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.
Didn't come from me. Developers are the ones who said Tyson's was about to go through a boom similar to Dubai. The timeline for jobs and population is by 2040-2050. They say Tyson's will add 100,000 people by then to the 3.8 sq mile foot print. The development is phased over that amount of time. Will it happen? I don't know..but it's something to talk about. I didn't write about it or plan it. I only read about it.
I wouldn't trust any projections reaching as far as 40 years. I mean, look what happened to Detroit in 40 years...no one has any idea about what's going to happen that far into the future.
The 10-20 year projections are educated guesses at best. And the future of commuting and car travel/fuel might have a lot to do with how places grow and how we live decades from now. There could be another technological revolution that changes everything.
Didn't come from me. Developers are the ones who said Tyson's was about to go through a boom similar to Dubai. The timeline for jobs and population is by 2040-2050. They say Tyson's will add 100,000 people by then to the 3.8 sq mile foot print. The development is phased over that amount of time. Will it happen? I don't know..but it's something to talk about. I didn't write about it or plan it. I only read about it.
LOL. In 1950, I'm sure Detroit officials projected the city would be unstoppable in 40 years time.
I wouldn't trust any projections reaching as far as 40 years. I mean, look what happened to Detroit in 40 years...no one has any idea about what's going to happen that far into the future.
The 10-20 year projections are educated guesses at best. And the future of commuting and car travel/fuel might have a lot to do with how places grow and how we live decades from now. There could be another technological revolution that changes everything.
The costs of fuel is definitely going to re-shape the way development happens in the future. Which is why HSR needs higher priority.
The costs of fuel is definitely going to re-shape the way development happens in the future. Which is why HSR needs higher priority.
I think HSR is definitely something that needs to be a higher priority...but I think that since we have grown into a car/personal transportation society, that we need to heavily research alternative fuels for cars.
But as someone else said there is a truth that often times isnt in a projection or even piece of PR - honestly if DC keeps growing at this rate we are all gonna so broke and in public debt its rediculous. the Govt is way to large and the growth of DC has been a direct result of that.
but i am also confused on where you said they are adding 100K jobs then you post this which by my math would less than 50K in the next 20 years.
I completely agree with the bolded above. DC has other facets to its economy other than government, but a lot of its growth is somehow related. The more DC grows, the less money I get in my paycheck each week. Something's gotta give.
I think HSR is definitely something that needs to be a higher priority...but I think that since we have grown into a car/personal transportation society, that we need to heavily research alternative fuels for cars.
We also need to strengthen each MSA's regional rail and subway network before HSR is really needed. I see HSR as a large benefit, where feasible, but a lot of American's spend their gas driving around their own metro.
I have a gut feeling that places with good public transportation are going to become MUCH more valuable over the next 20 years.
We also need to strengthen each MSA's regional rail and subway network before HSR is really needed. I see HSR as a large benefit, where feasible, but a lot of American's spend their gas driving around their own metro.
I have a gut feeling that places with good public transportation are going to become MUCH more valuable over the next 20 years.
Improving local transportation goes without saying. A lot of Southern metros grew up quickly (and grew more spread out) and have outgrown the road infrastructure they were built for (although traffic problems are still not generally as bad as they are in older, more dense cities). While regional rail and bus lines have lagged behind the growth, there is definitely an effort out there to improve them. As gas continues to eat up a good portion of people's personal incomes, I think public transportation will eventually become more viable. It's the first steps that are the hardest.
I do agree that places with good public transit in place will definitely be in better position in the near future...that's why the current boomtowns need to get things rolling now. In just the past 10 years, there has been a renewed interest in in-town living down here...a number of boomtowns have seen a high rise condo and apartment boom, although most of the population growth is still moving to the burbs. If gas becomes even more expensive, I could see the in-town condos/apartments becoming even more popular -- but it will be interesting to see how the more spread out metros manage their growth over the next few decades. At first, the growth is like crack to a city and their suburbs -- they can't get enough. But as the traffic problems, pollution and infrastructure nightmares arise, as well as the ever vanishing rural farmlands disappearing around cities, there have been more efforts to conserve these areas...even suburbs are building with more density than they did before. The lack of density has been what has made public transportation less feasible here for a long time.
With the economy in its current state, and with gas prices remaining as high as they are, it wouldn't surprise me to see less waste and more conservative cost measures taken by people living in the cities. You're already starting to see smaller, more fuel efficient cars becoming more popular, even in the suburbs, although they haven't overtaken the gas guzzling SUVs.
The key is to make things like bus and rail viable...the average person isn't going to use it as long as there aren't more significant savings involved, as well as the sacrifice of time involved with public transportation. Who wants to ride the train to work when it takes 3x as long to get there as your car?
We also need to strengthen each MSA's regional rail and subway network before HSR is really needed. I see HSR as a large benefit, where feasible, but a lot of American's spend their gas driving around their own metro.
I have a gut feeling that places with good public transportation are going to become MUCH more valuable over the next 20 years.
Improving local transportation goes without saying. A lot of Southern metros grew up quickly (and grew more spread out) and have outgrown the road infrastructure they were built for (although traffic problems are still not generally as bad as they are in older, more dense cities). While regional rail and bus lines have lagged behind the growth, there is definitely an effort out there to improve them. As gas continues to eat up a good portion of people's personal incomes, I think public transportation will eventually become more viable. It's the first steps that are the hardest.
I do agree that places with good public transit in place will definitely be in better position in the near future...that's why the current boomtowns need to get things rolling now. In just the past 10 years, there has been a renewed interest in in-town living down here...a number of boomtowns have seen a high rise condo and apartment boom, although most of the population growth is still moving to the burbs. If gas becomes even more expensive, I could see the in-town condos/apartments becoming even more popular -- but it will be interesting to see how the more spread out metros manage their growth over the next few decades. At first, the growth is like crack to a city and their suburbs -- they can't get enough. But as the traffic problems, pollution and infrastructure nightmares arise, as well as the ever vanishing rural farmlands disappearing around cities, there have been more efforts to conserve these areas...even suburbs are building with more density than they did before. The lack of density has been what has made public transportation less feasible here for a long time.
With the economy in its current state, and with gas prices remaining as high as they are, it wouldn't surprise me to see less waste and more conservative cost measures taken by people living in the cities. You're already starting to see smaller, more fuel efficient cars becoming more popular, even in the suburbs, although they haven't overtaken the gas guzzling SUVs.
The key is to make things like bus and rail viable...the average person isn't going to use it as long as there aren't more significant savings involved, as well as the sacrifice of time involved with public transportation. Who wants to ride the train to work when it takes 3x as long to get there as your car?
Lack of density, bad planning and a mentality that roads are the answer is what's hurting a lot of cities in the US. The idea that oil prices will go back down to $2/gallon is a false-hope.
In any event, it's hard for a bus route to work well when it has to cover a very large distance and serve communities with culde sacs. It's also hard to have rail serve sparse communities. A combination of roads and rail is needed, but I wonder if it's too late in some metros. With the oil clock ticking, many poorly-planned cityscapes and the economy sucking, how long will it take to push these projects through now? And in metros that have low taxes, how will it affect them? I think I know: higher taxes, toll roads, non-stop road repairs, etc. This is why the NE has a higher COL, which many people on CD refuse to accept. The NE has been around a lot longer and is constantly fixing roads, bridges, rail lines that were built a long time ago.
Anyway, some of what I state above isn't really targeted at you. It's just something that I've been thinking about. I really believe America is in for a rude awakening with a perfect storm brewing (larger government presence, bad economy, deindustrialization, poor planning, unchecked growth, rising gas prices, etc.). Something's gotta give.
Interesting numbers, I wonder if this is the same in a lot of communities?
Chicago, 1990
Population aged 18+ 2,079,120
Population under 18 704,606
Chicago, 2010
Population aged 18+ 2,073,968
Population under 18 621,630
Percent Change, 1990-2010
Adults -0.02%
Children -12%
All of the population loss has come from those under the age of 18, while the number of adults has stayed extremely stable. A loss of children resulted from average household sizes being lower, and a loss of families. The adults from the families with school-aged kids were replaced by singles or couples with no children. The loss of population actually came from those who don't contribute to the tax base.
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.
