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 agree with you about Charleston; its geography and road infrastructure won't allow it get but so big. It will ride the wave while it can though.
Boise is an interesting case; it's definitely booming but I don't see any factors that might limit its growth.
When I passed through Boise the first time several years ago on my way to Seattle, it shocked the crap out of me. I wasn't expecting to see so much development there. I was more-less expecting a remote town you pass through in about 3 exits...
Minus the tech vibe it reminds me alittle bit of Austin with their dedication to greenways and bikeways and the CoL is fairly similar as well.
I do think some of the limiting factors may be water, the mountains to the east, preserves to the south and especially...the cold winters.
And the struggle is clearly real everywhere apparently.
Again, I agree. It's a nationwide issue. I would even go so far as to argue that the income gap in the Bay Area being as large as it is is an indicator of the Bay Area's economic strength, not a sign of the area's imminent demise. Income divides are a major issue all over the country, but they're understandably larger greatest in the city's most prosperous cities. And the Bay Area is leading the way on that front.
When I passed through Boise the first time several years ago on my way to Seattle, it shocked the crap out of me. I wasn't expecting to see so much development there. I was more-less expecting a remote town you pass through in about 3 exits...
Minus the tech vibe it reminds me alittle bit of Austin with their dedication to greenways and bikeways and the CoL is fairly similar as well.
I do think some of the limiting factors may be water, the mountains to the east, preserves to the south and especially...the cold winters.
Yeah I've heard Boise is where all the PNW/Bay Area refugees are going now and the rising housing costs are reflecting that.
Didn't know there were potential water issues there. That's always a potentially limiting factor.
SF is a much higher risk than Seattle. A larger percentage of SF's economy is unprofitable companies vs. Seattle's prevalence of profitable ones. Seattle's prices are much lower. Growth management laws help us avoid overbuilding (to a fault).
Commercial real estate industry projections tend to be optimistic for Seattle. We're all trying to figure out how long the boom will last, but nobody seems to be projecting a crash anytime soon. Just a very soft downturn in a year or two. Commercial properties are trading for high amounts with low cap rates (some is to get ahead of an increase in an excise tax) because of their long-term outlooks.
We might not have a perpetual 50-60 tower cranes...maybe it depends on how you define a falling star.
We might not have a perpetual 50-60 tower cranes...maybe it depends on how you define a falling star.
Seems like a lot of posters are equating "falling stars" with slowed growth trends in certain sectors. I have a hard time with that definition as there's a big difference between a city in decline, and a boom town that's leveling off a little bit.
Seems like a lot of posters are equating "falling stars" with slowed growth trends in certain sectors. I have a hard time with that definition as there's a big difference between a city in decline, and a boom town that's leveling off a little bit.
On that score, I doubt any boom town starts declining within the next 10 years. Things move slower than that. Is there anyone growing slower than their reputation would have you believe the last few years? Because those would be prime candidates for “falling star”.
NYC, DC, San Francisco, Seattle are going to come to a grinding their ridiculous CoL finally catches up with them.
LA, Miami, Denver, Austin & Nashville will slow down a smidge but they all still have sizable rooms for growth and while baring LA aren't expensive to the point where they are unaffordable.
Chicago, Baltimore, Detroit, St. Louis & Pittsburgh will all probably stabilize their population losses and start a slow chug to growth
Philly & Boston will probably see accelerated growth
As a point of fact, L.A. city is denser than Seattle and L.A. metro is nearly 3X as dense as Seattle metro.
Tampa is protected by Geography. The coast is NNE along St Pete so you need a really odd angle to get a good hit on Tampa.
Miami is similar. Most major hurricanes recurve at that latitude.
Please provide some documentation of this. It's so easy to make statements like this with no proof. Please explain the elevation of Miami's geography that would protect the city from hurricane force winds. Ditto, Tampa. With Irma, certainly forecasters were worried at one point or another about direct landfalls for both cities. I've never heard, nor read anything that would substantiate your statements.
Quote:
Originally Posted by btownboss4
To say any city has a major chance of being hit by a Cat 5 is a very Bold statement because only 3 have done in the last century in the entire country let alone a particular city.
Also of note If Irma had tracked further east it would have been destroyed by Cuba. It only survived because Western Cuba is lower elevation and narrower. So it hits the Keys as a Cat 4 or the east coast as a Cat2/3.
I quoted Accuweather saying that Miami had a 16 percent chance in any year of having a hurricane pass within 50 miles. Accuweather didn't forecast hurricane strength.
The point is that Atlantic and Gulf hurricanes now undergo rapid intensification due to the much warmer oceans resulting from man-made climate change. Talking about a century ago is irrelevant as the ocean warming has largely occurred in the past 20-30 years, with the oceans warmer than even 30 years ago and continuing to warm each year.
Please provide some documentation of this. It's so easy to make statements like this with no proof. Please explain the elevation of Miami's geography that would protect the city from hurricane force winds. Ditto, Tampa. With Irma, certainly forecasters were worried at one point or another about direct landfalls for both cities. I've never heard, nor read anything that would substantiate your statements.
I quoted Accuweather saying that Miami had a 16 percent chance in any year of having a hurricane pass within 50 miles. Accuweather didn't forecast hurricane strength.
The point is that Atlantic and Gulf hurricanes now undergo rapid intensification due to the much warmer oceans resulting from man-made climate change. Talking about a century ago is irrelevant as the ocean warming has largely occurred in the past 20-30 years, with the oceans warmer than even 30 years ago and continuing to warm each year.
Tampa being on the West Coast protects it. It’s hard for a Hurricane to back into the Bay Area. It’s been 98 years since Tampa has been hit by a major hurricane let alone a Cat 5. Hurricanes go West, NW,N then NE so a coastal area like Tampa either has a Hurricane come from leeward side or passing parallel to the coast. A right turn needed to turn a hurricane so tightly so that the West coast south of Tampa (or Cuba) to tear the storm apart tends to be a weather system strong enough to shear apart storms.
Miami is primary due to being a small target. A storm 50 miles out to sea isn’t a big deal (well it is for the Bahamas) so a 16% of any hurricane being near Miami is probably like a 3% chance of actual hurricane conditions especially because with recurring storms Miami is on the weak side.
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.
