15 Largest Cities by 2046?

[JManc]

Originally Posted by DCReid

And I have heard that the housing prices in Austin are approaching $400K and could be on their way to $500K and more. That's cheap for Californians homeowners who relocate but what about others? I could see Austin adding another 1 million in 20 years, but doubling would be tough.

Yea. It's pretty pricey there..by our standards. Only get more so with influx of high paying jobs and people. I love Austin but it's losing its character.

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by pj3000

This is the thinking that I was reffering to above -- that we have to stop looking at them as separate, where "spill overs" into another rather arbitrarily-defined area occur. There have long been residents of the Philadelphia metro who work daily in NY proper or in NY metro. And there are many people who live in NY metro and work daily in Philadelphia proper or in Philadelphia metro. This situation is likely nowhere near as high between Philly and Balt-DC metro area, nor vice-versa, yet there does exist some back and forth between Philly metro and Baltimore metro (particularly in regard to parts of Delaware and Chester county in PA. And parts of Lancaster county also feature residents who commute to Philly and Baltimore proper and to their metro regions.

It's senseless to continue this idea that population figures of the metros of the region are somehow finite. They are much more fluid.

We have to draw the line somehwere though.

I meant Philadelphia MSA (at current borders) might gain extra population in the future as New York exurbanites might be living on Bucks County (PA) or Burlington County (NJ) and Baltimore exurbanites on Cecil County (MD), boosting Philadelphia's numbers.

[BG918]

Originally Posted by JManc

Yea. It's pretty pricey there..by our standards. Only get more so with influx of high paying jobs and people. I love Austin but it's losing its character.

I look at Austin as similar to Denver housing price-wise. Both are very expensive for inland cities. Denver is most expensive in the core city and areas closer to the mountains; Austin is the same but with hills to their west instead of mountains. The east side of both cities is ripe for new development along with areas along the interstates to the north and south.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by N90

Now cities must contend with a quickly aging population, less immigration, and more of the same outward migration situations.

Nope, there will be far more immigration in the coming years.

I would bet that immigration levels will top historical highs, largely due to aging population, just as in Germany and Canada. This will benefit the traditional immigrant gateways, obviously. And support for increased immigration is at historic highs.

[pj3000]

Originally Posted by yuriandrade

We have to draw the line somehwere though.

I know what you mean, but how? And why do we have to draw a line somewhere, really?

State borders are established, accepted boundaries, but we know that they are only completely arbitrary lines on a map that don't actually exist... and obviously are totally ineffective as a means for determining the bounds of population centers. So how could any other lines drawn in this completely interconnected region be any more accurate?

Originally Posted by yuriandrade

I meant Philadelphia MSA (at current borders) might gain extra population in the future as New York exurbanites might be living on Bucks County (PA) or Burlington County (NJ) and Baltimore exurbanites on Cecil County (MD), boosting Philadelphia's numbers.

Sure, I did understand what you were getting at, and I agree. I guess I'm just posing more of a rhetorical question. There's just so much interchange of population and commerce activity in the NYC-DC region that it's impossible to bound individual MSAs (which are among the largest MSAs in the nation) with any form of accuracy.

So if Philadelphia MSA gains population in Bucks County at NYC MSA expense, yet this population still commutes to and works in NYC MSA (even just across the border in NJ... as many do), the Philadelphia MSA gain and NYC MSA loss is rather meaningless, right? Does that really signify that Philadelphia is growing and NYC is shrinking?

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by pj3000

So if Philadelphia MSA gains population in Bucks County at NYC MSA expense, yet this population still commutes to and works in NYC MSA (even just across the border in NJ... as many do), the Philadelphia MSA gain and NYC MSA loss is rather meaningless, right? Does that really signify that Philadelphia is growing and NYC is shrinking?

If that happened (it likely won't), Bucks would be part of the NY CSA.

The Census designations are based on commuting patterns, so Philly would only gain counties if it became more of a commuter draw than NY or DC in fringe counties, and that's unlikely, because exurban supercommuting is largely limited to those trying to get more house for their money (a big issue in NY and DC, not so much in Philly).

[pj3000]

Originally Posted by Crawford

If that happened (it likely won't), Bucks would be part of the NY CSA.

The Census designations are based on commuting patterns, so Philly would only gain counties if it became more of a commuter draw than NY or DC in fringe counties, and that's unlikely, because exurban supercommuting is largely limited to those trying to get more house for their money (a big issue in NY and DC, not so much in Philly).

Right, and that just illustrates how silly the bounding of the MSAs/CSAs in the region is.

But there's a lot of Bucks County population currently, in the areas around Newtown, Morrisville, Yardley, Levitttown, etc., who work in that whole New Brunswick/Edison/whatever corridor along the NJTurnpike... and the opposite from NJ into PA. It's long been that way... US Steel used to have major operations in Fairless Hills, and huge numbers of people who were employed directly and indirectly by it, were technically NYC MSA residents, who commuted into PA daily.

[Crawford]

Right, there are no exact lines. Eventually, there will probably have to be some new Census designation for regional conurbations, which aren't quite unified metros, but have a tangible interrelationship.

[KevinFromTexas]

Originally Posted by JManc

That's an understatement. Traffic there is awful as it is. Tack on another million or so and it will be unlivable. 35 is a total fucking nightmare on a good day.

Yep. The thing is, people here always just say build more roads. I mean, in Austin's case that's a fair argument since we only have two core north/south highways - I-35 and Mopac, though, Mopac isn't an interregional highway. It really only serves Austin, so it's not a viable alternative if you're driving from say Dallas to San Antonio and want to avoid Austin. There is SH-130 now, but hardly anyone uses it for nearly the same reason. It's mostly seen as a Austin region highway, and few people outside of the metro use it to get through Austin even though it's 130 miles long and spans Austin's metro to the northern part of San Antonio's. Widening I-35 through Austin has already been done in places where it needed it, but adding more isn't going to solve problems. We really need rail options. We already have metro rail, but it doesn't go west or south of downtown. Austin did vote for a huge transportation package that would include light rail and even a subway through part of downtown, but as with everything transportation here it's going to take forever. Austinites are also notorious for complaining about traffic while not being receptive to ways to deal with it. I'm really amazed that the transportation package passed. I think what helped it was being put forth in the 2020 election, which no doubt got out the progressive vote in Austin.

Originally Posted by llamaorama

I think we are already at the point where for the vast majority of people, moving to Austin actually means moving to Buda or Jarrell. Do those places sound cool to anyone?

Originally Posted by TexasPlaya

Austin hasn't kept it weird for sometime... Austin is finally expanding eastwards as the pressure to be close to "hip" and wooded hills has tipped.

The suburbs are soul sucking, though. Of course, I wouldn't exactly want to live in a high rise either. To me, there isn't much difference between being in a box on the first floor among a bunch of other boxes in the suburbs or in one 30 floors up among a bunch of other boxes. Granted, it's what's around you that makes that better. That's where the suburbs fail and cities shine.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

Yep. The thing is, people here always just say build more roads. I mean, in Austin's case that's a fair argument since we only have two core north/south highways - I-35 and Mopac, though, Mopac isn't an interregional highway. It really only serves Austin, so it's not a viable alternative if you're driving from say Dallas to San Antonio and want to avoid Austin. There is SH-130 now, but hardly anyone uses it for nearly the same reason. It's mostly seen as a Austin region highway, and few people outside of the metro use it to get through Austin even though it's 130 miles long and spans Austin's metro to the northern part of San Antonio's. Widening I-35 through Austin has already been done in places where it needed it, but adding more isn't going to solve problems. We really need rail options. We already have metro rail, but it doesn't go west or south of downtown. Austin did vote for a huge transportation package that would include light rail and even a subway through part of downtown, but as with everything transportation here it's going to take forever. Austinites are also notorious for complaining about traffic while not being receptive to ways to deal with it. I'm really amazed that the transportation package passed. I think what helped it was being put forth in the 2020 election, which no doubt got out the progressive vote in Austin.

I'm talking specifically about Austin. For such a large area, it is woefully underserved by freeways. Rail might alleviate some congestion downtown and nearby but I think if that region is going to tack on another million or so, they will have to undertake some dramatic freeway expansion. 35 might have to do what 10 did here in Houston and really expand.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by JManc

I'm talking specifically about Austin. For such a large area, it is woefully underserved by freeways. Rail might alleviate some congestion downtown and nearby but I think if that region is going to tack on another million or so, they will have to undertake some dramatic freeway expansion. 35 might have to do what 10 did here in Houston and really expand.

They should build a beltway similar to the Capital Beltway around D.C. Looking at a map, that seems to be what's happening with TX-130?

[BG918]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

They should build a beltway similar to the Capital Beltway around D.C. Looking at a map, that seems to be what's happening with TX-130?

I could be wrong but don't think there are any plans to wrap it around the west side though.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by BG918

I could be wrong but don't think there are any plans to wrap it around the west side though.

TX-360 kinda completes a loop with 71 and TX-130

[Obadno]

My completely unqualified opinion has been that the Phoenix MSA will max out at around 8 million before leveling off it changing into a much slower growth mode.

Geographic and Climate restrictions plus the major cost advantage largely evaporating in the coming decades is probably going to keep a cap on Phoenix at around that many people.

Tucson has a pattern of being roughly 1/5 the size of Phoenix so it will cap out around 2 million and change.

A number of smaller cities and population centers still have growth potential though. Couple hundred thousand in Flagstaff, about 100K in show low, Prescott area could probably get up to around 1 million

Verde Valley maybe 100-200 thousand. A couple million in the Colorado River Cities, Nogales, Sierra vista and other southeastern towns have a lot of growth potential.

Anyway I think Arizona's growth will slow down A LOT in the second half of the century with maybe 13 or 14 million people before flattening out.

[The ATX]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

They should build a beltway similar to the Capital Beltway around D.C. Looking at a map, that seems to be what's happening with TX-130?

Yes, SH130 and SH45 are being built in pieces in what will be a loop. But the unbuilt part is mostly in an environmentally sensitive area, and plans to complete it will be tied up in court for years.

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by pj3000

I know what you mean, but how? And why do we have to draw a line somewhere, really?

State borders are established, accepted boundaries, but we know that they are only completely arbitrary lines on a map that don't actually exist... and obviously are totally ineffective as a means for determining the bounds of population centers. So how could any other lines drawn in this completely interconnected region be any more accurate?



Sure, I did understand what you were getting at, and I agree. I guess I'm just posing more of a rhetorical question. There's just so much interchange of population and commerce activity in the NYC-DC region that it's impossible to bound individual MSAs (which are among the largest MSAs in the nation) with any form of accuracy.

So if Philadelphia MSA gains population in Bucks County at NYC MSA expense, yet this population still commutes to and works in NYC MSA (even just across the border in NJ... as many do), the Philadelphia MSA gain and NYC MSA loss is rather meaningless, right? Does that really signify that Philadelphia is growing and NYC is shrinking?

Well, as Bucks County becomes denser with this influx, it might itself become a job center or those New York exurbanites might drop their New York affiliation and start to look for jobs on the much closer Philadelphia.

That’s why I agree lines are blurred, Bucks County as an entity will always be more linked to Philly than to NYC, therefore Bucks gains, Philadelphia MSA gains.

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by Obadno

My completely unqualified opinion has been that the Phoenix MSA will max out at around 8 million before leveling off it changing into a much slower growth mode.

Geographic and Climate restrictions plus the major cost advantage largely evaporating in the coming decades is probably going to keep a cap on Phoenix at around that many people.

Tucson has a pattern of being roughly 1/5 the size of Phoenix so it will cap out around 2 million and change.

A number of smaller cities and population centers still have growth potential though. Couple hundred thousand in Flagstaff, about 100K in show low, Prescott area could probably get up to around 1 million

Verde Valley maybe 100-200 thousand. A couple million in the Colorado River Cities, Nogales, Sierra vista and other southeastern towns have a lot of growth potential.

Anyway I think Arizona's growth will slow down A LOT in the second half of the century with maybe 13 or 14 million people before flattening out.

If I’m not mistaken, Tucson MSA is growing at Rust Belt pace lately, so I don’t think they will go much above 1 million.

[Obadno]

Originally Posted by yuriandrade

If I’m not mistaken, Tucson MSA is growing at Rust Belt pace lately, so I don’t think they will go much above 1 million.

Eh, WHo cares about Tucson

[plinko]

Originally Posted by Obadno

My completely unqualified opinion has been that the Phoenix MSA will max out at around 8 million before leveling off it changing into a much slower growth mode.

Geographic and Climate restrictions plus the major cost advantage largely evaporating in the coming decades is probably going to keep a cap on Phoenix at around that many people.

Tucson has a pattern of being roughly 1/5 the size of Phoenix so it will cap out around 2 million and change.

A number of smaller cities and population centers still have growth potential though. Couple hundred thousand in Flagstaff, about 100K in show low, Prescott area could probably get up to around 1 million

Verde Valley maybe 100-200 thousand. A couple million in the Colorado River Cities, Nogales, Sierra vista and other southeastern towns have a lot of growth potential.

Anyway I think Arizona's growth will slow down A LOT in the second half of the century with maybe 13 or 14 million people before flattening out.

I really hope not. When I left the Valley (2002) it was just over 3 million and it just killed me what was beginning to happen at the edges. No more agricultural land fill-in within the grid. Let's just blade the raw desert! An acre an hour! The growth since I left has actually accelerated in terms of raw numbers. It's staggering to see now where people are living and then commuting to. Theoretically, with enough water, the 3,500ppsm city with the occasional micro-regional employment center could go on ad infinitum. I just don't see how that is sustainable long term. I'd love to see the Valley top out under 6million and then start densifying. It's begun in a few areas of town (DT and Tempe specifically). I always laughed at those who said Phoenix was becoming Los Angeles. Well, LA's suburbia is twice as dense in LA County and the OC. Hopefully Phoenix can be something other than just a really big version of the Inland Empire.

I honestly don't think Tucson will grow that much more beyond simply keeping pace with the rest of the state outside of the Valley (5-10% per decade or thereabouts). It doesn't have any reason to get much bigger.

[Obadno]

Originally Posted by plinko

I really hope not. When I left the Valley (2002) it was just over 3 million and it just killed me what was beginning to happen at the edges. No more agricultural land fill-in within the grid. Let's just blade the raw desert! An acre an hour! The growth since I left has actually accelerated in terms of raw numbers. It's staggering to see now where people are living and then commuting to. Theoretically, with enough water, the 3,500ppsm city with the occasional micro-regional employment center could go on ad infinitum. I just don't see how that is sustainable long term. I'd love to see the Valley top out under 6million and then start densifying. It's begun in a few areas of town (DT and Tempe specifically). I always laughed at those who said Phoenix was becoming Los Angeles. Well, LA's suburbia is twice as dense in LA County and the OC. Hopefully Phoenix can be something other than just a really big version of the Inland Empire.

I honestly don't think Tucson will grow that much more beyond simply keeping pace with the rest of the state outside of the Valley (5-10% per decade or thereabouts). It doesn't have any reason to get much bigger.

Almost all of the development in the Phoenix area is done on former agricultural land not open desert. There is still plenty left. They city is densifying now, it top the lists in multi-family construction and it has not slown down at all from covid.