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.
Yes, the loss of 3000 people renders Chicago irrelevant on the global stage. It will be replaced by Houston or some as yet to be built Chinese city.
Haha.
Chicago will not lose it's world class status. Yeah, it's losing population and has been for a long time, but that doesn't mean it's losing it world class status, in fact I think it continues to become more world class every year.
I do think though, certain cities will start to overshadow Chicago more and more. For example, SF I think already overshadows Chicago, and I can see other cities that are going through their own urban renaissance and growing, will overshadow Chicago somewhat. However Chicago is a world class city and in our lives it will always be.
It could lose its status one day, but I think that would take like 100 years for that to happen, and the city would have to have a mass exodus and severe urban decay like Detroit experienced.
Location: The Greatest city on Earth: City of Atlanta Proper
8,485 posts, read 14,990,056 times
Reputation: 7333
Quote:
Originally Posted by NOLA101
Population growth usually isn't super-heavily correlated with housing construction.
You could have no new construction, yet a booming population increase. All you need is increased household sizes.
In the case of NYC, yes, there are huge levels of construction, especially outside Manhattan, but I'm not sure if that's actually the main driver of growth.
Or a high rate of deaths and population loss, both which NYC has. For quite some time now, NYC loses about the same amount of people it adds each year.
Location: Watching half my country turn into Gilead
3,530 posts, read 4,172,934 times
Reputation: 2925
Quote:
Originally Posted by waronxmas
Or a high rate of deaths and population loss, both which NYC has. For quite some time now, NYC loses about the same amount of people it adds each year.
Care to explain? If that were the case, the city wouldn't be posting overall population gains.
Of course, most of these are in the Denver area, where around 3/5 of the state's population lives.
The South Central Colorado urbanized area (metro COS and PUB) have an estimated 2015 population of around 900,000. My guess in the not too distant future, the Springs and Pueblo will become a CMSA which would account for over 16% of the state's population. Not bad for a couple of towns that are for all purposes are in Denver's shadow and most likely always will be.
LA is geographically much larger than NYC, yet doesn't even have half the population of NYC. If the cities had "equivalent" areas based on size, LA would have a smaller population than Houston.
LA, like almost all Sunbelt cities, has enormous city limits. NYC, like almost all older Northeast/Midwest cities, has rather constrained city limits relative to population.
He saying that of LA were the same size as New York it would have a smaller population than Houston.
Well that's a silly game to play. If Houston were the same size as New York It would have smaller population than Phoenix.
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.