Quote:
Originally Posted by tmac9wr
I don't see how any of those Texas cities are going to top 10 million...ever. Houston and Dallas already encompass about 10,000 square miles apiece. I can't see any way these metros can expand much further outwards, so they're going to need to start filling in towards the city. Higher land values will follow.
With Texas' tax system having to rely on high property taxes due to no income taxes, this will drastically increase the cost of living of these cities. One of the only reasons these cities are growing at these ridiculous rates is because they offer an advantageous cost of living. Without their main draw, how can we expect these cities to continue to grow like that? Answer: we can't. On top of that, there are only so many people in Mexico. The massive influx of Mexicans to the Southwest metros will slow down soon enough.
I think ultimately, Dallas & Houston will top off somewhere around 7.5-8 million. Maybe one of them will get up to 8.5-9.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by tmac9wr
What I don't get is how so many people are predicting these Texas metros to jump past 10 million like it ain't no thang. At one point Chicago was easily the fastest growing city in the nation. It has been the #3 city population wise for decades now but still hasn't topped 10 mil. Just because these Texan cities had a good decade doesn't mean this level of growth will persist. Yes, they'll continue to grow...but it's hard to imagine they'll come anywhere close to sustaining the rate.
|
Again, you clearly need a lesson on Texas metro set up (well west of the Mississippi metros.
first of all the cities have not had a good decade they have had a good 50 or so years.
secondly we do not have dense areas surrounded by less dense areas. Rather we have a number of smaller towns connected by lower density suburban areas. That is why Houston, Dallas, New Orleans, LA, San Diego, San Antonio, Phoenix, etc have urban areas that are more dense than Bostons.
While Boston's metro has few economic centers with large gaps between the cites, in the western half of the country the suburban development connect these little towns for much further out.
Spring, Katy, Cypress, etc etc are all small town in the Houston area that have populations of 10K but surrounded by 200+ K suburbs. All these cities just run into each other so you don't get the gaps like you see in NE between the smaller towns.
Third, Houston metro may cover 10,000 miles, but 4.1M of the 6M in the metro leaves in 1 out of the 10 county metro. another 1M leaves very near to the central county in three other counties Montgomery, Fort Bend and Brazoria. So don't pull the wool over your eyes or anyone elses by making it seem like Houston is spread out over 10K miles. In Both Houston and DFW a supermajority of people live in 2000 sq miles not 10K sq miles.
4th I dunno what you are talking about higer land values? Don't know where you are going with it but like I said most people live in Harris, there is 9 other counties left to attract their own business and people. Counties like Austin, San Jacinto, Chambers etc are huge in land area but only have 30k people etc. we are not like you guys who have tons of smaller counties with 500K each in the east. Western counties are huge and when the census joins them they take the entire county with them.
5th, most of these cities have just as much business 30 miles from downtown as they have in downtown. You don't need to drive 35 miles to downtown but drive to the employment center closest to you. a lot of you like to think of metros as driving to the core. screw that there are 40 cores. Smart people choose to live in areas around the core where they will be working. The Port expansions are bringing in plenty of new jobs. Chambers County is near the port and basically empty. Why would that drive prices up much in Chambers? Chambers is huge. it is 600 sq miles and only has 30,00 people. The population density is far less than 100 people per sq mile.
6th you can't compare these metros to Chicago. Chicago had different things going for it and different things going against it at the moment.
LA is a more apt comparison for Houston and ATL a more apt comparison for DFW. Houston's growth is going to be driven by port activity like LA Long Beach, and DFW's growth is driven by being a centrally located regional hub.
Chicago's location benefited the city a lot because the center of the countries population was a lot closer to Chicago back in the day. Plus Chicago is located next to Canada which is a major trade partner. But less face it, Chicago is not on the coast and our trading partners are changing.
LA spanked Chicago because of trade with Asia. South America is also becoming major players. Shipping to Chicago from Asia, Central and South America is just not happening. Combine that with the center of the US population being much farther south now than when Chicago was booming furthers the justification for claiming these large southern metros are going to keep growing.
Houston is a large port city like LA but far more centrally located than LA. DFW is just as centrally located as Chicago but closer to the center of the population than Chicago. Chicago has the advantage on railroad shipping but DFW has the advantage on shipping via trucks, and their rail system isn't that bad either.
The DFW CSA is at 7M this year. Don't know how their growth rates have gone in the last two years, but I can tell you now, that your 7.5M estimate is pure crap.That would mean that DFW would have to go from 150K new people a year to 25K. Unless something very very very major happens that kind of rapid slow down is not happening. Bare in mind that the natural increase is over 500K a decade, so before this decade is over the CSA is going to meet your low ball, and we are not even talking about 2030 yet.
Both Houston and DFW will be over 8.5M by 2030 based on current metro definitions and sizes.