# Largest U.S. Cities in 2020; Will New York Always Be #1?



## babybackribs2314 (Jan 5, 2008)

> I compiled a list of the top 10 U.S. Combined Statistical Areas from 2010, and included their population from 2000 as well as the numerical change between the two figures. If you look at the growth in terms of percentage, the clear leaders are Dallas, Houston, and Atlanta--all sprawling sun-belt metropolises. All three agglomerations grew between 22-26% in the past decade.
> 
> Washington-Baltimore was the only other top 10 CSA to grow more than 10% in 10 years, with the region growing roughly 13% between 2000 and 2010.
> 
> ...


Read more: 

http://newyorkyimby.blogspot.com/2011/11/largest-us-cities-in-2020-will-new-york.html

I wrote it, but growth projections are always something I love discussing with others. 

I think NYC is well situated to maintain the #1 position with no contest for the foreseeable future, although the rankings from #3 down will be changing fairly soon. While DC overtaking Chicago is by no means a sure bet, I would be confident in saying that Dallas will become larger than Boston/SF and Houston will pass Philly within the next decade, and no later than 2025.

Discuss away! :banana:


----------



## -Corey- (Jul 8, 2005)

Los ANgeles could surpass NYC Metro area if SD is added to its MCA.


----------



## Dralcoffin (Feb 27, 2010)

I'm curious to see if Philadelphia and New York are combined into one CSA in the next few decades with central New Jersey being virtually uninterrupted suburbs between the two. In addition I see Chicago (and Racine/Kenosha) and Milwaukee being intertwined enough to be one CSA around 2030, which is right about when Washington-Baltimore should be approaching Chicago on its own. (Of course, assuming current growth rates.)


----------



## Yuri S Andrade (Sep 29, 2008)

Yes, NY will be n.1 forever as LA's growth is getting smaller and smaller. In addition, Philadelphia, Allentown and Hartford could add more than 8 million people in an expanded NY metro area, while LA can count only on San Diego and its 3 million people.


----------



## Manila-X (Jul 28, 2005)

I would rather have NY be the largest city in The United States compared to LA. 

But *Chicago* has the potential to become the largest if cities within The Great Lakes region are integrated to The Greater Chicago Area or Chicagoland.

This has been discussed before and I actually created a thread on it but by that time, there is a potential for The United States to create mega regions to improve economy and trade.


----------



## Dralcoffin (Feb 27, 2010)

Manila-X said:


> I would rather have NY be the largest city in The United States compared to LA.
> 
> But *Chicago* has the potential to become the largest if cities within The Great Lakes region are integrated to The Greater Chicago Area or Chicagoland.
> 
> This has been discussed before and I actually created a thread on it but by that time, there is a potential for The United States to create mega regions to improve economy and trade.


Eh, Great Lakes cities are far too spread out for even CSA definitions. Chicago will probably gobble up Milwaukee in twenty years or so, and Rockford and Kankakee as well, but that's it.


----------



## Blackpool88 (Nov 15, 2007)

Manila-X said:


> I would rather have NY be the largest city in The United States compared to LA.
> 
> But *Chicago* has the potential to become the largest if cities within The Great Lakes region are integrated to The Greater Chicago Area or Chicagoland.
> 
> This has been discussed before and I actually created a thread on it but by that time, there is a potential for The United States to create mega regions to improve economy and trade.


I find images like this so pointless. The cities are far too spread out we may as well claim that England is one 50Million megacity.


----------



## Metro007 (Apr 18, 2011)

Blackpool88 said:


> I find images like this so pointless. The cities are far too spread out we may as well claim that England is one 50Million megacity.


I agree with that. Otherwise we could count the "Blue banana" in Europe as one megalopolis of 110 Mio ;-)

And i found the number of inhabitans in the table above a little bit exagerated. Boston for example has for its whole metropolis-area 4,5 Mio (Wikipedia). For Chicago it seems correct.


----------



## pesto (Jun 29, 2009)

Deja vu all over again.

We have to remember that the CSA's are artificial, census-created areas. People invent them; people can change them. Their own web site warns against using them for funding, project development, emergency planning or any purpose other than census. 

My guess is the NY will always be gerrymandered to make it the largest; it is psychologically too important for the East Coast. In about 1980 an article in Life (I think) said that LA was about to pass NY as the largest metro in the country. There was real shock and anger in NY and it was quickly insisted that SD was not part of LA. Shortly thereafter the "growth" of NY started, with it spreading further into Conn, NJ, out Long Island and into Pennsylvania. Philly and Boston watch out: you're soon going to be Yankee fans if you believe the census.

btw, the LA-SD metro is about 25M: LA 10, OC 3; IE 5; Ventura 1; SD 3; Tijuana 3.

agree with Blackpool: the 2050 map is entertaining as speculation of future growth but doesn't create areas that have any real connection; it's reminiscent of Europe's blue banana. Why not just call the East Coast one big metro of 100M and the Great Lakes another of 70M or so, including 10M in Canada? Does this make residents of Toronto feel like they're part of Chicago?


----------



## Yuri S Andrade (Sep 29, 2008)

^^
That's not only a matter of metro definition. NY's urban area is much larger than LA's and all trends indicate it will be kept this way.




Metro007 said:


> I agree with that. Otherwise we could count the "Blue banana" in Europe as one megalopolis of 110 Mio ;-)
> 
> And i found the number of inhabitans in the table above a little bit exagerated. Boston for example has for its whole metropolis-area 4,5 Mio (Wikipedia). For Chicago it seems correct.


Boston numbers are not "exagerated". That's the exact population of Boston CSA as defined bt the US Census Bureau:


----------



## Metro007 (Apr 18, 2011)

Yuri S Andrade said:


> Boston numbers are not "exagerated". That's the exact population of Boston CSA as defined bt the US Census Bureau:


OK, i understand now. I found almost the same map but for the whole USA:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...reas_of_the_United_States_and_Puerto_Rico.gif

Very interesting!


----------



## -Corey- (Jul 8, 2005)

Yuri S Andrade said:


> Yes, NY will be n.1 forever as LA's growth is getting smaller and smaller. In addition, Philadelphia, Allentown and Hartford could add more than 8 million people in an expanded NY metro area, while LA can count only on San Diego and its 3 million people.


But that is not going to happen, San Onofre Nuclear Plant is in North County (San Diego) and there are few people living there.


----------



## aquaticko (Mar 15, 2011)

I think New York is bound to remain no.1 for at least the next century, for a number of factors, although one important one stands out.

Part of the reason that the Blue Banana concept exists is because transportation around that part of Europe is very highly developed. I tend to assume that a person who lives at one end of the Banana can move fairly easily throughout the whole thing frequently enough that they act as a citizen of one mega-megalopolis. Due to the sizes of London, Paris (which is basically part of the banana, even if it is kind of west of it), Brussels, Frankfurt, Zurich, Geneva, Milan, and Turin are such that their bedroom communities can just as easily serve a similar funtion to the cities which each individual city neighbors (although it's obviously a bit tricky for the Swiss cities and their neighbors, given that country's geography). The point is that, although we're obviously not there yet, the HSR systems in that part of Europe will eventually serve as the "subway" of the whole megalopolis.

Getting back to the U.S., LA simply doesn't have enough other large surrounding cities to self-generate a megalopolis. Besides, a megalopolis of one or two big cities isn't really a megalopolis at all. Additionally, transportation in the entire metro area is very poorly-developed. That something like the HSR proposal California is putting forth now seems like such a stretch shows how much more needs to be done to give California an equally-effective transportation system to the Blue Banana, and also serves to show that California's large population centers are too dispersed to work as a single metro area. Not to mention that most of the population centers themselves lack a decent urban mass transit system, which indirectly serves to increase population by drawing migrants from the outlying areas.

In particular, that the bulk of California's population is located in the extreme south (LA-San Diego) and the northern half (San Francisco) will make it difficult to justify expanding LA's metropolitan to any other large cities in any meaningful way, which is both the easiest way to expand a metro area's population and a way of showing honestly that a city's effective population is growing.

New York, on the other hand, is completely different. The population of all the big cities of the NE megalopolis is clustered around them (Boston has New England, NYC most of its own state and New Jersey, Philadelphia is the western-most extension of New York, and Baltimore DC are gradually growing together) in such a way that it's not unreasonable to merge those areas into one metro, centered around New York. Frankly, I'd thought for the longest time that Philadelphia was functionally already a part of the New York metro area due to its proximity to New Jersey (which is basically all just NYC). Additionally, transportation is already much more developed within and between the big cities, which will serve to continue migration at its current rate, if New York's historic appeal is anything to go by.


----------



## CCs77 (Jul 30, 2008)

Philadelphia is not part of New York as San Diego isn't part of Los Angeles either, and it would pass much time until they can be considered to be, if it ever happens at all. And ever if it happens, we will be talking about "New York-Philadelphia" or "Los Angeles-San Diego" rather than just "New York" or "Los Angeles" because both San Diego and Philadelphia are very important cities, with an urban dynamic of their own, just to be absorbed by Los Angeles and New York. Opositte to the smaller Newark, White Plains or Fairfield in the NY area and San Bernardino, Riverside or Oxnard in the LA area that are clearly attached to the much bigger mother cities.

The CSA's are a different thing. They are not invented for the census, they are defined according to the information a previous census gave. They are mostly made in base with patterns of commute, and you can find also strong economic and social ties between the communities that comprise them. (the CSA's)

And as for the question of the thread, it is very difficult to predict. According to the current trend, some day Los Angeles will catch New York, but it is imposible to predict what would happen in the years to come. 250 years ago, Philadelphia was larger than New York, 150 years ago, Los Angeles was an insignificant town that nobody heard of. New York had a very explosive growth from the 19th century until the 40's of the 20th century, then began to slow down. Los Angeles grew explosively for most of the 20th century, now it also seems to be slowing down.

Maybe in 30 years, for reasons we can't imagine yet, Los Angeles may begin to decline (as Detroit and Cleveland did and nobody could imagine that in 1925) and never catch New York. Maybe is New York the one that begins to decline (as it already did, during 1970's and 80's) 
So the answer would be, it may or may not happen, who knows? only time will tell.


----------



## Manila-X (Jul 28, 2005)

But the distance between these two cities are not far either.

On the other hand the cities located in The Great Lakes have one valuable resource, 

*fresh water*


----------



## isaidso (Mar 21, 2007)

I wouldn't be surprised if Los Angeles eclipsed New York within 30 years.


----------



## poshbakerloo (Jan 16, 2007)

I'm surprised by how fast Los Angeles is growing! All the spread is pretty much in the desert aswell! Is it all immigration?


----------



## diablo234 (Aug 18, 2008)

poshbakerloo said:


> I'm surprised by how fast Los Angeles is growing! All the spread is pretty much in the desert aswell! Is it all immigration?


Pretty much all of California's growth is from immigration.


----------



## aquaticko (Mar 15, 2011)

CCs77 said:


> Philadelphia is not part of New York as San Diego isn't part of Los Angeles either, and it would pass much time until they can be considered to be, if it ever happens at all. And ever if it happens, we will be talking about "New York-Philadelphia" or "Los Angeles-San Diego" rather than just "New York" or "Los Angeles" because both San Diego and Philadelphia are very important cities, with an urban dynamic of their own, just to be absorbed by Los Angeles and New York. Opositte to the smaller Newark, White Plains or Fairfield in the NY area and San Bernardino, Riverside or Oxnard in the LA area that are clearly attached to the much bigger mother cities.
> 
> The CSA's are a different thing. They are not invented for the census, they are defined according to the information a previous census gave. They are mostly made in base with patterns of commute, and you can find also strong economic and social ties between the communities that comprise them. (the CSA's)


But that's my point. The New York CSA is bound on each side by another CSA: Philadelphia to the west, DC-Baltimore to the south, and Hartford/Boston to the north. And transportation in this area is or could be made good enough that all three CSA's are functionally one; it could then be recorded as such, giving the "New York" CSA(which would be those 5, and then named after the biggest individual one) a circa-2011 population of ~46 million. LA stands alone in SoCal as a CSA; the only metro area that _could conceivably_ be added to the CSA is San Diego, which, even if you use the census definition of basically all of San Diego county, is only three million, making the new "LA-San Diego" CSA still smaller than the current New York CSA.

Basically, I was just saying that in terms of population measured by the census, it'd be much much easier to expand/is more likely that the New York CSA would expand to include other currently-independant CSA's than Los Angeles', partially because the transportation networks along the NEC are far more developed both intracity and intercity (allowing the combining of those different CSA's to come naturally), but mostly because there are a number of large metro areas/CSA's around the New York metro area/CSA. The labelling of a new CSA as "New York" would just be an indicator of where most of the activity is.



> And as for the question of the thread, it is very difficult to predict. According to the current trend, some day Los Angeles will catch New York, but it is imposible to predict what would happen in the years to come. 250 years ago, Philadelphia was larger than New York, 150 years ago, Los Angeles was an insignificant town that nobody heard of. New York had a very explosive growth from the 19th century until the 40's of the 20th century, then began to slow down. Los Angeles grew explosively for most of the 20th century, now it also seems to be slowing down.
> 
> Maybe in 30 years, for reasons we can't imagine yet, Los Angeles may begin to decline (as Detroit and Cleveland did and nobody could imagine that in 1925) and never catch New York. Maybe is New York the one that begins to decline (as it already did, during 1970's and 80's)
> So the answer would be, it may or may not happen, who knows? only time will tell.


No argument there.


----------



## pbrdpbrd (Jun 8, 2009)

*Fantasy Map*



Blackpool88 said:


> I find images like this so pointless. The cities are far too spread out we may as well claim that England is one 50Million megacity.












This map is very misleading. It shows yellow linking L.A. with Las Vegas... Once you leave Victorville there is absolutely nothing for hundreds of miles... and there will probably never be much either....so thaqt link is just a nice color spot.

Also the front range area... once you go south of Pueblo Colorado there is nothing for hundreds of miles... there probably will be nothing for a very long time........

Also some areas of Arizona along the Colorado river such as Yuma all the way to the border with Nevada are booming and increasing population by leaps and bounds... of course this map does not even know about that....


----------



## WonderlandPark (Sep 9, 2007)

Not counting Riverside/SB as part of the LA MSA is absolute rubbish at this point, look at the satellite, you can't even tell where one ends and the other begins, and its been this way for decades. The east coast bias refuses to see the obvious, CSA tends to be more accurate in the west, there is general bias against larger Western metro areas, just like San Jose is an intricate part of the Bay Area, Provo, SLC and Ogden have effectively merged into one large area, its time the Census Bureau looked at the issue. Anyways...


----------



## pesto (Jun 29, 2009)

jbkayaker12 said:


> "We asked those who purchased either a hotel or airline, or a
> tour/travel group package, how much their package cost per
> person. *Foreign visitors paid the most by far for their
> package (average of $873.52), followed by domestic visitors
> ...


I don't really get the drift. It's not surprising that foreigners spend more money than locals or that tour packages cost more than checking on-line or in the LA Times for deals or that 6 LA guys sharing a room are cheaper per person than an Asian couple sharing a room that they overpaid for.

And what difference does it make where occasional visitors come from? Regular enough visitors make a real connection between locations; occasional don't.


----------



## pesto (Jun 29, 2009)

WonderlandPark said:


> Not counting Riverside/SB as part of the LA MSA is absolute rubbish at this point, look at the satellite, you can't even tell where one ends and the other begins, and its been this way for decades. The east coast bias refuses to see the obvious, CSA tends to be more accurate in the west, there is general bias against larger Western metro areas, just like San Jose is an intricate part of the Bay Area, Provo, SLC and Ogden have effectively merged into one large area, its time the Census Bureau looked at the issue. Anyways...


Very true. The central model of cities in the East makes for relatively isolated and independent smaller cities that would be very much surprised to hear they are part of the NY or Boston or DC area. But the "megalopolis" builders push them in anyway. It used to be these inventions were called things like "Bos-Wash" which at least distinguished them from actual groupings of people with a shared identity. 

So for 2050 are the largest cities going to be Chinese Delta 1, Bos-Wash, Blue Banana, North India and Chinese Delta 2?


----------



## pesto (Jun 29, 2009)

Manila-X said:


> The map is not just limited to urban sprawl or to megaregions of various cities and towns, but also *economic and cultural influences*.
> 
> Las Vegas for example is grouped with The Southern California megaregion even if it lies in The State of Nevada.
> 
> ...


I think that this is a valuable clarificaiton. These are not cities; they are spheres of influence, and in that sense they make some sense.

btw, note that 6 of these regions are transnational, which should get us away from thinking in terms of CSA's and MSA's, which are, after all, statistical tools.


----------



## Yuri S Andrade (Sep 29, 2008)

WonderlandPark said:


> Not counting Riverside/SB as part of the LA MSA is absolute rubbish at this point, look at the satellite, you can't even tell where one ends and the other begins, and its been this way for decades. The east coast bias refuses to see the obvious, CSA tends to be more accurate in the west, there is general bias against larger Western metro areas, just like San Jose is an intricate part of the Bay Area, Provo, SLC and Ogden have effectively merged into one large area, its time the Census Bureau looked at the issue. Anyways...


What about Bridgeport and New York? I fail to see the "bias" against.


----------



## bayviews (Mar 3, 2006)

Manila-X said:


> I would rather have NY be the largest city in The United States compared to LA.
> 
> But *Chicago* has the potential to become the largest if cities within The Great Lakes region are integrated to The Greater Chicago Area or Chicagoland.
> 
> This has been discussed before and I actually created a thread on it but by that time, there is a potential for The United States to create mega regions to improve economy and trade.


Nice map. However, should Chicago become more integrated with other Great Lakes/Midwest cities (Detroit, Cleveland, St. Louis Buffalo, etc.) it's certainly fated to join the fastest-declining region in the US.


----------



## Xusein (Sep 27, 2005)

I don't see it happening anytime soon. LA is not growing fast enough.


----------



## Xusein (Sep 27, 2005)

WonderlandPark said:


> Not counting Riverside/SB as part of the LA MSA is absolute rubbish at this point, look at the satellite, you can't even tell where one ends and the other begins, and its been this way for decades. The east coast bias refuses to see the obvious, CSA tends to be more accurate in the west, there is general bias against larger Western metro areas, just like San Jose is an intricate part of the Bay Area, Provo, SLC and Ogden have effectively merged into one large area, its time the Census Bureau looked at the issue. Anyways...


Metro areas are not determined by sprawl, they are determined by commuting percentages.

I fail to see how it is a bias either. The Tri-state area has been broken up into several metro areas because of this. Bridgeport-Stamford, Long Island, and large parts of North NJ are separate MSAs from the NYC MSA. :dunno:


----------



## pbrdpbrd (Jun 8, 2009)

Manila-X said:


> The map is not just limited to urban sprawl or to megaregions of various cities and towns, but also *economic and cultural influences*.
> 
> Las Vegas for example is grouped with The Southern California megaregion even if it lies in The State of Nevada.
> 
> ...


Again the fact that gamblers from Southern California go to Las Vegas does not mean that Las Vegas is part of southern California... with the same kind of thinking I would link Miami to New York because people from New York go to Miami for the winter....

Regarding the Maglev train... not clear what's the point, I can travel from Amsterdam on a high speed train to Paris and it does not mean that Amsterdam is a suburb of Paris....


----------



## isaidso (Mar 21, 2007)

Nexis said:


> The US Census and Various long term regional groups.... some put it as high as 600 Million , most put it at 420-540 Million mostly due to immigrants...
> 
> 1920 : 106,021,537
> 1970 : 203,302,031
> ...


Good god, I'd say the US is over populated already. The US would be better off staying at 310 million or even shrinking.


----------



## bayviews (Mar 3, 2006)

isaidso said:


> Good god, I'd say the US is over populated already. The US would be better off staying at 310 million or even shrinking.



That might be nice, particularly those who particularly value peace, quiet & long-term sustainability. 

But trying to stop the growth of such a huge country like the US is like trying to stop a speeding 18-wheeler on a dime. 

Just doesn't happen. Especially when hundreds of millions from all corners of the world dream of coming here!

We've been hearing much about China lately. 

But how many folks dream of moving to China?


----------



## jbkayaker12 (Nov 8, 2004)

bayviews said:


> That might be nice, particularly those who particularly value peace, quiet & long-term sustainability.
> 
> But trying to stop the growth of such a huge country like the US is like trying to stop a speeding 18-wheeler on a dime.
> 
> ...


For almost 2 decades Vegas was the fastest growing city in the United States. It grew so fast that when the global recession hit, Vegas got hit hard mainly because the main industry in the city is tourism/gambling. Things are now improving albeit slowly. Tourism numbers are up but if you drive around Clark County you can still see vacancies on Strip malls/offices/residences. Clark County overbuilt in anticipation of more people coming in but the recession hit.

Things are improving, we still get people moving here and construction that were halted during the recession are starting back up again.

Regarding peace, quiet and crime. We get so many people from _____, some areas of Clark County are so GHETTO because of them. Having said that, our ghetto is still nicer compared to ghettos in other cities.

We still have lots of neighborhood that are quiet and peaceful which I love. Traffic is so smooth and flowing fast, we don't have traffic problems like the ones associated with other cities. As a 25 year resident of Clark County, I can say I love the slow pace of life away from the Strip and at the same time, it is great to have the Entertainment Capital of the World a short drive away from home.:cheers:


----------



## isaidso (Mar 21, 2007)

bayviews said:


> That might be nice, particularly those who particularly value peace, quiet & long-term sustainability.
> 
> But trying to stop the growth of such a huge country like the US is like trying to stop a speeding 18-wheeler on a dime.
> 
> ...


The US, like all countries, has a quota for how many people they let in each year. There's no reason why the US can't lower the quota to 500,000/year from what ever number it's at now. 

China? In modern times, people haven't dreamt of moving to China, but already lots of ambitious young people are heading off to Shanghai to make their fortune. It's just a trickle at this point, but there are a ton of Westerners there already. 

China will likely never allow widespread immigration due to over population, but they'll certainly let people in on business visas.


----------



## pesto (Jun 29, 2009)

pbrdpbrd said:


> Again the fact that gamblers from Southern California go to Las Vegas does not mean that Las Vegas is part of southern California... with the same kind of thinking I would link Miami to New York because people from New York go to Miami for the winter....
> 
> Regarding the Maglev train... not clear what's the point, I can travel from Amsterdam on a high speed train to Paris and it does not mean that Amsterdam is a suburb of Paris....


The analogy is closer to NY and the Hamptons or Atlantic City; you go for the weekend, and then retire there (Nevada has no income tax). It's a 4 hr. drive or 40 min. flight.

LV officials have expressed concerns that HSR would make LV a suburb of LA, so this is not just invention. LA has conversely worried that it would draw visitors away from Hollywood, etc. However, this is out-weighed by the possibility of increased tourism that would join LV, Disneyland and Hollywood. Economically the areas are tied together. (Interestingly, Bakersfield opposes HSR for the same reason, among others.)

And, of course, the entertainers tend to keep homes in Palm Springs, Malibu, etc., and much of the entertainment support services are in LA (writers, agents, PR, etc.).


----------



## desertpunk (Oct 12, 2009)

isaidso said:


> The US, like all countries, has a quota for how many people they let in each year. There's no reason why the US can't lower the quota to 500,000/year from what ever number it's at now.
> 
> China? In modern times, people haven't dreamt of moving to China, but already lots of ambitious young people are heading off to Shanghai to make their fortune. It's just a trickle at this point, but there are a ton of Westerners there already.
> 
> China will likely never allow widespread immigration due to over population, but they'll certainly let people in on business visas.


There are 250,000-260,000 western expats residing in China, hardly a "ton". 

And how naive to think that lowering quotas would stem immigration. We get them anyway. Not that it's a problem, the US can easily support a billion or more people so sustained growth over the next century shouldn't be a problem. What is a problem is if most immigrants are off the books and not contributing as much as legal immigrants. That's where immigration policies need to focus: on better integrating and assimilating ALL immigrants, not just those who come in under the rules.


----------



## jbkayaker12 (Nov 8, 2004)

pesto said:


> LV officials have expressed concerns that HSR would make LV a suburb of LA, so this is not just invention. LA has conversely worried that it would draw visitors away from Hollywood, etc. However, this is out-weighed by the possibility of increased tourism that would join LV, Disneyland and Hollywood. Economically the areas are tied together. (Interestingly, Bakersfield opposes HSR for the same reason, among others.)
> 
> And, of course, the entertainers tend to keep homes in Palm Springs, Malibu, etc., and much of the entertainment support services are in LA (writers, agents, PR, etc.).


 Vegas is already UNofficially a suburb of Los Angeles or a suburb in CA with the number of Californians who have moved to Vegas in the last couple of decades during the time when Vegas was the fastest growing city in the US. Californians move here because of the lower more affordable cost of living coupled with a "large metropolis" nightlife and entertainment options while bringing with them the good and the bad.


----------



## Spocket (Feb 11, 2006)

chicagogeorge said:


> You mean CSA not MSA. LA's MSA is 13 million compared to NYC's MSA being over 19 million.
> 
> Don't forget that most of L.A's growth the last 11 years happened over the first few years of the last decade. It also mainly occurred in the Inland Empire of Riverside and San Bernardino which is not part of the LA MSA, but is part of it's CSA.


You're right that I meant to say CSA but either way , we can still say that L.A. is a higher growth region than is New York . Honestly , I'm not interested in the political boundaries that define any particular jurisdiction . The region itself is what attracts business and population and in this case , L.A. is the center of the region . So basically , L.A. (as a region) is growing much faster than New York (as a region) based on the long term trends . We can choose any time we want and take a snapshot of the demographics but to get some idea of where we are going we need to look at it over a longer period of time . L.A. is clearly coming up fast while New York remains relatively stagnant .

Now it's true that New York has seen its fortunes turn around over the last ten-twenty years or so . Even with the reversal , it simply hasn't kept pace with L.A. in percentages . Now that L.A. is in the same ball-park as New York in terms of population , we can start to make more meaningful comparisons . It seems to me that while there has been a slowdown , it's more than likely that L.A. will surge ahead sooner or later while New York chugs along . The long term trends seem to indicate this .


----------



## Spocket (Feb 11, 2006)

desertpunk said:


> There are 250,000-260,000 western expats residing in China, hardly a "ton".
> 
> And how naive to think that lowering quotas would stem immigration. We get them anyway. Not that it's a problem, the US can easily support a billion or more people so sustained growth over the next century shouldn't be a problem. What is a problem is if most immigrants are off the books and not contributing as much as legal immigrants. That's where immigration policies need to focus: on better integrating and assimilating ALL immigrants, not just those who come in under the rules.


No , he's right .
I'm in China right now and have lived here for over two years . The truth is that China is the new land of opportunity . The number of foreigners here is , as you say , hardly overwhelming but you're forgetting that it's not just "Westerners" living in China . The fact is that China is attracting a lot more attention from would-be immigrants than you may realize . Chinese policies don't allow straight up immigration in the same way as do Western countries but that doesn't mean you're not allowed to do exactly that anyway .

Get married in China , have a child in China , buy property in China ... these are all avenues to permanent residence in this country for foreigners . You can basically buy your way in . I can also honestly say that Western countries are looking less and less attractive to Chinese as places to immigrate to . Chinese population is largely under control and is even expected to decline in the coming decades so don't be surprised at all to learn that China opens its doors in the future .


----------



## Ribarca (Jan 28, 2005)

aquaticko said:


> I think New York is bound to remain no.1 for at least the next century, for a number of factors, although one important one stands out.
> 
> Part of the reason that the Blue Banana concept exists is because transportation around that part of Europe is very highly developed. I tend to assume that a person who lives at one end of the Banana can move fairly easily throughout the whole thing frequently enough that they act as a citizen of one mega-megalopolis. Due to the sizes of London, Paris (which is basically part of the banana, even if it is kind of west of it), Brussels, Frankfurt, Zurich, Geneva, Milan, and Turin are such that their bedroom communities can just as easily serve a similar funtion to the cities which each individual city neighbors (although it's obviously a bit tricky for the Swiss cities and their neighbors, given that country's geography). The point is that, although we're obviously not there yet, the HSR systems in that part of Europe will eventually serve as the "subway" of the whole megalopolis.


You are forgetting the Randstad linked up with the HSR to Germany (ICE) and Brussels/Paris via Antwerp (Thalys). Still travel times are too substantial even with the HSR. In my experience of taking the HSR Politicians are perhaps the only ones to travel to Brussels and live in their native countries. And even they have an apartment to stay over in Brussels.


----------



## chicagogeorge (Nov 30, 2004)

Spocket said:


> You're right that I meant to say CSA but either way , we can still say that *L.A. is a higher growth region than is New York .* Honestly , I'm not interested in the political boundaries that define any particular jurisdiction . The region itself is what attracts business and population and in this case , L.A. is the center of the region . So basically , L.A. (as a region) is growing much faster than New York (as a region) based on the long term trends . We can choose any time we want and take a snapshot of the demographics but to get some idea of where we are going we need to look at it over a longer period of time . L.A. is clearly coming up fast while New York remains relatively stagnant .
> 
> Now it's true that New York has seen its fortunes turn around over the last ten-twenty years or so . Even with the reversal ,* it simply hasn't kept pace with L.A. in percentages . * Now that L.A. is in the same ball-park as New York in terms of population , we can start to make more meaningful comparisons . It seems to me that while there has been a slowdown , it's more than likely that L.A. will surge ahead sooner or later while New York chugs along . The long term trends seem to indicate this .




Numerically, L.A. has slowed down A LOT this past decade compared to it's historic trends. Seems that the inner core of L.A. metro has filled up and priced out, where much of the growth is now in the fringe areas.....

NYC's also saw it's growth rate slow considerably when compared to the growth during the 1990's, but it's MSA out grew L.A's MSA in raw numbers (by over 100,000). Both MSA's have a growth rate 3-4%










In terms of CSA, L.A. did in fact out pace NYC's CSA, thanks to explosive growth in San Bernadino/Riverside. L.A's CSA grew by about 1.5 million between, 2000 and 2010, while NYC's CSA grew by about 725,000. Assuming that rate stated the same, it would still take decades for L.A's CSA to actually surpass NYC's.











As a side note, if we assume that growth rates stay the same, DC-Baltimore's CSA would surpass Chicago's in about 20 years. With Dallas-Fort Worth and Houston in about 40 years. By that time, more towns and cities would be added to the CSA definition as they grow and inter connect so who knows. Los Angeles might add San Diego to it's CSA, NYC might add Philadelphia, and Chicago will add Milwaukee.

Looking at Chicago/Milwaukee more in depth:

The only numbers available for commuting patterns that I can find are still from the 2000 census, so they're very outdated. After glancing at the numbers from 2000, as well as the ACS 2006-08 estimates, it appears that 8.63% of Racine County's workforce commutes to counties within Chicago's CSA. *The threshold for CSA status is only 15%*, so Racine County. could very well be added to Chicago's CSA now, and definitely by the 2020 census... That would put Chicago's CSA right at Milwaukee County.'s doorstep, and it would only be a matter of time after that.


*Residence County-Workplace County*

Racine Co. (WI)-Cook Co. (IL): 678
Racine Co. (WI)-DeKalb Co. (IL): 0
Racine Co. (WI)-DuPage Co. (IL): 115
Racine Co. (WI)-Grundy Co. (IL): 0
Racine Co. (WI)-Jasper Co. (IN): 0
Racine Co. (WI)-Kane Co. (IL): 10
Racine Co. (WI)-Kendall Co. (IL): 0
Racine Co. (WI)-Kenkakee Co. (IL): 0
Racine Co. (WI)-Kenosha Co. (WI): 5,825
Racine Co. (WI)-Lake Co. (IL): 1,422
Racine Co. (WI)-Lake Co. (IN): 5
Racine Co. (WI)-LaPorte Co. (IN): 0
Racine Co. (WI)-McHenry Co. (IL): 191
Racine Co. (WI)-Newton Co. (IN): 0
Racine Co. (WI)-Porter Co. (IN): 0
Racine Co. (WI)-Will Co. (IL): 0

Racine County Total Commuters [Racine County, Wisconsin - Selected Economic Characteristics: 2006-2008] 95,480
Racine County to Chicago CSA: 8,246; 8.63%
http://factfinder.census.gov/servle...elect&-geo_id=05000US55101&-format=&-_lang=en




> Generally speaking, by commuter amounts:
> MSA: More than 25% of commuter exchange from the 'outlying county' to the 'Central/Core' County
> CSA: More than 15% of commuter exchange from the 'outlying county' to the 'Central/Core' County


p.11

http://www.census.gov/population/metro/


----------



## desertpunk (Oct 12, 2009)

Greater LA already surpasses metro NY in indices such as bank deposits. So population may simply turn out to be a lagging indicator of LA's rise to the top metro in the US.

If Chicago conjoins with Milwaukee and pushes eastward into southern Michigan, then 12 million is certainly likely. But it would be an enormous stretch to move Chicago's numbers to anywhere near NYC's.


----------



## chicagogeorge (Nov 30, 2004)

desertpunk said:


> Greater LA already surpasses metro NY in indices such as bank deposits. So population may simply turn out to be a lagging indicator of LA's rise to the top metro in the US.


Other than population, L.A. still lags far behind NYC in GDP

NYC metro GDP in 2010 was 1.3 trillion. Los Angeles Metro was 735 billion.
http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/regional/gdp_metro/2011b/pdf/gdp_metro0211b.pdf




> If Chicago conjoins with Milwaukee and pushes eastward into southern Michigan, then 12 million is certainly likely. But it would be an enormous stretch to move Chicago's numbers to anywhere near NYC's.


It will never reach NYC's number or L.A's for that matter.


----------



## desertpunk (Oct 12, 2009)

^^
San Bernardino/Riverside ($110 bln) was excluded fom those GDP numbers, as well as Ventura County. The real number for the Greater Los Angeles area is roughly $900 billion. Since NY is arguably the most expensive city in which to do business in the US, if you back out that differential, the numbers get even closer to parity.


----------



## Yuri S Andrade (Sep 29, 2008)

^^
And New York CSA is missing its MSAs. Here:

*----------------- GDP 2009 ----- Pop. 2010*
New York --- 1,379,570,000,000 --- 21,895,722
Los Angeles --- 876,468,000,000 --- 17,877,006

The growth pattern clearly indicates LA will never surpass NY anytime soon whether in GDP or population.


----------



## babybackribs2314 (Jan 5, 2008)

San Bernardino/Riverside is one of the poorest urban areas in the country... there is no way LA's GDP will ever come close to NYC's, although its population may (eventually, as in 2050+).


----------



## isaidso (Mar 21, 2007)

Spocket said:


> No , he's right .
> I'm in China right now and have lived here for over two years . The truth is that China is the new land of opportunity . The number of foreigners here is , as you say , hardly overwhelming but you're forgetting that it's not just "Westerners" living in China . The fact is that China is attracting a lot more attention from would-be immigrants than you may realize . Chinese policies don't allow straight up immigration in the same way as do Western countries but that doesn't mean you're not allowed to do exactly that anyway .
> 
> Get married in China , have a child in China , buy property in China ... these are all avenues to permanent residence in this country for foreigners . You can basically buy your way in . I can also honestly say that Western countries are looking less and less attractive to Chinese as places to immigrate to . Chinese population is largely under control and is even expected to decline in the coming decades so don't be surprised at all to learn that China opens its doors in the future .


You said it better than I did. People here in the West are largely blind to the extent to which China is becoming a land of opportunity. In Canada, we witnessed glimpses of that over a decade ago. Vancouver has a massive Chinese born population, likely the largest on America's west coast. A significant number of them returned to China to make their millions while maintaining their Canadian passport.

Canada is still seen as an idyllic place to poorer over crowded China, but these Chinese ex pats increasingly acknowledge the huge fortunes to be made in China. Many keep their kids in Vancouver and plan to retire in Canada, but they head back to China to make their mark.


----------



## Yuri S Andrade (Sep 29, 2008)

^^
China will never be some sort of immigrant's paradise. Look Japan: several times richer than China and the number of expats living there has always been quite low. Few weeks ago, I saw here in SSC a research which indicates half of Chinese millionaires would like to migrate.


----------



## Restless (Oct 31, 2009)

Yuri S Andrade said:


> ^^
> China will never be some sort of immigrant's paradise. Look Japan: several times richer than China and the number of expats living there has always been quite low. Few weeks ago, I saw here in SSC a research which indicates half of Chinese millionaires would like to migrate.


Japan generally conceives of itself as a country of a single race and ethnicity.

In contrast, China is explicitly organised as a state with multiple ethnicities, languages and religions.
For example, Chinese citizens who are of Korean, Mongolian or Muslim descent require lower test scores in order to enter university.

As for the millionaires who want to migrate for a better quality of life, it's generally for the following reasons eg. education, air quality, an insurance policy so they can transfer their wealth elsewhere if required, etc

These things will improve as China gets richer, but as of this moment, the average Chinese person has a living standard similar to that of an Albanian. This also means that there is still huge potential in terms of economic growth, along with the fortunes to be made from this.

And as any foreign businessman or politician will be able to tell you, their Chinese counterparts are determined to do whatever it takes to succeed.


----------



## Restless (Oct 31, 2009)

I think a more pertinent example are opportunities for women in China.

===
"Of 28 self-made female billionaires around the world, 18 came from China, according to a recent report compiled by Hurun Report ranking China’s wealthy."
-CNN
http://business.blogs.cnn.com/2011/09/30/wealthiest-self-made-woman-its-not-oprah/
===​
If I were an ambitious woman (god forbid) who was determined to build a business worth billions and was comfortable with the language, the logical place to do this today would be in businesswoman-friendly China.


----------



## chicagogeorge (Nov 30, 2004)

babybackribs2314 said:


> San Bernardino/Riverside is one of the poorest urban areas in the country... there is no way LA's GDP will ever come close to NYC's, although its population may (eventually, as in 2050+).


The only real shot L.A metro will surpass NYC's metro any time this century is if somehow San Diego is added to L.A's CSA. That is a long shot because of the expanisve Camp Pendleton military base that separates San Diego from Orange County.


----------



## aquaticko (Mar 15, 2011)

Ribarca said:


> You are forgetting the Randstad linked up with the HSR to Germany (ICE) and Brussels/Paris via Antwerp (Thalys). Still travel times are too substantial even with the HSR. In my experience of taking the HSR Politicians are perhaps the only ones to travel to Brussels and live in their native countries. And even they have an apartment to stay over in Brussels.


But it's simply a matter of using faster trains to make that sort of thing feasible for more people, and as different though Belgic, French, German, Dutch, and Swiss cultures are, they're not incompatible, and they're all very economically connected too (or at least will be as long as the Euro stays....).

It's possible to use HSR as a commuter system, it's just a matter of making it feasible for everyone. I'll certainly grant that it's a stretch in the same way that the Northeast megalopolis concept is in the U.S., but there are good reasons for thinking both that and the Blue Banana are valid ideas.


----------



## pesto (Jun 29, 2009)

chicagogeorge said:


> The only real shot L.A metro will surpass NYC's metro any time this century is if somehow San Diego is added to L.A's CSA. That is a long shot because of the expanisve Camp Pendleton military base that separates San Diego from Orange County.


I think this is true; it's been said that if the free market was allowed to operate, Pendleton would be another .5M people living in $2M houses. But you also have to add the 2-3M in Tijuana, many of whom cross the border daily for work and shopping. 

This again highlights the difference between the older paradigm (dense central core with gradually thinning suburbs) and the new (various nodes, with a few somewhat larger). LA, SD and Tijuana are the largest, but there is a string of 100-300k cities every few miles for about 200 miles from TJ to Santa Barbara. SD has little connection to DT LA, but a great deal of connection to North County, which connects to Irvine and South Orange County, which has great connections to Anaheim and LA, and so on. 

Hard to translate into a DT-suburb paradigm.


----------



## pesto (Jun 29, 2009)

Restless said:


> Japan generally conceives of itself as a country of a single race and ethnicity.
> 
> In contrast, China is explicitly organised as a state with multiple ethnicities, languages and religions.
> For example, Chinese citizens who are of Korean, Mongolian or Muslim descent require lower test scores in order to enter university.
> ...


Nice to see something intelligent about China instead of the gung-ho boosterism and absuridities of some posters.


----------

