is the future of america in texas?

[UrbanImpact]

Originally Posted by pj3000

Without a car, this is a form of prison.

It's gets even worse if you zoom out (Cape Coral, FL)....

[38 Geary]

Yikes. That's like a city the size of SF but all SFHs in corn maze configuration.

[iheartthed]

I think American development patterns are mostly the result of government policies and mandates.

[dimondpark]

they were channeling their inner Tenochtitlan



https://www.heritagedaily.com/2023/09/aztec-capital-of-tenochtitlan-re-created-in-3d/148567

[jbermingham123]

Originally Posted by dimondpark

I think it matters more to people as they get older, get married and start families.

Which means that cities are NOT doing enough by way of building to keep families----I would love to find a condo with 4-5 bedrooms designed for families, they were plentiful in Sao Paulo, in very nice areas of town, but in the US, they are hard to come by for the most part, and then there's the issue of prices in that size range, always way too expensive for most families----but I digress.

Maybe Miami will build highrise homes that families can live in?

Ah this is true... but ironically, the problem is still the undersupply of small apartments. In most US cities, the original bulk of the housing supply was single family homes and multi-room apartments.

But for decades now, the discrepancy between housing supply and demand has been severe enough that it makes more sense for developers and building owners to split up their properties into as many small apartments as possible. So the number of SFHs and large apartments in the city limits of most cities has been shrinking.

The building im living in currently in seattle is 110 years old. It used to be a 2600 square-foot single family home, and now consists of 5 apartments: 2 with 400 sqft, and 3 with 600 sqft. The landlord brings in $6000 a month from this building.

There is no chance in hell that a typical family could afford $6000 a month. If they could, they certainly wouldnt live in this neighborhood. Also, why pay rent that expensive, ever? $6000 a month is enough for a mortgage.

Its a vicious cycle with 5 stages:
1. demand for small apartments goes up
2. supply of homes/large apartments goes down (as they get converted)
3. price of the fewer remaing homes/large apartments goes up
4. family formation slows down or moves elsewhere
5. young and/or single people increase as a percentage of the area's population
1. demand for small apartments goes up

[JManc]

Originally Posted by pj3000

Without a car, this is a form of prison.

It's great if you got a boat though.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by UrbanImpact

You can be in an urban environment in a 1 or 2 story home, doesn't need to be 30 story building.

Functional urbanism is hard to do exclusively with detached SFH's with yards.

The math just doesn't add up.

Especially with today's small average household size.


The typical American suburban default is the age old 1/4 acre lot (~70'x150').

At scale, that's 4 units per acre x 480 acres (640 acres per sq. mile minus 25% for streets) = 1,920 housing units per sq. mile.

1,920 housing units x 2.6 average household size = 4,492 ppsm

Even if we halfed that lot size to a more old school, long and skinny streetcar suburbia lot at 35'x150' (~1/8 acre), that would still only add up to 9,982 ppsm.

And these are all idealized figures, in the real world they would all be lower.


The general rule of thumb we've long used on SSP is that functional urbanism doesn't really become likely until you're around the 20,000 ppsm threshold, which is why you only find real functional urbanism in areas with a high degree of MFH (or those super-tightly packed old school philly-style rowhouse neighborhoods).

Streetcar suburbia levels of population density are certainly a notch above conventional suburbia in terms of walkability, but when every household in a given area demands their own separate house on its own separate lot with its own yard, things simply get pulled too far apart for functional urbanism to exist at any kind of scale.

[UrbanImpact]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

Functional urbanism is hard to do exclusively with detached SFH's with yards.

The math just doesn't add up.

Especially with today's small average household size.


The typical American suburban default is the age old 1/4 acre lot (~70'x150').

At scale, that's 4 units per acre x 480 acres (640 acres per sq. mile minus 25% for streets) = 1,920 housing units per sq. mile.

1,920 housing units x 2.6 average household size = 4,492 ppsm

Even if we halfed that lot size to a more old school, long and skinny streetcar suburbia lot at 35'x150' (~1/8 acre), that would still only add up to 9,982 ppsm.

And these are all idealized figures, in the real world they would all be lower.


The general rule of thumb we've long used on SSP is that functional urbanism doesn't really become likely until you're around the 20,000 ppsm threshold, which is why you only find real functional urbanism in areas with a high degree of MFH (or those super-tightly packed old school philly-style rowhouse neighborhoods).

Streetcar suburbia levels of population density are certainly a notch above conventional suburbia in terms of walkability, but when every household in a given area demands their own separate house on its own separate lot with its own yard, things simply get pulled too far apart for functional urbanism to exist at any kind of scale.

Agreed, I guess I should have worded it as semi-urban.

[DCReid]

Originally Posted by UrbanImpact

Agreed, I guess I should have worded it as semi-urban.

What is functional urbanism? I would think that it is possible to, but unlikely, to have functional urbanism with SFH, especially if the key corridors (major city streets) have adequate retail, the city blocks are not too long, and the SFH lots are narrow. I would argue that even a high density area with lots of persons per sq mile is not functional urbanism if there is a lack of adequate retail and commercial entities close by, like within a 1/4 of a mile.

[Dariusb]

Originally Posted by mrnyc

don't mess with texas lol ... pretty bold ... and kinda funny to imagine ... moving company guesstimates here --




Is the future of America in Texas? Dallas, Houston and Austin are poised to replace New York City, Los Angeles and Chicago as the largest cities in the US ... but not for another 77 years

Texas' population expected to reach 96 million by 2100-- making it largest in US
Dallas expected to be home to 34 million by the turn of the century

New York City, Los Angeles will see major declines, falling to #5 and #7 largest cities

By MARYANN MARTINEZ, TEXAS BUREAU CHIEF FOR DAILYMAIL.COM
PUBLISHED: 06:59 EDT, 22 October 2023 | UPDATED: 14:08 EDT, 22 October 2023


It's a new world and Texas will be at the center of it, as the Lone Star State is expected to become the most populous in the US by 2100 with a whooping 96 million residents, according to a study.

In 77 years, New York, Chicago and LA will be replaced by Texas cities as the largest in the nation, a study from moveBuddha claims.

The moving company made the bold projections by applying 2010-2020 Census growth rates to the top U.S. metropolitan areas.


more:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/texas/a...Chicago-largest-cities-not-77-years.html

I think Texas could be the most populous state in 77 years but those city population predictions are just ridiculous in my opinion. Anything could happen in such a long period of time. California or New York could have another boom so these predictions are really tricky.

[JManc]

Houston with 32 million people would be hell on earth. Glad I would be long dead.

[Dariusb]

Originally Posted by galleyfox

The numbers are complete and utter nonsense if that makes you feel better.

No, you can’t extrapolate a few years growth out forever with no regard for birth rates, infrastructure and resources.

The totals don’t even come close to matching up with the actual projected population of the U.S. in 2100 which is about 390 to 400 million

Originally Posted by JManc

Houston with 32 million people would be hell on earth. Glad I would be long dead.

I-10 or I-35 would be a 24 hour parking lot.

[Dariusb]

Originally Posted by galleyfox

The numbers are complete and utter nonsense if that makes you feel better.

No, you can’t extrapolate a few years growth out forever with no regard for birth rates, infrastructure and resources.

The totals don’t even come close to matching up with the actual projected population of the U.S. in 2100 which is about 390 to 400 million

In your opinion what do you think the more accurate predictions for Dallas or Houston would be relative to the 400 million US population prediction?

[galleyfox]

Originally Posted by Dariusb

In your opinion what do you think the more accurate predictions for Dallas or Houston would be relative to the 400 million US population prediction?

The Dallas and Houston MSAs are already slowing down faster than LA at comparable decades.

So 12 million-ish is a fair guess. 15 million if things go perfect for a century.

There would need to be massive infrastructure changes to physically support more population beyond that point. And both those cities still have the birth rate decline looming in their future.

LA MSA

1900 250,187 —
1910 648,316 159.1%
1920 1,150,252 77.4%
1930 2,597,066 125.8%
1940 3,252,720 25.2%
1950 4,934,246 51.7%
1960 7,751,616 57.1%
1970 9,981,942 28.8%
1980 11,497,486 15.2%
1990 14,531,529 26.4%
2000 16,373,645 12.7%
2010 17,877,006 9.2%
2020 18,644,680. 4.3%

Dallas MSA

1980 2,974,805 —
1990 3,885,415 30.6%
2000 5,221,801 34.4%
2010 6,426,214 23.1%
2020 7,637,387 18.8%

Houston MSA

1980 2,905,353
1990 3,301,937 13.7%
2000 4,177,646 26.5%
2010 5,920,416 41.7%
2020 7,122,240 20.3%

[xzmattzx]

I've never seen anyone put a comma in a year before

[Obadno]

As usual this forum is full of delusion and solipsism. You guys like urbanism. Most people don't. the average American literally wants a single-family suburban home. The majority of people in America live in suburban environments.

People will pay a premium and reduce their standard of living for very desirable areas but as definition desirable areas are a small percentage of the overall population and housing stock.

A few million people live in dense Manhattan. Cool a few hundred million don't.

Don't know why this is controversial. its simply reality.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Obadno

The majority of people in America live in suburban environments.

And the majority of suburban environments in America suck.

Don't know why this is controversial. its simply reality.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by UrbanImpact

Agreed, I guess I should have worded it as semi-urban.

Yes, that's a good way to put it.

I grew up in a 7,000 ppsm tract in pre-war suburban Chicago.

I now live in a 26,000 ppsm tract in a Chicago neighborhood.

The former wasn't bad from a walkability standpoint (meaning literally the ability to walk around), but the number of things to actually walk to from my current home is an order of magnitude higher.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Obadno

As usual this forum is full of delusion and solipsism. You guys like urbanism. Most people don't. the average American literally wants a single-family suburban home. The majority of people in America live in suburban environments.

People will pay a premium and reduce their standard of living for very desirable areas but as definition desirable areas are a small percentage of the overall population and housing stock.

A few million people live in dense Manhattan. Cool a few hundred million don't.

Don't know why this is controversial. its simply reality.

The point is that Manhattan is expensive because people will pay a premium to live in an urban environment like Manhattan. The minute Phoenix's prices increases beyond bargain shopper range the whole thing will collapse.

[Obadno]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

The point is that Manhattan is expensive because people will pay a premium to live in an urban environment like Manhattan. The minute Phoenix's prices increases beyond bargain shopper range the whole thing will collapse.

Your prediction is already wrong on that front. . Again, people aren't living in Ohio and San Jose and Utah and Denver because they are just dying to make it to Manhattan someday. Some are, mostly kids that transitorily flow in and out of NYC between 18-35, the vast majority do not. If they did Manhattan would be even MORE expensive and even MORE densely populated.