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.
The more the better. I personally prefer large cities, and having visited or lived in the largest cities in the world I never found any that had "too many" people. In fact, I'd prefer a much bigger city than NYC/Seoul/Tokyo, in the first world with all the proper infrastructure and amenities, but alas it doesn't exist. A 100 million Tokyo would be very cool, with so much to see and do. It would have niche and specialized everything. Just imagine 10x Yamanote loop-type areas in one city. That kind of city would be big enough to noticeably propel our entire civilization forward with its economy and innovation.
I think Texas, would honestly look pretty good at 54,000,000 people. I would double the size of a lot of smaller cities especially in the flatter areas to fill up the space.
Dallas- 12,500,000
All of the South Dallas counties would gain population and Colin and Denton would fill out, but at least 2,000,000 in Dallas and Fort Worth themselves as well as Denton, Las Colinas, McKinney and other downtown areas. 2.5 million of new growth largely in the Southern and Eastern/Western Counties.
Houston- 12,000,000
Inner Loop swellls to 1,000,000 which is pretty nice number I think that’s atttainable. Galveston is revitalized and sits at 200,000 people.
Fort Bend, Galveston, Montgomery and Brazoria fill out. new growth in Waller, Chambers, Liberty counties.
San Antonio- 5,800,000
Largely infill but want more suburban growth in Seguin area as well as New Braunfels doubling/tripling in population especially downtown. I would also want the suburban counties to the north to fill out a bit. Most of this growth would be in the city and Southern Bexar county
Austin- 5,300,000
I would want San Marcos-Buda at over 500,000 people probably 600,000 with San Marcos’s core being as dense as West Campus at least. Lockhart starts to get filled out, as well. Williamson County gets major infill. Development out to Marbel Falls, Johnson City, Burnet. Mostly along the existing highway or rail out there, to get more urban points in the hills. Massive growth in the eastern portions of the city. Especially Elgin and Manor which start to get bustling downtowns. Central Austin sees infill in the way of apartments and stuff but because it’s a wealthier area more of it is preserved than Dallas, San Antonio or Houston. Georgetown, Round Rock, Leander all have powerhouse residential downtowns with Downtown populations 10,000+, and a few midrises but mostly packed in townhomes and the like.
McAllen/Brownsvillle- these areas connect and add 1,000,000, people to be a border metro of roughly 2.5 million, I think besides infilling between Brownsville and McAllen most of the growth is in the existing cities
El Paso- 1.5 million, entirely infill maybe a little growth down some highways to fill out the metro.
Corpus Christi- 1,000,000 mostly infill but growth to fill out the other side of the bay and on Padre Island, as well as towards Kingsville maybe even incorporate Kingsville into
The MSA
Killeen-Temple- 1.5 million people. About 500,000 largely in Killeen and Temple’s city as well as between them and around the lakes. 500,000 in the southern county to become far northern Austin.
Beaumont-Port Arthur- 800,000 it’s generally as big as it needs to be just more infill and connecting development, maybe minor spillover from Houston would bump it to 800,000
Lubbock- 1,000,000 people almost entirely infill but also feeling out it’s Loop a bit more suburban development away from the SW.
Laredo- 600,000 of just infill. A little more development east away from the border and south.
Amarillo- 500,000 fill out the loop and infill.
Waco- 600,000 mostly infill but growth out towards Gatesville and place like thst to connect Waco-San Antonio into one big area with extensive rail.
CStat- 700,000 hella infill in between CS and Bryan and development towards Harris County/Houston that might connect.
Tyler-Longview-Marshall- 1,400,000 hellla infill between the three cities but downtown developments as well.
Abiliene- 450,000
San Angelo- 250,000 all infill
Victoria- 200,000 infill
Sherman-Denison- 400,000 and sort of Dallas
Midland-Odessa- 700,000 people infill in between and just needs a larger city out here
Wichita Fall- 250,000 largely infill
1,00,000 to random towns around the state all in downtowns basically revitalizing them or doubling their population. Including 300,000 along the Dallas-Houston corridor.
Texas would go from the 30th densest state to the 22nd between Indiana and North Carolina which I think Indiana is pretty empty but North Carolina seems pretty filled out, maybe because of the natural environment concentrates cities away from the coast and mountains.
Last edited by NigerianNightmare; 07-15-2022 at 11:23 AM..
Canadian metros all have greenbelts, even older cities like Montreal. From the Quebec/Vermont border until just a few miles shy of the Champlain Bridge its solid farmland. Similar to the approach into Vancouver coming through the farms in Delta, BC on BC Hwy 99. This is due to Canada having such minimal arable land as a whole, so the suburbs are denser and farmland is valued and protected since they don't have an abundant supply of land that can be farmed.
There were two primary reasons that the Agricultural Land Reserve was created in BC in the early 1970's.
As you mention, to protect farmland, or land that could be used as farmland in the future. The other reason was to encourage family farms, either new ones, or maintaining the existing ones.
"Bill 42 – Land Commission Act passed April 18, 1973;
o Objectives “to preserve agricultural land for farm use and to encourage the establishment and maintenance of family farms”
o Secondary objectives to preserve greenbelt land in and around urban areas, to preserve land bank land for urban and industrial development and to preserve parkland for recreational use. Only in the case of agricultural lands, however, was Land Commission granted zoning power; for other objectives, had to purchase the land in order to preserve."
I would like to see Illinois have 18 million, but I would want the new population spread across the state a little, not just all of it to the state's northeast corner, which is holding two-thirds of the total population within only 4,000 sq. miles. Peoria and/or Springfield having 300k in proper and 1-1.3 million in the metro would look awesome.
944,127 would be perfect. That was the population in 1080 before the great migration which has harmed the state.
And hey, I'd be happy to send one million Californians back for Logicist027 to make him happy,. Win win. That would get Idaho population back around 980,000 for me and increase the population of California by another million and that would make him happy. I'd call that good.
DC could, of course, easily housea million residents. Indeed, my preferred urban densities are considerably higher, and would mean over 1.5 million residents.
As for California... Singapore is a racially diverse, famously safe city-state that has exceptional quality of life (2nd most livable city in Asia and more livable than anywhere in California, per EIU) and what might be surprising environmental credentials: its land is nearly half green space, its per-capita CO2 emissions are half as high as the US despite a GDP per capita (at PPP) nearly 2X higher, and is self-sufficient in water.
At Singapore densities, and without paving over a single additional square inch of California countryside or wildlands, you could fit...
- 11M people into the San Francisco urbanized area
- 15.4M people into the San Diego UA
- 53M residents into the Los Angeles - Riverside - San Clemente - Thousand Oaks UA
No living human being has any right to complain that other human beings are intrinsically a problem.
Massachusetts is very expensive to live in and I think that's a huge reason why the population here grows so slowly. Honestly though?... I'm in the minority but I don't want to be jam packed in, in the Greater Boston area than what already is. I know most posters here want everywhere to be huge cities, everyone jam packed in, but that's not really my ideal.
A Massachusetts with infrastructure that isn't literally on fire and crumbling and one with satellite cities like Fitchburg, Lawrence, Brockton, etc. at capacity with modern infill and no empty lots or abandoned buildings could comfortably fit at least 9 million probably. Add at least another mil if the West ever got its act together (e.g. Springfield, Chicopee, Holyoke).
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.
