What if Los Angeles became the largest city in the US?
 

This was an idea that got me thinking from the recent NYC thread. I read an article last night discussing how New York was able to maintain its dominance of the most populous city since the colonial era. I’ll place a link later but essentially it came down to it being an excellent major port compared to its peers, an early diverse manufacturing base, and an atmosphere of tolerance, change, and reinventing itself. It was pretty much the only Northern city that survived and thrived in during the suburban craze in the late 20th century.


In the peak of American urbanism in the 1950s or so, most of the largest cities in the country were in the Northeast and Midwest. Fast forward to now, many of the top cities and metros are now in the West and South. Only New York, Chicago, and Philly are still up there but only NYC is bigger now than it was then.


There was an 80s article in the other thread that mentioned that LA was expected to exceed NY in population by 2000. What if that happened? Would things drastically change? Would that be seen as just icing on the cake for the success of the Sunbelt?

Yeah, city proper populations don’t matter as much as the metro size, but there is a pride that is associated with being “big” that we can’t necessarily deny in our dick measuring addicted society :rolleyes: But this thread can also consider the possibility of the LA metro also being more populous than the NYC tri-state area.

I don't think it would really change much. New York would still be New York and being smaller in population wouldn't really diminish its prominence.

It will never pass the city population. But the metro populations are definitely in play. It's very likley LA will pass the NYC metro, wether it's in our lifetimes or not, barring some massive earthquake.

However, I don't think much would change because its so isolated. NYC is in a perfect location to maintain it's dominance in many areas. But it's going to be interesting to see LA grow up though. :cheers:

It's astonishing a place like this got built, when you fly out west over hundreds of miles of NOTHING to get there.

A more interesting question will be whether the Texas metros of DFW and Houston pass LA and Chicago over the next 30 years. Or whether they will hit a growth plateau like LA has (i.e., grow more slowly). And how big will Austin metro get; whether it will surpass all Midwestern metros except Chicago.

I don't see that happening at all, ever. At least for LA. In 30 years?

Dallas and Houston would have to hit 20 million, at least. They're going to more than double in size in 30 years? How much have they grown since 1990? 3 million?
They will definitely plateu well, well before that.

So much can change in 30 years. People thought Detroit was going to continue to boom and become one of the world's biggest cities up through the 1950s. I don't think anyone in 1950 thought the Atlanta or Miami metro areas would be bigger than Boston or Philadelphia in just a few decades time. It's impossible to know what will happen.

I do think water availability is going to come into play more and more in coming decades. Many western metros are on very shaky ground when it comes to water resources, and extended period of droughts could definitely shift growth patterns. Of course, a major earthquake could also change everything overnight. It's fun to play the 'what if' game, but there are just so many unknowns that it's not very productive.

Houston was at 3.3 million in 1990 and is 7 million today while Dallas was 3.8 million in 1990 and is around 7.5 million today. I don't see Houston or DFW ever passing LA but I could see one or both of them surpassing Chicago within 30 years.

Eh, I don't see it. Houston and Dallas will go grow by 12-14 million after their boom only produced 3-4 million in the same period of time?

What infrastructure do they have can even support that?
Seems like wishful thinking. These southern cities boomed
Because of col. It wasn't that unrealistic.

I've heard DC posters say Washington and Baltimore metro could
Pass la metro . How?
La was always built to be a mega city. So was NYC.
To a lesser degree, Chicago.

LA, for a while now, has had slow growth, and has detached from the Sunbelt model of growth. The fringe isn't growing much anymore. The Sunbelt boomed due to weather, low cost, govt. subsidy (esp. military) and Mexican immigration. Really only the weather is relevant to LA now. It has the same advantages (and disadvantages) of the high-cost slow-growth metros.

I think LA will continue to grow, but slowly, and doubt it will be the largest U.S. metro in the next century, if ever. LA is already freaking huge. 18-19 million people by CSA. I cannot imagine 30 million people in LA.

Dallas and Houston, eventually will slow down. After a certain size, it's very difficult to grow, because costs skyrocket, congestion increases and some smaller, cheaper city will draw the working class. Dallas is at nearly 8 million now. Dallas will probably surpass Chicago, but I can't see it doubling in size in my lifetime.

Also, the U.S. is different than other countries in that you don't need to be in a major city for access to good jobs, good schools, culture, etc. If you're in, say, France, there's Paris and everywhere else feels like the boondocks. So people will put up with higher prices, greater congestion, etc. In the U.S., people just move somewhere else.

Yep, also just basic geography. LA has a good port on the Pacific for direct trade with Asia that doesn't have to go through the canal, a time zone that is more convenient for Asian clients, great weather. Neither Houston not Dallas have the stupendous location, access or infrastructure that could make them into megacities.

Houston, in particular, is ignoring the waving red flag that is Harris County. If domestic migration has reversed in your city's main county with people fleeing to the exurbs and growth barely sustained by natural increase... well, 1950s Midwest has a story to tell.

https://kinder.rice.edu/2018/04/10/h...ris-county-not

https://kinder.rice.edu/urbanedge/20...-county-growth

At current growth rates, Dallas would overtake L.A. in the 2070 census. I could theoretically still be around in 2070. If L.A. stopped growing after 2020, it would still take Dallas until 2060 to officially overtake it.

But, as we know, a lot can change in 40 years. Detroit was still the 5th largest MSA less than 30 years ago.

Again, the southern cities boomed because of low col in last 30 years..
They're getting more expensive, not cheaper.

So theres no way the same growth rates will maintain.

I don't see anything that'll stop Texas cities from continuing to be the leaders in growth decade after decade.

LA is growing slowly because there's not much available land left to develop easily.

Wait, the fringe is growing and is one the fastest growing regions in California.

Riverside MSA population has increased by nearly 10% since 2010, compared to about 3.5% for Los Angeles MSA. The inland empire is fringe LA.

Crawford pointed out why.
Once it gets more expensive, it's going to lose a ton of growth.

The same people getting priced out of the north east and California will get priced out of Texas, Florida and Georgia.
It's just a matter of time.

The LA PMSA did surpass NY in 1990.

PMSA were MSA that were consolidated into CMSAs.

1990 PMSA Population:
Los Angeles-Long Beach, CA 8,863,000
New York, NY 8,547,000

LA PMSA= Los Angeles county.
NY PMSA= New York City, Putnam, Rockland and Westchester counties.

Northern NJ, Long Island, Fairfield CT were part of the CMSA but were their own separate PMSAs.

Orange County was part of the CMSA but it was a separate PMSA.

It was a rather big story when the LA PMSA surpassed NY.

Not really. It's all relative. If Texas is expensive, that means that California and the Northeast are really f'n expensive.

Are people going to stop moving to Texas for Mississippi?

Texas has land, lots of it. California does not. New York certainly does not.

One illustration to this question....

https://thumbs.gfycat.com/MeekHighle...restricted.gif

Houston has nothing but space for high density growth in all directions. The only thing I see slowing it down is a very legit concern about flood control.

Even two large hurricanes haven't slowed growth much, though God forbid what I'm thinking would be a test.

It's not high density. It's very low density

And yes, people will move to cheaper cities, as they always have.

What's the draw in Texas besides col?
Not much.

But they'll move to Tennessee or something.
It's not rocket science..
Every boom city slows down.
It's just delusional or wishful thinking Texas will keep growing the same way

Houston's MSA used to be Harris County and nothing else. There's now more megaburbs with good schools, McMansions and loveable suburban life. Most of Harris County sucks outside the 610 loop (with some good portions, such as the NASA area already close to built out). Of course people are moving to the fringes.

California and even LA County has land. Much of it is remote, protected or very far from the city center. Much of it is desert; Vegas and the Mojave Desert are right around the corner from the Inland Empire.

Houston can grow up in all directions, including very much in the city center.

And a generation ago Houston had no national vibe or draw, merely just existing for cheap housing good jobs. That has changed.

^^^^

I just hope Texas and its cities continue the pro-business, pro-growth, pro-development, and pro-human living conditions stance. Maybe the state will use the lessons of other disasters in the making and not repeat those mistakes.

Some states are overdue for a catastrophic housing bubble, and rightfully so. Might wake them up and consider making prices humane.

I think Texas will eventually be the most populous state. Bound to happen. I just hope the poison IN THE FUTURE doesn't ruin a good state, if you know what I mean.

It will slow down, like everywhere else .
No reason to believe otherwise.
Theres evidence for the other option though.

^^^^

The engine can keep going, 24/7... 365 days. Its a matter of encouraging people to move, construction to continue, and an environment that encourages businesses to grow, invest, and not go under water. Might it slow down, sure, but the engine can still continue to go. Texas is like a Diesel Engine. Those things last, but you have to properly maintain it, and not do anything that would damage the engine, which can all be avoided with proper care and wise planning and foresight. ;)

We have nothing but prairie in all directions except Galveston Bay. The coastal areas may suffer a big hurricane and slow down but progess will continue. More flooding, houses get built on stilts.

Anyone who thinks Dallas and houston will hit
20 million by 2050 is beyond delusional.

Not impossible but so is a date between me and (insert name). I wouldn't want 20 million, more isn't always better. For various reasons (including coastal evacuations especially), I hope Houston caps off at 4 million in the city and 10 million in the area. Beloved old country towns are being lost via overshadowing or a good ol' bulldozer. Meanwhile, McMansions and strip mall stores are growing like bacteria.

It gained 4 million in the past 30 years.
12 million in next 30 is very impossible.

Come on guys, the thread was specifically considering LA if the growth conditions predicted in the 80s actually came to past. No offense to Houston, Dallas, or the other Texas cities, but if you want to talk about them, open up another thread about what if they became the largest cities in the US.





Again, I was talking mainly about the projections made in an article in the other thread. And also, the Inland Empire is still going rapidly. There is a lot of space in San Bernardino and Riverside counties. Not to mention, LA is still a low rise city that can always build up slowly and densify like any other US city right now.

And you never know. New York could stagnate, city and metro wise. And all it takes is LA annexing a few more towns.

It's not that you can't build, it's that there's no incentive to build when you can't get anywhere. Houston could never be a city of 20 million, because it would be unlivable at that size, unless it radically transformed (in which case it would be extremely expensive and NIMBY).

The issue in slow growth metros isn't that there's no buildable fringe, it's that it makes no sense to build endlessly when there are no good jobs, schools and services within easy distance. There is nothing, theoretically, stopping LA from sprawling to Bakersfield or NY sprawling to Binghamton, but why would professionals want a three hour commute and live in the sticks and send their kids to crap schools?

Yes, they are getting more expensive. However, so are coastal cities, so they are still a bargain.

Texas will never...ever be as expensive as California. For a lot of reasons.

NY has been relatively stagnant, by metro, for 50 years.

And I have no idea what you mean by "LA annexing a few more towns". LA cannot annex towns, there are no such nearby towns with millions of people, and that has nothing to do with metro population.

Yeah, I don't think so. I can see both passing 10 million and probably passing Chicagoland in population, but not LA.

Since 2010
NY CSA has grown by about 1.9%
LA CSA: 5% <---fringe growth in Riverside MSA


Outside of Chicago, NY CSA is the slowest growing region in the top 10 metropolitan areas.

Did anybody say that?

[QUOTE=jd3189;8721748 I read an article last night discussing how New York was able to maintain its dominance of the most populous city since the colonial era.[/QUOTE]

I don't know what article you read, but New York didn't become the most populous city until the opening of the Erie canal in the early 1800s. Philadelphia was the colonial-era largest city, and the second largest English-speaking city in the world (behind London, obviously.)

I don't think any city in the Colonies was even in the top 10, let alone second.

Philly had 40k people in 1800. Looking exclusively at England, it looks like eight cities were larger and Bath was around the same size:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...cal_population

It also looks like Edinburgh, Glasgow, Cardiff and Dublin were larger. Glasgow topped 40k around the Revolutionary War. Glasgow, for a time, was probably the second largest English speaking city.

Philly was the largest English-speaking city in the colonial world.

New York has been the largest city for every US Census going back to 1790. Unless you mean Philadelphia and it's adjecent municipalities that have been merged into the city. In such a case, you'd have to account for Brooklyn, an independent city until it was merged into the current municipal boundaries of NYC in 1898.

Yes.
Dcreid.

Doesn't matter. There are other cities in this country that will be cheaper.

I remember reading in my US history textbook that, at the time of the American Revolution, Philadelphia was the largest city in the 13 colonies.

I don't know how accurate that was, or how good my memory is (probably the more deciding factor), but if that's the case, then NYC became the largest city sometime between 1775 and 1790.

In any case, I do recall that at one point, Philadelphia was believed to be the largest city.

La wasnt a nimby metro until the 1980s or so.
Well above Texas cities current populations..
Maybe 14-15 million.


La with all it's traffic problems, still is in a different league with infrastructure compared
To those places.
No idea how Dallas and houston can hit 12 million and not be a hellish disaster.

"Philadelphia is one of the oldest and most historically significant cities in the United States. During part of the 18th century, the city was the first capital and most populous city of the United States, and the second largest English speaking city in the world after London. At that time, it eclipsed Boston and New York City in political and social importance, with Benjamin Franklin taking a large role in Philadelphia's rise."
https://www.cs.mcgill.ca/~rwest/wiki...iladelphia.htm

Not really. The NY and LA MSAs have both grown by roughly the same percentage since 1980. But that occurred after NY's MSA shrank in the 1970s.

The LA CSA has probably grown much faster, but NY's CSA is boxed in by other urban areas so not exactly an apples to apples comparison.

The only thing likely to slow growth (other than a major recession or depression) of the two biggest Texas metros is probably related to climate. DFW is 100% dependent on a huge reservoir system that is subject to drought. A truly major drought (one lasting for several years) could put a real damper on continued growth. Houston has it's own problems both with occasional drought and also with flooding. Rainfall in Texas tends to be "feast or famine". Houston is most vulnerable to the former and DFW to the latter.