HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #41  
Old Posted Jan 20, 2021, 2:24 AM
Ifactwo Ifactwo is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Posts: 65
This is really an interesting post.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #42  
Old Posted Jan 20, 2021, 2:47 AM
pj3000's Avatar
pj3000 pj3000 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Pittsburgh & Miami
Posts: 7,544
Quote:
Originally Posted by DCReid View Post
The Philly metro used to be much bigger than the DC metro, but that's not the case anymore. Philly and Baltimore seem to be struggling more than the other North east city, but maybe that will change. It will be interesting to see if Richmond, VA starts to take off since it is retiring its confederate past somewhat, is a capital city, is reasonably priced and is reasonably close to DC to get some of that region's spinoff business. It's growth has been sluggish but may start to accelerate.
Yeah, the "metro" lines are so blurred between NY and DC though.

It's so tough to definitively say where NY ends and Philly begins and Philly ends and Baltimore begins and Baltimore ends and DC begins. And attempting to assign hard and definitive numerical values to areas withing such soft and fuzzy borders is just crazy talk, really.

I think we somehow need to get to a point where we don't treat the nodes as separate entities, but rather individual parts of a whole.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #43  
Old Posted Jan 20, 2021, 3:29 AM
Echostatic's Avatar
Echostatic Echostatic is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2018
Location: ATX
Posts: 1,360
Austin/San Antonio may be a CSA by then, if the growth between them merges enough. I have a hard time imagining it won't, honestly. The suburbs between are already booming. The article is about MSAs, not CSAs, but I imagine a combined Austin-San Antonio in 2046 would easily be top-15.
__________________
It can be done, if we have the will.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #44  
Old Posted Jan 20, 2021, 5:17 AM
Dariusb Dariusb is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Belton, TX
Posts: 1,124
Quote:
Originally Posted by Echostatic View Post
Austin/San Antonio may be a CSA by then, if the growth between them merges enough. I have a hard time imagining it won't, honestly. The suburbs between are already booming. The article is about MSAs, not CSAs, but I imagine a combined Austin-San Antonio in 2046 would easily be top-15.
I agree and further north Temple/Belton are growing south towards Georgetown and Round Rock. Wouldn't be surprised if the area from Waco to San Antonio will be nearly fused together that is if growth rates continue.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #45  
Old Posted Jan 20, 2021, 4:00 PM
Yuri's Avatar
Yuri Yuri is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 4,478
I wouldn't be pessimistic regarding Chicago based solely on what happened in the 2010's. Those things are cyclical. Chicago had a bad 1970's and 1980's and a great 1990's. Detroit, a horrible 1970's and 1980's and 1990's back on positive.

Obviously the US population will start to grow much slower or even decrease, but fortunes can change.

About Philadelphia, I believe it's quite well positioned sandwiched between New York and Washington-Baltimore CSAs. They might pick up lots of spill overs as long as the Northeast corridor keeps growing.
__________________
London - São Paulo - Rio de Janeiro - Londrina - Frankfurt
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #46  
Old Posted Jan 20, 2021, 7:54 PM
plinko's Avatar
plinko plinko is offline
them bones
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Santa Barbara adjacent
Posts: 7,388
Quote:
Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas View Post
Austin's projected to have 4.5 million by 2040, which would put us between Minneapolis and Seattle on that list. Austin's city population has doubled and even tripled every 20 years off and on since 1850, so it's a safe bet it'll do it again. The only times it didn't do that was from 1900 to 1920, 1960 to 1980, and 1980 to 2000. Granted, in modern times it's becoming less frequent. Our lowest rate of growth was 16.8% from 1900 to 1920, and it was as high as 455% from 1850 to 1860, but it's been 20 to 52% since 1930. We're projected to hit 3 million in the metro by 2029.
Wow. So Austin's MSA is right around 2.35-2.4M in 2020 right? To get to 4.5M by 2040 that's even above Phoenix 1990-2010 growth (2.2M-4.2M) with a much better economy. Staggering.

What's interesting to me is that Austin now doesn't feel nearly as spread out as Phoenix did in 1990. That's a very good thing.

Still, they definitely need to build some infrastructure to capture all that growth. Phoenix had the benefit of filling in mostly flat agricultural land within the existing arterial mile road grid (with some notable exceptions at the north end of the Valley). Austin will have a much harder time in that the land isn't flat and is mostly 'forested' for lack of a better term.
__________________
Even if you are 1 in a million, there are still 8,000 people just like you...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #47  
Old Posted Jan 20, 2021, 8:06 PM
N90 N90 is offline
Voice of the Modern World
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,094
Quote:
Originally Posted by yuriandrade View Post
I wouldn't be pessimistic regarding Chicago based solely on what happened in the 2010's. Those things are cyclical. Chicago had a bad 1970's and 1980's and a great 1990's. Detroit, a horrible 1970's and 1980's and 1990's back on positive.

Obviously the US population will start to grow much slower or even decrease, but fortunes can change.
I completely disagree with this.

Your example of the cyclical nature of growth is not right. Chicago has a bad 1970s, bad 1980s, good 1990s, bad 2000s, and bad 2010s. The way the 2020s have started off is bad too. The 1990s were the outlier because immigration from Mexico during the Clinton Administration reached an all time high and Chicago benefitted from that and the increase in household sizes when suburbanization was at its peak in the 1990s due to the Clinton administration's policies that made home ownership easier for all. Every major metro in the US benefitted in the 1990s, if your metro didn't put up a decent population boom in the 1990s then there was something wrong with your area.

Immigration in the US has been plummeting since 2006 and that process sped up in the 2010s to where people of Mexican origin are now going back to Mexico in droves. This has in turn sapped growth from areas that relied on immigration to grow and especially areas that were outside the US Southwest and relied on a large pipeline of Mexican immigrants.

Chicagoland:
1970: 7,882,640
1980: 8,052,917
1990: 8,181,939
2000: 9,098,316
2010: 9,461,105
2019: 9,458,539

Chicago barely grew at all in the 1970s and 1980s, it boomed in the 1990s because almost everywhere in the US boomed in the 1990s, it barely grew in the 2000s, declined slightly in the 2010s, and is starting the 2020s coming off a global pandemic with an even more reduced rate of immigration and the same issues that held it down in the 2010s still being there now.

Now cities must contend with a quickly aging population, less immigration, and more of the same outward migration situations. The 1990s were an aberration, not an example of the cyclical nature of growth where growth comes back strong after a few decades of slow growth. I doubt the US will ever have a decade like the 1990s ever again. The demos just aren't there for that to happen anymore.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #48  
Old Posted Jan 20, 2021, 8:22 PM
KevinFromTexas's Avatar
KevinFromTexas KevinFromTexas is offline
Meh
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: there and back again
Posts: 57,324
Quote:
Originally Posted by plinko View Post
Wow. So Austin's MSA is right around 2.35-2.4M in 2020 right? To get to 4.5M by 2040 that's even above Phoenix 1990-2010 growth (2.2M-4.2M) with a much better economy. Staggering.

What's interesting to me is that Austin now doesn't feel nearly as spread out as Phoenix did in 1990. That's a very good thing.

Still, they definitely need to build some infrastructure to capture all that growth. Phoenix had the benefit of filling in mostly flat agricultural land within the existing arterial mile road grid (with some notable exceptions at the north end of the Valley). Austin will have a much harder time in that the land isn't flat and is mostly 'forested' for lack of a better term.
The July 2019 estimate for the 5 county metro was 2,227,083. The big issue here is traffic, though, I think Austinites whine too much about the subject. Traffic is an inevitable consequence of living in a city. But, we do lack the level of infrastructure that other cities are size have.
__________________
Donate to Donald Trump's campaign today!

Thou shall not indict
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #49  
Old Posted Jan 20, 2021, 8:31 PM
pj3000's Avatar
pj3000 pj3000 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Pittsburgh & Miami
Posts: 7,544
Quote:
Originally Posted by yuriandrade View Post

About Philadelphia, I believe it's quite well positioned sandwiched between New York and Washington-Baltimore CSAs. They might pick up lots of spill overs as long as the Northeast corridor keeps growing.
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #50  
Old Posted Jan 20, 2021, 8:44 PM
JManc's Avatar
JManc JManc is online now
Dryer lint inspector
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Houston/ SF Bay Area
Posts: 37,783
Quote:
Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas View Post
The July 2019 estimate for the 5 county metro was 2,227,083. The big issue here is traffic, though, I think Austinites whine too much about the subject. Traffic is an inevitable consequence of living in a city. But, we do lack the level of infrastructure that other cities are size have.
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #51  
Old Posted Jan 20, 2021, 9:02 PM
IrishIllini IrishIllini is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 1,172
What would immigration and job growth need to look like for 60% increases for both DFW and Houston in 25 years? Atlanta at 50%? It'll be tough to consistently achieve 2-3% annual growth rates needed to make these numbers reality. More people means more traffic, more expensive housing, more domestic outmigration, etc.

I have nothing to support this, but I feel like the sweet spot for accelerated growth in US metros is probably something like 4-6m. Big enough to give people big-city amenities w/o having grown into their big city problems. We'll probably have half a dozen CSAs hit 10-13m range, but I wouldn't be surprised if they stayed that size barring mass displacement elsewhere.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #52  
Old Posted Jan 20, 2021, 9:26 PM
DCReid DCReid is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,047
Quote:
Originally Posted by JManc View Post
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.
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #53  
Old Posted Jan 20, 2021, 11:03 PM
llamaorama llamaorama is offline
Unicorn Wizard!
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 4,204
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?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #54  
Old Posted Jan 20, 2021, 11:11 PM
TexasPlaya's Avatar
TexasPlaya TexasPlaya is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: ATX-HTOWN
Posts: 18,313
Quote:
Originally Posted by llamaorama View Post
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?
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.
__________________
"A society grows great when old men plant trees whose shade they know they shall never sit in."

"Such then is the human condition , that to wish greatness for one's country is to wish harm to one's neighbor" Voltaire
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #55  
Old Posted Jan 20, 2021, 11:15 PM
mrnyc mrnyc is offline
cle/west village/shaolin
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 11,586
Quote:
Originally Posted by xzmattzx View Post
The top 15 will be the metros that the Census Bureau adds the most counties to. It starts to get a little ridiculous when the Poconos count towards New York City, or Cecil County, Maryland towards Philadelphia, or West Virginia's eastern panhandle towards DC. So, you'll see Atlanta most up on this list because they will begin to include parts of Tennessee, and maybe even parts of Alabama and South Carolina; Houston move up on this list because they will begin to include parts of Louisiana; Dallas move up on this list because they will begin to include parts of Oklahoma; Las Vegas because they will begin to include parts of Arizona and Utah; and so on.
yeah it would seem so, but you would be surprized. i work with two couples who commute from the poconos to the far side of brooklyn. one says they literally stops to take naps sometimes. and of course when you finally get home its dark going up the mountains. just nuts. also people from danbury and bridgeport and far upstate. and my spouse has people that commute to dc during the week regularly. no thanks for that kind of half your life on the road, rails or in the air. but i do expect more of this in the other regions you mention in the future.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #56  
Old Posted Jan 20, 2021, 11:40 PM
iheartthed iheartthed is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: New York
Posts: 9,785
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrnyc View Post
yeah it would seem so, but you would be surprized. i work with two couples who commute from the poconos to the far side of brooklyn. one says they literally stops to take naps sometimes. and of course when you finally get home its dark going up the mountains. just nuts. also people from danbury and bridgeport and far upstate. and my spouse has people that commute to dc during the week regularly. no thanks for that kind of half your life on the road, rails or in the air. but i do expect more of this in the other regions you mention in the future.
Yeah, it's not unusual at all to commute into NYC from the Poconos. And it's extremely common to commute from the Poconos to core NYC suburbs in north Jersey. It's not that far.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #57  
Old Posted Jan 21, 2021, 12:40 AM
Buckeye Native 001 Buckeye Native 001 is offline
E pluribus unum
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Arizona
Posts: 31,261
I worked with some people in a similar situation when I lived in Orange County. My coworker lived in Huntington Beach, but her husband worked in Apple Valley. Another coworker commuted up the 5 from Oceanside and still another from Glendale to Orange via Metrolink.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #58  
Old Posted Jan 21, 2021, 1:15 AM
Dariusb Dariusb is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Belton, TX
Posts: 1,124
Quote:
Originally Posted by llamaorama View Post
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?
People are already looking at places like Temple and Georgetown as cheaper alternatives to Austin. I'm sure that will accelerate in the coming years.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #59  
Old Posted Jan 21, 2021, 1:21 AM
SIGSEGV's Avatar
SIGSEGV SIGSEGV is offline
He/his/him. >~<, QED!
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: Loop, Chicago
Posts: 5,991
Quote:
Originally Posted by llamaorama View Post
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?
In Romanian, "budă" means shitter. Would definitely not move there...

That said, SFH in Austin start just outside of downtown. Does zoning prevent teardowns and replacement with 2-3 story multifamily housing?
__________________
And here the air that I breathe isn't dead.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #60  
Old Posted Jan 21, 2021, 1:25 AM
mrnyc mrnyc is offline
cle/west village/shaolin
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 11,586
Quote:
Originally Posted by SIGSEGV View Post
In Romanian, "budă" means shitter. Would definitely not move there...
buda has a great cabelas, i been there. don't sell it short!
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 4:10 PM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.