By 2060, the American South Could Be Three Times as Urbanized

[unusualfire]

Originally Posted by Leo the Dog

I don't understand how you think that a low growth/no growth city with aged infrastructure could handle an influx of a million people "much easier" than a region used to explosive growth and growing pains. Instead of comparing specific cities, why not compare states...ie North Carolina to Ohio, or Georgia to Indiana.

Do you think that the South/TX/western cities have more or less land to develop than the Midwest or northeast? I think the answer is obvious.

Because the built environment is there. It would be cheap to buy up a lot of property in bulk and build at a much higher density than anywhere in the south.

[pacarlson]

Originally Posted by memph

http://www.census.gov/population/met...a/pop_pro.html

The profiles are pretty neat to look at.

Really cool! Thanks much for finding this. Looking at DFW in 2010, it's really interesting on the population graph to see Fort Worth's population bump coming in at around the 26 mile mark. Compare Houston and DFW for 2010 on the same graph. FW has a huge impact.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by austlar1

It has a lot more "carrying capacity" than bus lines, and it provides a fairly express level of service that did not exist along single bus routes prior to the inception of DART.

Light rail, generally speaking, has similar carrying capacity as bus lines. It can't really be a game changer in terms of changing regional modal transit share.

But the bigger reason isn't capacity, but land use. You could cover Dallas with 1,000 miles of subway, and isn't going to function like a Paris. Alternatively, you could remove the entire Paris Metro, and replace with bus/light rail, and it isn't going to stop functioning in an urban, transit-oriented manner. You can still run busways that carry hundreds of thousands of passengers along a single line.

Dallas (and really most U.S. cities) are built for a lifestyle that is incompatible with transit being more than a niche modal choice. If U.S. lifestyles and land use patterns undergo radical changes, there could be a chance for significant gains, but not in the current framework.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Leo the Dog

I disagree. I think people in 1964 had a pretty good idea of where explosive growth would occur over the next 5 decades. I think they also knew where populations would stagnate.

The fastest growing areas in 1964 are completely different than fastest growing regions in 2014. Detroit was still growing quickly. LA, by far, had the most growth. Places like Austin and Orlando and Naples had a tiny fraction of current growth rates.

So how would people back in 1964 predict these new areas? Obviously they couldn't. Similarly no one now will be able to predict 50 years (or even 20 years) into the future.

Mexico City in the 1970's had the greatest population growth of any metro area in human history. By 2000, the metro area population was stagnant or declining. Port St. Lucie was the fastest growing metro in the U.S. just 5-10 years ago and now has relatively slow growth.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Leo the Dog

I don't understand how you think that a low growth/no growth city with aged infrastructure could handle an influx of a million people "much easier" than a region used to explosive growth and growing pains. Instead of comparing specific cities, why not compare states...ie North Carolina to Ohio, or Georgia to Indiana.

An Ohio is already "underpopulated" relative to carrying capacity, while a North Carolina is already "overpopulated" relative to carrying capacity. Obviously if you want to add millions of people to Atlanta you will have to add schools, highways, water, etc. You will have no such issues adding equivalent population in Ohio.

Also, in terms of geography, the growth in the Sunbelt is really growth in a few major metros. Overall, much or most of Texas (in terms of geography) is losing population, no different than an Ohio or Michigan. The difference is that there are five or six metros in Texas with explosive growth, but a Census county-based map of decennial trends will show that Texas and Ohio have the same statewide county-level trends, where most counties are emptying out.

Originally Posted by Leo the Dog

Do you think that the South/TX/western cities have more or less land to develop than the Midwest or northeast? I think the answer is obvious.

Yes, I think the answer is obvious. The older parts of the country, particularly the Midwest and Northeast have more room for growth. The West has relatively little growth capacity. The South has more, but the highest growth areas of the South, especially Florida, do not have extensive virgin land and accompanying infrastructure. Places like Austin have almost absurdly limited infrastructure for cities of their current size.

The Eastern parts of the country, generally speaking, have more land in private hands and more infrastructure. It would be extremely easy to add a million people to the Detroit Metro or Cleveland Metro. You wouldn't really have to do anything. In contrast, adding a million people to Phoenix or Tampa requires significant and sometimes challenging investments in infrastructure.

[Leo the Dog]

Originally Posted by Crawford

The fastest growing areas in 1964 are completely different than fastest growing regions in 2014. Detroit was still growing quickly. LA, by far, had the most growth. Places like Austin and Orlando and Naples had a tiny fraction of current growth rates.

So how would people back in 1964 predict these new areas? Obviously they couldn't. Similarly no one now will be able to predict 50 years (or even 20 years) into the future.

Mexico City in the 1970's had the greatest population growth of any metro area in human history. By 2000, the metro area population was stagnant or declining. Port St. Lucie was the fastest growing metro in the U.S. just 5-10 years ago and now has relatively slow growth.

LA/SoCal in the 60s knew the growth was coming...did it not happen? Same with Phoenix, same with the entire sunbelt, while the northeast/Midwest were relatively stagnant in comparison. Their predictions came true. Why is this difficult to understand?

[Leo the Dog]

Originally Posted by Crawford

An Ohio is already "underpopulated" relative to carrying capacity, while a North Carolina is already "overpopulated" relative to carrying capacity. Obviously if you want to add millions of people to Atlanta you will have to add schools, highways, water, etc. You will have no such issues adding equivalent population in Ohio.

Also, in terms of geography, the growth in the Sunbelt is really growth in a few major metros. Overall, much or most of Texas (in terms of geography) is losing population, no different than an Ohio or Michigan. The difference is that there are five or six metros in Texas with explosive growth, but a Census county-based map of decennial trends will show that Texas and Ohio have the same statewide county-level trends, where most counties are emptying out.



Yes, I think the answer is obvious. The older parts of the country, particularly the Midwest and Northeast have more room for growth. The West has relatively little growth capacity. The South has more, but the highest growth areas of the South, especially Florida, do not have extensive virgin land and accompanying infrastructure. Places like Austin have almost absurdly limited infrastructure for cities of their current size.

The Eastern parts of the country, generally speaking, have more land in private hands and more infrastructure. It would be extremely easy to add a million people to the Detroit Metro or Cleveland Metro. You wouldn't really have to do anything. In contrast, adding a million people to Phoenix or Tampa requires significant and sometimes challenging investments in infrastructure.

Yet Phoenix will add another million with ease, and Florida will add several million, despite the challenging geography and physical restraints.

Just because a region once held the population, it doesn't mean it'll be a breeze to repopulate it. Detroit no longer has the housing stock that once existed. The infrastructure would have to be replaced and rebuilt. It would probably cost more to do this than to build from scratch. Sewers, bridges, schools. Just imagine how much would have to be rebuilt just to meet ADA standards.

In addition, you would have to find the extra millions of people that would actually want to move to these cities. Not an easy task.

[chris08876]

O man I dread another million in Phoenix. That city is so inefficient. The definition of urban planning gone wrong.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Leo the Dog

Just because a region once held the population, it doesn't mean it'll be a breeze to repopulate it.

Obviously I never said this. I only said it would be easier to house population in areas that already have infrastructure to serve a larger population. Detroit has such an infrastructure. Phoenix doesn't.

Originally Posted by Leo the Dog

Detroit no longer has the housing stock that once existed. The infrastructure would have to be replaced and rebuilt. It would probably cost more to do this than to build from scratch. Sewers, bridges, schools. Just imagine how much would have to be rebuilt just to meet ADA standards.

None of this is true. Metro Detroit has a huge surplus of housing and infrastrcture. I don't know what you're referring to re. ADA standards, or why you think that builders would "build from scratch" rather than utilizing the existing housing market.

You have a metrowide 10% vacancy rate or whatever and the national rate is 5% so we're just talking about aligning the vacancy rates with national levels.

Originally Posted by Leo the Dog

In addition, you would have to find the extra millions of people that would actually want to move to these cities. Not an easy task.

I don't know what this means either. Property values aren't lower as-is. Homes are 400k+ in any town with newer homes and good schools, just like anywhere else. Why would they be lower if you added more residents to Metro Detroit?

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Leo the Dog

LA/SoCal in the 60s knew the growth was coming...did it not happen? Same with Phoenix, same with the entire sunbelt, while the northeast/Midwest were relatively stagnant in comparison. Their predictions came true. Why is this difficult to understand?

I don't know what you're saying here either. What "predictions"?

You are saying that people in LA in 1964 correctly predicted that LA would become a slow growth metro? Where did you get this?

The point is the fastest growing U.S. cities in 1964 have no resemblance to the fastest growing U.S. cities today. It therefore seems reasonable to conclude that we can't predict the future, especially the super long-term future.

[Leo the Dog]

Originally Posted by Crawford

I don't know what you're saying here either. What "predictions"?

You are saying that people in LA in 1964 correctly predicted that LA would become a slow growth metro? Where did you get this?

The point is the fastest growing U.S. cities in 1964 have no resemblance to the fastest growing U.S. cities today. It therefore seems reasonable to conclude that we can't predict the future, especially the super long-term future.

No I'm saying that people in LA/SoCal (and the rest of the sunbelt) in 1964 accurately predicted the coming of millions upon millions migrating to their cities/regions. They were correct.

LAC and OC added 6 million people from 1960-2010. I wouldn't call that a slow-growth metro. Another 3 million increase in San Bernadino and Riverside counties.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Leo the Dog

No I'm saying that people in LA/SoCal (and the rest of the sunbelt) in 1964 accurately predicted the coming of millions upon millions migrating to their cities/regions. They were correct.

LA had super fast-growth in 1950-1960, and had relatively slow growth in 2000-2010. In 1960, the growth in LA was incredible, and in 2010 is no different than a slow-growth Northeastern or Midwestern city.

So how did people in 1960 know that LA would be slow growth in 2010? Obviously they had no idea. Similarly, how are we to know the fast-growing metros in 2060? We don't have a clue.

How would people in Detroit in 1960 know that they would have basically no growth over the next 50 years? They would have no idea. After all, Detroit recorded more growth in the 1960 Census than some of the biggest boomtowns today, with nearly 800,000 residents added to the region. Detroit had far more growth than places like Atlanta back then. Detroit's 1960 Census growth was greater even than the population growth in Atlanta in booming subsequent decades (1970's and 80's).

So I don't understand how someone in 1964 would have been able to predict such changes, given that there wasn't even a hint of such a change in the decennial Census results. There would be no reason to believe that Detroit wouldn't be gaining millions of residents in subsequent decades.

[dave8721]

Originally Posted by Crawford

LA had super fast-growth in 1950-1960, and had relatively slow growth in 2000-2010. In 1960, the growth in LA was incredible, and in 2010 is no different than a slow-growth Northeastern or Midwestern city.

So how did people in 1960 know that LA would be slow growth in 2010? Obviously they had no idea. Similarly, how are we to know the fast-growing metros in 2060? We don't have a clue.

How would people in Detroit in 1960 know that they would have basically no growth over the next 50 years? They would have no idea. After all, Detroit recorded more growth in the 1960 Census than some of the biggest boomtowns today, with nearly 800,000 residents added to the region. Detroit had far more growth than places like Atlanta back then. Detroit's 1960 Census growth was greater even than the population growth in Atlanta in booming subsequent decades (1970's and 80's).

So I don't understand how someone in 1964 would have been able to predict such changes, given that there wasn't even a hint of such a change in the decennial Census results. There would be no reason to believe that Detroit wouldn't be gaining millions of residents in subsequent decades.

Yes but they had a pretty good clue that between 1964 and 2014 there would be tremendous growth (LA metro nearly tripled in size). No one is talking about what will be the fastest growing cities 50 years from now, it is which cities will grow the most in the next 50 years. I'm guessing most of the growth that happened in the US since 1960 was pretty easily predictable in 1960. The trends were already there. They may not have known that between October 13th, 2012 and May 9th 2014 a city may have grown or shrunk by a certain % but they could have foreseen which ones were going to grow the most over a 50 year time period.

[LSyd]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Also, in terms of geography, the growth in the Sunbelt is really growth in a few major metros.

you do make some good, if not seemingly biased points, but that statement's BS.

unfortunately, there are also southern metros gaining population while the core strives to hold steady or stave off a population loss.

-

[llamaorama]

Something that will be interesting to see will be what happens if the highway trust fund fails and road funding is put on the states.

Will red states (besides infrastructure crazy Texas) pay for the roads this sprawl needs or will new tolls appear instead?

That would be an impediment to this kind of growth.

[simms3_redux]

Originally Posted by LSyd

you do make some good, if not seemingly biased points, but that statement's BS.

unfortunately, there are also southern metros gaining population while the core strives to hold steady or stave off a population loss.

-

There are a few slow-growth metros in the South, but definitely more than half of the "million plus" CSAs are "rapid growth". Jacksonville is an interesting case/example where the metro is growing pretty rapidly thanks to suburbs, while the core is like you said, staving off population loss. The core itself pulled a Detroit. At its former city limits size it was once 6-7,000 ppsm. Now it's half that (about 50% population loss).

[llamaorama]

So how would people back in 1964 predict these new areas? Obviously they couldn't. Similarly no one now will be able to predict 50 years (or even 20 years) into the future.

Anyone want to have fun and make crazy speculations about which boomers will bust and what busted towns might get it back together? This post might be archived somewhere 50 years from now, who knows...

My predictions:

Albuquerque is over. The 90s tech boom was nice, but those plants are at the end of their lifespans. Not getting that tesla factory...
Colorado Springs is toast. A defense downsizing must be inevitable. bye bye.
Las Vegas is over, or maybe it's more of the same, who knows. North Las Vegas is about to go bankrupt, all eyes are upon it.
Florida becomes two states; a growing place for rich latin investors, and a stagnant place for everyone else.
South Carolina won't be able to compete with a more educated and skilled Mexican workforce.

The Texas cities will keep cruising but the tremendous growth will slow to more sustainable, mature levels.
Salt Lake City will really pick up speed and shake off its image of being super mormon.
Tennessee is on an upward trajectory.
Pittsburgh will finally hit demographic bottom and start to grow again and it will be glorious.
Chicago and Illinois will blow up spectacularly when those unfunded pensions start to bite, but will rise from the ashes as something a lot more healthy.

(Dodges flying bricks)

[brickell]

Originally Posted by llamaorama

Florida becomes two states; a growing place for rich latin investors, and a stagnant place for everyone else.

On the contrary, I think places like Sarasota, Ft. Myers/Naples, Palm Beach are maturing into actual economies instead of just resorts and old people. I think this will push them into some lower middle tier of US cities. Top 50ish.

[jd3189]

^^^ Yeah, Florida will be a powerhouse in the future, as Texas is now. I also hope Tennessee rises up too economically.

[Centropolis]

I've always thought that Springfield, MO would grow faster than it has now, and the area maybe has about 450,000, but the downtown has (arguably) better nightlife bustle than Tulsa and OKC. It's on the ozark plateau and is actually cooler than St. Louis in the summer. the 1960s suburban strips (when the area had it's boom) reeks of midcentury Texas style sprawl, though. The area at one time competed with Austin and Nashville as a country music mecca when broadcasts first became televised, but the scene regressed into the Branson "thing" south of town and was eclipsed by the other two in the obvious ways. It is sort of the upper southern city that didn't quite boom, but might.



source: www.itsalldowntown.com