15 Largest Cities by 2046?

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Metro level, yes, Sun Belt cities probably have higher crime rates, and maybe even higher rates of poverty. But I think the observation is an indicator that declining metros have a tendency to silo off their poverty to the central city.

These are metro numbers. The crappy parts of Orlando aren't gonna be less poor or dangerous than the crappy parts of Cleveland.

I don't think it's obviously true that outer sprawl Sunbelt has a higher share of poor than outer sprawl Rustbelt, but in any case, these are the aggregate metro numbers. It shouldn't make a difference either way. And Sunbelt metros are like 90% postwar sprawl, so I think it would be hard to separate the apples-apples urban vs. suburban comparisons.

I'd agree that there might be a perception that somewhere like Cleveland might be poorer or more dangerous than somewhere like Orlando, but it isn't reflected in reality. Usually sprawly, transient areas like Vegas or Orlando have significantly higher crime than rusty places like Pittsburgh or Cleveland.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Right, but it has nothing to do with what we're discussing. Orlando isn't faster growing than Pittsburgh because Pittsburgh is poorer, more violent or more dangerous.

If anything, Sunbelt metros tend to have somewhat higher crime and poverty rates than the older Northeastern/Midwestern metros. The average household moving from, say, Cleveland to Charlotte isn't moving to a safer environment.

Yeah, I wasn't agreeing with the overall premise that crime is the sole or even primary driver of population loss, but it is one of the myriad push-pull factors that causes people to move around. The city of chicago's black middle class has been decimated by black flight, and crime is a big driver of that particular shift. I mean, if you were raising your family in Englewood and had the means to get out, I have to imagine that you probably would.

Now, because we're talking MSA, these crime-flighters tend not to move the needle immensely because they most often just end up in the burbs, so zero sum at the metro level.

In chicago's case (and some other metros), there does seem to be an increased pattern of black middle class flighters leaving the metro area altogether. Is crime the primary driver of that, my hunch is no, but it's pretty hard to pin down. It is an ingredient though.

[Crawford]

I'm pretty sure Chicago metro has well-below-average crime rates overall. So it's unlikely that crime is a major factor in Chicago's (relative) stagnation.

And even lower crime metros, like Boston and NY, have similarly slow growth rates, and have very high rates of outmigration, especially among African Americans, suggesting that crime isn't a primary factor in the slow growth.

Atlanta and Charlotte are known as major destinations for AA's from the northern metros, but both metros have higher crime rates than the northern metros with high outmigration. Vegas receives huge immigration from LA but Vegas has much higher crime rates than LA.

[JManc]

Southern and sunbelt metros tend to be more transient; more people moving in and out thus magnets for crime and criminals. Houston is credited for our healthy economy and booming population but we have some of the worst crime rates in the country.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Crawford

These are metro numbers. The crappy parts of Orlando aren't gonna be less poor or dangerous than the crappy parts of Cleveland.

I don't think it's obviously true that outer sprawl Sunbelt has a higher share of poor than outer sprawl Rustbelt, but in any case, these are the aggregate metro numbers. It shouldn't make a difference either way. And Sunbelt metros are like 90% postwar sprawl, so I think it would be hard to separate the apples-apples urban vs. suburban comparisons.

I'd agree that there might be a perception that somewhere like Cleveland might be poorer or more dangerous than somewhere like Orlando, but it isn't reflected in reality. Usually sprawly, transient areas like Vegas or Orlando have significantly higher crime than rusty places like Pittsburgh or Cleveland.

I'm not saying that the perception of crime is a motivating factor for people choosing to live in Sun Belt cities. I'm just pointing out that there probably is a correlation between central city crime rate and regional decline because Rust Belt metros tend to segregate socioeconomically along municipal boundary lines. A municipality like Houston will have the equivalent of tony upper class suburbs and impoverished lower class neighborhoods under the same city government. That is not so much the case in Detroit or Cleveland.

[pdxtex]

L.A. will be Americas biggest city by then followed by NYC and then Dallas.

[pj3000]

I don’t think that crime causes population decline of metro areas.

People fleeing actual or perceived inner city crime, when they able to do so, are much more likely to relocate to a lower crime area of the same metro. We’ve seen this for a long time.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by pdxtex

L.A. will be Americas biggest city by then followed by NYC and then Dallas.

If LA is the nation's biggest city in 25 years, something insane will have happened in the interim. Like an asteroid hit NYC, or LA decided to morph into Hong Kong Island.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Crawford

I'm pretty sure Chicago metro has well-below-average crime rates overall. So it's unlikely that crime is a major factor in Chicago's (relative) stagnation.

I don't know where chicagoland's overall crime rate stands vs. the national average, but when it comes to gun violence specifically, I believe we're ahead on that specific metric, and gun violence is the most scary type of crime that might actually influence a given individual's decision about where (or more likely where not) to live.

I would agree that gun violence isn't the primary factor in chicagoland's population stagnation, but it does play a small role in two ways:

First, because we always lead the nation in total shootings and homicides (and because right wing media and the former president love to shit all over chicago for it every chance they get) it does give the city a very big black eye in the national conscience, to the point where it probably does dissuade a certain percentage of people from ever even considering a move to the windy city in the first place. Chicago is not alone here, Detroit, St. Louis, and others also have similarly tarnished national images because of their extremely high rates of gun violence.

Second, chicago's gun violence is very highly concentrated within the world of the city's notorious black street gangs, and I've read enough articles about middle class black families leaving the Chicago area altogether to get their young black sons as far away as possible from the siren song of the street gangs to believe that chicago's gun violence does play some role in some black families' decision to not just leave the city, but to leave chicagoland altogether. Is it the primary driver? No, not by a long shot, but it's still there among the myriad different push-pull factors leading people through the chicagoland exit doors.

Chicago's extreme levels of gun violence take a HUGE toll on this city, and indeed even upon our metro area. From the thousands upon thousands of lives prematurely ended or forever altered (through injury and/or incarceration), to the trauma that ripples out to the families, friends, and neighbors of that first group, to the neighborhoods hollowed out by those fleeing the flying bullets, to the economic devastation wreaked when neighborhoods sink down into the poverty/violence/abandonment black hole, to the massive black eye the city must shamefully and deservedly wear for being one of the most, if not THE most, violent cities in the developed world, and so on.

[SIGSEGV]

A small effect that only makes a difference in growth at the margins, but I imagine refugee numbers are going to sharply increase soon.

[CaliNative]

Water shortages and stifling summers are going to reduce future growth in the southwest and sea level rise will imperil growth in coastal cities. Perhaps inland cities with reliable fresh water will start to grow again. Dare I say Chicago, Cleveland, Detroit, Buffalo?

[SIGSEGV]

Originally Posted by CaliNative

Water shortages and stifling summers are going to reduce future growth in the southwest and sea level rise will imperil growth in coastal cities. Perhaps inland cities with reliable fresh water will start to grow again. Dare I say Chicago, Cleveland, Detroit, Buffalo?

of course rising levels in the great lakes (from more precipitation) are potentially a concern too, although it seems like the dynamics of great lakes water levels are poorly understood. theoretically it should be possible to increase the water flow, but that's probably easier said than done...

From https://physicstoday.scitation.org/d...1063/PT.3.4589

[mrnyc]

Originally Posted by pj3000

Dell came along much later.

The "stage was set" much earlier back in the years after WWII. The "tech" sector in Texas (and other places) initially stems mainly from military base presence and defense contracting, and Texas from WWII on is huge for that.

UT took over the Balcones applied research facilities (where I worked for a short time) from the federal govt. and began all their work in defense contracts for R&D in radar, sonar, guided-missile systems, etc. Tracor was founded there... one of the early military electronics companies in the US.

State and local officials built on the industry to keep UT expertise there and to attract newcomers to work in electronics manufacturing and engineering. It was a concerted state and industry effort to build the electronics industry in Austin.

Then IBM came in the 1960s, then Texas Instruments, then Westinghouse and Motorola in the 1970s, then Lockheed and especially MCC (one of the main computer electronics industry R&D groups of all time) in the 1980s. Then Sematech came and Austin became the center of semiconductor manufacturing. Federal money poured in and Houston and Dallas money did too, so more money could be made on all that govt money, which would then make more money to make more money with.

Are we getting it yet? Are we starting to understand that Austin has been one of the main "tech" cities for a long time now?

I lived in Texas for a bit under 4 years, and often worked at UT in Austin. The history of the tech industry there was not hard to come by. It's not a mystery.

i know, but i wasnt referring to austin being a tech center. i was referring to it being a boomtown. that didnt start until the dell era.

[mrnyc]

Originally Posted by pj3000

I'm not sure I would call it 'solidly' rebounding though. All 3 cities are attracting population, but not yet at the necessary levels to stem the losses from deaths and emigration. As a group, they are likely the oldest three metros in the US, in terms of % of residents 65+ and median age.

i saw pitts and buf are 33 and cle is 36, but all well under the usa ave of 38.

as you might expect, i saw collegetown areas were the youngest at 24 and multiple areas of florida are the oldest.

its kinda interesting. low 30s seems to be the healthiest age median for a city or metro. i never really thought about it to much before poking around about it.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by SIGSEGV

of course rising levels in the great lakes (from more precipitation) are potentially a concern too, although it seems like the dynamics of great lakes water levels are poorly understood. theoretically it should be possible to increase the water flow, but that's probably easier said than done...

Yeah, it is a poorly understood system, and global warming brings two potentially off-setting macro-changes changes.

Most of the water that leaves the great lakes watershed does so through evaporation, not flowing out into the atlantic down the st. Lawrence. So understanding how evaporation in the great lakes works is key. Most models show global warming bringing increased precipitation and temps to our region. More rain could mean higher lake levels, but higher temps could also mean less winter ice and warmer water temps, which could lead to more evaporation, and hence lower lake levels.

No one has a clear picture of how all of this might shake out.

[pj3000]

Originally Posted by mrnyc

i saw pitts and buf are 33 and cle is 36, but all well under the usa ave of 38.

as you might expect, i saw collegetown areas were the youngest at 24 and multiple areas of florida are the oldest.

its kinda interesting. low 30s seems to be the healthiest age median for a city or metro. i never really thought about it to much before poking around about it.

I think Buffalo, Cleveland, and Pittsburgh MSAs' median age are all 40+

And I think all three are near 20% 65+

[pj3000]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

Yeah, it is a poorly understood system, and global warming brings two potentially off-setting macro-changes changes.

Most of the water that leaves the great lakes watershed does so through evaporation, not flowing out into the atlantic down the st. Lawrence. So understanding how evaporation in the great lakes works is key. Most models show global warming bringing increased precipitation and temps to our region. More rain could mean higher lake levels, but higher temps could also mean less winter ice and warmer water temps, which could lead to more evaporation, and hence lower lake levels.

No one has a clear picture of how all of this might shake out.

I'm sure you're well aware, but I'll point it out since it's a less-considered potential effect of warming trends.

The less/lack of winter ice factor is becoming a big problem for erosion of the shorelines of the Lakes. Many areas are taking major beatings from wave action driven by winter storms, which otherwise wouldn't happen due to being iced over. It's normal to have a sporadic warm winter where the Lakes won't freeze over (particularly along the shorelines), but when the non-freezing over events become an annual occurence, then it becomes quite damaging. The economic effects resulting from infrastructure damage along the shorelines are staggering... potentially hundreds of trillions of dollars in direct costs.

[skysoar]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Right, but it has nothing to do with what we're discussing. Orlando isn't faster growing than Pittsburgh because Pittsburgh is poorer, more violent or more dangerous.

If anything, Sunbelt metros tend to have somewhat higher crime and poverty rates than the older Northeastern/Midwestern metros. The average household moving from, say, Cleveland to Charlotte isn't moving to a safer environment.

And excellent point. I believe one of the main reasons for the Black exodus in Chicago has been what is being called a herd mentality. You hear over and over again how terrible the city is and how much better it is somewhere else, especially daily by the media, and others. What happens afterwards is some believe it to be true, even though they have never been victimized themselves, only to escape to many of these Sunbelt cities and then find many of the same crime related environments they thought they left behind. I hear from them often. And what is not reported is that many Blacks who have left Chicago have kept their homes there, these are the people that Mayor Lightfoot is targeting to return back and help regrow the city. This is not to say Chicago and many rust -belt cities are without problems, but much of what is reported is exaggerated or over-sensationalized. I am surprised at how many people visit Chicago and find the reality to be so much different than the rumors.

[BG918]

Originally Posted by JManc

Southern and sunbelt metros tend to be more transient; more people moving in and out thus magnets for crime and criminals. Houston is credited for our healthy economy and booming population but we have some of the worst crime rates in the country.

Austin and Denver have extremely transient populations yet they have some of the lowest crime rates for larger metros.

[SIGSEGV]

Originally Posted by skysoar

And excellent point. I believe one of the main reasons for the Black exodus in Chicago has been what is being called a herd mentality. You hear over and over again how terrible the city is and how much better it is somewhere else, especially daily by the media, and others. What happens afterwards is some believe it to be true, even though they have never been victimized themselves, only to escape to many of these Sunbelt cities and then find many of the same crime related environments they thought they left behind. I hear from them often. And what is not reported is that many Blacks who have left Chicago have kept their homes there, these are the people that Mayor Lightfoot is targeting to return back and help regrow the city. This is not to say Chicago and many rust -belt cities are without problems, but much of what is reported is exaggerated or over-sensationalized. I am surprised at how many people visit Chicago and find the reality to be so much different than the rumors.

Yeah it seems the Tribune is hell-bent on convincing everyone what a hell-hole we live in... probably the most anti-homer paper of a major city.