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.
Everyone remember back when the U.S. used to be a place immigrants would flock to better their lives or living environments?
Yeah, me too. Good times, good times.
Well the fun is over now. With most of the developing world kicking their human development into high gear as their transition into a post-industrial economy gets underway. Then factor in the increasingly tapering off immigration to the U.S. and the pandemic forcing much of the world into a lockdown and the U.S. basically throwing immigration to the side and you get what you have now. Immigration should naturally bounce back a little the further we get from the pandemic but I seriously doubt the U.S. will ever do over 1 million new immigrants a year again or anything even close to that number. Plus many would-be immigrants are now opting to just stay in their own countries, for example Mexican folks are now just migrating within their own country because why leave when the economy there is developing and the standard of living gap between there and the U.S. has greatly narrowed? Several countries fall into this basket actually. China is like that now and India is getting there now that it's one of the world's fastest growing economies and the middle-class there is growing exponentially.
Add to that both the Trump and Biden administrations damaging immigration into the U.S. and you've set yourselves back at least 8 years in terms of policy with no clear way to get back to where you used to be. Declining fertility rates, aging population, and a very pathetic level of immigration and you have what you see now.
I guess we should embrace the new normal? Because it's probably here to stay longterm.
So developing nations, as has been predicted for decades, are entering the first world. Great for them.
What about these cities failure to be competitive?
A mass transit system? That'll be 18 years of impact studies and ballot measures, then maybe we can talk (while cities in sub-saharan Africa build modern systems).
A 440 foot buidling downtown? Sorry need a decade of red tape and parking impact studies to move forward on that (while China knocks out 1000 footers bi-weekly without even a press release).
Imagine coming to the United States from a big city in China and being told Austin is the hottest thing we have going, and then visiting.
Lol.
Los Angeles went from a tumbleweed prairie town to world class city in several decades (driven heavily by intra-national migration from other states) by rolling up their sleeves, doing what others said couldn't be done-building an amazing city that was competitive with other world cities
With growth comes a larger footprint, which means more “growth”. I know it’s true elsewhere, but I will use the Triangle as a reference. Alamance County is formally in the Triad CSA, but housing costs have made it shift dramatically into a bedroom community for RTP. Harnett County, a once and future Triangle county, is beginning to see spillover as Southern Wake densifies along the lines Western Wake once did.
More aspirational at the moment would be a place like Rocky Mount. The DMV was recently outsourced and moved from Raleigh to Rocky Mount, with workers told to commute. It sits on the eastern edge of Wake County, but that part of the county is likely decades away from filling out in the manner Southern and Western Wake have.
But the larger point is that central NC is populated and fragmented. The Raleigh and Durham metros are fairly small area-wise in comparison to most peers because of this. As the Triangle consolidates and grows it’s orbit, there are half-a-million plus waiting on the edges to be folded in at some point.
With growth comes a larger footprint, which means more “growth”. I know it’s true elsewhere, but I will use the Triangle as a reference. Alamance County is formally in the Triad CSA, but housing costs have made it shift dramatically into a bedroom community for RTP. Harnett County, a once and future Triangle county, is beginning to see spillover as Southern Wake densifies along the lines Western Wake once did.
More aspirational at the moment would be a place like Rocky Mount. The DMV was recently outsourced and moved from Raleigh to Rocky Mount, with workers told to commute. It sits on the eastern edge of Wake County, but that part of the county is likely decades away from filling out in the manner Southern and Western Wake have.
But the larger point is that central NC is populated and fragmented. The Raleigh and Durham metros are fairly small area-wise in comparison to most peers because of this. As the Triangle consolidates and grows it’s orbit, there are half-a-million plus waiting on the edges to be folded in at some point.
These are all true statements, but there's another fundamental thing to consider and that is the reunification of Raleigh and Durham into a singular MSA like they were prior to 2003. The current combined population of the two core MSAs of Raleigh and Durham are already over 2.1M. I think that another thing to consider is just how much growth comes out of Raleigh's county alone (Wake), which is now North Carolina's most populated and still growing at a pretty good clip. The Triangle's growth doesn't rely on annexations to bolster its growth story. That said, with the possible realignment of Harnett, Lee & Alamance Counties, the Triangle would sit at nearly 2.5M today and in a footprint that is more in alignment with other fast growing metros in the Southeast like Charlotte and Nashville. From there, 4M isn't impossible to imagine in the coming decades.
While the Triangle grows, its two core cities of Raleigh and Durham are in the midst of substantially densifying nodes within their limits, and that is somewhat of a differentiator to growth of Sunbelt cities that exploded decades ago. This positions the area somewhat better for a more urban future, but Atlanta still remains the most likely model for overall metro growth in the Southeast. I expect that to be true for Charlotte's, Nashville's, and the Triangle's futures unless something substantially changes.
What could prevent any of these areas from reaching the 4M+ club includes a variety of factors including declining natural population growth (births vs. deaths), shifting migration patterns, immigration policy that slows immigration to a trickle, costs of living vis-a-vis salaries, extremist politics that "scares" investment, climate change (both for the good and bad), etc. Frankly, the list of possible roadblocks and enablers is pretty long, but none of it is set in stone.
So back of the envelope math here, if the Triangle grew at the same rate in the 20s and 30s that it did last decade, and Harnett, Lee, and Alamance joined, it would around 3.6 million in 2040. So we could get there around mid 2040s. So probably behind others already closer to the mark (Austin and Charlotte).
These are all true statements, but there's another fundamental thing to consider and that is the reunification of Raleigh and Durham into a singular MSA like they were prior to 2003. The current combined population of the two core MSAs of Raleigh and Durham are already over 2.1M. I think that another thing to consider is just how much growth comes out of Raleigh's county alone (Wake), which is now North Carolina's most populated and still growing at a pretty good clip. The Triangle's growth doesn't rely on annexations to bolster its growth story. That said, with the possible realignment of Harnett, Lee & Alamance Counties, the Triangle would sit at nearly 2.5M today and in a footprint that is more in alignment with other fast growing metros in the Southeast like Charlotte and Nashville. From there, 4M isn't impossible to imagine in the coming decades.
While the Triangle grows, its two core cities of Raleigh and Durham are in the midst of substantially densifying nodes within their limits, and that is somewhat of a differentiator to growth of Sunbelt cities that exploded decades ago. This positions the area somewhat better for a more urban future, but Atlanta still remains the most likely model for overall metro growth in the Southeast. I expect that to be true for Charlotte's, Nashville's, and the Triangle's futures unless something substantially changes.
What could prevent any of these areas from reaching the 4M+ club includes a variety of factors including declining natural population growth (births vs. deaths), shifting migration patterns, immigration policy that slows immigration to a trickle, costs of living vis-a-vis salaries, extremist politics that "scares" investment, climate change (both for the good and bad), etc. Frankly, the list of possible roadblocks and enablers is pretty long, but none of it is set in stone.
I think you are certainly right about the last part. The possible barriers could lead to a lack of necessary infrastructure, way too extreme or polarized politics, and of course expense. The aversion to mass transit is still baffling to me, having lived in Chicago.
The problem with mass transit is it really only works well after a certain population threshold is met. The ability to run it cost-effectively requires dense employment centers to pair with dense housing capacity, and for the bus, train, etc to run consistently and quickly enough to competitively compete with the car. Because it comes down to time tables. If you can get the commute time by transit down to within shouting distance of driving, many people will attempt it.
But even then, most people would prefer to drive. Chicago MSA is about 75% commuting by car (Chicago proper is 56%).
Or, the government could subsidize subways into low-density suburban areas, rather than counting on rider fees to cover the costs.
It would be nice if we could create dedicated lanes for self-driving transit vehicles (carrying say 4 people per vehicle), because they could zip through town without hitting lights similar to rapid bus transit...but unlike buses they could also drop you off right at your doorstep. Flying cars would be even better. Maybe that's the future.
What I've noticed is the biggest problem is marketing.
The push back against rail is similar to the gun issue.
People focus on the it as the government trying to take away their (insert conspiratory theory here) rights.
It's silly but people think of more rail as the government trying to take away their cars, reduce their highways, forcing them to do what they don't want to do.
If the messaging was more on making the highway experience more pleasurable instead of highlighting the direct benefits of rail then I think it would be easier.
Sunbelt boomers are a hard sell. No matter how long the list of benefits are they look at it as more of a toy, a novelty. They are not opposed to riding it to try it, but they are not inclined on spending too much on it or have it expanded all over.
They don't see no issue with tearing down homes to widen highways, but good luck if the rail somehow takes up any current road space.
It's not just a matter of population thresholds and subsidies, a lot of people are just against rail getting built in their neighborhood period. And it's almost always a certain demographic of people who are against it.
If we are going in any particular order.
Minneapolis-Saint Paul- Family Reunification will probably be key to getting this area to 4,000,000 but it will also be the most demographically changed of the metros with a heavy African population as well as Asian and a growing Hispanic contributing the most too it’s growth. I would put money that Hennepin and Ramsey will be minority-majority or close too it if this area crosses 4,000,000 in 2030-ish. I do not think this area has the demographics to hit 5,000,000 at least by 2040/2050 and anything after that it isn’t happening for any city, without a stupid high immigration rate or populations of Mormons/Orthodox Jews. With Austin/Texas being the exception since it’s the youngest state works big population and so is 10 years behind the rest of the U.S in growth patterns.
Tampa- hits 4,000,000 people second and probably hits 5,000,000 people first through merging and growth. I expect Bradenton-Sarasota to eventually join the MSA, if growth from Tampa starts to trend South rather than North. The fight for Lakeland between Tampa and Orlando is also going to be interesting, although I think Orlando will win it in the end. The merge of Bradenton-Sarasota into the MSA will be what pushes it over 4,000,000 but, the merge of Lakeland is where it flirts with 5,000,000.
Orlando- it’s gonna see some big merges. The Villages is the fastest growing MSA in the U.S and much like Charlotte did in 2010, I won’t be surprised either if Lakeland or Deltona goes as well. Either way it’s probably hitting 4,000,000 before a lot of other cities on this list. Might even outgrow Tampa but I’m a bit more bullish on that.
Denver- I think Denver just beats out Charlotte for 4,000,000 but it will be close. It’ll depend on whether Boulder get’s added to Denver’s MSA, which I think will 100% happen, and I’m surprised it hasn’t yet but with the growth of northern suburbs like Erie, it’s a guarantee. Greeley as well.
Charlotte- it’s definitely hitting 4,000,000 on a steady growth model. As a financial capital I don’t see it not doing this, it’ll probably hit 5,000,000 too and hop Denver and MSP, largely because outside of natural growth, Finance will always be attractive, and I don’t know if Denver or MSP with price and demographic factors starting to play a bigger role will grow much past that 4,000,000 threshold.
Austin- it’s definitely gonna outgrow San Antonio. I have no clue if it will catch up to Charlotte or Denver though. It’s a possibility. With its large growth it’s gonna did some counties into its MSA. The big one however is Bell County, which is also relatively fast growing. If it can add Bell County to the MSA because of its cheaper housing and commutable distance to Northern Williamson County, especially Belton. Then it might hop over these cities. I do however see Killeen-Belton as a CSA county just because Georgetown itself is so far removed from Austin and still in Williamson County. It’s the only MSA that I predict faster growth between 2020 and 2030 than between 2010 and 2020. I think growth will be numerically and possibly even percent wise faster in the Austin MSA. It will hit 30% and there is a chance it hits 35% although that’s type of momentum is insane. It can be just here, or be just behind Tampa.
San Antonio- it will hit 4,000,000, with its demographics being younger naturally. Especially northern counties like Comal County will play a major role here. It will also become the cheapest option in Texas over time which will allow it to get interstate migration. Don’t think it will ever merge with Austin or the like but definitely hitting 4,000,000 before it gets over the demographic hill. Why I think it isn’t gonna catch up is because the other cities almost all have the ability to merge in surrounding metro areas.
Salt Lake City- it will hit 4,000,000 around this time. The obvious answer is Mormons but mostly the merge into one MSA first with Ogden then later with Provo/Orem. There is also issues with space here but I think Utah cities seem more open to denser living than other cities across America.
Now there are some obvious misses-
San Diego- the MSA hitting 4,000,000 is predicated on San Diego County with California laws adding 700,000 people or stealing Riverside (Temecula and Murrieta) from L.A. the second option is just outlandish. The first option is not gonna happen because the suburbs are adding 200,000 of that max. So you’ll need to put the other 500,000 in empty land or in San Diego city limits. It might eventually happen, but it will be a very long time. One thing that’s likely to happen and may increase or decrease it’s population is looser immigration between Mexico and America. In the next 2 decades, with steady growth policies Mexico will start to enter the bottom end of the First World and that will probably lead to much looser visa restrictions. Again this might just mean more Americans move to Tijuana than the opposite.
Las Vegas- there is a space dividend that the Las Vegas Valley has. After the SW portion of the valley gets filled out. It will become increasingly difficult to sprawl so the jump from 3,000,000 to 4,000,000 will be a lot harder to manage than other cities not to mention the existing population problems that will fester around America in 20 years.
Nashville and Raleigh-Durham- they could do it but it will be so far in the future that America will be focusing on stabilizing rather than outright growth, and so they might peak or start to stutter right around the 4,000,000 mark. I predict it will be underneath it, by probably 500,000 or so people.
The problem with mass transit is it really only works well after a certain population threshold is met. The ability to run it cost-effectively requires dense employment centers to pair with dense housing capacity, and for the bus, train, etc to run consistently and quickly enough to competitively compete with the car. Because it comes down to time tables. If you can get the commute time by transit down to within shouting distance of driving, many people will attempt it.
But even then, most people would prefer to drive. Chicago MSA is about 75% commuting by car (Chicago proper is 56%).
This may be the reality in American metros but housing density is way more important that overall city or metro population. What's needed are nodes of density along rail lines. Think of them as major exits off of an interstate that don't rely on cars. Dense nodes will enable regional rail and walkable communities built around each stop. It becomes a win/win. The hard sell is getting enough Americans willing to change their mindsets and give up the car dependent suburban living that they are used to. That's a more difficult process than we can probably imagine since folks often move to these metros because they want the house on a big lot to begin with.
In major metros you can have both. There's plenty of places to live in Chicago car free, yet other places that are as car dependent as far flung (insert nearly any Sunbelt burb here).
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.
