U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S. > City vs. City
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 02-18-2010, 03:00 PM
 
Location: Lower East Side, Milwaukee, WI
2,945 posts, read 3,959,830 times
Reputation: 1113

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by waronxmas View Post
Why?

They'll do well for sure since they already have fairly stable economies. I wouldn't call them boomtowns though, unless you can come up with a reason why.
Not too long ago, a mere double digit increase in population used to suffice as a "boom town." I think it would be both unelnlightened and unrealistic to think cities are going to continue to grow by 30-40% (ATL, Vegas, Houston, Phoenix, etc.) like they did in the last decade. Right now those small Midwest metros have the lowest unemployment rates in the nation and haven't really felt any impact from the recession compared to states like Florida, Nevada, and Arizona.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-18-2010, 03:29 PM
 
Location: The land of sugar... previously Houston and Austin
5,429 posts, read 12,851,822 times
Reputation: 3622
Quote:
Originally Posted by waronxmas View Post
Atlanta and Miami both have subways and large bus networks. Dallas and Houston have light rail, Dallas is especially expanding there's, and large bus networks. Charlotte is starting their light rail lines, and New Orleans is rebuilding there's.

What major cities in the south don't have "little to no infrastructure" for public transportation?
Austin is pretty behind in both public transit and new roads/road expansion, considering the huge population boom there.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-19-2010, 12:03 PM
 
Location: Wichita, KS
77 posts, read 163,449 times
Reputation: 46
As many have mentioned, the cities destined to boom are those who can create and sustain jobs, and those where real estate is reasonably priced. Dallas, Houston, San Antonio/Austin, McAllen are obvious picks. Outside of Texas, Omaha and Des Moines have low unemployment, high wages relative to low cost of living, reasonable traffic, and a job sector that is diverse and stable.

I agree that urban redevelopment will take the lead this decade. Rail transit should lead this charge, and cities with a strong urban infrastructure will see a rapid increase in population. Boston, Washington D.C., and Atlanta have already shown signs of booming. I think places that are building new transit infrastructure, like Denver and St. Louis, will become hot spots as well.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-19-2010, 06:03 PM
 
1,201 posts, read 1,911,638 times
Reputation: 717
Quote:
Originally Posted by waronxmas View Post
Atlanta and Miami both have subways and large bus networks. Dallas and Houston have light rail, Dallas is especially expanding there's, and large bus networks. Charlotte is starting their light rail lines, and New Orleans is rebuilding there's.

What major cities in the south don't have "little to no infrastructure" for public transportation?

his affirmation was generally, w/out going back to review the remarks, that the growth of metropolitan centers will be dependent on the continued rush to build mass transit. in short, i don't necessarily agree w/ the assertion.

second, i realize many southern cities have invested in various forms of mass transit; however, it has been around for years, it has not produced a positive cost effective outcome, and the trend for urban cores is to return to their centers, in order to travel less miles and utilize available resources.

memphis has mass bus transit, a trolly line, and it is currently in the development of light rail proposals. i think, however, taxpayers are going to find it hard to swallow 3 or 4 billion dollars on light rail, in addition to the trolley, and the bus system.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-20-2010, 10:43 PM
 
Location: Greater Houston
4,506 posts, read 8,583,331 times
Reputation: 2081
Atlanta, Dallas, and Houston emerged as Gamma-global cities in the '90s, confirmed in the '00s, and will emerge as Beta-global cities in the '10s.

Quote:
Originally Posted by waronxmas View Post
Detroit and Cleveland just have too much baggage to look attractive in the boomtown sense again. They'll straighten out their problems for sure, but they'll never be like they once were.
Keep an eye on Cleaveland. Once the waterfront is properly developed (in the Chicago style), the lake is attractive. The lake is always a hidden gem; it's a diamond-in-the-rough in need of polishing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by danielj72 View Post
I dont think Detroit will be one of them. The place is a ruin, its population is uneducated and tends toward criminal behaivor. Michigans rebirth will be centered in the nicer and cleaner western side of the state. Basically anything east of I-75 is not included in that. Southeast michigan ruined the states reputation, west Michigan will rebuild it. Grand Rapids, Traverse city, Holland. This is Michigans future.
There is an effect called the Chicago vacuum that sucks out life from its neighbors to feed the Alpha-global industrial-complex. Detroit is far enough to avoid the force of the vacuum. In time Detroit will recover but I must mention Detroit's geography--it is a border town, perfect for facilitating cross-border trade and to locate North American headquarters and offices.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-20-2010, 11:15 PM
 
Location: Metro Atlanta & Savannah, GA - Corpus Christi, TX
4,333 posts, read 6,910,459 times
Reputation: 2032
Though the cities in the midwest (namely Omaha, Lincoln, Sioux Falls, etc) are doing very well right now with low unemployment, I don't think these cities will become boom towns. The reason they have low unemployment numbers is because their economies have been slow and steady with no hastily made decision to build before they come.
As for the boom towns in this decade, I see the state of Texas as a real winner. Austin has been mentioned a few times and I couldn't agree more. Though the major infrastructure isn't quite there, give it some time. Austin has done and will continue to do very well for itself in the future. I would also count Houston and Dallas in the mix. They are already huge cities, but they have also been doing very well. There will more than likely be a lot more infill development in those cities.
North Carolina is also a hot spot for new development. Charlotte, as mentioned before, will continue to develop it's mass transit and the Raleigh area will also boom with it's pharmaceutical industry and relocating snow birds & not to be forgotten half backs from Florida.
Atlanta will more than likely continue to boom as well, but not like the 00's. I would probably look for a lot more infill city development versus the suburban sprawl it has been known for.
Three of my last picks are probably a bit debatable, but have lots of potential....
Los Angeles, the king of sprawl in our country will do well re-developing it's downtown area, though I'm not sure I would quite consider it a boom town.
Huntsville, Ala. also has the spotlight with it's developing industries, including NASA. I've heard a lot of good things about this town.
Finally, Charleston, S.C. My neighbor to the northeast. It has a thriving tourism and port industry and will continue to grow very well in the next decade. Honorable mention goes to Greenville, S.C.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-20-2010, 11:53 PM
 
Location: South Beach and DT Raleigh
11,534 posts, read 17,849,635 times
Reputation: 10675
Raleigh will continue to grow at one of the fastest paces in America. Though it gets largely ignored and overlooked on the General US forum, it will set one of the fastest (if not fastest) rates of expansion for metros over 1 million.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-21-2010, 04:15 AM
 
7,848 posts, read 17,785,592 times
Reputation: 2762
Quote:
Originally Posted by WanderingImport View Post
Though the cities in the midwest (namely Omaha, Lincoln, Sioux Falls, etc) are doing very well right now with low unemployment, I don't think these cities will become boom towns. The reason they have low unemployment numbers is because their economies have been slow and steady with no hastily made decision to build before they come.
As for the boom towns in this decade, I see the state of Texas as a real winner. Austin has been mentioned a few times and I couldn't agree more. Though the major infrastructure isn't quite there, give it some time. Austin has done and will continue to do very well for itself in the future. I would also count Houston and Dallas in the mix. They are already huge cities, but they have also been doing very well. There will more than likely be a lot more infill development in those cities.
North Carolina is also a hot spot for new development. Charlotte, as mentioned before, will continue to develop it's mass transit and the Raleigh area will also boom with it's pharmaceutical industry and relocating snow birds & not to be forgotten half backs from Florida.
Atlanta will more than likely continue to boom as well, but not like the 00's. I would probably look for a lot more infill city development versus the suburban sprawl it has been known for.
Three of my last picks are probably a bit debatable, but have lots of potential....
Los Angeles, the king of sprawl in our country will do well re-developing it's downtown area, though I'm not sure I would quite consider it a boom town.
Huntsville, Ala. also has the spotlight with it's developing industries, including NASA. I've heard a lot of good things about this town.
Finally, Charleston, S.C. My neighbor to the northeast. It has a thriving tourism and port industry and will continue to grow very well in the next decade. Honorable mention goes to Greenville, S.C.
This has already been the trend in Atlanta for about 15 years.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-21-2010, 04:31 PM
 
Location: Metro Atlanta & Savannah, GA - Corpus Christi, TX
4,333 posts, read 6,910,459 times
Reputation: 2032
Quote:
Originally Posted by DeaconJ View Post
This has already been the trend in Atlanta for about 15 years.
I'm aware of that. I'm suggesting it will continue.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-21-2010, 09:51 PM
 
Location: Rio Grande Valley/Tone City
362 posts, read 919,717 times
Reputation: 128
San Antonio and Austin are for sure at the top of the list for the fastest growing. The same for Dallas, Houston, Rio Grande Valley and Texas in general has the fastest growing cities. Charlotte, NC is another fast growing city.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S. > City vs. City
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:59 AM.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top