Worldwide Demographics

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

New York is not the city I'm worried about in a slow growing America.

Me neither. The trend now it's the primary city to grow much faster than the rest of the country.

New York has never profitted from this, traditionally growing much slower than the US, for the past 100 years at least. In a slow growth or even in a shrinking US, New York might reverse its fortunes and starts to grow faster the US. It's a strong possibility.

My point was that cities around the world will be eventually affected by their countries growing slowly. It's a very logical conclusion that US metropolises in general will grow slower in 2020's with the country growing 3% than back in the 1990's, when the US grew 13%.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Yuri

Me neither. The trend now it's the primary city to grow much faster than the rest of the country.

New York has never profitted from this, traditionally growing much slower than the US, for the past 100 years at least. In a slow growth or even in a shrinking US, New York might reverse its fortunes and starts to grow faster the US. It's a strong possibility.

I dunno, it's been more mixed I think. New York City grew faster than the U.S. this past decade, but it also grew at close to the same pace as the U.S. from 1990-2000. Growth in NYC was a bit off during the 2000-2010 period, but the city was reeling from 9/11 and the financial crisis most of that decade. Considering those twin crises, it's probably a miracle that the city grew at all.

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

I dunno, it's been more mixed I think. New York City grew faster than the U.S. this past decade, but it also grew at close to the same pace as the U.S. from 1990-2000. Growth in NYC was a bit off during the 2000-2010 period, but the city was reeling from 9/11 and the financial crisis most of that decade. Considering those twin crises, it's probably a miracle that the city grew at all.

I was thinking of the metro area as a whole (MSA + Fairfield County). For the past 100 years its growth is below the national by a large margin.

It's hard to look to the city only, specially as it's already very dense and expensive.

Originally Posted by Manitopiaaa

You're being way too generous to New York. They banked most of that +4% at the beginning of the decade, before housing bubble, crime, mentally ill homeless/drug addict violence on civilians, hyper-woke DAs, legal immigration plunge, work from home, mass transit bottlenecks, and COVID created a perfect storm.

I'll do cartwheels if they sustain +1% this decade, but I'm not optimistic.

The 2021 Estimate, for instance, indeed doesn't look promising.

[C.]

The biggest hinderance to NYC's growth is the lack of housing. As long as developers continue to build, NYC's population will continue to grow. There is a lot of larger houses/apartments being converted into roommate situations with individual leases per bedroom.

We'll see what new policies on housing the Mayor has in store. DeBlasio was kind of weak.

[C.]

The Growth Machine West of the Hudson
https://www.city-journal.org/jersey-...supply-booming

In October, Jersey City’s city council voted unanimously to adopt amendments on the Canal Crossing Redevelopment Plan, a master plan for the remediated site of a former paint factory. The plan for the 111-acre site, located in the city’s Bergen-Lafeyette neighborhood, calls for a mixed-use development of up to 7,590 new homes spread across a proposed street grid, which would stitch the new neighborhood into the broader city. In addition to several new parks, a proposed greenway will connect residents to a nearby Hudson-Bergen light rail station. The council’s vote came exactly two weeks after New York City leaders infamously scuttled the long-contemplated Industry City plan for Brooklyn.

A masterclass in physical planning, Canal Crossing would be a flagship redevelopment in New York City today. In Jersey City, it’s just another project. Along the Hudson River, there’s Hudson Exchange West, a plan for 5,500 new homes, plus parks, retail, and office space. Along the Hackensack River, construction will soon start on the first phase of the Bayfront redevelopment, which will eventually yield 8,000 new homes, of which 35 percent will be income-restricted. Not to be outdone, Liberty Harbor—a massive site within eyeshot of the Statue of Liberty—still has zoned capacity for an impressive 20,000 homes.

Indeed, the contrast between the two cities is increasingly sharp: as housing activists drag New York City leadership around to a plan to allow a modest amount of new housing in SoHo, thousands of new units continue to go up in Jersey City’s newly dubbed “SoHo West.” If the growth machine has sputtered east of the Hudson River, it’s alive and well in the Sixth Borough. While the story of New York City over the past few years has been one of increasingly harebrained opposition to new housing and office construction amid a debilitating housing shortage and worsening economic prospects, Jersey City has leveraged new development to secure significant public improvements for its residents.

The raw permitting data speak for themselves. Subject to many of the same environmental constraints—both cities are bounded by rivers and pockmarked by sites in need of remediation—Jersey City built over seven times as much housing per capita as Manhattan in 2019. Even compared with New York’s more growth-tolerant boroughs—Brooklyn and the Bronx—Jersey City built over six times as much housing per capita. And it built a startling 17 times as much housing per capita as Staten Island and 10 times as much housing per capita as Queens, the two most underbuilt boroughs and—by any reasonable standard—places where new development could easily be accommodated.

What gives? It isn’t just megaprojects: the Jersey City miracle is underwritten, at least in part, by clear rules that welcome incremental growth. Where New York spent the past 50 years tinkering with—and often tightening—a zoning code fundamentally designed to stunt growth, planning in Jersey City has welcomed it. Thanks to liberal rules on density and parking rules, high-rises can spring up in transit-rich growth hubs like Journal Square without much fuss. And without single-family zoning, duplexes are free to replace driveways along quiet side streets in neighborhoods like Downtown.

Yet it isn’t just the substance of growth regulation that differs; it’s also the process. In New York City—in the best-case scenario—securing a special permit or rezoning will involve a six-month ordeal, with multiple public hearings and exacting demands on developers. While large redevelopment projects might involve lots of back-and-forth, the process of securing a permit for a humdrum infill project in Jersey City usually takes just weeks.

Why the divergence? Jersey City is helped along by a sophisticated state court system that prohibits sloppy planning processes and arbitrary down-zonings. Yet on a deeper level, one gets the sense that Jersey City simply doesn’t take growth for granted: its leadership makes few apologies for attracting new investment and using it to secure new schools, parks, libraries, and infrastructure upgrades—not to mention thousands of apartments—for residents. With fiscal collapse knocking on their city’s door and crumbling infrastructure at their feet, New York City’s leaders would do well to learn from their humble New Jersey neighbor.

[chris08876]

^^^

Can't wait for the coming Newark NJ boom. Hudson County and Essex County offer so much potential. As a case study, Jersey City is to be replicated elsewhere.

Thousands of units coming online or planned. Folks might be surprised if they get wind of how many units are either u/c or in the pipeline (approved or proposed).

I think in the last decade, two cities in America that stand out in terms of magnitude relative to their size: Miami and Jersey City.

[C.]

Originally Posted by chris08876

^^^

Can't wait for the coming Newark NJ boom. Hudson County and Essex County offer so much potential. As a case study, Jersey City is to be replicated elsewhere.

Thousands of units coming online or planned. Folks might be surprised if they get wind of how many units are either u/c or in the pipeline (approved or proposed).

I think in the last decade, two cities in America that stand out in terms of magnitude relative to their size: Miami and Jersey City.

Absolutely. I'm not a huge fan of Miami. It's very much a car culture city like Atlanta. But they are making improvements in city planning and in the architecture of the new buildings. I love the 100-floor Ritz Carlton building's design. It's different from the usual crap that has gone up. It kind of reminds me of a much better version of Urby. I'm looking forward to see if the city gains more pedestrian friendly districts.

I wonder what the future holds for North Jersey. At some point there is going to be a desperate need for new trans-Hudson tubes be it PATH, Amtrak, and/or NJ Transit. The existing capacity was at a breaking point pre-pandemic. Since partial WFH is probably here to stay, the maximum capacity issues have probably been pushed back about 10 years or so. There was a number of capacity improvements that are underway that should allow the Jersey City, Newark and others to accommodate their rapidly growing populations, but they're going to need a new tunnel eventually.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by C.

The biggest hinderance to NYC's growth is the lack of housing. As long as developers continue to build, NYC's population will continue to grow. There is a lot of larger houses/apartments being converted into roommate situations with individual leases per bedroom.

We'll see what new policies on housing the Mayor has in store. DeBlasio was kind of weak.

There was a ton of housing built during DeBlasio's era, although a lot of the credit belongs to Bloomberg. But DeBlasio didn't seem to try to alter the housing initiatives that Bloomberg set in motion.

[C.]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

There was a ton of housing built during DeBlasio's era, although a lot of the credit belongs to Bloomberg. But DeBlasio didn't seem to try to alter the housing initiatives that Bloomberg set in motion.

I agree with this. It's a little difficult to pinpoint how much housing was built during the DeBlasio era because the city will often time consolidates the numbers on housing created or retained. I hate when they do this because the retained component doesn't add to the housing supply. It just extends the benefit for those that won the housing lottery and for their heirs.

I'll give you an example from
https://rentguidelinesboard.cityofne...6/2021-HSR.pdf

City-sponsored programs spurred 29,521 new housing starts
in 2020, 25% of which were newly constructed units.

So only 7,380 were newly constructed by the city's programs... in a city of 8.8 million.

Supply has been increasing, but it's woefully inadequate given NYC's population. This is why Hudson County. NJ has have been going gangbusters, picking up the slack. And most of of the municipalities in Hudson County have densities that exceed NYC. Yet, they are still able to incrementally grow and increase the quality of life.

Wikipedia has the numbers from 2010. Side note is that Hoboken is now at 48,335 people per sq mile, up from 39,066 from 2010, and is still building 10 times more per capita than NYC.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...lation_density

[3rd&Brown]

Originally Posted by C.

Absolutely. I'm not a huge fan of Miami. It's very much a car culture city like Atlanta. But they are making improvements in city planning and in the architecture of the new buildings. I love the 100-floor Ritz Carlton building's design. It's different from the usual crap that has gone up. It kind of reminds me of a much better version of Urby. I'm looking forward to see if the city gains more pedestrian friendly districts.

I wonder what the future holds for North Jersey. At some point there is going to be a desperate need for new trans-Hudson tubes be it PATH, Amtrak, and/or NJ Transit. The existing capacity was at a breaking point pre-pandemic. Since partial WFH is probably here to stay, the maximum capacity issues have probably been pushed back about 10 years or so. There was a number of capacity improvements that are underway that should allow the Jersey City, Newark and others to accommodate their rapidly growing populations, but they're going to need a new tunnel eventually.

When you look at a map of Jersey City, it looks like it should have a north south subway line (or 2) that connect to all of the various path lines. Arguably, the lines could go all the way up to Fort Lee and down to Bayonne.

[Crawford]

North Jersey needs a rail line along River Road connecting Fort Lee and environs to points south.

Yes, the Hudson-Bergen Light Rail is being extended to Englewood area, but that's inland. There needs to be something for all the current and planned development along the waterfront. A parallel line, hugging the waterfront. Fort Lee and Edgewater have upcoming 30+ floor towers and there needs to be connectivity with Jersey City/Hoboken.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by 3rd&Brown

When you look at a map of Jersey City, it looks like it should have a north south subway line (or 2) that connect to all of the various path lines. Arguably, the lines could go all the way up to Fort Lee and down to Bayonne.

Yeah, Hudson county is so long and thin, it does seem perfectly set-up for a major subway spine from one end to the other. And unlike a lot of other places, it actually has the population density to warrant and support such a project.

[Crawford]

There's crazy density (for U.S. standards) from Bayonne to Fort Lee. Also this is the fastest growing part of NJ, with the most housing units planned and u/c.

They desperately need a continuous north-south rail link. The Hudson Bergen rail extension will absolutely help, but again, that's inland, and connecting a separate corridor of towns.

I'm not even sure if surface rail is feasible, given that River Road isn't super-wide, and then you have the Palisades cliffs. Elevated is probably a NIMBY impossibility. Underground would be incredibly expensive, but maybe the best option?

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by C.

I agree with this. It's a little difficult to pinpoint how much housing was built during the DeBlasio era because the city will often time consolidates the numbers on housing created or retained. I hate when they do this because the retained component doesn't add to the housing supply. It just extends the benefit for those that won the housing lottery and for their heirs.

I'll give you an example from
https://rentguidelinesboard.cityofne...6/2021-HSR.pdf



So only 7,380 were newly constructed by the city's programs... in a city of 8.8 million.

Supply has been increasing, but it's woefully inadequate given NYC's population. This is why Hudson County. NJ has have been going gangbusters, picking up the slack. And most of of the municipalities in Hudson County have densities that exceed NYC. Yet, they are still able to incrementally grow and increase the quality of life.

Wikipedia has the numbers from 2010. Side note is that Hoboken is now at 48,335 people per sq mile, up from 39,066 from 2010, and is still building 10 times more per capita than NYC.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...lation_density

Hoboken is only 1 square mile, so it's pretty easy to spike the density numbers there. Percentage wise, Hudson County is probably the fastest growing large county in NY metro, but it would be in fourth place in raw growth as a borough (up 90k since 2010). Brooklyn, Queens, and Manhattan added more population than Hudson (232k, 175k, and 109k respectively). Even the Bronx added nearly as much as Hudson (87k).

[Crawford]

DeBlasio was a really crappy mayor, but he wasn't terrible re. housing. I mean, yeah, the city didn't build nearly enough, and yeah, NIMBYs control everything in this city, but a fair amount of housing got built, especially outside of Manhattan.

Many neighborhoods, like Jamaica, Queens, or the South Bronx, are almost unrecognizable from a decade ago. I'm not sure if DeBlasio deserves credit, but he certainly doesn't deserve blame.

[C.]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Hoboken is only 1 square mile, so it's pretty easy to spike the density numbers there. Percentage wise, Hudson County is probably the fastest growing large county in NY metro, but it would be in fourth place in raw growth as a borough (up 90k since 2010). Brooklyn, Queens, and Manhattan added more population than Hudson (232k, 175k, and 109k respectively). Even the Bronx added nearly as much as Hudson (87k).

That's very fair. I don't know the percentage increase off the top of my head. Another way to look at it. Either way, NYC can be doing more.

[C.]

Originally Posted by Crawford

There's crazy density (for U.S. standards) from Bayonne to Fort Lee. Also this is the fastest growing part of NJ, with the most housing units planned and u/c.

They desperately need a continuous north-south rail link. The Hudson Bergen rail extension will absolutely help, but again, that's inland, and connecting a separate corridor of towns.

I'm not even sure if surface rail is feasible, given that River Road isn't super-wide, and then you have the Palisades cliffs. Elevated is probably a NIMBY impossibility. Underground would be incredibly expensive, but maybe the best option?

Promise not to laugh, but I have a vision for a N/S subway



Phase 1 would be an extension of the JSQ-33rd line that would extend south from Journal Square, through Bayonne, onto the Bayonne Bridge and into Staten Island then east along abandoned railway ROW to St. George station Ferry Terminal. Staten Island would gain a one-seat ride to midtown Manhattan.

Phase 2 would be a branch north from Journal Square on Kennedy Blvd up to Union City, Weehawken and the Lincoln Tunnel into the Port Authority Bus Terminal.

Phase 3 would be another branch north from the PABT, back across the river and this time further north through the hyper dense Hudson cities until Fort Lee. Then across the George Washing to connect with the GW Bridge Bus Terminal and the 1 line. That should help alleviate a huge amount of the bus traffic into Manhattan.

I have a few more ideas (like having one of these branches be an extension of the 7 line instead), but since the price tag is probably approaching $100 billion, that's enough for now.

[Steely Dan]

Hudson County now puts 725K people on 46 sq. miles of land.

Anywhere else in America outside of the NYC region, that would be a really fucking big urban deal.

It's already damn near San Francisco sized.

[Razor]

When it comes to world cities, I can't think of another country with the same 1-2 punch that America has with NYC and LA..I don't necessarily mean in size, but by occupying global space culturally as well..L.A because of it's large dominant movie and music industry.

London/Liverpool - nope
Rome/Milan- nope
China?
France?
etc?

[MAC123]

Originally Posted by Razor

When it comes to world cities, I can't think of another country with the same 1-2 punch that America has with NYC and LA..I don't necessarily mean in size, but by occupying global space culturally as well..L.A because of it's large dominant movie and music industry.

London/Liverpool - nope
Rome/Milan- nope
China?
France?
etc?

If you mean cities in their own respective countries, I'd probably agree I guess. London and Paris are probably comparable.
China definitely not because it cut itself off from the rest of the world and can't exercise the soft power that it really should be able to because of it.