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.
Not many agreeing with you, Philly had a higher population a hundred years ago than it does now. Meanwhile Phoenix has grown 55 fold to surpass Philly in Population.
We’ll see how that changes in the future. I’ve been to Phoenix many times due to the fact that my wife was born there. My in-laws recently moved to Philly mostly to be closer to us, but they cited the upcoming water crisis as the motivating factor to start looking back East. I imagine that many people will be faced with a similar decision to make in the coming decades. What good is it to live in a sunny area if water is scarce?
I’m also fine with people not agreeing with me. I say this as someone who liked Phoenix better than I thought I would: no matter how much Phoenix grows, it will not be an impressive city unless it densifies. Phoenix’s growth numbers look impressive, until you realize that its city limits are nearly 4 times larger than Philadelphia’s. Visually, it’s hard to tell where Phoenix ends and Glendale begins (I know the border is 44th Avenue).
The Rust Belt cities between 1870 and 1940 grew quite a bit quicker than the Sunbelt cities from 1970 to 2020.
Detroit grew from 79,000 in 1870 to 1.6 million in 1940.
Chicago grew from 298,000 in 1870 to 3.3 million in 1940.
Cleveland grew from 92,000 to 878,000 in 1940.
I don't know of any major Sunbelt cities that have grown that fast a rate, minus the suburbs.
Birmingham is an interesting contender, in that it technically resides in the sunbelt but acts like a rustbelt city. It grew from 3,000 in 1880 (it wasn't found until 1871) to 260,000 in 1930, ultimately peaking at 340,000 in 1960.
No matter how many apartments sunbelt cities put up like Atlanta, Charlotte, Dallas, etc. they will never match the pre war urban development of cities like Chicago, Philly, NYC (not rust belt but you get my point), DC, Cincinnati, Minneapolis, etc.
No matter how many apartments sunbelt cities put up like Atlanta, Charlotte, Dallas, etc. they will never match the pre war urban development of cities like Chicago, Philly, NYC (not rust belt but you get my point), DC, Cincinnati, Minneapolis, etc.
I realize that in your mind, and indeed in the context of the overall narrative here on C-D, this is a "flex"...
But in the grand scheme of things to the majority of the population; it's a fairly moot point on what makes a desirable place to live.
No matter how many apartments sunbelt cities put up like Atlanta, Charlotte, Dallas, etc. they will never match the pre war urban development of cities like Chicago, Philly, NYC (not rust belt but you get my point), DC, Cincinnati, Minneapolis, etc.
Who said they want to match those.
Why would they strive to be like stagnant places?
They seem to be doing fine their way
We’ll see how that changes in the future. I’ve been to Phoenix many times due to the fact that my wife was born there. My in-laws recently moved to Philly mostly to be closer to us, but they cited the upcoming water crisis as the motivating factor to start looking back East. I imagine that many people will be faced with a similar decision to make in the coming decades. What good is it to live in a sunny area if water is scarce?
Phoenix is one of those places that, to me, represents all that's wrong with American excess and waste. It honestly makes me ill to see so much growth in a place where it NEVER should have happened. But I digress.
But to your point, you're correct. If everyone honestly believes the next 50 years are going to resemble the past 50 years in terms of growth trends--with unprecedented climate change, insane costs for building infrastructure, labor shortages, water shortages, housing that's as unaffordable as ever (especially in the Sun Belt)--they're in for a rude awakening.
Cities across the Rust Belt were built to handle populations at least 3 times what they sustain right now, yet here we are continuing to build unsustainably and idiotically like there's no tomorrow.
The obvious answer to our national "housing shortage" is right in front of us, and it's the Interior Northeast and Midwest. So many Americans are too dense to understand that right now, but they'll get it eventually.
It's definitely not a "moot point" to people who prefer traditional urbanism. They do certainly exist.
And sure, there are obviously plenty of people who could care less about traditional urbanism.
This is a classic example of the subjectivity of what makes cities "desirable." 100 people will prioritize things 100 different ways.
Which is why the poster said “majority of the population.” They seem to be right too, as more people are leaving traditional urban centers for sunbelt cities that are more suburban. You’re right that there are people who do care about an urban experience but that population seems to be far smaller than those who don’t as we can see from migration numbers.
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.
