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.
It is only growing "disproportionate to its size" if you expect the densities to be similar in different areas. That's a strange assumption because cities attract people who prefer or tolerate living with less space in exchange for other benefits.
And the rate of growth in areas many here would consider the "fringe" was higher than in DC (3.7% in Loudoun vs. 2.1% in DC), which means that, at a minimum, we need to be clear about what the "fringe" is in a region with multiple employment centers.
Either way, the vast majority of the population growth in this region last year continued to occur outside DC, and the growth rate in DC last year was not the highest among local jurisdictions. These facts are every bit as true as noting that DC's growth rate last year was higher than the growth rate for the region as a whole or that DC may have gained more new residents than any other single local political jurisdiction.
Your last comment is really directed at Coldbliss, not me. I don't subscribe to the theory that adults only come here because they have nowhere else to look. I assume they make rational decisions that this is where they want to be.
No, I think you need to realize that political boundaries are arbitrary. They don't really mean anything. It's better to look at where growth is happening from a land perspective. The only way to get an apples to apples comparison which is what you're looking to get is to do it by land area and not political boundaries. So, let's take 500 mile's sq. for Loudon county and D.C.'s core and compare them to see the raw growth and rate of growth.
No, I think you need to realize that political boundaries are arbitrary. They don't really mean anything. It's better to look at where growth is happening from a land perspective. The only way to get an apples to apples comparison which is what you're looking to get is to do it by land area and not political boundaries. So, let's take 500 mile's sq. for Loudon county and D.C.'s core and compare them to see the raw growth and rate of growth.
I have no idea what you're trying to say here. Make a logical argument supported by actual statistics and we'll talk. So far what I've seen from you are misstatements, such as the claim that, because DC was the local political jurisdiction that added the most people in 2013, that proves that most people coming to the region want to live in DC "by a wide margin." In fact, most of the region's population growth continued to occur outside DC, for better or worse, including in suburbs that are over 30 miles away from DC proper.
Why does Coldbliss still hang on to this refuted argument that the only reason people move to DC is because they are "jobless and starving" and have no other choice? I already refuted this in an earlier thread. There are many other places with unemployment rates about as low as DC. But DC is growing faster than most because it has other benefits that attract the highly educated - not the desperate.
I have no idea what you're trying to say here. Make a logical argument supported by actual statistics and we'll talk. So far what I've seen from you are misstatements, such as the claim that, because DC was the local political jurisdiction that added the most people in 2013, that proves that most people coming to the region want to live in DC "by a wide margin." In fact, most of the region's population growth continued to occur outside DC, for better or worse, including in suburbs that are over 30 miles away from DC proper.
So, what you are saying is there is no gravitational pull happening when a large chunk of the population moves into .01% of the land in the region?
I have 10 trash commercial dumpsters and one small kitchen trash can all touching each other. They all make a circle. It begins to snow. What would the significance be if after it stopped snowing, measurements were taken of all 11 vessels (10 commercial dumpsters and 1 small kitchen trash can) and after ranking the 11 vessels from first to last on which collected the most snow, the small kitchen trash can came out first with the most snow?
I don't even know why I'm wasting my time with you. You sound ridicoulous. That fact that you don't realize how significant it is for any region in the whole world to absorb such a huge chunk of the total amount of growth in .01% of the land in the region tells me it's a waste of time to discuss this with you.
Last edited by MDAllstar; 03-30-2014 at 09:32 AM..
So, what you are saying is there would be a possibility that all growth (87,000 people) could move into .01% of the land in the region? Growth happens spread over an entire region.
I have 10 trash commercial dumpsters and one small kitchen trash can all touching each other. They all make a circle. It begins to snow. What would the significance be if after it stopped snowing, measurements were taken of all 11 vessels (10 commercial dumpsters and 1 small kitchen trash can) and after ranking the 11 vessels from first to last on which collected the most snow, the small kitchen trash can came out first with the most snow?
I don't even know why I'm wasting my time with you. You sound ridicoulous. That fact that you don't realize how significant it is for any region in the whole world to absorb such a huge chunk of the total amount of growth in .01% of the land in the region tells me it's a waste of time to discuss this with you.
In other words, your obsession with the significance of density per se has run its course. Fine with me if you want to reassess what, if any, points you actually want to make besides the fact that, after many decades of decline, DC is now attracting a healthier share of the region's growth. That is old news to anyone who has been watching the numbers over the past decade.
Meanwhile, most of the growth continues to occur outside the center cities. Population growth within some cities and suburban growth are not mutually exclusive, nor is only the former worthy of attention.
In other words, your obsession with the significance of density per se has run its course. Fine with me if you want to reassess what, if any, points you actually want to make besides the fact that, after many decades of decline, DC is now attracting a healthier share of the region's growth. That is old news to anyone who has been watching the numbers over the past decade.
Meanwhile, most of the growth continues to occur outside the center cities. Population growth within some cities and suburban growth are not mutually exclusive, nor is only the former worthy of attention.
The whole post is about a higher population absorption taking place in DC proper despite having a very small amount of land which is not likely nor probable, but is happening anyway. Did you even try to think about the snow example?
The whole post is about a higher population absorption taking place in DC proper despite having a very small amount of land which is not likely nor probable, but is happening anyway. Did you even try to think about the snow example?
I am not sure why population increases in DC to the 650,000 resident level are not probable, or should not be expected and encouraged, given that DC once had over 800,000 residents and is a major part of a large region that is experiencing substantial growth. It seems to me that it would unlikely or improbable if DC did not eventually start to capture a healthy share of the region's growth under such conditions, not the opposite.
None of that inconsistent with the observation that most of the population growth in the region took place outside of DC, or that one jurisdiction - Loudoun - had a growth rate in 2012 that was substantially higher than in DC. It does not suggest, however, that DC is where most people coming to the region want to be, regardless of the blizzard you've created in your mind (or the fantasy world where there is a crane on every corner).
Seriously, why don't you just post a picture of a new development contemplated for some place like Fort Totten, and then we can all just talk about how awesome it is?
Why is a suburbanite from Northern Virginia trying to downplay the importance of the fact that more people moved into a smaller land footprint in The District in 2013 vs. the exurban fringe? The District declined heartbreakingly for decades and is now growing very rapidly; that is reason for celebration. The same can be said for Philadelphia, Boston, New York City, and now even Pittsburgh, too, which took a much harder economic hit just a generation ago. In all of these areas both the cities AND suburbs/exurbs are growing again, but in most cases the city proper is growing at a more rapid pace than the suburban/exurban fringe when the population growth per square mile is considered. I suspect Cincinnati, St. Louis, Buffalo, and other "older" cities will be following suit in the 2020s.
A more poignant topic for discussion would be "is this sustainable?" A century ago people were flooding into cities. My own tenement neighborhood within walking distance of Downtown Pittsburgh typically housed 10 (or more) people in a three-floor home that may now house just 2 people in two different units. From the 1950s to the 1990s nearly every non-Sunbelt city proper in this country experienced rapid and massive population decline as the suburbs and exurbs sought to destroy cities like parasites with the allure of lower taxes, larger lot sizes, better public schools, and more square footage for a lower price point. Only really from around 2000 onwards have we been seeing this renewed interest in urban living in cities large and small. People NOW are valuing paying a pricing premium to be within walking distance of work, cultural venues, nightlife, restaurants, shopping, parks, libraries, movies, etc. in the cities.
Will cities become their own worst enemy at some point before too long when prices rise to the point where people flood back out in the 'burbs to find "affordable" housing? Considering NYC, one of the world's most expensive cities, has grown by nearly a half-million people just since 2010, I'm guessing that no matter the price point there will always be people willing to live with four roommates in a two-bedroom apartment while earning a $50,000 salary each in order to enjoy the urban experience.
I grew up watching sprawl ravage the natural beauty and tranquility of our countryside while older cities in my area collapsed in on themselves, so if the era of throwing away cities is FINALLY ebbing, then count me in as one of the happiest to see this occurring!
Why is a suburbanite from Northern Virginia trying to downplay the importance of the fact that more people moved into a smaller land footprint in The District in 2013 vs. the exurban fringe? The District declined heartbreakingly for decades and is now growing very rapidly; that is reason for celebration. The same can be said for Philadelphia, Boston, New York City, and now even Pittsburgh, too, which took a much harder economic hit just a generation ago. In all of these areas both the cities AND suburbs/exurbs are growing again, but in most cases the city proper is growing at a more rapid pace than the suburban/exurban fringe when the population growth per square mile is considered. I suspect Cincinnati, St. Louis, Buffalo, and other "older" cities will be following suit in the 2020s.
A more poignant topic for discussion would be "is this sustainable?" A century ago people were flooding into cities. My own tenement neighborhood within walking distance of Downtown Pittsburgh typically housed 10 (or more) people in a three-floor home that may now house just 2 people in two different units. From the 1950s to the 1990s nearly every non-Sunbelt city proper in this country experienced rapid and massive population decline as the suburbs and exurbs sought to destroy cities like parasites with the allure of lower taxes, larger lot sizes, better public schools, and more square footage for a lower price point. Only really from around 2000 onwards have we been seeing this renewed interest in urban living in cities large and small. People NOW are valuing paying a pricing premium to be within walking distance of work, cultural venues, nightlife, restaurants, shopping, parks, libraries, movies, etc. in the cities.
Will cities become their own worst enemy at some point before too long when prices rise to the point where people flood back out in the 'burbs to find "affordable" housing? Considering NYC, one of the world's most expensive cities, has grown by nearly a half-million people just since 2010, I'm guessing that no matter the price point there will always be people willing to live with four roommates in a two-bedroom apartment while earning a $50,000 salary each in order to enjoy the urban experience.
I grew up watching sprawl ravage the natural beauty and tranquility of our countryside while older cities in my area collapsed in on themselves, so if the era of throwing away cities is FINALLY ebbing, then count me in as one of the happiest to see this occurring!
There are major cultural problems America had that caused the massive white flight of suburbanization. African Americans were moving into the city and White people wanted a change to try this new lifestyle with the advent of the car. Paris, London, Madrid, Berlin, Moscow, Tokyo, Seoul, Beijing, and Hong Kong all have always been places where the city is expensive to live in. America is the only place where suburbs were more expensive than the city center. The suburbs are built out now so there is no more suburban expansion that could happen again. DC will be the center of the region and the most expensive part of the region forever. In fact, the inner suburbs are going to continue to urbanize.
I'm not interested in rehashing your intent in previously labeling people who live a certain distance from the center city as "fringe people," either, other than to note that unless smart-growth advocates develop more social skills to accompany their interest in sustainability, their calls for closer regional cooperation to address such topics may largely be relegated to Internet forums.
All I have done here was offering some additional factual statements about the recent Census data, which no one has contradicted, even if they have urged me to place them within a context they find comforting.
You sound like one of those desperate political hacks who takes one phrase out of context and tries to score cheap political points off it. We all know what I meant by fringe, considering I have family and friends living in the auburban fringe who are far from fringe people. I clearly meant the same thing everyone else means: the extreme outlying suburbs. So, you lost that battle.
Nevertheless, you posit it as an us versus them whereby some "smart growth advocate" must convince everyone else. In reality, thr reason growth rates have shifted is because, after witnessing the devastation sprawl unleashed nationwide, it's common sense for a significant portion of the population to stop supporting sprawl and start better utilizing what we have. That doesn't take cooperation; that's just shifting market demand. Sprawling suburbs are being outcompeted so many are transitioning into urban centers out of self interest.
This is true for everything from developments to Capital Bikeshare expanding to outlying suburbs. There's plenty of room in there for people who still want to depend on cars or people who want more space and a yard. It's not either / or.
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.
