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.
Good to see some fresh figures on this, if they are indeed fresh, I can't really tell. Philadelphia seems to lose a bunch in ranking, and Atlanta, Phoenix, and Las Vegas seem to gain. But I wonder, was this estimate made before the foreclosure crisis? If so, Phoenix and Vegas may not do so well. Or, maybe they will if buyers bombard those markets looking for bargains.
I think the projections are off for several cities, Durham, N.C. (low), San Antonio (low), Jacksonville, Fl (High), Las Vegas (high), Beaumont, TX (low), Sacramento, Ca (high), and New Orleans (low) to name a few. My reasoning, for a few follow:
1. Durham, N.C. Raleigh, N.C., the number one growth area, is partially in Durham County. Durham experiences moderate growth, over 15 years, while Raleigh explodes, due to their proximity I just do not see it. 2. San Antonio San Antonio has the lowest unemployment of any major Texas metro. The BRAC, River North, Rackspace, UTSA and Texas A&M San Antonio, and the city’s financial, cyber security and biomedical sectors are a few strong points for San Antonio. The Proximity to Austin, the number 5 growth area, should also help San Antonio. 3. Beaumont, TX This area is adding new refineries and expanding older ones, meaning more jobs. It is very close to Houston, another high growth area, yet it is projected to lose 9% of its population.
Oh, I will take the over-under here. If the poster is from Seattle, he probably, (most likely) does not want another million in his metro. I will disagree. As a Seattle native, the reason why Seattle has grown into an international city is becuase it has attracted others from around the US, and the World for that matter. There still is a minority who want to put up the fence, but they don't understand that their livlihoods are dependent on people moving to the area, increasing commece, and increasing their quality of life. These isolationists are just plain wrong, and if they had their way, Seattle would become a backwater city within the next decade. Wake up, Seattle. You are a major city. You need investment from outside of your provincial backyard. Dont like it? Move to Spokane or Boise.
I was a bit surprised that they only thought Houma, Louisiana would only add 5,000 people over 20 years. Unless they are predicting exaclty when oil will run out....because right now, Houma is on fire with growth.
Also, their predictions for New Orleans are odd. Katrina took about 200,000 out of the metro area...but as we can see now, they are trickling back in--one by one. I don't see New Orleans having negative growth for a good while after Katrina. It may not reach the pre-Katrina number, but it certainly will not continue to shrink.
It predicts that Baton Rouge, my metro, will add 210,000 new residents. I certainly hope they calculated this one correctly. That would put us 56,000 shy of the one million mark. I can see the festivities already. Maybe by 2030. Of course, I won't be able to enjoy it. I'll be 84 by then.
I wonder if this was done before or after the big housing fiasco? And if that even has a long term impact?
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.
