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.
DC area probably is being over-supplied to be honest and job growth just isn't that strong in D.C. I always say that the biggest contributing factor one should look at for rent growth and metro population growth is to look at recent annual job growth percentage rates. Is it above the nation's average? Below? at the average? Job growth almost always governs people's willingness to live in your city.
I just think a lot of the booms many cities have been experiencing over the last 2 years are going to cool down in the next year and that includes D.C. Cities are starting to over build, especially since they don't have the growth and jobs to accompany so much.
Cities like Atlanta, Houston, Dallas, SF Bay Area, Austin, Seattle all have impressive annual job percentage growth and with that, we see high metropolitan area growth which in turn means more construction starts.
D.C. is seeing job growth though. Here is the problem with D.C. in comparison to other cities. Private sector jobs are increasing as Federal Employees are retiring. Those Federal jobs are being riffed. Why do you think our unemployment rate is still so low yet we are losing thousands of Federal jobs?
So, I will give you an example:
-There are 1,000,000 people living in a city
-There are 1,000,000 working people living in that city
-There are 1,000,000 total jobs in that city and all 1,000,000 people are employed by those jobs
-There are 100,000 new private sector jobs added to that city for the year
-There are 100,000 new people who move to that city to take those new jobs
-There are 50,000 Federal employee's in that city who retire but still live in the city
-Those 50,000 Federal jobs are riffed
-There are now 1,050,000 total jobs in that city.
Question's:
How many new jobs are there for people moving to that city based on added jobs?
How many people can move to that city to take those jobs?
What is the new population of that city?
How many people are working and how many are retired?
D.C. is seeing job growth though. Here is the problem with D.C. in comparison to other cities. Private sector jobs are increasing as Federal Employees are retiring. Those Federal jobs are being riffed. Why do you think our unemployment rate is still so low yet we are losing thousands of Federal jobs?
So, I will give you an example:
-There are 1,000,000 people living in a city
-There are 1,000,000 working people living in that city
-There are 1,000,000 total jobs in that city and all 1,000,000 people are employed by those jobs
-There are 100,000 new private sector jobs added to that city for the year
-There are 100,000 new people who move to that city to take those new jobs
-There are 50,000 Federal employee's in that city who retire
-Those 50,000 Federal jobs are riffed
-There are now 1,050,000 total jobs in that city.
Question's:
How many new jobs are there for people moving to that city based on added jobs?
How many people can move to that city to take those jobs?
What is the new population of that city?
How many people are working and how many are retired?
City Data 101 from Professor Allstar, MD haha. I for one am fascinated by DC. When my sister was going to Georgetown all I ever saw was like M street and a few other places. I have frequented it a number of times since but never had an actual local show me around where the "hot spots" are.
I generally don't like these lists, as some cities are small and some are huge, land-wise. And of course it is easier for cities with smaller political boundaries to achieve higher density.
For example San Fran is 8% the size of Los Angeles and is only 10% larger than Manhattan. Simply not a fair comparison.
Everyone calm down on DC vs Philly haha. I split my time between them, both are great cities, and I continue to see sustained growth in both of them. I do feel the growing enthusiam and energy in Philly that DC had a few years ago, but that doesn't mean DC is slacking by any means.
if DC continues to boom for another decade or more it may pass Philly and Chicago on average city density - doubtful on Boston as like DC its small sq mile wise relatively and Boston is denser. I don't see DC being more dense then Philly or Chicago if either of those were limited to 60 sq miles in their core - Philly and Chicago today are over 1 million in their core 50-60 sq miles - both are today more dense SF in the same core footprint when compared to SF at ~48 sq miles. So yes as a city could be denser but the land area of Philly is more than twice that of DC and chicago is more than 3 times larger in terms of total land area
You do realize that 19pcr of SF land area is dedicated to parks so comparing its 48 sq miles to a larger city'a core is nonsensical because cities Cores usually dont have much park space. Weighted density of principal cities will give you the answer your looking for and no city outside NYC is as dense as SF.
You do realize that 19pcr of SF land area is dedicated to parks so comparing its 48 sq miles to a larger city'a core is nonsensical because cities Cores usually dont have much park space. Weighted density of principal cities will give you the answer your looking for and no city outside NYC is as dense as SF.
You do realize that 19pcr of SF land area is dedicated to parks so comparing its 48 sq miles to a larger city'a core is nonsensical because cities Cores usually dont have much park space. Weighted density of principal cities will give you the answer your looking for and no city outside NYC is as dense as SF.
Oh, here we go again with the "yeah but if my city were smaller....." or "yeah but we have x square miles of parkland.....", etc. You can't have it both ways. If you want your city to have a higher density, then cut off a huge section of it, lose your prominence/ranking of largest cities in America, and get on with it. You can't have it both ways.
Miami at over 500,000 will be number 3 behind NYC and San Fran actually.
The current top 10 is as follows:
1. New York (27,578 people per sq. mile)
2. San Francisco (17,867 people per sq. mile)
3. Boston (13,341 people per sq. mile)
4. Chicago (11,966 people per sq. mile)
5. Philadelphia (11,582 people per sq. mile)
6. Washington D.C. (10,731 people per sq. mile)
7. Los Angeles (8,282 people per sq. mile)
8. Seattle (7,779 people per sq. mile)
9. Baltimore (7,690 people per sq. mile)
10. Milwaukee (6,233 people per sq. mile)
Miami would fall in at #3 in the nation if Boston doesn't surpass it by that time.
This is way outdated for Seattle - it’s currently at 8,900 ppsm
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.
