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.
For all of its downsides, population growth will always be better than stagnant (or worse, declining) population. See Detroit proper and the Greater Detroit area in general to prove my point.
The key however is smart growth. Inland Empire one extreme that's undesirable (worst air quality in US, nothing but warehouse jobs & semi-truck traffic, crime-ridden "urban" cores, etc.), while San Francisco (exploding rent / housing costs, lack of blue collar jobs, etc.) is the other extreme that's undesirable.
The goal should be balance. Leaders should be encouraging investment that improves the QOL of citizens from all walks of life, and part of that is by not allowing NIMBYs to run roughshod in rezoning meetings, initiatives to encourage entrepreneurship along with being willing to generate enough revenue to expand infrastructure and improve the quality of schools as needed.
If if I had to pick, I think Minneapolis is one city that's closest to doing things right.
Uh, are you freaking serious? If you actually think that Minneapolis is a city that is "doing things right" you need a reality check, dude.
Last edited by Berrie143; 07-21-2020 at 06:29 AM..
You're opinion and posts are about some mystical future.
Huh?
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrRational
I'm focused on sorting out the existing underlying issues ..which has to come first.
Most of those older cities once had pretty large pops close to what they have now...
Then the WW2 work related increases and decline period (1940-60) happened.
Too many want to act/believe that those anomalously high pop levels warrant being a part of the current/future calculations.
The residual problem, now chronic, is with so many of those who have remained.
You can't build a city on a foundation of net consumers.
A stagnant or declining population may well be inevitable future for some cities, but that doesn't make it any less of a bad thing.
Thank you for your articulate, well thought out retort.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Berrie143
If you actually think that Minneapolis is a city that is "doing things right" you need a reality check, dude.
I'd hate to live in your world where a city that's experiencing a healthy growth rate and has an extremely diverse economy while also remaining safe/affordable and not seeing their infrastructure overwhelmed is considered a bad thing.
Last edited by citidata18; 07-21-2020 at 07:52 AM..
Being on city data for several years I have realized that population growth is probably one of the largest indicators for city boosters. But at what point does it become too much growth?
I notice that people like to cite the population decreases in LA, NYC, and Chicago, three mega world class cities. But at this point what reason should these three cities grow anymore (Well more specifically NYC). NYC is the most crowded city at 8.3 million people. Wouldnt a decrease in population actually be needed for improved quality of life reasonings?
According to the futurists, people are moving and will continue to move to the cities where the jobs are, and the living is easier. I took a walk around central park one day and noticed there was a whole lot of people, so many, that the tar undercoating on the metal work holding up the tramway to Roosevelt Island was polished just from the hordes of people brushing by. I always thought that cities were never suitable for people. Old cities anyway. Cities recently built have ersatz green spaces to break up the concrete monotony, and outside play areas.
IF we manage to survive the next 100 years (w/o WW3) I predict one of two possible outcomes, in-as-far as what 'mega-cities' are likely to become: https://youtu.be/USADM5Gk9Gs
Well, let's give it another try. There's this thing called "cause", and there's this other thing called "effect".
Scenario A
Cause: people are leaving Detroit
Effect: Detroit is failing.
Scenario B
Cause: Detroit is failing
Effect: People are leaving.
Guido above says it's scenario B.
Whew!
Another way to look at it is to ask the question: If Detroit was not failing why would people leave en masse? Most people are reactionary by nature and their behavior is a reaction to things that have transpired. In this example the failure of the city came first.
Is Detroit's population declining because the city is failing?
Is Detroit failing because people are moving out?
The answer to both questions is "yes."
It’s a feedback loop, the catalyst was the city failing in general, but as more people leave, the public image of the city drops and businesses leave causing the city fail even more.
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.
Small town boy
