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.
As already pointed out in this thread, NYC is so far ahead of those other two cities.
In this respect, LA and Chicago better have a much brighter future just to try and keep up. I am pulling for these cities because they are two great American cities. I don't see why anyone wouldn't want them to do well in the future.
But didn't LA outperform NYC almost every year from like 1900 to 2018sh?
I voted for NYC now, but 5 years ago I almost certainly would have thought that LA had the brighter future. It was almost as hot and fast growing as Seattle or any sunbelt city
Right now, NYC and NYC area is the healthiest I have ever seen them.
But didn't LA outperform NYC almost every year from like 1900 to 2018sh?
I voted for NYC now, but 5 years ago I almost certainly would have thought that LA had the brighter future. It was almost as hot and fast growing as Seattle or any sunbelt city
Right now, NYC and NYC area is the healthiest I have ever seen them.
No lol. That's too big of sweeping generalization over a huge period of time. Not sure what metrics you're basing that broad statement on but that's a bit much.
Again I hope LA and Chicago can keep doing big things. I'd probably pick LA out of these two just based on some of the large infrastructure projects going on.
No lol. That's too big of sweeping generalization over a huge period of time. Not sure what metrics you're basing that broad statement on but that's a bit much.
Again I hope LA and Chicago can keep doing big things. I'd probably pick LA out of these two just based on some of the large infrastructure projects going on.
I just looked and LA outperformed NYC in population and GDP Growth every year.
If a city had 100 companies and added 3 more, it is strong with a stable future.
If a city had 20 companies and added 10 more, it has a bright future.
NYC is the biggest city, but it definitely didn't have the brightest future of these three. I'd agree it does now because apartment/housing construction, development in the metro area, job growth and interest. LA S curved.
I just looked and LA outperformed NYC in population and GDP Growth every year.
If a city had 100 companies and added 3 more, it is strong with a stable future.
If a city had 20 companies and added 10 more, it has a bright future.
NYC is the biggest city, but it definitely didn't have the brightest future of these three. I'd agree it does now because apartment/housing construction, development in the metro area, job growth and interest. LA S curved.
Again, when you have so much more ground to make up, that's not outperforming, that's catching up. LA had to provide that type of output as it was a newer, less established, younger area. NYC was already on top.
It's like saying some run n shoot football team outperforms everyone else in terms of stats by playing lesser competition. Yet then they play a team like Georgia or Alabama and lose by 50. The standard is the standard until someone else beats them.
I just looked and LA outperformed NYC in population and GDP Growth every year.
If a city had 100 companies and added 3 more, it is strong with a stable future.
If a city had 20 companies and added 10 more, it has a bright future.
NYC is the biggest city, but it definitely didn't have the brightest future of these three. I'd agree it does now because apartment/housing construction, development in the metro area, job growth and interest. LA S curved.
I think California's recent transit-oriented development zoning variances alongside the somewhat rapid (for a US city) expansion of frequent mass transit in LA bodes really well for the near/mid term future as it's likely a lot of dense construction follows with the further opening of lines given how pricey land is in Los Angeles. I also believe that the Inland Empire will be solidly integrated into LA metropolitan area and can also rapidly improve. The region overall may also rapidly improve in quality of life and therefore be more attractive from the move towards mass transit and electric vehicles especially as electric vehicles become popular in both consumer and commercial usage. Finally, I do think eventually a high speed rail line to both SF and Las Vegas will come to fruition and that will do a few things. It will greatly expand the reach of LA to other parts of California and into Nevada. It will open up a ton of airspace allocation for its airports with the reduction of flights to the Bay Area and Las Vegas. It will also then free up a massive amount of resources for other projects.
Location: That star on your map in the middle of the East Coast, DMV
8,128 posts, read 7,547,924 times
Reputation: 5785
It's not so much LA for me, it's just that NYC is simply that far along and ahead. Actual metropolitan New York (not by CSA) is a hair under 20 million people, Los Angeles has 13 million. A clear cut #2 yes, but that's a Houston metro area sized gap. NYC and it's metro area add housing at an alarming faster pace than LA and most of California does in general. And that's not even touching on GDP, GDP per capita, Fortune 500's etc. where NYC is far far ahead. Talking about infrastructure improvements for LA all significant, but NYC is the preeminent metro area in the country, and probably the continent, for added infrastructure growth, and this century will continue to show that.
LA is doing fine, and I don't even think it has hit it's "peak" if yet. There will be long term growth as it's considered desirable to many. But NYC is too far ahead to be caught up to in the next 100 years. It simply is. NYC was ahead of LA in 1900, ahead of LA in 2000, and will still be ahead of LA in 2100, short of a nuclear tragedy, or natural disaster directly affecting the city alone.
And trying to go by CSA for raw numbers in the case of LA doesn't exactly help much. Riverside-San Bernadino drag LA down from a per capita basis in a lot of metrics. Most CSA per capita metric comparisons have NYC, Bay Area, DC-Balt, ahead of LA and Chicago. LA's MSA is much more impressive IMO.
It's not so much LA for me, it's just that NYC is simply that far along and ahead. Actual metropolitan New York (not by CSA) is a hair under 20 million people, Los Angeles has 13 million. A clear cut #2 yes, but that's a Houston metro area sized gap. NYC and it's metro area add housing at an alarming faster pace than LA and most of California does in general. And that's not even touching on GDP, GDP per capita, Fortune 500's etc. where NYC is far far ahead. Talking about infrastructure improvements for LA all significant, but NYC is the preeminent metro area in the country, and probably the continent, for added infrastructure growth, and this century will continue to show that.
LA is doing fine, and I don't even think it has hit it's "peak" if yet. There will be long term growth as it's considered desirable to many. But NYC is too far ahead to be caught up to in the next 100 years. It simply is. NYC was ahead of LA in 1900, ahead of LA in 2000, and will still be ahead of LA in 2100, short of a nuclear tragedy, or natural disaster directly affecting the city alone.
And trying to go by CSA for raw numbers in the case of LA doesn't exactly help much. Riverside-San Bernadino drag LA down from a per capita basis in a lot of metrics. Most CSA per capita metric comparisons have NYC, Bay Area, DC-Balt, ahead of LA and Chicago. LA's MSA is much more impressive IMO.
Yea, NYC is far ahead, though it goes back to what does best future mean and whether it's more about being at the top of these metrics or most improved or a combination of the two. My argument for the near/mid term in favor of LA is couched mostly in most improvements.
LA has added housing slowly, but that's why the state-level zoning variances available are so crucial in shutting out more NIMBYs which is a fairly new development. Adding Inland Empire certainly reduces its per capita GDP, but I think realistically should at least partially be added because the densest and largest agglomeration in the Inland Empire are all contiguous with LA County's dense developments and because there is a good degree of regional cooperation which is probably helped by being within the same state. The Inland Empire counties are massive and include parts that are not part of that contiguous development, but it's more difficult to get bit by bit data and piecing it together rather than county level data. There is a question of how much the Inland Empire can improve over the course of the next couple of decades, but I think there are some factors that are very much in its favor for improvement. A lot of that has to do with being in California though as the state government in recent times has been more willing to tackle local zoning as well as air pollution issues and mass transit improvements.
Socal LA and the Inland Empire just has so much more potential as a geography. The LA basin stretch all the way to the San Bernardino mountains, it doesn't just stop at the county line. The weather maybe a little bit hotter during the summer inland vs. closer to the ocean but it's still "fair" compared to virtually the rest of the U.S.
These things considered, physically LA has the better potential for the future.
Now it's up to the people in charge to utilize what's blessed. In terms of future, LA has plenty of future. NYC is just ahead, that's about it. Remember it's a marathon, not a race.
Socal LA and the Inland Empire just has so much more potential as a geography. The LA basin stretch all the way to the San Bernardino mountains, it doesn't just stop at the county line. The weather maybe a little bit hotter during the summer inland vs. closer to the ocean but it's still "fair" compared to virtually the rest of the U.S.
These things considered, physically LA has the better potential for the future.
Now it's up to the people in charge to utilize what's blessed. In terms of future, LA has plenty of future. NYC is just ahead, that's about it. Remember it's a marathon, not a race.
I'm not sure the raw physical geography makes sense as past the mountains is the actual desert which is the vast majority of the Inland Empire and that is strikingly hot and dry. In that sense, the Inland Empire in terms of the continuous urbanized area as an extension of LA's urban area is pretty much it as far as it goes right now and it'd be pretty unsustainable to have large populations past that point. Palm Springs for example is past that point for instance is generally even hotter than Phoenix throughout the year and substantially drier and with limited potable water sources and so that area is also much less densely populated. Meanwhile, the Tri-State Area and greater Chicagoland while having four seasons weather have a lot of potential developable land and enough access to water resources to make it work. The problem with NYC's metropolitan area though is that as it expanded into more communities and across not just municipal and county lines, but state lines, it was unable to forge anything resembling a regional government or planning with any authority to it. I think in that sense, it's much more the political structure that's the advantage of Southern California in that there's a decent level of county level cooperation. I think the main advantages of all of that desert confers to the Los Angeles urban area is to give a loose boundary to sprawl in order to encourage some density in the basins and valley, some very scenic parts, and the potential for generating a whole lot of electricity.
Last edited by OyCrumbler; 02-28-2023 at 12:34 PM..
I'm not sure the raw physical geography makes sense as past the mountains is the actual desert which is the vast majority of the Inland Empire and that is strikingly hot and dry. In that sense, the Inland Empire in terms of the continuous urbanized area as an extension of LA's urban area is pretty much it as far as it goes right now and it'd be pretty unsustainable to have large populations past that point. Palm Springs for example is past that point for instance is generally even hotter than Phoenix throughout the year and substantially drier and with limited potable water sources and so that area is also much less densely populated. Meanwhile, the Tri-State Area and greater Chicagoland while having four seasons weather have a lot of potential developable land and enough access to water resources to make it work. The problem with NYC's metropolitan area though is that as it expanded into more communities and across not just municipal and county lines, but state lines, it was unable to forge anything resembling a regional government or planning with any authority to it. I think in that sense, it's much more the political structure that's the advantage of Southern California in that there's a decent level of county level cooperation. I think the main advantages of all of that desert confers to the Los Angeles urban area is to give a loose boundary to sprawl in order to encourage some density in the basins and valley, some very scenic parts, and the potential for generating a whole lot of electricity.
That's what I meant as far as the IE goes with the LA basin stopping short of the western section of the SB mountains. In a sense it is rather limited in sprawl to a point, and because of that it should in theory encourage high density development. This is only happening if engineers and the likes discover methods (or the will) to create a better form of moving the population around the region of LA, OC and IE.
I think the dry and hot aspect of the IE is rather over stated. I been to the other regions of the country (TX, FL, AZ, etc, etc) and it feels alot more hotter than I feel over here in the IE. Maybe the drier aspect helps with the intense heat but we've been getting a fair amount of rain lately, there's alot of greenery sprouting everywhere.
I just read the last section of your post, so yeah basically the limited geography could help encourage higher density. It's really the relatively milder climate of the entire region that will still be a drawl to a fair amount of people, not everyone ofcourse but alot. The tri state and Chicagoland area have virtually unlimited available land and that in terms could hinder it's effort to form a cohesive urban form. It would make people rather develop their own cities/towns like we see already with the vast majority of the country outside the southwest.
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.
