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.
Do you see how most of the inner ring suburbs are falling in population? Silver Hill is down 8.2 percent. You would expect the Bojangle's and drive-through liquor stores in Oxon Hill to draw more people, but apparently that's not the case. It's down 4.4 percent. Mitchellville, on the other hand, grew by 48.9 percent. Lanham grew by 70 percent. One census tract in Bowie grew by 150 percent. These areas are the absolute epitome of suburbia. And according to your own link, that's where the population is going. Any other suggestion is based on speculation and wishful thinking, not hard evidence.
Prince George's County is the most rural part of the area anyway. It is loosing population which should be great for development and gentrification possibilities. The population in the area and future urban population in the area is in Alexandria, Arlington, Montgomery County, and Fairfax County. PG will see infill around metro stations but won't be the urban center's the rest of the region will be.
There is a reason I didn't get involved in this discussion. You completely dismissed the hub and spoke design of our region. Our population radiates in straight thin corridors. Look at the Red Line and the Silver Line headed out to Dulles. Our region grew around Metro and will only intensify growth around metro. This is a requirement because of traffic. A better way to look at it would be to place 5 mile buffer zones around entire Metro lines and see how many people live in those areas. The in between is bare on purpose.
There is a reason I didn't get involved in this discussion. You completely dismissed the hub and spoke design of our region. Our population radiates in straight thin corridors. Look at the Red Line and the Silver Line headed out to Dulles. Our region grew around Metro and will only intensify growth around metro. This is a requirement because of traffic. A better way to look at it would be to place 5 mile buffer zones around entire Metro lines and see how many people live in those areas. The in between is bare on purpose.
I understand your point but it isnt dense nor as bare as you suggest
Do imagine it will more distribute more this way but is already so differently than you discuss, aall that will impacted is NEW development and this doesnt oimpact that development beyond the bounds of Metro. Think at best will be 50/50 and not an absolute as you suggest on fiuture growth. More pronounced within the reach of Metro though
And again you insist on "talking down" to me. You have absolutely no idea what I do and do not know, kid. I have BEEN to Portland, and have seen it with my own eyes. Have you?
As far as all of these plans, again - I'll believe it when I see it. You obviously are clueless about the massive downsizing the Federal government is in for. Just like kidphilly tried to tell you, if you think this insane growth of the DMV over the past few years is sustainable and will continue, you are even more clueless than you appear.
What does Federal Government downsizing have to do with development planning? This is about ALL growth happening where the government plans for it to happen. Doesn't matter how much growth it is, it's whatever growth that does happen, it's going to happen where we plan for it to happen. That is whether it's 2012 or 2050. The amount is a non-factor.
What does Federal Government downsizing have to do with development planning? This is about ALL growth happening where the government plans for it to happen. Doesn't matter how much growth it is, it's whatever growth that does happen, it's going to happen where we plan for it to happen. That is whether it's 2012 or 2050. The amount is a non-factor.
But this is based on a symmetrical radial sq mileage, right? That's not what I was talking about.
Looking at the densest contiguous areas I am pretty sure you can easily get to 2.7m in 500 to 600 sq miles.
And I am surprised that you could even argue about 2.7m in 900. At 900 you were counting almost all of Mongomery (450 sq miles) and Fairfax (400 sq miles) when they are both visibly empty for a very substantial part of their area. I mean if you are gonna do that, then at least give them credit for all of their populations!
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.
