What if Houston or Dallas eventually became the largest cities in the US?
I thought that the LA thread would foster more discussion specifically on the OP. But in order to prevent that thread from being locked up for going off topic, I’m giving a certain topic its own home.
But in all seriousness, I’m curious about it as well. Texas seems to be the fastest growing of the top 3 Sunbelt states (which also happen to also be the top 3 most populous states in the country). California seems to be slowing down and Florida might be seen as a goner to climate change. It doesn’t seem like the growth of Houston or Dallas will change, especially as their economics continue to diversify. So, what if either of them, in maybe the next 20,30,40, etc years, become the largest cities in the US? Let’s not question whether or not it will happen, but consider the ramifications of such an event if it one day becomes a reality. Y’all can argue to your heart’s content on that. As before, I don’t think it would make much of a difference besides giving some more clout to Texas, but who knows.... |
Quote:
Unless you live in NYC/Houston or Dallas and one becomes "the biggest city" and one becomes the former "biggest city" that is more of a local cultural issue not really a concern nor matter for anyone living in the countless other cities and towns in America. The world didnt end when Virginia stopped being the most populace state, and it didnt end when New York stopped being the most populace state. Nothing happened when the 2nd place city prize flipped from Chicago to LA |
If that happens before all of us reading this in 2019 are dead, then something really, really bad must have happened.
|
Something catastrophic would have happened.
Dallas has 7-8 million people, LA has 18-19 million, NYC has 23-24 million. So not happening in our lifetimes unless some cataclysmic event like WW3 happens. And basically all of North TX and a good share of OK would be barren, endless sprawl. |
Not necessarily. New York could split amongst itself (unlikely but hardly impossible), LA has had some home rule/deannex votes before and Houston keeps growing. Dallas has been stagnant, so unless the Southside becomes more affluent, it may not even catch San Antonio (let alone Houston) within Texas, never mind the really big boys.
It's really a big pile of who cares anyways, as evidenced by the fact San Antonio has entered the conversation. |
It won’t happen because neither city can grow enough. US demographic trends are slowing. People move less domestically. Birth rates are falling. The long term immigration trend is downward due to political realities.
Also both cities have to compete with places like Austin and Nashville and Charlotte and Orlando and so on.., |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Let's be more realistic than, lets say in 150 years Dallas becomes to largest city in the country.
|
Texas has potential to become the most populated state a long ways down the road. That would require California to continue it's long trending slow down and it would require Texas to maintain it's high rate of growth for decades to come.
Texas is a state of 28,701,845 [2018] the next population milestone will be 30 million, which will happen in a few years considering the state will have added about 4 million residents by the 2020 census since 2010. California is about to cross 40,000,000 by the 2020 census. |
It’s not unrealistic that LA passes NYC, but Dallas or Houston :???:
Dallas will probably end up about the size of Chicago and Houston a bit smaller. I don’t see how Dallas or Houston grow at 100k+ per year consistently for the next decade. Houston’s already slipping. There are only so many jobs to buy/poach, housing becomes unaffordable, traffic becomes a nightmare, perception of crime increases, perceptions of increasing taxes for fewer services... |
I recently opened a thread asking how much a city could grow keep its cohesion. Something like a dying star getting bigger and bigger before its collapse:
Quote:
Bringing this concept here, if cities were to have an universal size limit, I guess that I would be much lower in places like Dallas, Houston or Atlanta. A 20 million people Dallas, with current densities or ever a bit higher, would function as a regular metro area? Or simply as a state region with its several nodes acting as independent mid-sized cities, without reaching the critical mass to work as a single metropolis? |
Quote:
|
if california secedes dallas has a shot at number two. i don’t think houstons growth is sustainable.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
There's also no giant population pool to supply the growth anymore. Immigration from Latin America is slowing, immigration from overseas always favors New York and California first, birth rates in the Western Hemisphere are rapidly falling, the rust belt is tapped out with its population stabilizing, retirees favor other destinations, ect. Population growth peaked in Houston and Dallas a few years ago, and has been steadily falling ever since. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
NYC has Philly, Allentown, Scranton, Albany and Hartford MSAs directly adjoining its CSA. Even putting aside Philly, that's nearly 5 million people. With Philly CSA, it's nearly 12 million. LA has maybe 4 million in the equivalent circumference. |
Quote:
Once the population go below the replacement level, it's a matter of time to have negative growth. As soon the larger cohorts past the reproduction age, even if the population goes back to 2.0, population decline is unavoidable as the following generation is smaller. Only migration can keep things afloat as it allows the general population to be younger on average (thus higher birth rates, not necessarily fertility rates). But has galleyfox said, the main sources of migration to Texas will be themselves in decline. |
Quote:
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 3:14 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.