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 harder cities boom, the more than tend to bust when the party finally ends. I feel more comfortable in an area that is able to keep up with the growth. Something 10-15% a decade.
They don't bust; they just level out. Chicago, St. Louis, Cincinnati, NYC, Philadelphia, Boston, etc. didn't bust.
Orlando is fine. The recession hit it pretty hard because it was growing so fast when it happened but its not doomed, its going to continue to grow and recover. There is still a lot of construction going on and new things and places are opening all the time, its pretty exciting. If you wanna live in a old doomed city, look at anywhere in NJ
Ah, just the response I've grown to expect from you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by polo89
Boomtowns aren't doomed to bust. NYC, Chicago, Boston, Philly, were all boomtowns at one point. And they're still standing. So this notion that "the sunbelt cities are growing out of control and will bust" is all nothing but speculation, and not fact.
Very true. Whether an entire city will "go bust" relies on how diversified their economy is and not necessarily on how fast they're growing. I do think the forecasts we see which predict the growth of some of these Sunbelt cities are a bit absurd. The thought of 10 million+ people living in Phoenix seems a bit unrealistic. They claim they've got the water, but I am skeptical that they have enough to handle that many people. But that's a whole different argument for a different thread.
On topic, I would prefer to live in an area somewhere in the middle of these two choices. I like that the stagnant/declining cities already have a well-established urban core and history...however I would find it extremely depressing to watch the population decrease, and drive by abandoned neighborhoods. I don't want to live in a city which makes me say "wow, this place must have been something special back in the day". I'd rather say "this place is amazing" or "this place is becoming amazing".
On the other hand, I find much of the development in the boom towns to be cheap, ugly, and in many cases totally unsustainable. I understand this development is found in every major city in the country, but the cities which have grown at a ridiculous rate in the past decade or so will often have a much higher proportion of it. However, you can always join neighborhood groups and voice your opinion for higher-quality developments in your city.
In the end, while I'd prefer to be in a well-established city, I'd prefer a growing city to a declining city. I feel like it'd be going to a house party after most of the people have left. No one's dancing, a few people are passed out on the couch, and the few people left at the house are snorting rails. I'd rather show up in the middle of the party or arrive as its starting to get good.
Orlando is fine. The recession hit it pretty hard because it was growing so fast when it happened but its not doomed, its going to continue to grow and recover. There is still a lot of construction going on and new things and places are opening all the time, its pretty exciting. If you wanna live in a old doomed city, look at anywhere in NJ
Yeah, NJ is an awful state. NJ has a low unemployment rate, good economy, two great cities in Philadelphia and NY for jobs, low crime, great transit and some of the best school systems in the country. What an awful state......
Quote:
Originally Posted by tmac9wr
Ah, just the response I've grown to expect from you.
Very true. Whether an entire city will "go bust" relies on how diversified their economy is and not necessarily on how fast they're growing.I do think the forecasts we see which predict the growth of some of these Sunbelt cities are a bit absurd.The thought of 10 million+ people living in Phoenix seems a bit unrealistic. They claim they've got the water, but I am skeptical that they have enough to handle that many people. But that's a whole different argument for a different thread.
On topic, I would prefer to live in an area somewhere in the middle of these two choices. I like that the stagnant/declining cities already have a well-established urban core and history...however I would find it extremely depressing to watch the population decrease, and drive by abandoned neighborhoods. I don't want to live in a city which makes me say "wow, this place must have been something special back in the day". I'd rather say "this place is amazing" or "this place is becoming amazing".
On the other hand, I find much of the development in the boom towns to be cheap, ugly, and in many cases totally unsustainable. I understand this development is found in every major city in the country, but the cities which have grown at a ridiculous rate in the past decade or so will often have a much higher proportion of it. However, you can always join neighborhood groups and voice your opinion for higher-quality developments in your city.
In the end, while I'd prefer to be in a well-established city, I'd prefer a growing city to a declining city. I feel like it'd be going to a house party after most of the people have left. No one's dancing, a few people are passed out on the couch, and the few people left at the house are snorting rails. I'd rather show up in the middle of the party or arrive as its starting to get good.
The growth patterns of Atlanta, Dallas and Houston are absurd. These cities just throw up anything including tacky architecture, strip malls, Mcmansions and low walkability rankings.
There is something all of the boom towns did hundreds of years ago......the answer is they all built up and had good transit. Dallas, Houston and Atlanta are building out, which will be their demise in the end.
There is something all of the boom towns did hundreds of years ago......the answer is they all built up and had good transit. Dallas, Houston and Atlanta are building out, which will be their demise in the end.
Then please explain the rapid densification, infill and transportation improvements all three of these places are currently experiencing in their cores?
You should educate yourself on places you obviously know nothing about before spouting off in such a knowledgable fashion.
These three metros aren't going anywhere, despite what many here wish.
Then please explain the rapid densification, infill and transportation improvements all three of these places are currently experiencing in their cores?
You should educate yourself on places you obviously know nothing about before spouting off in such a knowledgable fashion.
These three metros aren't going anywhere, despite what many here wish.
Rapid densification? SMH, are we talking about Atlanta, Dallas and Houston? I see growth out, not up, which is the opposite of densification.
I aqree, all three cities are making improvements to their transit systems. However, these three cities build a couple lines, which is only adding lines that should have already been present, playing catch up.
I should educate myself? I have lived in two of the three cities and visited the other frequently. I am knowledgeable about all three.
I do not want these cities to fail. They are major cities in my country and are important. However, all three cities have roughly 5.5.-6.5M people in their metro areas and little transit to support them.
I do not want these cities to fail. They are major cities in my country and are important. However, all three cities have roughly 5.5.-6.5M people in their metro areas and little transit to support them. There lack of transit will be the reason for their failure.
Let me get this right......you don't want these cities to fail, but lack of transit will be the reason for their failure? LOL!
Rapid densification? SMH, are we talking about Atlanta, Dallas and Houston? I see growth out, not up, which is the opposite of densification.
I aqree, all three cities are making improvements to their transit systems. However, these three cities build a couple lines, which is only adding lines that should have already been present, playing catch up.
I should educate myself? I have lived in two of the three cities and visited the other frequently. I am knowledgeable about all three.
I do not want these cities to fail. They are major cities in my country and are important. However, all three cities have roughly 5.5.-6.5M people in their metro areas and little transit to support them.
So these cities will fail because they arent designed like NYC?
They have excellent economies, offer low housing costs, boast good lifestyles, etc. Not to mention Texas wont ever really be in trouble because our economy is based on natural resources and energy (green and other). What do you call Los Angeles? Its transit isnt any better than Dallas or Atlanta's. It has sprawled the same way, yet it will never fail either.
The notion that sunbelt cities will fail because they arent like the Northeast is stupid.
Last edited by CaseyB; 03-22-2010 at 01:43 PM..
Reason: language
Rapid densification? SMH, are we talking about Atlanta, Dallas and Houston? I see growth out, not up, which is the opposite of densification.
Yes, rapid densification. Perhaps you need to take a closer look at these three places you claim to be familiar with?
If you really knew what you were talking about, you would realize that after several decades of white flight, the City of Atlanta has gained over 120,000 new residents this past decade. The end result being that the historic peak population is now - not in the distant past.
Ah, just the response I've grown to expect from you.
Very true. Whether an entire city will "go bust" relies on how diversified their economy is and not necessarily on how fast they're growing. I do think the forecasts we see which predict the growth of some of these Sunbelt cities are a bit absurd. The thought of 10 million+ people living in Phoenix seems a bit unrealistic. They claim they've got the water, but I am skeptical that they have enough to handle that many people. But that's a whole different argument for a different thread.
On topic, I would prefer to live in an area somewhere in the middle of these two choices. I like that the stagnant/declining cities already have a well-established urban core and history...however I would find it extremely depressing to watch the population decrease, and drive by abandoned neighborhoods. I don't want to live in a city which makes me say "wow, this place must have been something special back in the day". I'd rather say "this place is amazing" or "this place is becoming amazing".
On the other hand, I find much of the development in the boom towns to be cheap, ugly, and in many cases totally unsustainable. I understand this development is found in every major city in the country, but the cities which have grown at a ridiculous rate in the past decade or so will often have a much higher proportion of it. However, you can always join neighborhood groups and voice your opinion for higher-quality developments in your city.
In the end, while I'd prefer to be in a well-established city, I'd prefer a growing city to a declining city. I feel like it'd be going to a house party after most of the people have left. No one's dancing, a few people are passed out on the couch, and the few people left at the house are snorting rails. I'd rather show up in the middle of the party or arrive as its starting to get good.
I agree. That would be pretty depressing living in the stagnant cities, watching the population decline.
Yeah, NJ is an awful state. NJ has a low unemployment rate, good economy, two great cities in Philadelphia and NY for jobs, low crime, great transit and some of the best school systems in the country. What an awful state......
The growth patterns of Atlanta, Dallas and Houston are absurd. These cities just throw up anything including tacky architecture, strip malls, Mcmansions and low walkability rankings.
There is something all of the boom towns did hundreds of years ago......the answer is they all built up and had good transit. Dallas, Houston and Atlanta are building out, which will be their demise in the end.
Over exaggeration. It won't be there demise. How? Especially when there making efforts to build there public transit for the future. I don't think the walk-ability of a city will determine the cities demise or success.
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.
If you wanna live in a old doomed city, look at anywhere in NJ
