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.
What’s your point? That the inland empire is going to pass up New York? LMAO
Stick a fork in California. Don’t ever expect the growth you guys had in the 90s ever again. Only the exurbs are growing, the most far flung areas.
Yeah thats my point.
That a cluster of inland desert cities with low population density that have never lost population could surpass a cluster of northeast cities with high population density, a long history of population losses, and miserable weather for much of the year.
That is just complete conjecture though, but we will see what the massive subway expansion does to an already 10-20K ppsm density part of the city.
Something that always gets overlooked in all the "look how bad the once great California has gotten" genre of viral internet content is that the unknown, nondescript inland desert cities are some of the fastest growing places in the nation. San Bernardino and Rialto might not be everyone's cup of tea, but we're still waiting for a census period that they didn't post population gains in.
It's hard to find any city within the NYC MSA that hasn't posted significant population loss across multiple census periods.
Which cities? Riverside, San Bernardino, and Ontario all posted growth rates in 2010-2020 slower than the US average. The entire metro only grew slightly above the US average in that same period.
Which cities? Riverside, San Bernardino, and Ontario all posted growth rates in 2010-2020 slower than the US average. The entire metro only grew slightly above the US average in that same period.
Indio, Desert Hot Springs, to name a few.
The Inland Empire as a whole has gone from 2.6 million in 1990 to 4.6 million today.
The population growth will slow down considerably once the US enters natural population decline in about 10 years. Comparisons shouldn't be made with the past when US had rapid population growth nationwide.
If the birth rates do not change, I expect most cities to be close to their 2020 population by 2121, with population peaks somewhere in the 2060s-2070s due to immigration and urbanization. I expect all of the smaller cities in all regions to be dying by 2100 as well (a gigantic rust belt from Washington state to Florida), similar to what is happening in Japan, where only the big cities managing to stave off population decline by sucking out younger people from more rural/suburban areas. By the 2060s - 2070s once the millennials start dying off, the US should be losing an average of about a million people per year (and decline will be rapidly increasing as these cohorts get older), and all you guys are talking about 20% metro area growth or whatever lol.
NYC is the gateway to USA for the Europeans,just like San Fran to SE asians.
It is also the financial capital of USA,people from all over come to do business in NYC.
Cabbies will tell you why they sleep during the day and venture out in afternoon and work all night,clients who come to do business will wine and dine with NYC bankers after work,good tips !!
Cant think of any city on the East coast replacing NYC?
The only way I can see New York ever being eclipsed by another American city is in the event of a catastrophic natural disaster, like sudden rise in ocean levels due to the collapse of an Antarctic ice sheet, or a megatsunami caused by the Cumbre Vieja volcano in the Canary Islands.
In either case, the entire world economy would be destroyed and hundreds of millions of people would be displaced and/or die, so kind of pointless to even worry about.
What’s your point? That the inland empire is going to pass up New York? LMAO
Stick a fork in California. Don’t ever expect the growth you guys had in the 90s ever again. Only the exurbs are growing, the most far flung areas.
Quite a few forecasts actually have I.E. projected to grow to 3-5 million over the next few decades, and reach 7 million people by 2040.
Growth slowdown in California is the result of exploding housing prices from housing construction shortages (which, conveniently, is why most growth in Greater LA occurs in the I.E.), not because of a bad economic situation. In fact its the opposite: because for every 5 new jobs LA gained, it only built 1 new home in the 2010's (in contrast to NYC, which built 1 new home for every 2 new jobs). This mean's there's a massive quantity of demand of people who want to move to the Golden State, undercut only by the major undersupply of new homes to accommodate population growth, meaning the economic fundamentals that drive fast population growth still exist in California, they just haven't been acted on as much as they should have due to decades of increasing local zoning and housing restrictions.
That said, the state government is beginning to crack down more and more on local housing control, most notably through SB9, which legalizes duplexes across the state, SB330, which bans population and housing caps in major urban areas, and most importantly, RHNA requirements imposed on metropolitan areas. This last one particularly holds the potential to be quite potent: the state mandates that cities and counties must produce a zoning plan that might reasonably allow for X number of housing units to be built over an 8-year cycle. If the state deems the cities' RHNA plans insufficient, they can veto the city's plan, which suspends all city zoning laws until they can get a legally valid plan together, allowing developers to build any housing as long as it doesn't violate state laws. Greater LA, in particular, is being forced by the state to produce a zoning plan that realistically accommodates construction of 1.3 million new homes to be built by 2029 (new room for over 3 million people), with the City of LA having just passed a plan that zones for 250,000 new homes by 2023, and half a million new housing units by 2029.
Here's a few good explainers on the recent developments:
The crux is, I don't expect California to experience slow population growth indefinitely. Downward cycles don't last forever, and California's economic fundamentals far more resemble those of fast growing states than stagnant/declining Rust Belt states. The every-increasing momentum of the state's crackdown on the housing crisis leads me to expect a resurgence in growth for California again in the not-so-distant future.
But not over the last 5 or 6 years. I’m speaking recently. From 2016 to today, it’s been on a consistent population decline since then, year by year.
I feel like there's gonna be a mass exodus to inland cities once sea levels start rising. Cities like Minneapolis, Denver, St. Louis, etc might end up being some of the largest cities in the distant future.
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.
