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.
Any city with transit-oriented development will grow. Sprawling subdevelopments no longer sell. Those areas have reached their peak- transplants who are appealed by sprawl and cheap mcmansions have already gone. There is no reason to ever think a statistical trend will continue, especially regarding growth.
This recent economic situation is not an anomaly. It means no more McMansions. No more financing to build stipmalls, and no more reason to think a stripmall could fuel growth. The money doesnt exist, and people arent interested in soulless sprawl. Even if sweathogs who love their sprawl and have no ecological concerns wanted it, there is little financing for good projects, much less endless suburban expansion.
The cities that will grow are ones that are already established and dense with public transit infrastructures that can be remodeled and expanded upon. Former industrial centers come to mind.
People on here love to talk about development, development, development. But drive down I-55 from Chicago towards Joliet and Plainfield. There are massive, and largely empty subdivisions. These trends in suburban growth were a product of not only a financial, but also a social and ecological bubble.
Should I assume from your post that you're excluding sunbelt cities? Or am I misreading your post?
Hey I'm not the (enemy) "tongue in cheek" sheepish smile I took up for you Kansas City Missouri when UrbanCharlotte was running KC into the ground. Fort Worth TX compared to ....Columbus Ohio...Omaha Nebraska...Tulsa Oklahoma , they all every single last one of them.."Had or Have" Major League Sports Teams....see Below. 1. Columbus......NHL...MLS 2. Omaha...NBA KC/Omaha Kings..come on now KC Missouri 3.Tulsa OK...EX-NASL...EX-USFL...Turned MLS down in 2004.... AFL..The Talons....WNBA..The EX-Detroit Shocks...PRESENT ...WNBA..TULSA SHOCKS......
Fort Worth vs. San Jose would be a very interesting thread.
I don't think that "that's" a good idea , when San Jose GDP is added to The Metro Bay Area USCB Statistics..The Bay Area will be #4 Behind NYC...LA....CHI...SF...SJ...Oakland..That's going to happen in 2010 or 2011.
Should I assume from your post that you're excluding sunbelt cities? Or am I misreading your post?
In the sense of horizontal development and the continuation of trends in population, yes. In other ways, not necessarily, but that would be dependent on savvy planning and a change in priority- but in most cases will come with a decline in quality of living for people living in sprawl.
Los Angeles, San Francisco, Philadelphia, Dallas, Miami, Boston, New York, Washington DC, Chicago, and Seattle fit into this category.
Or you can dictate a major city by being a global city or being a first-tier urban core. Also you can dictate a major city by the density of it's downtown which refers to the height of the buildings in the downtown area.
Los Angeles, San Francisco, Philadelphia, Dallas, Miami, Boston, New York, Washington DC, Chicago, and Seattle fit into this category.
Or you can dictate a major city by being a global city or being a first-tier urban core. Also you can dictate a major city by the density of it's downtown which refers to the height of the buildings in the downtown area.
Your list of qualifiers for a city are great. However, the cities you mentioned are undeniably already major cities. Considering your list, what cities are getting there?
Why isn't it it's got 1.7 million people in the metro area and has been one of the fastest growing cities in the country
That still doesn't classify it as "major" compared to many other metro areas in the country or even in the state of Texas for that matter. Take the homer hat off once in awhile. I do believe that it's a mid-sized city, but major? No.
Location: Cleveland bound with MPLS in the rear-view
5,509 posts, read 11,816,905 times
Reputation: 2501
No offense to Austin (it's got lots of potential), but it's definitely not a "major" city in my mind. That was one of the things I noticed about it when I was there, and if I had to relocate to Texas I would consider Austin, but it doesn't seem to have that "big city" feel and that would be a drawback for me. I'm not sure what it would take to get Austin over the hump, so to speak, but given time and I'm sure it'll reach "major" status in the not-too-distant future.
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.
