HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions


Closed Thread

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #81  
Old Posted Oct 20, 2019, 5:32 AM
LA21st LA21st is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 3,681
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 ..

Last edited by LA21st; Oct 20, 2019 at 5:55 AM.
     
     
  #82  
Old Posted Oct 20, 2019, 7:25 AM
SFBruin SFBruin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Oakland, CA
Posts: 299
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.
__________________
I don't read. I apologize in advance.

Last edited by SFBruin; Oct 20, 2019 at 7:38 AM.
     
     
  #83  
Old Posted Oct 20, 2019, 3:30 PM
Sun Belt Sun Belt is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: The Envy of the World
Posts: 4,931
Quote:
Originally Posted by SFBruin View Post
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.

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
     
     
  #84  
Old Posted Oct 20, 2019, 4:04 PM
yuriandrade's Avatar
yuriandrade yuriandrade is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 614
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.
     
     
  #85  
Old Posted Oct 20, 2019, 4:54 PM
Sun Belt Sun Belt is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: The Envy of the World
Posts: 4,931
Quote:
Originally Posted by yuriandrade View Post
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.
     
     
  #86  
Old Posted Oct 20, 2019, 5:30 PM
yuriandrade's Avatar
yuriandrade yuriandrade is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 614
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.
     
     
  #87  
Old Posted Oct 20, 2019, 5:57 PM
Quixote's Avatar
Quixote Quixote is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 5,991
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.
     
     
  #88  
Old Posted Oct 20, 2019, 11:24 PM
isaidso isaidso is offline
The New Republic
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: United Provinces of America
Posts: 9,431
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.
__________________
World's First Documented Baseball Game: Beachville, Ontario, June 4th, 1838.
World's First Documented Gridiron Game: University College, Toronto, November 9th, 1861.
Hamilton Tiger-Cats since 1869 & Toronto Argonauts since 1873: North America's 2 oldest pro football teams
     
     
  #89  
Old Posted Oct 20, 2019, 11:27 PM
Crawford Crawford is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NYC/Polanco, DF
Posts: 19,237
Quote:
Originally Posted by yuriandrade View Post
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.
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).
     
     
  #90  
Old Posted Oct 20, 2019, 11:37 PM
Sun Belt Sun Belt is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: The Envy of the World
Posts: 4,931
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crawford View Post
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.
     
     
  #91  
Old Posted Oct 21, 2019, 1:22 AM
yuriandrade's Avatar
yuriandrade yuriandrade is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 614
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crawford View Post
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).
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.
     
     
  #92  
Old Posted Oct 21, 2019, 1:45 AM
jd3189's Avatar
jd3189 jd3189 is offline
An Optimistic Realist
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Loma Linda, CA / West Palm Beach, FL
Posts: 3,996
Quote:
Originally Posted by isaidso View Post
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.
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.
__________________
There is only one corner of the universe you can be certain of improving, and that's your own self.
-Aldous Huxley

Continue improving until the end.
     
     
  #93  
Old Posted Oct 21, 2019, 6:19 AM
ocman ocman is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Burlingame
Posts: 2,280
Quote:
Originally Posted by SFBruin View Post
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.
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.
     
     
  #94  
Old Posted Oct 21, 2019, 10:58 AM
Crawford Crawford is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NYC/Polanco, DF
Posts: 19,237
Quote:
Originally Posted by ocman View Post
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.
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ocman View Post
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.
There's nothing remotely "arbitrary" about the Census classifications. They may be silly or nonsensical, but they're the opposite of "arbitrary".
     
     
  #95  
Old Posted Oct 21, 2019, 12:14 PM
ThePhun1 ThePhun1 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Houston/Galveston
Posts: 1,784
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.
     
     
  #96  
Old Posted Oct 21, 2019, 1:07 PM
IMBY IMBY is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Tucson, AZ
Posts: 949
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sun Belt View Post

LA is growing slowly because there's not much available land left to develop easily.
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.
     
     
  #97  
Old Posted Oct 21, 2019, 1:26 PM
Quixote's Avatar
Quixote Quixote is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 5,991
Quote:
Originally Posted by jd3189 View Post
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.
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.
     
     
  #98  
Old Posted Oct 21, 2019, 2:14 PM
iheartthed iheartthed is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: New York
Posts: 2,741
Quote:
Originally Posted by yuriandrade View Post
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.
Both of those cities are in danger of running out of water soon. Growing populations will only exacerbate that.
     
     
  #99  
Old Posted Oct 21, 2019, 2:45 PM
sopas ej's Avatar
sopas ej sopas ej is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: South Pasadena, California
Posts: 4,025
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sun Belt View Post
I don't know.


Dallas has a huge head start in terms of development of an expansive mass transit system than LA did. Remember, LA didn't have a single rail line in a city/metro of 10 million+. Dallas already has this at much smaller population figure.

CAHSR is basically dead in LA, while Texas moves along in their plans. -- or at least last time I checked?
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
__________________
"If the climate were a bank, the U.S. would have already saved it."

---Hugo Chávez
     
     
  #100  
Old Posted Oct 21, 2019, 3:00 PM
LA21st LA21st is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 3,681
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.
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Closed Thread

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 4:11 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.