HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #61  
Old Posted Nov 5, 2019, 2:00 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 craigs View Post
What if nothing? Nothing would happen if either of those cities became "largest."
Certainly something would happen. If Dallas and Houston were the two largest cities in America it would mean that Texas is the most populated state in the union and with that the most important in terms of representatives, federal funds and perhaps pop culture trends as well.

Certainly you have to agree that something happened when California become the most populated state in 1970? Came from nothing, to rise to become the most populated with the largest economy.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #62  
Old Posted Nov 5, 2019, 9:22 PM
craigs craigs is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2019
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 160
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sun Belt View Post
Certainly something would happen. If Dallas and Houston were the two largest cities in America it would mean that Texas is the most populated state in the union and with that the most important in terms of representatives, federal funds and perhaps pop culture trends as well.

Certainly you have to agree that something happened when California become the most populated state in 1970? Came from nothing, to rise to become the most populated with the largest economy.
If I agreed with you then I would not have answered as I did.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #63  
Old Posted Nov 5, 2019, 9:38 PM
IrishIllini IrishIllini is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 994
Dallas’ CSA has a population density of 531 people/sq mile. The CSA covers 14,126 sq miles of land as of 2015. If it doubled its population density, the CSA would still cover ~25,000 sq miles should it hit 25,000,000 residents.

Houston’s CSA has a population density of 715 people/sq mile. CSA covers 10,062 sq miles of land as of 2018. If it doubled its population density, the CSA would cover ~17,857 sq miles should it hit 25,000,000 residents.

Dallas’ CSA would be larger than West Virginia, lol. Houston’s not much smaller.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #64  
Old Posted Nov 5, 2019, 9:52 PM
Steely Dan's Avatar
Steely Dan Steely Dan is offline
devout Pizzatarian
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Lincoln Square, Chicago
Posts: 21,510
^ the county mash-up game of the MSA/CSA measurement might not be the best way to look at it.

the most populous Urban Area in 2010 was NYC with 18,351,295 on 3,450.2 sq. miles. (5,319 ppsm)

in 2010 dallas' UA had 5,121,892 on 1,779.1 sq. miles. (2,879 ppsm)

if the dallas UA grew to become the largest UA in the nation at 20M with its present density, it would gobble up 6,947 sq. miles of land, almost the size of the state of new jersey.
__________________
He has to go.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #65  
Old Posted Nov 5, 2019, 10:15 PM
toddguy toddguy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Columbus Ohio
Posts: 835
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Dan View Post
^ the county mash-up game of the MSA/CSA measurement might not be the best way to look at it.

the most populous Urban Area in 2010 was NYC with 18,351,295 on 3,450.2 sq. miles. (5,319 ppsm)

in 2010 dallas' UA had 5,121,892 on 1,779.1 sq. miles. (2,879 ppsm)

if the dallas UA grew to become the largest UA in the nation at 20M with its present density, it would gobble up 6,947 sq. miles of land, almost the size of the state of new jersey.
Demographia has Dallas at 6.5 million in 2,000 square miles for 2019 and at 2800 per square mile so about the same size as you pointed out at 20 million. I don't want to think about Atlanta at 20 million.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #66  
Old Posted Nov 6, 2019, 7:55 AM
hughfb3 hughfb3 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 474
Houston’s population might be checked with the climate crisis as its right in the path of one of the most destructive hurricane highways; It’s a few Harvey’s away from being a complete reset like New Orleans. Dallas/Fort Worth could develop into a mega city region as its location is advantageous for many reasons. I could see a catastrophic climate crisis taking New York City out of its top spot, but nothing in the foreseeable future could have any city take Los Angeles’ place. Even with a huge earthquake or a water crisis from the destabilization of the watershed from the Colorado River, Los Angeles still benefits from being on the coast and as technology advances, so will the technology around desalination of ocean water. People talk all the time about “the big one” destroying the city, but many cities around the world have large earthquakes and remain a top tier city like Tokyo and Mexico City.

In my humblest opinion, the top a Texas metro area can attain in the next 100 years is #2 metro area behind Los Angeles. By that time Texas will definitely have sway over the nation, but it may more demographically resemble a large coastal city and not the midwestern metropolis it is now.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #67  
Old Posted Nov 6, 2019, 3:07 PM
dktshb's Avatar
dktshb dktshb is offline
Environmental Sabotage
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: San Francisco/ Los Angeles
Posts: 4,645
[QUOTE=Quixote;8737013]But even factoring out the large household sizes, the built density is suggestive of like 20-25K per mile.


Hunter Kerhart[/QUOTE

You always get a better sense of LA's built density from the east southeast looking to the west northwest;
Additionally, you can see how the Santa Monica Mountain Range cuts right through the center of the city as well as the Verdugos (top right corner), which skew the density statistics.
Heck a large sliver of northeast LA is even in the San Gabriel mountains.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #68  
Old Posted Nov 6, 2019, 4:07 PM
LA21st LA21st is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 3,681
If you go to the Wilshire Grand's lobby, you can see how dense Westlake/City West really is.

From downtown all the way out towards Western, there is a ton of 6-7 story residential buildings on the residential streets and they keep adding them at a crazy pace. I don't think most people outside of LA realize what's happening there.
It's not just dense because of "household size".
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #69  
Old Posted Nov 6, 2019, 5:40 PM
chris08876's Avatar
chris08876 chris08876 is offline
N, N-Dimethyltryptamine
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: New Jersey - Somerset County
Posts: 29,065
Quote:
Originally Posted by LA21st View Post
If you go to the Wilshire Grand's lobby, you can see how dense Westlake/City West really is.

From downtown all the way out towards Western, there is a ton of 6-7 story residential buildings on the residential streets and they keep adding them at a crazy pace. I don't think most people outside of LA realize what's happening there.
It's not just dense because of "household size".
They are adding a lot (I follow Urbanize LA) but its not enough frankly. It would fantastic if they could make a serious dent in the housing issue. Literally the housing issue is the #1 issue in California. If the Bay Area continues to stifle growth, hopefully LA and Southern California will not do that, and set the example.

Rents starting at $2500+, "starting" is still alarming. More affordable housing is needed. The Thatcher Yard affordable housing development is a start, and more are needed.

Its good to see folks in the city council taking the aim at the issue, and local leaders, but the magnitude I hope is larger.

And its just not fair to put California in the spot light, because one thing U.S. cities for the most part fail at is building enough housing. For every boom, its scope is underwhelming in nature. We do a good job of building up certain neighborhoods, but always seem to fall short of adding enough units. If it be places like SF, LA, NYC (Even with the boom, not enough units), Miami, Seattle, and so on.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #70  
Old Posted Nov 6, 2019, 5:44 PM
LA21st LA21st is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 3,681
Agreed. The state could always add far more. It's alittle frustrating, and there's a ton of catching up to do.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #71  
Old Posted Nov 6, 2019, 6:02 PM
JManc's Avatar
JManc JManc is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Houston
Posts: 25,567
[QUOTE=dktshb;8740552]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quixote View Post
But even factoring out the large household sizes, the built density is suggestive of like 20-25K per mile.


Hunter Kerhart[/QUOTE

You always get a better sense of LA's built density from the east southeast looking to the west northwest;
Additionally, you can see how the Santa Monica Mountain Range cuts right through the center of the city as well as the Verdugos (top right corner), which skew the density statistics.
Heck a large sliver of northeast LA is even in the San Gabriel mountains.
That road with the buildings heading west is Wilshire? And LAX to the far left (off the image)? Trying to get my bearings. And that photo really shows how much Grand Wilshire cheats with that flagpole. US Bank/Library/First Interstate or whatever they call it this week is still much taller...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #72  
Old Posted Nov 6, 2019, 6:07 PM
LA21st LA21st is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 3,681
Yes, the main spine is Wilshire.

The area to the far left of the photo is just Mid City.
The photograph only extends west to West Hollywood and some portions of Miracle Mile/Park La Brea (very hard to see though lol)

The less dense area in the photo is Hancock Park neighborhood, loaded with 1920s-1930 mansions. Not walkable, although it does have charming Larchmont Village on the northern end.

Last edited by LA21st; Nov 6, 2019 at 6:33 PM. Reason: lA
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #73  
Old Posted Nov 6, 2019, 6:55 PM
edale edale is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 515
Quote:
Originally Posted by LA21st View Post
Yes, the main spine is Wilshire.

The area to the far left of the photo is just Mid City.
The photograph only extends west to West Hollywood and some portions of Miracle Mile/Park La Brea (very hard to see though lol)

The less dense area in the photo is Hancock Park neighborhood, loaded with 1920s-1930 mansions. Not walkable, although it does have charming Larchmont Village on the northern end.
You can always spot Hancock Park and Windsor Square pretty easily in aerials of LA, as they are much greener/darker than their surroundings due to all the trees there. Look on Google Maps and it's literally a giant blotch of green in the center of the whites/browns of the more intensely developed areas around it (https://www.google.com/maps/place/Gr...4d-118.3286614). As charming and pretty as these neighborhoods are, it's kind of ridiculous to have such a large suburban area in the middle of the city. In neighboring Koreatown you have some of the highest population densities in the country, and then you cross the street and you're in this:
https://www.google.com/maps/@34.0658...7i16384!8i8192

They fought against the Purple line extension and somewhat won, in that there is no stop between Wilshire/Western and the new station being built at La Brea. It's NIMBY central in these neighborhoods and they really feel like they belong over in Beverly Hills or out in Pasadena rather than in the heart of LA's densest area.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #74  
Old Posted Nov 6, 2019, 7:10 PM
LA21st LA21st is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 3,681
Its weird its there in a urban sense, but I actually don't mind for what it is.
A ritzy enclave in the center of the city, basically. It reminds me parts of Upper Northwest DC in a way.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #75  
Old Posted Nov 6, 2019, 9:25 PM
craigs craigs is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2019
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 160
Quote:
Originally Posted by chris08876 View Post
If the Bay Area continues to stifle growth, hopefully LA and Southern California will not do that, and set the example.
Look, we all agree that every California metro should be adding more housing, and that none has done a great job at that this decade.

But the idea that "the Bay Area continues to stifle growth" relative to Los Angeles or San Diego is a joke. The Bay is growing faster than San Diego, and Los Angeles has been the slowest-growing large metro in the state since 2010.

2010-2018 Population Growth estimates, per Wikipedia

Code:
Sacramento CSA            +8.49%
San Francisco CSA         +8.32%
San Diego MSA             +8.01%
Bakersfield MSA           +6.80%
Fresno CSA                +5.60%
Los Angeles CSA           +4.97%
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #76  
Old Posted Nov 6, 2019, 11:39 PM
chris08876's Avatar
chris08876 chris08876 is offline
N, N-Dimethyltryptamine
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: New Jersey - Somerset County
Posts: 29,065
^^^^^

The shade towards the Bay Area that I threw was insinuating the anti-development, high NIMBY mindset that has strangled the region for decades. The Bay Area can build, but my goodness, are they just strangled by the local communities and their politicians. Vast areas of SF that could be rezoned, that currently are low-rise/2-3 floor structures... if that.

For example, if I were to say the Central to inner Richmond, Cow Hollow, and Pacific Heights should be rezoned to allow for much denser, high rise developments... watch the opposition occur.

The Bay Area can build if they stop restricting the potential of developers and stop stifling attempts made to satisfy the demand and possibly create more units.

Stuff is rising, but not enough of it.

I understand the selfish nature that some folks there have to retain the museum city, but its literally becoming a gated community and pushing folks out. Expand this similar mindset to the metro, and all it does is cause folks to suffer and become cost burdened.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #77  
Old Posted Nov 7, 2019, 12:10 AM
jtown,man jtown,man is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Norfolk, Va
Posts: 2,237
Quote:
Originally Posted by chris08876 View Post
^^^^^

The shade towards the Bay Area that I threw was insinuating the anti-development, high NIMBY mindset that has strangled the region for decades. The Bay Area can build, but my goodness, are they just strangled by the local communities and their politicians. Vast areas of SF that could be rezoned, that currently are low-rise/2-3 floor structures... if that.

For example, if I were to say the Central to inner Richmond, Cow Hollow, and Pacific Heights should be rezoned to allow for much denser, high rise developments... watch the opposition occur.

The Bay Area can build if they stop restricting the potential of developers and stop stifling attempts made to satisfy the demand and possibly create more units.

Stuff is rising, but not enough of it.

I understand the selfish nature that some folks there have to retain the museum city, but its literally becoming a gated community and pushing folks out. Expand this similar mindset to the metro, and all it does is cause folks to suffer and become cost burdened.
I'll never understand a place like SF and DC because their suburbs also aren't so pro-development. Sure, DC metro builds a lot, but very little highrises. I get it, no tall buildings in DC, but why not surrounding it(yeah I know Tysons is working on this, still). In SF, the surrounding communities don't have some "museum city" to retain, so what gives?

Last edited by jtown,man; Nov 7, 2019 at 2:29 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #78  
Old Posted Nov 7, 2019, 1:08 AM
Sun Belt Sun Belt is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: The Envy of the World
Posts: 4,931
Quote:
Originally Posted by chris08876 View Post
They are adding a lot (I follow Urbanize LA) but its not enough frankly. It would fantastic if they could make a serious dent in the housing issue. Literally the housing issue is the #1 issue in California. If the Bay Area continues to stifle growth, hopefully LA and Southern California will not do that, and set the example.

Rents starting at $2500+, "starting" is still alarming. More affordable housing is needed. The Thatcher Yard affordable housing development is a start, and more are needed.

Its good to see folks in the city council taking the aim at the issue, and local leaders, but the magnitude I hope is larger.

And its just not fair to put California in the spot light, because one thing U.S. cities for the most part fail at is building enough housing. For every boom, its scope is underwhelming in nature. We do a good job of building up certain neighborhoods, but always seem to fall short of adding enough units. If it be places like SF, LA, NYC (Even with the boom, not enough units), Miami, Seattle, and so on.
Yep. California needs to build at least 3.5 million homes right now to address today's housing crisis.

How California Became America’s Housing Market Nightmare
https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2...ousing-crisis/
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #79  
Old Posted Nov 7, 2019, 2:04 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 jtown,man View Post
I'll never understand a place like SF and DC because their suburbs also aren't so pro-development. Sure, DC metro builds a lot, but very little highrises. I get, no tall buildings in DC, but why not surrounding it(yeah I know Tysons is working on this, still). In SF, the surrounding communities don't have some "museum city" to retain, so what gives?
DC could model after Paris, London, Barcelona, or Milan in terms of becoming denser while still maintaining a low rise scale. SF obviously can do the same and has with projects like Mission Bay.
__________________
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #80  
Old Posted Nov 7, 2019, 7:32 AM
SLO's Avatar
SLO SLO is offline
REAL Kiwi!
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: California
Posts: 9,840
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sun Belt View Post
Yep. California needs to build at least 3.5 million homes right now to address today's housing crisis.

How California Became America’s Housing Market Nightmare
https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2...ousing-crisis/
I'm trying my best, but only bringing online 4-6 units per year
__________________
“Some people, did something”
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

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

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


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 9:12 AM.

     

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