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.
^^^ This. Cities with limited footprints and a propensity for less infill/more sprawl (and annexation) will see the large "growth" numbers.
I'm not understanding why cities with confined boundaries would sprawl and have less infill.....is that what you meant? Are you just assuming annexation is the cause for growth? Typically, smaller cities like Miami, DC, Minneapolis, SF, Denver, Seattle and even Atlanta have lots of infill because the desire of many people to live in a smaller/confined area creates infill and density, not sprawl. At least, no sprawl in the core. Or often times they'll both build up the core AND sprawl on the fringes (think Chicago or NYC).
Yes, but Charlotte and Austin have high percentage and raw growth even for large city limits.
Both Austin and Charlotte have enormous potential to grow within their limits given their physically large footprints alone. Of course, this depends on how any virgin land within their limits is developed and how they deal with infill opportunities. There's no reason why both can't reach a million within the next decade.
Both Austin and Charlotte have enormous potential to grow within their limits given their physically large footprints alone. Of course, this depends on how any virgin land within their limits is developed and how they deal with infill opportunities. There's no reason why both can't reach a million within the next decade.
Do you think the city could develop more sustainable (compact) than they could have if they had built out the core 100+ years ago like so many other (constrained) cities? I'm sincerely asking. I, for one, would doubt any attempts at urbanizing an area today could create a result that would have been more urban and compact than what you see in most older cities' cores. I know it's possible, but it seems unlikely, if for no other reason than because the streets would most likely not be built on a grid, which is the most efficient form of plotting land.
Continuous growths at peak rates is statistically unsustainable for every single city. Larger cities/metros with slowing growth rates yet significant absolute growth numbers are nothing to sneeze at.
Yes, but I'm not just referring to % growth, but absolute as well. For the vast majority of the South/West boom cities of recent decades, absolute growth is falling too. Part of this is, of course, that the 2000s were an economic disaster, which made it harder for people to move, but these slowing rates started before the 2000s, and long before the 2007-2010 recession.
None of the cities are growing at their peak rate anymore. Whether or not they continue to boom will depend on a number of factors, many of which they won't have too much control over. Depending on how far into the future we're talking about, sooner or later all the fastest-growing cities right now will not be booming anymore, and a few may even decline some. This is what happens to all groups of booming cities eventually. They all slow down, and another group rises up and booms instead. I would think another group is already getting started, probably in the mid-size metro group, and not all in the South, either.
I kind of agree with you. I think Texas being an entry point state for Latin immigrants will keep growth strong relative to the rest of the nation and yes I am aware that Texas has enjoyed even stronger net domestic migration growth.
I don't think that the boom areas of the last 3 decades can continue to depend on the draining of the rust belt or the Northeast for population growth either. I think the "rust" belt has bottomed out and is rebounding. I think Columbus, OH, Indianapolis.....and Grand Rapids will start to record 2% annual growth rates of their metros in a few years. These metros managed to grow even during the worst years for Great Lake States economically and was experiencing solid growth prior to the recession. You can add Ann Arbor to that list as well....even though it is really joined at the hip with Metro Detroit. Of those four, I see Grand Rapids as having the best chance of eking out a 3 percent annual growth rate within the next 10 years. Its already appearing on many top list for economic performance.
Does everyone realize that the list (link to Forbes) from the OP is not based on population growth alone but rather economic growth and population growth combined?
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.
