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.
How do you figure that? The history and dynamics of the two cities are very different. Chicago lost population when most large older American cities lost population due to white flight to NEW suburbs. The white flight occurred in LA except many of those resident just went to the San Fernando Valley, most of which is in the city of LA. Most suburbs in LA are already built out and can't expand anymore except up. And they are some of the densest suburbs in the nation already. I didn't say there was a continuing trend of people going to the suburbs. I indicated that trend is slowing and might reverse itself b/c of the cost of gas and congestion. And b/c those exurbs in the high desert are becoming ghetto's themselves.
Riots in the 1960's pushed many people out of cities but LA still grew while others lost people. The massive concentration of poverty in Chicago's notorious high rise public housing projects never has existed anywhere on the west coast. LA or any city in CA has never had the types of large, high rise public housing projects found in midwestern and east coast cities. Nothing even close to the Robert Taylor projects exist anywhere out west. And yes I know Chicago has torn down many of those projects and is redeveloping them which will help the city improve and bring people back. Even the 1992 riots, high crime rate, 1994 Northridge Earthquake, a horrible real estate downturn, and a severe recession caused by the collapse of the aerospace and defense industries in Southern CA in the 1990's didn't cause LA to lose people in that decade. If that doesn't cause the city to lose people I don't know what will.
LA has a much different history than Chicago or older eastern cities. Even early on it was fairly suburban and spread out. It used to have the largest inter-urban streetcar network in the nation that allowed for more horizontal living before autos became widespread. It's never lost population and is denser today than it ever was. Also immigration plays a big role in population growth in LA and other large American cities, something that was not present in the 1960's to 1970's to offset white flight.
LA continues to get denser. As it expands it rail system it will only become denser and attract more people to the city. The fact than the entire LA basin is built out as are many of the suburbs will only help keep people in LA. Long commutes, high gas prices, and congestion will encourage people to live closer to their jobs in the city of LA. Just b/c Chicago peaked and fell doesn't mean LA or other younger and still growing cities will.
Very good explanation, indeed LA is a Younger city but if you look historically at it you will see a pattern. The usable land in the city itself is at a premium, hence people will begin to leave. Now will Chicago ever retake the #2 spot, only if pigs fly. However history and geography shows that growth of the city will soon cease.
Look at all the land around Houston, TX it is perfect for more groth, infact there is still undeveloped land in the city itself. Chicago hit it's limit along time ago, but the metro area could continue to grow until there is nothing left of Illinois or Indiana.
LA will not be surpassed by Chicago, however LA dosn't have the advantage that Chicago has. Chicago can build up without the worry of earthquakes. Sadly this is probably why LA's skyline isn't as significant as that of Chicagos'. I predict that by the yeaar 2020 LA's population will be about 3,200,000. But in the end i'm not hating on LA just pointing out that growth in the city will soon halt.
Very good explanation, indeed LA is a Younger city but if you look historically at it you will see a pattern. The usable land in the city itself is at a premium, hence people will begin to leave. Now will Chicago ever retake the #2 spot, only if pigs fly. However history and geography shows that growth of the city will soon cease.
Look at all the land around Houston, TX it is perfect for more groth, infact there is still undeveloped land in the city itself. Chicago hit it's limit along time ago, but the metro area could continue to grow until there is nothing left of Illinois or Indiana.
LA will not be surpassed by Chicago, however LA dosn't have the advantage that Chicago has. Chicago can build up without the worry of earthquakes. Sadly this is probably why LA's skyline isn't as significant as that of Chicagos'. I predict that by the yeaar 2020 LA's population will be about 3,200,000. But in the end i'm not hating on LA just pointing out that growth in the city will soon halt.
So before LA was going to lost population b/c you claimed it would suffer the same effects of urban problems of Chicago. But now you claim it will lose population b/c land is at a premium and people will leave b/c they can't build skyscrapers?? Which one is it? You keep trying to throw out BS reasons for LA to lose people. Do you just want LA to lose people so you keep trying to argue that it will based off some random BS?
What history and geography shows "growth of the city will soon cease"? When cities run out of land they build up and get denser and that is exactly what LA is doing. Earthquakes?? Are you serious trying to use that argument? Do earthquakes prevent Seattle or SF from building skyscrapers? Or how about TOKYO? Mexico City? Give me a break, I can't believe you actually tried to use some earthquake argument as a reason LA won't become denser! Notice all those tall skyscrapers they've built the last 50 years, do you think those are going to fall down along with all the new skyscrapers they are building?? Earthquakes are not and will not prevent LA from growing denser b/c they are some of the safest buildings to be in during an earthquake and are built with strict codes. Los Angeles can build up w/o the worry of earthquakes as well like it has been doing for decades now. And with the expansion of LA's rail system only more tall buildings will go up around stations.
You just keep coming up with reasons why LA would lose population but none of them hold any weight or make sense really. Personally I think you just have some desire for LA not to grow and lose people b/c of some Chicago inferiority complex. It's like you don't want the city of LA to grow and continue to distance itself from Chicago's slow population growth/decline.
A report by the Southern Ca Association of Governments predicts the city of LA's population will grow to 4.89 million residents by 2020 and more recent 2001 report put LA at 4.5 million in 2020, so either way it will grow and not shrink. And I'm going to go with those reports over your random assessment of the situation.
So before LA was going to lost population b/c you claimed it would suffer the same effects of urban problems of Chicago. But now you claim it will lose population b/c land is at a premium and people will leave b/c they can't build skyscrapers?? Which one is it? You keep trying to throw out BS reasons for LA to lose people. Do you just want LA to lose people so you keep trying to argue that it will based off some random BS?
What history and geography shows "growth of the city will soon cease"? When cities run out of land they build up and get denser and that is exactly what LA is doing. Earthquakes?? Are you serious trying to use that argument? Do earthquakes prevent Seattle or SF from building skyscrapers? Or how about TOKYO? Mexico City? Give me a break, I can't believe you actually tried to use some earthquake argument as a reason LA won't become denser! Notice all those tall skyscrapers they've built the last 50 years, do you think those are going to fall down along with all the new skyscrapers they are building?? Earthquakes are not and will not prevent LA from growing denser b/c they are some of the safest buildings to be in during an earthquake and are built with strict codes. Los Angeles can build up w/o the worry of earthquakes as well like it has been doing for decades now. And with the expansion of LA's rail system only more tall buildings will go up around stations.
You just keep coming up with reasons why LA would lose population but none of them hold any weight or make sense really. Personally I think you just have some desire for LA not to grow and lose people b/c of some Chicago inferiority complex. It's like you don't want the city of LA to grow and continue to distance itself from Chicago's slow population growth/decline.
A report by the Southern Ca Association of Governments predicts the city of LA's population will grow to 4.89 million residents by 2020 and more recent 2001 report put LA at 4.5 million in 2020, so either way it will grow and not shrink. And I'm going to go with those reports over your random assessment of the situation.
got any new reasons why LA will stop growing and losing people? Or will you finally accept the fact that LA will keep growing for a long time?
Relax, I never said you had to listen to my assessment. Just because I have a different opinion then that of the LA times, dosn't mean it is wrong or right. I tell you what i'll be here in 2020 and if I am wrong then I will mail you $500, no joke. I stick by my assessments of a situation just as you stick by yours.
How do you figure that? The history and dynamics of the two cities are very different. Chicago lost population when most large older American cities lost population due to white flight to NEW suburbs. The white flight occurred in LA except many of those resident just went to the San Fernando Valley, most of which is in the city of LA. Most suburbs in LA are already built out and can't expand anymore except up. And they are some of the densest suburbs in the nation already. I didn't say there was a continuing trend of people going to the suburbs. I indicated that trend is slowing and might reverse itself b/c of the cost of gas and congestion. And b/c those exurbs in the high desert are becoming ghetto's themselves.
Riots in the 1960's pushed many people out of cities but LA still grew while others lost people. The massive concentration of poverty in Chicago's notorious high rise public housing projects never has existed anywhere on the west coast. LA or any city in CA has never had the types of large, high rise public housing projects found in midwestern and east coast cities. Nothing even close to the Robert Taylor projects exist anywhere out west. And yes I know Chicago has torn down many of those projects and is redeveloping them which will help the city improve and bring people back. Even the 1992 riots, high crime rate, 1994 Northridge Earthquake, a horrible real estate downturn, and a severe recession caused by the collapse of the aerospace and defense industries in Southern CA in the 1990's didn't cause LA to lose people in that decade. If that doesn't cause the city to lose people I don't know what will.
LA has a much different history than Chicago or older eastern cities. Even early on it was fairly suburban and spread out. It used to have the largest inter-urban streetcar network in the nation that allowed for more horizontal living before autos became widespread. It's never lost population and is denser today than it ever was. Also immigration plays a big role in population growth in LA and other large American cities, something that was not present in the 1960's to 1970's to offset white flight.
LA continues to get denser. As it expands it rail system it will only become denser and attract more people to the city. The fact than the entire LA basin is built out as are many of the suburbs will only help keep people in LA. Long commutes, high gas prices, and congestion will encourage people to live closer to their jobs in the city of LA. Just b/c Chicago peaked and fell doesn't mean LA or other younger and still growing cities will.
Very well said with good points and coverage on many areas!
In my personal opinion; No way! Nothing sort of a catastophic event will eliminate NYC and LA from holding the two top positions. Say nothing of their respective MSA's. The real question though is already being debated on another thread; when will Houston overtake Chicago? Or when will Houston become an Alpha World City? One could make a very strong argument that Houston as of now is a more important city than Chicago. In my mind it isn't even a question anymore. Simply put, the city proper of Houston will become a more popular area to live than Chicago proper well within my lifetime. The numbers speak for themselves, and I'm not talking about just population here. With Phoenix now rounding out the top five, it will be interesting to watch within the next fifty years. Even then, it will be a toss-up between Houston, Chicago, and Phoenix. NYC and LA will still be on top with out a doubt! The possibility of Phoenix taking over Chicago maybe be taking it a little to far, but then again, fifty years ago, no Phoenix native would have ever thought that Philly would be less populated than Phoenix.
Last edited by arizona sunset; 08-03-2008 at 12:42 AM..
Just curious as to what people think. I think it's possible, but then again, LA is starting to transiiton to more urban living. If LA can have this high density with just single family homes, imagine what it would be like if our downtown expanded and many single family homes were replaced with low to mid rise apartments and condos. But then again, Chicago has already made the transition to urban living and it is much better to live in Downtown Chicago than Downtown LA which means more people can fit in one area which means Chicago may become larger. Chicago also has no barriers around its suburbs so they can just expand and expand while in LA, we have mountains blocking us.
I believe Chicago may one day pass LA at the rate LA is moving, but not any time soon. By the time Chicago has enough people to surpass LA, LA will have made a better transition to urban living which means we can fit more people into our small space.
According to Wiki, Chicago has higher density, but LA is mostly all suburbs, so if we become more urban, i don't think Chicago has a chance.
Well I fyou look at our areas we can surpass L.A. and we have pretty huge(not as huge as cali)suburbs too.
Relax, I never said you had to listen to my assessment. Just because I have a different opinion then that of the LA times, dosn't mean it is wrong or right. I tell you what i'll be here in 2020 and if I am wrong then I will mail you $500, no joke. I stick by my assessments of a situation just as you stick by yours.
those population estimates weren't by the LA Times, they were done by a regional planning agency, SCAG. You have absolutely nothing to support any of your "assessments" yet stick by them b/c you wish LA will lose population for some odd reason.....
Last edited by sav858; 08-03-2008 at 06:09 AM..
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.
just pointing out that growth in the city will soon halt.
Do earthquakes prevent Seattle or SF from building skyscrapers? Or how about TOKYO? Mexico City? Give me a break, I can't believe you actually tried to use some earthquake argument as a reason LA won't become denser! Notice all those tall skyscrapers they've built the last 50 years, do you think those are going to fall down along with all the new skyscrapers they are building?? Earthquakes are not and will not prevent LA from growing denser b/c they are some of the safest buildings to be in during an earthquake and are built with strict codes. Los Angeles can build up w/o the worry of earthquakes as well like it has been doing for decades now. And with the expansion of LA's rail system only more tall buildings will go up around stations.
