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.
Update on greater Downtown Seattle. The State OFM has updated census tract population for 4/1/19, and that 2.7 square mile area grew to 90,000, with the 4.5 square mile area nearing 132,000. The first was well over 60% and the second is nearly.
The boom continues...I'd guess 5,000 new units are empty in buildings still in initial lease-up, and about 9,500 are under construction. Figure another 20,000+ residents when those are absorbed.
You do realize that the majority of growth in Austin and Nashville is suburban sprawl, right? Austin's skyline has grown, but it didn't accommodate 200,000 newcomers.
The District's infill development alone accounted for a 17% growth rate between 2010-2018. That led it to surpassing Boston's population and growth rate (12%) and Nashville's (11%). Suburban sprawl is the main reason for Austin's impressive rate of 22%. A substantial portion of DC area development is Metro-adjacent, not just generic car-centric suburban sprawl. Also, at minimum, half of the DC region's population growth from 2010-2018 (600,000+) has been in areas that are built-out (DC, Arlington, Alexandria, Fairfax, inner-beltway Montgomery County) and it's mostly infill development with higher densities and adjacent to transit.
Nashville is the 24th largest city and 36th largest region. It's growth rates are no more impressive than any other sunbelt or western city/region (literally...Dallas, Houston, Atlanta, Phoenix, Seattle, Denver, Miami, Austin, Jacksonville, Raleigh, San Antonio, Charlotte, Salt Lake City, Sacramento, etc. have all achieved similar or higher levels of growth and development).
A skyline change doesn't make a city more relevant. In fact, Nashville reaffirmed it is a small town by rejecting a comprehensive, multi-modal transportation network. Kinda hard to take it seriously, when many of these other cities are investing significantly more in infrastructure and amenities to be a major city. Furthermore, Nashville has limited national significance or importance. It's only regionally significant, but still behind the heavyweights of Atlanta, Dallas, Charlotte, etc. in terms of both growth, significance, and acclaim.
While everyone is obsessing over Nashville, Charlotte is going all in on setting itself up to challenge Atlanta. Riverside-San Bernardino might actually pass the fast-growing SF-Oakland MSA in population. Phoenix may very well be on track to be the second largest region east of Texas. Atlanta is home to multiple impressive skylines and a huge influx of wealth across racial groups.
While it is true that most of the growth was suburban growth most of the growth in all U.S metros was suburban growth, and even then Austin had neighborhoods like west campus which between 2000-2019 grew from 10,000 people to 17,000 people. Now while this might not seem like much, especially for Texas. The neighborhood is only 0.5 square miles, so the actual neighborhood grew from 20,000 ppsm to roughly 35,000 ppsm today. That is an insane amount of growth and density for Texas period, this happened despite some of the parking minimums as well, this is also the conservative estimate as some figures state even more growth and we really won't know till the 2020 census.
So from what I'm gathering so far, the better candidates would be:
- Austin
- Nashville
- DFW
- Seattle
- D.C.
???
That’s a good list. Maybe add Philly.
The 2010s were good to Boston (lots of new construction and the Silver Line expansion to Chelsea). But with GLX underway and the electrification of the commuter rail *hopefully* coming, the next few decades will *hopefully* only get better.
People overblow the heat. From late May through early September you are going to have triple-digit temperatures. For a few weeks you'll have 110s. Only during the most extreme heat waves do you get 120. Also, with almost no humidity, the heat is different. I'd say it's pretty comparable to a Texas summer with temps in the upper 90s/low 100s and 90% humidity.
I agree though, the sprawl of Phoenix is an issue. However, I think it has a lot going for it and I think it's downtown is headed in the right direction.
Ehh gonna disagree on that. If anything, people overblow the Dallas heat. Also, lack of humidity is a problem. My main issue with Minnesota's climate, is the dryness. But I'll take a dry cold over a dry heat. Also, no way in hell is it 90% humidity with 97+ degree weather. That's not how humidity works in real life.
Let's not forget this thing called the SUN which is worse in the desert, coupled with not enough rain. Texas has enough water problems as it is, Arizona's are on another level. 100s consistently from late May through early September sounds horrible. Even in Texas, the summers I lived there we usually didn't crack 100 til mid-July or so. That would be like if up here in Minneapolis we had consistent below zero between late November through early March. Even a cold lover like me would not be a fan of that much consistent extremity.
Ehh gonna disagree on that. If anything, people overblow the Dallas heat. Also, lack of humidity is a problem. My main issue with Minnesota's climate, is the dryness. But I'll take a dry cold over a dry heat. Also, no way in hell is it 90% humidity with 97+ degree weather. That's not how humidity works in real life.
Let's not forget this thing called the SUN which is worse in the desert, coupled with not enough rain. Texas has enough water problems as it is, Arizona's are on another level. 100s consistently from late May through early September sounds horrible. Even in Texas, the summers I lived there we usually didn't crack 100 til mid-July or so. That would be like if up here in Minneapolis we had consistent below zero between late November through early March. Even a cold lover like me would not be a fan of that much consistent extremity.
It depends on the part of Texas. The Eastern and Southeast parts of Texas have a different kind of water problem: theres too much of it falling from the sky and it floods. Places like Houston, the Gulf Coast, and East Texas will never be hurting for water. West Texas has drought problems but because so much of it is here, the state could send it west if needed.
While it is true that most of the growth was suburban growth most of the growth in all U.S metros was suburban growth
Yes, but that's not the case for city growth. 0% of DC or Seattle's (city) growth was suburban sprawl. The City of Austin's impressive growth rate of 22% was largely supported by suburban sprawl. Seattle and DC grew by 22% and 17% , respectively--all urban infill.
Quote:
and even then Austin had neighborhoods like west campus which between 2000-2019 grew from 10,000 people to 17,000 people. Now while this might not seem like much, especially for Texas. The neighborhood is only 0.5 square miles, so the actual neighborhood grew from 20,000 ppsm to roughly 35,000 ppsm today. That is an insane amount of growth and density for Texas period, this happened despite some of the parking minimums as well, this is also the conservative estimate as some figures state even more growth and we really won't know till the 2020 census.
Okay sure, Austin might be the Texas city of the decade (but is it?...Dallas?). Just for a DC comparison:
Capitol Riverfront
the 0.78-sqmi Capitol Riverfront neighborhood in DC (of which only 2/3 of the land is developable due to a stadium and military facilities, so similar size to west campus) experienced far more impressive growth:
2010 residential population of 2,781 to 12,600
17 residential projects totaling 4,800 units currently under construction (eventual neighborhood build-out will include 30,000+ residents)
Even more impressive, the neighborhood is home to the stadium of our World Series Champs (built in 2000s), the Department of Transportation HQ (built in 2000s), the Washington Navy Yard and 35,000 daytime employees. The Audi Field soccer stadium is right on the border as well (built in 2000s). Honestly, just look at google maps and you will be amazed by the amount and scale of construction: https://www.google.com/maps/@38.8758.../data=!3m1!1e3
NoMa
Metro added an infill station in the 2000s and the neighborhood has seen nonstop growth. Narrowing in on the 0.37-sqmi area covered by the business improvement district:
- 2010 residential population of ~1,000, with current population at 10,000+
- 1,400 units under construction in the 0.37-sqmi area (an additional 3,500 units & 250K sf retail is in various stages of development at Union Market across the train tracks from NoMa)
DC and Seattle are just in a different league. They are rebuilding entire urban neighborhoods. Regionally, they have created new skylines in suburban locales like Tysons, Reston, and Bellevue.
Arguably, Nashville and Austin have elevated their profile through media hype more than any other city, so if that is the defining criteria, then so be it. There are plenty of cities around the country that have similar or higher levels of growth (Seattle, DC, Atlanta, Dallas, Miami, Houston, Denver, Charlotte), along with far more worthy achievements and accolades than a skyline. Ultimately, Austin and Nashville are still not nationally relevant. They are barely mid-tier regions. Let's focus less on media hype and superficial measures like skylines and more on actual achievements and data.
Last edited by newgensandiego; 11-18-2019 at 01:55 PM..
Yes, but that's not the case for city growth. 0% of DC or Seattle's (city) growth was suburban sprawl. The City of Austin's impressive growth rate of 22% was largely supported by suburban sprawl. Seattle and DC grew by 22% and 17% , respectively--all urban infill.
Okay sure, Austin might be the Texas city of the decade (but is it?...Dallas?). Just for a DC comparison:
Capitol Riverfront
the 0.78-sqmi Capitol Riverfront neighborhood in DC (of which only 2/3 of the land is developable due to a stadium and military facilities, so similar size to west campus) experienced far more impressive growth:
2010 residential population of 2,781 to 12,600
17 residential projects totaling 4,800 units currently under construction (eventual neighborhood build-out will include 30,000+ residents)
Even more impressive, the neighborhood is home to the stadium of our World Series Champs (built in 2000s), the Department of Transportation HQ (built in 2000s), the Washington Navy Yard and 35,000 daytime employees. The Audi Field soccer stadium is right on the border as well (built in 2000s). Honestly, just look at google maps and you will be amazed by the amount and scale of construction: https://www.google.com/maps/@38.8758.../data=!3m1!1e3
NoMa
Metro added an infill station in the 2000s and the neighborhood has seen nonstop growth. Narrowing in on the 0.37-sqmi area covered by the business improvement district:
- 2010 residential population of ~1,000, with current population at 10,000+
- 1,400 units under construction in the 0.37-sqmi area (an additional 3,500 units & 250K sf retail is in various stages of development at Union Market across the train tracks from NoMa)
DC and Seattle are just in a different league. They are rebuilding entire urban neighborhoods. Regionally, they have created new skylines in suburban locales like Tysons, Reston, and Bellevue.
Arguably, Nashville and Austin have elevated their profile through media hype more than any other city, so if that is the defining criteria, then so be it. There are plenty of cities around the country that have similar or higher levels of growth (Seattle, DC, Atlanta, Dallas, Miami, Houston, Denver, Charlotte), along with far more worthy achievements and accolades than a skyline. Ultimately, Austin and Nashville are still not nationally relevant. They are barely mid-tier regions. Let's focus less on media hype and superficial measures like skylines and more on actual achievements and data.
I’d like to say that DC really hasn’t added more people than a Boston-Core equivalent. Both a 61 sq mile Boston and DC added about 100,000 people since 2010. It’s just that DC has a relatively weaker core to its metro than Boston does.
Location: That star on your map in the middle of the East Coast, DMV
8,128 posts, read 7,568,606 times
Reputation: 5785
Quote:
Originally Posted by btownboss4
I’d like to say that DC really hasn’t added more people than a Boston-Core equivalent. Both a 61 sq mile Boston and DC added about 100,000 people since 2010. It’s just that DC has a relatively weaker core to its metro than Boston does.
You’re expanding the core however, DC proper added 101k in 8 years vs just under 80k for Boston proper. Yes the cities are different sizes, but DC’s core ring around it expands further out, so if you’re going to extrapolate outward on Boston’s extended core, you’d have to compare the growth of Arlington, Alexandria, SS, Bethesda etc. Each of them border District lines. This and beyond is where DC’s growth pulls away from Boston.
Last edited by the resident09; 11-18-2019 at 03:11 PM..
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.
You’re expanding the core however, DC proper added 101k in 8 years vs just under 80k for Boston proper. Yes the cities are different sizes, but DC’s core ring around it expands further out, so if you’re going to extrapolate outward on Boston’s extended core, you’d have to compare the growth of Arlington, Alexandria, SS, Bethesda etc. Each of them border District lines. This and beyond is where DC’s growth pulls away from Boston.
