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.
-Raleigh in ten years: Charlotte
-Raleigh in 20 years: Denver
As for Charlotte:
The Queen city will resemble Denver in 10 years and Seattle in 20 years
What current city will your city resemble in 10 years and 20 years?
Things to consider: Economy, population, urbanity, nightlife, art scene, etc.
While many parts of Raleigh and Charlotte already resemble each other due to their simultaneous explosions in population and geographic similarities, I doubt that this comment and thread is about the vast amounts of suburban developments that these two cities and others have experienced. Rather, I suspect that this thread is more about urban cores. That said, I disagree that Raleigh will look like present day Charlotte in the next ten year for the following reasons:
Nature of local economies. Charlotte and Raleigh have VERY different economies with respect to the types of employers: especially in their cores. Charlotte's core is primarily anchored by the banking industry while Raleigh is primarily anchored by state government. Even the secondary types of industry are different between two cities with Charlotte leaning toward bellweather industry and Raleigh more toward tech/start up. The physical brand expression through built environment is very different for financial institutions, government entities and the more collegial tech start ups, etc.
The aforementioned state government in Raleigh is the 500 lb gorrilla in the core of any state capital and negotiating development within a state capital core always means negotiating with people representing all of the people of the state. Big money and vision doesn't always trump bureaucracy.
Downtown Raleigh doesn't have and will not have an Interstate running through it or around it.
Raleigh's tightly controlled code sets a ceiling on building height at 500 feet and only in key areas, favoring midrise density for much of its core. This aligns with the sorts of industry that the city already attracts and is playing out as more urban village development than monumental skycapers. Most of the current development downtown is housing.
Charlotte's sports base is pro sports while Raleigh's is NCAA + NHL. The sports complex for Raleigh is away from the core. While that might change in decades to come, it won't happen in the next ten years.
Overall, Raleigh will not reach Charlotte's municipal population because it does not have any path available to more than doubling its current municipal boundary to match Charlotte's. While that will challenge the city to grab its share of the continued growth of the Triangle, the upside is that Raleigh's ambitions to grow will have to come from identifying more urban neighborhoods to develop as infill within its existing boundary.
I don't think LA will look like any other city in 10 years or 20 years. Maybe in 100 years it will looks something like today's Tokyo. But probably not.
Not sure what Metro Matt means by Houston having less suburbs than LA. Seems to me Houston is almost nothing but suburbs, while Los Angeles is just a huge metro area. I guess it has more suburbs than Houston, but so do the other cities that are bigger than it, NYC and Chicago. Houston wishes it had the urban qualities of the San Gabriel Valley. But in 20 years I could see Houston looking like late 20th century Los Angeles.
Interesting question, I don't think I have ever seen this type of question on this site.
Seattle is an interesting case study. The skyline is growing probably better than anywhere in the US right now, and adjacent Bellevue, (not in Seattle), is huge. So, I would go out on a limb and say Seattle could resemble current day Chicago, without the supertalls. The density is growing, and so far Chicago doesn't have a suburb that can match Bellevue with high-rises. So they are different animals, for sure. However, Seattle's density is filling in quickly. I come back to Chicago because they too have become more dense in the past couple of decades. Downtown living has grown in Chicago, and is growing in Seattle. Don't get me wrong, Chicago is obviously a much bigger city overall, but when looking at the CBD's and their biggest suburb, I will stand by this. BTW, Chicago is one of my favorite cities for density, it is definitely #2, but when this question was posed, I first thought of Seattle as an eventual cousin.
Houston already resembles multiple cities. The Heights, museum district, (Garden district) and the Strand (French Quarter) resemble New Orleans. Montrose area feels like Austin. Highland, Rice village and West grey area looks like L.A with all them palm trees and 50's style shopping centers . Downtown and midtown can pass for NYC or Chicago. Clear lake area reminds me of a Tampa. Southwest Asia town area feels like you're in Orange County.
From a vitality and livability standpoint, I believe Midtown/Downtown Atlanta could resemble core areas of Seattle.
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.
But in 20 years I could see Houston looking like late 20th century Los Angeles.
