Come on guys, the thread was specifically considering LA if the growth conditions predicted in the 80s actually came to past. No offense to Houston, Dallas, or the other Texas cities, but if you want to talk about them, open up another thread about what if they became the largest cities in the US.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crawford
LA, for a while now, has had slow growth, and has detached from the Sunbelt model of growth. The fringe isn't growing much anymore. The Sunbelt boomed due to weather, low cost, govt. subsidy (esp. military) and Mexican immigration. Really only the weather is relevant to LA now. It has the same advantages (and disadvantages) of the high-cost slow-growth metros.
I think LA will continue to grow, but slowly, and doubt it will be the largest U.S. metro in the next century, if ever. LA is already freaking huge. 18-19 million people by CSA. I cannot imagine 30 million people in LA.
|
Again, I was talking mainly about the projections made in an article in the other thread. And also, the Inland Empire is still going rapidly. There is a lot of space in San Bernardino and Riverside counties. Not to mention, LA is still a low rise city that can always build up slowly and densify like any other US city right now.
And you never know. New York could stagnate, city and metro wise. And all it takes is LA annexing a few more towns.