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.
Phoenix is one of the lowest GDP metros given its population of any major metro. And one of the most sprawling. Phoenix has few redeeming qualities in terms of being a world class city.
My list.
1. New York (No other city like NYC in the USA).
2. Washington, D.C (It is BOOMING. And only going to increase with Amazon)
3. Chicago (A legacy city that can hold its own)
4. San Fran (Tech)
5. Philadelphia (The underdog that is a powerhouse. Southeast Pennsylvania ranks in the top 5 metros in wealth)
6. L.A (Many housing problems that are going to hold it back due to its auto reliance and lack of urban infrastructure)
7. Boston (A stuttgart that will hold its own, but housing cost will prevent crazy development)
8. Seattle (The continued rising star)
9. Atlanta (The south's rising star)
From there
10. Miami
11. Dallas
The rest of the sunbelt is just suburbs. And places like OKC/Omaha. Are flyovers.
Even Nashville is way overrated. It has a downtown that is one strip for the most part. Its hype is well overrated. As well as Austin and Portland.
As for Boston you mention housing costs will prevent crazy development...I’d argue high housing costs signifying huge demand, will be the reason for crazy development...there already is crazy development..the only thing preventing development is nimbyism at a metro level...Boston needs increased density around metro commuter rail hubs and continued infill in core to drive down costs
Phoenix is one of the lowest GDP metros given its population of any major metro. And one of the most sprawling. Phoenix has few redeeming qualities in terms of being a world class city.
My list.
1. New York (No other city like NYC in the USA).
2. Washington, D.C (It is BOOMING. And only going to increase with Amazon)
3. Chicago (A legacy city that can hold its own)
4. San Fran (Tech)
5. Philadelphia (The underdog that is a powerhouse. Southeast Pennsylvania ranks in the top 5 metros in wealth)
6. L.A (Many housing problems that are going to hold it back due to its auto reliance and lack of urban infrastructure)
7. Boston (A stuttgart that will hold its own, but housing cost will prevent crazy development)
8. Seattle (The continued rising star)
9. Atlanta (The south's rising star)
From there
10. Miami
11. Dallas
The rest of the sunbelt is just suburbs. And places like OKC/Omaha. Are flyovers.
Even Nashville is way overrated. It has a downtown that is one strip for the most part. Its hype is well overrated. As well as Austin and Portland.
Agree with this list but I'd swap Boston and Philadelphia.
Phoenix is one of the lowest GDP metros given its population of any major metro. And one of the most sprawling. Phoenix has few redeeming qualities in terms of being a world class city.
My list.
1. New York (No other city like NYC in the USA).
2. Washington, D.C (It is BOOMING. And only going to increase with Amazon)
3. Chicago (A legacy city that can hold its own)
4. San Fran (Tech)
5. Philadelphia (The underdog that is a powerhouse. Southeast Pennsylvania ranks in the top 5 metros in wealth)
6. L.A (Many housing problems that are going to hold it back due to its auto reliance and lack of urban infrastructure)
7. Boston (A stuttgart that will hold its own, but housing cost will prevent crazy development)
8. Seattle (The continued rising star)
9. Atlanta (The south's rising star)
From there
10. Miami
11. Dallas
The rest of the sunbelt is just suburbs. And places like OKC/Omaha. Are flyovers.
Even Nashville is way overrated. It has a downtown that is one strip for the most part. Its hype is well overrated. As well as Austin and Portland.
Reads more like a wish list than anything based on actual facts.
Reads more like a wish list than anything based on actual facts.
Well .... what do you disagree with? LA not #1? Or #2 at least or else? I think it's a good list. Though I wouldn't lessen Nashville anymore. I agree Boston wants to preserve its old density like SF, over increased infill too another says is a must.
Of course LA nt at least #2 is it. I went by waiters said about each cutover the order. I could say Chicago should be #3 .... But really no big deal. Comments I agreed with on the cities.
I agree Boston wants to preserve its old density like SF, over increased infill too another says is a must.
Not sure I'm following this. Are you saying that historic preservation is preventing Boston from adding infill that will bring added density? Or are you saying that Boston doesn't want to get denser, period?
Not sure I'm following this. Are you saying that historic preservation is preventing Boston from adding infill that will bring added density? Or are you saying that Boston doesn't want to get denser, period?
I think this is what he was communicating. NIMBY centric Boston I think will be a major issue in the next few decades in terms of growth.
The main reason I placed Philadelphia over Boston was because there is still a great deal of infill development opportunities in Philadelphia which will create great urbanity/growth.
Not sure I'm following this. Are you saying that historic preservation is preventing Boston from adding infill that will bring added density? Or are you saying that Boston doesn't want to get denser, period?
I'd argue both of those propositions are true, as well. And that's not a terrible thing, either. We need stronger historic preservation generally in our cities; it's what creates a very strong sense of character and architectural diversity.
Aside from that, however, it is simply true that Boston is one of the most "built-out" cities in the country, with some significant height regulations and local roads/public transit that are already severely overburdened in capacity. Of course there are still big redevelopment opportunities, but they are increasingly complex and expensive, requiring years and years of planning, government review, permitting, etc and tons of up-front capital. I also don't get the sense that most Bostonians want to emulate Manhattan.
Boston of course will remain amongst the most desirable and urban US cities for the forseeable future, but I don't know how it wouldn't be at least a little more restrained in densifying as compared to most other large American cities for the reasons above.
Phoenix is one of the lowest GDP metros given its population of any major metro. And one of the most sprawling. Phoenix has few redeeming qualities in terms of being a world class city.
My list.
1. New York (No other city like NYC in the USA).
2. Washington, D.C (It is BOOMING. And only going to increase with Amazon)
3. Chicago (A legacy city that can hold its own)
4. San Fran (Tech)
5. Philadelphia (The underdog that is a powerhouse. Southeast Pennsylvania ranks in the top 5 metros in wealth)
6. L.A (Many housing problems that are going to hold it back due to its auto reliance and lack of urban infrastructure)
7. Boston (A stuttgart that will hold its own, but housing cost will prevent crazy development)
8. Seattle (The continued rising star)
9. Atlanta (The south's rising star)
From there
10. Miami
11. Dallas
The rest of the sunbelt is just suburbs. And places like OKC/Omaha. Are flyovers.
Even Nashville is way overrated. It has a downtown that is one strip for the most part. Its hype is well overrated. As well as Austin and Portland.
If you mention Dallas, you need to mention Houston.
I think this is what he was communicating. NIMBY centric Boston I think will be a major issue in the next few decades in terms of growth.
The main reason I placed Philadelphia over Boston was because there is still a great deal of infill development opportunities in Philadelphia which will create great urbanity/growth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duderino
I'd argue both of those propositions are true, as well. And that's not a terrible thing, either. We need stronger historic preservation generally in our cities; it's what creates a very strong sense of character and architectural diversity.
Aside from that, however, it is simply true that Boston is one of the most "built-out" cities in the country, with some significant height regulations and local roads/public transit that are already severely overburdened in capacity. Of course there are still big redevelopment opportunities, but they are increasingly complex and expensive, requiring years and years of planning, government review, permitting, etc and tons of up-front capital. I also don't get the sense that most Bostonians want to emulate Manhattan.
NIMBY opposition is and always will be a factor in Boston and any other historically significant city, but it's not a prohibitive factor in all but a few pockets of the city. It's becoming less and less of an issue. Boston's managed to add 2 new buildings to it's top 5 tallest in the past 3/4 years and the 3rd is under construction now. And height is far from the only way to add density - Boston's managed tens of millions of square feet of mixed use construction in the past few years with room for a ton more. I'm grateful that places like Beacon Hill, Back Bay, South End, North End, Charlestown, etc. will be spared the wrecking ball, but it's not as if development throughout the core is at a standstill.
I'm not going to get into a Boston vs. Philly p*ssing contest here, but I'm not sure that Boston is lacking on infill opportunities either. Yes, it's one of the densest cities in the nation, but there's no shortage of space to build. The entire Seaport, which is booming and only partially built out now, has room for tens of millions more square feet of potential development space there. Just look at all of the vacant lots. Cambridge Crossing and the Inner Belt (an area larger than Kendall) are only just beginning to see large scale redevelopment with the new Cambridge Crossing project. It's a massive low density area along an under-construction public transit extension within walking distance to downtown Boston. The Government Center Garage redevelopment is underway and massive. The State Services Center/Hurley Building was just put on the market by the state for redevelopment. The West End has massive amounts of space available for infill development (inc. a nearly 500ft. tower currently under construction), City Hall Plaza has been targeted for redevelopment for decades and will eventually go. There are acres upon acres of air rights parcels available for redevelopment over I-90 and I-93. The Widett, Newmarket, and South Bay areas also have acres upon acres of land that are not only available, but have been targeted for redevelopment.
Boston will always have more obstacles to development than many cities, but it's not handicapped, and certainly not anymore than places like Philadelphia, San Francisco, or DC. There are denser, older cities across Europe and beyond that manage to "boom" just fine for a long time. 16 years (2035) is not a long time. And there's zero chance that it runs out of room to build or that NIMBYs put a major damper on development. In fact, I can't think of the last development NIMBYs actually derailed. They're an obstacle, but not a particularly strong one. not anymore.
Transit isn't a bigger long term problem in Boston than it is in any other city either. Boston's better suited than most cities to accommodate more capacity even without an extension (and there are expansions underway and more will follow). Track, signal, and rolling stock upgrades can improve headways on existing lines drastically improving capacity. For example, simply adding more cars to the Orange Line (happening now) and dropping the headways from 7-8 minute to 3-4 doubles capacity. Red Line drastically increases capacity with its new cars and signals (both coming in the next year), the Blue Line is under capacity (and due for an extension to Lynn), and the Green Line gets a big capacity boost with the new extension and vehicles (both well underway). I'm not worried about Boston's transit in the long run. Basing fears about Boston's transit future on problems in recent years is extremely short sighted. Cities with plenty of room to build (like Dallas, Phoenix, etc.) would kill to have Boston's transit problems. Fixing them sure beats building a new system from the ground up.
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.
Also, eventually cost in these fast rising cities currently. Will continue to increase and already smaller cities are taking their share of new growth. Chicago's Core will remain with its Global importance and gentrification continues. It actually has more recognition today then it got 40-years ago. I would not write it off and plenty of solid housing in current hoods to utilize in the future and land of lost housing for infill.
Unlike some Sunbelt cities where 30+year homes are throw-away for new ..... that may have the same fate in 30+years. By 2035 still climate change won't effect coastal cities severely. But weather patterns are something that can much faster. Who gets more or less rain and storms etc.
Our Great Lakes are at record high levels today. Though their levels regularly change over months and years by even a few feet in drops from highs.
What we also do not know is will the Southeast to South in general have parts get wetter or drier? If the Great Plains got drier too..... it certainly will effect the rest of the Midwest too. Humidity levels alone would drop.
The National Economy and World in general. Also will play a roll in future growth or slowdowns.
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 ....
Well, Dave,you did a great job in listing the unquestionable attributes, but nobody can list them all. So how about the West Loop (Greektown, Fulton Market, etc.) where growth, much of it tech related, explodes. And even bigger: the unparalleled development on the Chicago River corridor from Lincoln Yards on the north branch to the 8 on the south branch, massive developments as are others (Riverline, River District, etc.) in-between.
Unless one believes in NPP (need for perpetual growth), population loss is hardly an automatic negative. Manhattan was far more populated a hundred years ago when its population topped two million than the far richer and powerful Manhattan of today.
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.
But really no big deal. Comments I agreed with on the cities.
