What if New York never recovered?

[Will O' Wisp]

LA would be the nation's largest city, and its more prominent one. They were even predicting it at the time.

Outgrowing the Big Apple : L.A. Expected to Surpass N.Y. in Population by Year 2000, Study Says
By LEE MAY
Dec. 3, 1985
12 AM
Times Staff Writer
WASHINGTON —

By the year 2000, Los Angeles will top New York as the country’s most populous metropolitan region, according to new government projections released Monday. The projections also show that San Francisco is outdistancing the rest of the nation in personal income.

The projections, in a study by the Commerce Department’s Bureau of Economic Analysis, say that the population of the Los Angeles metropolitan area will grow to 8,870,000 by the turn of the century, and that San Francisco’s average personal income will reach $24,905.

“California’s lucky,” said George K. Downey, a regional economist at the Commerce Department bureau. “There are a few areas that aren’t.”

Some heavy industrial areas, including Cleveland, Pittsburgh and Detroit, are projected to lose populations by the year 2000 as the Sun Belt continues to attract jobs and people. And the report projects that Salt Lake City will have the lowest per capita income ($13,465) among the 15 areas that will fall below the national average of $15,740.

The report covers the period between 1983 and 2000 in the 55 largest metropolitan statistical areas--those whose populations are expected to exceed 1 million by the year 2000.

For purposes of the report, the metropolitan area is restricted to Los Angeles County, which is expected to grow 13.5% during the period, while New York’s population will rise only 1.7% to 8,433,000, almost half a million behind Los Angeles. Chicago is expected to hold on to its third-place ranking with slow growth, followed by Philadelphia and Detroit. Anaheim-Santa Ana’s population will grow 32.4% to 2,726,000, the report said. In the Commerce report, the New York metropolitan area is defined as Putnam, Westchester and Rockland counties as well as New York City. It does not include the Long Island suburbs.

But while Los Angeles will become the largest metropolitan area, the fastest-growing areas are expected to be West Palm Beach, Fla., 61.3%; Phoenix, 54.6%; Orlando, Fla., 50.5%, and Riverside-San Bernardino, 41.9%.

In line with its No. 1 population ranking, Los Angeles also will have the largest total personal income and number of jobs, the report said.

The leader in per capita income, however, will be San Francisco--58% above the projected national average of $15,740. The Bay Area will displace Bridgeport, Conn., which will fall to second place, the report said. Per capita income in Los Angeles will rise 27.4% to $17,087, and in Anaheim-Santa Ana it will increase 35.5% to $20,671.

[JManc]

That 1985 article pitted LA County against the 5 boroughs plus 3 Upstate counties; 10.1 million v. 10.03 million so they were right but using arbitrary constraints.

[Sun Belt]

Originally Posted by JManc

That 1985 article pitted LA County against the 5 boroughs plus 3 Upstate counties; 10.1 million v. 10.03 million so they were right but using arbitrary constraints.

Year 2000 Figures:

LA County: 9,519,338
NY Metro: 9,314,235

[Yeah 2000 figures for NY Metro as defined by the LA Times]:
NYC: 8,008,278
Putnam County: 95,745
Westchester County: 923,459
Rockland County: 286,753


So, "LA" did pass up "NY" and both areas grew faster than they predicted they would.

1983's prediction for the year 2000:
Los Angeles: 8,870,000
New York: 8,433,000

[pdxtex]

seems like rudy made modern nyc a success. why would it have failed???

[jd3189]

That article was misleading in saying LA would be the largest city. It would have been specifically the largest metro area.


Either way, it would be interesting if LA really became the largest city. It would have securely cemented California as the most populous and most dominant state in the Union ( in terms of having the position NY state had before it). It would have also further cemented the Sunbelt as the most economically important and desirable region in the country ( a title the Northeast and Midwest held on to securely not too long ago historically).


Essentially, it would have been the crowning
achievement of the American suburban lifestyle. But that's just my musings. This would be an interesting discussion.

[CaliNative]

Originally Posted by ThePhun1

What if New York never recovered under Giuliani? What if it had parralled Detroit's swoon?

Would LA or Chicago have taken over as the "It" city? Would the city suck but the suburbs be great? Or would the whole region decline? What would NYC be like today?

If NYC "never recovered" the middle class could still afford to live there. I was in NYC in the mid to late 1970s and apartments and houses were actually affordable in many sections. Archie and Edith Bunker lived pretty well on a blue collar salary in Queens, and Edith didn't have to work. The mid '70s NYC of Travis Bickle in Taxi Driver was gritty and crime ridden, but highly affordable even for a loser like Travis. And then the 1980s came along and things changed. The same thing happened in L.A. and S.F. as real estate prices outpaced wages. My parents bought a pretty nice house in the San Fernando Valley for $25,000 in 1971 (about their combined annual wages--both worked). Today that same house sells for almost $1 million, about 15 or 20 times an average family income. If we have a big deflation in real estate prices, it would be welcomed by potential buyers. Those who snapped up houses in Las Vegas after the 2008 real estate crash have made big bucks.

[Sun Belt]

^I suspect a lot of cities have inflated their population counts through questionable estimation methods in order to receive more federal funds.

I also suspect that quite a few of the new 'luxury condos' sit empty. Somebody owns it, but nobody lives in the unit. America is a safe haven to preserve wealth. Billions of dollars have come ashore, parked in American real estate.

[suburbanite]

Originally Posted by Sun Belt

I also suspect that quite a few of the new 'luxury condos' sit empty. Somebody owns it, but nobody lives in the unit. America is a safe haven to preserve wealth. Billions of dollars have come ashore, parked in American real estate.

In a very select few cities likely. I also would be surprised if empty ultra-luxury units made up more than a very small percentage of total residential square footage even in New York or San Fran. Miami could be the biggest culprit as a destination city with a high number of extremely expensive units without the ultra-high income jobs to match.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by jd3189

That article was misleading in saying LA would be the largest city. It would have been specifically the largest metro area.

No, it was misleading in that it wasn't comparing apples to apples. It was comparing a random slice of metro LA and a random slice of metro NY.

And actually the article was correct, but the conclusion is meaningless. It isn't exactly surprising that a county in Southern CA grew faster than NYC + three Hudson Valley counties (two of them rural and essentially off limits to development) during the last 35 years.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by CaliNative

If NYC "never recovered" the middle class could still afford to live there.

That makes zero sense, in that housing burden in the NYC metro has been flat over time. In other words, a median household in 1970 had about the same housing purchasing power as in 2019.

And housing valuation growth in the U.S. generally benefits households, as most households are already homeowners. All things equal, a middle class couple in 1970 California is much richer today than a middle class couple in 1970 Ohio today.

[sopas ej]

I remember articles like the one that Will O' Wisp posted, back when I was a teen. In 1985, aside from the Nightstalker/Richard Ramirez serial killings, Los Angeles and SoCal were still kind of basking in the afterglow of the very successful 1984 Summer Olympics, not only logistically successful, but the most profitable Olympics at the time (and even since?), and things were actually very optimistic around here. Yes, there were gang killings, but in 1985, they still tended to stay in their own neighborhoods. We had a strong manufacturing base, the aerospace industry, big trade with the Pacific Rim, especially with Japan. And of course Japan in the 1980s was considered a big economic miracle/Wunderkind.

So I can see why these kinds of predictions about LA would have been made back in the mid-1980s.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Will O' Wisp

Article quote:
"Chicago is expected to hold on to its third-place ranking with slow growth, followed by Philadelphia and Detroit."

Oh my, how times have changed.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by Crawford

That makes zero sense, in that housing burden in the NYC metro has been flat over time. In other words, a median household in 1970 had about the same housing purchasing power as in 2019.

And housing valuation growth in the U.S. generally benefits households, as most households are already homeowners. All things equal, a middle class couple in 1970 California is much richer today than a middle class couple in 1970 Ohio today.

On paper. Until you sell, all that wealth is tied up in the house. In reality, that CA couple probably has more or less the same buying power as the OH couple. Which is why a lot of these people are moving to places like AZ, NV and TX because they can cash in on all that equity and still buy a nice big house. As for New York, the property tax burden would have forced the Archie's and Edith's out their homes decades ago.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by JManc

OAs for New York, the property tax burden would have forced the Archie's and Edith's out their homes decades ago.

NYC has very low residential property taxes, much lower than Texas. Single family houses in NYC have crazy low property taxes.

It's actually scandalously low, and the city has been trying to fix the system for years. A Manhattan resident in a $1 million condo pays basically 3-4 times the property taxes as a Staten Island resident in a $1 million home.

NYC suburbs have crazy high property taxes, but they have lower valuations. That's why adjacent areas of Queens have much higher housing prices than Long Island, even though the LI communities are just as nice and generally have better schools. So Archie and Edith, if they were real, and still alive, would still be living in their homes, or would have cashed out and moved to Florida or North Carolina.

[JManc]

NYC must have a separate tax structure from the rest of the state then because it's really high in Upstate. My brother's house is worth less than a third of ours but pays over half of what we do in taxes.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by JManc

NYC must have a separate tax structure from the rest of the state then because it's really high in Upstate. My brother's house is worth less than a third of ours but pays over half of what we do in taxes.

Yes, NYS has very high residential property taxes, but NYC has quite low residential property taxes (but makes up for it with highest in the nation commercial property taxes and city income taxes).

I pay less in property taxes than my parents in Michigan, and my home is probably worth 4x as much. But they don't pay city income taxes.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Yes, NYS has very high residential property taxes, but NYC has quite low residential property taxes (but makes up for it with highest in the nation commercial property taxes and city income taxes).

I tend to forget that NYC acts like a state within a state; e.g, my birth certificate was issued by NYS but our marriage certificate was issued by NYC.

[The North One]

I guess you'll get your answer when sea level rise/climate change inevitably ruins the city and LA reigns #1.

[MonkeyRonin]

Originally Posted by The North One

I guess you'll get your answer when sea level rise/climate change inevitably ruins the city and LA reigns #1.

And sea level rise won't affect the also-coastal city of Los Angeles?

[The North One]

Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin

And sea level rise won't affect the also-coastal city of Los Angeles?

Not any time soon that would cripple the city at least, also no hurricanes. LA has a pretty high elevation for a coastal city, all the eastern coastal cities are basically right at sea level. I'm pretty sure even if all the ice in the world melted much of downtown LA would still be above water.