How much more can New York City grow?

[maru2501]

transit a key... not sure whether there's some practical limit where no one wants to live in a city where you have to wait two hours to eat at any restaurant

[jayden]

Originally Posted by dubu

it would be strange with one city in north america thats giant. then the rest are kinda big. unless the city was in the middle of north america with high speed rail going to it. like eight spoke train lines.

NYC has always been in another league compared to other cities in the US dating back at least to the mid 20th century. Thing is another cities continue to grow steadily, so does NYC. So It's gonna be almost impossible for any other major city to catch up.

[LA21st]

Originally Posted by jd3189

Have you guys ever seen Futurama? Or Coursant in Star Wars? New York isn’t done yet.

The Fifth Element was the craziest vision imo.

[dubu]

Originally Posted by jayden

NYC has always been in another league compared to other cities in the US dating back at least to the mid 20th century. Thing is another cities continue to grow steadily, so does NYC. So It's gonna be almost impossible for any other major city to catch up.

its a little different now because all the cities now need to maintain everything. if you build a whole new subway thats a double decker train or three decker then you wont need to fix the tunnels for a long time for new york. the other cities would be fixing there old system.

that would cost too much to rebuild a whole subway system though, you would need 20 boring machines probably

[chris08876]

Originally Posted by jayden

NYC has always been in another league compared to other cities in the US dating back at least to the mid 20th century. Thing is another cities continue to grow steadily, so does NYC. So It's gonna be almost impossible for any other major city to catch up.

In 2010, population stood at 8,175,133 million.

2014, it was 8,491,079.

The 1970's were a lost decade. The city shrunk by 10%.

The estimate for 2017 is 8,622,698, and this was back in 2017. A lot of changes in just 7-8 years. Not just population, but office stock and job counts.

Back in 2010, LIC was just crummy warehouses. Almost everything you see is new. DoBro was a fraction of its size. Midtown West ballooned as we all know.

I think when we ask the question of how much can it grow... it can keep on going and going.

A lot of folks want to live here, but cost of living is a big deterrent. If you build the housing, and make it affordable, the masses will come.

Likewise if you provide the business incentives, and aim to lower leasing space per sq-ft, the jobs will come.

We also have to look at NY's satellites. Jersey City took a complete 180 in transformation. New Rochelle is up and coming... and the next boom town, Newark, is starting to get its gears going.

I think when we look at growth, we have to look at its satellites. There is a lot of potential.

As the city becomes more multi-nodal, I hope the power/capital distribution leans towards the outer boroughs (outside Manhattan) and Essex/Hudson County.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by chris08876

In 2010, population stood at 8,175,133 million.

2014, it was 8,491,079.

The 1970's were a lost decade. The city shrunk by 10%.

The estimate for 2017 is 8,622,698, and this was back in 2017. A lot of changes in just 7-8 years. Not just population, but office stock and job counts.

Back in 2010, LIC was just crummy warehouses. Almost everything you see is new. DoBro was a fraction of its size. Midtown West ballooned as we all know.

I think when we ask the question of how much can it grow... it can keep on going and going.

A lot of folks want to live here, but cost of living is a big deterrent. If you build the housing, and make it affordable, the masses will come.

Likewise if you provide the business incentives, and aim to lower leasing space per sq-ft, the jobs will come.

We also have to look at NY's satellites. Jersey City took a complete 180 in transformation. New Rochelle is up and coming... and the next boom town, Newark, is starting to get its gears going.

I think when we look at growth, we have to look at its satellites. There is a lot of potential.

As the city becomes more multi-nodal, I hope the power/capital distribution leans towards the outer boroughs (outside Manhattan) and Essex/Hudson County.

Take those ACS estimates with a grain of salt. They overstated NYC's population last decade (along with a bunch of other cities), and I suspect they are again overstating it this decade.

[C.]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Take those ACS estimates with a grain of salt. They overstated NYC's population last decade (along with a bunch of other cities), and I suspect they are again overstating it this decade.

I would argue the ACS is more accurate and the actual census falls victim to an under count. Just wait to see how far off the numbers are if the Trump administration succeeds in including a question about immigration status on the census.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by CIA

I would argue the ACS is more accurate and the actual census falls victim to an under count. Just wait to see how far off the numbers are if the Trump administration succeeds in including a question about immigration status on the census.

That still doesn't mean the ACS is accurate.

[C.]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

That still doesn't mean the ACS is accurate.

ACS is more accurate than* the actual census.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by CIA

ACS is more accurate than* the actual census.

I doubt ACS was more accurate than the actual census in 2010.

[C.]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

I doubt ACS was more accurate than the actual census in 2010.

The census is forbidden from using statistical modifiers to address known under counts. It's strictly an enumeration. Someone from New York should know about the well documented under count in major cities, especially among the undocumented population.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by CIA

The census is forbidden from using statistical modifiers to address known under counts. It's strictly an enumeration. Someone from New York should know about the well documented under count in major cities, especially among the undocumented population.

If there was an undercount of certain classes then you would expect the variation between ACS to be consistent among places with similar demographics. It was not. Places like New York (very diverse), Chicago (very diverse), and Detroit (not diverse) each varied by roughly 200K between their 2009 ACS and 2010 decennial census. Philadelphia (not so diverse), on the other hand, was almost spot on between the 2009 ACS count (1.547M) and the 2010 decennial count (1.528M). Los Angeles (very diverse) was also fairly accurate.

[James Bond Agent 007]

[chris08876]

The best way to describe 2019 onward...





Just wait folks until more developments begin in Midtown East thanks to the rezoning there. 270 Park is a taste of whats to come.

A lot of companies are also seeking to upgrade, as has been the trend, from older office functionality to newer, Class-A space.

The super talls are just beginning!

Also, the Bronx... can't stress the Bronx enough. 2019 should bring us Hudson Yards Phase II, which has as much sq-ft as in Phase I.

The skyscrapers will continue to rise, and the show goes on!!!

[chris08876]

Originally Posted by CIA

The census is forbidden from using statistical modifiers to address known under counts. It's strictly an enumeration. Someone from New York should know about the well documented under count in major cities, especially among the undocumented population.

I agree. Some of the past census figures were severely under counted. So much that the mayor was like wtf. Some of the gains in Brooklyn alone were highly under counted, which was not based on reality.

I tend to go with the upper-limits of the population estimate, because the city is a lot higher than folks think. The undocumented pop alone is over 500k+.

NYC is also a sanctuary city.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

If there was an undercount of certain classes then you would expect the variation between ACS to be consistent among places with similar demographics. It was not. Places like New York (very diverse), Chicago (very diverse), and Detroit (not diverse) each varied by roughly 200K between their 2009 ACS and 2010 decennial census. Philadelphia (not so diverse), on the other hand, was almost spot on between the 2009 ACS count (1.547M) and the 2010 decennial count (1.528M). Los Angeles (very diverse) was also fairly accurate.

These cities are all highly distinct, though. "Very diverse" doesn't mean similar demographics. You could, for example, have an undercount among Hasidic Jews in NYC, or among Samoans in Long Beach. Cities are also highly variable re renter-owner, multifamily-SFH, college student population, expat population, prison population and the like.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by chris08876

The best way to describe 2019 onward...





Just wait folks until more developments begin in Midtown East thanks to the rezoning there. 270 Park is a taste of whats to come.

A lot of companies are also seeking to upgrade, as has been the trend, from older office functionality to newer, Class-A space.

The super talls are just beginning!

Also, the Bronx... can't stress the Bronx enough. 2019 should bring us Hudson Yards Phase II, which has as much sq-ft as in Phase I.

The skyscrapers will continue to rise, and the show goes on!!!

New York is becoming less New York...and a magnet for shitty skinny towers and pretentious transplants.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Crawford

These cities are all highly distinct, though. "Very diverse" doesn't mean similar demographics. You could, for example, have an undercount among Hasidic Jews in NYC, or among Samoans in Long Beach. Cities are also highly variable re renter-owner, multifamily-SFH, college student population, expat population, prison population and the like.

That could be true. But if there is an undercount of a certain class of people in a certain city then that's not a systematic undercount.

[mhays]

It can show the limitations of the system.

I've seen nothing to suggest that the counts are more accurate than the estimates.

[Imaus]

I disagree with the idea that Manhattan can't grow. Huge swathes are still three-to-six story townhouses which can be razed down for ten-story apartments. East Village, Chelsea, Hells Kitchen, even Midtown-by-the-Hudson above Hudson Yards.

9th, 10th, and 11th avenue from 45th to 100th or so seem to be stuck in a sort of 40's to 50's odd style that could be replaced by a hundred mid-rise apartments. The entire north side of Central Park as well may be the next shot for mid-rises and high-rises: there's even a nice little single story supermarket at 115th that could be replaced with little to no fuss IMO.

For the outer boroughs, it's much of what's been repeated here before: Midrises to replace Lowrises along with a huge expansion of the subway in those zones where tunneling might be 'easier' due to the lack of high-rises and skyscrapers. There are *golf courses* in this city that may very well be offered up for the plate by the mid-century.

NYC has a lot of potential to grow, it just needs a bit of a mind to develop beyond Midtown, LIC, Downtown Brooklyn and Downtown Manhattan. On a more optimistic note, if handled right, NYC can be a huge example on how to avert squeezing out the poor and middle class and prevent it from being solely the playground for the rich by mid-rising and subway expansion.