Population Prognose for NYC and LA ??!

[Cauo]

I have heard that NYC will have in the year 2015 around 18 mill inhabitans (the metro of course ) and New york will have around 22 mill. inhabitans (also metro area) .. sorry i am forget the resource of this facts,what you are thinking are this facts right/realistic or not ???

[matthew_p2004]

Did you mean to say LA for one of those?

Anyways...I have no clue... :D

[Cauo]

Originally posted by matthew_p2004

Did you mean to say LA for one of those?

Anyways...I have no clue... :D oh sorry ,i see i was wrong i am mean LA will have around 18 million inh. in 2015 ,and New York will have in 2015 around 22 million is that realistic ? !

[bigbruiser]

I have no scientific data for this, but buy the year 2050 I can see Los Angeles passing New York in population(metro area).

[Philip Cronin]

According to estimates from the US Bureau of the Census, the population of New York's CMSA grew 281,888 between 1 July 2000 and 1 July 2002, which is 140,944 a year, while LA's CMSA grew by 1,073,242 between 1 July 2000 and 1 July 2003, which is 357,747 a year. At that rate, Los Angeles' metro would overtake New York in 2014. However there are three quibbles. Firstly, the years from 2000 to 2002 where abnormal ones for New York, and for LA also, to a lesser extent. Secondly, the New York metro may be expanded to incorporate additional counties in the future, but this is very unlikely to happen to LA, which will probably remain within its large block of five counties permanently. Lastly, there will of course be fluctuation in the rates of growth for each city for all sorts of unpredictable reasons. Nonetheless, LA may well overtake New York in the first quarter of this century.

New York will remain the greater city when LA overtakes it in population though, and most likely forever.

EDIT. I accidently used my own modified "metro" figures. Using the official CMSA figures, LA doesn't overtake New York until 2025.

English tip : The singular of "prognoses" is "prognosis", rather than "prognose", but this word is mainly used in a medical context. "Prediction" and "forecast" are more common everyday words, and either of them would serve you better in this context. I thought it might be helpful to clarify this, as this is at least the second thread in which you have used the word "prognose".

[Daortiz]

Geography and density will determine the population of each city, I think that New York has already reached a level of saturation that will not let it absorb as many newcomers as opposed to LA that's still not as dense yet, simply there is more room in LA.

[ArchMadness]

I think there will be a continuing trend of people moving to warmer climates. Plus LA's proximity to locations where many immigrants come from (i.e. Asia and Latin America) will allow LA to overtake NY in population. However, NY will always be the density and corporate capital of the US despite what LA does.

[GeorgiaGuy]

To be honest, I do think that both cities will continue to gain in population throughout the next twenty years. However, the real gains, at least percentage-wise, will be in the large cities of Atlanta, Phoenix, Denver, Houston and Dallas, and smaller metros like Charlotte, Nashville, Orlando, and Raleigh.

The northeast and midwest have seen their glory days, though there is moderate growth in some metropolitan areas within these regions. However, as economies are cyclical, who knows, perhaps in fifty years we'll see the northeast and midwest regain their top spots as the fastest growing regions in the U.S.

[LA1]

What is more amazing about LA's growth, is that it ONLY had 100,000 people in 1900 for city, and not much more for the enitre metro area. Now it has around 17-18 million, not bad for a place that is somewhat isolated from the major, older population centers of the U.S. I have read articles from historians mentioning the growth of LA Metro is one of the most incredible achievements (cant remember the exact word used) in the history of human civilization.

[teshadoh]

An interesting concept of how large the populations for these metro areas might be WHAT defines these metro areas. Also it will depend on what factors are important to people 10 years from now, the sunbelt trend may very well end by that point. Currently New York City metro is considered as Northern New Jersey, SW. Connecticut, the Hudson River Valley of NY, Long Island & New York City. Based on infrastructure improvements & economic trends - New York City's sphere of influence could possibly extend over half of Connecticut toward Hartford, half of New Jersey toward Trenton, & extend north toward Albany.

Los Angeles has more geographic constraints, but having Asia & Latin America acting as an incubator for growth - the city will continue to densify more (it is already a relatively high dense city) & expand into San Diego & along the coast. There is also a pattern that is emerging of Central Valley cities such as Bakersfield becoming involved with Los Angeles.

My guesses for 2015 will be the following based on a high growth rate in Los Angeles
Los Angeles 20 million
New York City 23 million

But after 2015 New York City's metro would likely enlarge & become a greater mega-city similar to Tokyo & Yokahama to include Hartford, Albany & possibly union with Philadelphia. Los Angeles would only union with San Diego.

[redspork02]

My guesses for 2015 will be the following based on a high growth rate in Los Angeles
Los Angeles 20 million
New York City 23 million

But after 2015 New York City's metro would likely enlarge & become a greater mega-city similar to Tokyo & Yokahama to include Hartford, Albany & possibly union with Philadelphia. Los Angeles would only union with San Diego.

wow THats Almost the same DISTANCE , Isnt it?
Philly To New York : Total Est. Time: 1 hour, 50 minutes
Total Est. Distance: 94.98 miles

Los ANgeles TO San Diego: Total Est. Time: 1 hour, 58 minutes
Total Est. Distance: 115.87 miles.



LOS ANGELES CITY Proper Area= has a total area of 1,290.6 km² (498.3 mi²).
The extreme north-south distance is 44 miles (71 km), the extreme east-west distance is 29 miles (47 km), and the length of the city boundary is 342 miles (550 km). The land area is the 9th largest in the Lower-48th of United States (excluding Alaska and Hawaii). from wikipedia.com

NEW YORK CITY Proper Area= 309 square miles (800 km²), If it were a nation, the city would have the 16th highest gross domestic product in the world, exceeding that of Belgium ($387 billion), and the second highest per capita GDP in the world, at about $59,000/head, about $7,000/head lower than Luxembourg. With a population of over 8 million, New York City has more people than any states in the U.S. except the 11 most populous states. It has more than twice the population of Los Angeles, the second largest city in the country, and more than 27 times the population of Buffalo, the second largest city in the state. all quotes from www.wikipedia.org

[PotatoGuy]

[QUOTE=TheBrad]
Los Angeles has more geographic constraints, but having Asia & Latin America acting as an incubator for growth - the city will continue to densify more (it is already a relatively high dense city) & expand into San Diego [QUOTE]

LA would've allready met w/ san Diego if it wasnt for Camp Pendelton which is what divides the two metros

[louisville playa]

No offense but if L.A. over populates NYC if would seem extremely wierd that the main city isn't eastcoast, nor does NYC boost it's no.1 population.

[SChristopher]

Elaborate?

[louisville playa]

I mean that New York has had the title of the dominant U.S. city for centuries, and now it will be overtaken by some boomtown filled with former New York residences.

I really hope that New York does something to keep up with the pace because no.2 city for NYC just sounds unamerican.

[ROCguy]

To be honest, I do think that both cities will continue to gain in population throughout the next twenty years. However, the real gains, at least percentage-wise, will be in the large cities of Atlanta, Phoenix, Denver, Houston and Dallas, and smaller metros like Charlotte, Nashville, Orlando, and Raleigh.

The northeast and midwest have seen their glory days, though there is moderate growth in some metropolitan areas within these regions. However, as economies are cyclical, who knows, perhaps in fifty years we'll see the northeast and midwest regain their top spots as the fastest growing regions in the U.S.

I agree with that pretty much. Except for one thing. While Atlanta's suburbs are growing like crazy, the city proper, and actually, even Fulton County, have been losing population since 2000.

[ROCguy]

Also, I don't know about the metro areas, because the boundaries of those change every year. But there is no way that LA's city population will ever pass NYC's city population. It is about 3.5 million for LA now, and 8.1 for NYC. New York City gained over 600,000 people just within the city limits durring the 90's, and LA gained a little over 100,000. Both have lots of immigrents coming in every day. Just from different countries. Both get mostly hispanic immigrents now. New York mostly gets Puerto Ricans, and Los Angeles mostly gets Mexicans.

[Yankee BOY]

I just love puerto rican women

[ChrisLA]

^Actually LA city population is now at 4 million by most estimates.

[ROCguy]

OK, 4,000,000. That is stil half of NYC's population. LA's city population isn't going to be doubling. By the time it does, NYC's population would probably be well over 10,000,000.

[PotatoGuy]

^^ i agree, LA wont beat NYC in population in the city proper, but it will definetly in metro population

[CarsonCaliBrotha]

I just love puerto rican women
Thats why New Yorkers got it tight. We got an over-abundance of Mexican girls, who look nowhere near as fine as alot of Puerto Rican girls I've seen. New York has Jamaican, Puerto Rican, Black, Cuban, Dominican, and all these other races, all we have are Mexican and Asian girls, wow. And a concentrated population of black women is pretty much it. Oh yeah there's white girls too, but I'm not really gettin into that, lol.

[edsg25]

Given the following:

• Metro LA has a long time to go to pass up Metro NY in population

• Solid growth should be occurring in virtually all metro regions

Isn't it safe to say that, when the time comes for LA to surpass NY, both the LA and NY metro areas will have merged with other metro areas, thus altering the scenerio set forth here based on today's regions?

What I'm saying is, that by the point this happens, LA and SD will have probably merged into one metro area. For NY, the growth could be greater, perhaps a good chunk of the northeast megalopolis. I'm not sure how statisticans will handle it, but when NY and Phil merge (and they will), that will create a solidly urbanized region (more metro in density than megalopolis) from NY to DC (not to mention the growth on the other side of NY to Bos).

[mad_nick]

I wouldn't rely too much on census estimates. The 1999 estimates for the NY CMSA was 20,196,649, but according to the 2000 census, it was 21,199,865, so the estimate was off by more than 1 million. The population estimate for the city alone was off by about 580,000.
The city is continually shortchanged in the census estimates.

[ROCguy]

I wouldn't rely too much on census estimates. The 1999 estimates for the NY CMSA was 20,196,649, but according to the 2000 census, it was 21,199,865, so the estimate was off by more than 1 million. The population estimate for the city alone was off by about 580,000.
The city is continually shortchanged in the census estimates.

That's true. I think it is because the outer boroughs have so many little cities in them that, while still part of the City of New York, and their respective borough, they consider themselves their own town, and the census beareu may give them that.

[LosAngelesSportsFan]

oh sorry ,i see i was wrong i am mean LA will have around 18 million inh. in 2015 ,and New York will have in 2015 around 22 million is that realistic ? !


LA metro will hit 18 million next year or the year after and the prediction is 22 - 23 million for 2020. This is a conservative estimate and i dont doubt it at all. LA city just past 4 million last month and will keep on growing.

[Caliguy2005]

Metro L.A will definately surpass N.Y Metro in population sometime this century and pretty soon L.A and San Diego will merge together as more development occurs around Camp Pendleton...

I also feel that L.A will catch up with NYC and Chicago in Skyscrapers within 20-30 years.

[liat91]

I may be going against the grain, but I hope neither of these cities gets much bigger, they're big enough for christ sake. I mean LA with 20+ million people the way that city is arranged? Can you say GRIDLOCK! Besides the Census bureau includes illegal aliens in their population estimates, so if an amnesty doesn't get passed to make them legal residents, then many of them could go home. And from what I've seen in the media, I don't think an amnesty will happen. So, assuming a good chunk of these illegals came recently because they heard about a possible amnesty and it doesn't happen then there you have it, I don't think 12-14 million people will all be comfortable with living here without any chance of ever becoming a legal resident. These population assumptions rely on many factors, half the illegals going home would negate any big gains being made by the 2010 census.

[edsg25]

Metro L.A will definately surpass N.Y Metro in population sometime this century and pretty soon L.A and San Diego will merge together as more development occurs around Camp Pendleton...

I also feel that L.A will catch up with NYC and Chicago in Skyscrapers within 20-30 years.

So much of the new high rise construction in Manhattan and downtown Chicago is residential (condos) rather than business. I have to wonder, in the long run, can a waterless downtown LA catch up with the other cities when waterfront setting is part of the allure of so many downtowns.

[Sinjin P.]

How will they do this? :)

[Cabo]

;)
What is the estimated date when NY and LA merge?

[Third of a kind]

I just love puerto rican women

I wholeheartedly second this

[Caliguy2005]

Los Angeles doesn't only have Mexican,Asian,Black or White Girls...L.A has Jamaicans,Puerto Ricans,Cubans,Dominican and every other race you can think of.
Thats why New Yorkers got it tight. We got an over-abundance of Mexican girls, who look nowhere near as fine as alot of Puerto Rican girls I've seen. New York has Jamaican, Puerto Rican, Black, Cuban, Dominican, and all these other races, all we have are Mexican and Asian girls, wow. And a concentrated population of black women is pretty much it. Oh yeah there's white girls too, but I'm not really gettin into that, lol.

[Caliguy2005]

L.A will definately get more water as it continues to grow,even if they have to get it from the Pacific or the Atlantic.
So much of the new high rise construction in Manhattan and downtown Chicago is residential (condos) rather than business. I have to wonder, in the long run, can a waterless downtown LA catch up with the other cities when waterfront setting is part of the allure of so many downtowns.

[StormShadow]

I don't think NYC will ever fall. That's like cities in UK and in Russia hoping to pass London and Moscow. I just don't see LA passing NYC. When it comes to the USA, NYC is it, will always be unless we get smashed by some nuclear weapon or a mega tsunami. Luv L.A though, Chicago too.

[ROCguy]

Metro L.A will definately surpass N.Y Metro in population sometime this century and pretty soon L.A and San Diego will merge together as more development occurs around Camp Pendleton...

I also feel that L.A will catch up with NYC and Chicago in Skyscrapers within 20-30 years.

Keep dreaming.

[VansTripp]

LA metro will hit 18 million next year or the year after and the prediction is 22 - 23 million for 2020. This is a conservative estimate and i dont doubt it at all. LA city just past 4 million last month and will keep on growing.

I believe it's will still 17 million next year.

[chicagogeorge]

The 5 county Los Angeles metro area probably already has 18 million, and the city has about 4 million. By 2020, Los Angeles city will probably have about 5 million, maybe 5.5 million. The Greater L.A. area will probably have 22 million not counting on San Deigo merging. If it does, then maybe 26 million.

Still New York will be king. Today, 8.1 million residents in the city, 22 million in the entire metro. By 2020, say 9 million in the city, 24 million in the metro, not counting Philly. If New York and Philly merge by 2020, then you are looking at a metropolitan area of 30 million.

[chicagogeorge]

Metro L.A will definately surpass N.Y Metro in population sometime this century and pretty soon L.A and San Diego will merge together as more development occurs around Camp Pendleton...

I also feel that L.A will catch up with NYC and Chicago in Skyscrapers within 20-30 years.

Not a chance in hell for this happening. L.A. 512 skyscrapers, NYC 5893, Chicago 1512.

Number built within the next few years,
L.A.
26 proposed
7 under construction
5 approved

Chicago
84 proposed
39 approved
27 under construction

New York
102 construction
52 proposed
22 approved

[marathon]

I have to agree with my buddy chicagogeorge...no way LA catches up...in fact it will fall further behind.

[chicagogeorge]

I have to agree with my buddy chicagogeorge...no way LA catches up...in fact it will fall further behind.

You and I have to be the biggest number crunchers on this forum. At least when it comes to predicting populations for cities and metros. :)

Btw,
Where do you see Chicago and the metro region in 2020 or 2030? Will it have combined with Milwaukee? Rockford?

[Caliguy2005]

Did you know that L.A once had only a few thousand people in the 1900's while NYC and Chicago were still very large cities during that time,but look how fast L.A raced ahead of Chicago...i don't think NYC will keeps it's #1 title forever,but it's just a matter of time till L.A takes over...

I don't hate NYC,but i'm just stating the facts...the Population and Economic energy of NYC is shifting slowly to L.A.
Keep dreaming.

[Caliguy2005]

Don't underestimate L.A's growth....remember that L.A was once an agricultural region while NYC and Chicago was a bustling city...look at where the city is at now.
Not a chance in hell for this happening. L.A. 512 skyscrapers, NYC 5893, Chicago 1512.

Number built within the next few years,
L.A.
26 proposed
7 under construction
5 approved

Chicago
84 proposed
39 approved
27 under construction

New York
102 construction
52 proposed
22 approved

[Caliguy2005]

All signs that are happening in L.A show no way of falling back...L.A will catch up...there's nothing wrong with being in 2nd or 3rd place,because New York City,Los Angeles and Chicago will always be great cities.
I have to agree with my buddy chicagogeorge...no way LA catches up...in fact it will fall further behind.

[chicagogeorge]

Did you know that L.A once had only a few thousand people in the 1900's while NYC and Chicago were still very large cities during that time,but look how fast L.A raced ahead of Chicago...i don't think NYC will keeps it's #1 title forever,but it's just a matter of time till L.A takes over...

I don't hate NYC,but i'm just stating the facts...the Population and Economic energy of NYC is shifting slowly to L.A.


Anything is possible when it comes to predicting population 30 years out. If trends continue I believe, that NYC will stay ahead of L.A.

[chicagogeorge]

Don't underestimate L.A's growth....remember that L.A was once an agricultural region while NYC and Chicago was a bustling city...look at where the city is at now.

I'm not taking anything away from L.A., but.....

The difference is that L.A. sits on top of a few hundred fault lines. It's a diffenent ballgame with regards to highrise growth.

[LosAngelesSportsFan]

Not a chance in hell for this happening. L.A. 512 skyscrapers, NYC 5893, Chicago 1512.

Number built within the next few years,
L.A.
26 proposed
7 under construction
5 approved

Chicago
84 proposed
39 approved
27 under construction

New York
102 construction
52 proposed
22 approved

I dont think that LA will catch up anytime soon, but those numbers for LA are way off. There are at least 60 towers proposed for DT LA, 5 or so for Century City, 10 -15 on Wilshire, Long Beach has about 20 -25 and a few more scattered around LA. The first three are LA city, Long Beach is in LA County.

[HowardL]

There's part of me that can't wait for LA to edge NYC in the numbers game. It's all relative, but I think it will be a good shake out to have a new largest metro in the country.

New York is a little too taken with itself. It'll be nice to see the kids from California rewriting the rule book.

And as a PS, I think both cities are fantastic as all hell. I just wouldn't mind seeing the pot stirred a little.

[chicagogeorge]

I dont think that LA will catch up anytime soon, but those numbers for LA are way off. There are at least 60 towers proposed for DT LA, 5 or so for Century City, 10 -15 on Wilshire, Long Beach has about 20 -25 and a few more scattered around LA. The first three are LA city, Long Beach is in LA County.

These numbers are taken from the emporis website, which is a good source, although they tend to lag a little behind. If the numbers are off in L.A., I suppose that they are quite off in NYC and Chicago as well.


BTW,
the only city making any gains in the U.S. on NYC and Chicago currently, is Miami.

[goonsta]

Don't underestimate L.A's growth....remember that L.A was once an agricultural region while NYC and Chicago was a bustling city...look at where the city is at now.

Also remember that Chicago was in the position LA was in also, poised to take NYC over with its Phenomenal growth rates in the 30's. Look what happened. Whatever the case may be, to surpass NYC in importance, a lot more than population gains will have to be made.

The three areas where residential highrises generally work are along water, transit corridors and downtown. Extensive work has to be done in two out of the three choices for LA. The third choice left is water, and the coasts of metro LA are pretty developed as they are. NIMBY's would kill the chances of that.

I think metro LA may overtake Chicago in terms of highrises eventually. Metro Miami probably already has, but in terms of a downtown skyline, and especially one with TALL skyscrapers, Chicago's #2 well into the middle half of this century.

to catch up with NYC in skyscrapers requires a pivotal event in human history

thats just not going to happen

[StormShadow]

I just don't see it happening. I don't see New York City falling. I could imagine Chicago growing and even passing L.A but that's my vision. Miami is growing too, alot of north easterners moving to that city and Orlando also. NYC gets hit over and over again with immigrants. We've gotten alot of immigrants moving to NYC and our metro area from Mexico, Russia, India, El Salvador, Belarus, Ukraine... ect.. Was even on our news. ;)

[sequoias]

Who cares if NYC or LA is bigger, they're BIG, end of discussion! :D

a city between 500,000 to 1 million is big enough for me to live in.

[goonsta]

I just don't see it happening. I don't see New York City falling. I could imagine Chicago growing and even passing L.A but that's my vision.


Nah, something major has to happen. I forsee another Metro eventually passing LA and Chicago by 2050. If Miami starts annexing counties in Florida to its Metro, that could happen. For Florida's size compared to California, it recieves a substantially greater percentage of immigrants.

[StormShadow]

It's something about being a pound for pound, heavy weight champion, physical threat though ! :nocrook:



j/k j/k :tongue3:

[M. Brown]

If NYC's and Philly's metros were to merge today it would already be at least 30mil. Just imagine what it would be by 2015. And I dont think LA's metro is going to pass NYC's metro by 2015. They are both growing, they are both getting tons of immagrants, and personally I dont think there is as many people that would move to LA now and in the future than there were in the 90s and before. San Fransico metro is actually declining. Its not LA but its still in california and still a nice place. 2015 is less than 10 years away. Its a long time but its not THAT long. More to add later.

[LosAngelesSportsFan]

SF metro is growing, the city is stagnant.

LA County added 250,000 people last year, so i dont think the growth is stopping. LA city just passed the 4 million mark and added 80,000 people last year, and the whole LA metro area is growing way to fast, with San Bernardino/Riverside being the fastest growing county, and LA County second, Pheonix third i beleive. Long term projections for LA have the metroadding 6 million people by 2020, that was forcated in 2000 and i believe its on a faster pace than that. 23 - 24 million in the metro by 2020 is not out of the question.

[ROCguy]

SF metro is growing, the city is stagnant.

LA County added 250,000 people last year, so i dont think the growth is stopping. LA city just passed the 4 million mark and added 80,000 people last year, and the whole LA metro area is growing way to fast, with San Bernardino/Riverside being the fastest growing county, and LA County second, Pheonix third i beleive. Long term projections for LA have the metroadding 6 million people by 2020, that was forcated in 2000 and i believe its on a faster pace than that. 23 - 24 million in the metro by 2020 is not out of the question.


San Francisco city is far from stagnant. Look at the population change from 2000-2004 San Francisco County population change (http://epodunk.com/cgi-bin/genInfo.php?locIndex=10817) It's declining rapidly, more than any other major (500,000+) city. Alameda county grew by a mere .8% Alameda County Population Change (http://epodunk.com/cgi-bin/genInfo.php?locIndex=9768) Santa Clara County a mere .15% Santa Clara Count Population Change (http://epodunk.com/cgi-bin/genInfo.php?locIndex=10853) San Mateo County decreased in population San Mateo County Population Change (http://epodunk.com/cgi-bin/genInfo.php?locIndex=10834) Marin County decreased in population Marin County Population Change (http://epodunk.com/cgi-bin/genInfo.php?locIndex=10476) The only counties to show significant growth (over 2%) were Solano. San Joaquin, Napa, and Sonoma.

[ROCguy]

So if Los Angeles was farmland and nothing when New York and Chicago were big cities, and then instantly grew. Does that make the cities of Phoenix and Las Vegas, which are now growing rapidly from Californian's moving there in droves, more important or specail than Los Angeles? Los Angeles was a big city before those two were. I don't get how the fact that LA was nothing while NYC and Chicago were bustling makes LA more impressive. All American cities were nothing 250 years ago. Philadelphia was the bigest with less than 20,000.

[edsg25]

Did you know that L.A once had only a few thousand people in the 1900's while NYC and Chicago were still very large cities during that time,but look how fast L.A raced ahead of Chicago...i don't think NYC will keeps it's #1 title forever,but it's just a matter of time till L.A takes over...

I don't hate NYC,but i'm just stating the facts...the Population and Economic energy of NYC is shifting slowly to L.A.

LOL!
:) :bash:
Caliguy, I have to love your post. It is absolutely hysterical. You have a city with freeways on gridlock and the ability to get across town more and more questionable. Nobody is about to build 40 more red lines in LA to tie your city together. Yet you wish for a time when LA fucking pass NYC up in population and become the nation's largest city? and you think it is a #1 title that you are going to enjoy? What vision from hell is going on in your mind? and what makes you think a Los Angeles with a greater population would be a greater city than New York? Look in your own state: do you think that San Francisco gives a rat's ass that it is the second largest city in the Bay Area, behind San Jose? Where in God's name did you get the impression that cramming more and more people into any of our overgrown cities is a cause of celebration?

[edsg25]

There's part of me that can't wait for LA to edge NYC in the numbers game. It's all relative, but I think it will be a good shake out to have a new largest metro in the country.

New York is a little too taken with itself. It'll be nice to see the kids from California rewriting the rule book.

And as a PS, I think both cities are fantastic as all hell. I just wouldn't mind seeing the pot stirred a little.

Howard, if we want to be honest and came up with cities "a little too taken with itself", ours would be high on the list...and both you and I have contributed to that (which is o.k.). Let's face it: Chicagoans are filled with Chicago (not that we'd have it any other way).

BTW...when are you going to officially become Red Line or are you totally holding out against color coded rapid transit?

[fredcalif]

Go LAAAAAAAAAAAAA
Go California, the best state in the Nation, LA on its way to be the Largest metro in the Nation

[*Sweetkisses*]

LA is growin wayyy too fast. Thats not a good thing. At all.

[edsg25]

I would love to hear from one rational Angeleno on why you think that an enormous increase in population of your city that would allow it to surpass NYC is good thing.

If I look at my city, Chicago, and see what a great place it is, the last thing in the world that I would like to see for it is to get into a population race with NYC and LA. If we did and, in the most unlikely circumstances imaginable, won that race (we wouldn't.period), Chicago would be far less a city than it is today.

Just as the tallest (i.e. world's tallest) skyscapers are destined to go up in less advanced nations, the cities on this globe with the largest populations will not be viewed a the trend setters or leaders. They will be so loaded with unsolvable social issues and an environment straight out of hell that they will not compete.

"America's largest city" is not automatically a prize a city should want.

[A42251]

Edsg, since when do size and social problems go hand-in-hand? Tokyo is, by far, the largest urban area in the world, and pretty much everything there is clean, orderly, efficient, and there is very little poverty or serious crime.

I would actually love to see the south and west sides of Chicago experience huge population gains and get back to their former glory (at least I know the South Side has seen much better days decades ago).

[edsg25]

Edsg, since when do size and social problems go hand-in-hand? Tokyo is, by far, the largest urban area in the world, and pretty much everything there is clean, orderly, efficient, and there is very little poverty or serious crime.

I would actually love to see the south and west sides of Chicago experience huge population gains and get back to their former glory (at least I know the South Side has seen much better days decades ago).

I never said that size and social problems go hand-in-hand. What I said was growth and size for their own sake can produce a nightmereish environment, so, that sense, every metropolitan area can bit a population where it starts becoming less and less functional.

Of course I 'd like to see more development on Chicago's west and south sides (and less in Kenosha and Kane counties), but that doesn't mean I'd like to see Chicago in competiton with LA's and NY's population.

Yet Angelenos here are suggesting a better LA will be the one that surpasses NYC in population. What they are not seeing is that a better LA will happen only when LA is compared with LA, compared with itself. LA does have answers for itself; it is learning how to urbanize successfully after so many years of sprawl and a car culture. It doesn't need to look to New York for its greatness. Hell, neither those Chicago.

If NYC, Chgo, and LA can't stand up on their own merits,who can?

[LosAngelesSportsFan]

i agree edge, its not a great thing for LA to be adding this many people this fast. we can barely support the numbers we have now. once transit is impoved, density increased, schools added and hospitals built, then we can worry about adding more people. It should be noted that all those isses are being aggressivly attacked, with the largest school project in the history of the country underway, transit being imporved greatly, crime is down and police are being added, and density is increasing because of transit friendly projects ALL over LA.

[edsg25]

i agree edge, its not a great thing for LA to be adding this many people this fast. we can barely support the numbers we have now. once transit is impoved, density increased, schools added and hospitals built, then we can worry about adding more people. It should be noted that all those isses are being aggressivly attacked, with the largest school project in the history of the country underway, transit being imporved greatly, crime is down and police are being added, and density is increasing because of transit friendly projects ALL over LA.


LASF, you are identifying problems that all cities are facing along with LA. Now consider that the problems are having at a time when our nation has no urban agenda and where cities are hardly a priority to Washington. Without an understanding that our federal government is involved in solving urban issues, increases in city population is not doing anybody a favor.

[louisville playa]

L.A. will always be #2 in my mind. L.A. has a more suburban feel, while NYC has a much much more urban feel. That in my mind is a real city.

[LosAngelesSportsFan]

LASF, you are identifying problems that all cities are facing along with LA. Now consider that the problems are having at a time when our nation has no urban agenda and where cities are hardly a priority to Washington. Without an understanding that our federal government is involved in solving urban issues, increases in city population is not doing anybody a favor.

i totally agree with you. until we get a administration that realizes it should spend its money on its own citizens instead of Bullshit around the world, we are all going to struggle. imagine a 10th of the money spent in Iraq, spent in LA, we would have solved every problem here and had enough money to give 100 dollar bills ro every damn resident.

[edsg25]

i totally agree with you. until we get a administration that realizes it should spend its money on its own citizens instead of Bullshit around the world, we are all going to struggle. imagine a 10th of the money spent in Iraq, spent in LA, we would have solved every problem here and had enough money to give 100 dollar bills ro every damn resident.

LASF, I have a scary, two word name for the Bush administration's urban policy: NEW ORLEANS!

[nygirl]

Lol @ the b.s on this thread... who was it that said keep dreaming?
Doubt it.

[Jay]

New York already has 22 mil in it's metro. and 8.5 mil in the city. By 2015 it will be more than that obviously.

[ROCguy]

^^^ lol, that was me. And he was dreaming. It was directed towards Caliguy2005. lol, Go back to page 2 and see what he wrote! It is probably one of the stupidest things I've ever seen on SSC!

[nygirl]

don't have time now, probably just la former rubbish.
Reminds me of the movie anchorman, with the number two complex mantooth had.

Even if by some chance we aren't old and grey, if at all when/if La surpasses Nyc population, La is the primary city?
Get a clue. For this country, in our lifetime, it will ALWAYS be New York. Anyone who say's otherwise is from LA.
NY vs LA thread, what happened to that one, it was a classic, smh.