SkyscraperCity banner
Status
Not open for further replies.
1 - 20 of 152 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,737 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
just wondering.

IN THE FUTURE......

could the US see a new leading city?

not talking about the past or the present.....

just the future.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,824 Posts
LA pass NYC, perhaps. Chicago never, it is already declining more than NY City is.
 

·
Minneapolis
Joined
·
2,032 Posts
^What are you talking about? Both Chicago and New York are growing.

But to answer the question...Not likely.Due to the timing in which New York City developed, and the extent to which it developed, it holds too many vital components of our economy to ever be surpassed. I could see Chicago stealing a bit of the spotlight on the financial scene, though.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
872 Posts
In terms of metro population growth it seems likely that LA will surpass NY but Chicago won't. I think it's time for Chicago to get used to not being #2 in population because I doubt it will ever take that title back.
 

·
born again cyclist
Joined
·
3,671 Posts
who knows what devastation the future holds. what with global warming, increasingly violent hurrican seasons, ocean levels rising, and terrorism, maybe little old fargo will be the largest city in the country in the future.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
182 Posts
If were talking about Metro Area Population,then Los Angeles does have the potential to surpass New York City.....Chicago on the other hand has the potential to surpass NYC in Number of Skyscrapers.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
385 Posts
I don't think anybody could surpass NYC in the number of skyscrapers. In the future, LA might be able to surpass NYC's METRO, but not city population. But I don't think any city in the country will surpass NYC's metro population or city population even in my lifetime and I'm 15.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,500 Posts
No one can foresee the future. When I was fifteen, I thought Chicago would be the second city forever and that anything made in Japan was going to be cheap junk. Boy things have changed. Who knows, maybe Houston will pass everybody.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,790 Posts
^^Well, LA is growing at 1.2 million every five years, so mid-town, it will happen in our lifetime.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
9,194 Posts
:) :) :) :bash: :bash: :bash:

Boy, you just got to love one of these typical skyscraper city let's-compare-the-cities threads!

First we get good ol' Jerome reminding us how Chicago is in decline (even worse than NYC). Gee, Jerome, every time I'm out and about in my home town, I find a booming Chicago...a downtown area that gets bigger, bolder, and more exciting by the minute, quality construction around the city, neighborhoods divided into two groups: those that are hot & those that will be hot, and the suburbs with the most desirability and plenty of construction being those closest to the joys of the city. Jerome, if th is decline, give me more of it.

Then it's off to see if Chicago will ever catch NYC in population (city and/or metropolitan). Last I checked, Chicago has about 3 million citizens; our metropolitan area about 9 million. Those are pretty hefty numbers, folks. My suspicion: ask the typical Chicagoan if they' d like to see our metropolitan population reach the numbers of NY (or LA) and I suspect you'd get a "hell, no".

Personally I might find it more interesting to know if NYC will ever achieve the managable population of 3 million in the city and 9 million in the area. To me, that might well be considered an accomplishmnet.

For the life of me, I cannot undersand how so many of you out there worship growth, crowding, and density in such massive terms that all they do is destroy the quality of life.

Would you prefer the density and population of Calcutta? Aren't there limits to how much growth a city and region can experience and still function?

So let me take perverse joy in Chicago's ranking of "3rd place" in the population sweepstakes, knowing we'll never be one or two and that, who knows, maybe Houston will pass us up. If it does, I'll still take comfort knowing Chicago is Chicago.

California's fourth largest city and the second largest in its own metropolitan area is a little, old, inconsequential place known as San Francisco. Do you think there are many San Franciscans that give a rat's ass of its fourth ranking in population? Do you think they'll even care or notice when Sacramento knocks them to fifth? I doubt it. And why? Because San Francisco is San Francisco, just as Chicago is Chicago....and those are two cities whose greatness comes internally...not from the absurd competiton over population with other cities.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,500 Posts
edsg25 California's fourth largest city and the second largest in its own metropolitan area is a little said:
Actually they care quite a bit up there. When I go to visit I still run in to idiots accusing me of "stealing their water". Its interesting, San Franciscans tend to look down on LA and Angelenos in general while folks from LA tend to like SF but maybe not give it as much respect as San Franciscans think is due. In short we tend to treat it as Disneyland for adults with good food. A nice week end getaway like Palm Springs, Vegas, and Santa Barbara.

While it is a beautiful place, I think the real action in Northern Cal is happening in the South and East Bays. Silicon Valley and the high tech industries being spun off from the research at Stanford and Cal.

SF is kind of like Venice (Italy not California), beautiful, good food, nice boat rides, but kind of turning into a museum city, that none of the locals can afford to live in. I'm not sure that qualifies as "greatness" but it can be a very pleasant place to live as long as you can afford it, have strong legs, and you can find a parking space.

Its good to know that there are a few Chicgo forumers who realize that "density" is not the only quality of a great place to live and that "size" isn't everything.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,297 Posts
so i was looking at some census info and found a scary factoid
-------------------------------------------------------2000---------2010---------2020
Chicago--Gary--Kenosha, IL--IN--WI CMSA-----------9,157,500-----9,630,300------10,297,400
Los Angeles--Riverside--Orange County, CA CMSA---16,373,600-----18,886,900-----24,196,300
New York--Northern New Jersey-- CMSA------------21,199,900----22,140,500----24,319,900

and odly enough san fran is projected at 10,377,400 by 2020 sending chica land to number 4

i, being a resedent of la, am mildly scared by the idea of 24 million living in this dust bowl and i actually hope this does not come true. just wish there were more highrises is all
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
492 Posts
godblessbotox said:
so i was looking at some census info and found a scary factoid
-------------------------------------------------------2000---------2010---------2020
Chicago--Gary--Kenosha, IL--IN--WI CMSA-----------9,157,500-----9,630,300------10,297,400
Los Angeles--Riverside--Orange County, CA CMSA---16,373,600-----18,886,900-----24,196,300
New York--Northern New Jersey-- CMSA------------21,199,900----22,140,500----24,319,900

and odly enough san fran is projected at 10,377,400 by 2020 sending chica land to number 4

i, being a resedent of la, am mildly scared by the idea of 24 million living in this dust bowl and i actually hope this does not come true. just wish there were more highrises is all
Those predictions are ridiculous, at least for Chicago.
 

·
I'm Panamerupean!!!!!!!
Joined
·
1,432 Posts
Dampyre said:
Those predictions are ridiculous, at least for Chicago.
I find it possible but I don't find it fair that Northern New Jersey can be considered NYC Metro area...I don't find it fair...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,533 Posts
godblessbotox said:
ok, phone your local representitve and tell him to stop spending money on the united states census
no, they do seem to be off. Chicago is at least at, if not higher than their prediction for 2010.
 
1 - 20 of 152 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top