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 clearly describing metropolitan areas and conslidated statitstical areas. If you are measuring by only concerning yourself with what is happening within the city limits, youre doing it wrong.
The Bay Area has gained 700K people this decade already. But yeah the high cost of living is really causing people to "leave there in droves" lol
If you're one of those people that don't think DC and BAltimore is a single Mega-Plex you're a fool. The Washington Monument to Baltimore is the same distance as Grant Park to Elgin.
The CITY of houston is certainly sprawled out but that doesn't change that pace of its Metropolitan growth. Same with Dallas.
I'm not drinking Chicago Doomsday Kool-aid. I'm merely pointing out that Chicago has been blown passed by LA and NY is on pace to be passed by its current peers. YOU seem to drinking the Chicago Kool-aid that wealthy regional migration back downtown is proof that the Chicago is going gangbusters.
The Bay Area is the most expensive metro in the nation, and has a serious homeless problem. If you aren't aware of these two things, you must not know much of what you're talking about. It has seen immense growth over the past 20 years from tech, but that growth is quickly slowing from COL.
As I said too, the Bay Area still has a ways to go to catch up to Chicago's metro... a whole 2 million plus. That will take a long time to fill, again especially with insanely high housing prices and a constrained geographic area.
DC and Baltimore are not a single metro. You can throw out a funny word like "metro-plex" or whatever, it doesn't change that fact. I would agree they share some features as two connected metros, but they aren't the same metro. Though as multiple threads on C-D will show, this can be debated forever.
Growth trends don't remain the same for that long, nor do population loss trends. Both can and will reverse, as history proves most of the time, specifically for major cities.
I'm not being a booster though to defend against ridiculous claims. The only cities that might pass Chicago in city pop are Houston, Dallas, and Phoenix, and that isn't going to happen for at least several years. No metro is close to passing up Chicago in terms of MSA. Dallas is closest at around 2 million short, which I believe, if it does happen, will be the only metro that will. In terms of world class reputation and notoriety, Chicago will remain in the same league as NYC, LA, and SF, probably as long as this country exists.
1.) The Bay Area is the most expensive metro in the nation, and has a serious homeless problem. If you aren't aware of these two things, you must not know much of what you're talking about. It has seen immense growth over the past 20 years from tech, but that growth is quickly slowing from COL.
2.) As I said too, the Bay Area still has a ways to go to catch up to Chicago's metro... a whole 2 million plus. That will take a long time to fill, again especially with insanely high housing prices and a constrained geographic area.
3.) DC and Baltimore are not a single metro. You can throw out a funny word like "metro-plex" or whatever, it doesn't change that fact. I would agree they share some features as two connected metros, but they aren't the same metro. Though as multiple threads on C-D will show, this can be debated forever.
4.) Growth trends don't remain the same for that long, nor do population loss trends. Both can and will reverse, as history proves most of the time, specifically for major cities.
5.) I'm not being a booster though to defend against ridiculous claims. The only cities that might pass Chicago in city pop are Houston, Dallas, and Phoenix, and that isn't going to happen for at least several years. No metro is close to passing up Chicago in terms of MSA. Dallas is closest at around 2 million short, which I believe, if it does happen, will be the only metro that will.
1.) I'm well aware of it. I have family there. San Fran actually works to take care of their homeless, unlike Chicago.
2.) No. The SF-SJ-Oakland metro is a mere 200K people short of Chicagoland even with huge portions of their land taken up by park space and mountains.
3.) They're 30 minutes from one another. They are a single metropolitan area. Just like Michigan City is a part of the Chicago metropolitan area despite being almost 100 miles away
4.) They don't remain the same for that long? Chicago experienced more than a century and a half of excellent population growth. The pendulum has swung the other way. No telling when it will swing back.
5.) Wrong again. 4 CSA's are currently with 2 million of Chicagoland. The slowest growing of those is Boston at 5%. Again Chicago is at .25%. Then within 3 million is Houston, Miami and Atlanta all experiencing greater than 10% growth. Miami is the only one that liekly can't surpass Chicago due to land restrictions, unless they build up like crazy or the global warming destroys it.
I think for the most part people are simply extrapolating and there is no reason, assuming everything remains the same, that those extrapolations are wrong.
I tend to think, however, that we will see major economic and climatic changes in the next 20 years, as well as technological changes...that can alter things drastically in terms of where people are moving to and from.
I think all things considered.....whether its in 20 years or 40 years.....people will be migrating to the "Midwest".
Here is my question: Where is the finish line? Ergo, what will be the 10 largest cities in America when America reaches its finish line? In the end....that is all that matters right....its not where you are at...but where you finish. All this back and forth about who is ahead of who and who will be ahead of is not final. Whoever is ahead at the end......wins. Right now....its just to early to call the race.....
1.) I'm well aware of it. I have family there. San Fran actually works to take care of their homeless, unlike Chicago.
2.) No. The SF-SJ-Oakland metro is a mere 200K people short of Chicagoland even with huge portions of their land taken up by park space and mountains.
3.) They're 30 minutes from one another. They are a single metropolitan area. Just like Michigan City is a part of the Chicago metropolitan area despite being almost 100 miles away
4.) They don't remain the same for that long? Chicago experienced more than a century and a half of excellent population growth. The pendulum has swung the other way. No telling when it will swing back.
5.) Wrong again. 4 CSA's are currently with 2 million of Chicagoland. The slowest growing of those is Boston at 5%. Again Chicago is at .25%. Then within 3 million is Houston, Miami and Atlanta all experiencing greater than 10% growth. Miami is the only one that liekly can't surpass Chicago due to land restrictions, unless they build up like crazy or the global warming destroys it.
CSA is rarely used by anyone except the government occasionally and people who want to boost their own city (commonly touted by a select few DC boosters on this site). The vast majority of people, and the government most of the time use MSA as it's much more relevant economically and is a much more honest assessment of an individual city's surrounding area. The Baltimore and DC metros have shared area, not arguing against that, but they are inherently different places on the whole, as are Baltimore and DC themselves. "Metro" 90% of the time = MSA, not CSA.
Michigan city to downtown Chicago is only 50 miles, and to the city's outer edge it's far less than that.
Chicago is only an hour or so from Milwaukee, but I would say it's ridiculous to join the entire Milwaukee metro and Chicago metro together, as the two metros operate independently of one another, though share things together (like Six Flags, jobs, sports rivalries etc). Pretty much exactly like Wash-Bal.
I'm not wrong, I said no city is close to Chicago in terms of MSA.... and that's completely true. I'm not talking about CSA because that's not what the majority of people mean when they say metro... again unless you're a DC booster on this site, in which case it's religiously how you define a metro.
San Antonio although virtually ignored on CD will definitely be a major city in 2040. SA was actually the nation's fastest growing city last year by population and was 2nd place this year.
1.) I'm well aware of it. I have family there. San Fran actually works to take care of their homeless, unlike Chicago.
2.) No. The SF-SJ-Oakland metro is a mere 200K people short of Chicagoland even with huge portions of their land taken up by park space and mountains.
3.) They're 30 minutes from one another. They are a single metropolitan area. Just like Michigan City is a part of the Chicago metropolitan area despite being almost 100 miles away
4.) They don't remain the same for that long? Chicago experienced more than a century and a half of excellent population growth. The pendulum has swung the other way. No telling when it will swing back.
5.) Wrong again. 4 CSA's are currently with 2 million of Chicagoland. The slowest growing of those is Boston at 5%. Again Chicago is at .25%. Then within 3 million is Houston, Miami and Atlanta all experiencing greater than 10% growth. Miami is the only one that liekly can't surpass Chicago due to land restrictions, unless they build up like crazy or the global warming destroys it.
To say SF "takes care" of their homeless is laughable. The city actually enables the homeless and the vices that keep them in their bondage. I visited San Francisco at the end of last year and was blown away at the human waste, open drug use, aggressive panhandling, tent cities, the mentally ill acting out on BART, addicts littering the subway halls/tunnels, etc., etc., etc. The "progressive" political policies so embraced there helped create this mess and has only made their plight worse with no end in sight, narrow-mindedly gasping to them in a cult-like fashion. And you have the nerve to say they're "caring" for the homeless??? The once wonderful city of San Francisco is now a borderline 3rd world country. A city my wife and I use to love visiting will no longer be visited by us again.
CSA is rarely used by anyone except the government occasionally and people who want to boost their own city (commonly touted by a select few DC boosters on this site). The vast majority of people, and the government most of the time use MSA as it's much more relevant economically and is a much more honest assessment of an individual city's surrounding area. The Baltimore and DC metros have shared area, not arguing against that, but they are inherently different places on the whole, as are Baltimore and DC themselves. "Metro" 90% of the time = MSA, not CSA.
Michigan city to downtown Chicago is only 50 miles, and to the city's outer edge it's far less than that.
Chicago is only an hour or so from Milwaukee, but I would say it's ridiculous to join the entire Milwaukee metro and Chicago metro together, as the two metros operate independently of one another, though share things together (like Six Flags, jobs, sports rivalries etc). Pretty much exactly like Wash-Bal.
I'm not wrong, I said no city is close to Chicago in terms of MSA.... and that's completely true. I'm not talking about CSA because that's not what the majority of people mean when they say metro... again unless you're a DC booster on this site, in which case it's religiously how you define a metro.
Seems more like Chicago folks are upset that CSA doesnt benefit them in anyway like it does for a few others....just sayin it's not like anyone said DC and BMore are one cultural identity.
Seems more like Chicago folks are upset that CSA doesnt benefit them in anyway like it does for a few others....just sayin it's not like anyone said DC and BMore are one cultural identity.
I'm not upset, I'm just stating the *fact* that MSA is used by almost everybody in the real world. DC boosters on CD might be the biggest group of people that actually take CSA seriously.
There's a reason the M in MSA literally stands for "Metropolitan", aka "Metro" area.
DC boosters only care about boosting DC's numbers when they flaunt "CSA" around, pure and simple. Obviously both Baltimore and DC are different cultural identities.
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.
it's not like anyone said DC and BMore are one cultural identity.
