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.
Chicago won't stay still either, DFW will have to go into overdrive.
I was gonna say, in 1990 the Chicago metro had around 8,000,000 people, and today it has over 9,500,000. I think it can easily surpass the 10,300,000 by 2020.
They will try really really hard to tap into the great lakes, even though the great lake states hate this. The west is a sneaky thirsty guy with a straw, and the great lake states are a stingy guy with a cup of cold water.
I feel sorry for those great lake states... The west will suck those lakes dry in no time.
They already made laws decades ago that strictly said no one who is outside the watershed of the great lakes shall get any water from them. I think last year or this year they also passed new laws strengthening the restriction.
Canada was also in on the deal since they also share much of the shoreline of the great lakes. It would be a HUGE mess if anyone tried to sneak in and take water, let alone people from thousands of miles away.
I was gonna say, in 1990 the Chicago metro had around 8,000,000 people, and today it has over 9,500,000. I think it can easily surpass the 10,300,000 by 2020.
I concur.
I think birthrate to deathrate is the biggest determining factor in population gains...NOT immigration/emigration (although immigration helps)
Thus, the proportion of larger cities will get larger and larger assuming as health technology gets better, the death rate gets smaller.
Yep, currently out birth rate is at it's highest since 1961.
Birth rate or birth numbers? They are different. As is fertility rate. The fertility rate is the most sensitive, it's the # of births per 1000 women of childbearing age. Birth rate is # births per 1000 people (or any other denominator). # of births is simply the number of births.
Birth rate or birth numbers? They are different. As is fertility rate. The fertility rate is the most sensitive, it's the # of births per 1000 women of childbearing age. Birth rate is # births per 1000 people (or any other denominator). # of births is simply the number of births.
Birth Rate. They are calling this the new Baby Boom. Saw it on ABC News Monday night I believe.
Birth rate or birth numbers? They are different. As is fertility rate. The fertility rate is the most sensitive, it's the # of births per 1000 women of childbearing age. Birth rate is # births per 1000 people (or any other denominator). # of births is simply the number of births.
I think it's either or. The more people there are as a whole, the more people there are who will give birth. So rate/number IMO doesn't matter.
Bigger cities will always have a higher number of births. The balancing factor is that they will also have more people die. But, as the death rate decreases with our evolution in technology and health, less people in those big cities will die. Therefore, population gains will most likely be in favor of bigger cities.
Sunbelt cities and newer can grow all they want...like "austin"...but they will never in our lifetimes come close to more substantial cities. Sure, people are emigrating out of cities and into newer ones, but at the end of the day, the biggest determining factor for steady increase in population is the number of births.
So, if you want your city to grow, start making babies, and demoting condoms !!!
I think it's either or. The more people there are as a whole, the more people there are who will give birth. So rate/number IMO doesn't matter
Yes it does. Take a look at the definitions on the above website.
A place may have a high "birth rate" b/c there are a lot of young people who are just starting their families living there. Erie, Colorado comes to mind. A high fertility rate, OTOH, means lots of women of childbearing age having babies. Most cities in Utah come to mind.
To a point, you're right. But the end result is different if a town is full of people say 25-40 yrs old who are growing their families to two children, than if many women in town have 3 - 4 kids apiece.
Last edited by Katarina Witt; 01-04-2008 at 03:08 PM..
Reason: typo
They will try really really hard to tap into the great lakes, even though the great lake states hate this. The west is a sneaky thirsty guy with a straw, and the great lake states are a stingy guy with a cup of cold water.
I feel sorry for those great lake states... The west will suck those lakes dry in no time.
but how?
going to be very hard to transport the water to them...
going to be very hard to transport the water to them...
If oil can be transported from Alaska's north shore hundreds of miles south, through some of the most rugged, remote and difficult terrain on Earth, transporting water from Chicago to L.A. ought to be something like, "Get Your Kicks on Route 66"!
Problem is, water politics is just as volatile as oil politics, if not worse, so any attempts to build a 2000-mile "straw" from the mid-west to the south-west would probably be subject to terrorism and sabotage, just like the Owens Valley farmers sabotaged the L.A. Aqueduct after they found out that they'd been swindled out of their land by the charlatans at L.A. City Hall.
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.
