This statistic shows the top 25 cities in the United States with the highest resident population as of July 1, 2022. There were about 8.34 million people living in New York City as of July 2022.

Of the most populous cities in the U.S., San Jose, California had the highest annual income requirement at ******* U.S. dollars annually for homeowners to have an affordable and comfortable life in 2024. This can be compared to Houston, Texas, where homeowners needed an annual income of ****** U.S. dollars in 2024.

All cities with a population > 1000 or seats of adm div (ca 80.000)Sources and ContributionsSources : GeoNames is aggregating over hundred different data sources. Ambassadors : GeoNames Ambassadors help in many countries. Wiki : A wiki allows to view the data and quickly fix error and add missing places. Donations and Sponsoring : Costs for running GeoNames are covered by donations and sponsoring.Enrichment:add country name

This is the complete dataset for the 500 Cities project 2019 release. This dataset includes 2017, 2016 model-based small area estimates for 27 measures of chronic disease related to unhealthy behaviors (5), health outcomes (13), and use of preventive services (9). Data were provided by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Division of Population Health, Epidemiology and Surveillance Branch. The project was funded by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF) in conjunction with the CDC Foundation. It represents a first-of-its kind effort to release information on a large scale for cities and for small areas within those cities. It includes estimates for the 500 largest US cities and approximately 28,000 census tracts within these cities. These estimates can be used to identify emerging health problems and to inform development and implementation of effective, targeted public health prevention activities. Because the small area model cannot detect effects due to local interventions, users are cautioned against using these estimates for program or policy evaluations. Data sources used to generate these measures include Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) data (2017, 2016), Census Bureau 2010 census population data, and American Community Survey (ACS) 2013-2017, 2012-2016 estimates. Because some questions are only asked every other year in the BRFSS, there are 7 measures (all teeth lost, dental visits, mammograms, pap tests, colorectal cancer screening, core preventive services among older adults, and sleep less than 7 hours) from the 2016 BRFSS that are the same in the 2019 release as the previous 2018 release. More information about the methodology can be found at www.cdc.gov/500cities.

This dataset contains information about the demographics of all US cities and census-designated places with a population greater or equal to 65,000. This data comes from the US Census Bureau's 2015 American Community Survey. This product uses the Census Bureau Data API but is not endorsed or certified by the Census Bureau.

This is the complete dataset for the 500 Cities project 2016 release. This dataset includes 2013, 2014 model-based small area estimates for 27 measures of chronic disease related to unhealthy behaviors (5), health outcomes (13), and use of preventive services (9). Data were provided by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Division of Population Health, Epidemiology and Surveillance Branch. The project was funded by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF) in conjunction with the CDC Foundation. It represents a first-of-its kind effort to release information on a large scale for cities and for small areas within those cities. It includes estimates for the 500 largest US cities and approximately 28,000 census tracts within these cities. These estimates can be used to identify emerging health problems and to inform development and implementation of effective, targeted public health prevention activities. Because the small area model cannot detect effects due to local interventions, users are cautioned against using these estimates for program or policy evaluations. Data sources used to generate these measures include Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) data (2013, 2014), Census Bureau 2010 census population data, and American Community Survey (ACS) 2009-2013, 2010-2014 estimates. More information about the methodology can be found at www.cdc.gov/500cities. Note: During the process of uploading the 2015 estimates, CDC found a data discrepancy in the published 500 Cities data for the 2014 city-level obesity crude prevalence estimates caused when reformatting the SAS data file to the open data format. . The small area estimation model and code were correct. This data discrepancy only affected the 2014 city-level obesity crude prevalence estimates on the Socrata open data file, the GIS-friendly data file, and the 500 Cities online application. The other obesity estimates (city-level age-adjusted and tract-level) and the Mapbooks were not affected. No other measures were affected. The correct estimates are update in this dataset on October 25, 2017.

A dataset listing Georgia cities by population for 2024.

About this dataset

Context

This list ranks the 4 cities in the Dunn County, ND by White population, as estimated by the United States Census Bureau. It also highlights population changes in each cities over the past five years.

Content

When available, the data consists of estimates from the U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey (ACS) 5-Year Estimates, including:

• 2019-2023 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates
• 2018-2022 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates
• 2017-2021 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates
• 2016-2020 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates
• 2015-2019 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates

Variables / Data Columns

• Rank by White Population: This column displays the rank of cities in the Dunn County, ND by their White population, using the most recent ACS data available.
• cities: The cities for which the rank is shown in the previous column.
• White Population: The White population of the cities is shown in this column.
• % of Total cities Population: This shows what percentage of the total cities population identifies as White. Please note that the sum of all percentages may not equal one due to rounding of values.
• % of Total Dunn County White Population: This tells us how much of the entire Dunn County, ND White population lives in that cities. Please note that the sum of all percentages may not equal one due to rounding of values.
• 5 Year Rank Trend: TThis column displays the rank trend across the last 5 years.

Good to know

Margin of Error

Data in the dataset are based on the estimates and are subject to sampling variability and thus a margin of error. Neilsberg Research recommends using caution when presening these estimates in your research.

Custom data

If you do need custom data for any of your research project, report or presentation, you can contact our research staff at research@neilsberg.com for a feasibility of a custom tabulation on a fee-for-service basis.

Inspiration

Neilsberg Research Team curates, analyze and publishes demographics and economic data from a variety of public and proprietary sources, each of which often includes multiple surveys and programs. The large majority of Neilsberg Research aggregated datasets and insights is made available for free download at https://www.neilsberg.com/research/.

A dataset listing New York cities by population for 2024.

This is the complete dataset for the 500 Cities project 2017 release. This dataset includes 2015, 2014 model-based small area estimates for 27 measures of chronic disease related to unhealthy behaviors (5), health outcomes (13), and use of preventive services (9). Data were provided by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Division of Population Health, Epidemiology and Surveillance Branch. The project was funded by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF) in conjunction with the CDC Foundation. It represents a first-of-its kind effort to release information on a large scale for cities and for small areas within those cities. It includes estimates for the 500 largest US cities and approximately 28,000 census tracts within these cities. These estimates can be used to identify emerging health problems and to inform development and implementation of effective, targeted public health prevention activities. Because the small area model cannot detect effects due to local interventions, users are cautioned against using these estimates for program or policy evaluations. Data sources used to generate these measures include Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) data (2015, 2014), Census Bureau 2010 census population data, and American Community Survey (ACS) 2011-2015, 2010-2014 estimates. Because some questions are only asked every other year in the BRFSS, there are 7 measures from the 2014 BRFSS that are the same in the 2017 release as the previous 2016 release. More information about the methodology can be found at www.cdc.gov/500cities.

Sustainable cities depend on urban forests. City trees -- a pillar of urban forests -- improve our health, clean the air, store CO2, and cool local temperatures. Comparatively less is known about urban forests as ecosystems, particularly their spatial composition, nativity statuses, biodiversity, and tree health. Here, we assembled and standardized a new dataset of N=5,660,237 trees from 63 of the largest US cities. The data comes from tree inventories conducted at the level of cities and/or neighborhoods. Each data sheet includes detailed information on tree location, species, nativity status (whether a tree species is naturally occurring or introduced), health, size, whether it is in a park or urban area, and more (comprising 28 standardized columns per datasheet). This dataset could be analyzed in combination with citizen-science datasets on bird, insect, or plant biodiversity; social and demographic data; or data on the physical environment. Urban forests offer a rare opportunity to intentionally design biodiverse, heterogenous, rich ecosystems. Methods See eLife manuscript for full details. Below, we provide a summary of how the dataset was collected and processed.

Data Acquisition We limited our search to the 150 largest cities in the USA (by census population). To acquire raw data on street tree communities, we used a search protocol on both Google and Google Datasets Search (https://datasetsearch.research.google.com/). We first searched the city name plus each of the following: street trees, city trees, tree inventory, urban forest, and urban canopy (all combinations totaled 20 searches per city, 10 each in Google and Google Datasets Search). We then read the first page of google results and the top 20 results from Google Datasets Search. If the same named city in the wrong state appeared in the results, we redid the 20 searches adding the state name. If no data were found, we contacted a relevant state official via email or phone with an inquiry about their street tree inventory. Datasheets were received and transformed to .csv format (if they were not already in that format). We received data on street trees from 64 cities. One city, El Paso, had data only in summary format and was therefore excluded from analyses.

Data Cleaning All code used is in the zipped folder Data S5 in the eLife publication. Before cleaning the data, we ensured that all reported trees for each city were located within the greater metropolitan area of the city (for certain inventories, many suburbs were reported - some within the greater metropolitan area, others not). First, we renamed all columns in the received .csv sheets, referring to the metadata and according to our standardized definitions (Table S4). To harmonize tree health and condition data across different cities, we inspected metadata from the tree inventories and converted all numeric scores to a descriptive scale including “excellent,” “good”, “fair”, “poor”, “dead”, and “dead/dying”. Some cities included only three points on this scale (e.g., “good”, “poor”, “dead/dying”) while others included five (e.g., “excellent,” “good”, “fair”, “poor”, “dead”). Second, we used pandas in Python (W. McKinney & Others, 2011) to correct typos, non-ASCII characters, variable spellings, date format, units used (we converted all units to metric), address issues, and common name format. In some cases, units were not specified for tree diameter at breast height (DBH) and tree height; we determined the units based on typical sizes for trees of a particular species. Wherever diameter was reported, we assumed it was DBH. We standardized health and condition data across cities, preserving the highest granularity available for each city. For our analysis, we converted this variable to a binary (see section Condition and Health). We created a column called “location_type” to label whether a given tree was growing in the built environment or in green space. All of the changes we made, and decision points, are preserved in Data S9. Third, we checked the scientific names reported using gnr_resolve in the R library taxize (Chamberlain & Szöcs, 2013), with the option Best_match_only set to TRUE (Data S9). Through an iterative process, we manually checked the results and corrected typos in the scientific names until all names were either a perfect match (n=1771 species) or partial match with threshold greater than 0.75 (n=453 species). BGS manually reviewed all partial matches to ensure that they were the correct species name, and then we programmatically corrected these partial matches (for example, Magnolia grandifolia-- which is not a species name of a known tree-- was corrected to Magnolia grandiflora, and Pheonix canariensus was corrected to its proper spelling of Phoenix canariensis). Because many of these tree inventories were crowd-sourced or generated in part through citizen science, such typos and misspellings are to be expected. Some tree inventories reported species by common names only. Therefore, our fourth step in data cleaning was to convert common names to scientific names. We generated a lookup table by summarizing all pairings of common and scientific names in the inventories for which both were reported. We manually reviewed the common to scientific name pairings, confirming that all were correct. Then we programmatically assigned scientific names to all common names (Data S9). Fifth, we assigned native status to each tree through reference to the Biota of North America Project (Kartesz, 2018), which has collected data on all native and non-native species occurrences throughout the US states. Specifically, we determined whether each tree species in a given city was native to that state, not native to that state, or that we did not have enough information to determine nativity (for cases where only the genus was known). Sixth, some cities reported only the street address but not latitude and longitude. For these cities, we used the OpenCageGeocoder (https://opencagedata.com/) to convert addresses to latitude and longitude coordinates (Data S9). OpenCageGeocoder leverages open data and is used by many academic institutions (see https://opencagedata.com/solutions/academia). Seventh, we trimmed each city dataset to include only the standardized columns we identified in Table S4. After each stage of data cleaning, we performed manual spot checking to identify any issues.

A dataset listing Maine cities by population for 2024.

A dataset listing New Mexico cities by population for 2024.

This is the complete dataset for the 500 Cities project 2018 release. This dataset includes 2016, 2015 model-based small area estimates for 27 measures of chronic disease related to unhealthy behaviors (5), health outcomes (13), and use of preventive services (9). Data were provided by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Division of Population Health, Epidemiology and Surveillance Branch. The project was funded by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF) in conjunction with the CDC Foundation. It represents a first-of-its kind effort to release information on a large scale for cities and for small areas within those cities. It includes estimates for the 500 largest US cities and approximately 28,000 census tracts within these cities. These estimates can be used to identify emerging health problems and to inform development and implementation of effective, targeted public health prevention activities. Because the small area model cannot detect effects due to local interventions, users are cautioned against using these estimates for program or policy evaluations. Data sources used to generate these measures include Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) data (2016, 2015), Census Bureau 2010 census population data, and American Community Survey (ACS) 2012-2016, 2011-2015 estimates. Because some questions are only asked every other year in the BRFSS, there are 4 measures (high blood pressure, taking high blood pressure medication, high cholesterol, cholesterol screening) from the 2015 BRFSS that are the same in the 2018 release as the previous 2017 release. More information about the methodology can be found at www.cdc.gov/500cities.

A dataset listing Colorado cities by population for 2024.

How many incorporated places are registered in the U.S.?

There were 19,502 incorporated places registered in the United States as of July 31, 2019. 16,410 had a population under 10,000 while, in contrast, only 10 cities had a population of one million or more.

Small-town America

Suffice it to say, almost nothing is more idealized in the American imagination than small-town America. When asked where they would prefer to live, 30 percent of Americans reported that they would prefer to live in a small town. Americans tend to prefer small-town living due to a perceived slower pace of life, close-knit communities, and a more affordable cost of living when compared to large cities.

An increasing population

Despite a preference for small-town life, metropolitan areas in the U.S. still see high population figures, with the New York, Los Angeles, and Chicago metro areas being the most populous in the country. Metro and state populations are projected to increase by 2040, so while some may move to small towns to escape city living, those small towns may become more crowded in the upcoming decades.

As of 2024, Seattle was rated the best prepared city in the United States for a smart city future, with an index score of ****. Miami and Austin followed, with **** and ****, respectively. All the top three cities ranked best in their connectivity and infrastructure preparedness.

VITAL SIGNS INDICATOR Population (LU1)

FULL MEASURE NAME Population estimates

LAST UPDATED October 2019

DESCRIPTION Population is a measurement of the number of residents that live in a given geographical area, be it a neighborhood, city, county or region.

DATA SOURCES U.S Census Bureau: Decennial Census No link available (1960-1990) http://factfinder.census.gov (2000-2010)

California Department of Finance: Population and Housing Estimates Table E-6: County Population Estimates (1961-1969) Table E-4: Population Estimates for Counties and State (1971-1989) Table E-8: Historical Population and Housing Estimates (2001-2018) Table E-5: Population and Housing Estimates (2011-2019) http://www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/Estimates/

U.S. Census Bureau: Decennial Census - via Longitudinal Tract Database Spatial Structures in the Social Sciences, Brown University Population Estimates (1970 - 2010) http://www.s4.brown.edu/us2010/index.htm

U.S. Census Bureau: American Community Survey 5-Year Population Estimates (2011-2017) http://factfinder.census.gov

U.S. Census Bureau: Intercensal Estimates Estimates of the Intercensal Population of Counties (1970-1979) Intercensal Estimates of the Resident Population (1980-1989) Population Estimates (1990-1999) Annual Estimates of the Population (2000-2009) Annual Estimates of the Population (2010-2017) No link available (1970-1989) http://www.census.gov/popest/data/metro/totals/1990s/tables/MA-99-03b.txt http://www.census.gov/popest/data/historical/2000s/vintage_2009/metro.html https://www.census.gov/data/datasets/time-series/demo/popest/2010s-total-metro-and-micro-statistical-areas.html

CONTACT INFORMATION vitalsigns.info@bayareametro.gov

METHODOLOGY NOTES (across all datasets for this indicator) All legal boundaries and names for Census geography (metropolitan statistical area, county, city, and tract) are as of January 1, 2010, released beginning November 30, 2010, by the U.S. Census Bureau. A Priority Development Area (PDA) is a locally-designated area with frequent transit service, where a jurisdiction has decided to concentrate most of its housing and jobs growth for development in the foreseeable future. PDA boundaries are current as of August 2019. For more information on PDA designation see http://gis.abag.ca.gov/website/PDAShowcase/.

Population estimates for Bay Area counties and cities are from the California Department of Finance, which are as of January 1st of each year. Population estimates for non-Bay Area regions are from the U.S. Census Bureau. Decennial Census years reflect population as of April 1st of each year whereas population estimates for intercensal estimates are as of July 1st of each year. Population estimates for Bay Area tracts are from the decennial Census (1970 -2010) and the American Community Survey (2008-2012 5-year rolling average; 2010-2014 5-year rolling average; 2013-2017 5-year rolling average). Estimates of population density for tracts use gross acres as the denominator.

Population estimates for Bay Area PDAs are from the decennial Census (1970 - 2010) and the American Community Survey (2006-2010 5 year rolling average; 2010-2014 5-year rolling average; 2013-2017 5-year rolling average). Population estimates for PDAs are derived from Census population counts at the tract level for 1970-1990 and at the block group level for 2000-2017. Population from either tracts or block groups are allocated to a PDA using an area ratio. For example, if a quarter of a Census block group lies with in a PDA, a quarter of its population will be allocated to that PDA. Tract-to-PDA and block group-to-PDA area ratios are calculated using gross acres. Estimates of population density for PDAs use gross acres as the denominator.

Annual population estimates for metropolitan areas outside the Bay Area are from the Census and are benchmarked to each decennial Census. The annual estimates in the 1990s were not updated to match the 2000 benchmark.

The following is a list of cities and towns by geographical area: Big Three: San Jose, San Francisco, Oakland Bayside: Alameda, Albany, Atherton, Belmont, Belvedere, Berkeley, Brisbane, Burlingame, Campbell, Colma, Corte Madera, Cupertino, Daly City, East Palo Alto, El Cerrito, Emeryville, Fairfax, Foster City, Fremont, Hayward, Hercules, Hillsborough, Larkspur, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Los Gatos, Menlo Park, Mill Valley, Millbrae, Milpitas, Monte Sereno, Mountain View, Newark, Pacifica, Palo Alto, Piedmont, Pinole, Portola Valley, Redwood City, Richmond, Ross, San Anselmo, San Bruno, San Carlos, San Leandro, San Mateo, San Pablo, San Rafael, Santa Clara, Saratoga, Sausalito, South San Francisco, Sunnyvale, Tiburon, Union City, Vallejo, Woodside Inland, Delta and Coastal: American Canyon, Antioch, Benicia, Brentwood, Calistoga, Clayton, Cloverdale, Concord, Cotati, Danville, Dixon, Dublin, Fairfield, Gilroy, Half Moon Bay, Healdsburg, Lafayette, Livermore, Martinez, Moraga, Morgan Hill, Napa, Novato, Oakley, Orinda, Petaluma, Pittsburg, Pleasant Hill, Pleasanton, Rio Vista, Rohnert Park, San Ramon, Santa Rosa, Sebastopol, Sonoma, St. Helena, Suisun City, Vacaville, Walnut Creek, Windsor, Yountville Unincorporated: all unincorporated towns

This data set contains count data on domestic violence homicide and intimate partner homicide incidents from the 2015 the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Supplemental Homicide Report (SHR) and population from the SHR.

These maps show changes in the number of heat waves per year (frequency); the average length of heat waves in days (duration); the number of days between the first and last heat wave of the year (season length); and how hot the heat waves were, compared with the local temperature threshold for defining a heat wave (intensity). These data were analyzed from 1961 to 2023 for 50 large metropolitan areas. The size of each circle indicates the rate of change per decade. Solid-color circles represent cities where the trend was statistically significant. For more information: www.epa.gov/climate-indicators