[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by edale

I think the point, generally, is that using recent growth trends to forecast growth 50 years from now is pretty pointless. Rewinding to 1950, no one would have thought that cities like Vegas, Phoenix, Houston, Orlando, etc. would be large metro areas representing the highest growth areas in the country. We all would be talking about Detroit becoming a city of 4 million and a metro of 10 million. Same story for Cleveland, St. Louis, Pittsburgh, etc. There is just so much variability and so much we don't know. As another post pointed out, very few cities have had extended boom periods that weren't followed up by stagnation or population loss. It's part of what makes LA's story so unique. The city and metro has grown at a pretty remarkable pace for every decade since it became a notable city/region. It's never had a period of decline, which is just not something most US cities are able to claim. I think it eventually will have a decline- whether the result of a natural disaster, climate change, or even just economic hardship and declining rates of immigration ala the midwest. Houston and Dallas will also one day reach these points, too. It's silly, imo, to think Houston (or wherever) is going to continue to grow forever because it has been growing for the past several decades.

I agree that the projections of where Houston might be in 50 years are silly, but I think it's also equally valid to state why the Detroit analogy was not a good one. The reason that Detroit is not a 3M resident city today is political. In 1920, about 70% of Metro Detroit lived in the city of Detroit. If that ratio were still true today, Detroit would be a city of 3M residents.