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.
My conclusion based on the Baby Boomers coming into retirement age the answer is a big yes.
Masses have already headed towards tax friendly states such as Florida,Delaware and Pennsylvania.
Carolinas, Georgia,Tenessee, and other states not far behind are going to see a spike in the sales of
DEPENDS.....and Clap on Clap off Clappers ......ahahahaha.......
Yes because I think the number of people who will be allowed to/want to work from home will increase sharply post-COVID. Some people who are only in cities because that's where the jobs are will be able to move further away from urban areas.
The big cities could shrink a little, but the suburbs of those cities could thrive. As population increases, the people have to go somewhere.
And home is home no matter if it's a hell hole full of bad politicians, extremely high taxes and long commutes. People are often very hesitant to move to a place that's more livable.
Large cities and their suburbs will become almost unlivable in the coming decades, due to problems with energy and finance. In the year 2100, I predict Manhattan will have a population of about 100K. If you think that's impossible, remember that the ancient city of Rome declined from being the mega-city of the ancient world, witha population of 1M, to a town with a population of around 15K.
Large cities and their suburbs will become almost unlivable in the coming decades, due to problems with energy and finance. In the year 2100, I predict Manhattan will have a population of about 100K. If you think that's impossible, remember that the ancient city of Rome declined from being the mega-city of the ancient world, witha population of 1M, to a town with a population of around 15K.
Think again! The population of Manhattan will never decrease to 100,000 -barring a nuclear attack.
I think New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, and San Francisco will start losing people at a faster clip.
I think the suburbs will grow a bit faster, and some smaller towns and cities will absorb some of the once-city dwellers.
With the rise of more and more companies realizing the huge benefits of remote working, and the increasing risks of large city urban living, it will become less desirable to live in a mega city.
More and more families are going to see the value in having a bit of land for veggies and possibly animals.
Sounds a bit extreme, but I've spoken to at least 3 people since Wednesday of last week, who have said that exact thing. They all live in New York City and are getting the hell out asap. LOL They want green, space, lower cost and ability to grow gardens.
The urban areas are growing. The nation is increasingly urbanized and the smallest towns are fading out.
The major cities (which have firm boundaries and are mostly locked into place by other smaller urban communities) might see gradual declines as the housing stock ages and replacement residences are built in the suburban areas, or 'collar counties'. This is a long term process that has been going on for decades. But the metropolitan areas will continue to grow in surface area ... tearing up farmland in the margins ... and the only thing that will stop that is a further decline in the birth rate.
Think again! The population of Manhattan will never decrease to 100,000 -barring a nuclear attack.
When you study our energy predicament, EROEI and the thermodynamics of oil depletion, and how it relates to the financial system, such a depopulation is not at all farfetched. In short, we are moving towards a future of resource and capital scarcity. Big cities and suburbia will no longer be a viable living arrangement.
Nah, The only way our top 50 cities decline, is if U.S population growth declines even more than predicted.
Most of the inner cities, have been seeing a resurgence do to more and more buildings and households in city limits. Seattle has grown massively since 2010, and LA is gearing up on densifying as well, the main issue is that U.S as a whole is growing very very slowly, natural growth has been decreasing for a long time, average age has been going up so even less people have been moving less compared to previous decades. Also immigration has been reduced so all of the above has lead to generally less growth throughout the country, and it won't fair well for suburbs or cities.
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.
