, there probably are a good number of korean families bringing their kids to america and going back, but nothing compared to the amount of korean families that are moving to the states, looking to get citizenships and start businesses, and the asian-american baby boom lol. I'm not surprised the population of asians is projected to jump that much in queens.


----------



## nygirl (Jul 14, 2003)

globill said:


> The response to my well-thought out and justified opinions, supported by relevant data, has been a lot of wailing and whining, with a good dose of name-calling to boot.
> 
> Funny.
> 
> Apparently, that old adage about the truth hurting seems to be true.


What is so relevant about your data? 
Justified how? You basically said in your opinion the city was going to shrink below 8 million in the next 5-10 years....
If this is so why hasn't this this nevvvvvvvvvvver been discussed? 
Isn't the city growing? Right now? What strange force is going to make it shrink below 8 million? 

And to boot, it didn't happen so its only the truth in your little mind.


globill said:


> In fact, I'd be surprised if it remains above 8,000,000.





globill said:


> This trend will, most likely continue, and NYC will most likely begin to shrink rather quickly within 5 to 10 years.
> 
> That's my prediction.





globill said:


> NYC will shrink quite dramatically in the next 2 decades.


Yeah, you wish.

NYC is way too important to come crumbling down in 2 decades. Unless they attack Indian Point.



globill said:


> Mark my word and get back to me in 20 years. New York will not grow as much as this article predicts. I'm sure of it.






globill said:


> But you eagerly accept the false premise that NYC will grow by over 1,000,000 people in the next 2 decades because...???...... it validates your identity as a girl in "the center of the universe". such ptolomeic thinking is one of the more unfortunate aspects of NYC, an otherwise amazing place.


It makes a lot more sense than dramitcally declining. And i am not eager to accept the article either, show me where in this thread i say that what the prediction higher acheivers other than yourself have in mind for the city is going to happen? 

Can you, bet you can't. You know why?

Because it validates your identity as a know it all PRICK with a screen name on the computer. Such thinking gets your ass kicked up and down the street which is one of the fortunate aspects of my beloved New York City. AN OVERALL AMAZING PLACE..

You number living , pencil pushing Loser. Try to put me in my place HELLLL NO , NOT HAPPENING.


----------



## Third of a kind (Jun 20, 2004)

globill said:


> You remind me of people in unfree countries who treat what they read in newspapers and see on TV as close to the word of God. REREAD the article closely and you will see that my opinion regarding NYC's future population is more than included in the "expert's" possibilities.
> 
> New York is slowly dying as an immigrant destination. I have posted numbers to this effect. If the decrease continues at the same pace, New York will be the chosen home of less than 50,000 people per yea by 2025, way below places like Texas and Florida and hardly enough to make up for domestic out-migration. Did the researchers of this report follow this logical thinking or did they conjure up a bunch of b/s scenarios...in order to bolster their own job security????? you be the judge.
> 
> ...


wow..um have you ever been to NY before? maybe you should get around to visiting sometime soon.


----------



## pottebaum (Sep 11, 2004)

Why are you hating, Globill?


----------



## krull (Oct 8, 2005)

^ :| Because he is just full of Sh*t! :toilet: and he keeps on quoting people and trying to make them feel like they are stupid with his 'false expertise'! Go back a few pages and you will see why.


----------



## chicagogeorge (Nov 30, 2004)

nygirl said:


> It makes a lot more sense than dramitcally declining. And i am not eager to accept the article either, show me where in this thread i say that what the prediction higher acheivers other than yourself have in mind for the city is going to happen?
> 
> Can you, bet you can't. You know why?
> 
> ...


*
Damn, I love a fiery girl who doesn't put up with bullshit....*








*That's me, ya whana hook up??* :wave: 
*
In all seriousness, NYC will always be the BIG APPLE......9.4 million by 2020 or 2030 sounds very reasonable.*


----------



## UrbanSophist (Aug 4, 2005)

^ Dude, aren't you married?


----------



## pottebaum (Sep 11, 2004)

^With a son!


----------



## globill (Dec 4, 2005)

pottebaum said:


> Why are you hating, Globill?



Because the truth hurts.

And yes, I have been to New York many times. Love the place, especially Brooklyn.

However, because I actually believe the city is losing its magnetic pull on immigrants, it seems DESTINED to shrink, unless it can begin to attract more domestic migrants.


----------



## globill (Dec 4, 2005)

from City Journal

In fact, New York City has the worst rate of domestic outmigration—that is, the rate of those leaving the city versus those moving here from elsewhere in the United States—of any American city, and studies consistently show that the city trades high-income residents who exit for lower-wage foreign immigrants who settle here, a formula that has helped repeatedly create budget crises in the city, since the top 0.8 percent of taxpayers, some 26,000 households out of more than 3.1 million, pay 41 percent of the tax.

and


From 1995 through 2000, a period of economic growth, 1.37 million New Yorkers left the city, while only 825,904 residents came here from somewhere else in the U.S.: a net loss of 545,269 people. Brooklyn had the biggest drain, down a net 233,555 residents. Yet even Manhattan, the place that New York mythology likes to describe as irresistibly attractive to all the right people, suffered a net loss of more than 57,000 U.S. residents. Only Staten Island, the least hip of the city’s boroughs, wound up on the plus side, attracting 1,470 more U.S. residents than it lost. 

Fears of terrorism, together with a rockier economy, have made the city even more unappealing, according to the Brookings Institute’s preliminary analysis of census data, which suggests that Gotham’s out-migration rate may have sped up since the terror attack.

Not only are people getting out of the city; they’re leaving the state too. New York State suffered the greatest net loss of U.S. residents of any state from 1995 through 2000—down 874,248 people. That outdid the second-biggest loser, California, by more than 100,000 residents. New York and California alone accounted for 55 percent of the net loss of all states that experienced out-migration. Both states’ out-migration rates, moreover, are *accelerating*


----------



## TexasBoi (Jan 7, 2004)

UrbanSophist said:


> ^ Dude, aren't you married?


Damn



> ^With a son!


DAYUM

lol


----------



## nygirl (Jul 14, 2003)

Is there a white sox- Yankees Romance out there somewhere???



Truth..? I am married too. . NO KIDS. Having too much fun without them.


----------



## globill (Dec 4, 2005)

wow....


I just realized I was called a prick for offering an opinion. I suppose NYC still has its provincial charms.


----------



## globill (Dec 4, 2005)

and the fact that NYGirl would call someone a prick on a web forum is proof enough that NYC will most likely lose more residents than it gains over the coming decades, if she is a reflection of the local culture.

Who wants to live with such a classy lass?


----------



## nygirl (Jul 14, 2003)

I think the feeling is predominantly mutual in this particular thread and you're rather snyde attitude is as equally unpleasant as my foul terminology.

In otherwords there is absolutely no good coming out of this thread anymore, unfortunately. We get the article, we had some rather ridiculous debate, a nice dose of antagonism a pinch of trolling , and i apologize if anyone else was offended by ""***! Profanity !***"" 
Good time to 

:lock: :lock:

PEACE MAN, PEACE. :cheers:


----------



## globill (Dec 4, 2005)

peace back at ya.....


just learn to not use name-calling......

please.

you don' have kids .....yet....

but hopefully when you do....

you will teach your kids not to call those that have differing opinions with names such as loser or prick.


----------



## pottebaum (Sep 11, 2004)

The Census Bureau underestimates New York's population growth every year before the official census. It's just the way it is;;; it's in no way a decent argument piece.


----------



## Xusein (Sep 27, 2005)

pottebaum said:


> The Census Bureau underestimates New York's population growth every year before the official census. It's just the way it is;;; it's in no way a decent argument piece.



Hell yes, if there's any place where the census underestimates, its New York City and State.


----------



## Jules (Jun 27, 2004)

^And Chicago. :mad2:


----------



## DonQui (Jan 10, 2005)

I think that Globill must have gotten his tuchus beat badly by a New Yorker. 

:lol:

We have successfully challenged the Census Bureau before, and we will do so again.


----------



## krull (Oct 8, 2005)

globill said:


> and krull.
> 
> note that the article is from the New York Times


Dont make a fool of your self by posting halfass articles globill. I though you were smarter than that. The Newyorktimes article seems to be contradicting those findings by the Census. (Like someone else suggested read the whole article.) :|


----------



## globill (Dec 4, 2005)

I posted the article because it highlighted what I was saying before, that immigration to New York is beginning to fall off. 

And it is my opinion (yes, some of us develop our OWN opinions) that this trend will accelerate. 

We can revisit this issue in a few years time.


----------



## krull (Oct 8, 2005)

^ Yes we will see what happens in a few years... Maybe a catastrophic event will happen that will stop immigration or the USA becomes more strict about letting immigrants live in cities... but in the meantime you are wrong to say that NYC keeps on loosing population, considering the article on page 1.


----------



## chicagogeorge (Nov 30, 2004)

globill said:


> I posted the article because it highlighted what I was saying before, that immigration to New York is beginning to fall off.
> 
> And it is my opinion (yes, some of us develop our OWN opinions) that this trend will accelerate.
> 
> We can revisit this issue in a few years time.


to the contrary, international migration patterns have been quite consistant over the last 30 years. What has accelarated during this time period is the domestic outward migration. 

As a sidenote, California is now seeing increased domestic outward migration similar to NY state.


----------



## globill (Dec 4, 2005)

Sorry George, but that is incorrect. There has been a very historic shift in US immigration towards newer ports of entry. I'm not going to rehash all the numbers, but both the Midwest and South are attracting more immigrant arrivals yearly than New York State. That is a major change from previous patterns.


----------



## DonQui (Jan 10, 2005)

globill said:


> Sorry George, but that is incorrect. There has been a very historic shift in US immigration towards newer ports of entry. I'm not going to rehash all the numbers, but both the Midwest and South are attracting more immigrant arrivals yearly than New York State. That is a major change from previous patterns.


The Rust Belt phenomenon (responsible for most northern migration towards the Sub Belt) is primarily a Midwestern demographic one.


----------



## Xusein (Sep 27, 2005)

globill said:


> Sorry George, but that is incorrect. There has been a very historic shift in US immigration towards newer ports of entry. I'm not going to rehash all the numbers, but both the Midwest and South are attracting more immigrant arrivals yearly than New York State. That is a major change from previous patterns.



Where exactly in the Midwest or South is attracting more immigrants than NY?


----------



## globill (Dec 4, 2005)

since you asked politely.....

I'll refer you back in to this aged thread......

page 3

Immigrant arrivals by region 1994, in the middle of NYC's boom decade
South 110,312
Midwest 80,741
NY 128,406

2004
South 144,723
Midwest 114,223
NY 102390


----------



## globill (Dec 4, 2005)

The trend is well established, and I predict (yes, me, my thoughts, conclusions and experiences on 3 continents) will only accelerate over the coming decades.

Traditional port-of-entry cities like NYC and Chicago will likely lose population while maintaining increasing vibrancy. Moreover, I predict that within maybe 10 years ??? or less, both cities will begin to see increases in domestic white, and possibbly black populations, as immigrants are priced out of increasingly expensive, desirable and safe urban living options. Manhattan and Chicago's northside are already experiencing this.


----------



## krull (Oct 8, 2005)

^ Here we go again with the New York State thing. :|

I guess you like comparing the NY state with big USA regions (Such as the South or Midwest)... and for some reason that makes you believe that NYC is loosing population. 

What I really get from those numbers is that the USA has been gaining more immigrants in 2004 than in 1994. So they are going all over the place. I still don't see any prove yet that NYC is loosing population from these numbers at all.


----------



## globill (Dec 4, 2005)

Oh Krull, nice to chat again, glad you refrained from name-calling this time.

If you bother to reread my last post, I believe both my hometown (chicago) and New York are in the same boat.

Basically they are becoming such desirable and expensive places to live that they will both likely lose population, while at the same time increase certain aspects of their vibrancy. 

Chicago has more vacant land on which to build decent affordable housing though.

I don't think NYC will cease being an increasingly healthy and attractive city, as it has done over the last decade or so, I just don't think it's population will grow.

These 2 ideas are not mutually exclusive you know.


----------



## krull (Oct 8, 2005)

^ Ok think whatever, but I still believe that the story on page 1 is more accurate in conclusion than anyone elses predictions. Including mine and yours.


----------



## centreoftheuniverse (Nov 16, 2005)

globill said:


> The trend is well established, and I predict (yes, me, my thoughts, conclusions and experiences on 3 continents) will only accelerate over the coming decades.
> 
> Traditional port-of-entry cities like NYC and Chicago will likely lose population while maintaining increasing vibrancy. Moreover, I predict that within maybe 10 years ??? or less, both cities will begin to see increases in domestic white, and possibbly black populations, as immigrants are priced out of increasingly expensive, desirable and safe urban living options. Manhattan and Chicago's northside are already experiencing this.


:yawn: What you just described in a whole paragraph is what they call, get ready for this: GENTRIFICATION. Hardly anything new. And for this you went to school for 6 years? I could have told you that and all I have is a crummy G.E.D.


----------



## UrbanSophist (Aug 4, 2005)

Well, the word "gentrification" was probably coined by someone who completed a lot of grad school. 

To New Yorkers:

It's not a terrible thing if your city were to lose population. As long as the centre becomes more and more vibrant, the city will be increasingly healthy. Population is far from being the end-all-be-all indicator of how well a city is doing.


----------



## DonQui (Jan 10, 2005)

UrbanSophist said:


> Well, the word "gentrification" was probably coined by someone who completed a lot of grad school.
> 
> To New Yorkers:
> 
> It's not a terrible thing if your city were to lose population. As long as the centre becomes more and more vibrant, the city will be increasingly healthy. Population is far from being the end-all-be-all indicator of how well a city is doing.


But the city AND the metropolitan area are continuing to add population.

This is just another way that the federal governmen is f*cking the city. First they take our money, now, they try to undercount our population to rob us out of federal funding that is in part taken from our pockets already.

It is like a mugger who takes my wallet and then comes back for the sneakers.

STATES RIGHTS ALREADY!!!!

*ends rant*


----------



## centreoftheuniverse (Nov 16, 2005)

globill said:


> some boring stats
> 
> Immigrant arrivals by region 1994, in the middle of NYC's boom decade
> South 110,312
> ...


globill, your claims are contradictory and mostly erroneous but at least they provide good entertaining material for the rest of us.

First, to address the data you provided above. That just shows that there are more immigrants (mostly Mexicans) that have moved into those regions because of the higher demand for low-skill, low-pay workers there.

This is not a guess, but a well-known fact that has been well documented. These are the types of immigrants that would have gone to the traditional entry cities like NY, thus explaining the dropoff from '94 to '04.

But that, in no way means that immigration will continue to decrease until it reaches zero to where NY's population will shrink.

In fact, here is where you are starting to lose the true picture. You claim this:


> This trend will, most likely continue, and NYC will most likely begin to shrink rather quickly within 5 to 10 years


But have you ever considered that not EVERY person that immigrates into this country are dirt poor and just looking for low wage jobs?

Immigrants that are well-educated and looking for well-paying jobs will not be moving to meat processing towns in Nebraska or assembly plants in Tennessee.

Surprise! Some might even want only to go to NY. How unbelievable is that!?
And as for your claim that NY will not only grow but shrink, your argument couldn't be more absurd.

NYC is one of the most desirable places to live in the world thus explaining for the high cost of living. The only way NYC will shrink is if that desirability is gone but there isn't anything that drastic in the foreseeable future to indicate that.

I think a good analogy to NYC's population situation is that of empty seats in a crowded subway. When someone gets up to leave, it will quickly be taken up by someone else. Thus, it will be very difficult for NYC to lose population.

And with so much residential construction in the city right now with more planned, I believe the city will easily achieve those projections in the original article. The real question is will NY gain even more than those conservative projections. It can if they allow more housing construction. Btw globill, NY still has plenty of developable land left, yes, even in Manhattan.

Lastly, I should remind you that I don't have a master's from some mystery university like you do. All I have is a humble G.E.D. :bowtie:


----------



## krull (Oct 8, 2005)

centreoftheuniverse said:


> globill said:
> 
> 
> > some boring stats
> ...


I agree.



centreoftheuniverse said:


> Lastly, I should remind you that I don't have a master's from some mystery university like you do. All I have is a humble G.E.D. :bowtie:


And you analize things like an expert. :cheers:


----------



## Xusein (Sep 27, 2005)

globill said:


> since you asked politely.....
> 
> I'll refer you back in to this aged thread......
> 
> ...


Those are some interesting numbers, hopefully NY can counter this by attracting more people that live in America.


----------



## krull (Oct 8, 2005)

^ There is no need to attract people who live in America. NYC keeps attracting immigrants. Check the article on page 1.


----------



## Xusein (Sep 27, 2005)

krull said:


> ^ There is no need to attract people who live in America. NYC keeps attracting immigrants. Check the article on page 1.


Yeah, but wouldn't NYC benefit more citizens also?


----------



## krull (Oct 8, 2005)

^ Lots of those immigrants will become citizens anyway. Besides Manhattan is just getting full of them, while the immigrants are moving where the citizens are leaving (like on the areas farther of manhattan in NYC.)


----------



## globill (Dec 4, 2005)

got another article for ya krull

Census Shows Sunbelt Grows More Than City

By RUSSELL BERMAN - Staff Reporter of the Sun
March 16, 2006

The city's population is growing at a slower rate than that of urban centers in the nation's booming Sunbelt, but the Big Apple is outpacing its historical rivals in the Northeast and Midwest, data released yesterday by the Census Bureau show.

The five counties that comprise New York City grew by about 1.65% between 2000 and 2005 and stand at about 8.16 million people, according to the bureau's estimates. While New York beat out counties serving cities such as Philadelphia and Chicago, which showed declines, the five boroughs lagged well behind hot spots in the South and West, including Los Angeles, Phoenix, Houston, and Miami.

The data further show that New York's population declined slightly between 2004 and 2005 and that immigration was lower than the five-year average, a drop-off the city is disputing.

Analysts point to a variety of factors to explain the city's growth rate. A steady flow of immigrants has kept New York ahead of other Northeast cities, while steep housing costs may keep the city from further growth.

New York has long relied on an influx of foreign immigrants to replenish losses caused by the departure of native-born residents. Long-range population trends are notoriously difficult to predict, but signs that immigration to the city may be slowing are a concern for future growth, urban studies and population scholars said.

"The trend is definitely slowing down and possibly plateauing, but where it is going it's too early to say," a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, E.J. McMahon, said of the city's population. "The thing that's pulling it down is a slowdown in immigration, as well as real estate and housing costs."

A fellow at the Center for an Urban Future, Joel Kotkin, said immigration patterns are becoming more dispersed across America. "What I do sense is that immigrants are getting smart about America and are realizing that there are a lot of other places to go besides Los Angeles and New York," he said.

Any drop in the city's population would appear to cast doubt on the city's preparations for a major population boom in the coming decades. Over the last several years, the Census Bureau's release of a county-by-county population estimate has prompted an annual clash between the federal agency and administration officials who argue that the bureau consistently shortchanges the city's population. The city contends that the bureau's methodology does not take into account new housing construction, which is the basis for the administration's calculations.


----------



## polako (Apr 7, 2005)

People keep on arguing about the immigration levels to NYC, but the fact is that the city will never receive less than 75,000 immigrants per year. It hasn't done so since the late 60's. Net domestic outmigration will decrease with the improving economy(the city has created 86,000 jobs in 05 and 53,000 in 04 respectively). I predict that the city will add at least 500,000 people by 2010 but the growth will be spread out more evenly among the boroughs than during the 90's.


----------



## DonQui (Jan 10, 2005)

globill said:


> got another article for ya krull
> 
> Census Shows Sunbelt Grows More Than City
> 
> ...


Lol, troll alert.

:lol:


----------



## nygirl (Jul 14, 2003)

he's got effort in him though. Sad because its only the internet. But hey. Pity the pathetic.


----------



## krull (Oct 8, 2005)

globill said:


> got another article for ya krull



Yeah well I got an article on page 1 for you. :cheers: 

Anyway if that artilce holds true... then it is *just a slowdown on immigration not a decline in population*... like you keep predicting that it will happen by the year 2025.


----------



## sargeantcm (Mar 15, 2005)

globill said:


> ...NYC will shrink quite dramatically in the next 2 decades.


I'm not into sacrificial lambs or anything, but maybe that's what NYS needs to get it's act together. Pretty sad it might have to come to that. As if the 50 year rot of it's economical, political, and industrial bases hasn't been enough of an insult.


----------



## globill (Dec 4, 2005)

nygirl said:


> he's got effort in him though. Sad because its only the internet. But hey. Pity the pathetic.



What's pathetic lil girl is that I said the exact same things leading urban thinkers arfe now saying, I showed you the numbers, and was attacked vociferously for stating both facts (immigration to New York is falling) and my opinions.

Who's the pathetic troll in all of this?

The award goes to you. Congrats.


----------



## DonQui (Jan 10, 2005)

globill said:


> What's pathetic lil girl is that I said the exact same things leading urban thinkers arfe now saying, I showed you the numbers, and was attacked vociferously for stating both facts (immigration to New York is falling) and my opinions.
> 
> Who's the pathetic troll in all of this?
> 
> The award goes to you. Congrats.


You are calling other people troll?

:rofl:

That's rich. :lol:

Why don't you fix the broken Midwest and leave us with our "problems," k?


----------



## chicagogeorge (Nov 30, 2004)

As long as there are jobs and affordable housing, NYC will continue to grow.


----------



## globill (Dec 4, 2005)

DonQui said:


> You are calling other people troll?
> 
> :rofl:
> 
> ...



Broken Midwest???? From 2000-2005 18 of the fastest-growing US counties were in the Midwest and all of one was in the Northeast. 

The Midwest is growing well faster than your corner of the country, 

Oh, but let's wait until 2025 when NYC will have 9.4 gazillion people, right?


----------



## DonQui (Jan 10, 2005)

globill said:


> Broken Midwest???? From 2000-2005 18 of the fastest-growing US counties were in the Midwest and all of one was in the Northeast.
> 
> The Midwest is growing well faster than your corner of the country, never has it been such a small percentage of the nation.....never......and again and again, day after day.
> 
> ...


:blahblah:


----------



## krull (Oct 8, 2005)

globill said:


> Oh, but let's wait until 2025 when NYC will have 9.4 gazillion people, right?


YES! :cheers:


----------



## polako (Apr 7, 2005)

globill said:


> Broken Midwest???? From 2000-2005 18 of the fastest-growing US counties were in the Midwest and all of one was in the Northeast.
> 
> The Midwest is growing well faster than your corner of the country,
> 
> Oh, but let's wait until 2025 when NYC will have 9.4 gazillion people, right?


So what if it's growing faster percentage-wise. Northeast is the smallest region and it always has been the slowest growing region, but it has added millions of people. NYC and its Metro has been the center of that growth and always will be. Raw growth is all that matters.


----------



## nygirl (Jul 14, 2003)

globill said:


> What's pathetic lil girl is that I said the exact same things leading urban thinkers arfe now saying, I showed you the numbers, and was attacked vociferously for stating both facts (immigration to New York is falling) and my opinions.
> 
> Who's the pathetic troll in all of this?
> 
> The award goes to you. Congrats.



No wait... this is money... lol. Whats pathetic is u have a pair of digital balls.
Urban thinkers? WTF? lol your a joke. 
You showed me numbers? You showed me how lame you could be with your thumbs and a keyboard. Thats about it. You really think your something special eh?
You were "attacked" vociferously because people don't like you. That's why. Nothing more. Earth to globill. Keep floating them, i'll keep spiking them.


----------



## globill (Dec 4, 2005)

Well, at least you are postive about living in a city that is set to start shrinking quickly any day now. 

Enjoy the fantasy of living in the center of the universe....the shrinking center.....


I was attacked vociferously because people in your fair burg can't stand to think that it is starting to lose population. NYC is the only city that goes crying to the census every year begging for more money.....Chicago shrugs its shoulders and says...we'll wait until the next census.

Chicago has the same housing boom going on as NYC, but you don't see our planners claiming the city will grow prodigiously over the next 20 years.


----------



## koolkid (Apr 17, 2006)

Who cares anyways? I seriously wouldn't want to have so many more people living here, it's already damn crowded. More people isn't always a good thing.


----------



## l'eau (Jul 7, 2008)

funniest new ever:rofl:it's impossible.


----------



## stewartrama (Jun 12, 2008)

City_of_Fury said:


> ONLY 9.4M? NEW YORK IS NOT THE BIG APPLE THAT WAS BEFORE...


the metro area has 21 million


----------



## Don Omar (Aug 10, 2006)

NYCboy1212 said:


> we should take jerseycity


i agree


----------



## Homer J. Simpson (Dec 2, 2003)

^Dumb question....

What would that make the cities Population and area if it was to be included?


----------

