U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S.
 [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 01-18-2012, 10:15 AM
 
Location: Up on the moon laughing down on you
18,509 posts, read 28,173,289 times
Reputation: 7598

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by xenokc View Post
The bulk of DC growth is International in-migration. If the borders get tighter over next 20 years, DC/Balt growth may slow down.

Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV MSA Population and Components of Change -- Real Estate Center at Texas A&M University Home
Quote:
Originally Posted by xenokc View Post
A lot of long term growth will depend on International migration. If it continues to slow down, the largest metros will slow significatnly as most larger metros are already losing Domestic migration...

Look at NYC, losing quite a bit of Domestic net migrations, propped up by birth rate as there isn't quite enough International gain to offset the Domestic losses...

New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-PA MSA Population and Components of Change -- Real Estate Center at Texas A&M University Home

Chicago, LA and others have more domestic loss than international gains lately. Only reason they show gains is due to net birth/death rate.

That's why the largest cities will only see 4-5% growth in the future (over 10 years), which is about the net death/birth rate. If the largest cities get a major International influx, then maybe they'll see >5% but for the most part, many from the largest metros are moving to mid-size metros.

OTOH, Dallas lately gets more Domestic in addition to International in-migration.
Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, TX MSA Population and Components of Change -- Real Estate Center at Texas A&M University Home

If the US gets tighter on the borders and allows less overall, growth will of course slow down across the board. Many cities almost entirely depend on Intl for growth, some cities depend on half Intl for growth - outside birth rate.
Those are rough estimate numbers. Most of the totals listed for 2009 are much higher than the actual 2010 data.

Interesting data but much higher than actual counts

Quote:
Originally Posted by tmac9wr View Post
That's true. The MSA will likely be at or around 10 million by that time.
you mean CSA.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-18-2012, 10:20 AM
 
1,830 posts, read 3,229,926 times
Reputation: 533
Quote:
Originally Posted by HtownLove View Post
Those are rough estimate numbers. Most of the totals listed for 2009 are much higher than the actual 2010 data.
.
Yeah, agree the actual numbers are estimates but the patterns and ratios are probably still fairly realistic. That is, some cities do depend on Intnl growth, some have a lot of domestic loss. The numbers may not be quite right but the patterns/ratios probably are pretty close.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-18-2012, 10:31 AM
 
Location: Up on the moon laughing down on you
18,509 posts, read 28,173,289 times
Reputation: 7598
Quote:
Originally Posted by xenokc View Post
Yeah, agree the actual numbers are estimates but the patterns and ratios are probably still fairly realistic. That is, some cities do depend on Intnl growth, some have a lot of domestic loss. The numbers may not be quite right but the patterns/ratios probably are pretty close.
yeah the patterns should hold, its the actual numbers that you can't do much with.

Houston's numbers were spot on tho
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-18-2012, 11:26 AM
 
Location: Denver
6,628 posts, read 12,509,915 times
Reputation: 4054
Quote:
Originally Posted by HtownLove View Post
Again, you clearly need a lesson on Texas metro set up (well west of the Mississippi metros.
I guess I do...

Quote:
first of all the cities have not had a good decade they have had a good 50 or so years.
Really? I thought the Texas cities--especially Houston--took a pretty solid beating in the 80s? Is this incorrect? I wasn't implying that there hadn't been good times before now, but it appears the 00s were especially good to these two metros. Arguably the best in their respective histories.

Quote:
That is why Houston, Dallas, New Orleans, LA, San Diego, San Antonio, Phoenix, etc have urban areas that are more dense than Bostons.
Cool? What does Boston have to do with this? What does this have to do with anything?

Quote:
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.
I agree.

Quote:
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.
I still don't get what the point of this is? I'm not contesting that Houston and other Western metros are dominated by similarly dense small cities surrounding the major central city.

Quote:
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.
True, but this can be said about most metros...though as you point out below, the metros in other areas of the country don't have nearly as much land area in each of their counties.

Quote:
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.
In terms of the higher land values, it has to happen. You can't simply keep growing outward, so eventually Houston will have to grow up or grow closer together. Even if there's a large amount of space in some of the outer counties, there's no point to expand there if there isn't a major business center to live near...right?

Quote:
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.
Right, but as you said smart people will live close to where they work. So you can't necessarily take the whole county into account when it's only reasonable to live in the area close to the port. So even in Chambers County, those land values will rise since there's only so much viable space to be using. I'm sure there will be other growth in the county in terms of business, but ultimately the question is how far are people going to develop away from the core? There couldn't be much desire to move out to such a desolate place if you're starting a new business. You said the 10,000 square miles of Houston's MSA isn't accurate, but with the way you're talking about the outer counties it soon could be. Is that in fact the plan?

As a side note, Harris County is already enormous and well developed, so the areas within that area will have to rise in land value...at least if the central part of Houston is going to continue to grow.

Quote:
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.
It's a bit of a stretch to compare Houston to Los Angeles. LA began its boom in what could be considered the golden age for the United States. Right now Houston is facing the worst economy since the Great Depression. While they both have ports, and South America is developing rapidly, there isn't a manufacturing base in South America like there is in Asia. On top of that, much of South America's trade (particularly that of Brasil) is actually done more with Asia than it is with the United States. Brasil is the world's livestock king and at the moment it feeds China and India. For better or worse, the B, I, and C in the BRICS are pretty reliant on one another.

You're also not giving Chicago nearly enough credit. As you mentioned, it's the largest rail hub in the country...but I believe it's the largest air hub in the country too. I don't see how Dallas has an advantage in truck shipping. Where are you getting that?

Overall, you're talking as if Houston and Dallas are already on Chicago's level in terms of size and importance, but it's not close. Houston & Dallas both have quite a bit of catching up to do.

Quote:
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.
First off, I said Dallas would be 7.9 million. Second, its MSA is 6.3 million, right? (without Wikipedia due to the stupid blackout) We're measuring MSAs, not CSAs. So that'd be 80k a year. That's 67% of the 121k per year it added in the last decade. It may seem a tad low, but we're talking about 20 years here. I did say "maybe one will get up to 8.5-9 million"...I just don't expect it.

Quote:
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.
And based on current growth rates...you can't assume that this will hold up for three decades. Where are these people and jobs going to come from? There are going to have to be a few cities that take some hard hits and some big companies will have to move to the region for this to happen.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-18-2012, 01:59 PM
 
Location: Up on the moon laughing down on you
18,509 posts, read 28,173,289 times
Reputation: 7598
Quote:
Originally Posted by tmac9wr View Post
Really? I thought the Texas cities--especially Houston--took a pretty solid beating in the 80s? Is this incorrect? I wasn't implying that there hadn't been good times before now, but it appears the 00s were especially good to these two metros. Arguably the best in their respective histories.
Houston slowed a little in the 80's but still grew. In fact, 1982 is Houston's best growth year yet. It gained 150K threw immigration and 45K more via natural increase. 2000's were great but it didn't come come close to the years Houston had back in the 70's or early 80's.


Quote:
Cool? What does Boston have to do with this? What does this have to do with anything?
I agree.
I still don't get what the point of this is? I'm not contesting that Houston and other Western metros are dominated by similarly dense small cities surrounding the major central city.
Giving you something you are familiar with.



Quote:
True, but this can be said about most metros...though as you point out below, the metros in other areas of the country don't have nearly as much land area in each of their counties.
It is true for other areas, but just letting you know that it is true for ours too, you act like you don't know it sometimes. What does the extra land areas have to do with it other than there is more room to grow, which blows away your theory that we will hit a max soon.



Quote:
In terms of the higher land values, it has to happen. You can't simply keep growing outward, so eventually Houston will have to grow up or grow closer together. Even if there's a large amount of space in some of the outer counties, there's no point to expand there if there isn't a major business center to live near...right?
Did you miss two things?
1. did you just miss your own point about all the extra land. Houston does not have to grow up soon. Houston will never gain enough people to have to grow upwards. at 10,000 sq miles, to grow up requires density at above 8000ppsm that is just waaay too many people. Unless you are saying that the metro is going gain over 50M people in a few decades I just don't see your point.

2. Did you miss my point of the business centers spread all over the metro. The Shipping industry is growing and Chambers county is right there with a population density under 100 ppsm, and it is a large county too. Adding 500K people to Chambers gets you to a density of only 800ppsm. Not even urban.

Then There is The woodlands in Montgomery County. It is attracting major companies and major jobs. Montgomery County is surrounded by Walker, San Jacinto, and other large counties with only 30-50K people.

Fort Bend and Galveston Counties also have their job pulls too. Please pay attention to all the points.



Quote:
Right, but as you said smart people will live close to where they work. So you can't necessarily take the whole county into account when it's only reasonable to live in the area close to the port. So even in Chambers County, those land values will rise since there's only so much viable space to be using.
We have different definitions of what close is. Yours maybe 5, 10 miles, mine is the entire Chambers County. I have 2 Co Workers who drive from Jefferson County through Chambers county and into the heart of Harris.

Quote:
I'm sure there will be other growth in the county in terms of business, but ultimately the question is how far are people going to develop away from the core?
Again which core are you thinking of? There are many many cores. No real need to leave the one nearest you.

Quote:
There couldn't be much desire to move out to such a desolate place if you're starting a new business. You said the 10,000 square miles of Houston's MSA isn't accurate, but with the way you're talking about the outer counties it soon could be. Is that in fact the plan?
They don't stay desolate for long. i heard that there were gripes in the 90's about building the beltway in such a remote desolate area. Now the growth has long passed the beltway. The next loop is going threw Chambers, Brazoria, Fort Bend, Montgomery and other counties. In just a few years these areas will be the sprawl of the day.

1960 is far even for me, and I see more stores, restaurants and businesses on that highway than I do in the core. Houston is getting its 1st H&M store soon. Guess where it is going. It is going to Willowbrook Mall on 1960. (1960 almost forms a 3rd ring around the city.

So no, the desolate idea won't work.
As for the 10K development plan, no I don't think all of it will be developed. I just used it show that there is tons and tons of extra land out there. I think most of the growth will be contained in the grand Parkway loop. It will contain about 5500 sq miles of land area. If the pop density grows to only about 2000 ppsm inside this loop, then the area will have over 10M people. That is not counting the smaller towns that are in existence already around it.

do you think 2000 people per sq miles is high density??? I use 2000 because that is the density of most areas outside the beltway right now, such as Pearland and Greenspoints on opposite ends.

Quote:
As a side note, Harris County is already enormous and well developed, so the areas within that area will have to rise in land value...at least if the central part of Houston is going to continue to grow.
I agree, but as I noted, I was talking about growth outside of Harris. Harris is expected to grow by over a million in the next 20 years you saw that I did not include that in my calculations. Further, Harris still has large areas of fields. Lots of these areas exist. Harris may be the 3rd most populated county in the country, but it is far from being 3rd most dense. adding 1M people to Harris over the next 20 years isn't going to make a bleep on the land values meter. Harris added 700K last decade and land values overall barely moved.



Quote:
It's a bit of a stretch to compare Houston to Los Angeles. LA began its boom in what could be considered the golden age for the United States. Right now Houston is facing the worst economy since the Great Depression. While they both have ports, and South America is developing rapidly, there isn't a manufacturing base in South America like there is in Asia. On top of that, much of South America's trade (particularly that of Brasil) is actually done more with Asia than it is with the United States. Brasil is the world's livestock king and at the moment it feeds China and India. For better or worse, the B, I, and C in the BRICS are pretty reliant on one another.
The country seems to be in bad times but Houston seems to be doing better during these hard times than we did right before it.

as for the ports, i would like to remind you not to selectively read the posts. I was talking about SA AND asia for Houston's increase port activity. So what is the point in telling me that SA and ASia are not the same whne we are to get increased activity from Asia in addition to SA?

Quote:
You're also not giving Chicago nearly enough credit. As you mentioned, it's the largest rail hub in the country...but I believe it's the largest air hub in the country too. I don't see how Dallas has an advantage in truck shipping. Where are you getting that?
For the reasons I outlines earlier- increased trade with Asia and SA, and a center of contiguous US population heading nearer and Nearer for OK, combined with an excellent road system will give DFW the advantage over Chicago in shipping by truck. The rail shipping system maybe too hard to overcome.

Quote:
Overall, you're talking as if Houston and Dallas are already on Chicago's level in terms of size and importance, but it's not close. Houston & Dallas both have quite a bit of catching up to do.
nope, you are the one assuming that. Never came close to saying that.


Quote:
First off, I said Dallas would be 7.9 million. Second, its MSA is 6.3 million, right? (without Wikipedia due to the stupid blackout) We're measuring MSAs, not CSAs. So that'd be 80k a year. That's 67% of the 121k per year it added in the last decade. It may seem a tad low, but we're talking about 20 years here. I did say "maybe one will get up to 8.5-9 million"...I just don't expect it.

And based on current growth rates...you can't assume that this will hold up for three decades. Where are these people and jobs going to come from? There are going to have to be a few cities that take some hard hits and some big companies will have to move to the region for this to happen.

well you used CSA for DC, just following your steps. what is good for one should be good for the other? NO?


And what is so fantastic about 3 decades? other cities have done it for longer. DFW is far from prime. 18 years is actually really short when you look at things. WHat is going to cause an abrupt stop in that time? If anything it is going to be a slow plateau and that alone would push DFW passed your low ball estimates. Unless you are expecting 6 or 7 industries in DFW to just die, I don't see an abrupt stop. DFW's job areas are not like Detroit, Cleveland and other areas. Combine a favorable job climate, with milder winters and low cost of living and you see DFW and Detroit, Cleveland, etc are two different beasts.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-18-2012, 02:45 PM
 
Location: The City
22,331 posts, read 32,166,272 times
Reputation: 7739
Quote:
Originally Posted by HtownLove View Post
Houston slowed a little in the 80's but still grew. In fact, 1982 is Houston's best growth year yet. It gained 150K threw immigration and 45K more via natural increase. 2000's were great but it didn't come come close to the years Houston had back in the 70's or early 80's.


Giving you something you are familiar with.



It is true for other areas, but just letting you know that it is true for ours too, you act like you don't know it sometimes. What does the extra land areas have to do with it other than there is more room to grow, which blows away your theory that we will hit a max soon.




Did you miss two things?
1. did you just miss your own point about all the extra land. Houston does not have to grow up soon. Houston will never gain enough people to have to grow upwards. at 10,000 sq miles, to grow up requires density at above 8000ppsm that is just waaay too many people. Unless you are saying that the metro is going gain over 50M people in a few decades I just don't see your point.

2. Did you miss my point of the business centers spread all over the metro. The Shipping industry is growing and Chambers county is right there with a population density under 100 ppsm, and it is a large county too. Adding 500K people to Chambers gets you to a density of only 800ppsm. Not even urban.

Then There is The woodlands in Montgomery County. It is attracting major companies and major jobs. Montgomery County is surrounded by Walker, San Jacinto, and other large counties with only 30-50K people.

Fort Bend and Galveston Counties also have their job pulls too. Please pay attention to all the points.



We have different definitions of what close is. Yours maybe 5, 10 miles, mine is the entire Chambers County. I have 2 Co Workers who drive from Jefferson County through Chambers county and into the heart of Harris.

Again which core are you thinking of? There are many many cores. No real need to leave the one nearest you.

They don't stay desolate for long. i heard that there were gripes in the 90's about building the beltway in such a remote desolate area. Now the growth has long passed the beltway. The next loop is going threw Chambers, Brazoria, Fort Bend, Montgomery and other counties. In just a few years these areas will be the sprawl of the day.

1960 is far even for me, and I see more stores, restaurants and businesses on that highway than I do in the core. Houston is getting its 1st H&M store soon. Guess where it is going. It is going to Willowbrook Mall on 1960. (1960 almost forms a 3rd ring around the city.

So no, the desolate idea won't work.
As for the 10K development plan, no I don't think all of it will be developed. I just used it show that there is tons and tons of extra land out there. I think most of the growth will be contained in the grand Parkway loop. It will contain about 5500 sq miles of land area. If the pop density grows to only about 2000 ppsm inside this loop, then the area will have over 10M people. That is not counting the smaller towns that are in existence already around it.

do you think 2000 people per sq miles is high density??? I use 2000 because that is the density of most areas outside the beltway right now, such as Pearland and Greenspoints on opposite ends.

I agree, but as I noted, I was talking about growth outside of Harris. Harris is expected to grow by over a million in the next 20 years you saw that I did not include that in my calculations. Further, Harris still has large areas of fields. Lots of these areas exist. Harris may be the 3rd most populated county in the country, but it is far from being 3rd most dense. adding 1M people to Harris over the next 20 years isn't going to make a bleep on the land values meter. Harris added 700K last decade and land values overall barely moved.



The country seems to be in bad times but Houston seems to be doing better during these hard times than we did right before it.

as for the ports, i would like to remind you not to selectively read the posts. I was talking about SA AND asia for Houston's increase port activity. So what is the point in telling me that SA and ASia are not the same whne we are to get increased activity from Asia in addition to SA?

For the reasons I outlines earlier- increased trade with Asia and SA, and a center of contiguous US population heading nearer and Nearer for OK, combined with an excellent road system will give DFW the advantage over Chicago in shipping by truck. The rail shipping system maybe too hard to overcome.

nope, you are the one assuming that. Never came close to saying that.





well you used CSA for DC, just following your steps. what is good for one should be good for the other? NO?


And what is so fantastic about 3 decades? other cities have done it for longer. DFW is far from prime. 18 years is actually really short when you look at things. WHat is going to cause an abrupt stop in that time? If anything it is going to be a slow plateau and that alone would push DFW passed your low ball estimates. Unless you are expecting 6 or 7 industries in DFW to just die, I don't see an abrupt stop. DFW's job areas are not like Detroit, Cleveland and other areas. Combine a favorable job climate, with milder winters and low cost of living and you see DFW and Detroit, Cleveland, etc are two different beasts.

So basically in reading this and am para phrasing. But you believe this is all unique to Houston and it is so different from everyplace in history.

Um ok........

I do think it will grow, but the build out is unsustainable or at some point it will be so spread it may not even mater and just be even more disjointed. And if spread goes North or west or wherever Montgomery County is with jobs, that may just become its own metro. Hell it is as far from DT as the next set of metros on the EC anyway.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-18-2012, 04:44 PM
 
Location: Up on the moon laughing down on you
18,509 posts, read 28,173,289 times
Reputation: 7598
Quote:
Originally Posted by kidphilly View Post
So basically in reading this and am para phrasing. But you believe this is all unique to Houston and it is so different from everyplace in history.

Um ok........

I do think it will grow, but the build out is unsustainable or at some point it will be so spread it may not even mater and just be even more disjointed. And if spread goes North or west or wherever Montgomery County is with jobs, that may just become its own metro. Hell it is as far from DT as the next set of metros on the EC anyway.
Yes Paul. You are a Genius. I think Houston is the only place like that. For half of the post I wasn't even talking about Houston but ok.

You need a PhD and some Nobel prizes for figuring that out because only you would get that from the post. You have a unique brain. I expect to see you making the rounds on the talk shows for this

does anyone even know which of the 50 questions I was replying to that you are referring to?? Pure brilliance
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-18-2012, 11:44 PM
 
Location: FL
3 posts, read 2,965 times
Reputation: 16
Well, just throwing out my opinion of my hometown, St. Petersburg, Fl., This is 1 city that will not exceed 3million. 4 it's a peninsula attached to a state which is a peninsula!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-18-2012, 11:46 PM
 
Location: FL
3 posts, read 2,965 times
Reputation: 16
I'm just a junior member therefore I can get away with junior replies,I think ...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-18-2012, 11:59 PM
 
Location: Keizer, OR
1,376 posts, read 2,515,676 times
Reputation: 1148
Interesting, back when I lived in Houston (early 2000s), no one was moving there. Many were saying Phoenix would easily pass it up in 10-20 years, and now that seems to be changing.

Just curious, where's Phoenix on that list? I guess it's just going to evaporate in the desert heat...
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.
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

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