The US Census Bureau thread

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by Obadno

The majority of the growth is happening in the suburbs which was the initial contention

No.

It.

Is.

Not.

I know Chicagoland demographics through and through. I read about this. Every. Damn. Day.

And I’m telling you that net population growth in Chicagoland is NOT in the suburbs these days, it is in the CENTRAL AREA OF THE CITY. Not the city. The CENTRAL AREA OF THE CITY. Also known as”Greater downtown”.

Let me repeat: Growth in Chicagoland is not due to suburban growth.

Let me repeat: Growth in Chicagoland is not due to suburban growth.

Let me repeat: Growth in Chicagoland is not due to suburban growth.

Let me repeat: Growth in Chicagoland is not due to suburban growth.

[Obadno]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

No.

It.

Is.

Not.

I know Chicagoland demographics through and through. I read about this. Every. Damn. Day.

And I’m telling you that net population growth in Chicagoland is NOT in the suburbs these days, it is in the CENTRAL AREA OF THE CITY. Not the city. The CENTRAL AREA OF THE CITY. Also known as”Greater downtown”.

Let me repeat: Growth in Chicagoland is not due to suburban growth.

Let me repeat: Growth in Chicagoland is not due to suburban growth.

Let me repeat: Growth in Chicagoland is not due to suburban growth.

Let me repeat: Growth in Chicagoland is not due to suburban growth.

Well math disagrees the central city is included in the city of Chicago, it grew at 9000 residents which accounts for 1/10 of chicagolands growth, no amount of adolescent pouting will alter reality.

[CaliNative]

If current rates of migration continue, the U.S. could easily attain a 1 billion population by the end of the century or early in the next century, and California could reach or exceed 100 million. Some of our grandchildren will see it. Can we keep a good lifestyle with a billion or more? Will traffic be managable? Will housing and medical care be affordable? Will the environment be preserved? Will there be more homeless? I lean pro-immigration, and lean against "the wall", but aren't there limits to population growth? Are there any benefits to tripling our population besides higher profits for corporations? Posing this question for comments. Convince me that we should keep intact our current high immigration levels (we take in far more immigrants than any other nation), or that we should cut back the levels. I am still undecided. Will the benefits of a billion or more people in the U.S. outweigh the costs?

[bossabreezes]

I don't know if the US will reach 1.000.000.000 people within any of our lifetimes, although it does seem obvious that the growth rate in the US is starting to show really large annual increases because of immigration and birth rates amongst the immigrant populations.

I myself was not born in the United States, and while it might seem hypocritical, I think it's very important to start regulating immigration better than it has been. And the impunity and support over illegal immigration in this country is something that never ceases to confuse me. As far as I'm concerned, the law is blind, and when the law is broken there needs to be consequences. Interestingly, millions and the majority it seems of younger americans seem to care very little about the law in this sense.

But I do believe I'll see 1/2 billion in the US in my lifetime.

[dubu]

hopefully in the future races will mix a little. then theres less languages. theres way too many.

[Obadno]

I would bet the territory currently making up the USA can and will be home to a billion people

When is hard to say, will it still be the “USA” probably not

[The North One]

Originally Posted by Obadno

Chicago and Detroit have lost literally millions of people between the two of them

LOL no they haven't, the Detroit region has had level population since 1960 and Chicagoland has added millions of people since 1950. Almost all of Chicago's current growth is in it's city core, you don't know what you're talking about; Chicago suburbs are pretty much stagnant or declining.

[jd3189]

Originally Posted by CaliNative

If current rates of migration continue, the U.S. could easily attain a 1 billion population by the end of the century or early in the next century, and California could reach or exceed 100 million. Some of our grandchildren will see it. Can we keep a good lifestyle with a billion or more? Will traffic be managable? Will housing and medical care be affordable? Will the environment be preserved? Will there be more homeless? I lean pro-immigration, and lean against "the wall", but aren't there limits to population growth? Are there any benefits to tripling our population besides higher profits for corporations? Posing this question for comments. Convince me that we should keep intact our current high immigration levels (we take in far more immigrants than any other nation), or that we should cut back the levels. I am still undecided. Will the benefits of a billion or more people in the U.S. outweigh the costs?

Probably. The USA isn't like China or India where a middle class barely existed before they reached that population. Although it seems these days that we might end up like that.


If we continue to reverse the exurban developments from the last century and continue to urbanize our cities and metros, we could easily absorb another 300 million. Plus, much of the Midwest and Northeast outside the coast has room for growth since they lost population. Even older cities in the South not experiencing huge growth like Birmingham and Memphis have space.


If Europe, which is about the same size geographically as the US, has around 700 million and still has space to spare, America can easily reach that level without widespread poverty.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by Obadno

Well math disagrees the central city is included in the city of Chicago, it grew at 9000 residents which accounts for 1/10 of chicagolands growth, no amount of adolescent pouting will alter reality.

Sorry bud—but you are completely clueless

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by The North One

LOL no they haven't, the Detroit region has had level population since 1960 and Chicagoland has added millions of people since 1950. Almost all of Chicago's current growth is in it's city core, you don't know what you're talking about; Chicago suburbs are pretty much stagnant or declining.

I’ve spent three pages making this point to this clown. He thinks that, from Phoenix, he has more knowledge about what is going on in Chicagoland from his Google searches than a person living here who analyzes this data almost every day.

There are a lot of trolls on this forum who are just out there to stir things up. Don’t waste your time.

[chris08876]

Some state figures.


Credit: miamiagentmagazine

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by skyscraperpage17

But why should other cities be held to a Chicago or NYC-type standard for urbanity?

Cities can have any "standard" they wish, obviously. But NYC-type urbanity is pretty typical around the planet. Chicago somewhat less so, and Dallas typology basically doesn't exist outside the U.S.

So if you're looking for "urban living" as defined around the world, Dallas isn't really an option, whether there are 2 million or 20 million residents. The relative population has no relevance to the relative urbanity.

[skyscraperpage17]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Cities can have any "standard" they wish, obviously. But NYC-type urbanity is pretty typical around the planet. Chicago somewhat less so, and Dallas typology basically doesn't exist outside the U.S.

So if you're looking for "urban living" as defined around the world, Dallas isn't really an option, whether there are 2 million or 20 million residents. The relative population has no relevance to the relative urbanity.

But again, it's unreasonable to make a comparison to NYC or cities "around the planet" for the reasons I stated before.

Other than hard core urban enthusiasts, who cares if Dallas is and will ever be as urban as NYC or Chicago? The only thing that's important is that they're building a satisfactory urban environment that will attract the demographic who prefers that type of lifestyle (which they obviously are).

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by skyscraperpage17

But again, it's unreasonable to make a comparison to NYC or cities "around the planet" for the reasons I stated before.

Other than hard core urban enthusiasts, who cares if Dallas is and will ever be as urban as NYC or Chicago? The only thing that's important is that they're building a satisfactory urban environment that will attract the demographic who prefers that type of lifestyle (which they obviously are).

I think it's a stretch to call the entire planet "hard core urban enthusiasts". You seem to try to paint walkable urbanism as some sort of extreme environment.

The truth is, suburbia in its present form isn't sustainable.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by skyscraperpage17

But again, it's unreasonable to make a comparison to NYC or cities "around the planet" for the reasons I stated before.

I don't see why it's "unreasonable" to use normal urban standards to compare urbanity. There's nothing "weird" about expecting urban housing to be oriented to people and transit rather than cars.

Originally Posted by skyscraperpage17

Other than hard core urban enthusiasts, who cares if Dallas is and will ever be as urban as NYC or Chicago?

You're right. If you don't care about urbanity, the discussion is irrelevant.

Originally Posted by skyscraperpage17

The only thing that's important is that they're building a satisfactory urban environment that will attract the demographic who prefers that type of lifestyle (which they obviously are).

The point is they aren't. There are no normal urban neighborhoods in Dallas (going by normal global urban standards), and the population trends aren't going to change this. Functionally, it's basically all auto-oriented sprawl.

[skyscraperpage17]

Originally Posted by Crawford

I don't see why it's "unreasonable" to use normal urban standards to compare urbanity. There's nothing "weird" about expecting urban housing to be oriented to people and transit rather than cars.

It's very unreasonable.

For starters, you're comparing Dallas (and other Sunbelt cities) to cities with urbanity they will never achieve, because the socio-economic factors that aided in the way those cities were built decades or even centuries ago have changed significantly.

The reason other cities across the planet (and even NYC and Chicago) developed the way they are is because modes of transportation that allow for relatively quick travels in long distances were limited to non-existent when they were built out. Thus, it was most economical to build everything in close and walkable proximity by making an environment that was pedestrian-friendly. Today, in an era when the average American can afford and wants to (or even must) own a car, to try and build cities in the same way they were built back then is simply not a practical option.

Furthermore, one thing hard core urban enthusiasts fail to mention about the extensive transit systems in places like NYC and Chicago was the cost to build them. Back in the early 20th century, labor laws, environmental regulations, etc. were barely a thing. Do you have any idea how much it would cost to replicate a NYC-style transit system today in a major city? The costs would easily soar into the billions.

You're right. If you don't care about urbanity, the discussion is irrelevant.

It's not about caring or not caring about urbanity, but rather people not caring about unfair comparisons being made and ridiculous standards some folks are trying to impose.

The point is they aren't...

Huh?

Just because the neighborhoods in Dallas aren't "urban" according to your standard doesn't mean they're not urban. It's silly to even make such a claim.

Below is a site of several urban neighborhoods one can find in Dallas.

https://theculturetrip.com/north-ame...-in-dallas-tx/

[the urban politician]

Where there is a will to build transit there is a way. See everywhere but the US

[dubu]

light rail is real expensive and doesnt really justify the cost. theres monorail, that makes the most sense because its not hart to put those in cities that are built for cars.

cities like seattle has made light rail pretty good, but a lot of cities light rail isnt very good. trains make better cities.

[Obadno]

Originally Posted by The North One

LOL no they haven't, the Detroit region has had level population since 1960 and Chicagoland has added millions of people since 1950. Almost all of Chicago's current growth is in it's city core, you don't know what you're talking about; Chicago suburbs are pretty much stagnant or declining.

We aren’t talking about the entire region we are talking about he cities shrinking which they are and by the actual numbers he suburbs are taking on the lions share of growth which is why the regions make up for the cities shrinking

I don’t lnow what You guys are smoking because that’s what the numbers show, I’m sorry that it makes you feel bad or whatever your issues are the older cities like Detroit and chicago have shrunk or been mostly stagnant while the suburbs have grown

It’s a denial of reality to say otherwise

[Obadno]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

There are a lot of trolls on this forum who are just out there to stir things up. Don’t waste your time.

You don’t know anything about me I’m from Chicago, I’m sorry you have some bizarre personal obsession with pretending that Chicago is growing when it is factually not growing and new high rises downtown don’t outweigh suburban growth which the basic population numbers I posted show

That doesn’t mean Chicago suck, it doesn’t mean Chicago is going to die, it doesn’t mean that I’m happy this is happening it just is, get your head out of your ass.