# Fastest-Growing U.S. Cities Are Suburban



## Jaeger (May 11, 2006)

A Recent Article - that highlights the move away from US Cities, 
their declining population - and the rise of the suburbs.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,1802988,00.html


----------



## bob rulz (Oct 20, 2005)

Paddington said:


> A suburban area can easily fall inside a "city" that happens to be very annexation happy, and has a gigantic land mass. And Phoenix annexes new land almost all the time.
> 
> That said, Phoenix could not annex any new land for 20 years, and they will still have new suburban areas popup inside their borders. Why? Just look at it on a map. It has vast swathes of undeveloped land that were preemptively annexed inside the city, which will probably eventually be developed.


That's not a suburb then, that's a neighborhood. A suburb is a completely separate city. That's what a suburb is. It doesn't matter if the city is 1,000 square miles; if it falls within the city limits, it's not considered a suburb. Northern Phoenix is a neighborhood; Chandler is a suburb.



Paddington said:


> It's because Mormons **** like sheep and have lots of kids. :lol:


Hahaha, true. That's why our schools suck so bad...too many kids.


----------



## Chicagoago (Dec 2, 2005)

^I think he said suburbAN areas in Phoenix are popping up all over. Not that suburbs are popping up inside the city limit.

The point is that Phoenix is basically so large it has a small central area of the city that was populated before the 1950's ( quite small I'm sure ) and then it has the massive tract-style housing that expanded off of that. The only difference is whereas Chicago, for example, already had little towns and villages that instantly expanded their own small limits and took on all this 'suburban' growth - Phoenix didn't have these pre-existing cities. It expanded its own boarders and was able to keep all this new car driven post WWII growth for its own. It would basically be the same as if Chicago had expanded itself to 500 square miles in the late 1800's. The city would have millions more people in it than it does today, but the newer areas of the city would resemble Shaumburg, not Lakeview. (I'm not trying to say that's EXACTLY how the city of Chicago would have developed and looked today, I'm just putting it in perspective).


----------



## Bartolo (Sep 20, 2004)

bob rulz said:


> Um, no. Last time I checked Phoenix was not annexing _any_ suburbs.
> 
> And what's wrong with talking about Canada? They're suburbs are essentially the same as they are here.
> 
> And has the population really grown from 300,000 to 405,000 in 5 years? Which suburb is that? That doesn't sound like very healthy or sustainable growth.


It truly is growing that fast, it has gone from 300000 to 430000 in 5 years. The place is Brampton. Its just outside of Toronto. The fastest growing % wise, im pretty sure is Milton, which has gone from a little over 32000 to almost 60000 in a span of 5 years. It might be over 60000 now.


----------



## LordMandeep (Apr 10, 2006)

Bramptons growth is insane. There has been tens of thousands of singe detached homes built. Traffic is terribile and they couldn't even build enough schools for the number of new students.

The city has gone from a small mid size city to #10 in canada in about ten years


----------



## bob rulz (Oct 20, 2005)

That's insane. That kind of growth isn't even close to healthy or attractive in any way...I'll bet there's some people that moved there 10 years ago that already think it's way too big for them. It's certianly interesting and amazing that cities can even grow that fast, but it's not a pretty thing, I'm guessing...


----------



## Bartolo (Sep 20, 2004)

The thing is that even though the population has grown alot, its been like that all across the region, York Region and Halton are growing like crazy as well, not to the same extent, but still growing at atleast 30% per 5 year.


----------



## bob rulz (Oct 20, 2005)

Man, and I thought Arizona's urban sprawl was bad...


----------



## Jaye101 (Feb 16, 2005)

LordMandeep said:


> Bramptons growth is insane. There has been tens of thousands of singe detached homes built. Traffic is terribile and they couldn't even build enough schools for the number of new students.
> 
> The city has gone from a small mid size city to #10 in canada in about ten years


 :scouserd: Since when did Brampton join top ten?!... Wow.


----------



## Jaye101 (Feb 16, 2005)

bob rulz said:


> Man, and I thought Arizona's urban sprawl was bad...


THe thing is is that the core of the metro is still densifying and growing at a very healthy pace.


----------



## LordMandeep (Apr 10, 2006)

true, thats the difference.

We have huge urban sprawl but city centers that are still growing at a healthy pace.

Acording to the Mayor of Brampton there are 435,000 people living here and we are canada's tenth largest citiy. Canada's 6th largest city (mississauga-700,000 people) and tenth largest (brampton 435,000 people) are actually suburbs of Toronto.

Brampton will grow to 680,000 people by 2030 as the city has put a cap of 5500 residential units a years however thats still huge. 

Mississauga has run out of room so they will build up and its starting to develop a nice skyline in its core. Its expected to grow to over 800,000 people.

Also this growth i think is not fueled by people leaving the city en mass (because then Toronto's population will go down) I think its because half of the 250,000 new immigrants that come here each year move here.


----------



## LordMandeep (Apr 10, 2006)

Also true our city has grown larger and now its facing some problems that come with a bigger city. However its not to serious. Transportation is the main issue. Its calmed down a little as the city started reducing it. Its fairly dense suburbs compared to what ihave seen and the city centre is starting to build tall buildings. In ten-12 years we will start to have a mini-skyline


Calgary and Edmonton is whats really sprawling. They have tons of land in all four directions and both cities have near a million people and growing.


----------



## I-275westcoastfl (Feb 15, 2005)

centreoftheuniverse said:


> OK folks, those numbers are for 2004 to 2005, but we know there's a little something that happened in 2005 and 2006 that everyone seemed to forget.
> Gas prices!
> I'd bet you those growth numbers won't be sustained in the next few years for those car-friendly cities.


Suprising thats not true people are just cutting back on other things to pay for gas.



rotten777 said:


> I find it interesting that, even with outrageous housing prices and low job growth, that San Jose gained almost 10,000 people while San Francisco continues to decline.


Well San Jose is still significantly cheaper than San Fransisco.


----------



## DrJoe (Sep 12, 2002)

LordMandeep said:


> Also this growth i think is not fueled by people leaving the city en mass (because then Toronto's population will go down) I think its because half of the 250,000 new immigrants that come here each year move here.


Yes that is true, the region as a whole is growing. It's not a boom in one area and a decline in another. Infact from 2001 to 2011 the GTA will have grown by 1 million. That is huge number in 10 years for a city the size of Toronto. Basically is going from 5.3 million to 6.3 million. 

Here is a growth chart (includes Hamilton and Golden Horseshoe also)
http://www.pir.gov.on.ca/userfiles/page_attachments/Library/4/PGPENGSchedule03PP.pdf?N_ID=4


----------



## Chicagoago (Dec 2, 2005)

The US Census Bureau( :weird: ) just released statistics that Brampton has actually only grown by 8,000 people in the past 5 years ( it actually lost 2,000 from 2004 to 2005 ). They attribute this to the fact that it isn't in the sunbelt or out west.

:cheer:


----------



## LordMandeep (Apr 10, 2006)

brampton, CANADA!!! 

Those stats are not possibile for the shear number of houses built in last 5 years.


----------



## Bartolo (Sep 20, 2004)

Chicagoago said:


> The US Census Bureau( :weird: ) just released statistics that Brampton has actually only grown by 8,000 people in the past 5 years ( it actually lost 2,000 from 2004 to 2005 ). They attribute this to the fact that it isn't in the sunbelt or out west.


What Brampton are you talking about, because Brampton, Ontario has grown by over 100000 in the past 5 years. We will find out the true extent soon, when the 2006 Canada Census come out. Does anyone know when it comes out. I know it was takin at the beginning of last month


----------



## monkeyronin (May 18, 2006)

bob rulz said:


> Man, and I thought Arizona's urban sprawl was bad...


The GTA is actually suprisingly dense. its officially 7000 km2, but that includes the greenbelt, farmland, and forests of the north. the built land area is only about 2000 square kms, with 5.7 million on them, so thats about 2850 people/square km. its also growing at 100,000+ per year, and it denisifying even more, so the sprawl isn't unreasonable.

Anyway, I think we kinda highjacked this thread..


----------



## Bartolo (Sep 20, 2004)

Yeah as do i. Im pretty sure we went from talking about the US sprawl to talking about just Toronto sprawl, and in particular Brampton


----------



## Chicagoago (Dec 2, 2005)

I KNOOOOW IT'S IN CANADA, I was just joking around because the US estimates have a hard time believing anything that's not in the south or west is actually GROWING. 

Just a little weekend humor. :drunk:


----------



## Paddington (Mar 30, 2006)

In Canada, Ontario is the most Southern part of their country. :hahaha: 

In Quebec they refer to Toronto as "the tropical city". :scouserd:


----------



## kangarooMN09 (Jun 6, 2006)

If Phoenix is growing so fast as this census indicatesm, then how come they're not building skyscrapers?? I don't understand why people would leave cities like NY, Boston for San Antonio or Dallas. YUCK! hno:


----------



## monkeyronin (May 18, 2006)

Paddington said:


> In Canada, Ontario is the most Southern part of their country. :hahaha:
> 
> In Quebec they refer to Toronto as "the tropical city". :scouserd:


No shit, dumbfuck, seeing as we are to the north of America. great to see that you know your geography though.

And where do you get this idea that Toronto is called the "tropical city", by Quebecois?

What does this even have to with anything, anyway?


----------



## I-275westcoastfl (Feb 15, 2005)

kangarooMN09 said:


> If Phoenix is growing so fast as this census indicatesm, then how come they're not building skyscrapers?? I don't understand why people would leave cities like NY, Boston for San Antonio or Dallas. YUCK! hno:


Mainly house prices and cost of living which is high in New York and low in Dallas.


----------



## PhillyPhilly90 (Aug 12, 2005)

Well it will be very interesting for Philly in the future. Overall the whole city lost population...but the downtown core grew from 78,000 to 88,000. It is expected to be over 100,000 by 2010. A city with a booming downtown population but overall losing population is an interesting one because you have two sides.


----------



## monkeyronin (May 18, 2006)

PhillyPhilly90 said:


> Well it will be very interesting for Philly in the future. Overall the whole city lost population...but the downtown core grew from 78,000 to 88,000. It is expected to be over 100,000 by 2010. A city with a booming downtown population but overall losing population is an interesting one because you have two sides.


Yeah, I'd say thats for the better. you lose some people, so you go down in the population standings (big deal), but in return you get a more vibrant downtown, and therefore a more interesting city. this could also increase tourism and desire to live there as well, so the total population may even go back up again.


----------



## bob rulz (Oct 20, 2005)

kangarooMN09 said:


> If Phoenix is growing so fast as this census indicatesm, then how come they're not building skyscrapers??


Because they focus on a number of suburban business parks and job complexes instead of on commuting to downtown. New suburban areas are becoming more and more self-dependent with all of the focus on "New Urbanism" and stuff like that. 



> I don't understand why people would leave cities like NY, Boston for San Antonio or Dallas. YUCK! hno:


Home prices? Job opportunities?


----------



## bob rulz (Oct 20, 2005)

monkeyronin said:


> No shit, dumbfuck, seeing as we are to the north of America. great to see that you know your geography though.
> 
> And where do you get this idea that Toronto is called the "tropical city", by Quebecois?
> 
> What does this even have to with anything, anyway?


Calm down man...he was making a joke.


----------



## Xusein (Sep 27, 2005)

I-275westcoastfl said:


> Well San Jose is still significantly cheaper than San Fransisco.


San Jose might be cheaper, but with the average house being over $700,000, not by much...hella expensive compared to where I live.

You would think that it would be declining like San Francisco or San Diego.


----------



## bob rulz (Oct 20, 2005)

rotten777 said:


> You would think that it would be declining like San Francisco or San Diego.


As long as there's still room to grow and jobs to sustain the new people, it will continue growing.


----------



## FLscraper (Jun 26, 2005)

kangarooMN09 said:


> If Phoenix is growing so fast as this census indicatesm, then how come they're not building skyscrapers??


Here's a list of buildings proposed or under construction. Credit don b. for putting together the list.









Phoenix also has light rail currently under construction and a new downtown ASU campus. Take a look at this thread for more information.http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=74733


----------



## Smelser (May 13, 2006)

monkeyronin said:


> The GTA is actually suprisingly dense. its officially 7000 km2, but that includes the greenbelt, farmland, and forests of the north. the built land area is only about 2000 square kms, with 5.7 million on them, so thats about 2850 people/square km. its also growing at 100,000+ per year, and it denisifying even more, so the sprawl isn't unreasonable.



Monkeyronin, maybe you are right about the included greenbelts and unprotected farmlands waiting to be subdivided. But the figures from the Statistics Canada 2001 Census are a bit different:

Metro Toronto (GTA)
Popn 4,682,897
Area 5,902.74 SqKm
Popn/SqKm 793.3

For comparison:
Metro Montreal
Popn 3,426,350
Area 4,047.35 SqKm
Popn/SqKm 846.6

Metro Vancouver
Popn 1,986,965
Area 2,878.52 SqKm
Popn/SqKm 690.3


----------



## stilleazy (Jun 22, 2006)

This is about a earlier posted discussion about the population of the suburbs declining in New York. I have lived in the suburbs of New York for a while, in Ornage County about 1 hour away from the city. I find it Very hard to beleive that the population is declining in the suburbs, theres develoment everywhere.


----------



## monkeyronin (May 18, 2006)

Smelser said:


> Monkeyronin, maybe you are right about the included greenbelts and unprotected farmlands waiting to be subdivided. But the figures from the Statistics Canada 2001 Census are a bit different:
> 
> Metro Toronto (GTA)
> Popn 4,682,897
> ...


Thats 2001 though, additionally, that might be the CMA, which is smaller in size and as of 2006 should have about 5.4 million, and 5.7 in the GTA. according to 2005 estimates, the GTA's population is 5.6, and the CMA at 5.3 respectively. however, considering the growth rates, they would be up by 100,000 in the past year. (conservative estimate on part though, its probably higher actually)


----------



## FastWhiteTA (Jul 24, 2004)

I like mid and high density development as much as the next guy, but why is it so "SAD" that people like to have their own private areas? More house for the money, yard for the kids to play in w/ the neighbors, etc. In the last few years, suburban living has still been increasing at fast rates in the US (and world), but so is the high and mid density life styles in the US. Urban renewal is a huge thing in Portland and in a lot of other US cities. In Portland, High rise condos are being built and developed like crazy in the downtown and near-by areas, as well as mid density townhouses throughout the metro area. Of course, Portland wouldn't be considered one of the major sprawl cities in the US, so it's setting the trend more than following the trend in the urban renewal aspect. Fortunately, Portland's average density in the city and metro area is increasing. One problem is those single bedroom condos downtown are selling for $300k...and more. THAT is why people still move away from the city, they can't afford the cost that comes with living in the city centers. You either have to be really rich, or poor-ish (required low income housing in most of these developments). SO, that leaves out the average joe American-hence, lets go to the suburbs!


----------



## Smelser (May 13, 2006)

monkeyronin said:


> Thats 2001 though, additionally, that might be the CMA, which is smaller in size and as of 2006 should have about 5.4 million, and 5.7 in the GTA. according to 2005 estimates, the GTA's population is 5.6, and the CMA at 5.3 respectively. however, considering the growth rates, they would be up by 100,000 in the past year. (conservative estimate on part though, its probably higher actually)


The Census figures would indeed be the Census Metro Area as defined by StatCan.

I presume these estimates are from the Govt of Ontario's relevant Ministry, either municipal affairs or finance and statistics. If so, they imply a growth rate of just over 3% per year, which is extremely rapid for such an area with such a large initial population. Greater Vancouver's population growth rate since 2001 has been far less rapid, about 1.3% per year.

What struck me about the 2001 figures was that the population densities for the three metro areas were not that much different, ranging between roughly 700 for Vancouver, nearly 850 for Montreal, and Toronto in the middle.


----------



## jtownman (Jan 31, 2003)

ok im too lazy to read all this thread. But ofcourse our fastest growing cities are suburban. Suburban areas have more ROOM. Therefore they have more room to build. ofcourse cities can build more dense and more highrises...but its the USA....we build houses...:S....


----------



## Paddington (Mar 30, 2006)

bob rulz said:


> Because they focus on a number of suburban business parks and job complexes instead of on commuting to downtown. New suburban areas are becoming more and more self-dependent with all of the focus on "New Urbanism" and stuff like that.
> 
> 
> 
> Home prices? Job opportunities?


A lot of the posters here are teenagers or college kids whose biggest priority is to get wasted on the weekends, and gape at tall buildings.

Things like "where can I find a job" and "is housing affordable" don't register in their brains. :bash:

The suburban areas (including the suburban outer parts of big cities) are doing an awesome job creating jobs, and they have affordable housing. That's what most middle class families care about. "Urban renewal districts", light-rail, "density", warehouse conversion lofts, art museums, etc. are things most people don't give a shit about.


----------



## Smelser (May 13, 2006)

Paddington said:


> A lot of the posters here are teenagers or college kids whose biggest priority is to get wasted on the weekends, and gape at tall buildings.
> 
> Things like "where can I find a job" and "is housing affordable" don't register in their brains. :bash:
> 
> The suburban areas (including the suburban outer parts of big cities) are doing an awesome job creating jobs, and they have affordable housing. That's what most middle class families care about. "Urban renewal districts", light-rail, "density", warehouse conversion lofts, art museums, etc. are things most people don't give a shit about.


ROTFLMAO!!!

Paddington, can you please make a trip to Vancouver and do a series of coffee house debates with Gordon Price, a former City Councillor here who is an established advocate of bicycles as the main mode of urban transport and of a lot of the new urbanism rhetoric? I am sure we could sell tickets, in fact, I am thinking $50 or more! Here is a link to Price's thinking:

http://www.pricetags.ca/index.html


----------

