Which city is becoming less relevant as its population increases? (taxes, skyline)
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.
I’m sorry but there is a pie and one cities growth east into another cities stature.
So if Philly on balance is lagging the national average in Population/Economic growth, it is losing stature.
Minneapolis is an example of a city that’s treading water. Slower growing that Minneapolis? You’re sliding
Like for example London is a much bigger, better, richer city than it was in 1800 but it’s far less relevant than it was 200 years ago
I understand your point, but I don't agree with your framing.
What you're seeing is many smaller/mid-sized metros gaining a larger share of the "pie," but the lion's share of economic growth (raw, not percentage) has largely gone to the biggest metros in the US.
It's how metros like Salt Lake City and Philadelphia could theoretically add the same number of residents and jobs in one year, but the former has like triple the growth rate. Yet SLC is not even "closing" the enormous gap at that rate.
That also doesn't account for the fact that economic growth in places like Phoenix has not necessarily translated to higher economic value. Although growing much faster than, say, Philadelphia, it still trails greatly in measures of household and per capita income growth. And let's be real--as far as national profiles go--wealth trumps everything.
Essentially, quality economic growth matters much more than quantity.
Cities like London, New York, Paris and Hong Kong have competed against dozens of global up-and-coming cities for centuries, yet they're still the "Top Dogs" for a reason.
Point in case: Mexico City is more populous than NYC. Which has more global pull?
I understand your point, but I don't agree with your framing.
What you're seeing is many smaller/mid-sized metros gaining a larger share of the "pie," but the lion's share of economic growth (raw, not percentage) has largely gone to the biggest metros in the US.
It's how metros like Salt Lake City and Philadelphia could theoretically add the same number of residents and jobs in one year, but the former has like triple the growth rate. Yet SLC is not even "closing" the enormous gap at that rate.
That also doesn't account for the fact that economic growth in places like Phoenix has not necessarily translated to higher economic value. Although growing much faster than, say, Philadelphia, it still trails greatly in measures of household and per capita income growth. And let's be real--as far as national profiles go--wealth trumps everything.
Essentially, quality economic growth matters much more than quantity.
Cities like London, New York, Paris and Hong Kong have competed against dozens of global up-and-coming cities for centuries, yet they're still the "Top Dogs" for a reason.
Point in case: Mexico City is more populous than NYC. Which has more global pull?
I'm a bit confused by your point. Population growth is exponential in nature, so it's generally discussed relatively (% growth) as opposed to absolutely (raw # of people). Of course either can be valid depending on the context. As far as your example I would typically say that SLC is growing faster than Philadelphia, regardless of whether Philadelphia is gaining more people in raw numbers. If rates continue, SLC would eventually pass Philadelphia. (Obviously that probably won't happen in reality, but you never know).
But yes, economic growth and population growth are only loosely coupled. You can have a stable population become richer, or more likely in this country, a number of poor people migrating out and a number of wealthy people migrating in. In the last census we saw that big time in Chicago for example.
If rates continue, SLC would eventually pass Philadelphia. (Obviously that probably won't happen in reality, but you never know).
I get your point, but here's the rub: growth rates never stay the same ad infinitum. As any city grows, it eventually hits a point where it can't sustain an 8% growth rate annually. That's just not humanly or logistically feasible forever.
There's a reason why the three largest metro areas (NYC, LA and Chicago) recorded population losses even pre-pandemic. They've all run into challenges to sustain growth, whether it's cost-of-living, demographic stagnation, or infrastructure that can no longer handle never-ending growth. Or all of the above.
That's going to be more evident than ever for all cities as the birth rate has dropped below replacement level in the US, and the entire country is dependent on a shrinking pool of immigrants for population growth.
What's the evidence for that? Searching "cyber security" in indeed shows more job opportunities in each of Austin, Dallas, and Houston than in San Antonio.
A lot of the cyber security industry here has to do with the military I'm sure.
To me this is like saying, "its not fair to compare me to that salesman who does the same job as I do, his sales are literally triple mine!"
As far as I know, there are no Texas laws preventing San Antonio from participating and excelling in the same industries as Dallas, they just aren't doing it.
I mean that's like saying why isn't San Diego on the same level as Los Angeles or the Bay Area lol (when SD is arguably a better city than both). I'm sure there's historical answers but it's kind of a moot point.
Bigger cities are going to attract more by default. Houston has the energy industry, Dallas has finance and whatever else it has.
I mean that's like saying why isn't San Diego on the same level as Los Angeles or the Bay Area lol (when SD is arguably a better city than both). I'm sure there's historical answers but it's kind of a moot point.
Bigger cities are going to attract more by default. Houston has the energy industry, Dallas has finance and whatever else it has.
Why San Diego isn't on the same level of Los Angeles is a perfectly reasonable line of inquiry to pursue. Its not a small town and has a natural harbor-people should be at least a little curious but aren't.
At any rate, the accumulation of corporate presence is game with winners and losers, and if you're a city with a population over 1 million and your claim to fame is the military, then you are not winning.
Why San Diego isn't on the same level of Los Angeles is a perfectly reasonable line of inquiry to pursue. Its not a small town and has a natural harbor-people should be at least a little curious but aren't.
At any rate, the accumulation of corporate presence is game with winners and losers, and if you're a city with a population over 1 million and your claim to fame is the military, then you are not winning.
SA and SD are both heavy military cities with a handful of F500 companies (3 in SA now after several buyouts and iHeartMedia dropping off of the list, and 2 in SD?)
I don't think the fact that they aren't corporate powerhouses doesn't make them any less desirable cities. San Diego has its fair share of wealth as does San Antonio. I think it says something that San Diego is still growing (Sacramento too) and LA/SF are losing people.
If corporate power is the end all be all when it comes to relevancy than most of the cities on this list fit the criteria of not being relevant.
BUT on the flipside, you could also make the argument that the "legacy" big cities are becoming less relevant with a lot of the cities having a net loss in population and losing companies as well.
So, Pittsburgh seems like the clearest example of the reverse here: declining population but increasing economic relevance (gentrification, becoming a tech hub). Any other examples?
I guess you could argue San Jose and SF are (incrementally) increasing in economic relevance just because of the continued growth of tech in general, and they've both lost a lot of people the past few years.
SA and SD are both heavy military cities with a handful of F500 companies (3 in SA now after several buyouts and iHeartMedia dropping off of the list, and 2 in SD?)
I don't think the fact that they aren't corporate powerhouses doesn't make them any less desirable cities. San Diego has its fair share of wealth as does San Antonio. I think it says something that San Diego is still growing (Sacramento too) and LA/SF are losing people.
If corporate power is the end all be all when it comes to relevancy than most of the cities on this list fit the criteria of not being relevant.
BUT on the flipside, you could also make the argument that the "legacy" big cities are becoming less relevant with a lot of the cities having a net loss in population and losing companies as well.
Desirability and relevance aren't the same.
"Hey, we're better than that city next to us because we're so much less crowded."
Well, you're less crowded because so many more people are going to that other city.
There are no "hidden gems", you have relevance or you don't.
So, Pittsburgh seems like the clearest example of the reverse here: declining population but increasing economic relevance (gentrification, becoming a tech hub). Any other examples?
I guess you could argue San Jose and SF are (incrementally) increasing in economic relevance just because of the continued growth of tech in general, and they've both lost a lot of people the past few years.
Los Angeles-upcoming World Cup, Olympics, nation leading skyscraper and mass transit boom, etc. all in the midst of doomsday "everyone is leaving" media rhetoric.
Also Cleveland has done a bang up job of maintaining importance while losing population, I'd say much better than Detroit.
I was going to make this poll but could only think of the rust belt.
It’s unimportant they drew Jacksonville’s city limit boundaries the way they did. The fact remains that it’s been of diminishing importance. I believe it used to legitimately be the largest metro area. It’s main draw to tourists is it’s closer than the Florida cities, but at the end of the day it offers a lot less. That area just doesn’t have as much going for it in terms of quality beaches and whatnot.
Jville has green growing even though Jville is coterminous with Duval County. If you were to consider FL counties as cities, then Miami Dade wins hands down as Miami Dade is the largest county in all of FL!
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.
