That's not how new Yorkers or Texans express their pride against other places. Get a clue. Ask a Bostonian how respectful New Yorkers are. Or someone in D.C.
It's gone on for decades, and if youve never seen it or heard it I don't know what to tell you.

You can convince yourself that lie and drone on and on about California elitism all you want.


You're also the same guy who doesn't realize West Chicago isnt part of Chicago city limits and showed severe confusion over a simple thing .
So ..

I think that, were LA to catch up to greater NYC in terms of metro population, it would happen either by growth in the Perris Valley or by somehow merging with the metropolitan area of San Diego.

I don't think that it's going to happen.

That area is one of the fastest growing areas in the region/state. You could take MetroLink from Perris to Union Station, however it's a 2 hour ride, each way.
http://www.octa.net/images/2016-12-15_113812.jpg
octa.net

The 215 corridor from Temecula to March AFB/Riverside/Moreno Valley will absorb a great deal of population growth over the next couple decades.

https://www.google.com/maps/@33.8142.../data=!3m1!1e3

Los Angeles CSA (and MSA as well) is heading once again for the slowest decade growth in its history: only 6% between 2010-2020, as comparison, the region has grown 9.2%, 12.7% and 26.4% in the three previous decade.

At this pace, the distance to New York has been reduced to a mere 500,000/decade and as 2018, New York still has a 4 million head (even without Allentown MSA, which was removed from the CSA in the latest update). Therefore, I believe New York will remain the largest metropolis in the US at least up to 2060 or so.

True. The population difference between NY CSA and LA CSA is a Seattle MSA
--3.9 million.

LA CSA is adding about 1 million people per decade right now.

LA would catch NY in about 4 decades only if NY growth were to suddenly stop.

Zooming out, taking the entire American continent, I see Mexico City and São Paulo increasing their lead over New York as both are still growing to nearly double-digit rates and are surrounded by very populated and fast growing areas.

Down the list, as Los Angeles slows, Buenos Aires might reverse the takeover, that happened somewhere in the late 1950's. Argentina has a very health TFR, kept slightly above 2.0 for the past 5 decades. Buenos Aires-La Plata reached 16 million people in 2019, growing at 11%/decade. That's enough to cut the distance to Los Angeles by 700,000 people every decade.

I guess those 5 will be the only cities in Americas that will be over 20 million people in our lifetimes.

I’m good with LA cracking 20 million (it will happen regardless of desire) and then remaining stagnant from then on. Unless those extra 4+ million needed to take over NYC would all be relatively affluent and responsible for increased density in DT, Westlake, Koreatown, and Hollywood, etc. and really build up the tax base, I don’t see any value in adding more people.

Agree. The tangible gains come from increased density. Having more people to tax per square kilometer usually results in better infrastructure and a nicer public realm.

Brazil and Mexico both have plummeting fertility rates and are emigrant nations. They'll both have lower fertility rates than the U.S. in the near-term.

Mexico City has barely grown in decades. It's actually very similar to NYC and LA in that it gets tons of domestic outmigration to cheaper, fast-growing metros within a day's drive. Booming places like Queretaro and Irapuato are basically the Raleigh and Nashville of Mexico (cheap, attractive, sprawl cities).

The future is going to be interesting. We're all used to ever growing populations and with that ever growing consumption patterns, however, this won't continue and the big reset is hovering.

Brazil is not an emigrant nation. Less than 1% of Brazilians live abroad. In fact, Brazil probably runs a small migration surplus. Even though fertility rate in the country falls, São Paulo metropolitan growth is on the national average whereas New York grows slower than the US for almost a century. Moreover, São Paulo is surrounded by fast growing and dynamic metro areas that might eventually been engulfed into its metropolitan system. Meanwhile New York is all by itself. Big dense urban core surrounded by ultra-low density exurbs for tens of miles in every direction.

Mexico City is a more complicated case, Unlike São Paulo, it faces competition with other more dynamic aregions and its not much wealthier than the national average (São Paulo metro area GDP is 2x higher than national average). Said that, Mexico City is the national capital and country's primary city and that counts a lot.

Both São Paulo and Mexico City metro areas add every year 3x-4x more people than New York and I don't see that changing any time soon.

Which is the type of future growth that LA, Houston, Dallas, Atlanta, Miami, and other Sunbelt cities will have to accomplish in order to reach higher populations. If this type of growth occurred in the 70s, 80s, and 90s concurrently with the rise of low density sprawl in the outskirts, many more of these cities probably would have closed the gap between NYC and the other Northern cities.

Perris Valley and San Diego?? All you would need to do would be to include Inland Empire in LA's MSA and that would be enough. That’s an extra 4 million people.

Which brings me to the point that it wouldn't be noticed if LA were bigger. Because excluding Inland Empire from LA MSA is somewhat arbitary anyway. The Census could easily include it and perception wouldn’t change.

The IE is already in LA's CSA. LA has 4 million fewer residents than NY by CSA, and that's after the Census removed nearly a million people from NY's CSA.

There's nothing remotely "arbitrary" about the Census classifications. They may be silly or nonsensical, but they're the opposite of "arbitrary".

The problem is the Census uses counties to add up MSA's and CSA's, which leads to misleading stats and combinations. It also means some metros are not rightfully combined (San Francisco and San Jose for example) and even creates so called metros/MSA's that don't even exist (like San Bernardino/Riverside, suburban outgrowth of LA). Meanwhile, in one of those counties, the High Desert area is legitimately it's own thing, with little influence from LA aside from the media. Needles might as well be a Vegas suburb.

Often times, TV/Nielsen markets and Urban Areas, while not perfect, give additional context clues as to how prominent a place is. Boston smells like roses in both cases.

As long as there's the Coastal Commission, that won't allow any high rises along the CA coastline, and the West L.A. Nimby's, in particular, what can you expect but slow growth. There's plenty of available land, for high rises.

There was a plan to build a brand new 63-mile freeway connection between the Antelope and Apple Valleys, resulting in more exurban sprawl in what should remain no-man’s land. The highway portion of the project (called the “High Desert Corridor”) was recently shelved, while plans for HSR (as an extension of the Desert Xpress between Victorville and Vegas) remain part of the conversation.

https://la.streetsblog.org/2019/10/0...eeway-project/

LA’s still building suburban/exurban sprawl, but the rate at which it’s doing so is definitely the lowest in postwar history.

Both of those cities are in danger of running out of water soon. Growing populations will only exacerbate that.

Hmm?

Los Angeles' first modern rail transit line (Metro Blue Line) opened in 1990; Dallas' first rail transit line opened in 1996. By 1996, LA already had the Blue, Green and Red Lines. And Greater LA already had commuter rail beginning in 1993... not sure when Dallas' commuter rail line opened.

And, per Wikipedia (not sure of the accuracy):

Dallas' DART system (bus and rail): 185,753 daily ridership

Los Angeles Metro/LACMTA system (bus and rail): 1,259,017 daily ridership

Someone should show LA's bus coverage on the MTA map. It's incredibly extensive. No other Sun Belt city (and even cities like DC) don't have anything like that.

Basically every large surface street has it's own bus route, even in the SFV and in many suburbs. The busier routes have Rapid, which helps alot too.

Chicago has a great bus system as well (as I'm sure NYC does). I'm guessing LA is 2 or 3 there.