SkyscraperPage Forum

SkyscraperPage Forum (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/index.php)
-   City Discussions (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=24)
-   -   Stop with the dreams/conversation of Houston passing 20 million (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=240816)

ThePhun1 Oct 26, 2019 5:40 AM

Stop with the dreams/conversation of Houston passing 20 million
 
Population is such a girth measuring contest, do you think New York is worried about the international metros and municipalities that have passed it? If so, it's a big pile of "who cares?"

I hope that never happens in Houston. First, there's the very legit concern of logistics in evacuating people for hurricanes or the threat of massive casualties as people shelter in place for them. Second, no matter how much better it gets, Houston is not built to be a city that can easily accommodate so many more people unless the growth rate slows down.

I'd rather the city slow down and gradually build into a more mature, tighter and urban environment. There's a large enough base to build that. I personally hope the area maxes out at 10 million for various reasons. 12 million would be fine but I hope that come relatively no time soon. (I better be more than 100-years old e.g. 70 years from now).

DCReid Oct 26, 2019 1:02 PM

If LA didn't go past 20 million, no way TX metros will, at least not in this century. It will probably max out at 10-12 million. For your sake, hope that the transition to clean energy from oil doesn't occur too fast to make it economically depressed and stagnant like Detroit metro since the 70s and 80s.

Ant131531 Oct 26, 2019 1:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCReid (Post 8730028)
If LA didn't go past 20 million, no way TX metros will, at least not in this century. It will probably max out at 10-12 million. For your sake, hope that the transition to clean energy from oil doesn't occur too fast to make it economically depressed and stagnant like Detroit metro since the 70s and 80s.

Detroit's problem wasn't really the auto industry collapse, but white flight from the city core. The Detroit suburbs have always done well economically.

JManc Oct 26, 2019 3:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCReid (Post 8730028)
If LA didn't go past 20 million, no way TX metros will, at least not in this century. It will probably max out at 10-12 million. For your sake, hope that the transition to clean energy from oil doesn't occur too fast to make it economically depressed and stagnant like Detroit metro since the 70s and 80s.

Way ahead of you. Houston, the most industry specific of all TX metros, has been diversifying for a past few decades now. That's why we didn't turn into a scene from Mad Max during the recent collapse in oil prices. The Texas Medical Center is by far the biggest employer here.

iheartthed Oct 26, 2019 4:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ant131531 (Post 8730033)
Detroit's problem wasn't really the auto industry collapse, but white flight from the city core. The Detroit suburbs have always done well economically.

No, they haven't. Detroit's problem is both white flight (now just general flight) and economic stagnation.

Bailey Oct 26, 2019 4:10 PM

London and Paris once said the same thing about 'colonial' New York City and then watched NYC pass them in almost every measurable category a dominant Alpha City.

Will it happen someday...who knows?? But Houston is not land locked like the others and it is WAY further along than NYC was when it was only 183 years old!

JManc Oct 26, 2019 4:15 PM

New York and London are more or less equals. Well at least until Brexit sucks the life out of London but NYC exploded because it was the premier city of a rising economic superpower. The US is no longer developing and has long since stabilized which is why NYC has more or less remained stable in population. Same for London.

Bailey Oct 26, 2019 4:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JManc (Post 8730134)
New York and London are more or less equals. Well at least until Brexit sucks the life out of London but NYC exploded because it was the premier city of a rising economic superpower. The US is no longer developing and has long since stabilized which is why NYC has more or less remained stable in population. Same for London.


Exactly! But there was a time when London would have looked down at 183 year old Colonial New York City (circa 1807) as they thought there is NO WAY NYC will ever be our equal.

Well, it happened!

The North One Oct 26, 2019 4:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iheartthed (Post 8730126)
No, they haven't. Detroit's problem is both white flight (now just general flight) and economic stagnation.

Yeah keep pushing those lies. Oakland has been one of the wealthiest counties in the US for how long? lol.

I don't know if this forum's ability to turn absolutely every obscure topic into Detroit is impressive or just sad and pathetic.

iheartthed Oct 26, 2019 4:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The North One (Post 8730146)
Yeah keep pushing those lies. Oakland has been one of the wealthiest counties in the US for how long? lol.

I don't know if this forum's ability to turn absolutely every obscure topic into Detroit is impressive or just sad and pathetic.

It's not one of the wealthiest counties. But it once was and I'm old enough to remember that.

The North One Oct 26, 2019 4:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iheartthed (Post 8730149)
It's not one of the wealthiest counties. But it once was and I'm old enough to remember that.

https://media.giphy.com/media/aVBcwz1jd28A8/giphy.gif
https://giphy.com/gifs/juniel-aVBcwz1jd28A8

Docere Oct 26, 2019 6:09 PM

What about Jacksonville? Can we dream about that?

jd3189 Oct 26, 2019 7:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bailey (Post 8730130)
London and Paris once said the same thing about 'colonial' New York City and then watched NYC pass them in almost every measurable category a dominant Alpha City.

Will it happen someday...who knows?? But Houston is not land locked like the others and it is WAY further along than NYC was when it was only 183 years old!

That’s why I was always considering what could change if one of these became the largest. When you are large in population as a city, you hold more authority, more capita, more power. These things don’t matter as much now since we are more multi-nodal, but NYC being bigger than London and Paris was obviously a benefit that only increased its influence even if it wasn’t a national capital like the other two.


Throughout world history, the largest cities are usually the most powerful and influential of their territory, region, country, and even the world during their era.

LA21st Oct 26, 2019 8:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Docere (Post 8730216)
What about Jacksonville? Can we dream about that?

No. :)

Yuri Oct 26, 2019 9:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bailey (Post 8730140)
Exactly! But there was a time when London would have looked down at 183 year old Colonial New York City (circa 1807) as they thought there is NO WAY NYC will ever be our equal.

Well, it happened!

London’s comeback was also impressive. Up to the 1990’s no one would ever dream London would raise again to become New York’s equal on the next decade.

badrunner Oct 26, 2019 9:22 PM

Houston with 20+ million people sounds... unpleasant. Not sure why anyone would want that. It's not like it'll be Manhattan it'll just be 4000 square miles of suburbia.

urban_encounter Oct 26, 2019 9:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ThePhun1 (Post 8729949)
Population is such a girth measuring contest, do you think New York is worried about the international metros and municipalities that have passed it? If so, it's a big pile of "who cares?"


This may the most sensible post I've ever read on this forum and I’ve read more than a few.

I’m always amazed at people who seem to get inexplicable excited about exploding population growth; merging metro regions etc.... It boggles the mind.

I think we can all agree that there are tangible benefits to urbanization and densification and to a point, population migration and growth can help with that. But growth has to be planned and managed or it will just be a hellish place no matter where it is.

JAYNYC Oct 26, 2019 10:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JManc (Post 8730134)
New York and London are more or less equals.

Not the least bit true.

ThePhun1 Oct 26, 2019 11:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Docere (Post 8730216)
What about Jacksonville? Can we dream about that?

Hardy har, at least I'm strong enough to stand in when I have an unconventional view. Most people just run scared when people start laughing at them for something.

Most of my views on urbanity are quite conventional. I, for example, think NYC has the best skyline in the world. But most only remember me as the guy that likes Jacksonville's skyline more than most

ThePhun1 Oct 26, 2019 11:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by urban_encounter (Post 8730327)
This may the most sensible post I've ever read on this forum and I’ve read more than a few.

I’m always amazed at people who seem to get inexplicable excited about exploding population growth; merging metro regions etc.... It boggles the mind.

I think we can all agree that there are tangible benefits to urbanization and densification and to a point, population migration and growth can help with that. But growth has to be planned and managed or it will just be a hellish place no matter where it is.

At first it's fine but after a certain growth/saturation point, smart grow and maturity matter more. And really, any metro over 15 million is just too congested because of sheer volume.

We could see DFW do it comfortably though, they have two strong nobes and the potential for unchecked growth in all directions.


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:07 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.