What if Los Angeles became the largest city in the US?

[jd3189]

This was an idea that got me thinking from the recent NYC thread. I read an article last night discussing how New York was able to maintain its dominance of the most populous city since the colonial era. I’ll place a link later but essentially it came down to it being an excellent major port compared to its peers, an early diverse manufacturing base, and an atmosphere of tolerance, change, and reinventing itself. It was pretty much the only Northern city that survived and thrived in during the suburban craze in the late 20th century.


In the peak of American urbanism in the 1950s or so, most of the largest cities in the country were in the Northeast and Midwest. Fast forward to now, many of the top cities and metros are now in the West and South. Only New York, Chicago, and Philly are still up there but only NYC is bigger now than it was then.


There was an 80s article in the other thread that mentioned that LA was expected to exceed NY in population by 2000. What if that happened? Would things drastically change? Would that be seen as just icing on the cake for the success of the Sunbelt?

Yeah, city proper populations don’t matter as much as the metro size, but there is a pride that is associated with being “big” that we can’t necessarily deny in our dick measuring addicted society But this thread can also consider the possibility of the LA metro also being more populous than the NYC tri-state area.

[JManc]

I don't think it would really change much. New York would still be New York and being smaller in population wouldn't really diminish its prominence.

[LA21st]

It will never pass the city population. But the metro populations are definitely in play. It's very likley LA will pass the NYC metro, wether it's in our lifetimes or not, barring some massive earthquake.

However, I don't think much would change because its so isolated. NYC is in a perfect location to maintain it's dominance in many areas. But it's going to be interesting to see LA grow up though.

It's astonishing a place like this got built, when you fly out west over hundreds of miles of NOTHING to get there.

[DCReid]

Originally Posted by LA21st

It will never pass the city population. But the metro populations are definitely in play. It's very likley LA will pass the NYC metro, wether it's in our lifetimes or not, barring some massive earthquake.

However, I don't think much would change because its so isolated. NYC is in a perfect location to maintain it's dominance in many areas. But it's going to be interesting to see LA grow up though.

It's astonishing a place like this got built, when you fly out west over hundreds of miles of NOTHING to get there.

A more interesting question will be whether the Texas metros of DFW and Houston pass LA and Chicago over the next 30 years. Or whether they will hit a growth plateau like LA has (i.e., grow more slowly). And how big will Austin metro get; whether it will surpass all Midwestern metros except Chicago.

[LA21st]

I don't see that happening at all, ever. At least for LA. In 30 years?

Dallas and Houston would have to hit 20 million, at least. They're going to more than double in size in 30 years? How much have they grown since 1990? 3 million?
They will definitely plateu well, well before that.

[ThePhun1]

Originally Posted by LA21st

I don't see that happening at all, ever. At least for LA. In 30 years?

Dallas and Houston would have to hit 20 million, at least. They're going to more than double in size in 30 years? How much have they grown since 1990? 3 million?
They will definitely plateu well, well before that.

Houston has nothing but space for high density growth in all directions. The only thing I see slowing it down is a very legit concern about flood control.

Even two large hurricanes haven't slowed growth much, though God forbid what I'm thinking would be a test.

[LA21st]

It's not high density. It's very low density

And yes, people will move to cheaper cities, as they always have.

What's the draw in Texas besides col?
Not much.

[Sun Belt]

Originally Posted by DCReid

A more interesting question will be whether the Texas metros of DFW and Houston pass LA and Chicago over the next 30 years. Or whether they will hit a growth plateau like LA has (i.e., grow more slowly). And how big will Austin metro get; whether it will surpass all Midwestern metros except Chicago.

I don't see anything that'll stop Texas cities from continuing to be the leaders in growth decade after decade.

LA is growing slowly because there's not much available land left to develop easily.

[LA21st]

Originally Posted by Sun Belt

I don't see anything that'll stop Texas cities from continuing to be the leaders in growth decade after decade.

LA is growing slowly because there's not much available land left to develop easily.

Crawford pointed out why.
Once it gets more expensive, it's going to lose a ton of growth.

The same people getting priced out of the north east and California will get priced out of Texas, Florida and Georgia.
It's just a matter of time.

[Sun Belt]

Originally Posted by LA21st

Crawford pointed out why.
Once it gets more expensive, it's going to lose a ton of growth.

Not really. It's all relative. If Texas is expensive, that means that California and the Northeast are really f'n expensive.

Are people going to stop moving to Texas for Mississippi?

Texas has land, lots of it. California does not. New York certainly does not.

[jtown,man]

Originally Posted by LA21st

Crawford pointed out why.
Once it gets more expensive, it's going to lose a ton of growth.

The same people getting priced out of the north east and California will get priced out of Texas, Florida and Georgia.
It's just a matter of time.

Texas will never...ever be as expensive as California. For a lot of reasons.

[Obadno]

Originally Posted by LA21st

Crawford pointed out why.
Once it gets more expensive, it's going to lose a ton of growth.

The same people getting priced out of the north east and California will get priced out of Texas, Florida and Georgia.
It's just a matter of time.

This is pretty apt on a macro measure.

The easiest places to develop, develop first, they are now the classic old metros we know today, Modern development (basically world war two on) has gone to the less cheap and desirable developments to secondary ones. (Sunbelt Boom Growth)

As the Sunbelt matures (they still have long growth legs many more decades of it) More people will move deeper into "flyover" country for the same reasons they moved to the sunbelt.

Cheaper retirement, Cheaper living, ability to afford housing, new opportunities in new developing cities etc. Places like Idaho, the Dakotas and Montana, Nebraska and Wyoming.

Dont be surprised to see places like Billings, Fargo, and Omaha end up having boom town type growth in the latter part of this century.

For those of you that are still around

Of course all of this is assuming things generally go in the same direction they have gone in the last 100-125 years and we dont have like a global pandemic, or discover some new resource that can replace oil and is located primarily in Alabama and West Virginia etc.

[IMBY]

Originally Posted by Sun Belt

LA is growing slowly because there's not much available land left to develop easily.

As long as there's the Coastal Commission, that won't allow any high rises along the CA coastline, and the West L.A. Nimby's, in particular, what can you expect but slow growth. There's plenty of available land, for high rises.

[edale]

So much can change in 30 years. People thought Detroit was going to continue to boom and become one of the world's biggest cities up through the 1950s. I don't think anyone in 1950 thought the Atlanta or Miami metro areas would be bigger than Boston or Philadelphia in just a few decades time. It's impossible to know what will happen.

I do think water availability is going to come into play more and more in coming decades. Many western metros are on very shaky ground when it comes to water resources, and extended period of droughts could definitely shift growth patterns. Of course, a major earthquake could also change everything overnight. It's fun to play the 'what if' game, but there are just so many unknowns that it's not very productive.

[LA21st]

Eh, I don't see it. Houston and Dallas will go grow by 12-14 million after their boom only produced 3-4 million in the same period of time?

What infrastructure do they have can even support that?
Seems like wishful thinking. These southern cities boomed
Because of col. It wasn't that unrealistic.

I've heard DC posters say Washington and Baltimore metro could
Pass la metro . How?
La was always built to be a mega city. So was NYC.
To a lesser degree, Chicago.

[galleyfox]

Originally Posted by LA21st

Eh, I don't see it. Houston and Dallas will go grow by 12-14 million after their boom only produced 3-4 million in the same period of time?

What infrastructure do they have can even support that?
Seems like wishful thinking.

La was always built to be a mega city.

Yep, also just basic geography. LA has a good port on the Pacific for direct trade with Asia that doesn't have to go through the canal, a time zone that is more convenient for Asian clients, great weather. Neither Houston not Dallas have the stupendous location, access or infrastructure that could make them into megacities.

Houston, in particular, is ignoring the waving red flag that is Harris County. If domestic migration has reversed in your city's main county with people fleeing to the exurbs and growth barely sustained by natural increase... well, 1950s Midwest has a story to tell.

https://kinder.rice.edu/2018/04/10/h...ris-county-not

https://kinder.rice.edu/urbanedge/20...-county-growth

[ThePhun1]

Originally Posted by galleyfox

Yep, also just basic geography. LA has a good port on the Pacific for direct trade with Asia that doesn't have to go through the canal, a time zone that is more convenient for Asian clients, great weather. Neither Houston not Dallas have the stupendous location, access or infrastructure that could make them into megacities.

Houston, in particular, is ignoring the waving red flag that is Harris County. If domestic migration has reversed in your city's main county with people fleeing to the exurbs and growth barely sustained by natural increase... well, 1950s Midwest has a story to tell.

https://kinder.rice.edu/2018/04/10/h...ris-county-not

https://kinder.rice.edu/urbanedge/20...-county-growth

Houston's MSA used to be Harris County and nothing else. There's now more megaburbs with good schools, McMansions and loveable suburban life. Most of Harris County sucks outside the 610 loop (with some good portions, such as the NASA area already close to built out). Of course people are moving to the fringes.

[JManc]

Houston was at 3.3 million in 1990 and is 7 million today while Dallas was 3.8 million in 1990 and is around 7.5 million today. I don't see Houston or DFW ever passing LA but I could see one or both of them surpassing Chicago within 30 years.

[austlar1]

Originally Posted by JManc

Houston was at 3.3 million in 1990 and is 7 million today while Dallas was 3.8 million in 1990 and is around 7.5 million today. I don't see Houston or DFW ever passing LA but I could see one or both of them surpassing Chicago within 30 years.

The only thing likely to slow growth (other than a major recession or depression) of the two biggest Texas metros is probably related to climate. DFW is 100% dependent on a huge reservoir system that is subject to drought. A truly major drought (one lasting for several years) could put a real damper on continued growth. Houston has it's own problems both with occasional drought and also with flooding. Rainfall in Texas tends to be "feast or famine". Houston is most vulnerable to the former and DFW to the latter.

[SLO]

Originally Posted by austlar1

The only thing likely to slow growth (other than a major recession or depression) of the two biggest Texas metros is probably related to climate. DFW is 100% dependent on a huge reservoir system that is subject to drought. A truly major drought (one lasting for several years) could put a real damper on continued growth. Houston has it's own problems both with occasional drought and also with flooding. Rainfall in Texas tends to be "feast or famine". Houston is most vulnerable to the former and DFW to the latter.

I find that odd, only because they get so much more rain there than California, it may be they need even more storage capacity. Even in the famine side of the rainfall totals its still more than Ca gets in high years.
I'd love to see a national water distribution system.