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.
This list is BS. You can't extrapolate current growth rates for another 30 years... it's just not realistic. Anything could happen at any time.
I would also argue that models can't predict changes in migration and birth rates over that period of time either. For example, birth rates have continued to fall in the US over the last 8-10 years compared to projections made 10 years ago.
PHX has quite temperate weather for most of the year. And like Seattle, we also have 4 months of hell weather. The only difference here is that we actually see the sun year round, hence the massive movement of Washingtonians relocating here (and not vice versa). And our scenery is quite nice, thank you very much.
I’ve met a few former Phoenicians here.
The scenery around Phoenix is brown. Brown land, brown mountains. I prefer green, and I’m always awestruck when I catch a glimpse of Rainier. It never gets old.
Phoenix summers do not remotely compare to Seattle winters. Our winters are quite mild. The rain is pretty easy to deal with, and I love the rain actually. It makes Seattle what it is. It defines our city. The heat is what makes Phoenix what it is. I just personally don’t care for living inside of an oven. Not even one week out of the year, much less four months or more.
Seattle is pushing public transportation very vigorously, more so than Phoenix. By 2046 Seattle will be far more easy to live in without a car than Phoenix.
I will say Sedona and Flagstaff are very nice Arizona towns. I would definitely consider living there if I could.
I think the long term future projections are made under the assumption that everything that contributes to population growth will remain the same, just as it is now. They are not taking into consideration things like natural disasters, such as floods, earthquakes, hurricanes, and tornadoes, that may occur and destroy entire cities.
I generally agree with this, but natural disasters have a way of not impeding growth for the most part. I can cite San Francsisco's great quake in 1906 as only a great incentive to rebuild the city. Same with other natural disasters, (New Orleans may be the exception here).
But your original point is "population growth will remain the same". A lot of these projections simply look at the past for their conclusions. This is sometimes a good indicator, but it doesn't always work out that way. Just ask Detroit, Cleveland, St. Louis back in the mid 20th century.
Woo hoo! After two centuries, Rochester will finally overtake Buffalo as NY's #2 metro! (but never mind that it's because Rochester will lose people at a slower rate than Buffalo )
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.
)
