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.

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.

The purpose of this data package is to offer demographic data for U.S. cities. The data sources are multiple, the most important one being the U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey. In this case, the data was organized by the Big Cities Health Coalition (BCHC). Others are the New York City Department of City Planning and Department of Parks and Recreation, data being available through the NYC Open Data.

This layer is a component of Transborder.

Geospatial data about US Cities and Towns (Local). Export to CAD, GIS, PDF, CSV and access via API.

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.

This data set includes cities in the United States, Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. These cities were collected from the 1970 National Atlas of the United States. Where applicable, U.S. Census Bureau codes for named populated places were associated with each name to allow additional information to be attached. The Geographic Names Information System (GNIS) was also used as a source for additional information. This is a revised version of the December, 2003, data set.

This layer is sourced from maps.bts.dot.gov.

U.S. National Atlas Cities represents cities and towns in the United States.

Population Over Time (US Cities)

Population size over time for the top US cities

By Bob Burggraaf [source]

About this dataset

This dataset reveals the faces of America's urbanization by providing the total population of USA cities in 2015. Through this dataset, you can explore and analyze the populations of cities across the United States. This dataset has undergone a series of data cleaning activities to help make sure that it is easy-to-use with visualization tools, such as cleaning up names of city and joining all cities into one formatted table. Therefore, allowing you to quickly visualize various aspects - like population trends or city demographics - in order to get an informative understanding about how our country is growing. With this knowledge, engaging in discussions related to city planning recommendations is easier than ever!

More Datasets

For more datasets, click here.

Featured Notebooks

• 🚨 Your notebook can be here! 🚨!

How to use the dataset

How to Use this Dataset

This dataset contains information about the population of the major cities in the United States. The columns in this dataset include city, summary level, place Fips code, state, state Fips code and total population.

Using this dataset you can explore a variety of topics related to urbanization including population growth over time and comparative analysis between cities. You can also use it to study specific social or demographic trends such as age distribution or race/ethnicity among other key metrics. With the right analysis you could even predict which areas may experience significant growth or decline in their populations over time. Lastly if you want to compare American cities with other global metropolises then you could easily create aggregate tables that include those data points too!

Research Ideas

• Use the data to calculate and demonstrate population growth for cities in the USA over time, providing a strong visual of population changes such as migration, birth/death rates and even shows how urbanization is playing a role in US's population change.
• Analyze correlations between population size and economic indicators (such as GDP) across various cities to examine job opportunities or comparative housing prices.
• Compare different city populations by state to compare disparate areas of the country and determine how much citizens from one state may be attracted to another based on economic advantages or cultural ties

Acknowledgements

If you use this dataset in your research, please credit the original authors. Data Source

License

License: Dataset copyright by authors - You are free to: - Share - copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format for any purpose, even commercially. - Adapt - remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially. - You must: - Give appropriate credit - Provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. - ShareAlike - You must distribute your contributions under the same license as the original. - Keep intact - all notices that refer to this license, including copyright notices.

Columns

File: Total_Population_By_City_Acs_2015_5_E_AgeSex.csv | Column name | Description | |:---------------------|:----------------------------------------------------------------------| | City | Name of the city. (String) | | Summary_Level | Level of detail of the data. (Integer) | | Place_Fips | Federal Information Processing Standard code for the city. (Integer) | | State | Name of the state. (String) | | State_Fips | Federal Information Processing Standard code for the state. (Integer) | | Total_Population | Total population of the city. (Integer) |

Acknowledgements

If you use this dataset in your research, please credit the original authors. If you use this dataset in your research, please credit Bob Burggraaf.

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.

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.

U.S. Populated Place Areas represents populated place areas within the United States that include census designated places, consolidated cities, and incorporated places identified by the U.S. Census Bureau.

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.

This is a very small but useful dataset if you are ever looking to get jobs for a certain US city in LinkedIn. It contains a list of US cities and states and it's corresponding LinkedIn ID (which is usually externally hidden).

The cities list was retreived from here: https://github.com/kelvins/US-Cities-Database and the names of the ciiadjusted to match the name used in LinkedIn (which could differ in subtle ways).

Some cities do not have an ID, this is because the city is either too small or because there was a difference in the name on LinkedIn which I did not detect (human error). If you ever run in to one of these feel free to enhance this dataset.

TABLE III. Deaths in 122 U.S. cities - 2015122 Cities Mortality Reporting System ��� Each week, the vital statistics offices of 122 cities across the United States report the total number of death certificates processed and the number of those for which pneumonia or influenza was listed as the underlying or contributing cause of death by age group (Under 28 days, 28 days ���1 year, 1-14 years, 15-24 years, 25-44 years, 45-64 years, 65-74 years, 75-84 years, and ��� 85 years).FOOTNOTE:U: Unavailable -: No reported cases * Mortality data in this table are voluntarily reported from 122 cities in the United States, most of which have populations of 100,000 or more. A death is reported by the place of its occurrence and by the week that the death certificate was filed. Fetal deaths are not included. ** Totals include unknown ages. *** Partial counts for this city.

As of 2024, Austin was rated the city in the United States with the best smart city infrastructure, with an index score of ****. Seattle and New York City followed, with **** and ****, respectively. While Austin and Seattle are both in the top three of the best prepared U.S. cities for a smart city future , New York City ranked eighth, with a general index score of ****.

This layer is a component of 2007_NAIP_COVERAGE_3.mxd.

Dataset

This dataset was created by Raouf Seyam

Contents

This dataset contains information about the 1000 largest US cities by population: population, population growth, geographic coordinates, population rank.

This layer presents the locations of major cities within the United States with populations of approximately 10,000 or greater, state capitals, and the national capital. Major Cities are locations containing population totals from the 2020 Census.The points represent U.S. Census Places polygons sourced from U.S. Census Bureau 2020 TIGER FGDB (National Sub-State). Attribute fields include 2020 total population from the U.S. Census Public Law 94 data that symbolize the city points using these six classifications: Class Population Range 5 2,500 – 9,999 6 10,000 – 49,999 7 50,000 – 99,999 8 100,000 – 249,999 9 250,000 – 499,999 10 500,000 and overThis ready-to-use layer can be used in ArcGIS Pro and in ArcGIS Online and its configurable apps, dashboards, StoryMaps, custom apps, and mobile apps. The data can also be exported for offline workflows. Cite the 'U.S. Census Bureau' when using this data.