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.
The solution is more construction. Reduce restrictions on new construction. Case in point: Houston does not have zoning and has some of the most affordable housing. Rent control doesn't work. Look at San Francisco and New York.
Rent control has a narrowly targeted audience - incumbent renters. All others be damned.
Rent control works for incumbent renters and not for anybody else.
The vast majority of the American people have no desire to live in New York or any of the other very large metropoli.
I sure the heck wouldn't want to.
320 million people live in the US, 20 million of those people live in the NYC metro. So yes, the vast majority of Americans don't live in NYC and probably have no desire to live there, but the city's population and the metro's population keeps growing even though it is extremely expensive to live there.
Currently 6.25% of the US population lives in the NYC metro, that is a huge percentage of Americans living in and around one city.
NYC or San Fran are not places you move to if you're just going to be "average" in every aspect of life. I know a lot of people who live there who are basically broke and homeless but would not trade the city life for anything.
I think there are reasons why metro areas still have a large population. I think it's because people outside the nation are moving there like in Los Angeles you still have TONs of immigrants from Mexico, South America, and the Phillipines getting citizenship and some coming here without citizenship. Not to mention middle and up kids are having families and moving into the city and out of the suburbs.
I feel mid-sized and small cities are growing because those raised in a less urban environment and those who want to live in a slower paced life and for affordability.
I know a nearby mid-sized city near me is growing. From 2000 to 2010 it gained 10,000 population and by 2014 it gained 3,000 more population. However, I feel immigrant families have fueled most of the growth.
Where I live, it's mostly people escaping the concrete jungles in CA to live in a mid-sized city.
Sacramento, Fresno, and Bakersfield are still growing in population as well. I wish I knew the rates of growth in each metro in CA to say whose growing the fastest and slowest. I know that in the suburbs of Bakersfield and Fresno there is more rich people moving there while in the city limits it seems to more immigrants.
My county has a whole gained 15,000 population from 2000 to 2010.
I think there are reasons why metro areas still have a large population. I think it's because people outside the nation are moving there like in Los Angeles you still have TONs of immigrants from Mexico, South America, and the Phillipines getting citizenship and some coming here without citizenship. Not to mention middle and up kids are having families and moving into the city and out of the suburbs.
I feel mid-sized and small cities are growing because those raised in a less urban environment and those who want to live in a slower paced life and for affordability.
I know a nearby mid-sized city near me is growing. From 2000 to 2010 it gained 10,000 population and by 2014 it gained 3,000 more population. However, I feel immigrant families have fueled most of the growth.
Where I live, it's mostly people escaping the concrete jungles in CA to live in a mid-sized city.
Sacramento, Fresno, and Bakersfield are still growing in population as well. I wish I knew the rates of growth in each metro in CA to say whose growing the fastest and slowest. I know that in the suburbs of Bakersfield and Fresno there is more rich people moving there while in the city limits it seems to more immigrants.
My county has a whole gained 15,000 population from 2000 to 2010.
That statistic is almost meaningless. What did it start out as? A million? Not very impressive growth. 60,000? That is.
The suburbs of Sacramento and Bakersfield has outpaced the rest in growth. However, I worry Bakersfield might end up like Stockton.
Sacramento doesn't seem to slow down in growth. It's suburbs are pretty nice and the city has some nice parts itself and it's not too far from the Bay Area and Lake Tahoe and the downtown is getting nicer from what I hear.
I am wondering as prices in certain metro areas sky rocket will individuals start finding jobs in smaller and more affordable metro areas?
In areas like NYC metro, San Francisco Bay Area, San Jose Silicon Valley, and parts of So Cal if families will be decide to relocate into less crowded metros with a steady job market?
I heard many from the Bay Area and the Silicon Valley are moving into Sacramento. I heard many in Orange County are moving to cheaper parts of LA area or to the Riverside area.
Definitely this would apply to those who are renting or are trying to buy a home and not those with jobs and homes already.
I look forward to hearing everyone's responses,
the city
uh....sorry....that's New York.
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.
