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.
Many areas that are growing are lacking in terms of transportation options and who is to say that doesn't change for Omaha? Even if that is the case, it doesn't look like it is hurting the area's growth and job market.
Totally agree! You're seeing the affects in places like Austin already, with prices in the core rising due to people demanding to be closer to work and off of the congested freeways. This is a natural phenomenon with supply and demand for every single city on Earth, and in a matter of time there will become a price point for which people may not choose to prefer a city like Austin over another city that's cheaper, has less traffic and more amenities.
I don't know what that point is, but I think it won't be long until the growth begins to slow (by percentage and raw numbers). Austin already has top 3 traffic congestion but it's maybe a top 30 metro in terms of population. Does the city have mass transit systems in place now like rail? When I was there 5/6 years ago there was essentially nothing.
Only 10 cities in the USA have a population more than one million. I think San Jose will reach one million this year or next year. Austin will likely reach one million within five years. In ten years you will likely see Charlotte, Fort Worth, Seattle, Denver, Washington DC and Boston be close to one million. Another interesting topic is if Houston will surpass Chicago and Phoenix and San Antonio surpass Philadelphia.
Denver would have to increase its density 35% to reach a population of 1 MM in the city, which would give it a density equal to the City of Seattle. It won't happen. The majority of growth is Denver MSA, not the City and County of Denver.
The central city population means nothing anymore when determining the population of a "City". Older cities east of the Mississippi have been land locked by suburbs for 50 years now and that has prevented them from expanding their boarders as the area's population grows. Having one central city's population being bigger than another's does not mean that that metro area is the same.
Example: Boston at 636,479 is the 21st largest city in the US, but they are the sixth largest when we look at their CSA - 7,991,370
San Antonio at 1,409,019 is the 7th largest city in the US, but they are only 31st largest when we look at their CSA -2,234,023
I don't know as much about Southern metros to be honest, and most of them are growing quite brisky, rightfully (i.e. due to labor conditions, good infrastructure, schools, etc.) or not (weather, perceived jobs). Here's a list of cities that I personally have my eye on, most of which are Northern:
Spokane -- 20-yr forecast: 1.00M (any state capital with momentum that's near more-expensive popular metros could do well)
To go with my last reply, I want to add this.....When looking at only the population of the central city and not the metro or urban area, then it look as if the western and to some extent, southern cities are growing in leaps and bounds and that the older Northeast and Great Lakes cities are losing population. This is not true.
The city that I am living in currently has been land locked by suburbs since the 1960's.
1950 Kalamazoo, MI - city population was 57,704 with the metro/urban population being 85,000
2012 Kalamazoo, MI - city population was 75,092 but it had a metro/urban population of 326,589
The city of Kalamazoo's highest population was in 1970 at 85,555 and if you only look at that then you would conclude that it was a dying city, but you could not be more wrong. The metro area has never seen a decline in population and it is currently booming with the lasted CSA at 524,030.
Which small and mid-sized metros are making all the right moves when it comes to preparing themselves for and promoting growth in the right ways?
This isn't about the cities that have the fastest growth...but those who have the best infrastructure, promotion, mentality, and planning for a future as a major metro.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckhthankgod
Many areas that are growing are lacking in terms of transportation options and who is to say that doesn't change for Omaha? Even if that is the case, it doesn't look like it is hurting the area's growth and job market.
You keep missing the point....repeatedly. The point of THIS thread was "this isn't about the cities that have the fastest growth...but those who have the best infrastructure, promotion, mentality, and planning for a future as a major metro". In that case currently Omaha wouldn't be a consideration based on the evidence at hand.
You keep missing the point....repeatedly. The point of THIS thread was "this isn't about the cities that have the fastest growth...but those who have the best infrastructure, promotion, mentality, and planning for a future as a major metro". In that case currently Omaha wouldn't be a consideration based on the evidence at hand.
Why? I never said that it was based on growth alone, but it has major employers, it is discussing plans for various types of transportation, it has an educated populace, it has the educational institutions and some people with wealth that are willing to open it up a bit to help the area economy as well. So, I don't understand what the problem is.
Why? I never said that it was based on growth alone, but it has major employers, it is discussing plans for various types of transportation, it has an educated populace, it has the educational institutions and some people with wealth that are willing to open it up a bit to help the area economy as well. So, I don't understand what the problem is.
There's no "problem" I'm just saying in my opinion given the original criteria that other cities already have a better grasp of growth and infrastructure improvements. "Discussion" of rapid transit are typically 20-25 years out from fruition based on similar scenarios in other cities and just because a city has money/wealth and an educated population doesn't necessarily equate to guarantee of success with future planning. Cities like LA, Houston and Indianapolis are great examples in that department.
There's no "problem" I'm just saying in my opinion given the original criteria that other cities already have a better grasp of growth and infrastructure improvements. "Discussion" of rapid transit are typically 20-25 years out from fruition based on similar scenarios in other cities and just because a city has money/wealth and an educated population doesn't necessarily equate to guarantee of success with future planning. Cities like LA, Houston and Indianapolis are great examples in that department.
So then this is just supposed to be another one of those "hey how awesome is every rising city south of the Ohio River threads?" then?
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.
