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.
One of the professor's quotes that stood out to me was - "We certainly have the infrastructure, the housing, the roads, the cultural institutions to host a city that is twice our size because we used to be twice our size."
One of the professor's quotes that stood out to me was - "We certainly have the infrastructure, the housing, the roads, the cultural institutions to host a city that is twice our size because we used to be twice our size."
To that, I'd say yes, but no. Yes, the CITY of Rochester was, at one time, about 35-40% more populated. However, many of the people who left, causing that drop, simply moved out to the burbs, therefore the overall population of the COUNTY, didn't drop by all that much.
Secondly, in order for the Rochester area to grow as much as the originally posted article implies, there'd have to be an equivalent increase in jobs. I fully understand that I'm a "dinosaur" in my thinking on that topic, as I'm from the generation of Rochesterians that lived/worked through the "multi-thousands" employers such as GM, Kodak, and Xerox. And I don't see anything like that, on the horizon. Yes, we now have a large number of smaller businesses, but even with a large number of them, their numbers simply don't add up to the "mega-employers" of the past.
Secondly, I'd also take issue on that professor's approximation of Rochester's current size vs. it's past size. For some reason, while I can't remember what I had for lunch, yesterday, certain statistics, from WAY back, still remain locked in my memory. My family moved to Rochester in January of 1958. Around that time, I remember looking in a locally published book, which said the population in Rochester, at the time, was 308,611. I seem to recall reading, far more recently, that the number is now just over 200,000. That's not a 50% drop in population.
^ I just have one counterpoint regarding employers. Since the scenario takes us 50 years into the future, I think it's possible that by then remote / work-from-home employment will be more common, so that would allow people to relocate to more habitable climates regardless of the location of their employer. Another possibility is that robots will take the place of human workers in many fields and this could usher in "universal basic income" giving people more flexibility to relocate. (I'm not advocating for UBI, just pointing out possibilities.)
^ I just have one counterpoint regarding employers. Since the scenario takes us 50 years into the future, I think it's possible that by then remote / work-from-home employment will be more common, so that would allow people to relocate to more habitable climates regardless of the location of their employer. Another possibility is that robots will take the place of human workers in many fields and this could usher in "universal basic income" giving people more flexibility to relocate. (I'm not advocating for UBI, just pointing out possibilities.)
I believe most business are small busineses. Rochester has never been a manufacturer of large scale products, even though we've had large companies. GM made things like wiper motors, carburetors and fuel rails. B&L, contact lenses or sunglasses, Kodak, film and cameras, even Xerox. It was all about what's inside. The print engines.
Just look at all of the replacement businesses for our formerly large companies. Rochester has always been on the radar to pop someday. Unfortunately, the state seems to be focused on Buffalo. Even our own economic development teams seem to defer as well.
Secondly, in order for the Rochester area to grow as much as the originally posted article implies, there'd have to be an equivalent increase in jobs.
I think it's a little naive not to think businesses wouldn't relocate as well. Businesses look for a stable environment to operate in. One too many wildfire, flood, tropical storm, excessive heat wave, etc will make many large companies reconsider where they locate there corporate office headquarters, distribution centers and warehouses, research facilities, etc. Cooling is another consideration, generally Air Conditioning systems are designed to accommodate up to a 20 degree difference between outside air and inside. When it's 110 or 115 outside, your talking it still 90 to 95 degrees inside. Most A/C systems can of course still cool below that number, but not without straining the system, and higher electricity costs to boot.
One thing we do have a lot of is fresh water. Great for cooling and process. Chip factories need lots of water, and Monroe County just built a brand new water plant on Basket Rd. Most of the Rochester, Lake Ontario area is residential, then agriculture. Plenty of room for growth.
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.
