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.
Location: Watching half my country turn into Gilead
3,530 posts, read 4,186,051 times
Reputation: 2925
Advertisements
These three cities are currently slotted as the 26th, 27th and 28th largest cities (city proper) in America, and are noted for their fast growth over the past three decades. Which of these cities will cross the 1 million threshold first (if any)?
Portland actually lost population in the '50s and' 70s, but has posted near double digit gains in every decade since and is now a haven for the young and environmentally conscious. Its city proper area is 133 sq miles of land and its government is noted for its smart land-use planning.
OKC has posted double digit gains in every decade of its existence save for one (the '70s), and it is a massive, sprawling city (601 land sq mi) in size--second only behind Jacksonville, FL (not including sparsely populated boroughs/city-counties in Alaska and Montana).
And Las Vegas has been a boom town since its inception, though some decades have been notably slower than others. Its city proper area is 135 sq miles of land.
2016 Population Estimate: Portland (26th): 639,863 (+9.61% growth from 2010) Oklahoma City (27th): 638,367 (10.06%) Las Vegas (28th): 632,912 (8.42%)
Oklahoma City
1990 444,719 10.1%
2000 506,132 13.8%
2010 579,999 14.6%
Est. 2016 638,367 10.1%
Las Vegas
1990 258,295 56.9%
2000 478,434 85.2%
2010 583,756 22.0%
Est. 2016 632,912 8.4%
I am aware that city proper is a fairly arbitrary statistic, but even at the MSA/CSA level, the growth remains similar. Portland's MSA is at 8.94% growth, OKC's is at 9.59% and Las Vegas' is at 10.47%. Portland's CSA is at 8.18%, OKC's is at 9.31% and Las Vegas' is at 9.52%. Given the differences in city proper area, I don't think this is so clear cut. The Vegas metro is easily growing fastest, followed by OKC than Portland, but OKC, the smallest metro area of the three, is disproportionately dominated by its city proper's size. Portland has the aforementioned sustainability practices, while Vegas is ground zero for water conservation and climate change issues.
Given Portland's stringent growth controls, I imagine that the growth in the city proper will start to level off before too long. And assuming that the demand to live there remains high, it will become an increasingly expensive place in which to buy a home. So their growth will start to slow, due to both artificially imposed restrictions and to decreasing affordability.
Las Vegas, of course, is entirely unlike any place anywhere in the entire country; so it has the uniqueness factor going for it. But it's also located in a desert, with no water supply to speak of, other than snow melt and whatever they divert from the Colorado River. An entire region of the country depending largely on a single river for their water supply is the very definition of "unsustainable." So I don't expect the growth in that city (or Phoenix either, for that matter) to continue at the rate it has.
Oklahoma City is a major center for the energy sector, and it somehow seems to have weathered the ups and downs of that sector better than some other places. So whatever it is that they're doing, it's apparently working. Water, while not as plentiful as it is in the East, is still reasonably available. And they're in no danger of running out of develop-able land anytime soon.
So I think that Oklahoma City is going to hit the 1 million mark first, out of these three.
City limits are completely irrelevant to any discussion of Las Vegas. Half the core of Las Vegas is not even in the city boundaries. Just type Las Vegas in google to see what I mean.
That being said, the city of Las Vegas does have enough empty land in the far northwest part of town to easily add a couple hundred thousand people. I don't see the city reaching 1 million in the next 30 years, but the Las Vegas Valley will easily reach 3 million probably in around 10 years.
Quote:
Originally Posted by qworldorder
Portland has the aforementioned sustainability practices, while Vegas is ground zero for water conservation and climate change issues.
Las Vegas is THE model city for conservation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bus man
Las Vegas, of course, is entirely unlike any place anywhere in the entire country; so it has the uniqueness factor going for it. But it's also located in a desert, with no water supply to speak of, other than snow melt and whatever they divert from the Colorado River. An entire region of the country depending largely on a single river for their water supply is the very definition of "unsustainable." So I don't expect the growth in that city (or Phoenix either, for that matter) to continue at the rate it has.
I know americans are bad at geography but this is really unacceptable.
It should be basic knowledge that Lake Mead is the largest reservoir in the United States. And you forgot to mention Los Angeles, San Diego, Tucson, and millions of acres of farmland all depend on the Colorado River.
Location: Watching half my country turn into Gilead
3,530 posts, read 4,186,051 times
Reputation: 2925
Quote:
Originally Posted by SkyIsland
City limits are completely irrelevant to any discussion of Las Vegas. Half the core of Las Vegas is not even in the city boundaries. Just type Las Vegas in google to see what I mean.
That being said, the city of Las Vegas does have enough empty land in the far northwest part of town to easily add a couple hundred thousand people. I don't see the city reaching 1 million in the next 30 years, but the Las Vegas Valley will easily reach 3 million probably in around 10 years.
Las Vegas is THE model city for conservation.
I know americans are bad at geography but this is really unacceptable.
It should be basic knowledge that Lake Mead is the largest reservoir in the United States. And you forgot to mention Los Angeles, San Diego, Tucson, and millions of acres of farmland all depend on the Colorado River.
The Las Vegas Valley will top 3 million by next year, actually. And I understand the arbitrariness of city limits in Las Vegas’ case. That said, there is always the possibility of annexation.
Also, Lake Mead has had several years of low water levels. Things are looking optimistic now for the next two years, but things can quickly change in the future.
Location: Live:Downtown Phoenix, AZ/Work:Greater Los Angeles, CA
27,606 posts, read 14,638,617 times
Reputation: 9169
Quote:
Originally Posted by qworldorder
The Las Vegas Valley will top 3 million by next year, actually. And I understand the arbitrariness of city limits in Las Vegas’ case. That said, there is always the possibility of annexation.
Also, Lake Mead has had several years of low water levels. Things are looking optimistic now for the next two years, but things can quickly change in the future.
Las Vegas is boxed in as far as the city proper. Spring Mountains to the west, Nellis AFB and the City of North Las Vegas to the north, more mountains and Lake Mead to the east and unincorporated communities that by a court order will NEVER become part of the city of Las Vegas to the South (Paradise, Winchester, Whitney, etc). So Vegas will not be annexing any more land
Location: Watching half my country turn into Gilead
3,530 posts, read 4,186,051 times
Reputation: 2925
Quote:
Originally Posted by FirebirdCamaro1220
Las Vegas is boxed in as far as the city proper. Spring Mountains to the west, Nellis AFB and the City of North Las Vegas to the north, more mountains and Lake Mead to the east and unincorporated communities that by a court order will NEVER become part of the city of Las Vegas to the South (Paradise, Winchester, Whitney, etc). So Vegas will not be annexing any more land
Not in those directions, yes. But as the previous poster mentioned, NW Las Vegas is fair game, and has already had 7 sq miles annexed just in the past year. Also, this article mentions the possibility of more public land available past NW Las Vegas and the Indian reservation.
That map in your link looks incorrect. It doesn't show the new Tule Springs National Monument. The city wont be annexing much more land, and they will face fierce opposition if they try to expand into lower Kyle Canyon (the road heading west out of town). Note this map does not show Red Rock Canyon Conservation Area boundaries to the west.
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.
