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 right. When I looked it up, I was in a rush and was looking at 1890-1910. NYC saw the population jump from 1.5 to 3.4 million (1.9 million from 1890-1900) 3.4 to 4.7 (1.3 million from 1900-1910) and 5.6 to 6.9 (1.3 million 1920-1930). That's a big population jump of 5.4 million in 40 years (just in the city).
I think what you stated was that these cities are going to encounter transit problems (something New York didn't have in place during its boom) among others. You said that they deserved to be talked about because they are growing faster than what is healthy for a city, yet New York City survived even though its growth (in the city alone) was astronomical when compared to recent cities' growth.
Interestingly, when transit came into play for New York, the city population (not the metro) growth actually declined (in percentage compared to previous decades). For some of these newer cities where population has grown tremendously as well, transit is what is bringing people back to the city core.
You're right. When I looked it up, I was in a rush and was looking at 1890-1910. NYC saw the population jump from 1.5 to 3.4 million (1.9 million from 1890-1900) 3.4 to 4.7 (1.3 million from 1900-1910) and 5.6 to 6.9 (1.3 million 1920-1930). That's a big population jump of 5.4 million in 40 years (just in the city).
I think what you stated was that these cities are going to encounter transit problems (something New York didn't have in place during its boom) among others. You said that they deserved to be talked about because they are growing faster than what is healthy for a city, yet New York City survived even though its growth (in the city alone) was astronomical when compared to recent cities' growth.
Interestingly, when transit came into play for New York, the city population (not the metro) growth actually declined. For some of these newer cities where population has grown tremendously as well, transit is what is bringing people back to the city core.
These cities will be fine.
These cities will be fine if the people making decisions about the city have common sense and make good decisions
I think it would have been hell living in NYC in 1900 with no public transportation. In 1900 the population was 3 Million
None of these cities have experienced "out of control" growth...they have all absorbed a huge number of new residents, and are still pleasant/liveable cities.
Take a look at some cities around the world that ARE experiencing explosive growth - so much growth that the city can't possibly provide jobs/housing/basic services to the residents: Lagos...Dar es Salaam...Kabul...Santa Cruz...Dhaka...Kinshasa...Delhi...Jakarta...etc. The U.S. cities in question are each growing at a rapid pace, but nowhere near the crazy pace of these and a hundred other world cities. We should worry when the numbers start to approach the population increases of cities in Africa and Asia.
The problem with the way American cities typically grow, and all those cities fit that mold, is that they grow business in the downtown area and grow residences further and further out. Their growth comes in a way that forces the next 1 million people to travel the same traffic paths at the same time of day as the people currently do. In other words, there is no nodal growth, there is predominantly sprawl. And cities end up doing that because they are so excited about the money that growth brings that they toss planning to the wind and revel in the financial winfall. Then the traffic headaches come and quality of life decreases. People spend more hours in traffic and fewer hours with their family. Stress increases.
Some cities have embraced nodal growth. Denver has built town centers all around its metro area and focused density around those centers. It has the downtown area as well as the Denver Tech Center, as well as Boulder, major sites of employment in different parts of the metro area. The Research Triangle Area in North Carolina is another example. Rather than have one city which continuosly spirals outward, the area has 3 main cities which each have their own character.
Cities with the smartest growth distribute traffic over various routes and in various directions at the same time. Cities with the most reckless growth are always the ones trying to stuff as many businesses as they can downtown and keeping the ever expanding suburbs for residential neighborhoods. That way everybody can drive on the same expressways in the same direction at the same time during rush hour.
The problem with the way American cities typically grow, and all those cities fit that mold, is that they grow business in the downtown area and grow residences further and further out. Their growth comes in a way that forces the next 1 million people to travel the same traffic paths at the same time of day as the people currently do. In other words, there is no nodal growth, there is predominantly sprawl. And cities end up doing that because they are so excited about the money that growth brings that they toss planning to the wind and revel in the financial winfall. Then the traffic headaches come and quality of life decreases. People spend more hours in traffic and fewer hours with their family. Stress increases.
Some cities have embraced nodal growth. Denver has built town centers all around its metro area and focused density around those centers. It has the downtown area as well as the Denver Tech Center, as well as Boulder, major sites of employment in different parts of the metro area. The Research Triangle Area in North Carolina is another example. Rather than have one city which continuosly spirals outward, the area has 3 main cities which each have their own character.
Cities with the smartest growth distribute traffic over various routes and in various directions at the same time. Cities with the most reckless growth are always the ones trying to stuff as many businesses as they can downtown and keeping the ever expanding suburbs for residential neighborhoods. That way everybody can drive on the same expressways in the same direction at the same time during rush hour.
This nodal growth occurs in Houston, Dallas, Atlanta and Phoenix. The downtown areas are the central business districts, but each one of these cities have several other business districts spread throughout the city area.
According to the US census, all of these metros have add one million people into their area, respectively. Which of these metros do you think are growing way too fast (Or can't handle the astronomical amount of growth)???
No such thing as growing too fast. People need to compete.
I dont think houston will have a problem with a growing population. Its already a large city (bigger than the others named on the poll) and has an ok trans system so far. I also agree with flyimetro, people need to compete, and almost every city wants more people
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.
