Will Chicago possibly become more populated then Los Angeles (Riverside: schools, closing)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Location: Austin, TX/Chicago, IL/Houston, TX/Washington, DC
10,138 posts, read 16,049,308 times
Reputation: 4047
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dncr
Chicago has a more than realistic chance of staying ahead of Houston in both City and Metro population. Chicago's something like 3 times as dense. You can only sprawl so far before it starts to collapse. Chicago's density is only going to increase as (I'm assuming here) the population of the city increases, which is obvious. Revitalization of dilapidated communities, residential skyscrapers, better transit, and a host of other things will be enough for Chicago to maintain a solid lead over Houston.
I also feel the post recession economies in cities like L.A, New York, and Chicago will be just as strong, if not stronger, than those of the sunbelt. Giving Chicago even more of an edge over Houston, but not L.A. Essentially, L.A pretty much as sealed it's place as either our second largest, or even largest Metropolitan area. Chicago may drop from spot number 3 at some point, but I doubt it.
Actually before, I probably would have argued with you about Chicago/Los Angeles. I don't really know about Houston, but I will leave that alone, for the sake of being on the same side for once! And because well I like my hometown Chicago marginally more, and want to see it stay at 3rd possibly move up to 2nd again next century or whenever!
But I want to turn your attention to Los Angeles for a second.
Los Angeles from my personal opinion will be stagnant or slow growth from here on out, and trust me, any time a city faces not only economic hardship the way Los Angeles has (which could be long run damaging).
Anyways there has been one year in Los Angeles's existence where it too has recorded a population decline. Which in my honest opinion is NOT a good sign for any city that expects to go through healthy growth. I don't think they will have much of a population decline effect like the Northern cities that peaked in 1950, because it's post automobile era, but I think they will either have a stagnant/slow growth/minor decline going on in their city.
Anyways check this out:
Anyways in continuation, I'm no urban planner nor am I associated with any, but my temporary career is about journalism on the health of cities. I have to do these projects and keep track of everything that goes on even slightly.
At work they have projected Chicago to start making slight rebounds this decade near the end, and next decade slight growth, with increase in growth the decade after. The thing with that is water supply and affordability in which only these cities are true players for, Buffalo, Cleveland, Detroit, Milwaukee, Chicago, among others. Chicago is king.
They have also projected a lot of business relocation to Chicago due to international businesses setting up, but this one is actually a minor study there is no fact on that one as it's something we're studying about right now on how international businesses are expanding in the market or taken interest. Chicago is a pinnacle for real estate markets, and major corporations like Accenture take advantage of the affordability they can boost by say not being in San Francisco. It's something we're still studying on, but it's a developing case actually that is making a rebound in the Chicago area.
Anyways, water and affordability are Chicago's main assets compared to Los Angeles, and Chicago does have a brighter future from present perspective than Los Angeles does.
In summary:
It is possibly but it will take this entire century to play catch up, and that's too long to predict, but one thing is for sure, expect Chicago to step up to the batting plate and expect Los Angeles to pass the baton to someone else because they won't be seeing that dramatical growth anymore.
Also read about where the balance of power is shifting in California itself, it is going to the Bay Area with technological advancements and the diminishing progress of Hollywood. The Bay Area will be seeing far more growth than Los Angeles. San Jose in particular- keep an eye on that one.
Actually before, I probably would have argued with you about Chicago/Los Angeles. I don't really know about Houston, but I will leave that alone, for the sake of being on the same side for once! And because well I like my hometown Chicago marginally more, and want to see it stay at 3rd possibly move up to 2nd again next century or whenever!
But I want to turn your attention to Los Angeles for a second.
Los Angeles from my personal opinion will be stagnant or slow growth from here on out, and trust me, any time a city faces not only economic hardship the way Los Angeles has (which could be long run damaging).
Anyways there has been one year in Los Angeles's existence where it too has recorded a population decline. Which in my honest opinion is NOT a good sign for any city that expects to go through healthy growth. I don't think they will have much of a population decline effect like the Northern cities that peaked in 1950, because it's post automobile era, but I think they will either have a stagnant/slow growth/minor decline going on in their city.
Anyways check this out:
Anyways in continuation, I'm no urban planner nor am I associated with any, but my temporary career is about journalism on the health of cities. I have to do these projects and keep track of everything that goes on even slightly.
At work they have projected Chicago to start making slight rebounds this decade near the end, and next decade slight growth, with increase in growth the decade after. The thing with that is water supply and affordability in which only these cities are true players for, Buffalo, Cleveland, Detroit, Milwaukee, Chicago, among others. Chicago is king.
They have also projected a lot of business relocation to Chicago due to international businesses setting up, but this one is actually a minor study there is no fact on that one as it's something we're studying about right now on how international businesses are expanding in the market or taken interest. Chicago is a pinnacle for real estate markets, and major corporations like Accenture take advantage of the affordability they can boost by say not being in San Francisco. It's something we're still studying on, but it's a developing case actually that is making a rebound in the Chicago area.
Anyways, water and affordability are Chicago's main assets compared to Los Angeles, and Chicago does have a brighter future from present perspective than Los Angeles does.
In summary:
It is possibly but it will take this entire century to play catch up, and that's too long to predict, but one thing is for sure, expect Chicago to step up to the batting plate and expect Los Angeles to pass the baton to someone else because they won't be seeing that dramatical growth anymore.
Also read about where the balance of power is shifting in California itself, it is going to the Bay Area with technological advancements and the diminishing progress of Hollywood. The Bay Area will be seeing far more growth than Los Angeles. San Jose in particular- keep an eye on that one.
This was by far one of the most interesting post that I've read in a while. I tried to rep you, but I can't .
I'm kind of shocked L.A had a slight population loss. I don't buy estimates of L.A at 4.2 million+, but I guess we'll just have to wait and see. I'd say I'm interested in seeing Chicago's numbers, but I know they'd have us loosing...even if we added 400,000 people to the city haha
I think Southern California will continue growing in the coming decades. The hispanic population alone will see growth in the L.A. area.
The tax rate in California is terrible, when their economy crashed due to foreclosures and financial depreciation that led to taxes being very unaffordable for majority of the residents, thus the outward flow. High unemployment rate, and limited job resources to relocate there.
The state of California screwed around too much with how they handle business relocation and taxes and over spending. Along with the fact that LA's major industries are diminishing, where as the only prosperous region in California is San Jose due to high technology advancements and a diverse economy which LA lacks quite a bit.
LA won't be rebounding back, and they will remain a stagnant city, all hopes of them ever passing NYC up by city population in "Century X" are over for the time being.
Chicago on the other hand is going to make a rebound, the economy is the most diverse in the country and that pertains to it being a "survivor" when any industry fails there are always back ups.
The reason I brought up Houston, is that Wikipedia states the Houston has a 2009 est. population of 2.3 million. The U.S. Census sez that Houston, DFW, Austin, and the other Texas cities are the fastest growing cities in the country. The recession has not hit them as hard, and when the jobs come back, the Texas cities will continue to grow. Sprawl is a way of life down there, and that will continue.
Location: Austin, TX/Chicago, IL/Houston, TX/Washington, DC
10,138 posts, read 16,049,308 times
Reputation: 4047
I know Houston & Dallas very well. (I live in Chicago & Houston both and go to school in Austin) Houston is the larger one, feels larger, and has more 24/7 options and is on the coast. Dallas feels smaller than Houston on all accounts.
However, 2030 projections for Chicago puts it at 3.2 million, and yes- I do reasonably believe those projections with Chicago's level of modest growth and future roles.
Houston won't catch up according to projection until 2050 based off their projection to Chicago's 2030 population. To be honest, I used to believe Houston could do it, but the fact that the city itself has not annexed any land for city or metropolitan area since 1996 will limit it's primary source of developmental growth. Yes economically Houston is set, especially with the newer industries it's branching into, oil & gas- Houston basically gave them the finger, all those energy companies are turning into Green Energy now. In 1986 Houston's economy was 84% Oil & Gas, 2009 it is 42% Energy which means Oil, Gas, & Green Energy (which now accounts for more than a 40% of the total energy economy).
Source: Energy | Houston Economic Development
There are many articles on that actually.
However, you are mistaken, Chicago will always stay ahead of Houston, I was wrong to have doubted that before, and boy did I ever use to doubt that.
You see Houston just like every other sunbelt city is sprawl, Los Angeles as well, their infrastructure only takes them so far.
Los Angeles's biggest problem is that it's in a state that has the worst tax base there is. Those immigrants can't afford to live in Los Angeles. If you look at their CSA growth they are all headed to Inland Empire not Los Angeles.
Los Angeles will remain stagnant at best. Houston is a wildcard, it's far to early to predict how they go, Houston does not have a chance.
And Los Angeles needs to start watching out, they not only have in state competition now (San Francisco & San Jose) but they have national competition as well. Los Angeles is falling apart, their infrastructure, their economic base, their water supply, etc.
We're not going to be seeing a strong Los Angeles anymore. Boom town days, over and done with. Houston- they are staying at 4th.
Chicago's economy and diversity in it's economy, Chicago's transportation roles, Chicago's location, Chicago's business climate, Chicago's cost of living, Chicago's real estate- all those favor it more than anything can for Los Angeles. Yes, Los Angeles's CSA will grow bigger, but their city proper is going to be stagnant with slow growth at best.
Location: Austin, TX/Chicago, IL/Houston, TX/Washington, DC
10,138 posts, read 16,049,308 times
Reputation: 4047
Quote:
Originally Posted by Avengerfire
Or if Chicago annexes several very populous burbs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by coldwine
The only way for Chicago to rise above LA in population would be for one of the cities or counties in LA to secede.
It's very nearly happened a few times before.
Neither of your scenarios are possible though. Chicago with each passing day loses the opportunity to do so. The larger the metropolitan area gets from the city the harder it is for the principle city to annex land. That's also why since 1996 Houston has been stuck and cannot annex anymore. It's done and over with because the suburban cities gained a lot of control and influence.
I believe they took a vote on splitting Los Angeles up into two different cities, it was a close vote and only 1.8% away from actually happening. The reason it didn't is simply because of tax regulations, the city overall benefits from that. It's fine though, their city isn't going to grow all too much anymore.
Otherwise they would have dealt with a 1.7 million population loss, putting then behind Chicago again.
Riverside, California & Inland Empire are the hot spots for growth in the Los Angeles CSA. Look at Los Angeles city growth, MSA growth, & CSA growth. All of them are stunted and CSA is the only one growing at an impressive rate, why? Cheaper cost of living, more accessible land, dynamic population shifts.
Look at migration patterns people have been leaving Los Angeles for Riverside & Phoenix at such a fast rate.
By the way, in our lifetime no, Chicago cant surpass Los Angeles, there's just too huge a gap for two cities that are growing at a very small rate now compared to what they were before.
But Chicago will start closing in the gap for sure.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lookout Kid
L.A. will be abandoned desert in a century. Mad Max style. And the zombie armies will keep away any Mexican immigrants.
Immigration is hot in Inland Empire and Riverside anyways, see the migration patterns, Los Angeles city is not the relocation hotbed it once was. Lost momentum, bad economy, terrible tax rate, high cost of living, water supply shortage (people in the Valley of LA city can only use certain amount of water a day- otherwise they are fined), & diminishing industry. Port of Los Angeles is also slowing down, Seattle & Bay Area ports have started gaining more ground and are growing.
Los Angeles's time of running the West is limited now. It's what most analysts will tell you about Los Angeles, California.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
. 
