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.
Let's see.. According to the California State Department of Finance, California will have about 60 million people by 2050 and Southern California will have 31.6 million by the same time. This also shows that I was correct in assuming that Los Angeles and San Diego will have merged by then. New York will always hover around 8 million in the city and 16 to 22 in the metro, but merging with other major east coast cities in other states has always been a backup fantasy for them. San Diego is a mid-sized city down the coast of the same state. New York grew by 0.1 percent from 1995 to 2000. Los Angeles, though not recovered fully from the early 90's exodus, still grew 1.8 percent. L. A., as of last month, is officially over 4 million in the city, but without counting heads in New Jersey and Connecticut- and now maybe Pennsylvania, New York's metro would currently be a slightly distant second to L. A. (Census figures are from Woods and Poole economics, Inc. and the California Finance figures are from today's L. A. Times.)
Let's see.. According to the California State Department of Finance, California will have about 60 million people by 2050 and Southern California will have 31.6 million by the same time. This also shows that I was correct in assuming that Los Angeles and San Diego will have merged by then. New York will always hover around 8 million in the city and 16 to 22 in the metro, but merging with other major east coast cities in other states has always been a backup fantasy for them. San Diego is a mid-sized city down the coast of the same state. New York grew by 0.1 percent from 1995 to 2000. Los Angeles, though not recovered fully from the early 90's exodus, still grew 1.8 percent. L. A., as of last month, is officially over 4 million in the city, but without counting heads in New Jersey and Connecticut- and now maybe Pennsylvania, New York's metro would currently be a slightly distant second to L. A. (Census figures are from Woods and Poole economics, Inc. and the California Finance figures are from today's L. A. Times.)
Firstly, I think the California Department of Finance might be a little biased.
You speak with such certainties-you can guarentee that NY will hover around 8 mill and its metro 16-22? While this is certainly possible I highly doubt SoCal will have that much. There is already an exodus of the middle class leaving only the poor and the rich. The only growth LA is experiencing is from immigration and your statistics rely on the same immigration patterns until 2050. Not likely.
I also find funny how you state east coast cities merging as a "backup fantasy" but its already a done deal that San Diego will be a part of LA.
San Diego is "mid-sized"? Its not as big as Philly but it still has 2.9 million not counting whats on Mexico's side.
Finally, What does this even mean? "without counting heads in New Jersey and Connecticut- and now maybe Pennsylvania, New York's metro would currently be a slightly distant second to L. A."
Not counting heads in NJ and CT and PA in the future is pretty much taking all of NY's metro except for NYC and NY state suburbs. And how can something be a slightly distant second?
Oh I almost forgot: what does 2050 have to do with the thread?
Where do you guys get all this information from? Is it like that in other cities like LA?
Also, I found on citymayors.com the 2020 MSA population numbers and in 2020 it says NYC will be ahead of LA by 7.18 million people. It also says NYC is growing faster than LA. The population change of NYC in 2006-2020 is .66% and LA is .58%.
Where do I get my info? Well the Combined Metro Statistical Area includes 3counties (I think) in connecticut. I like to see for myself though so I use google earth sometimes. You can usually see where the true boundaries are for metro areas. It can get a little tricky in the east coast because of overlapping though.
Yes, I think the NY metro and greater LA are similar in that they have alot of separate cities that are connected by a contiguous urban area. What was your idea of the metro?
Firstly, I think the California Department of Finance might be a little biased.
You speak with such certainties-you can guarentee that NY will hover around 8 mill and its metro 16-22? While this is certainly possible I highly doubt SoCal will have that much. There is already an exodus of the middle class leaving only the poor and the rich. The only growth LA is experiencing is from immigration and your statistics rely on the same immigration patterns until 2050. Not likely.
I also find funny how you state east coast cities merging as a "backup fantasy" but its already a done deal that San Diego will be a part of LA.
San Diego is "mid-sized"? Its not as big as Philly but it still has 2.9 million not counting whats on Mexico's side.
Finally, What does this even mean? "without counting heads in New Jersey and Connecticut- and now maybe Pennsylvania, New York's metro would currently be a slightly distant second to L. A."
Not counting heads in NJ and CT and PA in the future is pretty much taking all of NY's metro except for NYC and NY state suburbs. And how can something be a slightly distant second?
Oh I almost forgot: what does 2050 have to do with the thread?
Who says Toronto will be annexed to the U. S.? That's, by 2030? I heard that Canadiens live mostly on the American boarder because, well, they are planning an invasion..shhhh...
Firstly, I think the California Department of Finance might be a little biased.
You speak with such certainties-you can guarentee that NY will hover around 8 mill and its metro 16-22? While this is certainly possible I highly doubt SoCal will have that much. There is already an exodus of the middle class leaving only the poor and the rich. The only growth LA is experiencing is from immigration and your statistics rely on the same immigration patterns until 2050. Not likely.
I also find funny how you state east coast cities merging as a "backup fantasy" but its already a done deal that San Diego will be a part of LA.
San Diego is "mid-sized"? Its not as big as Philly but it still has 2.9 million not counting whats on Mexico's side.
Finally, What does this even mean? "without counting heads in New Jersey and Connecticut- and now maybe Pennsylvania, New York's metro would currently be a slightly distant second to L. A."
Not counting heads in NJ and CT and PA in the future is pretty much taking all of NY's metro except for NYC and NY state suburbs. And how can something be a slightly distant second?
Oh I almost forgot: what does 2050 have to do with the thread?
First of all, I'd like to kill this idea of interstate metro areas. That's just a stupid idea that can't be backed up accurately at all! Not by daytime work numbers, not by commuter traffic patterns, nothing! You live where you live. If you have multiple tax returns in different states for whatever reasons, that can't be used accurately to differentiate between primary and secondary residences. Where your head hits the pillow at night is where you live, and I'm dumbfounded by everyone's innability to understand how other heads in other states are counted by cities elsewhere. MSA's and CMSA's are P O S's., and, really, if it weren't for New York's assertion to count out of staters to boost it's own head count ( backup fantasy ), then they would be a slight distant second to a Greater L. A. area that doesn't go out of state for it's head count. As for San Diego, city or metro, it's mid-sized. My stats are accurate, but then, can any database really be? The California Dept. of Finance is more scared than biased, truly. And how come international immigration isn't taken seriously in California but if it came through Ellis Island, oohhhh..so romantic, so proud!! But, you're right, patterns change all the time. It may actually take until 2020 until New York reaches 9 million. Or, it may go back to 7.3 million. Again. Can't see L. A. settling anytime soon.
Firstly, I think the California Department of Finance might be a little biased.
You speak with such certainties-you can guarentee that NY will hover around 8 mill and its metro 16-22? While this is certainly possible I highly doubt SoCal will have that much. There is already an exodus of the middle class leaving only the poor and the rich. The only growth LA is experiencing is from immigration and your statistics rely on the same immigration patterns until 2050. Not likely.
I also find funny how you state east coast cities merging as a "backup fantasy" but its already a done deal that San Diego will be a part of LA.
San Diego is "mid-sized"? Its not as big as Philly but it still has 2.9 million not counting whats on Mexico's side.
Finally, What does this even mean? "without counting heads in New Jersey and Connecticut- and now maybe Pennsylvania, New York's metro would currently be a slightly distant second to L. A."
Not counting heads in NJ and CT and PA in the future is pretty much taking all of NY's metro except for NYC and NY state suburbs. And how can something be a slightly distant second?
Oh I almost forgot: what does 2050 have to do with the thread?
Oh, I almost forgot: What's on the Mexico side of San Diego is called Tijuana, and that is bigger than Philly.
Let's see.. According to the California State Department of Finance, California will have about 60 million people by 2050 and Southern California will have 31.6 million by the same time. This also shows that I was correct in assuming that Los Angeles and San Diego will have merged by then. New York will always hover around 8 million in the city and 16 to 22 in the metro, but merging with other major east coast cities in other states has always been a backup fantasy for them. San Diego is a mid-sized city down the coast of the same state. New York grew by 0.1 percent from 1995 to 2000. Los Angeles, though not recovered fully from the early 90's exodus, still grew 1.8 percent. L. A., as of last month, is officially over 4 million in the city, but without counting heads in New Jersey and Connecticut- and now maybe Pennsylvania, New York's metro would currently be a slightly distant second to L. A. (Census figures are from Woods and Poole economics, Inc. and the California Finance figures are from today's L. A. Times.)
The City of New York will have over 10 million by 2030. Probably even over 12 million. San Diego's metro is tiny compared to Philly's. SD will make little difference by merging with LA.
That came from the LA Times. The LOS ANGELES Times!
First of all, I'd like to kill this idea of interstate metro areas. That's just a stupid idea that can't be backed up accurately at all! Not by daytime work numbers, not by commuter traffic patterns, nothing! You live where you live. If you have multiple tax returns in different states for whatever reasons, that can't be used accurately to differentiate between primary and secondary residences. Where your head hits the pillow at night is where you live, and I'm dumbfounded by everyone's innability to understand how other heads in other states are counted by cities elsewhere. MSA's and CMSA's are P O S's., and, really, if it weren't for New York's assertion to count out of staters to boost it's own head count ( backup fantasy ), then they would be a slight distant second to a Greater L. A. area that doesn't go out of state for it's head count. As for San Diego, city or metro, it's mid-sized. My stats are accurate, but then, can any database really be? The California Dept. of Finance is more scared than biased, truly. And how come international immigration isn't taken seriously in California but if it came through Ellis Island, oohhhh..so romantic, so proud!! But, you're right, patterns change all the time. It may actually take until 2020 until New York reaches 9 million. Or, it may go back to 7.3 million. Again. Can't see L. A. settling anytime soon.
Many people commute from Philly to NYC everyday by train. It's not like that in LA which is why I don't believe SD should join with LA.
Angelenos seem to get ahead of themselves. They get overly excited about something that will more than likely never happen. NYC and Philly together right now make over 23,000,000. By the time 2030 reaches, New York CIty alone will have about 12 million, so add 4 million to 23,000,000--27,000,000. And the NYC metro is growing West, East, and North--said to rise by 2.5-3 million by 2030. So about 29.5-30 million by 2030 for NYC. And that's without including the East Coast real estate bubble burst that's getting ready to happen. Once that hits, probably around the time The Big One hits the West Coast or so, people will be flocking to NYC.
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.
