point of diminishing returns (crime, moving to, tickets)

[Indentured Servant]

At what population threshold does a metro area start experiencing diminishing returns from population growth? Also, at what point does a metro areas growth just provide more of the same? In other words, what does going from a metro of 3 million to a metro of 4 million provide the metro area with that it did not have when it was a million less?

A metro area of 1 million is not large enough to support multiple professional sports teams and may not attract top notch shows or events or might not have certain high end retail and the like. Hence, an area of 1 million going to 2 million can attract a lot of new amenities, but once you are a metro of a certain size, population growth just brings you more of the same things that already exist there, plus more traffic problems and other issues.

I guess what I am kind of asking is what is the optimal metro population that can provide all the amenities that come with size, but not reach the point of diminishing returns such as traffic problems, rising cost, crime and the like. What metro area is at the point currently?

[ckhthankgod]

I think that Buffalo is the only metro just over 1 million people with at least 2 professional teams(Sabres and Bills). So, perhaps a metro that is "grandfathered" in regarding size/population or that has other metros within a pretty close proximity.

Pittsburgh may have the delicate balance that you are looking for.

[jtur88]

It think it is generally regarded that a city needs to grow until it justifies a manor league professional sports team.

All the top 29 metros have at least one. Las Vegas (30)is the largest without one, but is a special demogaphic case. Then, there is a cluster of metros under 2-million that have none, ranking in the low 30s: Raleigh, Austin, Virginia Beach, Greensboro and Providence.

So in terms of major pro sports teams, the cut-off is ar the 2-million mark, with a franchise in all but one of the cities above 2-million, and nearly none below. Portland and Orlando have only one.

Seattle, with 4.4-million, is the largest metro that does not have a team in at least 3 of the four major team sports (baseball, football, basktball, hockey).

Second-ranked Los Angeles deserves trivia mention here, as a metro that has no pro football franchise, but has lost four of them in the past (Dons, Chargers, Raiders, Rams).

[projectmaximus]

Interesting question! But I think it ultimately varies by situation. Some societies, communities, or geographic areas can do more with less. Infrastructure, wealth, and culture can dictate amenities far beyond population size. Physical/geological characteristics mean some cities can offer things others can't, no matter the size.

But very generally, in the United States, I think getting close to a million is an important benchmark that begins to change the landscape of an MSA, and then I think once you're in the 3.5 million range (like Minneapolis and Seattle) you've pretty much reached a point with very little marginal utility from population growth. I, personally, don't think you'd ever get negative marginal utility though...(where it's worse to grow in population)

[Mwahfromtheheart]

New Orleans metro has 2 pro sports teams, and it has only a 1.25 million person metro. The Saints are a pretty successful team. Season tickets have sold out since 2006 (the year after Katrina). There isn't much you can't get here.

[ckhthankgod]

Nashville, Indianapolis and Milwaukee are the other metros with more than 1 professional team and have less than 2 million people in the metro area.

[bluecarebear]

Pittsburgh doesn't have growth. We are experiencing a migration. Most are leaving the East and moving to the North and South sides of the city.

Look at a population map and you will see that the fastest growing counties and towns in Pittsburgh are surrounded by those with declining populations.