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.
Austin is not a major city or region. It just gets a lot of hype.
Cincinnati, Portland, Pittsburgh, Las Vegas, Charlotte and Sacramento are all larger regions and feel a lot larger than Austin as far as city/urban feel goes. Most of these regions are also far more important than Austin.
People need to stop basing their opinions off media hype.
At the end of the day, people don't move to Austin for city life. They move there with designs on a big house and a yard. That explains why mass transit initiatives are failing. The people who moved there that account for its population explosion aren't necessarily urbanites. Ditto Nashville and Columbus.
Bookmark this post-Austin MSA won't pass Pittsburgh or Portland MSA in our lifetimes. When you see those hip cutesy "stop moving here" Austin memes, they mean it.
It's more like San Jose-SF, not the other way around.
Here we go again, "the topper" claims San Jose is more important than San Francisco. Good grief.
All of this thread seems to be pretty homer-based, and there is nothing wrong with that except it has very little to do what is likely to happen. Notice the MSA rankings really didn't change that much from 2000 to 2018, (with a few exceptions) but why does anyone think they will change much from 2018 to 2030 or 2035? Growth areas have a better chance of growing, and stagnant areas have a better chance of remaining stagnant. These things can be variable, but usually are not over 10-20 year periods.
Denver (and Portland) really have no room to grow. That's why their growth and slower and has a lower ceiling than Austin, Dallas, Charlotte, Orlando, etc.
Just reiterating that these metros are not going to be replaced by Charlotte, Austin, Nashville, Portland, Orlando, Research Triangle, etc. no matter how amazing you think their growth has been or will be. These metros above are far too ahead in population and have sizeable population growth on their own.
Assuming these regions can build enough infrastructure to support this growth (they can't) and people will tolerate the horrible commutes and increased home prices (they won't), even the next-largest metros Orlando, Charlotte, San Antonio, Portland, Austin, have no chance of catching up with this group by 2040 unless there is a cataclysmic event.
For comparison, Orlando and Austin had the largest total population gains between 2010-2019, gaining ~450,000 people each. The smallest metros of the group of 7: Denver gained 400K, Tampa gained 350K, and San Diego gained 250K.
Even slower-growing San Diego was only outgained by 200K this decade by the fastest growing, Orlando & Austin. However, in order for Orlando to overtake San Diego by 2040, it would literally have to outgain San Diego's growth by 400K each decade for two decades. It's not going to happen.
Austin can't only outgrow Denver by 50,000 during a 10 year period and somehow overcome an 800,000 population difference 20 years later.
You completely misread the thread. I mean that the above seven will become major cities, and the U.S will move from 11 to 18 major cities and the cities in the poll will takeover their place as the next in line. I don’t think any of those seven cities will somehow fall I just think they’ll move into the next tier of cities.
Denver (and Portland) really have no room to grow. That's why their growth and slower and has a lower ceiling than Austin, Dallas, Charlotte, Orlando, etc.
I don't know about Portland but Denver? Denver isn't surrounded by mountains. Do they have a greenbelt?
Location: That star on your map in the middle of the East Coast, DMV
8,128 posts, read 7,560,868 times
Reputation: 5785
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbancritic
I was really surprised that the five metro's larger than DC in 2018 all decreased from 2000 in their share of the US population and DC rose. I guess that's an artifact of the Great Recession and all the people that moved to DC for jobs? That's the only thing that would make sense to me.
DC’s metro area added counties over that time frame, so in essence it was already on par with those in population prior to 2000, but it wasn’t reflective in the 2000 Census pop.
My money is on SLC as a non-Sunbelt city that will boom. It's got a very mild and sunny 4 season climate with extremely quick access to the mountains (unlike Denver where it's an hour plus to get to the mountains).
For mid-sized major metros in the Sunbelt, I could see big gains in Sacramento. As coastal living continues to rise and price people out, Sacramento should provide a modest cost of living for those that want to remain in California. In Texas, I think Austin is going to be the biggest gainer with growth of the tech industry. In Florida my money is on Jacksonville to be the biggest gainer.
For large metros (3+ million people), I think Phoenix is going to have the most growth based on its proximity to California, near consistent high level of transplants from the Midwest (specifically Chicagoland), low cost of living, and warm sunny climate.
I think the general consensus was that your list was ridiculous, regardless of whether it represents population or economic/global importance.
Ehh you cant predict the future. Its my best guess for 2040.
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.
