Which US cities will see the most growth in the 20s?

[Obadno]

Originally Posted by The North One

Pfft, nonsense! Every city boaster on skyscraperpage also happens to be a climatologist/environmentalist with a PHD in climate change denialism here falling over themselves just to reassure us that all of this collective research from world wide experts is straight hogwash! pish-posh if you will. Why? because they said so! we good bro!

There have been multiple better articles posted on the topic in this thread. that article is not accurate. Not that the guardian is famed for its journalistic integrity.

[JAYNYC]

Originally Posted by Denvergotback

How so? I understand New Orleans is below sea level but Houston does get some pretty serious flooding

For starters, New Orleans has never (at least not in recent memory) been considered a boomtown. Houston has been booming for decades.

[Denvergotback]

Originally Posted by JAYNYC

For starters, New Orleans has never (at least not in recent memory) been considered a boomtown. Houston has been booming for decades.

That doesn’t matter, just because a city is booming doesn’t mean it’s immuned to a economical cool down due to a large hurricane or significant flooding. I mean hurricane Harvey did slow things down a bit for Houston (for a short period of time) but imagine a larger, more destructive hurricane ripping through the city. Or multiple Harvey’s in a row

Like I said before, I don’t think Houston’s economy will collapse like New Orleans did, but I think if a similar situation where to happen in Houston it could slow the economy significantly, to where it’s still growing, but not at the same monstrous rate it is now

[Buckeye Native 001]

Originally Posted by Obadno

I would like for you to expand on what this means. Because it reads like some kids-movie platitude about the importance of teamwork.

I despise his arrogance, but Jon Talton addresses these issues in far more detail on his blog.

[ThePhun1]

Originally Posted by Denvergotback

Wasn't the same true for New Orleans? All it took was 1 big one to destroy the local economy. In some ways the city is still recovering from that devastation, and all it took was one. Does that mean Houston may get “the one” in the next 10 years, or maybe ever? No, but one thing is for sure, that hurricanes are becoming more common, and all that does is up the chances for Houston to get one. To think that what happened to New Orleans couldn’t happen or affect Houston in a similar manner is very naive. History has a funny way of repeating itself.

It may get “enough” hurricanes and flooding in the next 10 years, that although may not destroy much, it could be enough to make companies and people to second guess moving there. Weather can effect the economy. I never said Houston will stop growing, I believe it will have a healthy economy for a long while, but in my opinion I don’t think it will be among the fastest growing cities in the 2020s. I personally believe Dallas will keep up steam for the next decade while Houston may cool off a bit. But that’s just my opinion and I could be very well wrong

We've had two major hurricanes in roughly a decade. Galveston, Kemah and some other coastal areas were completely devastated but have recovered. Galveston has a Rust Belt feel to it anyways and limited growth potential due to geology and geography, so who cares that it declined a little, its role is clearly defined as a minor coastal resort town.

Growth will likely shift northward in a radial direction as the inner loop/city densifies. Plenty of cheap land and farm land abound.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by Denvergotback

That doesn’t matter, just because a city is booming doesn’t mean it’s immuned to a economical cool down due to a large hurricane or significant flooding. I mean hurricane Harvey did slow things down a bit for Houston (for a short period of time) but imagine a larger, more destructive hurricane ripping through the city. Or multiple Harvey’s in a row

Like I said before, I don’t think Houston’s economy will collapse like New Orleans did, but I think if a similar situation where to happen in Houston it could slow the economy significantly, to where it’s still growing, but not at the same monstrous rate it is now

Harvey was devastating (my neighborhood alone was under 8' of water) and the economy here is far bigger and more resilient for Houston to crash and burn over something like that. New Orleans is much smaller, poorer (on average) and less important economically.

[Sun Belt]

Originally Posted by Obadno

And lastly Vegas is cooler, but not by a meaningful amount, and the issue isnt heat for desert living it is access to water, and Vegas' is in a far more dire situation than Phoenix is.

Southern California, cities too. We just went through a couple years of mandatory water restrictions and cut backs. Phoenix did not because Phoenix had/has surplus water.

So the day Phoenix cannot grow any further, that day would've come to California and Southern Nevada much sooner.

[Handro]

Originally Posted by CherryCreek

With the back and forth on whether Phoenix can really survive climate change, I thought I'd go to the the Google machine for answers.

Interesting 2019 article from Yale Environment 360 cataloging what Phoenix has done thus far to deal with looming threat of water shortages and climate change and what options it has going forward. Obando has some valid points.

https://e360.yale.edu/features/how-p...do-river-water

As an aside, there has been a lot of media reports in recent months about how parts of the earth will become inhabitable due to high temperatures. Mostly, these are areas in the Middle East and India.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/03/asia/...ntl/index.html

The key factor seems to be "wet bulb" temperatures - which are combination of heat and humidity. Amazingly, parts of the middle east and Indian subcontinent have an unusual combination of both EXTREME heat and EXTREME humidity. We are talking temperatures well past 110 with extreme humidity. At a wet bulb temperature of 35 Celsius humans can't cool their bodies while outside and a city may become uninhabitable.

https://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2017/1...se-says-study/


I don't think Phoenix gets those combinations, so perhaps it will do better than those parts of Middle East. The linked article above in fact shows parts of the South East US with higher wet bulb temperatures.

Sure, and that could point to good things for Pheonix in the face of climate chnage. But the statement that Obando balked at was "Climate change will affect the future, not the past. It’s certainly fair to ask how we want Phoenix 'or LA or San Diego, Palm Springs or Mexicali, Tiujana, Hermosillo, El Paso/Juarez...' to grow, and in fact there are a lot of very smart people in high places studying those very questions."

Is that not the case, and is that not pertinent in city planning, especially in places in extreme climates like the desert? It's silly to take such a benign statement and imply that I'm condemning Phoenix to a quick death, as Obadno did. And to offer very misinformed statements like:

Originally Posted by Obadno

I have a feeling none of these cities will vanish as the most dire predictions of climate change and sea level rise dont make anyplace uninhabitable, even "vulnerable" coastal cities that will have to deal with slightly faster than normal ...maybe... sea level rises in the next 180 years....

[iheartthed]

I think the Carolinas will have another good decade. I think we'll talk more about Raleigh next decade than we did in this past one. Orlando is also poised to have a good decade.

[muertecaza]

Originally Posted by badrunner

Las Vegas might be more desolate than Phoenix, but it's quite a bit cooler and drier. It also uses less water per capita.

But the real issue with these desert cities isn't sustainability per se (technology can make almost any place habitable), it's that they will never become truly urban, walkable cities. You're facing life-threatening temperatures for half the year (this will only get worse with climate change) and you'd have to be out of your mind to want to walk around for any length of time outside. They are designed for air-conditioned cars so they'll always have that suburban office park feel.

This isn't true for everyone--I still bike to work and walk to lunch throughout the summer. But I do think there is some truth to that for most people. It's hard to make any post-war-booming Sunbelt North American city urban/walkable. And I do think that the heat in desert cities is an added challenge that makes that extra difficult. It's too bad, too, because I feel like the best thing we could do to make Phoenix more walkable is to build tall buildings that block the sun and give shade. But there's sort of a chicken and egg problem there that I don't know how to solve.

[muertecaza]

If anyone is truly interested in climate change/sustainability issues with respect to Phoenix, I found this book interesting and a good/easy read:

https://www.amazon.com/Future-Suburb...gateway&sr=8-1

The author is a Phoenix native and a bit of a booster, so know that going in. But he takes as his starting point the Guardian article posted above decrying Phoenix as the "least sustainable city" and pushes back on that claim while by discussing the sustainability challenges Phoenix faces as compared to sustainability challenges faced by other cities. Gives a lot of good context to water, power, agriculture, housing/sprawl, economic and climate change issues.

[Obadno]

Originally Posted by muertecaza

This isn't true for everyone--I still bike to work and walk to lunch throughout the summer. But I do think there is some truth to that for most people. It's hard to make any post-war-booming Sunbelt North American city urban/walkable. And I do think that the heat in desert cities is an added challenge that makes that extra difficult. It's too bad, too, because I feel like the best thing we could do to make Phoenix more walkable is to build tall buildings that block the sun and give shade. But there's sort of a chicken and egg problem there that I don't know how to solve.

I still have no idea why people think desert cities are too hot to be walkable. Our weather is more pleasent for spending time outside despire the very hot summer than most "temperate" cities are between rain and cold.

70% of the year Phoenix is perfectly pleasent temperatrue-wise. Few cities can say the same.

[CherryCreek]

As far as "surprise" boom towns, it wouldn't surprise me if Colorado Springs really takes the next step and grows into a real city. It remains relatively affordable as compared to the other Colorado cities to its north, and is beginning to get some traction with millennials. Its a pretty city and a has a lot to offer. It historically has been a military town and a town known as a very conservative outpost in an otherwise blue-trending Colorado, but that may change too.

There's around 700 k in the El Paso County now (pretty much metro Colorado Springs), but it wouldn't surprise me to see rapid growth between now and 2030 to become a 1 million + metro.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Obadno

Midwestern and northern winter climate is far more life threatening than the worst heat Phoenix or Vegas can throw at you. with shade and water you can spend, albeit uncomfortable, but indefinite times outside in extreme temps.

There is no predictions that will put places like phoenix into literally unsurvivable temperatures due to global warming, thats just nonsense.

And lastly Vegas is cooler, but not by a meaningful amount, and the issue isnt heat for desert living it is access to water, and Vegas' is in a far more dire situation than Phoenix is.

I doubt that construction workers have the same productivity on a 110 degree day in Vegas, which is normal for July, as they do on a 30 degree day in Chicago.

[CherryCreek]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

I doubt that construction workers have the same productivity on a 110 degree day in Vegas, which is normal for July, as they do on a 30 degree day in Chicago.

I agree with this. Outdoor workers (and people in general) can do something about even extreme cold - CLOTHES! Appropriately dressed, even temps in the teens and 20s can feel comfortable (though if that Chicago wind is blowing, perhaps not!. Lol).

There's nothing you can really do to prepare your body to sustain itself outdoors in 110+ heat. I assume that out door work tails off in the hottest part of the summer in the desert cities, just as it does during the coldest part of the winter (or during extreme cold) in Northern cities.

For me, anything above 95 degrees (in a dry climate such as Denver or Phoenix) is uncomfortable. For a humid climate, I'd say 85 or above. As far as cold goes, for the sake of argument, I'll say that 30 degrees or above isn't really an issue when you dress for the weather.

With those parameters, appropriately dressed, what percentage of the year is "comfortable" outdoors in northern cities as compared to desert cities?

Using my definitions, where anything 30 degrees or warmer is easily made comfortable by dressing appropriately, then a very, very high percentage of the days during the year in Denver are comfortable to be outside. (Of course Denver has average highs above 45 in mid January, so other northern cities may be different).

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by CherryCreek

Appropriately dressed, even temps even in the teens and 20s can feel comfortable (though if that Chicago wind is blowing, perhaps not!. Lol).

in a midwest winter, it's ALL about the wind. temperature is very much secondary, unless you're talking about antarctica levels of cold.

as a 4-season bike commuter in chicago for the past 12 years, i can speak with some authority on this.

i can ride in all kinds of cold weather geared up with relative comfort, but when we get that utterly ridiculous polar vortex shit where the wind chills can plunge down into the -40s, even i throw in the towel.

extreme cold + still air = honestly not that big of a deal.

extreme cold + strong wind = mornings of struggle.


in the winter, i pay more attention to the wind forecast than i do the temp forecast. wind is the critical issue.

[badrunner]

Going for a brisk walk in freezing temps can feel pretty good. Don't try that in the desert heat as it can literally kill you within minutes. A lot of people wouldn't even survive a one mile walk in 110+ degree temps.

[BG918]

Originally Posted by JAYNYC

Although its convention & visitor's bureau and a few forumers on this board love to suggest that it is, Nashville is not comparable to Austin. Austin is more advanced in every meaningful category, yet Nashville residents enjoy associating with Austin's progress and consistently drawing analogies to it.

Nashville's development pace is much more similar to that of Salt Lake City and Jacksonville - two cities doing relatively well.

"Surprise" cities of the 2020's is completely subjective (it requires one to also have an opinion on which cities will have "expected" growth and development), but I would say:

Birmingham, AL
Fayetteville, NC
Tulsa, OK
Chattanooga, TN,
Little Rock, AR
El Paso, TX
Albuquerque, NM

Not so sure about Birmingham and Little Rock as they are more similar to cities like Memphis and Jackson with regard to poor city leadership, racial issues, crime problems and city/county/state infighting. Both cool cities though so I hope I'm wrong.

A few other growing cities that have been getting good press, have relatively diverse and growing economies and could be boom town candidates are:
- Oklahoma City, OK (along with nearby Tulsa in the list above these metros are primed for high growth)
- Charleston, SC (lots to like about this historic city and small metro, along with nearby Savannah, GA)
- Louisville, KY (another city positioned for growth in the midwest, more similar to Indianapolis and Minneapolis than stagnant rust belt cities)

What holds the cities above back is that most are located in states that don't have very good education and healthcare systems, and lack the infrastructure and talent for dynamic 21st century economies.

[Handro]

Originally Posted by CherryCreek

I agree with this. Outdoor workers (and people in general) can do something about even extreme cold - CLOTHES! Appropriately dressed, even temps in the teens and 20s can feel comfortable (though if that Chicago wind is blowing, perhaps not!. Lol).

Using this very non-scientific method, check out OSHA guidelines:

Hot weather:
https://www.osha.gov/SLTC/heatillnes..._measures.html

Cold Weather:
https://www.osha.gov/dts/weather/win...windchill.html

Seems a lot more dangerous for your average construction worker to be out on a normal summer day in Houston or Phoenix than the average winter day in Chicago or New York.

[edale]

Originally Posted by BG918

- Louisville, KY (another city positioned for growth in the midwest, more similar to Indianapolis and Minneapolis than stagnant rust belt cities)

Explain this. I've been to Louisville, and it's a fine town with some cool neighborhoods, but I don't think it's really growing, either at the city or metro level. They seem to be just as 'stagnant' as many other cities in the region. I could maybe see it becoming more of a tourist destination, particularly as the bourbon trail continues to gain in popularity. But overall, I don't see Louisville changing much in coming years. It also has the uphill battle of being located in Kentucky- a state that is pretty anti-urban and has a terrible national reputation.