Major cities or metros of tomorrow?

[Qubert]

I know this isn't particularly fun or exciting, but IMHO you'll just see cities move up a notch or two rather than rocket from small to tall

Charlotte, Raleigh, Nashville, and Austin will be where Dallas, Houston and Atlanta are now.

Portland might begin to catch up to Seattle. Boise and SLC might begin to get to where Denver is.

SF and LA will just continue to blow up. Nothing in in-state CA is close to making a name for itself. Sac will just join the SF-SV borg. SD will finally merge with LA.

Chicago will continue to tread water, with the booming downtown holding anchor against outer city/Cook Co Suburbs that are hollowing out. Other midwest metros arrest their declines (Detroit, St Louis, Pittsburgh, Cleveland) but will only grow very, very, very slowly.

NYC will continue to just dominate, with Philly finally becoming a major growth center for reasons due to lower cost and proximity. Boston will hum along, albeit not gang-busters. DC will absorb Baltimore and more and more of Virginia.


The only wildcards I see is the Richmond-Tidewater area of Virginia and Upstate SC. Those areas could come out of blue as major metros.

[The North One]

Originally Posted by Qubert

I know this isn't particularly fun or exciting, but IMHO you'll just see cities move up a notch or two rather than rocket from small to tall

Charlotte, Raleigh, Nashville, and Austin will be where Dallas, Houston and Atlanta are now.

umm what time frame are we talking here? Because that would require insane china-like growth for all those cities.

Dallas has almost seven million people while Nashville doesn't even have 2 million yet. You will not live to see a 7 million metro Nashville I can guarantee.

[JManc]

If he's 20 or 30, 5 million in his lifetime is feasible. Think of where Dallas was 50-60 years ago. The US is bigger and adding greater raw numbers now than it was then.

[The North One]

Our rate of growth is at the lowest it's been in 80 years and we have lots of reasons to believe it will slow even more.

And it's absurd to assume the same metro is going to keep growing at a high rate for over half a century just because there is growth now. Anything can happen in that time frame.

[Tuckerman]

No matter how you slice it, population growth in cities can only come from some very predictable sources, namely urbanization, immigration, domestic migration, lowering death rates, rising birth rates or some catastrophic event that forces large demographic shifts (e.g. sea level rise flooding low lying cities). In the US, historically, city growth has been highly tied to immigration in earlier times and domestic migration in recent times. Urbanization has more or less played itself out in the US; few rural areas of population are left. It is doubtful that death rates will change much in the near future, although the US lags significantly behind other advanced economies. Birth rates in advanced economies rarely even reach replacement value. Immigration and migration are very difficult to predict. Current daily domestic migration rates still show high increased activity in the fast growing large metros.

[kcexpress69]

edit

[BG918]

Originally Posted by The North One

Our rate of growth is at the lowest it's been in 80 years and we have lots of reasons to believe it will slow even more.

And it's absurd to assume the same metro is going to keep growing at a high rate for over half a century just because there is growth now. Anything can happen in that time frame.

In the 1960's metros like Detroit, Pittsburgh and St Louis were in the Top 10 largest in the U.S. and look where they are now. Which current Top 10 metros will be bumped out and replaced in 50 years?

1. New York
2. Los Angeles
3. Chicago
4. Dallas
5. Houston
6. Washington DC
7. Miami
8. Philadelphia
9. Atlanta
10. Boston

[kcexpress69]

Let me try a quickened version of this. A regional area has grown to challenge another on in the state of Arkansas. Two MSAs, Fort Smith, and NW Arkansas, which includes Fayetteville, Springdale, Bentonville, and Rogers, are nearly caught up population wise with the Little Rock CSA, which also includes Pine Bluff and Searcy. While both areas have been growing considerably for several decades, now, NW Arkansas has been growing very rapidly. The 1980 population for NW Ark, was 409,695 while Little Rock was 598,749. Today, NW Ark stands at 836,316 while Little Rock has grown to 905,847. While Little Rock will remain the powerhouse in the state of Arkansas for a considerable amount of time, NW Arkansas has at least now challenged LR for a share of some of that dominance!!

[Tuckerman]

Originally Posted by BG918

In the 1960's metros like Detroit, Pittsburgh and St Louis were in the Top 10 largest in the U.S. and look where they are now. Which current Top 10 metros will be bumped out and replaced in 50 years?

1. New York
2. Los Angeles
3. Chicago
4. Dallas
5. Houston
6. Washington DC
7. Miami
8. Philadelphia
9. Atlanta
10. Boston

Probably Boston and Philadelphia will be bumped from this list. Phoenix and Seattle will be in the top ten. Dallas-FW may surpass Chicago; Atlanta may jump over Miami and Washington.

[The North One]

Originally Posted by BG918

In the 1960's metros like Detroit, Pittsburgh and St Louis were in the Top 10 largest in the U.S. and look where they are now. Which current Top 10 metros will be bumped out and replaced in 50 years?

??? This has absolutely nothing to do with what I said.

[Tuckerman]

Also notable in the future changes are the characteristics of the cities. The Euro immigrant background that characterized Boston, Chicago, NYC etc is being replaced by other migration effects. Atlanta is a significant African-American city and Phoenix, Houston, Miami, Dallas have a large hispanic contingent. The power, political and economic, is quite different in these newer large metros.

[kcexpress69]

Originally Posted by The North One

??? This has absolutely nothing to do with what I said.

I think maybe what he meant, was that even though the growth rate will continue to slow down, many metro areas will continue to rise, due to population shifts caused by migration, rural flight, economic opportunities, etc. At least that's what I got out of that point.

[kcexpress69]

Originally Posted by BG918

In the 1960's metros like Detroit, Pittsburgh and St Louis were in the Top 10 largest in the U.S. and look where they are now. Which current Top 10 metros will be bumped out and replaced in 50 years?

1. New York
2. Los Angeles
3. Chicago
4. Dallas
5. Houston
6. Washington DC
7. Miami
8. Philadelphia
9. Atlanta
10. Boston

Depending on if we're talking about MSAs (which you have listed) or CSAs which changes the rankings up quite a bit.

Here's a list of the top 10 CSAs:

1. New York
2. Los Angeles
3. Chicago
4. Washington / Baltimore
5. San Francisco / Oakland / San Jose
6. Boston / Worcester / Providence
7. Dallas / Fort Worth
8. Philadelphia
9. Houston
10. Miami


CSAs like Washington / Baltimore, and San Francisco / San Jose make sense because those cities are right next to each other. It's hard to not include them under one umbrella of a metro area!! Just my opinion though

[stallty]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Uh, I cited Census data. Pretty sure one doesn't need to be an "Alabama expert" to confirm Alabama Census population numbers.

The fact is that Birmingham currently has 3x the population of Huntsville (or any other Bama metro) so no metro is challenging it anytime soon. And Birmingham is growing, BTW.

If Huntsville were to "surpass in Birmingham in 5 years" as you claim, it would have to add around 850,000 people, or have greater numeric growth than any metro in the U.S. (and greater % growth by a longshot- it would make the 5 year growth of Dubai or Chinese cities look like child's play).

I don't see why everyone keeps having these arguments...As tdawg said the population of Huntsville is on track to become the largest "city" in Alabama in the next 5 years. This is correct, Huntsville is about 15k shy right now at 195k and is growing much much faster than Birmingham. No one is arguing that the Huntsville metro will overtake Birmingham metro in population anytime soon.

As someone who has lived in Midland, Austin and now Huntsville. I see Huntsville as a mini 1990's Austin. It has all of the ingredients to really explode over the next few decades. I don't see it having quite the success because as Austin. But it is set up really well to rise with the tech sector especially the commercial space industry. I do worry that with Sessions out of the senate and Shelby well into his 80's the "Space Mafia" that has protected Huntsville won't be there anymore. Another hinderance will be and always has been its last name...Alabama.

[mhays]

WaBa is two cities that are loosely connected. SF is more like the main central city with satellites in Oakland and San Jose, and Silicon Valley shared between two of them.

stallty, Austin has a similar issue being in Texas. It might be a negative, but it might also be a positive...being unusual in your own region can make you the go-to place for a lot of people.

[tdawg]

I was not implying that Metro Huntsville would surpass Metro Birmingham in the next 5 years. That's insane. I was referring specifically to the city population. And Stallty, I hear ya. I'm forever having to explain to my friends in New York how unique Huntsville is compared to the rest of the state.

[Sun Belt]

Originally Posted by The North One

Our rate of growth is at the lowest it's been in 80 years and we have lots of reasons to believe it will slow even more.

And it's absurd to assume the same metro is going to keep growing at a high rate for over half a century just because there is growth now. Anything can happen in that time frame.

In the future we will likely slow down in population growth and that's ok. We don't need Nashville to be 7 million people.

In the future era of AI, automation, we won't need useless people to fill useless jobs. Best to cut back on the growth machine now and phase it out. Jobs are about to disappear.

[Sun Belt]

Originally Posted by mhays

WaBa is two cities that are loosely connected. SF is more like the main central city with satellites in Oakland and San Jose, and Silicon Valley shared between two of them.

Please tell me that "WaBa" is not a thing!

[mhays]

I'm just lazy, but people do use shorthand for that sort of thing...not sure what the more popular one is.

I'm guessing the OP didn't mean "city" to be the central municipality. That would be pointless. Cities (broader definition) rise and fall due to their whole areas. This discussion is clearly about the broader area rising and why, not local shuffling.

[Cirrus]

It's not a thing.