U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Urban Planning
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 05-16-2013, 07:08 PM
 
Location: In the heights
22,379 posts, read 23,879,969 times
Reputation: 11788

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by cisco kid View Post
Walkscore is a joke. Its a score assigned by a computer program, not by people who have any real world experience with the neighborhood. its pretty much worthless.
From my experience, the walkscore heatmaps seem really accurate especially when comparing places within the same metro. The only part that's a "joke" are general neighborhood or city scores because these are often of wildly varying sizes so on a human walking scale become meaningless. But heatmaps--pretty sweet.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-16-2013, 07:13 PM
 
Location: In the heights
22,379 posts, read 23,879,969 times
Reputation: 11788
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
I don't think people really "fled" the cities. They were able to buy houses, some the first in their families to own a home. They wanted a little piece of land. So they went to the burbs.

The birth rate is at its lowest ever. I'll believe this 36% growth in 40 years when I see it.
Immigration still has decent numbers and 40 years is actually a very, very long time for 36% growth in the US. This would essentially be a decade on decade of 8% growth for each decade which would be the slowest growth the US has ever seen.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-16-2013, 09:33 PM
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
87,145 posts, read 103,022,234 times
Reputation: 33186
Quote:
Originally Posted by OyCrumbler View Post
Immigration still has decent numbers and 40 years is actually a very, very long time for 36% growth in the US. This would essentially be a decade on decade of 8% growth for each decade which would be the slowest growth the US has ever seen.
That"s not how it.s calculated.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-16-2013, 11:36 PM
 
134 posts, read 162,898 times
Reputation: 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
That"s not how it.s calculated.
That's actually exactly how it's calculated. In order to have a population increase of 36%, you need to multiply the current population by a factor of 1.36. If that percentage is over 40 years, to find the decade on decade increase, all you do is take the 4th root of 1.36 (40 divided by 10 is 4) which works out to almost exactly 1.08, or an 8% increase every ten years.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-17-2013, 08:07 PM
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
87,145 posts, read 103,022,234 times
Reputation: 33186
^^Mea Culpa!

However, Malthus was wrong, Ehrlich was wrong, and this doofus is wrong. How do I know? These prognosticators, particularly the "gloom and doom" types, are always wrong. No one predicted the drop in birthrates in Europe and Japan until they happened. The birth rate is dropping in Mexico. It's dropping everywhere.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-17-2013, 08:17 PM
nei nei won $500 in our forum's Most Engaging Poster Contest - Thirteenth Edition (Jan-Feb 2015). 

Over $104,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum and additional contests are planned
 
Location: Long Island / NYC
45,993 posts, read 42,256,598 times
Reputation: 14811
Quote:
Originally Posted by OyCrumbler View Post
Immigration still has decent numbers and 40 years is actually a very, very long time for 36% growth in the US. This would essentially be a decade on decade of 8% growth for each decade which would be the slowest growth the US has ever seen.
Immigration has declined in the last 5-10 years. It may be from the recession, but I doubt it will go back to previous years. But yea, 36% growth in the next 40 years would be the lowest the US has seen. At this point nearly all American growth is either from immigration or births from immigrants.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-17-2013, 08:33 PM
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
87,145 posts, read 103,022,234 times
Reputation: 33186
Immigrants To Be Largest Driver Of U.S. Population Growth : Code Switch : NPR

I have read research that states that immigrants from countries where large families are common generally start having smaller families within a generation or two of immigrating, so immigrants won't be a source of a lot of new births.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Urban Planning
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top