Quote:
Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin
When growth is driven primarily by migration (as opposed to natural increase), the rate of growth is not compounded indefinitely. It's inherently going to slow as there are only so many prospective migrants available (in about 100 more years Texas' population will exceed that of the entirety of the US!) - as it already has since the 90s & 00s. And especially as boomers start to pass away in large numbers over the next few decades, we're going to see depressed growth rates across the board.
Cities also tend to reach a certain threshold where growth slows considerably. Once they reach a size where distances & congestion increases to the point where it's no longer feasible to commute from the outer edge of the city, land values rise, and the forces that have driven much of the growth in Texas (low cost of living), will start to reverse. Houston and Dallas are likely to experience the same thing as Los Angeles, which saw a skyrocketing population during the mid-century suburban boom since gradually slow down more and more as the place has increasingly filled up. Put simply, greenfield suburban growth is a lot easier than growth through intensification.
|
These are all really important points.
Another factor I have been mulling over: just how big can cities in the 21st century actually get in red states with anti-urban, anti-transit, small-gov, low-tax majorities in state Congresses? I’m seriously asking.
Or let’s flip this and say that were Dallas and Houston to actually pass Chicago in metro sizes and were Austin’s to reach 4-5 million, Texas would be California / New York blue.