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.
A lot of this is also driven by the fact we're using percentages. <Random City> can grow by 1,000,000 from 2,000,000 to 3,000,000 and we're seeing a 50% growth rate. If that same city then grows by another 1,000,000 people in the next decade, they're only seeing a 33% growth rate.
So yeah, the % is slowing down, but the sheer numbers of people aren't. I think it's quite healthy if some of these high rates are coming down to earth a little. Do we really want Dallas to go from 6,000,000 to 8,000,000 in just a decade or two? Once you're seeing large cities with very high % growth rates, you're going to see infrastructure being extremely stressed, lots of traffic, random growth patterns, etc.
I think it's good if these cities catch up with themselves a little as far as their vitality and livability, roads, water supplies - as opposed to just overflowing with a constant influx of hundreds of thousands of new residents. We're all obsessed with "the higher the growth the better" and being NUMBER ONE in growth, but ask anyone who goes through it for a prolonged amount of time, and most of them will be ready for a little break.
Unfortunately, I think many are wanting to see their cities rapidly increase in a very short amount of time. They don't understand that population alone doesn't make a city great.
San Fan, Seattle, Boston...all great cities.
I'm not saying that many of the sunbelt cities aren't great cities with great potential, I'm just saying that a select few only focus on how fast they can increase their population.
Really though, many of the sunbelt cities are in prime position to improve their infastructure, cultural ammenities, and public transport and truly become world class cities.
A cap in population is not necessarily a bad thing!
Might have something to do with the tens of thousands of illegals crossing over each day, which I think would be the case for any state with the misfortune of sharing such a large border with Mexico. But keep patting yourself on the back for the "growth" your state has supposedly achieved.
What a clueless individual! Maybe you are having a blonde monent! If they are illegal they don't count in the population! Texas has many of the fastest growing cities, and is the the state with the most F-500 companies. It probably has the strongest economy in the country. Most of the the TX cities are recession proof!
Unfortunately, I think many are wanting to see their cities rapidly increase in a very short amount of time. They don't understand that population alone doesn't make a city great.
San Fan, Seattle, Boston...all great cities.
It's certainly true that population isn't everything, but in the case of Boston and San Fran, you're dealing with two of the larger metro areas in the country (both in the top 15). The fact that the municipal boundaries make the center cities' population small isn't really that relevant. These places wouldn't have much of their density and excitement if they weren't the centers of a larger areas.
And to the people who are suprised about Florida.....
South Florida has grown exponentially for decades now. It has become very expensive to live there, the schools are very poor, the crime is very high AND you almost need to know fluent spanish just to get around many areas. Not suprising if the population has declined a little bit.
Miami-Dade is the epitome of that and look at the huge net gain it had. Palm Beach and Broward have lower crime rates and lower/similar Hispanic populations than Hillsborough or Orange which are still growing and also even Miami-Dade has a lower crime rate than Duval. Broward shrunk so much because it grew way too fast for itself to handle, used up all of it's developable land, and of course the cost of living. About the Spanish thing, I live in the city with the most Hispanics in Broward and it's actually an upper-middle end type area and I never have to use my Spanish skills or worry about getting robbed when I go outside. I think people left because it's vastly overpriced for what you get and the local economy is shedding jobs (yet the unemployment rate is low and poverty rates decreased, which probably means the unemployed are leaving). Palm Beach is probably stagnating for similar reasons, although not shrinking because independently wealthy retirees still keep on moving in and there is land to grow. Miami-Dade, Hillsborough, and Orange County are still growing quickly probably because they are still gaining jobs and (in Miami-Dade's case) are gaining immigrants. There otherwise aren't any real tangible quality of life benefits to Palm Beach or Broward except for the cost of living, everything else is the same or better.
Unfortunately, I think many are wanting to see their cities rapidly increase in a very short amount of time. They don't understand that population alone doesn't make a city great.
San Fan, Seattle, Boston...all great cities.
I'm not saying that many of the sunbelt cities aren't great cities with great potential, I'm just saying that a select few only focus on how fast they can increase their population.
Really though, many of the sunbelt cities are in prime position to improve their infastructure, cultural ammenities, and public transport and truly become world class cities.
A cap in population is not necessarily a bad thing!
It's certainly true that population isn't everything, but in the case of Boston and San Fran, you're dealing with two of the larger metro areas in the country (both in the top 15). The fact that the municipal boundaries make the center cities' population small isn't really that relevant. These places wouldn't have much of their density and excitement if they weren't the centers of a larger areas.
Yes they would. Both cities had density and excitement way before they had burgeoning suburbs.
What a clueless individual! Maybe you are having a blonde monent! If they are illegal they don't count in the population! Texas has many of the fastest growing cities, and is the the state with the most F-500 companies. It probably has the strongest economy in the country. Most of the the TX cities are recession proof!
Hmm, TX sure wasn't recession proof in the 80s, though. However, I assume the economy in the larger metros of the state has diversified rapidly since then.
What a clueless individual! Maybe you are having a blonde monent! If they are illegal they don't count in the population! Texas has many of the fastest growing cities, and is the the state with the most F-500 companies. It probably has the strongest economy in the country. Most of the the TX cities are recession proof!
Actually, illegal residents are counted in the US Census, which all types of population sources are based upon.
The U.S. Census Bureau has no process for determining whether residents of a household are in the country legally or illegally.
In fact, census employees are prohibited from asking such questions by several laws and privacy policies, according to Thomas Gryn, a statistician for the census bureau.
One policy states: "The census bureau does not ask about legal (migrant) status of respondents in any of its survey and census programs. ... Given the success of the Census 2000 in counting nearly every person residing in the United States, we expect that unauthorized migrants were included among people who indicated that the United States was their usual place of residence on the survey date."
In fact, many people are angry because places such as California, Texas and the other southwestern states have more Congressional votes and Federal money due to their inflated populations that include large amounts of illegals.
Last edited by tenken627; 05-08-2008 at 05:24 PM..
Location: from houstoner to bostoner to new yorker to new jerseyite ;)
4,084 posts, read 12,683,084 times
Reputation: 1974
Quote:
Originally Posted by Plains10
Hmm, TX sure wasn't recession proof in the 80s, though. However, I assume the economy in the larger metros of the state has diversified rapidly since then.
Actually, illegal residents are counted in the US Census, which all types of population sources are based upon.
The U.S. Census Bureau has no process for determining whether residents of a household are in the country legally or illegally.
In fact, census employees are prohibited from asking such questions by several laws and privacy policies, according to Thomas Gryn, a statistician for the census bureau.
One policy states: "The census bureau does not ask about legal (migrant) status of respondents in any of its survey and census programs. ... Given the success of the Census 2000 in counting nearly every person residing in the United States, we expect that unauthorized migrants were included among people who indicated that the United States was their usual place of residence on the survey date."
In fact, many people are angry because places such as California, Texas and the other southwestern states have more Congressional votes and Federal money due to their inflated populations that include large amounts of illegals.
Right, but a VAST majority of illegals aren't going to be sending census forms into the federal government! I know illegals from eastern Europe, and they certainly don't interact with the government. Maybe some will work with the census people, but most people will instinctively avoid any contact.
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.
