The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines a “city” as any inhabited place of greater size, population, or importance than a town or village. The line between a town and a city can often be blurry, however. Just how large can a town get before it becomes a city?
According to the U.S. Census Bureau, about 39% of the American population — which totals 328.2 million — reside in cities of at least 50,000 people. But out of the roughly 19,500 incorporated cities, towns, and villages in the United States as of 2018, only slightly more than 300 of them had populations above 100,000 people; only 89 had more than 250,000 people; and only 10 were home to a million or more residents. (Some international cities are far bigger than anything in the U.S., of course. Here are nine cities with more than 20 million people.)
To determine the largest cities in America, 24/7 Wall St. reviewed population data from the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2019 American Community Survey, assembling a list of the 50 most populous. For each of these cities, we also collected land area and total area (land and water) from the Census Bureau’s TIGERweb data files. (Area figures are current as of Jan. 1, 2021, except those for Louisville/Jefferson County, Kentucky, which date from 2010). We calculated density using land area and population figures. (Check out the largest city in every state.)
Click here to see the 50 largest cities in the U.S.
According to recent research from the University of Michigan’s Center for Sustainable Systems, the national average population density in the U.S. stands at 94 people per square mile. The typical metropolitan area has 283 people per square mile, while mega-cities in the U.S. can have thousands or even tens of thousands. The 50 cities on this list range from 1,080 people per square mile (Oklahoma City) to 27,747 (New York City).
New York, New York
> Population: 8,336,817
> Total area (including water) in square miles: 472.4 — #11 of 625 cities
> Land area square miles: 300.5 — #21 of 625 cities
> Population density per sq mile of land area: 27,747 — #2 of 625 cities
[in-text-ad]
Los Angeles, California
> Population: 3,979,537
> Total area (including water) in square miles: 501.6 — #7 of 625 cities
> Land area square miles: 469.5 — #8 of 625 cities
> Population density per sq mile of land area: 8,476 — #58 of 625 cities
Chicago, Illinois
> Population: 2,693,959
> Total area (including water) in square miles: 234.5 — #29 of 625 cities
> Land area square miles: 227.7 — #27 of 625 cities
> Population density per sq mile of land area: 11,830 — #25 of 625 cities
Houston, Texas
> Population: 2,316,797
> Total area (including water) in square miles: 671.7 — #3 of 625 cities
> Land area square miles: 640.4 — #3 of 625 cities
> Population density per sq mile of land area: 3,618 — #275 of 625 cities
[in-text-ad-2]
Phoenix, Arizona
> Population: 1,680,988
> Total area (including water) in square miles: 519.3 — #5 of 625 cities
> Land area square miles: 518.3 — #5 of 625 cities
> Population density per sq mile of land area: 3,243 — #319 of 625 cities
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
> Population: 1,584,064
> Total area (including water) in square miles: 142.7 — #57 of 625 cities
> Land area square miles: 134.4 — #56 of 625 cities
> Population density per sq mile of land area: 11,790 — #26 of 625 cities
[in-text-ad]
San Antonio, Texas
> Population: 1,547,250
> Total area (including water) in square miles: 504.2 — #6 of 625 cities
> Land area square miles: 498.4 — #6 of 625 cities
> Population density per sq mile of land area: 3,104 — #337 of 625 cities
San Diego, California
> Population: 1,423,852
> Total area (including water) in square miles: 372.4 — #15 of 625 cities
> Land area square miles: 325.9 — #15 of 625 cities
> Population density per sq mile of land area: 4,369 — #197 of 625 cities
Dallas, Texas
> Population: 1,343,565
> Total area (including water) in square miles: 383.5 — #13 of 625 cities
> Land area square miles: 339.6 — #14 of 625 cities
> Population density per sq mile of land area: 3,956 — #238 of 625 cities
[in-text-ad-2]
San Jose, California
> Population: 1,021,786
> Total area (including water) in square miles: 181.4 — #40 of 625 cities
> Land area square miles: 178.3 — #37 of 625 cities
> Population density per sq mile of land area: 5,730 — #113 of 625 cities
Austin, Texas
> Population: 979,263
> Total area (including water) in square miles: 326.5 — #21 of 625 cities
> Land area square miles: 319.9 — #17 of 625 cities
> Population density per sq mile of land area: 3,061 — #344 of 625 cities
[in-text-ad]
Fort Worth, Texas
> Population: 913,656
> Total area (including water) in square miles: 356.9 — #17 of 625 cities
> Land area square miles: 348.6 — #12 of 625 cities
> Population density per sq mile of land area: 2,621 — #409 of 625 cities
24/7 Wall St.
Jacksonville, Florida
> Population: 911,528
> Total area (including water) in square miles: 874.5 — #2 of 625 cities
> Land area square miles: 747.3 — #2 of 625 cities
> Population density per sq mile of land area: 1,220 — #595 of 625 cities
Columbus, Ohio
> Population: 902,073
> Total area (including water) in square miles: 226.0 — #31 of 625 cities
> Land area square miles: 220.1 — #28 of 625 cities
> Population density per sq mile of land area: 4,098 — #225 of 625 cities
[in-text-ad-2]
Charlotte, North Carolina
> Population: 885,707
> Total area (including water) in square miles: 311.1 — #23 of 625 cities
> Land area square miles: 309.2 — #19 of 625 cities
> Population density per sq mile of land area: 2,865 — #374 of 625 cities
San Francisco, California
> Population: 881,549
> Total area (including water) in square miles: 231.9 — #30 of 625 cities
> Land area square miles: 46.9 — #224 of 625 cities
> Population density per sq mile of land area: 18,791 — #6 of 625 cities
[in-text-ad]
Indianapolis, Indiana
> Population: 870,340
> Total area (including water) in square miles: 367.9 — #16 of 625 cities
> Land area square miles: 361.6 — #11 of 625 cities
> Population density per sq mile of land area: 2,407 — #442 of 625 cities
Seattle, Washington
> Population: 753,655
> Total area (including water) in square miles: 142.1 — #58 of 625 cities
> Land area square miles: 83.9 — #103 of 625 cities
> Population density per sq mile of land area: 8,985 — #52 of 625 cities
Denver, Colorado
> Population: 727,211
> Total area (including water) in square miles: 154.7 — #47 of 625 cities
> Land area square miles: 153.1 — #44 of 625 cities
> Population density per sq mile of land area: 4,751 — #165 of 625 cities
[in-text-ad-2]
Washington, District of Columbia
> Population: 705,749
> Total area (including water) in square miles: 68.4 — #148 of 625 cities
> Land area square miles: 61.1 — #157 of 625 cities
> Population density per sq mile of land area: 11,546 — #31 of 625 cities
Boston, Massachusetts
> Population: 694,295
> Total area (including water) in square miles: 89.6 — #109 of 625 cities
> Land area square miles: 48.3 — #216 of 625 cities
> Population density per sq mile of land area: 14,363 — #15 of 625 cities
[in-text-ad]
El Paso, Texas
> Population: 681,729
> Total area (including water) in square miles: 259.2 — #27 of 625 cities
> Land area square miles: 258.4 — #24 of 625 cities
> Population density per sq mile of land area: 2,638 — #407 of 625 cities
24/7 Wall St.
Detroit, Michigan
> Population: 670,052
> Total area (including water) in square miles: 142.9 — #56 of 625 cities
> Land area square miles: 138.7 — #53 of 625 cities
> Population density per sq mile of land area: 4,830 — #159 of 625 cities
Nashville-Davidson, Tennessee
> Population: 668,580
> Total area (including water) in square miles: 497.5 — #9 of 625 cities
> Land area square miles: 475.8 — #7 of 625 cities
> Population density per sq mile of land area: 1,405 — #576 of 625 cities
[in-text-ad-2]
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
> Population: 655,158
> Total area (including water) in square miles: 620.8 — #4 of 625 cities
> Land area square miles: 606.5 — #4 of 625 cities
> Population density per sq mile of land area: 1,080 — #606 of 625 cities
Portland, Oregon
> Population: 653,467
> Total area (including water) in square miles: 145.0 — #53 of 625 cities
> Land area square miles: 133.5 — #57 of 625 cities
> Population density per sq mile of land area: 4,896 — #155 of 625 cities
[in-text-ad]
Las Vegas, Nevada
> Population: 651,297
> Total area (including water) in square miles: 141.9 — #59 of 625 cities
> Land area square miles: 141.8 — #50 of 625 cities
> Population density per sq mile of land area: 4,592 — #178 of 625 cities
Memphis, Tennessee
> Population: 651,088
> Total area (including water) in square miles: 302.6 — #25 of 625 cities
> Land area square miles: 294.9 — #22 of 625 cities
> Population density per sq mile of land area: 2,208 — #468 of 625 cities
Louisville/Jefferson County, Kentucky
> Population: 617,630
> Total area (including water) in square miles: 342.2 — #20 of 625 cities
> Land area square miles: 325.3 — #16 of 625 cities
> Population density per sq mile of land area: 1,899 — #514 of 625 cities
[in-text-ad-2]
Baltimore, Maryland
> Population: 593,490
> Total area (including water) in square miles: 92.0 — #104 of 625 cities
> Land area square miles: 80.9 — #108 of 625 cities
> Population density per sq mile of land area: 7,332 — #74 of 625 cities
Milwaukee, Wisconsin
> Population: 590,157
> Total area (including water) in square miles: 96.8 — #99 of 625 cities
> Land area square miles: 96.2 — #92 of 625 cities
> Population density per sq mile of land area: 6,136 — #102 of 625 cities
[in-text-ad]
Albuquerque, New Mexico
> Population: 560,504
> Total area (including water) in square miles: 189.0 — #38 of 625 cities
> Land area square miles: 187.3 — #34 of 625 cities
> Population density per sq mile of land area: 2,993 — #356 of 625 cities
24/7 Wall St.
Tucson, Arizona
> Population: 548,082
> Total area (including water) in square miles: 241.3 — #28 of 625 cities
> Land area square miles: 241.0 — #26 of 625 cities
> Population density per sq mile of land area: 2,274 — #462 of 625 cities
Fresno, California
> Population: 531,581
> Total area (including water) in square miles: 116.8 — #76 of 625 cities
> Land area square miles: 115.6 — #67 of 625 cities
> Population density per sq mile of land area: 4,598 — #175 of 625 cities
[in-text-ad-2]
Mesa, Arizona
> Population: 517,981
> Total area (including water) in square miles: 139.4 — #60 of 625 cities
> Land area square miles: 138.8 — #52 of 625 cities
> Population density per sq mile of land area: 3,732 — #262 of 625 cities
Sacramento, California
> Population: 513,620
> Total area (including water) in square miles: 100.7 — #96 of 625 cities
> Land area square miles: 98.6 — #89 of 625 cities
> Population density per sq mile of land area: 5,209 — #134 of 625 cities
[in-text-ad]
Atlanta, Georgia
> Population: 506,804
> Total area (including water) in square miles: 136.3 — #62 of 625 cities
> Land area square miles: 135.3 — #55 of 625 cities
> Population density per sq mile of land area: 3,745 — #259 of 625 cities
Kansas City, Missouri
> Population: 495,278
> Total area (including water) in square miles: 318.8 — #22 of 625 cities
> Land area square miles: 314.7 — #18 of 625 cities
> Population density per sq mile of land area: 1,574 — #554 of 625 cities
Colorado Springs, Colorado
> Population: 478,215
> Total area (including water) in square miles: 196.2 — #35 of 625 cities
> Land area square miles: 195.8 — #32 of 625 cities
> Population density per sq mile of land area: 2,442 — #437 of 625 cities
[in-text-ad-2]
Omaha, Nebraska
> Population: 478,203
> Total area (including water) in square miles: 146.1 — #52 of 625 cities
> Land area square miles: 142.5 — #48 of 625 cities
> Population density per sq mile of land area: 3,356 — #311 of 625 cities
Raleigh, North Carolina
> Population: 474,708
> Total area (including water) in square miles: 148.2 — #49 of 625 cities
> Land area square miles: 147.1 — #45 of 625 cities
> Population density per sq mile of land area: 3,227 — #323 of 625 cities
[in-text-ad]
Miami, Florida
> Population: 467,968
> Total area (including water) in square miles: 56.1 — #192 of 625 cities
> Land area square miles: 36.0 — #308 of 625 cities
> Population density per sq mile of land area: 13,001 — #19 of 625 cities
24/7 Wall St.
Long Beach, California
> Population: 462,645
> Total area (including water) in square miles: 77.8 — #128 of 625 cities
> Land area square miles: 50.7 — #205 of 625 cities
> Population density per sq mile of land area: 9,122 — #48 of 625 cities
Virginia Beach, Virginia
> Population: 449,974
> Total area (including water) in square miles: 497.5 — #8 of 625 cities
> Land area square miles: 244.7 — #25 of 625 cities
> Population density per sq mile of land area: 1,839 — #524 of 625 cities
[in-text-ad-2]
Oakland, California
> Population: 433,044
> Total area (including water) in square miles: 78.0 — #127 of 625 cities
> Land area square miles: 55.9 — #176 of 625 cities
> Population density per sq mile of land area: 7,742 — #68 of 625 cities
Minneapolis, Minnesota
> Population: 429,605
> Total area (including water) in square miles: 57.5 — #187 of 625 cities
> Land area square miles: 54.0 — #190 of 625 cities
> Population density per sq mile of land area: 7,956 — #65 of 625 cities
[in-text-ad]
Tulsa, Oklahoma
> Population: 401,760
> Total area (including water) in square miles: 201.8 — #34 of 625 cities
> Land area square miles: 197.7 — #31 of 625 cities
> Population density per sq mile of land area: 2,032 — #492 of 625 cities
24/7 Wall St.
Tampa, Florida
> Population: 399,690
> Total area (including water) in square miles: 175.8 — #43 of 625 cities
> Land area square miles: 114.0 — #68 of 625 cities
> Population density per sq mile of land area: 3,506 — #292 of 625 cities
Arlington, Texas
> Population: 398,860
> Total area (including water) in square miles: 99.4 — #97 of 625 cities
> Land area square miles: 95.8 — #93 of 625 cities
> Population density per sq mile of land area: 4,162 — #219 of 625 cities
[in-text-ad-2]
New Orleans, Louisiana
> Population: 390,144
> Total area (including water) in square miles: 349.8 — #19 of 625 cities
> Land area square miles: 169.5 — #39 of 625 cities
> Population density per sq mile of land area: 2,302 — #458 of 625 cities
Is Your Money Earning the Best Possible Rate? (Sponsor)
Let’s face it: If your money is just sitting in a checking account, you’re losing value every single day. With most checking accounts offering little to no interest, the cash you worked so hard to save is gradually being eroded by inflation.
However, by moving that money into a high-yield savings account, you can put your cash to work, growing steadily with little to no effort on your part. In just a few clicks, you can set up a high-yield savings account and start earning interest immediately.
There are plenty of reputable banks and online platforms that offer competitive rates, and many of them come with zero fees and no minimum balance requirements. Click here to see if you’re earning the best possible rate on your money!
Thank you for reading! Have some feedback for us?
Contact the 24/7 Wall St. editorial team.
Latest from 24/7
