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.
New York City 19,818,478
Los Angeles 14,049,577
Chicago 10,233,137
Dallas-Fort Worth 8,750,408
Houston 7,875,220
Atlanta 7,308,508
Phoenix 6,937,737
Miami-Fort Lauderdale 6,590,616
Washington, D.C. 6,514,361
Philadelphia 6,091,123
The most intriguing thing about this data is DFW pop will swell to 8,750,408. I would feel a little uncomfortable if I was Chicago. The list for the most part pretty much look the same except the southern metro are gaining on the big three.
Uncomfortalbe why? The Chicago area grew by 1,500,000 people in the past 15 years, and now it's going to basically stop for the next 15 years?
Unless there's a reason for this these numbers are just numbers. Look at the estimates from 1999 for what they thought the census would say in 2000. Chicago city proper was suppose to have lost tens of thousands of people, and instead grew by over 110,000. The metro estimate in 1999 was 300,000 people less than the actual count. The Northeast/Midwest cities more than down south always tend to have more conservative and pessimistic estimates than reality since they started turning around in the 1990's. I think people were just use to them struggling or something.
Was this article written in the 90s? It seems like it could have been. It doesn't take into consideration a number of economic and social factors that have drastically negated long-term projections.
1) People will move to where the jobs are. Where will the jobs be when the economy turns around -- federal oversight, biomedical research and green technology are the industries that will prove beneficial for America. Housing and banking will eventually pick up, but the public mood will prevent the return of any pre-2008 excesses. Last year's economic meltdown cannot be repeated.
2) Our post-WW2 economy has been one where credit, housing and fuel were notoriously easy to obtain. Now with credit massively tightened, gas prices only going to go back up and society moving away from the solitary, anti-social McMansion lifestyle, this country is going to densify. Old homes will be remodeled or expanded. Sprawl will be contained. Life will hopefully be more sustainable for the sake of future generations.
3) Cities with poor infrastructure and massive sprawl will find it increasingly expensive to maintain overextended utility systems. Meanwhile denser cities can lay fewer pipes, wires and transportation networks while still reaching countless more residents within a smaller area. Denser cities are more sustainable. People will invest money in quality real estate rather than in excessive quantity. Bigger is not always better.
These points being made, I find the list to be outdated and poorly researched. I'm not going to make any predictions myself. I do think the CSA and MSA definitions need to be re-examined. Does anyone have a list of the top CSAs in 2025?
3) Cities with poor infrastructure and massive sprawl will find it increasingly expensive to maintain overextended utility systems. Meanwhile denser cities can lay fewer pipes, wires and transportation networks while still reaching countless more residents within a smaller area. Denser cities are more sustainable. People will invest money in quality real estate rather than in excessive quantity. Bigger is not always better.
Why don't you tell us which city doesn't have massive sprawl? I haven't been to one yet that isn't a tangle of sprawling suburbs outside of the core city. Every city in America has a dense (variable densities, of course) city with massive suburbia surrounding it.
Why don't you tell us which city doesn't have massive sprawl? I haven't been to one yet that isn't a tangle of sprawling suburbs outside of the core city. Every city in America has a dense (variable densities, of course) city with massive suburbia surrounding it.
Of course you are right -- sprawl exists all over America -- that is the post WW2 "age of the automobile" mentality that spawned the suburban sprawl that we are dealing with today.
With dwindling natural resources, it will be too expensive to maintain utilities and transportation networks to reach people spread out over vast areas.
Areas that are denser with transportation networks and progressive leadership will be the winners of the new economy. They will be the engines of growth. Quality not quantity.
Do you not agree that density is a good thing for a sustainable future?
Of course you are right -- sprawl exists all over America -- that is the post WW2 "age of the automobile" mentality that spawned the suburban sprawl that we are dealing with today.
With dwindling natural resources, it will be too expensive to maintain utilities and transportation networks to reach people spread out over vast areas.
Areas that are denser with transportation networks and progressive leadership will be the winners of the new economy. They will be the engines of growth. Quality not quantity.
Do you not agree that density is a good thing for a sustainable future?
Yes, I like density...but keep in mind that millions of Americans don't like density and have chosen to live in lower density areas - the suburbs. Many suburbs are actually evolving into more sustainable entitites...becoming employment, retail and cultural centers, and creating more dense residential options. Many are already connected to the main city by rail transit.
He does bring up a good point, though. How is Phoenix ever supposed to handle that many people? From Dallas to LA... where is the water supposed to come from? The Colorado is already strained.
Houston and Miami are periodically leveled by hurricanes. Miami has one coming. Houston also has to face the issue of the oil industry going down, as that would pull a significant amount of the city down with it. The next fifteen years could bring much change, and it's not beyond ridiculous to assume that that is a challenge the city will have to face.
Just because Phoenix is in the desert doesn't mean that it has a smaller water supply than other metropolitan areas.
Wasn't it Atlanta that in 2008 was nearly on the precipice of disaster because of Lake Lanier's record low levels? No one seems to take issue with the fact that Atlanta is expected to have almost 8 million people, despite the fact that they have no additional water sources than what they had last year. Why is that?
Las Vegas is also in a DIRE situation with its water. It receives a very small portion of Colorado River water. That metropolitan area has gone so far as to actually BUY water from Arizona. Now the entire state in Nevada is up in arms because Las Vegas wants to build a water pipeline all the way from northern Nevada.
Phoenix is NOT in a situation like Atlanta's nor Las Vegas'. Arizona has been experiencing above normal precipitation, which has replenished many of the reservoirs that provide water to Phoenix. Phoenix does receive Colorado River water, just like Las Vegas, Tucson, Los Angeles, and San Diego. Therefore, if Colorado River water were to run out, all of these cities would be in terrible predicaments. Yet for some reason, Phoenix seems to receive all the negative attention about water.
There will be alternatives methods created to bring water to the Southwest. Desalinization from the Sea of Cortez has been discussed if Arizona's water situation becomes precarious. Desal would also be an option for LA and San Diego.
So the idea that massive growth in the Southwest is going to grind to a halt because of water is absolutely ridiculous.
Location: The Greatest city on Earth: City of Atlanta Proper
8,485 posts, read 14,993,141 times
Reputation: 7333
Quote:
Originally Posted by miamiman
Just because Phoenix is in the desert doesn't mean that it has a smaller water supply than other metropolitan areas.
Wasn't it Atlanta that in 2008 was nearly on the precipice of disaster because of Lake Lanier's record low levels? No one seems to take issue with the fact that Atlanta is expected to have almost 8 million people, despite the fact that they have no additional water sources than what they had last year. Why is that?
Las Vegas is also in a DIRE situation with its water. It receives a very small portion of Colorado River water. That metropolitan area has gone so far as to actually BUY water from Arizona. Now the entire state in Nevada is up in arms because Las Vegas wants to build a water pipeline all the way from northern Nevada.
Phoenix is NOT in a situation like Atlanta's nor Las Vegas'. Arizona has been experiencing above normal precipitation, which has replenished many of the reservoirs that provide water to Phoenix. Phoenix does receive Colorado River water, just like Las Vegas, Tucson, Los Angeles, and San Diego. Therefore, if Colorado River water were to run out, all of these cities would be in terrible predicaments. Yet for some reason, Phoenix seems to receive all the negative attention about water.
There will be alternatives methods created to bring water to the Southwest. Desalinization from the Sea of Cortez has been discussed if Arizona's water situation becomes precarious. Desal would also be an option for LA and San Diego.
So the idea that massive growth in the Southwest is going to grind to a halt because of water is absolutely ridiculous.
One problem with your post. Atlanta was never in a situation where it would lose it's water supply. We went through a 100 year drought. It can happen anywhere and it happens in the South in intervals. We'll have a few years of drought, then a few years of massive rainfall. This year alone we've had more rain than all the previous 5 years total. It's the to the point now where all the rivers and lakes in North Georgia are at near flood stage when it rains, which is about every other day.
I repeat, Atlanta will not run out of water. The last few years was just a wake up call to use it more efficiently.
One problem with your post. Atlanta was never in a situation where it would lose it's water supply. We went through a 100 year drought. It can happen anywhere and it happens in the South in intervals. We'll have a few years of drought, then a few years of massive rainfall. This year alone we've had more rain than all the previous 5 years total. It's the to the point now where all the rivers and lakes in North Georgia are at near flood stage when it rains, which is about every other day.
I repeat, Atlanta will not run out of water. The last few years was just a wake up call to use it more efficiently.
And I seem to remember MANY people taking issue with Atlanta's growth in relationship to the water issues. I had many a lively online discussion on that very topic. People still mention it at times when they are trying to bad-mouth Atlanta.
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.
