HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum
     
Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #441  
Old Posted May 30, 2019, 6:02 PM
Obadno Obadno is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 3,436
Quote:
Originally Posted by IrishIllini View Post
I think most (if not all) major metros in the Northeast and Midwest have doubled in size since the 50s/60s. Pittsburgh, Upstate NY, and parts of New England are the exceptions IIRC. Pittsburgh has been pretty flat since the 1950s.

There’s plenty of space in the US for more people, but since we don’t like to build at higher densities, it seems we’re on track for a good number of 5-10m person metros. NYC and LA may grow to or sustain populations >20m. Chicago may get to 12-15m. Dallas could potentially get somewhere near that as well. I could see Minneapolis maturing in the 5-10m range. Nashville, NC Triangle, Columbus, St Louis, and the interior western metros are all primed to siphon growth from secondary metropolitan areas IMO.
Yes there is a TON of room in the USA even in our relatively dense areas there is lots of rural space not far away. And we are relatively unique in that much of our territory is temperate (basically the entire eastern 2/3 and the entire west coast. Not sure how big we will actually get but I dont think its unreasonable for the continental USA to house well over 1 billion, we have more temperate flat land then China and India with only~ 230 million people in it currently (excluding the west). And that's of course not concerning what improving technology will provide in terms of water and food, the potential upper limits are ludicrously high! (for both the US and the world) .

And as far as the less "habitable" areas of the inter-mountain west there are plenty of river fed valleys that can support big populations, they just take a little more effort.

There is a reason why you see the Desert Cities and western cities finally developing as money flows from already established regions to undeveloped areas that still have lots of untapped growth potential. (Improved technology helps this). Without the massive wealth built in the last 200 years in the Midwest/south/Northeast and West coast places Between the Cascades/sierras and the Rockies would still be nothing more than Mining/roadside towns and farms.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #442  
Old Posted May 30, 2019, 6:25 PM
Centropolis's Avatar
Centropolis Centropolis is online now
crisis actor
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: under the coin of caesar
Posts: 9,682
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtown,man View Post
The impression I've had of St Louis for my whole life(living about 4 hours away) was that it had some of the worst of all worlds. You guys got way more snow and winter weather than we did south of you(just north of Memphis) but you guys also got really hot and humid summers.

I don't even know if this is true, but it seemed true, so to this day I see St louis this way.
sort of, yes. having mild winters seems more common than having mild summers, however. the st. louis urban heat island can be fairly severe.

another way to put it is that we derive no benefit from being further north in summer towards better weather, but we do benefit from being further south in winter towards better weather.
__________________
t h e r e is no C h a o s.... . . . only g r e a t E n e r g y
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #443  
Old Posted May 30, 2019, 6:43 PM
iheartthed iheartthed is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: New York
Posts: 2,545
Quote:
Originally Posted by JManc View Post
^ I agree. The double digit growth is unsustainable...which is still the case even in the core city/ county unfortunately. Harris County was up over 10% during the last count. Houston itself dipped in growth due to oil sector.



Yeah, Atlanta proper did lose a lot of people in the 70's (I suspect white flight to the suburbs) but Atlanta as a whole continued to boom like crazy and grow into one of the largest metros in the country. No comparison to major metros up north where not only the cities hemorrhaged people but the metro areas saw a significant decrease or stagnated. You're not going to try to convince me that Atlanta went through the same plight as a city like Detroit or St. Louis are you?

As for Houston, what hollow areas? Do you mean poor areas? Un(der)developed areas?
Agree that there is a huge difference between declining city and declining metro. But I'd put money on it that Houston also had population decline in the older parts of the city. Atlanta is organized more like a northern big city, which are mostly all fragmented by municipal boundaries, with the older parts of the metro area are in the core city.

Last edited by iheartthed; May 30, 2019 at 7:05 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #444  
Old Posted May 30, 2019, 6:48 PM
JManc's Avatar
JManc JManc is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Houston
Posts: 25,209
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ant131531 View Post
Houston already has negative domestic migration....the entire metro. It's growing solely off of natural increase and international migration. Dallas/Atlanta still have solid domestic migration though.
Houston's population growth was at a virtual stand still due to price of oil and then Harvey on top of that. Property values throughout the area dropped. I think it's has since started to rebound somewhat and I noticed property values ticking back up.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #445  
Old Posted May 31, 2019, 12:01 AM
JAYNYC JAYNYC is offline
Live From The 212
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 641
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ant131531 View Post
Houston already has negative domestic migration....the entire metro. It's growing solely off of natural increase and international migration. Dallas/Atlanta still have solid domestic migration though.
So Greater Houston added ~1MM residents during a 7 year span (per the below) "solely off of natural increase and international migration"?

Seems unlikely.

3. Houston-The Woodlands-Sugar Land, TX

(April 1, 2010 - Estimates base) - 5,920,487

(July 1, 2017) - 6,905,695

(July 1, 2018) - 6,997,384

(Numeric Growth) - 91,689
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #446  
Old Posted May 31, 2019, 3:24 AM
Trae's Avatar
Trae Trae is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Los Angeles and Houston
Posts: 4,337
Quote:
Originally Posted by IrishIllini View Post
I wouldn’t argue they’ll hollow out or that people will “flee” or become “refugees”, but I do think domestic migration will likely turn negative and that it’ll happen sooner than later. Isn’t that already happening in core counties? Immigration and natural increases may keep the population growing, but I don’t think that’ll be at 10% YoY. My guess is it’d be in the 0-3% range.
DFW's domestic migration numbers are the largest they've ever been (since the Census began keeping record in 1990). The same was true for Houston before the oil slump, but the international migration numbers have continued to climb to the highest they've ever been. Before the oil slump, Harris County alone saw +20k in domestic migration in one year.

What will keep sunbelt metros like Houston and DFW afloat is the high domestic migration, the growing international migration (especially as the coasts become more expensive), and high natural increase rate. As long as they don't become super expensive and they continue to plan better, I think the growth will continue. It'll take a few decades to taper off and the corporations continue to relocate here.

I don't think the same is true for other metros like Atlanta, Miami, or even Phoenix. The Texas metros have the right mix for sustained growth over other areas.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #447  
Old Posted May 31, 2019, 4:32 PM
YSL YSL is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Austin
Posts: 340
Quote:
Originally Posted by JAYNYC View Post
So Greater Houston added ~1MM residents during a 7 year span (per the below) "solely off of natural increase and international migration"?

Seems unlikely.

3. Houston-The Woodlands-Sugar Land, TX

(April 1, 2010 - Estimates base) - 5,920,487

(July 1, 2017) - 6,905,695

(July 1, 2018) - 6,997,384

(Numeric Growth) - 91,689

7 year span? Why are you going back 7 years. Most metro areas here told a different story 7 years ago than they do today. 7 years is a very long time.

As of last year, the year before, Houston has had negative domestic migration and has been growing off of birth rates and intl migration.

Nothing wrong with that at all, that's how nearly all large metro areas grow. Houston has boomed, prices shot up, has matured and is following the patterns of its peer cities. Domestic isn't more important or preferable than International or even births lol. The richest parts of America have negative domestic migration.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #448  
Old Posted May 31, 2019, 5:38 PM
JManc's Avatar
JManc JManc is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Houston
Posts: 25,209
Quote:
Originally Posted by YSL View Post
7 year span? Why are you going back 7 years. Most metro areas here told a different story 7 years ago than they do today. 7 years is a very long time.

As of last year, the year before, Houston has had negative domestic migration and has been growing off of birth rates and intl migration.

Nothing wrong with that at all, that's how nearly all large metro areas grow. Houston has boomed, prices shot up, has matured and is following the patterns of its peer cities. Domestic isn't more important or preferable than International or even births lol. The richest parts of America have negative domestic migration.
That reflects pre-oil crash and pre-Harvey. When housing was out of control. It's pretty flat for now. We are sending everyone up 290.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #449  
Old Posted May 31, 2019, 5:39 PM
Gantz Gantz is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 299
Quote:
Originally Posted by IrishIllini View Post
I think most (if not all) major metros in the Northeast and Midwest have doubled in size since the 50s/60s. Pittsburgh, Upstate NY, and parts of New England are the exceptions IIRC. Pittsburgh has been pretty flat since the 1950s.

There’s plenty of space in the US for more people, but since we don’t like to build at higher densities, it seems we’re on track for a good number of 5-10m person metros. NYC and LA may grow to or sustain populations >20m. Chicago may get to 12-15m. Dallas could potentially get somewhere near that as well. I could see Minneapolis maturing in the 5-10m range. Nashville, NC Triangle, Columbus, St Louis, and the interior western metros are all primed to siphon growth from secondary metropolitan areas IMO.
Birth rate numbers are not there to sustain multiple 10m sized metros. Since United States fertility rate is below replacement level and dropping, we would have to have crazy intl immigration growth to cover both, the natural decrease in births and adding more people on top of that for the cities to grow. Millennials were the last big generation. There is a ~20-30 year lag between fertility rate and actual numbers of people being born, so 2020 census will be the last census with births exceeding deaths.
United States as a whole still remains an underpopulated country. But the house prices in most areas are dictated by zoning, building codes, or property taxes and not actual land availability. As a result, our birth rates are converging with much more densely populated Western Europe and Japan.

Last edited by Gantz; May 31, 2019 at 5:51 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #450  
Old Posted May 31, 2019, 6:09 PM
The North One's Avatar
The North One The North One is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 3,909
Quote:
Originally Posted by JManc View Post
^ I agree. The double digit growth is unsustainable...which is still the case even in the core city/ county unfortunately. Harris County was up over 10% during the last count. Houston itself dipped in growth due to oil sector.



Yeah, Atlanta proper did lose a lot of people in the 70's (I suspect white flight to the suburbs) but Atlanta as a whole continued to boom like crazy and grow into one of the largest metros in the country. No comparison to major metros up north where not only the cities hemorrhaged people but the metro areas saw a significant decrease or stagnated. You're not going to try to convince me that Atlanta went through the same plight as a city like Detroit or St. Louis are you?

As for Houston, what hollow areas? Do you mean poor areas? Un(der)developed areas?
I'm not convincing you of anything, the fact remains that those cities all hallowed out in the same ways for the same reasons. What you're trying to say wont happen already did happen despite such a growing booming economy which directly contradicts your point.

This is central Houston and it looks just as empty as east St. Louis.

https://www.google.com/maps/@29.7364...7i13312!8i6656
__________________
Spawn of questionable parentage!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #451  
Old Posted May 31, 2019, 6:21 PM
IrishIllini IrishIllini is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 948
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gantz View Post
Birth rate numbers are not there to sustain multiple 10m sized metros. Since United States fertility rate is below replacement level and dropping, we would have to have crazy intl immigration growth to cover both, the natural decrease in births and adding more people on top of that for the cities to grow. Millennials were the last big generation. There is a ~20-30 year lag between fertility rate and actual numbers of people being born, so 2020 census will be the last census with births exceeding deaths.
United States as a whole still remains an underpopulated country. But the house prices in most areas are dictated by zoning, building codes, or property taxes and not actual land availability. As a result, our birth rates are converging with much more densely populated Western Europe and Japan.
Sure thing on birth rates, but I think (and hope) we may loosen up on immigration after 2020 - especially if buyers stop showing up for real estate. Even after the bust, most people still expect to make money selling their homes. Domestic migration is near or at record lows and if birth rates continue their downward slide, I’d assume that would soften the suburban housing market. That’s already an ongoing phenomena here in Chicago and other urban metros out east.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #452  
Old Posted May 31, 2019, 6:42 PM
JManc's Avatar
JManc JManc is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Houston
Posts: 25,209
Quote:
Originally Posted by The North One View Post
I'm not convincing you of anything, the fact remains that those cities all hallowed out in the same ways for the same reasons. What you're trying to say wont happen already did happen despite such a growing booming economy which directly contradicts your point.

This is central Houston and it looks just as empty as east St. Louis.

https://www.google.com/maps/@29.7364...7i13312!8i6656
If there was an area you would use as an example, it had to be this and while it's pretty bad, it's still not St. Louis. This is a historically poor/ working class black area that has continued to deteriorate over the years and residents eventually tricked to other parts of town..mainly southwest Houston. This was never a prosperous part of town. St. Louis had solid middle class areas with stately homes ravaged by white flight. The entire city plummeted in population. The scenario in Houston is actually very common throughout the South...because it's the South.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #453  
Old Posted Jun 4, 2019, 1:24 PM
Centropolis's Avatar
Centropolis Centropolis is online now
crisis actor
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: under the coin of caesar
Posts: 9,682
Quote:
Originally Posted by JManc View Post
If there was an area you would use as an example, it had to be this and while it's pretty bad, it's still not St. Louis. This is a historically poor/ working class black area that has continued to deteriorate over the years and residents eventually tricked to other parts of town..mainly southwest Houston. This was never a prosperous part of town. St. Louis had solid middle class areas with stately homes ravaged by white flight. The entire city plummeted in population. The scenario in Houston is actually very common throughout the South...because it's the South.
actually he said EAST st. louis, which IS probably more analogous, and was always an industrial working class area.
__________________
t h e r e is no C h a o s.... . . . only g r e a t E n e r g y
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #454  
Old Posted Jun 4, 2019, 5:44 PM
Gantz Gantz is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 299
Quote:
Originally Posted by IrishIllini View Post
Sure thing on birth rates, but I think (and hope) we may loosen up on immigration after 2020 - especially if buyers stop showing up for real estate. Even after the bust, most people still expect to make money selling their homes. Domestic migration is near or at record lows and if birth rates continue their downward slide, I’d assume that would soften the suburban housing market. That’s already an ongoing phenomena here in Chicago and other urban metros out east.
Loosening up migration would help, but not make cities grow at the same rate as now. There are not enough people in Mexico to cover United States natural population deficits, and Mexico itself is not doing so great demographically.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #455  
Old Posted Jun 4, 2019, 6:28 PM
IrishIllini IrishIllini is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 948
Why limit it to Mexico? We could loosen things up for all of Central and South America, Africa, East and South Europe, the Middle East and South Asia, South East Asia...
Reply With Quote
     
     
End

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 2:11 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.