[babybackribs2314]

I compiled a list of the top 10 U.S. Combined Statistical Areas from 2010, and included their population from 2000 as well as the numerical change between the two figures. If you look at the growth in terms of percentage, the clear leaders are Dallas, Houston, and Atlanta--all sprawling sun-belt metropolises. All three agglomerations grew between 22-26% in the past decade.

Washington-Baltimore was the only other top 10 CSA to grow more than 10% in 10 years, with the region growing roughly 13% between 2000 and 2010.

Growth in terms of % increase is deceptive, though. Even though four other CSAs come out ahead of it in terms of percentage increase in population, the Los Angeles area still has a healthy lead when it comes to numerical growth, having added over 1.5 million residents this past decade--over 250,000 more than Dallas, which came second in terms of raw growth.

Los Angeles's numbers are extremely impressive, especially for a city of its size. If trends from the past decade continue--and they will not, as the growth of cities is extremely unpredictable for a variety of reasons--it would still take well over 50 years for the Los Angeles region to pass New York. Even if Los Angeles manages to grow more robustly in future decades while New York stagnates, the numbers show it will be a very long while before New York loses its number one spot to Los Angeles.

Simply put: New York will be the undisputed largest city in the United States until 2050 at the very earliest, and that is assuming something terrible happens to the New York region while the Los Angeles area booms. While that is always a possibility, it seems very unlikely at this time, especially as real estate has experienced a tremendous crash in the Los Angeles area, with the Inland Empire--where much of the region's growth has occurred--hit particularly hard.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-vHdjbhWXEqg/TsyMGgcNNmI/AAAAAAAAAAQ/5SOj0ovK3qo/s1600/cities.jpg



Read more:

http://newyorkyimby.blogspot.com/2011/11/largest-us-cities-in-2020-will-new-york.html

I wrote it, but growth projections are always something I love discussing with others.

I think NYC is well situated to maintain the #1 position with no contest for the foreseeable future, although the rankings from #3 down will be changing fairly soon. While DC overtaking Chicago is by no means a sure bet, I would be confident in saying that Dallas will become larger than Boston/SF and Houston will pass Philly within the next decade, and no later than 2025.

Discuss away! :banana:

[Jelly Roll]

Read more:

http://newyorkyimby.blogspot.com/2011/11/largest-us-cities-in-2020-will-new-york.html

I wrote it, but growth projections are always something I love discussing with others.

I think NYC is well situated to maintain the #1 position with no contest for the foreseeable future, although the rankings from #3 down will be changing fairly soon. While DC overtaking Chicago is by no means a sure bet, I would be confident in saying that Dallas will become larger than Boston/SF and Houston will pass Philly within the next decade, and no later than 2025.

Discuss away! :banana:

I am not so sure about Houston passing Philly in the next decade. As Philadelphia is currently going through a re-zoning of the whole city and a restructuring of the tax system I could see business and population growth explode over the next 10 years.

[MolsonExport]

NYC and Philly will grow together and become New Philladelphiyork City. A 30-million behemouth.

[Steely Dan]

it isn't universally accepted that CSA = "city".

MSA and UA are other valid ways in which "city" can be defined, so it's important to remember there is more than one way to define "city" when we talk about the largest "cities" in 2020 and beyond.

[mhays]

Houston's top industry is booming and seems likely to continue. On the other hand, much of that is based in north/central NA, which might result in Calgary and other places et al taking some of Houston's steam both as a region-specific center and a headquarters center.

Philly and other Northeastern/Midwest centers could grow with the trend toward urbanity.

I'd love to hear more about what's happening in Philly. Generally though, boosting a central city's economy doesn't necessarily grow population, as one result is that some poor families might be replaced with DINKs and empty nesters. Also, the effect might be more about where people and companies locate within the metro, rather than which metro they locate in. Third, even very major policy changes often take decades to turn into large demographic trends.

[mhays]

it isn't universally accepted that CSA = "city".

I agree that if DC/Baltimore pass Chicago as a CSA, you could still argue that they're fairly separate. Not so much SF/SJ, as SJ is more of an offshoot.

CSA is a flawed definition. Not sure what's better though.

[Steely Dan]

CSA is a flawed definition. Not sure what's better though.
it's not so much about finding a singular "best" definition; it's more about understanding that there are other equally valid ways beyond CSA to define "city".

[Jelly Roll]

I'd love to hear more about what's happening in Philly. Generally though, boosting a central city's economy doesn't necessarily grow population, as one result is that some poor families might be replaced with DINKs and empty nesters. Also, the effect might be more about where people and companies locate within the metro, rather than which metro they locate in. Third, even very major policy changes often take decades to turn into large demographic trends.

I understand what you are saying here about pushing the poorer folks out but I do not see this happening.

Philadelphia has lost over 500k residents since its peak in the 1950's. To go along with this loss many of the factories where these people worked were also abandoned. This leaves us with the present city that has tons of areas that were zoned industrial and have been sitting vacant and unable to be developed as residential areas. With a city wide rezoning this opens up plenty of opportunities to develope new areas of the city.

[mhays]

Post industrial sites can be great. But they can also be expensive and difficult. Remediating contaminated soils can make a good project not pencil. Historic protections can add value but also make a project take way more time and effort.

As for poorer folks, I'm not complaining about gentrification, or predicting it. But it's often seen anywhere that becomes more desirable, on a neighborhood level. Brownfield infill often goes hand-in-hand with values rising in existing neighborhoods. (Meanwhile, any new housing construction tends to keep the supply/demand ratio in balance, helping control costs on the metro level.)

[summersm343]

Philadelphia is actually growing in population currently. Just because a city has a current low in a certain decade or past decades doesn't mean it can't start growing again.

[babybackribs2314]

Philadelphia is actually growing in population currently. This is clearly invalid. We'll see when 2020 comes.

Huh?

Philadelphia may be growing--slowly--and growth may pick up in coming years, but I highly doubt it will be able to grow anywhere near as fast as Houston... Houston grew roughly 1.2 million both this decade and last, and while growth may slow, I don't see it slowing enough to let Philadelphia hold on to 8th place...

[summersm343]

Huh?

Philadelphia may be growing--slowly--and growth may pick up in coming years, but I highly doubt it will be able to grow anywhere near as fast as Houston... Houston grew roughly 1.2 million both this decade and last, and while growth may slow, I don't see it slowing enough to let Philadelphia hold on to 8th place...

I will like to see that happen. This thread will be nothing more then another city v. city thread.

[Reverberation]

Houston's top industry is booming and seems likely to continue. On the other hand, much of that is based in north/central NA, which might result in Calgary and other places et al taking some of Houston's steam both as a region-specific center and a headquarters center.



Yes it's true that oil has been very good to Houston. But much of that has been driven by the demand for Oil in other regions further inland. The region is in the process of expanding the port and its capacity for cargo - which given the expansion of the Panama Canal, will make it cheaper and more efficient to bring goods through the port.

I attended a luncheon where the topic of discussion was the future of land in Metro Houston. The consensus was that the primary driver of economic growth (besides oil) would be the expanding port. Larger west coast ports such as Los Angeles were becoming more and more cost prohibitive due to regional politics (specifically certain groups who felt that they had a monopoly on serving the freight that HAD to be shipped through -thus charging a premium for doing so) which ultimately helped drive the expansion of the Panama Canal enabling freight to be delivered cheaply through ports along the Gulf of Mexico.

[JDRCRASH]

In terms of City proper, it will probably be #1 for the rest of the century at least. Although I think LA can close the gap considerably if it rezones the whole city, densifies, and GREATLY expands it's rail network (on a scale that would take a Measure R2 and Measure R3).

In terms of CSA's , it might happen by 2050. But that's only if NY doesn't combine with Philly (which I can't help but feel is like LA combining with SD - via the 15).

[lawfin]

Oh god this crap again. Dis will be the biggest city as it always has been and always will be.

[Ch.G, Ch.G]

NYC and Philly will grow together and become New Philladelphiyork City. A 30-million behemouth.

Yes. :slob:

it isn't universally accepted that CSA = "city".

MSA and UA are other valid ways in which "city" can be defined, so it's important to remember there is more than one way to define "city" when we talk about the largest "cities" in 2020 and beyond.

Yes. :yes:

This thread will be nothing more then another city v. city thread.

Yes. :(

[Ch.G, Ch.G]

Perhaps not by 2020 but by 2050 I do think some factors are bound to have a dramatic effect on urban geography. Among them:

-changes in climate (and, relatedly/especially, a concurrent rise in sea level)
-scarcity of freshwater
-depletion of nonrenewable natural resources

[599GTO]

I wonder when Wash + Baltimore, New York + Bridgeport, and SF + SJ will merge into single MSAs?

[babybackribs2314]

First of all: noone has made this topic city vs. city at all. The only people it's coming from are people who are saying it's going to turn into city vs. city; I see no reason it needs to, people are simply discussing (potential) future trends in urban growth.

I wonder when Wash + Baltimore, New York + Bridgeport, and SF + SJ will merge into single MSAs?

I think all three are fairly likely by 2030 or so. I think the latter two may even accomplish that by 2020, but I dunno... the momentum is there in all three cases, certainly. I think we'll see Wash/Balt and SF-SJ thought of as more like Dallas-Fort Worth fairly soon...

[mhays]

They might never be MSAs based on my outdated understanding of MSAs...for example Orange County is indisputably part of LA, but it's a different MSA because they separate counties.

SF/SJ are already connected more than WA/BA in my book. SJ is less of a center than a big area of suburbia that happens to have an small older center in the middle of it. Baltimore grew up as its own city.

[Trae]

I am not so sure about Houston passing Philly in the next decade. As Philadelphia is currently going through a re-zoning of the whole city and a restructuring of the tax system I could see business and population growth explode over the next 10 years.

I doubt it. Houston MSA was already only thousands behind Philly MSA. Philly will be passed up.