What keeps Atlanta from reaching LA, Chicago, or NYC levels?

[cannedairspray]

Originally Posted by destroycreate

Explains a lot. A lot of people in the Bay Are have a completely pretentious, stereotyped and dated idea of Los Angeles.

I remain amazed at the un-incited aggressiveness of this forum. It's hilarious.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

So would it not be fair to say that cities like Chicago, whose population loss almost exactly matches household size losses, really only experienced a net loss of children during this time period?

Less children = less school expense; meanwhile the rise of the 2 person household = rising tax base.

What you say implies that only the child population in Chicago has decreased, and that the number of adults is the same. It might be true but I am skeptical without proof... Seems easy to verify though.

[Crawford]

I don't see what household size has to do with anything.

Overall population trends matter, not whether there are 2.1 or 2.3 people in a dwelling. Is a city "not really growing" if all the growth is due to larger household sizes? Sounds absurd.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by cannedairspray

I remain amazed at the un-incited aggressiveness of this forum. It's hilarious.

It does. The offline worlds of some of these folks on here must really suck.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

So would it not be fair to say that cities like Chicago, whose population loss almost exactly matches household size losses, really only experienced a net loss of children during this time period?

i don't think we can say it's 100% due to children, but the loss of children has to make makes up a big chunk of chicago's population decline over the past 7 decades.

i'm trying to change that. if only i were a younger man, we'd crank out a couple more

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by Crawford

I don't see what household size has to do with anything.

Overall population trends matter, not whether there are 2.1 or 2.3 people in a dwelling. Is a city "not really growing" if all the growth is due to larger household sizes? Sounds absurd.

How can an average reduction in household size not impact population?

[tdawg]

I'm kind of shocked this thread hasn't been shut down by now as a city vs city.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

How can an average reduction in household size not impact population?

But what is the point? Why does it matter?

It's like saying "City A doesn't really have population increase, it just has larger household sizes". I don't understand the relevance.

[ThePhun1]

Originally Posted by ITB495

By many standards, Atlanta isn't a world-class city, despite hosting the Olympics in 1996 and being the location of one of the world's principal airport hubs. Neither are most similarly sized U.S. cities, such as Portland, Minneapolis, Kansas City, Milwaukee, Baltimore or Indianapolis. It could be argued there are only four world-class cities in the United States: NYC, Los Angeles, Chicago, and Washington, DC (because it's the center of government). Others that may or may not be deemed worthy include San Francisco, Houston, Boston and Seattle. What do all these cities have in common? With the exception of LA and Houston, all have good population densities. And LA and Houston, despite their low density, possess very significant populations. Atlanta has neither the population nor the density.

Did you just compare Atlanta to Portland and Milwaukee? Those are all third-tier cities, Atlanta is a sure fire second-tier city. It's legitimately debatable whether it is a world class city or not.

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by destroycreate

Explains a lot. A lot of people in the Bay Are have a completely pretentious, stereotyped and dated idea of Los Angeles.

Sounds like some people outside the Bay Area have a view that I will refrain from calling pretentious and stereotyped of Bay Area citizens.

But the best way to get each part of the state up to speed on understanding of the rest is to make it easy and fast to travel from one to the other--something that right now is a boring, traffic-choked bit of misery (even if you fly because getting from LAX to where you want to go probably involves some time in gridlock too). That means build the HSR without further delay.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Crawford

But what is the point? Why does it matter?

It's like saying "City A doesn't really have population increase, it just has larger household sizes". I don't understand the relevance.

no one is saying that cities that have decreased in population primarily due to average household size decrease haven't lost population. they have. (duh....)

it's merely making the distinction that if a city's # of households stays consistent over 70 years while it loses 25% of it population, but the average household also decreases by 25% over that same 70 years, then the city hasn't really lost people because people have been "fleeing" the city, rather it's a natural outcome of the smaller household size.

cities that have been able to annex lots of land and/or that have added significant numbers of new housing units within city limits are the only ones that can "outgrow" the shrinking household size problem. mature, built-out cities that aren't able to annex new land and that are not seeing strong demand for new housing growth, will obviously fall on the other side of that equation.

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by ITB495

By many standards, Atlanta isn't a world-class city, despite hosting the Olympics in 1996 and being the location of one of the world's principal airport hubs. Neither are most similarly sized U.S. cities, such as Portland, Minneapolis, Kansas City, Milwaukee, Baltimore or Indianapolis. It could be argued there are only four world-class cities in the United States: NYC, Los Angeles, Chicago, and Washington, DC (because it's the center of government). Others that may or may not be deemed worthy include San Francisco, Houston, Boston and Seattle. What do all these cities have in common? With the exception of LA and Houston, all have good population densities. And LA and Houston, despite their low density, possess very significant populations. Atlanta has neither the population nor the density.

One measure today of a world city is a population greater than one million. There's other factors, of course, but the million number is a good yardstick. San Francisco and Seattle are on track to cross the threshold by 2030 or 2040. Boston, Washington, DC, and Portland are steadily growing as well, but it will take a concerted push if any of the three is to reach a million by 2060. Atlanta first needs to cross 500,000.

Population size or density don't determine whether a city is "world class". What does is whether it is known throughout the world and sought as a destination by foreigners.

These are the top US cities for foreign tourism (I tried to find a list that excluded places visited only for nearby theme parks not actually in the city or because they have giant hub airports through which visitors pass and don't stay but Orlando, Anaheim and the Grand Canyon are on this list anyway).


https://skift.com/2014/06/18/20-most-popular-u-s-cities-among-international-travelers-in-2013/

I could make a case from crossing Orange County and Orlando off the list because people go to those places to visit the Disney parks and in Orlando's case the park is well outside the city while most tourists visiting CA Disney don't even know what you mean if you say "Anaheim".

But I do think, regardless of density, Las Vegas, Honolulu and Miami (as well as San Francisco) are "world class cities". Another way to know is by the number of foreigners buying property there.

Have the Chinese and other foreign buyers found Atlanta and Houston yet? I don't know but IMHO you'll know they have become "world class" when that happens.

[ITB495]

Originally Posted by destroycreate

Explains a lot. A lot of people in the Bay Are have a completely pretentious, stereotyped and dated idea of Los Angeles.

Hmm ... seems a bit, ahem, strong.

What I didn't mention in my earlier post was my age or when I lived in the Bay Area. Perhaps it will give perspective. It was several decades ago. BART was under construction. When the first line finally opened, my parents would drive my middle brother and I to a station in the East Bay and we would zoom over to San Francisco and roam the city alone for an afternoon. To this day, I still remember our frustration at not being able to view the city from the Coit Tower observation deck. There was no attendant on duty, in fact, no one was around at all, and all doors inside the ground-floor rotunda appeared to be locked. So there we were, two kids with cameras, puzzled and pissed off.

Even as a young teen, I did sense some kind of ying-yang between the Bay Area and Los Angeles. It was just friendly ribbing, a poke here and there. Fifty years on, it's apparently a bit more touchy.

Unless an individual has personally visited a city, the perceptions one has of a city, say, NYC or Miami, is often formed through movies and TV. How many of you recall the show "L.A. Law" with Harry Hamlin and Susan Dey? Or "Miami Vice" or "The Streets of San Francisco" starring Michael Douglas and Karl Malden?

[JManc]

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

But I do think, regardless of density, Las Vegas, Honolulu and Miami (as well as San Francisco) are "world class cities". Another way to know is by the number of foreigners buying property there.

Have the Chinese and other foreign buyers found Atlanta and Houston yet? I don't know but IMHO you'll know they have become "world class" when that happens.

Vegas and Honolulu? World Class? No. Famous travel destinations. Yes. Vegas is Phoenix with Penn & Teller and Honolulu has chickens running all over the streets.

San Francisco, yes not because Lombard St and the trolleys are crammed with tourists because of it's economic importance. Miami? Only because of Crockett and Tubbs...

[the urban politician]

^ I was gonna say, Pedestrian's use of such criteria for world class is way problematic

[ITB495]

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

Population size or density don't determine whether a city is "world class". What does is whether it is known throughout the world and sought as a destination by foreigners.

These are the top US cities for foreign tourism (I tried to find a list that excluded places visited only for nearby theme parks not actually in the city or because they have giant hub airports through which visitors pass and don't stay but Orlando, Anaheim and the Grand Canyon are on this list anyway).

Well, the chart you posted above (excellent, by the way) confirms, to an extent, that population and population density does matter. Of the top 10 cities listed, seven can be considered dense by U.S. standards: NYC, Miami, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Washington, D.C., Chicago and Boston. The exceptions are Orlando, Las Vegas, Honolulu, each of which is a major tourist destination.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by ITB495

Of the top 10 cities listed, seven can be considered dense by U.S. standards: NYC, Miami, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Washington, D.C., Chicago and Boston. The exceptions are Orlando, Las Vegas, Honolulu, each of which is a major tourist destination.

by weighted metro area density (by far the most apples to apples density measurement we have) honolulu is an exceptionally dense city by US standards.

but yes, orlando and vegas are indeed a different kind of animal from the others.

[mhays]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

i don't follow.

since 1950, the average US household size has decreased from 3.37 to 2.53, or a change of -24.9%.

why would average household size have decreased even more in core cities?

I'm guessing that core cities have more singles and couples, and fewer families on average, vs. suburbs. And I'm guessing that this is more pronounced than in 1950 because core cities (the original ones at least) represent a smaller percentage of each metro.

[mhays]

Overseas visitation includes business travel too. And obviously direct air connections are a huge influence. It's not a perfect measure, though it's a good one.

PS, homering here...Seattle caught up to Philly on a more recent version.

[skyscraperpage17]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

It is the only American municipality to have done so. But it is not useful to put this into a global context since "Detroit" has not actually fallen below 1 million people. Detroit is an arbitrary political boundary.

Even by that measure, Detroit's population trends are still pretty abysmal having falling from the 4th largest metro area to now the 14th largest.