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.
Location: That star on your map in the middle of the East Coast, DMV
8,139 posts, read 7,601,151 times
Reputation: 5796
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by Losfrisco
It actually doesn't go to Las Vegas, and the overwhelming majority of those 18.5 million live within 60 miles of downtown Los Angeles.
One thing we know about DC/Baltimore is that they don't build skyscrapers, so that's one housing dimension they won't be competing in.
Finally, I just wanted to remark on how inspiring it is for a place to bank on the decline of other places for their "rise" to the number two spot (predicated on the stability of government employment).
Pretty certain over 100 years this can, and will change as demand for housing grows over that period.
Also, the majority of people don't live in "skyscrapers", especially not in LA. Much of the DC area is actually more "high rise" built than most metros in the country outside of NY/LA/Chicago, Miami. Baltimore, and it's immediate surroundings are much further behind, and could fit well over 1 million people in 80 sq mi. The city's urban bones/ structural density are top 10 still, but hey this is a thread about 100 years, and none of us will live to find out...
Last edited by the resident09; 09-17-2022 at 08:39 PM..
It actually doesn't go to Las Vegas, and the overwhelming majority of those 18.5 million live within 60 miles of downtown Los Angeles.
One thing we know about DC/Baltimore is that they don't build skyscrapers, so that's one housing dimension they won't be competing in.
Finally, I just wanted to remark on how inspiring it is for a place to bank on the decline of other places for their "rise" to the number two spot (predicated on the stability of government employment).
LA CSA absolutely goes to Las Vegas (technically Los Angeles CSA ends just 40 miles from the Vegas strip itself). San Bernardino and Riverside counties stretch all the way to Nevada/Arizona border. As I said, there is no more land/counties there to annex. The land area that can be included already was. This is in contrast to many other cities.
Also, no one is "banking on the decline". It is simply a statement of fact. The people who will be giving births in the 2040s have already been born, and that generation is small and won't be able to even replace the generations before it that will be dying off. Current United States TFR is 1.66 and still declining, while we need a TFR of 2.1 for the natural population to be stable.
One thing we know about DC/Baltimore is that they don't build skyscrapers, so that's one housing dimension they won't be competing in.
Huh? Have you been to Arlington VA lately?
As for DC proper - the height law will prevent skyscrapers but there are lots and lots of infill 10-15 stories building all over DC giving it quite a bit of urban density through a relatively large area.
As for Baltimore...lots of space to razed all those burn up rowhouses but there are only so much demands for taller residential towers right now. Who knows in 100 years, though...the Harbor area could be under water by then.
If we're only looking at population numbers, then it can happen if a city decides (and is legally allowed) to expand its borders like Jacksonville. Like if Houston was somehow able to absorb all of Harris County, then its population would be slightly larger than LA.
If we're only looking at population numbers, then it can happen if a city decides (and is legally allowed) to expand its borders like Jacksonville. Like if Houston was somehow able to absorb all of Harris County, then its population would be slightly larger than LA.
I think the question is about metro, not city.
LA county is twice the size of Harris so actually LA would not be dropping to 3, it would be bumping up to #1 by city limits if we absorb all of the county
Depending on your POV either Chicago or LA is in that spot right now. Could we see either them dethroned? At the rate Austin is growing could it continue to be the city of the 21st century?
Maybe Dallas. Real strong economy, warm weather, booming.
Houston is the #4 most populous city and set to pass #3 Chicago in the next decade, or two, and Houston has PLENTY of room to grow and become more dense- PLENTY OF ROOM.
For Metros, the #4 Dallas metro includes both Dallas and Ft. Worth but #5 Houston is carrying the population as a single city metro.
The Houston metro is projected to pass the 10 million mark by 2040.
To put it in perspective, Houston turns 200 years old in 2036 so they would have gone from zero to 10 million in just over 2 centuries.
Houston is the bigger more important city due to the port and international, medical and energy connections and will be #3 most populous city in the United States, sooner than later.
Dallas isn't even the #2 most populous city in Texas, San Antonio is.
Also, FIVE (#4, #7, #9, #11 & #13) of the 13 current most populous cities in the entire United States are located in the Texas triangle. That is quite a jump from a hundred years ago for those Five Texas cities .
What if the cities of the Texas Triangle start to overlap and morph into a giant 5 city dense mega-region similar to the North East?
I don't think Houston is going to pass Chicago. Only thing keeping the city in positive territory is births.
Chicago is static too, but the population difference is too great for Houston to match with its current lackluster growth. Outside the city limits is where all the growth is going right now.
Dallas is in the same boat. It's not catching up to San Antonio in my lifetime. It would probably be a safer bet that FW catches up to Dallas before Dallas catches San Antonio. There's nothing around San Antonio, it can annex up a storm.
Austin is hot on Dallas's heals too.
By metro you can forget about Houston catching up to DFW anytime soon. Dallas has lots of people around it to pull from. Much more domestic immigration possibilities. DFW is definitely going to catch Chicago before Houston does. Only thing that may slow DFW is if home prices don't come down.
As for the triangle, that is way too large, and compared to other megaregions it is not all that populated.
Houston is the #4 most populous city and set to pass #3 Chicago in the next decade, or two, and Houston has PLENTY of room to grow and become more dense- PLENTY OF ROOM.
For Metros, the #4 Dallas metro includes both Dallas and Ft. Worth but #5 Houston is carrying the population as a single city metro.
The Houston metro is projected to pass the 10 million mark by 2040.
To put it in perspective, Houston turns 200 years old in 2036 so they would have gone from zero to 10 million in just over 2 centuries.
Houston is the bigger more important city due to the port and international, medical and energy connections and will be #3 most populous city in the United States, sooner than later.
Dallas isn't even the #2 most populous city in Texas, San Antonio is.
Also, FIVE (#4, #7, #9, #11 & #13) of the 13 current most populous cities in the entire United States are located in the Texas triangle. That is quite a jump from a hundred years ago for those Five Texas cities .
What if the cities of the Texas Triangle start to overlap and morph into a giant 5 city dense mega-region similar to the North East?
Hey you never know. Could rival the NE corridor with Houston being NYC, Dallas as DC, San Antonio as Boston, etc.
I don't think Houston is going to pass Chicago. Only thing keeping the city in positive territory is births.
Chicago is static too, but the population difference is too great for Houston to match with its current lackluster growth. Outside the city limits is where all the growth is going right now.
Dallas is in the same boat. It's not catching up to San Antonio in my lifetime. It would probably be a safer bet that FW catches up to Dallas before Dallas catches San Antonio. There's nothing around San Antonio, it can annex up a storm.
Austin is hot on Dallas's heals too.
By metro you can forget about Houston catching up to DFW anytime soon. Dallas has lots of people around it to pull from. Much more domestic immigration possibilities. DFW is definitely going to catch Chicago before Houston does. Only thing that may slow DFW is if home prices don't come down.
As for the triangle, that is way too large, and compared to other megaregions it is not all that populated.
City of Houston can still expand technically by annexing areas like Cypress or Mission Bend. Whether that can happen is another question. Both are already ETJ of City of Houston but annexing them is another thing.
City of Dallas doesn't have any space left to expand, though, as pretty much all the adjacent area is already incorporated. City of Fort Worth can expand more but it would still be tough to catch up to City of Dallas.
The only expansion possibility for City of Austin are along 290, and it'll be a fight with City of Manor.
As for City of San Antonio, it already annex as much area as it could. The growth in that metro skewed north and City of SA can annex all those farmland towards the south and still not gain much population.
=====
Either way City Limit is totally arbitrary. Jacksonville area is definitely nowhere near 2x the size of Atlanta metro or Greater Boston, yet City of Jacksonville has 1.5x-2x the population of City of Atlanta and City of Boston.
=====
Metro area wise Chicago will be pass by DFW and Houston probably by 2040. It'll still be a long way before either pass Greater LA (not even counting Inland Empire, which will make things even more impossible) to be true #2, though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by H'ton
Houston is the #4 most populous city and set to pass #3 Chicago in the next decade, or two, and Houston has PLENTY of room to grow and become more dense- PLENTY OF ROOM.
For Metros, the #4 Dallas metro includes both Dallas and Ft. Worth but #5 Houston is carrying the population as a single city metro.
The Houston metro is projected to pass the 10 million mark by 2040.
To put it in perspective, Houston turns 200 years old in 2036 so they would have gone from zero to 10 million in just over 2 centuries.
Houston is the bigger more important city due to the port and international, medical and energy connections and will be #3 most populous city in the United States, sooner than later.
Dallas isn't even the #2 most populous city in Texas, San Antonio is.
Also, FIVE (#4, #7, #9, #11 & #13) of the 13 current most populous cities in the entire United States are located in the Texas triangle. That is quite a jump from a hundred years ago for those Five Texas cities .
What if the cities of the Texas Triangle start to overlap and morph into a giant 5 city dense mega-region similar to the North East?
It'll be nowhere near Northeast, period. Even I-35 corridor (San Antonio to DFW) has a long way to go. For that matter for all the growth of San Antonio and Austin, the two are still nowhere close to forming a single megaregion.
Not to mention, there's basically absolutely nothing inside the Texas Triangle. The only larger metro area is Aggieland (Bryan/College Station) and it's still only 250k peeps, smaller than even the like of Amarillo TX.
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.
