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.
Sixteen years isn't that long when it comes to urban built environments My basic list is pretty much the 6 usual urban suspects: NYC, Chi, SF, Philly, Boston and DC. All should continue to build on their existing urban cores. NYC will dominate, Chicago/Philly will probably have the weakest pop growth as they are massive cities with many areas that continue to struggle. But their cores and key areas will continue to grow and repair from the urban renewal area. SF/Bos will grow, but will be running up against the political limits of zoning. DC has a little more room to grow than Bos/SF, but will also bumping up against zoning restrictions.
Seattle will probably edge closer to the DC, Boston level core as it builds up its core and then the outlying urban villages. It won't have the consistent urban built environment of the 6 above it by 2035 (if ever). But it should remain the closest at replicating the feel.
Baltimore has the bones to rival DC or Boston. But it's unlikely to close the gap in the near term.
LA is massive and has lots of urban pockets. But it is a very inefficient "nodal urbanism." It will certainly make some progress at knitting the city together. But that is a several generation process, not something that will be fixed in a decade and a half.
Miami also has issues similar to LA. Fairly high average density and walkable nodes. But it simply isn't a cohesive urban mass.
Beyond that lots of cities will improve between now and then. But I don't see anyone getting to Seattle's urban level in 16 years.
Sixteen years isn't that long when it comes to urban built environments My basic list is pretty much the 6 usual urban suspects: NYC, Chi, SF, Philly, Boston and DC. All should continue to build on their existing urban cores. NYC will dominate, Chicago/Philly will probably have the weakest pop growth as they are massive cities with many areas that continue to struggle. But their cores and key areas will continue to grow and repair from the urban renewal area. SF/Bos will grow, but will be running up against the political limits of zoning. DC has a little more room to grow than Bos/SF, but will also bumping up against zoning restrictions.
Seattle will probably edge closer to the DC, Boston level core as it builds up its core and then the outlying urban villages. It won't have the consistent urban built environment of the 6 above it by 2035 (if ever). But it should remain the closest at replicating the feel.
Baltimore has the bones to rival DC or Boston. But it's unlikely to close the gap in the near term.
LA is massive and has lots of urban pockets. But it is a very inefficient "nodal urbanism." It will certainly make some progress at knitting the city together. But that is a several generation process, not something that will be fixed in a decade and a half.
Miami also has issues similar to LA. Fairly high average density and walkable nodes. But it simply isn't a cohesive urban mass.
Beyond that lots of cities will improve between now and then. But I don't see anyone getting to Seattle's urban level in 16 years.
I disagree.. I think Philly will rebound in the 2020s
My predictions (Dont Attack) from 2020 to 2030 to 2035.
1. New York: 8.5 mil to 8.4 mil to 8.45 mil
2. Chicago: 2.6 mil to 2.65 mil to 2.8 mil
3. Philadelphia: 1.65 mil to 1.8 mil to 1.9 mil
4. Washington DC: 720k to 850k to 890k
5. Boston: 710k to 785k to 810k
6. Baltimore: 595k to 590k to 615k
1. LA: 3.95 mil to 4.1 mil to 4.3 mil
2. San Fran: 890k to 940k to 970k (I think theyre will be a major slowdown)
3. Seattle: 750k to 860k to 910k
I can see Los Angeles City growing to 5 million by 2035. A bit optimistic, but not wishful thinking.
Los Angeles is transforming itself currently into a taller and denser city. And as much as there is a lot of opposition to increased density and increased traffic congestion, recent laws and measures by democratic vote suggest that people are willing to increase density and more alternatives to cars like public transit building, bike infrastructure, bus lanes, and others.
In the past decades, LA City was known for its higher crime rates, lower education attainment stats, higher poverty rates, higher low skilled populations mainly from immigrants in poorer countries, poorly rated schools and deferred maintenance on city infrastructure. This has forced many middle class and some upper class to flee to other cities outside of LA City esp for lower crime, cleaner streets, better schools. While business was strong, the vast majority of city residents are poorer. LA didnt have that strong huge middle class income base but rather the poorest brackets. So fewer resources for more cops, more street cleanings, fixing sidewalks, streets, trees and beautification budgets like removing utility poles, planted more trees, more parks, etc.
But in the past decade or maybe a little more, the increased cost of housing and rentals and overall gentrification on many parts of poorer LA neighborhoods have really started the snowball rolling down the hill. Yes it was getting rid of its long term locals, businesses and changing neighborhood characteristics in favor of what some locals blame focused on "hipsters" It really jumpstarted more businesses such as tech in places like Silicon Beach) and media tech (Netflix). Lots of other companies I dont know of. But the growing middle class and upper class is replacing the lower income groups that are fleeing to the Inland Empire, Vegas, Phoenix and other lower cost states.
With the new money and taxes that many voted to help improve conditions like more parks, housing the homeless, schools, public transportation, LA City/County as well, is fixing up decades of neglect. A lot of places were urban and walkable but not seen as desirable in the past decades are now seen as trendy. Places like Hollywood, Koreatown, Downtown LA, Venice, NELA, Echo Park, West Adams, North Hollywood, Warner Center are just some of the areas experiencing a lot of the gentrification. And it is starting to creep into other areas like Westlake, HiFi, East Hollywood, Van Nuys, Crenshaw District.
There are side effects such as increased homelessness and forcing the hidden homeless that hid in parks, along riversbanks, hilly areas out into the open. Also homeless in car that have been there for decades are forced out of residential areas with newer rules. Gangs that used to control certain areas have been displaced as members cant afford the area or recruit "hipsters", so the gang territory diminishes but doesnt totally go away. Also of decades old businesses that relied on certain populations and cheap leases now cant afford the higher leases for storefronts. Increased car congestion as the more affluent tend to be more car drivers/choices Public transit riders versus more dependent public transit users.
Yet, despite the negatives, I think there are a lot more positives. These positives make LA more urban, more public transit usable, more walkable, cleaner, safer, more attractive to many people. All these positives help spur more residential development especially around public transit, that are taller and denser and moving into areas that were considered less desirable. An example is Silver Lake/Echo Park, Koreatown and Downtown LA's desirability bubbles are really starting to push into the boundaries of the Westlake district.
So by 2035 if things continue as is, Los Angeles city could have a very different demographic representation. One that is maybe more white, more affluent, more educated in highly paying jobs. The city will be full or highrises and midrise buildings and small lot homes when it comes to how to house the 1 million plus new residents. A lot of the stripmall, big box stores, fast food drive thrus with lots, surface parking lots will be gone and some new building in its place. So many of the public transit lines would be complete within the city while newer construction will be in the suburbs. What makes LA different from other cities is that it is desirable to build up density throughout the entire city from the port, to Venice, to Downtown, westside, Hollywood, Valley and South Central. Cities like San Francisco are more limited on where to build up. most of it is on the eastern side in more industrial areas or land reclamation. So this is why I think LA could potentially grow to 5 million by 2035.
I disagree.. I think Philly will rebound in the 2020s
My predictions (Dont Attack) from 2020 to 2030 to 2035.
1. New York: 8.5 mil to 8.4 mil to 8.45 mil
2. Chicago: 2.6 mil to 2.65 mil to 2.8 mil
3. Philadelphia: 1.65 mil to 1.8 mil to 1.9 mil
4. Washington DC: 720k to 850k to 890k
5. Boston: 710k to 785k to 810k
6. Baltimore: 595k to 590k to 615k
1. LA: 3.95 mil to 4.1 mil to 4.3 mil
2. San Fran: 890k to 940k to 970k (I think theyre will be a major slowdown)
3. Seattle: 750k to 860k to 910k
Atlanta will likely pass Baltimore by 2035. I think ATL will be around 620k and Baltimore about 600k.
Also with the Gulch being developed Downtown Atlanta will likely hop a peg. Especially if any parts of the beltline/Clifton Corridor are in service
I disagree.. I think Philly will rebound in the 2020s
My predictions (Dont Attack) from 2020 to 2030 to 2035.
1. New York: 8.5 mil to 8.4 mil to 8.45 mil
2. Chicago: 2.6 mil to 2.65 mil to 2.8 mil
3. Philadelphia: 1.65 mil to 1.8 mil to 1.9 mil
4. Washington DC: 720k to 850k to 890k
5. Boston: 710k to 785k to 810k
6. Baltimore: 595k to 590k to 615k
1. LA: 3.95 mil to 4.1 mil to 4.3 mil
2. San Fran: 890k to 940k to 970k (I think theyre will be a major slowdown)
3. Seattle: 750k to 860k to 910k
Philly, DC, San Fran, and Seattle seem a little too optimistic. Otherwise tho, I love this list and the format.
If you make B-more the size of Atlanta or Philly (132 sq. mi) it’s population is currently around +850k (and growing)
Baltimore and Philly don't have an area like Buckhead, which takes up a large portion of the City. There are multiple square miles of very large lot homes, ranging up to multi-acre estates. It dilutes the density dramatically.
No one should be surprised at what you say the bold. It is expected. Few write that city off unless it is Political in nature. Sunbelt cities have their own set of depressed and high crime areas. It surprise me to the extent they actually... do being in boom stages. But much still remains suburban. Some far more suburban growth then their Cores.
I don't think Chicago or the Midwest in the future ..... should be under-estimated. Chicago or NYC are beast not defined by the States they are in. You also can look into debts of a State and cities in Texas. Might surprise you. Sure did me.
I'd say the OP's list is more solid then not. The most that can be hoped for .... is Sunbelt cities get more Urban-lite in densities. LA stands has the best chance to Urbanized fastest. As long as the Big one stays away.
Basically all opinions ....
I tend to agree with this. Unless something drastic happens, Chicago will still be the premier city in the Midwest.
When you consider the case of Detroit, it really depends on whether it continues on the trend line it's on now. A few years ago, if you would have told me that it would be on an upswing and people actually wanted to move there, I (and many others) would have laughed in your face and wondered what kind of drugs you were taking. Because there were more people moving out than moving in only 10 years ago.
You can make a reasonable case that because Detroit is the home of the domestic auto industry, it will always be "important." I'm just not convinced it will be an urban mecca as we are talking about it in terms of more people/buildings because there's a huge effort to create sustainable green spaces in the city and reclaim the land and make it usable. I think the more people part is realistically possible, but the density part simply isn't part of vision that some people have for the city. Urban farming is a huge thing here.
Baltimore and Philly don't have an area like Buckhead, which takes up a large portion of the City. There are multiple square miles of very large lot homes, ranging up to multi-acre estates. It dilutes the density dramatically.
And Baltimore & Philly's have massive portions of their cities eaten by ports, distribution centers, international airport (in Philly's case) & shipyards (all indavdiually multiple square miles)
Their population densities are just as "diluted" as Atlanta, they are just substantially denser & more built up through and through.
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.
