15 Largest Cities by 2046?

[mrnyc]

Originally Posted by TexasPlaya

In the matter of your objection, it could just be a rising tide lifts all boats. It's not that Austin is heavily influenced by Houston and DFW, just part of the equation. Those cities and Texas in general has had momentum building up for the past 3 decades.

good call. certainly the rust belt fall of cle and stagnation of cinci dont support columbus as much as the general rising boat of texas does for austin. i could have put up an arguement back in the north dallas 40 era, aka the 70s, when austin wasnt anything like todays austin, but since then no, not by a long shot. so yeah there is a real good case here to say the austin boom is really the texas boom.

[dimondpark]

Very few MSAs are seeing increased growth rates over the previous decade. The country is slowing down.

In the 2000s, 12 MSAs recorded growth of 20%+, in the 2010s, only 3 saw 20%+ growth
Austin, Raleigh and Orlando, but they are all far short of their growth rates in the 2000s.

2000-2010 MSA(2010-2019) Growth Rate
+41.8% Las Vegas(+16.6%)
+41.8% Raleigh(+23.0%)
+37.3% Austin(+29.7%)
+32.1% Charlotte(+17.5%)
+29.8% Orlando(+22.2%)
+29.8% Riverside(+10.0%)
+28.9% Phoenix(+18.0%)
+26.1% Houston(+19.3%)
+25.2% San Antonio(+19.0%)
+24.0% Atlanta(+13.8%)
+23.4% Dallas(+18.9%)
+21.2% Nashville(+17.5%)
+19.8% Jacksonville(+15.9%)
+19.6% Sacramento(+9.9%)
+16.7% Denver(+16.6%)
+16.4% Fresno(+7.3%)
+16.4% Washington DC(+11.1%)
+16.2% Tampa(+14.7%)
+16.2% Tucson(+6.8%)
+16.0% Salt Lake City(+13.3%)
+15.5% Portland(+11.9%)
+15.2% Indianapolis(+9.8%)
+14.7% Richmond(+8.8%)
+14.4% Oklahoma City(+12.4%)
+13.9% Columbus(+11.5%)
+13.0% Seattle(+15.7%)
+11.1% Miami(+10.8%)
+10.9% Kansas City(+7.4%)
+10.5% Louisville(+5.1%)
+10.5% Minneapolis(+9.2%)
+10.0% San Diego(+7.8%)
+9.2% Memphis(+2.2%)
+9.1% Tulsa(+6.8%)
+7.2% Birmingham(+2.7%)
+6.2% Baltimore(+3.3%)
+6.0% Cincinnati(+3.9%)
+6.0% Virginia Beach(+3.2%)
+5.8% San Jose(+8.3%)
+5.6% Hartford(-0.6%)
+5.1% San Francisco(+9.1%)
+4.9% Philadelphia(+2.3%)
+4.5% Grand Rapids(+8.4%)
+4.2% St Louis(+0.5%)
+4.0% Chicago(-0.03%)
+3.7% Boston(+7.0%)
+3.7% Los Angeles(+3.0%)
+3.7% Milwaukee(+1.2%)
+3.1% New York(+1.6%)
+1.6% Rochester(-0.9%)
+1.1% Providence(+1.4%)
-3.0% Buffalo(-0.6%)
-3.1% Pittsburgh(-1.6%)
-3.3% Cleveland(-1.3%)
-3.5% Detroit(+0.5%)
-11.3% New Orleans(+6.8%)

BOLDED: MSAs that have growth rates higher in this current decade than the previous decade.

1. the tech heavy metros of Seattle, SF, SJ and Boston saw increased growth rates, Providence next to Boston as well.

2. All of the metros that saw decreases in the 2000s saw their growth rates rise in the 2010s.

3. New Orleans declined in the 2000s due to Hurricane Rita.

4. Grand Rapids grew significantly in the 2010s due to mergers with surrounding counties.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by dimondpark

Very few MSAs are seeing increased growth rates over the previous decade. The country is slowing down.

In the 2000s, 12 MSAs recorded growth of 20%+, in the 2010s, only 3 saw 20%+ growth
Austin, Raleigh and Orlando, but they are all far short of their growth rates in the 2000s.

2000-2010 MSA(2010-2019) Growth Rate
+41.8% Las Vegas(+16.6%)
+41.8% Raleigh(+23.0%)
+37.3% Austin(+29.7%)
+32.1% Charlotte(+17.5%)
+29.8% Orlando(+22.2%)
+29.8% Riverside(+10.0%)
+28.9% Phoenix(+18.0%)
+26.1% Houston(+19.3%)
+25.2% San Antonio(+19.0%)
+24.0% Atlanta(+13.8%)
+23.4% Dallas(+18.9%)
+21.2% Nashville(+17.5%)
+19.8% Jacksonville(+15.9%)
+19.6% Sacramento(+9.9%)
+16.7% Denver(+16.6%)
+16.4% Fresno(+7.3%)
+16.4% Washington DC(+11.1%)
+16.2% Tampa(+14.7%)
+16.2% Tucson(+6.8%)
+16.0% Salt Lake City(+13.3%)
+15.5% Portland(+11.9%)
+15.2% Indianapolis(+9.8%)
+14.7% Richmond(+8.8%)
+14.4% Oklahoma City(+12.4%)
+13.9% Columbus(+11.5%)
+13.0% Seattle(+15.7%)
+11.1% Miami(+10.8%)
+10.9% Kansas City(+7.4%)
+10.5% Louisville(+5.1%)
+10.5% Minneapolis(+9.2%)
+10.0% San Diego(+7.8%)
+9.2% Memphis(+2.2%)
+9.1% Tulsa(+6.8%)
+7.2% Birmingham(+2.7%)
+6.2% Baltimore(+3.3%)
+6.0% Cincinnati(+3.9%)
+6.0% Virginia Beach(+3.2%)
+5.8% San Jose(+8.3%)
+5.6% Hartford(-0.6%)
+5.1% San Francisco(+9.1%)
+4.9% Philadelphia(+2.3%)
+4.5% Grand Rapids(+8.4%)
+4.2% St Louis(+0.5%)
+4.0% Chicago(-0.03%)
+3.7% Boston(+7.0%)
+3.7% Los Angeles(+3.0%)
+3.7% Milwaukee(+1.2%)
+3.1% New York(+1.6%)
+1.6% Rochester(-0.9%)
+1.1% Providence(+1.4%)
-3.0% Buffalo(-0.6%)
-3.1% Pittsburgh(-1.6%)
-3.3% Cleveland(-1.3%)
-3.5% Detroit(+0.5%)
-11.3% New Orleans(+6.8%)

BOLDED: MSAs that have growth rates higher in this current decade than the previous decade.

1. the tech heavy metros of Seattle, SF, SJ and Boston saw increased growth rates, Providence next to Boston as well.

2. All of the metros that saw decreases in the 2000s saw their growth rates rise in the 2010s.

3. New Orleans declined in the 2000s due to Hurricane Rita.

4. Grand Rapids grew significantly in the 2010s due to mergers with surrounding counties.

Austin's growth rate may be lower, but it added a LOT more people this past decade than it did in the 2000s: roughly 700k in 2010s vs 400k in 2000s

[pj3000]

Originally Posted by bossabreezes

I see the thought process here, but why did Houston and Dallas decide to pour money into Austin rather than just invest tech dollars into their respective, larger cities? This is why I still find Austin's growth and stature the be somewhat serendipitous.

Originally Posted by mrnyc

there is something in the austin water. tech is the driver, with the stage set years ago by dell, but its more than that. its a true boom town. they say austin isnt weird anymore, but this amazing growth certainly is.

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.

[dimondpark]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Austin's growth rate may be lower, but it added a LOT more people this past decade than it did in the 2000s: roughly 700k in 2010s vs 400k in 2000s

Austin added 466,000 in the 2000s, and so far has added 510,000 as of 2019.

To be honest, even the 2000s were far short of the 1990s, not just Austin but just about everywhere.


Austin MSA Growth Rate
1990-2000 47%
2000-2010 37%
2010-2019 29%

Some people see news reports and think we are living in a time of neverending growth but the country is not even close to where we were and even our fastest growing metros are a reflection of that slowdown.

[bossabreezes]

^^This is true.

I think unfortunately our infrastructure, for the most part, stopped growing with our cities though. This is where the problems lie and why people are anti-growth in some (most) established, large metros. Hell, even people in Austin with its medium sized population say it's got major issues, and has for a long time at this point.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by dimondpark

Austin added 466,000 in the 2000s, and so far has added 510,000 as of 2019.

So my math was a little off but by 2019 last decade was already Austin's biggest growth spurt on record. It will probably be up around 600k over the course of the decade, versus the 466k the previous decade. It's not hard at all to imagine Austin getting to 4.5M in 25 years.

[Crawford]

So I just asked my wife, who's a dual citizen with Mexico, and well traveled, about her opinions on Austin, to get a foreign perspective. She looked at me quizzically and said "it's the state capital, right?". I asked what other American city would most be like Austin and she said "Lansing, MI"?

Then I asked her what city in TX would be the hottest/trendiest for educated newcomers and and she replied, without hesitation, "San Antonio. It's where wealthier Northern Mexicans like to shop, get their medical services, where they establish new businesses, send their kids to private schools, and where they often have second homes." Huh.

Not trying to throw my lovely, intelligent wife under the bus, but it goes to show that reputation is really dependent on the demographic, and the SSP consensus and even the Census stats aren't necessarily broadly translated. She's been to both Austin and SA (and Houston and Dallas) and had no idea.

[BG918]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

So my math was a little off but by 2019 last decade was already Austin's biggest growth spurt on record. It will probably be up around 600k over the course of the decade, versus the 466k the previous decade. It's not hard at all to imagine Austin getting to 4.5M in 25 years.

At that point it will be more similar to the Bay Area in that housing will be prohibitively expensive and commutes to more affordable areas will be insane, even with the transportation improvements that will be coming online within the next decade. I think Austin and by association San Antonio and areas in central TX like Georgetown, Temple, Round Rock, San Marcos, etc will have another stellar decade of growth through 2030 but after that the next decade will see a leveling off. New tech cities in Sunbelt locales will emerge and start to build up similar to Austin and Nashville the past decade.

[pj3000]

Originally Posted by Crawford

I asked what other American city would most be like Austin and she said "Lansing, MI"?

[dimondpark]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

So my math was a little off but by 2019 last decade was already Austin's biggest growth spurt on record. It will probably be up around 600k over the course of the decade, versus the 466k the previous decade. It's not hard at all to imagine Austin getting to 4.5M in 25 years.

Right, that projection presumes that Austin will grow by 100,000 a year for the next 25 years, which is about double it's rate in the 2010s of about 56,000 per year, even though growth rates are falling sharply over the last 3 decades and will likely slow down a bit more in the 2020s, 2030s and 2040s.

That said, no one has a crystal ball and there lots of other variables to consider like the job market and home prices--but I think maybe 3.5 million is a more realistic population by 2046.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by dimondpark

Right, that projection presumes that Austin will grow by 100,000 a year for the next 25 years, which is about double it's rate in the 2010s of about 56,000 per year, even though growth rates are falling sharply over the last 3 decades and will likely slow down a bit more in the 2020s, 2030s and 2040s.

That said, no one has a crystal ball and there lots of other variables to consider like the job market and home prices--but I think maybe 3.5 million is a more realistic population by 2046.

I'm not sure why you're skeptical. Thirty years ago Atlanta was about the same size that Austin is now. Austin getting to 4.5M in 25 years would actually underperform against Sun Belt cities like Atlanta, Dallas, and Houston.

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

I'm not sure why you're skeptical. Thirty years ago Atlanta was about the same size that Austin is now. Austin getting to 4.5M in 25 years would actually underperform against Sun Belt cities like Atlanta, Dallas, and Houston.

Well, that happened when the US was growing at 13%/decade. The 2020’s will be 3%-4%. It’s much harder for metro areas to outperform. Just look at dimond’s table. Virtually all metro areas slowing down.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by yuriandrade

Well, that happened when the US was growing at 13%/decade. The 2020’s will be 3%-4%. It’s much harder for metro areas to outperform. Just look at dimond’s table. Virtually all metro areas slowing down.

Yes, and that seems to be factored into Austin's projections. Under late 20th century growth patterns Austin could conceivably be a 6-7M metro in 30 years, instead of a 4-4.5M metro.

[Steely Dan]

austin's population growth is one thing,

but it's skyline growth, now that's some remarkable shit for a middle-tier US city.


in 2000, austin had 3 buildings over 100m.

since then, it's built 29 of them, with 3 of those over 200m!

it's gone from a Toledo-sized skyline to a Minneapolis-sized skyline in a single generation.

impressive.

[Yuri]

Back to dimond’s table, it’s very promising the rising of Buffalo, Cleveland, Pittsburgh and Detroit. Let’s see if the 2020 Census numbers confirm the improvement.

It’s interesting how massive is the gap between US metro areas. Some negative while others growing 40%. In Brazil, regional unbalances are much more pronounced than in the US, however population growth is much more uniform.

[DCReid]

Originally Posted by yuriandrade

Back to dimond’s table, it’s very promising the rising of Buffalo, Cleveland, Pittsburgh and Detroit. Let’s see if the 2020 Census numbers confirm the improvement.

It’s interesting how massive is the gap between US metro areas. Some negative while others growing 40%. In Brazil, regional unbalances are much more pronounced than in the US, however population growth is much more uniform.

But they are still losing population (or barely gaining). They may be joined by Hartford and possibly Chicago and St Louis in losing. NY may even lose.

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by DCReid

But they are still losing population (or barely gaining). They may be joined by Hartford and possibly Chicago and St Louis in losing. NY may even lose.

It doesn’t matter. Their natural growth (births minus deaths) is always smaller as happening in the rest of the US. Ditto for international immigration. That only means they’ve greatly reduced domestic emigration. While the US is slowing down fast, they are going against the trend, considerably cutting their losses.

[Crawford]

Detroit was basically in a one-metro depression in the previous decade, due to the auto industry collapse. So the 2000-2010 numbers are unusually bad and 2010-2020 numbers are unusually good.

Like New Orleans, not particularly instructive going forward.

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Detroit was basically in a one-metro depression in the previous decade, due to the auto industry collapse. So the 2000-2010 numbers are unusually bad and 2010-2020 numbers are unusually good.

Like New Orleans, not particularly instructive going forward.

Detroit might be a particular case with the 2008 crisis, but those +4% while the US as a whole is heading to a -4%, is promising nonetheless.

Pittsburgh, Cleveland and Buffalo are solidly rebounding though.