AARoads Forum

Non-Road Boards => Off-Topic => Topic started by: webny99 on June 02, 2017, 10:38:45 AM

Title: Fastest-growing suburbs
Post by: webny99 on June 02, 2017, 10:38:45 AM
Which suburbs of cities in your area are particularly fast growing?

In Rochester, a lot of the growth has been on the east side recently, with Webster being the fastest growing town in the county. Also, Victor, in neighboring Ontario County.
Title: Re: Fastest-growing suburbs
Post by: vdeane on June 02, 2017, 02:00:15 PM
In the Capital District, Halfmoon is the second-fastest growing municipality in the entire state, and Ballston is fifth.  Malta and Brunswick are also growing fast.

Out in the area near Rochester, the Town of Canadaigua is the fastest-growing municipality in the state.  Farmington is fourth.

http://alloveralbany.com/archive/2017/05/25/new-york-state-city-and-town-populations-2016
Title: Re: Fastest-growing suburbs
Post by: 7/8 on June 02, 2017, 03:15:13 PM
For the GTA (greater toronto area), Milton has grown by 30.5% between 2011 and 2016 (from 84 362 to 110 128).

Source: http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2016/as-sa/98-200-x/2016001/98-200-x2016001-eng.cfm (http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2016/as-sa/98-200-x/2016001/98-200-x2016001-eng.cfm)
Title: Re: Fastest-growing suburbs
Post by: jakeroot on June 02, 2017, 04:13:47 PM
Areas east of Seattle are growing remarkably quick. The Sammamish area in particular. Seattle's housing prices have gone up like mad lately, which has forced a lot of people out to the 'burbs.
Title: Re: Fastest-growing suburbs
Post by: I-39 on June 02, 2017, 07:43:04 PM
The Nashville area has been booming this century. Franklin has added over 30,000 residents since 2000 with no signs of slowing. Spring Hill has ballooned from just over 7,000 in 2000 to over 36,000 today. Williamson County (where both of these cities are located) is one of the fastest growing counties in the country.
Title: Re: Fastest-growing suburbs
Post by: vdeane on June 02, 2017, 09:42:17 PM
Quote from: webny99 on June 02, 2017, 04:09:09 PM
Quote from: vdeane on June 02, 2017, 02:00:15 PM
Out in the area near Rochester, the Town of Canadaigua is the fastest-growing municipality in the state.  Farmington is fourth.

Which begs the question, is Canandaigua a suburb?

Thanks for the link, that's interesting. It looks like the Capital Region and Ithaca are upstate's bright spots these days. Canandaigua/Farmington look very potent on that map, but I'm unsure whether that reflects the glory of Rochester or Canandaigua Lake  :D
I would say that the Town of Canandaigua is most definitely a suburb of the City of Canandaigua, and both are probably suburbs of Rochester given that exits 44-45 on the Thruway carry commuter traffic, so it's essentially a double suburb.  Malta is similar - suburb of both Albany and Saratoga Springs.
Title: Re: Fastest-growing suburbs
Post by: empirestate on June 03, 2017, 12:33:15 AM
Quote from: vdeane on June 02, 2017, 09:42:17 PM
Quote from: webny99 on June 02, 2017, 04:09:09 PM
Quote from: vdeane on June 02, 2017, 02:00:15 PM
Out in the area near Rochester, the Town of Canadaigua is the fastest-growing municipality in the state.  Farmington is fourth.

Which begs the question, is Canandaigua a suburb?

Thanks for the link, that's interesting. It looks like the Capital Region and Ithaca are upstate's bright spots these days. Canandaigua/Farmington look very potent on that map, but I'm unsure whether that reflects the glory of Rochester or Canandaigua Lake  :D
I would say that the Town of Canandaigua is most definitely a suburb of the City of Canandaigua, and both are probably suburbs of Rochester given that exits 44-45 on the Thruway carry commuter traffic, so it's essentially a double suburb.  Malta is similar - suburb of both Albany and Saratoga Springs.

It definitely wasn't when I was a kid; a trip to Canandaigua was undoubtedly seen as a day trip out of the city. The furthest reaches of suburbia were the retail district anchored by Eastview Mall, and perhaps the new subdivision at Gananda. Both of those settlement trends soon spread throughout Victor and into Farmington and northern Canandaigua town, such that now they are indeed suburbs of Rochester, and more particularly of eastern Monroe County where a fair number of businesses are now located.

Now, by Downstate standards, Canandaigua would be an easy commuting distance to its core city. My daily commute is now 50 miles, which is like commuting to Rochester from Dansville, Clarence or Seneca Falls, perhaps.


iPhone
Title: Re: Fastest-growing suburbs
Post by: LM117 on June 03, 2017, 09:20:32 AM
Uh....Dry Fork?
Title: Re: Fastest-growing suburbs
Post by: silverback1065 on June 03, 2017, 09:23:59 AM
the northern suburbs of indianapolis are growing fast, idk how that compares to the us as a whole though
Title: Re: Fastest-growing suburbs
Post by: vdeane on June 03, 2017, 11:09:08 PM
Quote from: empirestate on June 03, 2017, 12:33:15 AM
Quote from: vdeane on June 02, 2017, 09:42:17 PM
Quote from: webny99 on June 02, 2017, 04:09:09 PM
Quote from: vdeane on June 02, 2017, 02:00:15 PM
Out in the area near Rochester, the Town of Canadaigua is the fastest-growing municipality in the state.  Farmington is fourth.

Which begs the question, is Canandaigua a suburb?

Thanks for the link, that's interesting. It looks like the Capital Region and Ithaca are upstate's bright spots these days. Canandaigua/Farmington look very potent on that map, but I'm unsure whether that reflects the glory of Rochester or Canandaigua Lake  :D
I would say that the Town of Canandaigua is most definitely a suburb of the City of Canandaigua, and both are probably suburbs of Rochester given that exits 44-45 on the Thruway carry commuter traffic, so it's essentially a double suburb.  Malta is similar - suburb of both Albany and Saratoga Springs.

It definitely wasn't when I was a kid; a trip to Canandaigua was undoubtedly seen as a day trip out of the city. The furthest reaches of suburbia were the retail district anchored by Eastview Mall, and perhaps the new subdivision at Gananda. Both of those settlement trends soon spread throughout Victor and into Farmington and northern Canandaigua town, such that now they are indeed suburbs of Rochester, and more particularly of eastern Monroe County where a fair number of businesses are now located.

Now, by Downstate standards, Canandaigua would be an easy commuting distance to its core city. My daily commute is now 50 miles, which is like commuting to Rochester from Dansville, Clarence or Seneca Falls, perhaps.


iPhone
It's amazing how fast the area is growing.  I remember when NY 332 was a two lane road through farm country.  Now it seems like there are more businesses every time I'm on the road.
Title: Re: Fastest-growing suburbs
Post by: JJBers on June 03, 2017, 11:24:28 PM
From what I looked, it seems the New England Metros are starting to slow in growth, so there isn't much to see really.
Title: Re: Fastest-growing suburbs
Post by: pianocello on June 03, 2017, 11:35:54 PM
Quote from: silverback1065 on June 03, 2017, 09:23:59 AM
the northern suburbs of indianapolis are growing fast, idk how that compares to the us as a whole though

Carmel and Fishers never cease to amaze me in their ability to grow. Each of them has grown from around 37K in 2000 to over 90K in 2016, meaning over a hundred thousand people have moved into just these two cities in just 16 years!
Title: Re: Fastest-growing suburbs
Post by: silverback1065 on June 03, 2017, 11:56:27 PM
Quote from: pianocello on June 03, 2017, 11:35:54 PM
Quote from: silverback1065 on June 03, 2017, 09:23:59 AM
the northern suburbs of indianapolis are growing fast, idk how that compares to the us as a whole though

Carmel and Fishers never cease to amaze me in their ability to grow. Each of them has grown from around 37K in 2000 to over 90K in 2016, meaning over a hundred thousand people have moved into just these two cities in just 16 years!
i'm one of them, i live in carmel, they have a ton of apartments there now.
Title: Re: Fastest-growing suburbs
Post by: JJBers on June 04, 2017, 12:21:08 AM
Quote from: pianocello on June 03, 2017, 11:35:54 PM
Quote from: silverback1065 on June 03, 2017, 09:23:59 AM
the northern suburbs of indianapolis are growing fast, idk how that compares to the us as a whole though

Carmel and Fishers never cease to amaze me in their ability to grow. Each of them has grown from around 37K in 2000 to over 90K in 2016, meaning over a hundred thousand people have moved into just these two cities in just 16 years!
That's fast!
Title: Re: Fastest-growing suburbs
Post by: Chris on June 09, 2017, 08:25:47 AM
Frisco, Texas grew from 33,700 in 2000 to 163,600 in 2016. Adjacent McKinney grew from 54,400 in 2000 to 172,300 in 2016. Both are northern suburbs of Dallas.

Most of suburban Houston is unincorporated. Harris County added 500,000 people just since 2010.
Title: Re: Fastest-growing suburbs
Post by: The Nature Boy on June 09, 2017, 10:11:49 AM
Quote from: JJBers on June 03, 2017, 11:24:28 PM
From what I looked, it seems the New England Metros are starting to slow in growth, so there isn't much to see really.

I was going to say that the NH suburbs of Boston have grown but I looked at the data and while there has been growth, it hasn't been as explosive as I may have perceived.
Title: Re: Fastest-growing suburbs
Post by: roadman65 on June 09, 2017, 10:31:43 AM
Plant City, FL which for years had a buffer between it and Tampa is filling in slowly with development.  In ten years Plant City will be part of Tampa's suburbia as now it does still maintain its small town atmosphere and home to the March Strawberry Festival. I just hope, though, developers don't buy out the strawberry fields when they do that as not only is it food, but the area's heritage.
Title: Re: Fastest-growing suburbs
Post by: golden eagle on June 09, 2017, 11:54:58 AM
Quote from: Chris on June 09, 2017, 08:25:47 AM
Frisco, Texas grew from 33,700 in 2000 to 163,600 in 2016. Adjacent McKinney grew from 54,400 in 2000 to 172,300 in 2016. Both are northern suburbs of Dallas.

Could it be that the Dallas suburbs are growing so rapidly partly because of annexation? Buckeye, Goodyear and some of west Phoenix suburbs have annexed huge swaths of land, which have inflated their numbers.
Title: Re: Fastest-growing suburbs
Post by: Road Hog on June 09, 2017, 12:17:40 PM
Quote from: golden eagle on June 09, 2017, 11:54:58 AM
Quote from: Chris on June 09, 2017, 08:25:47 AM
Frisco, Texas grew from 33,700 in 2000 to 163,600 in 2016. Adjacent McKinney grew from 54,400 in 2000 to 172,300 in 2016. Both are northern suburbs of Dallas.

Could it be that the Dallas suburbs are growing so rapidly partly because of annexation? Buckeye, Goodyear and some of west Phoenix suburbs have annexed huge swaths of land, which have inflated their numbers.

Not really. Just about every city in Collin County has a boundary agreement with its neighbors. There may be unincorporated space within each city's area, but it's just a matter of filling it in.
Title: Re: Fastest-growing suburbs
Post by: Chris on June 09, 2017, 12:28:33 PM
I created a 2000-2016 gif of the Frisco / McKinney area. As you can see it's all new development. And this is quite a large area, the image spans over 20 miles from left to right.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FP4XowRS.gif&hash=1b827a21b7588accb3006aad56a9a373b5e4d4ed)
Title: Re: Fastest-growing suburbs
Post by: jwolfer on June 10, 2017, 02:00:18 PM
St Johns County FL. Lots of suburban Jacksonville. St Johns County has best rated public schools in the state.

Development on what used to be tree farms and cattle land( good for shrooms back in the day) all gone now...  There is no real identity..some areas had Jacksonville mailing address, which they wanted to change because "by God we don't live in Jacksonville".. So a contest was done to rename it.. None of the previous small settlement names like Fruit Cove or Switzerland won the lame Saint Johns won.. Yes with saint spelled out.. Just so everyone knows you live in St Johns County. This part of Florida has too many things named for thr St Johns River.

Other areas have St Augustine mailing address but very different from historic city a few miles to the South

St Johns County had around 80k people in 1990 now approaching 300k

LGMS428
Title: Re: Fastest-growing suburbs
Post by: MNHighwayMan on June 10, 2017, 02:25:45 PM
Quote from: Chris on June 09, 2017, 12:28:33 PM
I created a 2000-2016 gif of the Frisco / McKinney area. As you can see it's all new development. And this is quite a large area, the image spans over 20 miles from left to right.

Major props to those farmers in the middle of the .gif who refused to sell their land to developers.
Title: Re: Fastest-growing suburbs
Post by: JJBers on June 10, 2017, 02:43:26 PM
Quote from: Chris on June 09, 2017, 12:28:33 PM
I created a 2000-2016 gif of the Frisco / McKinney area. As you can see it's all new development. And this is quite a large area, the image spans over 20 miles from left to right.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FP4XowRS.gif&hash=1b827a21b7588accb3006aad56a9a373b5e4d4ed)
Did my own
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FUjdkdls.gif&hash=30dda0cc2ad74b607c111cd3f0d778e63b26448c)
Not as much growth
Title: Re: Fastest-growing suburbs
Post by: sparker on June 10, 2017, 03:05:25 PM
The "High Desert" area north of Cajon Pass along I-15 has been growing by leaps and bounds -- apparently even more so after I moved from the area 5 years ago.  Simple reason -- relatively cheap land -- and this growth pattern has been exacerbated by the "comeback" of the California housing market, with coastal areas and the valleys directly connecting to them experiencing high inflationary trends in terms of real estate.  As with the pre-2007 housing boom, the desert tends to offer the most house for the most money (as of mid-2012, a 3000sf 2-story house in Hesperia could be had for $250-300K depending upon specific location).  The commute down to the Inland Empire's a real slog; if one works in L.A. or Orange counties, it's a complete nightmare!  But enough folks are willing to undertake the effort if they feel or calculate that the rewards are at least compensatory.  IIRC, the last composite figures for the aggregate area (Victorville, Hesperia, Apple Valley, Adelanto, and Phelan) showed a population upward of 700K, with about 30% in unincorporated areas).  Conceptually, this is similar to the Bay Area commute to Tracy, Manteca, and other north San Joaquin Valley cities (substitute 580/Altamont for 15/Cajon!) -- but at least we don't get Mojave rattlers in our backyards up here!
Title: Re: Fastest-growing suburbs
Post by: kkt on June 10, 2017, 06:22:12 PM
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on June 10, 2017, 02:25:45 PM
Quote from: Chris on June 09, 2017, 12:28:33 PM
I created a 2000-2016 gif of the Frisco / McKinney area. As you can see it's all new development. And this is quite a large area, the image spans over 20 miles from left to right.

Major props to those farmers in the middle of the .gif who refused to sell their land to developers.

That is, holding out for higher prices?
Title: Re: Fastest-growing suburbs
Post by: MNHighwayMan on June 10, 2017, 06:53:26 PM
I suppose that's one way of looking at it, but that's presuming that they actually did give in.
Title: Re: Fastest-growing suburbs
Post by: vdeane on June 10, 2017, 06:55:41 PM
Why would they want to give up their livelihood?  Being bought out is only a one-time windfall, at the expense of their home and job, essentially.  I wouldn't consider a one-time large sum to be a substitute for a steady income.
Title: Re: Fastest-growing suburbs
Post by: Bruce on June 10, 2017, 07:21:55 PM
Quote from: Chris on June 09, 2017, 12:28:33 PM
I created a 2000-2016 gif of the Frisco / McKinney area. As you can see it's all new development. And this is quite a large area, the image spans over 20 miles from left to right.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FP4XowRS.gif&hash=1b827a21b7588accb3006aad56a9a373b5e4d4ed)

X-(

Certainly the quality of life in that area has gone down, thanks to all the new cars on the road and loss of trees and open grassland.
Title: Re: Fastest-growing suburbs
Post by: JJBers on June 10, 2017, 07:44:48 PM
Quote from: Bruce on June 10, 2017, 07:21:55 PM
Quote from: Chris on June 09, 2017, 12:28:33 PM
I created a 2000-2016 gif of the Frisco / McKinney area. As you can see it's all new development. And this is quite a large area, the image spans over 20 miles from left to right.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FP4XowRS.gif&hash=1b827a21b7588accb3006aad56a9a373b5e4d4ed)

X-(

Certainly the quality of life in that area has gone down, thanks to all the new cars on the road and loss of trees and open grassland.
That's why I live far-away from the city. There is little chance of suburbs ever reaching to me in the next 20 years.
Title: Re: Fastest-growing suburbs
Post by: jwolfer on June 10, 2017, 09:52:57 PM
Quote from: vdeane on June 10, 2017, 06:55:41 PM
Why would they want to give up their livelihood?  Being bought out is only a one-time windfall, at the expense of their home and job, essentially.  I wouldn't consider a one-time large sum to be a substitute for a steady income.
Farming is a hard life... A lot of the kids dont want to do it... They become other professions when they retire they can get millions... Enough for a great retirement and kids and grandkids future.

My friends grandmother sold land to developers for subdivisions and shopping centers... She made millions

LGMS428

Title: Re: Fastest-growing suburbs
Post by: Road Hog on June 11, 2017, 03:43:38 AM
Property tax assessments are forcing lots and lots of farmers to sell because they can't afford the taxes. Some get around this by selling their land and securing an agreement to continue to plant crops until the development begins.
Title: Re: Fastest-growing suburbs
Post by: iBallasticwolf2 on June 11, 2017, 10:02:36 AM
Independence, Kentucky is a very fast growing area in Cincinnati, in fact it may have been the fastest growing town in the US for a short period of time, it's population has nearly doubled in the past 15 years.  The fast growing population is what prompted the KY 17 downtown Independence bypass and the Turkeyfoot Road widening, and the next big projects could be 536 and 16 widening.
Independence isn't the only fast growing town in the area though, many areas of Northern Kentucky are growing fast probably because of the abundance of usable land and the reasonable distance from downtown Cincinnati.
Title: Re: Fastest-growing suburbs
Post by: Stephane Dumas on June 11, 2017, 01:24:50 PM
Quote from: Chris on June 09, 2017, 12:28:33 PM
I created a 2000-2016 gif of the Frisco / McKinney area. As you can see it's all new development. And this is quite a large area, the image spans over 20 miles from left to right.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FP4XowRS.gif&hash=1b827a21b7588accb3006aad56a9a373b5e4d4ed)

And it's not the only one. Calgary, Edmonton, Toronto, Ottawa, Montreal, Lower Fraser Valley had similar cases.

While in the same time, others areas due to crime, jobs losses and all became urban prairies like some areas of Detroit for example.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xKDctRC_x8M
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g2NttLTPSyY

And on the other extreme side, some said then the NYC landmarks act and zoning laws bulldozed the future.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gc07OPPzo9Q
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=six5sBl0qiA
Title: Re: Fastest-growing suburbs
Post by: kkt on June 12, 2017, 02:04:35 PM
Quote from: vdeane on June 10, 2017, 06:55:41 PM
Why would they want to give up their livelihood?  Being bought out is only a one-time windfall, at the expense of their home and job, essentially.  I wouldn't consider a one-time large sum to be a substitute for a steady income.

Farming is usually not a well-paid occupation, especially for small farmers.  Taking a windfall and investing it wisely could often provide a bigger and more reliable income.  It might be enough to retire, or just work a full-time job instead of 18x7 like farming.
Title: Re: Fastest-growing suburbs
Post by: Desert Man on June 20, 2017, 07:06:34 AM
In the 1980s-90s, Moreno Valley in the Inland Empire region of Southern CA was the fastest growing suburb in the nation. In the 2000s-10s, the region's fastest growth cities were Fontana (San Bernardino county) and Beaumont (Riverside county). There has been tremendous sprawl and population increase in Temecula, Hemet, Palm Desert, Rancho Cucamonga, Chino Hills and Victorville in the past 37 years I been alive. The newest incorporated cities are Eastvale, Menifee and Wildomar. And even people move to Adelanto where the Victorville Federal prison is located, Yucca Valley next to Joshua Tree Natl Park and Twentynine Palms, known for its USMC Base. The Ontario Airport business park indicates people work in the Inland Empire, not just commute to L.A. or the OC.
Title: Re: Fastest-growing suburbs
Post by: sparker on June 21, 2017, 01:31:45 AM
At present, the major suburban/exurban expansion in Northern California can be divided into two distinct regions:  the Madera-Turlock-Modesto-Manteca-Stockton-Lodi continuous corridor, and the Eastern Sacramento "arc" from Elk Grove south of the main city around the east side and ending up at the north side of Lincoln.  The former not only serves its own region (the north San Joaquin Valley) but functions to serve the "spillover" from the Bay Area -- particularly instigated by substantially lower initial housing costs.  Besides the main corridor arrayed along CA 99, there is the western branch along CA 120 and I-205 encompassing Lathrop and Tracy -- the latter being the original Valley exurb to experience the commuter crunch as early as the '80's.  The interim towns such as Ripon and Salida have seen outsized growth as well; even new communities (Mountain Home NW of Tracy as an example) have been established to handle the influx.  Right now, the north side of Stockton is about the farthest suburban area efficiently accessible to Bay Area commuters (partially due to the ACE rail commuter service from San Jose to Stockton); Lodi, to the north, is seeing growth not only from spillover from the North Bay (Vallejo, Fairfield, Benicia, etc.) but also as a budding employment center due to its recent growth as a wine-country destination. 

Greater Sacramento has its own growth pattern, primarily arrayed along a reverse-C arc from Elk Grove south of Sacramento itself and extending northeast through Rancho Cordova, Folsom, Citrus Heights/Orangevale, and up through Roseville and Rocklin before curving NW through Lincoln.  The region has become a major distribution area due to its extensive rail network (the major UP hub/yard in Northern California is in Roseville).  Unlike the 70-80 mile single-direction commutes seen by Stockton-area residents working in the Bay Area, the typical commute around Sacramento is about 20-25 miles, as employment tends to be significantly closer to home there than with the Bay/Valley situation (this is also abetted by the large number of state personnel in the area -- in this respect, being the state capital intrinsically involves a multitude of employees). 

If not for the twin watersheds/"bottomlands" of the Consumnes and Mokelumne Rivers (delineating the north end of Lodi and the south side of Elk Grove respectively), each of which have multiple channels and are prone to severe flooding in wet winters, it's likely that the two growth areas would have merged by this time.  Also, that area between Lodi and Galt (about 10 miles apart) is "wine central", extensively planted with vineyards and dotted with wineries, most of which have tourist-oriented tasting rooms; besides the flooding potential, the acreage has become just too costly to convert to housing tracts. 

Despite almost continual criticism regarding "sprawl", housing starts in the Valley have continued almost unabated since the late 1970's; the housing/mortgage crisis of 2007-2011 was something of a "hiccup", but for the past 5 years or so it has become virtually impossible to traverse the area without witnessing more and more homes, condos, and the strip malls and other such amenities that accompany such development being deployed.  And it's all dollar-driven -- cheap (by relative standards) housing located in areas and communities with the proverbial "welcome mat" out; save another significant recession, the trend is more than likely to continue.       

Title: Re: Fastest-growing suburbs
Post by: silverback1065 on June 21, 2017, 02:20:33 PM
Quote from: sparker on June 21, 2017, 01:31:45 AM
At present, the major suburban/exurban expansion in Northern California can be divided into two distinct regions:  the Madera-Turlock-Modesto-Manteca-Stockton-Lodi continuous corridor, and the Eastern Sacramento "arc" from Elk Grove south of the main city around the east side and ending up at the north side of Lincoln.  The former not only serves its own region (the north San Joaquin Valley) but functions to serve the "spillover" from the Bay Area -- particularly instigated by substantially lower initial housing costs.  Besides the main corridor arrayed along CA 99, there is the western branch along CA 120 and I-205 encompassing Lathrop and Tracy -- the latter being the original Valley exurb to experience the commuter crunch as early as the '80's.  The interim towns such as Ripon and Salida have seen outsized growth as well; even new communities (Mountain Home NW of Tracy as an example) have been established to handle the influx.  Right now, the north side of Stockton is about the farthest suburban area efficiently accessible to Bay Area commuters (partially due to the ACE rail commuter service from San Jose to Stockton); Lodi, to the north, is seeing growth not only from spillover from the North Bay (Vallejo, Fairfield, Benicia, etc.) but also as a budding employment center due to its recent growth as a wine-country destination. 

Greater Sacramento has its own growth pattern, primarily arrayed along a reverse-C arc from Elk Grove south of Sacramento itself and extending northeast through Rancho Cordova, Folsom, Citrus Heights/Orangevale, and up through Roseville and Rocklin before curving NW through Lincoln.  The region has become a major distribution area due to its extensive rail network (the major UP hub/yard in Northern California is in Roseville).  Unlike the 70-80 mile single-direction commutes seen by Stockton-area residents working in the Bay Area, the typical commute around Sacramento is about 20-25 miles, as employment tends to be significantly closer to home there than with the Bay/Valley situation (this is also abetted by the large number of state personnel in the area -- in this respect, being the state capital intrinsically involves a multitude of employees). 

If not for the twin watersheds/"bottomlands" of the Consumnes and Mokelumne Rivers (delineating the north end of Lodi and the south side of Elk Grove respectively), each of which have multiple channels and are prone to severe flooding in wet winters, it's likely that the two growth areas would have merged by this time.  Also, that area between Lodi and Galt (about 10 miles apart) is "wine central", extensively planted with vineyards and dotted with wineries, most of which have tourist-oriented tasting rooms; besides the flooding potential, the acreage has become just too costly to convert to housing tracts. 

Despite almost continual criticism regarding "sprawl", housing starts in the Valley have continued almost unabated since the late 1970's; the housing/mortgage crisis of 2007-2011 was something of a "hiccup", but for the past 5 years or so it has become virtually impossible to traverse the area without witnessing more and more homes, condos, and the strip malls and other such amenities that accompany such development being deployed.  And it's all dollar-driven -- cheap (by relative standards) housing located in areas and communities with the proverbial "welcome mat" out; save another significant recession, the trend is more than likely to continue.     

how affordable is Sacramento vs. Bay area, LA area, San Diego Area?
Title: Re: Fastest-growing suburbs
Post by: csw on June 21, 2017, 10:14:09 PM
In Indiana, the most apparent fast-growing suburb is definitely the Carmel/Fishers/Noblesville/Westfield rectangle on the north side of Indy. But Hendricks County has been on the rise for a while too. Avon, Plainfield, and Brownsburg, all up and down Ronald Reagan Parkway, are becoming huge pretty quickly.
Title: Re: Fastest-growing suburbs
Post by: sparker on June 22, 2017, 02:20:20 AM
Quote from: silverback1065 on June 21, 2017, 02:20:33 PM
how affordable is Sacramento vs. Bay area, LA area, San Diego Area?

For a single-family home, you can figure a Sacramento pricing structure that is, depending upon the specific location and age of the building, somewhere between 35 and about 60-65% of the price in San Jose, with the percentage falling marginally as one heads up the Peninsula toward San Francisco, which rarely sees anything below a 1.25M price on the separate single-family (av. 1800-2200sf) homes in the Sunset or Richmond districts; there the percentage is around 22-27.  However, the rental market stats for each area are significantly much closer, with inland rents sitting at about 70-75% of a cross-sectional Bay Area, with rental costs spiking in complexes near Silicon Valley employment centers as well as San Francisco, which is to be expected (extreme SF rental expenses are near-legendary!) 

Even though housing costs are increasing across the board, it's probable that the differential between inland and coastal rents will remain constant for the foreseeable future. 
Title: Re: Fastest-growing suburbs
Post by: TheHighwayMan3561 on June 22, 2017, 02:41:57 AM
The Twin Cities has seen more growth within the two core cities rather than the suburbs in recent years. As far as its fastest growing burbs it has shifted to some of the extreme fringe cities such as Rogers/Otsego, Hugo, and Victoria.
Title: Re: Fastest-growing suburbs
Post by: rantanamo on June 22, 2017, 05:05:36 AM
Quote from: Bruce on June 10, 2017, 07:21:55 PM
Quote from: Chris on June 09, 2017, 12:28:33 PM
I created a 2000-2016 gif of the Frisco / McKinney area. As you can see it's all new development. And this is quite a large area, the image spans over 20 miles from left to right.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FP4XowRS.gif&hash=1b827a21b7588accb3006aad56a9a373b5e4d4ed)

X-(

Certainly the quality of life in that area has gone down, thanks to all the new cars on the road and loss of trees and open grassland.

Yes, more traffic will affect QOL, but there are also tons of amenities in that part of DFW.  Lots of major companies have located themselves there along with lots of entertainment, sports, and surprising good nightlife to go with the amenities of a new suburb, so QOL is in the eye of the beholder.  When it comes to trees, this is North Texas we're talking about.  Mostly prairieland(blackland prairie) naturally with trees mostly around our small watersheds and floodplains.  Most of that in these areas were clear cut for farm and grazing land long ago, so a loss of trees does not compute.  More like a gain of trees.
Title: Re: Fastest-growing suburbs
Post by: silverback1065 on June 22, 2017, 08:14:42 AM
I wish suburbs didn't abandon the grid
Title: Re: Fastest-growing suburbs
Post by: Chris on June 22, 2017, 09:09:56 AM
'quality of life' is a vague concept. In many cases, it comes at a very high cost. I'm sure San Francisco has a high quality of life, but not if your rent is higher than your salary... In many quality of life indexes, the highest scoring cities have exorbitant housing prices where a large proportion of the population simply can't afford to live there. One key asset of Texas cities is the affordable housing price.

However 'affordable housing' is another vague concept. Along the west coast, an affordable house (a median house price of 3 times the household income) may be a tiny apartment or studio while in Texas it may be a fairly large detached home. I think the affordable housing and fast-growing economy is a key reason why Texas is a big winner in both international and domestic migration statistics for years. And as a result, the suburbs of Dallas and Houston are growing at a frantic pace.
Title: Re: Fastest-growing suburbs
Post by: empirestate on June 22, 2017, 09:22:38 AM
I also have a distinct feeling that the measure of "quality of life" is directly proportional to "monotony of life." ;-)
Title: Re: Fastest-growing suburbs
Post by: doorknob60 on June 22, 2017, 11:24:50 AM
Meridian is growing ridiculously fast. Just going off census numbers, in 1990 it was a small farming town, population 9,596. By 2000 It had more than tripled to 34,919. And in 2010, it more than doubled to 75,092. 2016 estimates show 95,623. Nampa is growing pretty fast too, but not to the same extent (it was already a more significant city before transitioning to suburban).

Probably the biggest reason is the west end of Boise ran out of empty space, and the growth just kept moving into Meridian. There is no gap between the two cities. Actually, the closest grocery store to where I live is in Boise (even though I live in Meridian). There's still a lot of room to grow, too. There's lots of empty space both south of Victory Rd. and west of Ten Mile Rd. I imagine in 20 years, Nampa and Meridian will barely have any empty space in between. This will be especially true when the ID-16 freeway extension gets completed from US-20/26 to I-84 (no current construction date planned, but the design is done as far as I know).
Title: Re: Fastest-growing suburbs
Post by: sparker on June 22, 2017, 04:05:49 PM
Quote from: doorknob60 on June 22, 2017, 11:24:50 AM
Meridian is growing ridiculously fast. Just going off census numbers, in 1990 it was a small farming town, population 9,596. By 2000 It had more than tripled to 34,919. And in 2010, it more than doubled to 75,092. 2016 estimates show 95,623. Nampa is growing pretty fast too, but not to the same extent (it was already a more significant city before transitioning to suburban).

Probably the biggest reason is the west end of Boise ran out of empty space, and the growth just kept moving into Meridian. There is no gap between the two cities. Actually, the closest grocery store to where I live is in Boise (even though I live in Meridian). There's still a lot of room to grow, too. There's lots of empty space both south of Victory Rd. and west of Ten Mile Rd. I imagine in 20 years, Nampa and Meridian will barely have any empty space in between. This will be especially true when the ID-16 freeway extension gets completed from US-20/26 to I-84 (no current construction date planned, but the design is done as far as I know).

Welcome to the suburban expansion idiom!  It's likely that by 2030-2035 Treasure Valley residential/commercial areas will extend from about 10-15 miles SE of Boise all the way west to Caldwell and Marsing; and unless measures are taken to preserve the agricultural area along US 95, housing tracts will be sporadically deployed west of there at least to the Oregon state line if not within Oregon itself.  You have one of the few remaining cost-effective metro regions left in the West that isn't reclaimed desert, and as long as there's employment available, you'll see a pretty steady population influx.  I predict you'll be, metro-wise, at about 1.35-1.4M by about 15 years down the line, particularly if you build out your transportation network in the valley.
Quote from: empirestate on June 22, 2017, 09:22:38 AM
I also have a distinct feeling that the measure of "quality of life" is directly proportional to "monotony of life." ;-)

That all depends upon whether or not one considers behavior largely deferential to a priori concepts is ideal or even just appropriate; others may find the inverse attractive, seeking out the novel and decidedly different as a personal avocation. 
Title: Re: Fastest-growing suburbs
Post by: empirestate on June 22, 2017, 09:01:18 PM
An interesting tangent is suggested by this topic, along with the 2016 population estimates thread: in which states is a suburban municipality its second-largest? Are there any states yet where the largest municipality is a suburb? If not, which is likely to be first?
Title: Re: Fastest-growing suburbs
Post by: formulanone on June 22, 2017, 09:09:21 PM
Quote from: vdeane on June 10, 2017, 06:55:41 PM
Why would they want to give up their livelihood?  Being bought out is only a one-time windfall, at the expense of their home and job, essentially.  I wouldn't consider a one-time large sum to be a substitute for a steady income.

$104,000,000 buys a lot of re-training at the local community college. (http://www.browardpalmbeach.com/news/ol-man-wiley-had-a-farm-6311271)
Title: Re: Fastest-growing suburbs
Post by: tdindy88 on June 22, 2017, 09:34:39 PM
Quote from: empirestate on June 22, 2017, 09:01:18 PM
An interesting tangent is suggested by this topic, along with the 2016 population estimates thread: in which states is a suburban municipality its second-largest? Are there any states yet where the largest municipality is a suburb? If not, which is likely to be first?

Aurora, Illinois would fit for the suburb being the 2nd largest municipality.
Title: Re: Fastest-growing suburbs
Post by: empirestate on June 22, 2017, 10:25:57 PM
Quote from: tdindy88 on June 22, 2017, 09:34:39 PM
Quote from: empirestate on June 22, 2017, 09:01:18 PM
An interesting tangent is suggested by this topic, along with the 2016 population estimates thread: in which states is a suburban municipality its second-largest? Are there any states yet where the largest municipality is a suburb? If not, which is likely to be first?

Aurora, Illinois would fit for the suburb being the 2nd largest municipality.

Kansas is interesting: Overland Park is a second-largest suburb–but it's not a suburb of the first-largest city!
Title: Re: Fastest-growing suburbs
Post by: dvferyance on June 22, 2017, 10:52:23 PM
Quote from: empirestate on June 22, 2017, 09:01:18 PM
An interesting tangent is suggested by this topic, along with the 2016 population estimates thread: in which states is a suburban municipality its second-largest? Are there any states yet where the largest municipality is a suburb? If not, which is likely to be first?
Wilmington DE is considered to be a suburb of Philly. Newark NJ is considered to be a suburb of NYC.
Title: Re: Fastest-growing suburbs
Post by: JJBers on June 22, 2017, 10:59:03 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on June 22, 2017, 10:52:23 PM
Quote from: empirestate on June 22, 2017, 09:01:18 PM
An interesting tangent is suggested by this topic, along with the 2016 population estimates thread: in which states is a suburban municipality its second-largest? Are there any states yet where the largest municipality is a suburb? If not, which is likely to be first?
Wilmington DE is considered to be a suburb of Philly. Newark NJ is considered to be a suburb of NYC.
Bridgeport, Connecticut is a outer-subrurb of New York; is the largest city in the state. Even then the 6th largest, Norwalk, is also part of the area.
Title: Re: Fastest-growing suburbs
Post by: DTComposer on June 22, 2017, 11:47:39 PM
Quote from: empirestate on June 22, 2017, 09:01:18 PM
An interesting tangent is suggested by this topic, along with the 2016 population estimates thread: in which states is a suburban municipality its second-largest? Are there any states yet where the largest municipality is a suburb? If not, which is likely to be first?

-Henderson (suburb of Las Vegas) is the second-largest city in Nevada.

-Virginia Beach is the largest city in Virginia, and is considered somewhat suburban compared to Norfolk.
Title: Re: Fastest-growing suburbs
Post by: jwolfer on June 23, 2017, 01:53:14 AM
Quote from: dvferyance on June 22, 2017, 10:52:23 PM
Quote from: empirestate on June 22, 2017, 09:01:18 PM
An interesting tangent is suggested by this topic, along with the 2016 population estimates thread: in which states is a suburban municipality its second-largest? Are there any states yet where the largest municipality is a suburb? If not, which is likely to be first?
Wilmington DE is considered to be a suburb of Philly. Newark NJ is considered to be a suburb of NYC.
Newark, NJ and Wilmington,DE are part of the metro areas.  But they are not suburban in character at all.

If either state were not very close NYC or Philadelphia, Newark ans Wilmington would be major cities on their own.

Some old actor, author or comedian supposedly moved to NYC and he got iff the bus in Newark and thought he was in NYC. At least i remember hearing that somewhere, sorry very long day and cant sleep... Memory recall sucks.

LGMS428

Title: Re: Fastest-growing suburbs
Post by: Chris on June 23, 2017, 07:52:44 AM
Many core cities in the Sunbelt are essentially 90-100% suburban in character.

http://www.newgeography.com/content/005640-us-metropolitan-areas-from-polycentricity-dispersed
Title: Re: Fastest-growing suburbs
Post by: silverback1065 on June 23, 2017, 09:04:13 AM
what is the largest american suburb? exburb?
Title: Re: Fastest-growing suburbs
Post by: Chris on June 23, 2017, 09:20:24 AM
Mesa, Arizona has a population of 484,500 and is typically considered to be the largest suburb in the U.S.
Title: Re: Fastest-growing suburbs
Post by: empirestate on June 23, 2017, 11:29:59 AM
Quote from: jwolfer on June 23, 2017, 01:53:14 AM
Quote from: dvferyance on June 22, 2017, 10:52:23 PM
Quote from: empirestate on June 22, 2017, 09:01:18 PM
An interesting tangent is suggested by this topic, along with the 2016 population estimates thread: in which states is a suburban municipality its second-largest? Are there any states yet where the largest municipality is a suburb? If not, which is likely to be first?
Wilmington DE is considered to be a suburb of Philly. Newark NJ is considered to be a suburb of NYC.
Newark, NJ and Wilmington,DE are part of the metro areas.  But they are not suburban in character at all.

If either state were not very close NYC or Philadelphia, Newark ans Wilmington would be major cities on their own.

Agreed; and Bridgeport as well. But on the other hand...

Quote from: Chris on June 23, 2017, 09:20:24 AM
Mesa, Arizona has a population of 484,500 and is typically considered to be the largest suburb in the U.S.

Mesa did come immediately to my mind, although it doesn't beat out Tucson for second-largest. But even Mesa has a little bit of its own identity; it and Phoenix were settled and incorporated at about the same time, and for a while it was probably hard to determine which was secondary to the other, if at all.

So where's the line between Phoenix-Mesa and NYC-Newark, NYC-Bridgeport or Philadelphia-Wilmington? Even though Newark, Bridgeport and Wilmington are distinct cities in their own right, NYC and Philly have always been the core settlement.
Title: Re: Fastest-growing suburbs
Post by: Eth on June 23, 2017, 01:40:12 PM
Quote from: empirestate on June 22, 2017, 09:01:18 PM
An interesting tangent is suggested by this topic, along with the 2016 population estimates thread: in which states is a suburban municipality its second-largest? Are there any states yet where the largest municipality is a suburb? If not, which is likely to be first?

Germantown, MD (~90k) is actually a CDP, but were it incorporated, it would be the state's second-largest city. Instead, it's Frederick (65k), which could possibly be considered a suburb depending on your definition.
Title: Re: Fastest-growing suburbs
Post by: Brandon on June 23, 2017, 02:18:59 PM
Quote from: tdindy88 on June 22, 2017, 09:34:39 PM
Quote from: empirestate on June 22, 2017, 09:01:18 PM
An interesting tangent is suggested by this topic, along with the 2016 population estimates thread: in which states is a suburban municipality its second-largest? Are there any states yet where the largest municipality is a suburb? If not, which is likely to be first?

Aurora, Illinois would fit for the suburb being the 2nd largest municipality.

It's next to the 5th largest in the state (Naperville), and not far from the 3rd (Joliet).
Title: Re: Fastest-growing suburbs
Post by: US 89 on June 23, 2017, 03:44:38 PM
Quote from: empirestate on June 22, 2017, 09:01:18 PM
An interesting tangent is suggested by this topic, along with the 2016 population estimates thread: in which states is a suburban municipality its second-largest? Are there any states yet where the largest municipality is a suburb? If not, which is likely to be first?

Meridian ID, Aurora IL, West Valley City UT, and South Burlington VT are all suburbs and the second largest cities in their states.

Overland Park KS and Jersey City NJ are the second largest cities in their states, but they are suburbs of a city in another state.

In Virginia, the largest municipality is Virginia Beach. Depending on how you count the Hampton Roads area, it could fit "largest city is a suburb".
Title: Re: Fastest-growing suburbs
Post by: doorknob60 on June 23, 2017, 04:10:03 PM
Quote from: empirestate on June 22, 2017, 09:01:18 PM
An interesting tangent is suggested by this topic, along with the 2016 population estimates thread: in which states is a suburban municipality its second-largest?

The already mentioned Meridian, ID is now Idaho's second largest city. The 3rd largest (Nampa, which was second largest until very recently) would also fit.
Title: Re: Fastest-growing suburbs
Post by: mgk920 on June 23, 2017, 09:49:32 PM
Quote from: empirestate on June 22, 2017, 09:01:18 PM
An interesting tangent is suggested by this topic, along with the 2016 population estimates thread: in which states is a suburban municipality its second-largest? Are there any states yet where the largest municipality is a suburb? If not, which is likely to be first?

Not yet the most populous muni in its state, but due to the (ill-conceived, IMHO) 'Poundstone' law, I can see Aurora, CO overtaking Denver, CO as the state's most populous muni within the next decade or two.

Mike
Title: Re: Fastest-growing suburbs
Post by: DTComposer on June 23, 2017, 10:50:29 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on June 23, 2017, 09:49:32 PM
Quote from: empirestate on June 22, 2017, 09:01:18 PM
An interesting tangent is suggested by this topic, along with the 2016 population estimates thread: in which states is a suburban municipality its second-largest? Are there any states yet where the largest municipality is a suburb? If not, which is likely to be first?

Not yet the most populous muni in its state, but due to the (ill-conceived, IMHO) 'Poundstone' law, I can see Aurora, CO overtaking Denver, CO as the state's most populous muni within the next decade or two.

Mike

That may be a bit hyperbolic - if Aurora maintained its current growth rate (nearly 20% per decade) and Denver simply stopped growing right now, Aurora would pass Denver in about forty years - around 2055.
Title: Re: Fastest-growing suburbs
Post by: silverback1065 on June 23, 2017, 10:55:10 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on June 23, 2017, 09:49:32 PM
Quote from: empirestate on June 22, 2017, 09:01:18 PM
An interesting tangent is suggested by this topic, along with the 2016 population estimates thread: in which states is a suburban municipality its second-largest? Are there any states yet where the largest municipality is a suburb? If not, which is likely to be first?

Not yet the most populous muni in its state, but due to the (ill-conceived, IMHO) 'Poundstone' law, I can see Aurora, CO overtaking Denver, CO as the state's most populous muni within the next decade or two.

Mike

what is poundstone?  and i don't think denver can grow anymore landwise, so it's possible.
Title: Re: Fastest-growing suburbs
Post by: Big John on June 23, 2017, 11:03:30 PM
Quote from: silverback1065 on June 23, 2017, 10:55:10 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on June 23, 2017, 09:49:32 PM
Quote from: empirestate on June 22, 2017, 09:01:18 PM
An interesting tangent is suggested by this topic, along with the 2016 population estimates thread: in which states is a suburban municipality its second-largest? Are there any states yet where the largest municipality is a suburb? If not, which is likely to be first?

Not yet the most populous muni in its state, but due to the (ill-conceived, IMHO) 'Poundstone' law, I can see Aurora, CO overtaking Denver, CO as the state's most populous muni within the next decade or two.

Mike

what is poundstone?  and i don't think denver can grow anymore landwise, so it's possible.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poundstone_Amendment

A state constitutional amendment limiting Denver from annexing more land.
Title: Re: Fastest-growing suburbs
Post by: silverback1065 on June 23, 2017, 11:09:01 PM
Quote from: Big John on June 23, 2017, 11:03:30 PM
Quote from: silverback1065 on June 23, 2017, 10:55:10 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on June 23, 2017, 09:49:32 PM
Quote from: empirestate on June 22, 2017, 09:01:18 PM
An interesting tangent is suggested by this topic, along with the 2016 population estimates thread: in which states is a suburban municipality its second-largest? Are there any states yet where the largest municipality is a suburb? If not, which is likely to be first?

Not yet the most populous muni in its state, but due to the (ill-conceived, IMHO) 'Poundstone' law, I can see Aurora, CO overtaking Denver, CO as the state's most populous muni within the next decade or two.

Mike

what is poundstone?  and i don't think denver can grow anymore landwise, so it's possible.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poundstone_Amendment

A state constitutional amendment limiting Denver from annexing more land.
That's a horrible law. But I like how small and compact Denver is, they fucked up here in Indianapolis with unigov.

Nexus 6P

Title: Re: Fastest-growing suburbs
Post by: thenetwork on June 24, 2017, 12:14:46 AM
Denver and it's metro area is bursting at the seams.  Right now a lot of the area south of Denver (Douglas County) and C/E-470 is where the once rural areas are being built up in both residential and commercial acreage.
Title: Re: Fastest-growing suburbs
Post by: dvferyance on June 24, 2017, 09:55:39 AM
Quote from: Big John on June 23, 2017, 11:03:30 PM
Quote from: silverback1065 on June 23, 2017, 10:55:10 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on June 23, 2017, 09:49:32 PM
Quote from: empirestate on June 22, 2017, 09:01:18 PM
An interesting tangent is suggested by this topic, along with the 2016 population estimates thread: in which states is a suburban municipality its second-largest? Are there any states yet where the largest municipality is a suburb? If not, which is likely to be first?

Not yet the most populous muni in its state, but due to the (ill-conceived, IMHO) 'Poundstone' law, I can see Aurora, CO overtaking Denver, CO as the state's most populous muni within the next decade or two.

Mike

what is poundstone?  and i don't think denver can grow anymore landwise, so it's possible.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poundstone_Amendment

A state constitutional amendment limiting Denver from annexing more land.
So I guess that means the unincorporated territory just to the north will always be that. never made much sense to me as to why the Denver city limits end just north of downtown.
Title: Re: Fastest-growing suburbs
Post by: bing101 on June 30, 2017, 06:40:51 PM
http://www.sacbee.com/news/business/real-estate-news/article158712524.html


http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/article158413104.html


Here is an update.
Title: Re: Fastest-growing suburbs
Post by: golden eagle on July 01, 2017, 07:08:51 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on June 24, 2017, 09:55:39 AM
Quote from: Big John on June 23, 2017, 11:03:30 PM
Quote from: silverback1065 on June 23, 2017, 10:55:10 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on June 23, 2017, 09:49:32 PM
Quote from: empirestate on June 22, 2017, 09:01:18 PM
An interesting tangent is suggested by this topic, along with the 2016 population estimates thread: in which states is a suburban municipality its second-largest? Are there any states yet where the largest municipality is a suburb? If not, which is likely to be first?

Not yet the most populous muni in its state, but due to the (ill-conceived, IMHO) 'Poundstone' law, I can see Aurora, CO overtaking Denver, CO as the state's most populous muni within the next decade or two.

Mike

what is poundstone?  and i don't think denver can grow anymore landwise, so it's possible.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poundstone_Amendment

A state constitutional amendment limiting Denver from annexing more land.
So I guess that means the unincorporated territory just to the north will always be that. never made much sense to me as to why the Denver city limits end just north of downtown.

Isn't Denver also a county? That may be why they can't annex.
Title: Re: Fastest-growing suburbs
Post by: golden eagle on July 01, 2017, 07:14:44 PM
Quote from: empirestate on June 22, 2017, 09:01:18 PM
An interesting tangent is suggested by this topic, along with the 2016 population estimates thread: in which states is a suburban municipality its second-largest? Are there any states yet where the largest municipality is a suburb? If not, which is likely to be first?

Not yet in Mississippi, but I expect within the next 15-20 years, Southaven (Memphis suburb) will surpass Gulfport as the state's second-largest city.
Title: Re: Fastest-growing suburbs
Post by: US 89 on July 01, 2017, 07:25:10 PM
Quote from: golden eagle on July 01, 2017, 07:08:51 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on June 24, 2017, 09:55:39 AM
Quote from: Big John on June 23, 2017, 11:03:30 PM
Quote from: silverback1065 on June 23, 2017, 10:55:10 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on June 23, 2017, 09:49:32 PM
Quote from: empirestate on June 22, 2017, 09:01:18 PM
An interesting tangent is suggested by this topic, along with the 2016 population estimates thread: in which states is a suburban municipality its second-largest? Are there any states yet where the largest municipality is a suburb? If not, which is likely to be first?

Not yet the most populous muni in its state, but due to the (ill-conceived, IMHO) 'Poundstone' law, I can see Aurora, CO overtaking Denver, CO as the state's most populous muni within the next decade or two.

Mike

what is poundstone?  and i don't think denver can grow anymore landwise, so it's possible.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poundstone_Amendment

A state constitutional amendment limiting Denver from annexing more land.
So I guess that means the unincorporated territory just to the north will always be that. never made much sense to me as to why the Denver city limits end just north of downtown.

Isn't Denver also a county? That may be why they can't annex.

Yeah, Denver is a consolidated city and county, and changing county boundaries usually requires permission from higher state authorities.

The way I understand it, this Poundstone thing makes it so that even the state government can't change the boundaries, unless the Colorado state constitution is amended again.
Title: Re: Fastest-growing suburbs
Post by: mgk920 on July 01, 2017, 09:25:15 PM
Quote from: roadguy2 on July 01, 2017, 07:25:10 PM
Quote from: golden eagle on July 01, 2017, 07:08:51 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on June 24, 2017, 09:55:39 AM
Quote from: Big John on June 23, 2017, 11:03:30 PM
Quote from: silverback1065 on June 23, 2017, 10:55:10 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on June 23, 2017, 09:49:32 PM
Quote from: empirestate on June 22, 2017, 09:01:18 PM
An interesting tangent is suggested by this topic, along with the 2016 population estimates thread: in which states is a suburban municipality its second-largest? Are there any states yet where the largest municipality is a suburb? If not, which is likely to be first?

Not yet the most populous muni in its state, but due to the (ill-conceived, IMHO) 'Poundstone' law, I can see Aurora, CO overtaking Denver, CO as the state's most populous muni within the next decade or two.

Mike

what is poundstone?  and i don't think denver can grow anymore landwise, so it's possible.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poundstone_Amendment

A state constitutional amendment limiting Denver from annexing more land.
So I guess that means the unincorporated territory just to the north will always be that. never made much sense to me as to why the Denver city limits end just north of downtown.

Isn't Denver also a county? That may be why they can't annex.

Yeah, Denver is a consolidated city and county, and changing county boundaries usually requires permission from higher state authorities.

The way I understand it, this Poundstone thing makes it so that even the state government can't change the boundaries, unless the Colorado state constitution is amended again.

Like it was about 30 years or so ago in a statewide referendum that allowed the Denver International Airport to be in the city.

The recently created Broomfield city/county was also approved in a statewide referendum.

Mike
Title: Re: Fastest-growing suburbs
Post by: bing101 on July 04, 2017, 11:19:02 AM
Elk Grove,Ca just south of Sacramento was once listed as the fastest growing suburb in Northern California along with a Bay Area exburb Tracy at one point.
Title: Re: Fastest-growing suburbs
Post by: Scott5114 on October 05, 2017, 12:26:26 AM
Quote from: kkt on June 12, 2017, 02:04:35 PM
Quote from: vdeane on June 10, 2017, 06:55:41 PM
Why would they want to give up their livelihood?  Being bought out is only a one-time windfall, at the expense of their home and job, essentially.  I wouldn't consider a one-time large sum to be a substitute for a steady income.

Farming is usually not a well-paid occupation, especially for small farmers.  Taking a windfall and investing it wisely could often provide a bigger and more reliable income.  It might be enough to retire, or just work a full-time job instead of 18x7 like farming.


You also might be able to take the proceeds and buy a new farm further out from the city for less than what you sold for.
Title: Re: Fastest-growing suburbs
Post by: empirestate on October 05, 2017, 01:03:26 AM
Quote from: ParrDa on October 04, 2017, 09:39:46 PM
In upstate NY (excluding NYC metro), Amherst, at 122,000, is the only suburb in the top five. Should current trends continue, Greece will surpass the city of Albany within a decade or so.

But only in lists where MCDs and incorporated places are commingled.
Title: Re: Fastest-growing suburbs
Post by: CNGL-Leudimin on October 05, 2017, 12:21:34 PM
I think no suburb beats Sarriguren near Pamplona, Spain. In just 10 years (from 2005 to 2015) its population went from 5 to 13,000. No, I didn't mean to say 5,000, but 5 (yes, five) :sombrero:.
Title: Re: Fastest-growing suburbs
Post by: jakeroot on October 05, 2017, 04:08:51 PM
Quote from: CNGL-Leudimin on October 05, 2017, 12:21:34 PM
I think no suburb beats Sarriguren near Pamplona, Spain. In just 10 years (from 2005 to 2015) its population went from 5 to 13,000. No, I didn't mean to say 5,000, but 5 (yes, five) :sombrero:.

That's insane. I'm not sure any city has seen a 3000% increase in population in ten years, although most cities don't start from a population of 5.
Title: Re: Fastest-growing suburbs
Post by: hotdogPi on October 06, 2017, 06:21:19 AM
Quote from: ParrDa on October 05, 2017, 10:39:06 PM
Quote from: empirestate on October 05, 2017, 01:03:26 AM
Quote from: ParrDa on October 04, 2017, 09:39:46 PM
In upstate NY (excluding NYC metro), Amherst, at 122,000, is the only suburb in the top five. Should current trends continue, Greece will surpass the city of Albany within a decade or so.

But only in lists where MCDs and incorporated places are commingled.

What other type of list is there?  :confused:

If you want the population of, say, Amherst without Williamsville, you have to do the math yourself, at least, AFAIK. If you can prove otherwise, do speak up.

Most lists exclude unincorporated places, which is why lists of largest cities don't include Hempstead, NY in the list, even if they do include incorporated towns. (For some reason, New York's towns don't seem to be considered incorporated, at least for the purposes of population ranking.)
Title: Re: Fastest-growing suburbs
Post by: vdeane on October 06, 2017, 01:33:02 PM
Quote from: 1 on October 06, 2017, 06:21:19 AM
(For some reason, New York's towns don't seem to be considered incorporated, at least for the purposes of population ranking.)
My guess is because everything in NY is incorporated.
Title: Re: Fastest-growing suburbs
Post by: JJBers on October 06, 2017, 11:13:51 PM
Quote from: vdeane on October 06, 2017, 01:33:02 PM
Quote from: 1 on October 06, 2017, 06:21:19 AM
(For some reason, New York's towns don't seem to be considered incorporated, at least for the purposes of population ranking.)
My guess is because everything in NY is incorporated.
Ohh, you wish. Every single inch of land in Southern New England is fully incorporated. Not some fake "Oh we 99.9% of our land incorporated", we have 100%.
Title: Re: Fastest-growing suburbs
Post by: jwolfer on October 06, 2017, 11:39:28 PM
Quote from: JJBers on October 06, 2017, 11:13:51 PM
Quote from: vdeane on October 06, 2017, 01:33:02 PM
Quote from: 1 on October 06, 2017, 06:21:19 AM
(For some reason, New York's towns don't seem to be considered incorporated, at least for the purposes of population ranking.)
My guess is because everything in NY is incorporated.
Ohh, you wish. Every single inch of land in Southern New England is fully incorporated. Not some fake "Oh we 99.9% of our land incorporated", we have 100%.
New Jersey is 100% Incorporated

Z981

Title: Re: Fastest-growing suburbs
Post by: vdeane on October 07, 2017, 10:32:08 PM
Quote from: JJBers on October 06, 2017, 11:13:51 PM
Quote from: vdeane on October 06, 2017, 01:33:02 PM
Quote from: 1 on October 06, 2017, 06:21:19 AM
(For some reason, New York's towns don't seem to be considered incorporated, at least for the purposes of population ranking.)
My guess is because everything in NY is incorporated.
Ohh, you wish. Every single inch of land in Southern New England is fully incorporated. Not some fake "Oh we 99.9% of our land incorporated", we have 100%.
What part of NY do you think is not incorporated?
Title: Re: Fastest-growing suburbs
Post by: empirestate on October 08, 2017, 12:03:37 AM
Quote from: ParrDa on October 05, 2017, 10:39:06 PM
Quote from: empirestate on October 05, 2017, 01:03:26 AM
Quote from: ParrDa on October 04, 2017, 09:39:46 PM
In upstate NY (excluding NYC metro), Amherst, at 122,000, is the only suburb in the top five. Should current trends continue, Greece will surpass the city of Albany within a decade or so.

But only in lists where MCDs and incorporated places are commingled.

What other type of list is there?  :confused:

A Census listing, most importantly (as they're the ones who actually tabulate the population). The two types of entities are treated quite differently, with incorporated places being tabulated together with unincorporated ones (CDPs), while towns (such as Amherst and Greece) are county subdivisions.

QuoteIf you want the population of, say, Amherst without Williamsville, you have to do the math yourself, at least, AFAIK. If you can prove otherwise, do speak up.

I don't know that I can prove otherwise, although I also don't know why the need would arise.

Quote from: ParrDa on October 06, 2017, 08:10:12 PM
Quote from: vdeane on October 06, 2017, 01:33:02 PM
Quote from: 1 on October 06, 2017, 06:21:19 AM
(For some reason, New York's towns don't seem to be considered incorporated, at least for the purposes of population ranking.)
My guess is because everything in NY is incorporated.
This.  :clap:  :clap:  :clap:

Well, yes. And no. In New York, the term "incorporated" is generally reserved for corporate-type municipalities (cities and villages, in this case) but not used when referring to county divisions (i.e., towns). That's despite the fact that the towns are, indeed, organized entities with administrative functions and governments, which can often be described as "incorporated" in contexts outside of the state (such as New England).

Quote from: vdeane on October 07, 2017, 10:32:08 PM
What part of NY do you think is not incorporated?

Other than the semantics of incorporation regarding towns, there are the Indian territories. They're legally outside of any town government (even though some maps do show town boundaries within them). However, part of the Allegany Reservation is within the city of Salamanca, so that's definitely incorporated territory, by anyone's definition.
Title: Re: Fastest-growing suburbs
Post by: inkyatari on October 10, 2017, 02:09:09 PM
About ten years ago, Plainfield, IL was the 6th or 7th fastest growing suburb in the US.

https://www.forbes.com/forbes/welcome/?toURL=https://www.forbes.com/2007/07/16/suburbs-growth-housing-forbeslife-cx_mw_0716realestate.html&refURL=https://www.google.com/&referrer=https://www.google.com/

Having gone to high school in Plainfield, it's really hard to recognize the town.  Obviously new high school since the 1990 F5 tornado, but even the downtown area just is weird going through these days.

Getting old sucks.
Title: Re: Fastest-growing suburbs
Post by: US 89 on October 18, 2017, 06:33:30 PM
Quote from: CNGL-Leudimin on October 05, 2017, 12:21:34 PM
I think no suburb beats Sarriguren near Pamplona, Spain. In just 10 years (from 2005 to 2015) its population went from 5 to 13,000. No, I didn't mean to say 5,000, but 5 (yes, five) :sombrero:.

One of the winners in this category in the US might be Vineyard, UT. It was a little farming town west of Provo with a population of 139 at the 2010 census. But since then it has become a suburb and population has exploded. Its estimated population as of 2017 is 8,000, which is a 5655% growth.
Title: Re: Fastest-growing suburbs
Post by: Desert Man on December 08, 2017, 12:18:36 PM
Quote from: roadguy2 on October 18, 2017, 06:33:30 PM
Quote from: CNGL-Leudimin on October 05, 2017, 12:21:34 PM
I think no suburb beats Sarriguren near Pamplona, Spain. In just 10 years (from 2005 to 2015) its population went from 5 to 13,000. No, I didn't mean to say 5,000, but 5 (yes, five) :sombrero:.

One of the winners in this category in the US might be Vineyard, UT. It was a little farming town west of Provo with a population of 139 at the 2010 census. But since then it has become a suburb and population has exploded. Its estimated population as of 2017 is 8,000, which is a 5655% growth.

And Californians moving to UT wanted a less urban place, but the Salt Lake city metro area extends north to Ogden or Brigham City, and south to Provo (Utah county) or Nephi (in supposedly rural Juab county). On the north and west shores of Utah Lake, farmland became part of the suburban sprawl of nearby Orem-Provo area (nearby towns of Lehi and American Fork) and Salt Lake county to the north. The southern half of Utah county remains not so built up, despite growth in Spanish Fork and Payson which now has the LDS church temple for the area's 80+ % Mormon (church member or cultural) majority. 
Title: Re: Fastest-growing suburbs
Post by: Brandon on December 08, 2017, 01:41:28 PM
Quote from: inkyatari on October 10, 2017, 02:09:09 PM
About ten years ago, Plainfield, IL was the 6th or 7th fastest growing suburb in the US.

https://www.forbes.com/forbes/welcome/?toURL=https://www.forbes.com/2007/07/16/suburbs-growth-housing-forbeslife-cx_mw_0716realestate.html&refURL=https://www.google.com/&referrer=https://www.google.com/

Having gone to high school in Plainfield, it's really hard to recognize the town.  Obviously new high school since the 1990 F5 tornado, but even the downtown area just is weird going through these days.

Getting old sucks.

As does driving through downtown Plainfield at rush hour.  The southwest 'burbs are still the fastest growing areas in the state.  In fact, as of the last census estimates, Will, Kendall, and Grundy Counties were still the fastest growing in the state, and a shrinking state at that.
Title: Re: Fastest-growing suburbs
Post by: inkyatari on December 08, 2017, 03:13:49 PM
Quote from: Brandon on December 08, 2017, 01:41:28 PM
  In fact, as of the last census estimates, Will, Kendall, and Grundy Counties were still the fastest growing in the state, and a shrinking state at that.

Living in Grundy as I do, I never would have guessed that.
Title: Re: Fastest-growing suburbs
Post by: kphoger on December 08, 2017, 03:37:14 PM
Quote from: inkyatari on October 10, 2017, 02:09:09 PM
About ten years ago, Plainfield, IL was the 6th or 7th fastest growing suburb in the US.

https://www.forbes.com/forbes/welcome/?toURL=https://www.forbes.com/2007/07/16/suburbs-growth-housing-forbeslife-cx_mw_0716realestate.html&refURL=https://www.google.com/&referrer=https://www.google.com/

Having gone to high school in Plainfield, it's really hard to recognize the town.  Obviously new high school since the 1990 F5 tornado, but even the downtown area just is weird going through these days.

Getting old sucks.

(https://i.imgur.com/fIJPE1q.png)




Quote from: roadguy2 on October 18, 2017, 06:33:30 PM
One of the winners in this category in the US might be Vineyard, UT. It was a little farming town west of Provo with a population of 139 at the 2010 census. But since then it has become a suburb and population has exploded. Its estimated population as of 2017 is 8,000, which is a 5655% growth.

(https://i.imgur.com/p0qbzGJ.png)
Title: Re: Fastest-growing suburbs
Post by: kphoger on December 08, 2017, 03:40:04 PM
Quote from: inkyatari on December 08, 2017, 03:13:49 PM
Quote from: Brandon on December 08, 2017, 01:41:28 PM
  In fact, as of the last census estimates, Will, Kendall, and Grundy Counties were still the fastest growing in the state, and a shrinking state at that.

Living in Grundy as I do, I never would have guessed that.

Grundy County has basically plateaued since 2010.  Kendall County slowed down around then too, but...

(https://i.imgur.com/RUH8yyE.png)
Title: Re: Fastest-growing suburbs
Post by: Road Hog on December 09, 2017, 05:00:56 AM
Quote from: empirestate on June 22, 2017, 09:01:18 PM
An interesting tangent is suggested by this topic, along with the 2016 population estimates thread: in which states is a suburban municipality its second-largest? Are there any states yet where the largest municipality is a suburb? If not, which is likely to be first?
For many years North Little Rock, Ark. was the second-biggest city in the state, the ultimate suburb. It got passed by Fort Smith in the 1960s and by several other cities since.
Title: Re: Fastest-growing suburbs
Post by: Scott5114 on December 09, 2017, 01:01:32 PM
Quote from: empirestate on June 22, 2017, 09:01:18 PM
An interesting tangent is suggested by this topic, along with the 2016 population estimates thread: in which states is a suburban municipality its second-largest? Are there any states yet where the largest municipality is a suburb? If not, which is likely to be first?

Oklahoma may count, depending on if you consider Norman a suburb of OKC (I don't).
Title: Re: Fastest-growing suburbs
Post by: ColossalBlocks on December 09, 2017, 01:24:48 PM
Any suburb of St Louis.

But they probably won't expand past Highway M in Barnhart.
Title: Re: Fastest-growing suburbs
Post by: hotdogPi on December 09, 2017, 01:42:56 PM
I found a list of the top 1000 cities (38k+). This includes growth from 2000-2016 (not 2010-2016 as you would expect). The listing of which major city they are a suburb of was done manually, without using any formal definitions, and may be arguable.

Top growth rates on the list (growth is 2000-2016, population numbers are for 2016):

Maricopa, AZ (Phoenix, 2583%, 47k)
Little Elm, TX (DFW, 842%, 43k)
Buckeye, AZ (Phoenix, 562%, 65k)
Kyle, TX (Austin, 552%, 39k)
Leandar, TX (Austin, 406%, 43k, not recognized by spellcheck)
Frisco, TX (DFW, 364%, 164k)
Surprise, AZ (Phoenix, 310%, 133k)
Lincoln, CA (Sacramento, 300%, 47k)
Beaumont, CA (Inland Empire, 297%, 45k)
Goodyear, AZ (Phoenix, 293%, 77k)
Plainfield, IL (Chicago, 212%, 43k)
Lehi, UT (Provo, 211%, 61k)
McKinney, TX (DFW, 208%, 172k)
Wake Forest, NC (Raleigh-Durham, 207%, 40k)
Wylie, TX (DFW, 205%, 47k)
Marana, AZ (Tucson, 202%, 43k)

Number of suburbs between 100% and 200% growth:
Atlanta: 1
Austin: 3
Bay Area: 1
Boise: 1
Cape Coral FL: 1
Charlotte: 2
Dallas-Fort Worth: 4
Denver: 3
Des Moines: 1
Gold Coast (Miami area): 3
Houston: 2
Indianapolis: 2
Kennewick-Pasco WA: 1
Las Vegas: 1
Orlando: 2
Palm Coast: 1
Phoenix: 3
Raleigh-Durham: 1
Sacramento: 1
Salt Lake City: 1
Seattle: 1
Springdale AR: 1
Temecula-Murrieta CA (is this a separate area?): 4
Tucson: 1

There were also 5 cities on the list that incorporated after 2000 and therefore didn't have growth rate values.
Title: Re: Fastest-growing suburbs
Post by: inkyatari on December 10, 2017, 07:29:39 PM
Quote from: kphoger on December 08, 2017, 03:37:14 PM
Quote from: inkyatari on October 10, 2017, 02:09:09 PM
About ten years ago, Plainfield, IL was the 6th or 7th fastest growing suburb in the US.

https://www.forbes.com/forbes/welcome/?toURL=https://www.forbes.com/2007/07/16/suburbs-growth-housing-forbeslife-cx_mw_0716realestate.html&refURL=https://www.google.com/&referrer=https://www.google.com/

Having gone to high school in Plainfield, it's really hard to recognize the town.  Obviously new high school since the 1990 F5 tornado, but even the downtown area just is weird going through these days.

Getting old sucks.

(https://i.imgur.com/fIJPE1q.png)




Quote from: roadguy2 on October 18, 2017, 06:33:30 PM
One of the winners in this category in the US might be Vineyard, UT. It was a little farming town west of Provo with a population of 139 at the 2010 census. But since then it has become a suburb and population has exploded. Its estimated population as of 2017 is 8,000, which is a 5655% growth.

(https://i.imgur.com/p0qbzGJ.png)

I remember when my little Plainfield was 5,000 or so people, and they were trying to keep fast food joints out because they didn't want kids hanging out there.
Title: Re: Fastest-growing suburbs
Post by: Desert Man on December 18, 2017, 02:12:17 AM
20-22 million people live in the 10 southern CA counties, within 150-180 miles radius, from Los Angeles. Included are the metro areas of San Diego near the Mexican border (Tijuana, Baja California - its capital Mexicali), Santa Barbara right on the Pacific coast, Riverside further inland, and Bakersfield, which is in the Central (San Joaquin) Valley.

I do know the 5 least populated places in CA, all in the desert, I like to mention here.

1. Essex (8-10 people year-round, 25-29 in the winter) on former US route 66, San Bernardino county. You have hardly any residents in the East Mojave National Preserve.
2. Vidal (30-35 people) on US route 95, San Bernardino county, not far from Colorado River. Not to be confused with Vidal Junction. Riverside county is a few miles south. 
3. Lake Tamarisk (formerly Desert Center-125 people-205 in winter) off I-10, Riverside county. Known for an abandoned cafe and a post office surrounded by a few mobile homes. 95% live in the one square mile country club with golfing and an artificial lake built in the 1960s. 
4. Coachella's one square mile Augustine Indian Reservation on former US route 99/CA SR 86 (5 people, all tribal members related to grandmother/mother Mary Ann Parker, the family owns and operates a casino). Nearby is the area's oldest public school (Coachella Valley High School, opened in 1910, mascot: Arabs - but student body is 95% Latino).   
and 5. East Blythe (before annexation by Blythe: ONE person), off I-10 on US route 95, Riverside county, near the Colorado River. There used to be more residents, but the river was navigable until the 1950s, when you have no boats coming in, there's less travelers.

Ghost towns include Hell (on former US 60-70) known for mild winter temperatures and 90sF average highs due to elevation (2000 feet) in Riverside county, Eagle Mountain in Riverside county (abandoned in the 1980s due to the closure of the Kaiser company mine - only thing remain is a small K-12 grade public school for Lake Tamarisk's 35 children), Bagdad and Siberia, and Amboy (all 3 on former US route 66) - in the year 2000, it had 33 residents, all work for a company salt mine near the Amboy Crater (extinct volcano) in San Bernardino county.
Title: Re: Fastest-growing suburbs
Post by: Desert Man on December 18, 2017, 02:18:48 AM
Quote from: 1 on December 09, 2017, 01:42:56 PM
I found a list of the top 1000 cities (38k+). This includes growth from 2000-2016 (not 2010-2016 as you would expect). The listing of which major city they are a suburb of was done manually, without using any formal definitions, and may be arguable.

Top growth rates on the list (growth is 2000-2016, population numbers are for 2016):

Maricopa, AZ (Phoenix, 2583%, 47k)
Little Elm, TX (DFW, 842%, 43k)
Buckeye, AZ (Phoenix, 562%, 65k)
Kyle, TX (Austin, 552%, 39k)
Leandar, TX (Austin, 406%, 43k, not recognized by spellcheck)
Frisco, TX (DFW, 364%, 164k)
Surprise, AZ (Phoenix, 310%, 133k)
Lincoln, CA (Sacramento, 300%, 47k)
Beaumont, CA (Inland Empire, 297%, 45k)
Goodyear, AZ (Phoenix, 293%, 77k)
Plainfield, IL (Chicago, 212%, 43k)
Lehi, UT (Provo, 211%, 61k)
McKinney, TX (DFW, 208%, 172k)
Wake Forest, NC (Raleigh-Durham, 207%, 40k)
Wylie, TX (DFW, 205%, 47k)
Marana, AZ (Tucson, 202%, 43k)

Number of suburbs between 100% and 200% growth:
Atlanta: 1
Austin: 3
Bay Area: 1
Boise: 1
Cape Coral FL: 1
Charlotte: 2
Dallas-Fort Worth: 4
Denver: 3
Des Moines: 1
Gold Coast (Miami area): 3
Houston: 2
Indianapolis: 2
Kennewick-Pasco WA: 1
Las Vegas: 1
Orlando: 2
Palm Coast: 1
Phoenix: 3
Raleigh-Durham: 1
Sacramento: 1
Salt Lake City: 1
Seattle: 1
Springdale AR: 1
Temecula-Murrieta CA (is this a separate area?): 4 - Actually Riverside-San Bernardino, but closer to San Diego than L.A. - Desert Man
Tucson: 1

There were also 5 cities on the list that incorporated after 2000 and therefore didn't have growth rate values.

Maricopa, AZ was reportedly home to 112,000 people - may be as a result of winter seasonal residents. All 10 largest cities in the Phoenix Metro area - actually 9 in April and 8 in the summer. Tucson has to be 2nd largest enough, amirite? and Surprise! It's bigger than Yuma in summer, but not in the winter. Phoenix and its suburbs: Mesa is #3, then (in alphabetical order): Chandler, Gilbert, Glendale, Peoria, Scottsdale, Surprise and Tempe. The other 9 cities (12-20th, all under 100k people) in Arizona: Bullhead City, Kingman and Lake Havasu City in Mohave county; Flagstaff, Prescott and Sedona in Northern half of the state; and Casa Grande, Globe (I think Apache Junction is bigger) and Nogales in southern half. And up to 100,000 winter residents in their RVs in Quartzsite 30 miles from the Colorado River (CA-AZ state line).
Title: Re: Fastest-growing suburbs
Post by: silverback1065 on December 18, 2017, 07:28:46 AM
Quote from: Desert Man on December 18, 2017, 02:18:48 AM
Quote from: 1 on December 09, 2017, 01:42:56 PM
I found a list of the top 1000 cities (38k+). This includes growth from 2000-2016 (not 2010-2016 as you would expect). The listing of which major city they are a suburb of was done manually, without using any formal definitions, and may be arguable.

Top growth rates on the list (growth is 2000-2016, population numbers are for 2016):

Maricopa, AZ (Phoenix, 2583%, 47k)
Little Elm, TX (DFW, 842%, 43k)
Buckeye, AZ (Phoenix, 562%, 65k)
Kyle, TX (Austin, 552%, 39k)
Leandar, TX (Austin, 406%, 43k, not recognized by spellcheck)
Frisco, TX (DFW, 364%, 164k)
Surprise, AZ (Phoenix, 310%, 133k)
Lincoln, CA (Sacramento, 300%, 47k)
Beaumont, CA (Inland Empire, 297%, 45k)
Goodyear, AZ (Phoenix, 293%, 77k)
Plainfield, IL (Chicago, 212%, 43k)
Lehi, UT (Provo, 211%, 61k)
McKinney, TX (DFW, 208%, 172k)
Wake Forest, NC (Raleigh-Durham, 207%, 40k)
Wylie, TX (DFW, 205%, 47k)
Marana, AZ (Tucson, 202%, 43k)

Number of suburbs between 100% and 200% growth:
Atlanta: 1
Austin: 3
Bay Area: 1
Boise: 1
Cape Coral FL: 1
Charlotte: 2
Dallas-Fort Worth: 4
Denver: 3
Des Moines: 1
Gold Coast (Miami area): 3
Houston: 2
Indianapolis: 2
Kennewick-Pasco WA: 1
Las Vegas: 1
Orlando: 2
Palm Coast: 1
Phoenix: 3
Raleigh-Durham: 1
Sacramento: 1
Salt Lake City: 1
Seattle: 1
Springdale AR: 1
Temecula-Murrieta CA (is this a separate area?): 4 - Actually Riverside-San Bernardino, but closer to San Diego than L.A. - Desert Man
Tucson: 1

There were also 5 cities on the list that incorporated after 2000 and therefore didn't have growth rate values.

Maricopa, AZ was reportedly home to 112,000 people - may be as a result of winter seasonal residents. All 10 largest cities in the Phoenix Metro area - actually 9 in April and 8 in the summer. Tucson has to be 2nd largest enough, amirite? and Surprise! It's bigger than Yuma in summer, but not in the winter. Phoenix and its suburbs: Mesa is #3, then (in alphabetical order): Chandler, Gilbert, Glendale, Peoria, Scottsdale, Surprise and Tempe. The other 9 cities (12-20th, all under 100k people) in Arizona: Bullhead City, Kingman and Lake Havasu City in Mohave county; Flagstaff, Prescott and Sedona in Northern half of the state; and Casa Grande, Globe (I think Apache Junction is bigger) and Nogales in southern half. And up to 100,000 winter residents in their RVs in Quartzsite 30 miles from the Colorado River (CA-AZ state line).

all those cities will have massive water problems in the future
Title: Re: Fastest-growing suburbs
Post by: dvferyance on December 18, 2017, 12:11:39 PM
Avon OH ( West Cleveland suburb) Has seen massive growth recently. Between 1990-2000 population increased by 56% and increased by 85% between 2000-2010. While Cleveland itself has been in major decline for decades this is one part of the metro area that is growing. A factor could be the retail boom there. With Cabala's, Meijer Menards and possibly Ikea. The city is known for hosting the Avon Heritage Duck Tape Festival held every Father's Day Weekend.
Title: Re: Fastest-growing suburbs
Post by: Desert Man on December 18, 2017, 03:25:00 PM
It turns out my top 20 AZ cities list needs to be revised. The other suburbs of Phoenix (in the 12-20th rank): Avondale, Buckeye, Carefree, Cave Creek, El Mirage, Fountain Hills, Goodyear, Queen Creek, Tolleson, and unincorporated Sun Cities are larger. The winter seasonal residencies can alter the statistics, so I'm not fully accurate nor inaccurate here.
Title: Re: Fastest-growing suburbs
Post by: Desert Man on December 18, 2017, 03:51:10 PM
For eastern half of AZ, Douglas is the largest city on the Mexican border (the other side is Agua Prieta). Most population growth in AZ is in the Valley of the Sun (Phoenix metro) and Tucson, the state's 2nd largest city and metro area. I've named 33 good-sized cities in a state in the "middle of the desert" (well, the southern and western sections are), 3 of them are too seasonal: Maricopa, Quartzsite, and Sun Cities (not officially a city). And Yuma (90-99,000 people) on the border (like Nogales) doesn't normally fit the top 10 list.
Title: Re: Fastest-growing suburbs
Post by: bing101 on November 26, 2018, 08:06:31 AM
Quote from: sparker on June 21, 2017, 01:31:45 AM
At present, the major suburban/exurban expansion in Northern California can be divided into two distinct regions:  the Madera-Turlock-Modesto-Manteca-Stockton-Lodi continuous corridor, and the Eastern Sacramento "arc" from Elk Grove south of the main city around the east side and ending up at the north side of Lincoln.  The former not only serves its own region (the north San Joaquin Valley) but functions to serve the "spillover" from the Bay Area -- particularly instigated by substantially lower initial housing costs.  Besides the main corridor arrayed along CA 99, there is the western branch along CA 120 and I-205 encompassing Lathrop and Tracy -- the latter being the original Valley exurb to experience the commuter crunch as early as the '80's.  The interim towns such as Ripon and Salida have seen outsized growth as well; even new communities (Mountain Home NW of Tracy as an example) have been established to handle the influx.  Right now, the north side of Stockton is about the farthest suburban area efficiently accessible to Bay Area commuters (partially due to the ACE rail commuter service from San Jose to Stockton); Lodi, to the north, is seeing growth not only from spillover from the North Bay (Vallejo, Fairfield, Benicia, etc.) but also as a budding employment center due to its recent growth as a wine-country destination. 

Greater Sacramento has its own growth pattern, primarily arrayed along a reverse-C arc from Elk Grove south of Sacramento itself and extending northeast through Rancho Cordova, Folsom, Citrus Heights/Orangevale, and up through Roseville and Rocklin before curving NW through Lincoln.  The region has become a major distribution area due to its extensive rail network (the major UP hub/yard in Northern California is in Roseville).  Unlike the 70-80 mile single-direction commutes seen by Stockton-area residents working in the Bay Area, the typical commute around Sacramento is about 20-25 miles, as employment tends to be significantly closer to home there than with the Bay/Valley situation (this is also abetted by the large number of state personnel in the area -- in this respect, being the state capital intrinsically involves a multitude of employees). 

If not for the twin watersheds/"bottomlands" of the Consumnes and Mokelumne Rivers (delineating the north end of Lodi and the south side of Elk Grove respectively), each of which have multiple channels and are prone to severe flooding in wet winters, it's likely that the two growth areas would have merged by this time.  Also, that area between Lodi and Galt (about 10 miles apart) is "wine central", extensively planted with vineyards and dotted with wineries, most of which have tourist-oriented tasting rooms; besides the flooding potential, the acreage has become just too costly to convert to housing tracts. 

Despite almost continual criticism regarding "sprawl", housing starts in the Valley have continued almost unabated since the late 1970's; the housing/mortgage crisis of 2007-2011 was something of a "hiccup", but for the past 5 years or so it has become virtually impossible to traverse the area without witnessing more and more homes, condos, and the strip malls and other such amenities that accompany such development being deployed.  And it's all dollar-driven -- cheap (by relative standards) housing located in areas and communities with the proverbial "welcome mat" out; save another significant recession, the trend is more than likely to continue.     




I remember at one point Oakley, Antioch and Brentwood in Contra Costa County were the fastest growing suburbs in the Bay Area due to the Dot Com boom of the 1990's.
Title: Re: Fastest-growing suburbs
Post by: sparker on November 26, 2018, 12:51:05 PM
Quote from: bing101 on November 26, 2018, 08:06:31 AM
Quote from: sparker on June 21, 2017, 01:31:45 AM
At present, the major suburban/exurban expansion in Northern California can be divided into two distinct regions:  the Madera-Turlock-Modesto-Manteca-Stockton-Lodi continuous corridor, and the Eastern Sacramento "arc" from Elk Grove south of the main city around the east side and ending up at the north side of Lincoln.  The former not only serves its own region (the north San Joaquin Valley) but functions to serve the "spillover" from the Bay Area -- particularly instigated by substantially lower initial housing costs.  Besides the main corridor arrayed along CA 99, there is the western branch along CA 120 and I-205 encompassing Lathrop and Tracy -- the latter being the original Valley exurb to experience the commuter crunch as early as the '80's.  The interim towns such as Ripon and Salida have seen outsized growth as well; even new communities (Mountain Home NW of Tracy as an example) have been established to handle the influx.  Right now, the north side of Stockton is about the farthest suburban area efficiently accessible to Bay Area commuters (partially due to the ACE rail commuter service from San Jose to Stockton); Lodi, to the north, is seeing growth not only from spillover from the North Bay (Vallejo, Fairfield, Benicia, etc.) but also as a budding employment center due to its recent growth as a wine-country destination. 

Greater Sacramento has its own growth pattern, primarily arrayed along a reverse-C arc from Elk Grove south of Sacramento itself and extending northeast through Rancho Cordova, Folsom, Citrus Heights/Orangevale, and up through Roseville and Rocklin before curving NW through Lincoln.  The region has become a major distribution area due to its extensive rail network (the major UP hub/yard in Northern California is in Roseville).  Unlike the 70-80 mile single-direction commutes seen by Stockton-area residents working in the Bay Area, the typical commute around Sacramento is about 20-25 miles, as employment tends to be significantly closer to home there than with the Bay/Valley situation (this is also abetted by the large number of state personnel in the area -- in this respect, being the state capital intrinsically involves a multitude of employees). 

If not for the twin watersheds/"bottomlands" of the Consumnes and Mokelumne Rivers (delineating the north end of Lodi and the south side of Elk Grove respectively), each of which have multiple channels and are prone to severe flooding in wet winters, it's likely that the two growth areas would have merged by this time.  Also, that area between Lodi and Galt (about 10 miles apart) is "wine central", extensively planted with vineyards and dotted with wineries, most of which have tourist-oriented tasting rooms; besides the flooding potential, the acreage has become just too costly to convert to housing tracts. 

Despite almost continual criticism regarding "sprawl", housing starts in the Valley have continued almost unabated since the late 1970's; the housing/mortgage crisis of 2007-2011 was something of a "hiccup", but for the past 5 years or so it has become virtually impossible to traverse the area without witnessing more and more homes, condos, and the strip malls and other such amenities that accompany such development being deployed.  And it's all dollar-driven -- cheap (by relative standards) housing located in areas and communities with the proverbial "welcome mat" out; save another significant recession, the trend is more than likely to continue.     




I remember at one point Oakley, Antioch and Brentwood in Contra Costa County were the fastest growing suburbs in the Bay Area due to the Dot Com boom of the 1990's.

And......they're still growing, particularly Brentwood and Oakley.  Antioch itself is a bit too far north and west to be a really viable commute from the South Bay/"Silicon Valley" area, while Vasco Road, despite its Alameda County substandard segment, functions as a "conveyor belt" to and from the Brentwood/Oakley/Discovery Bay area.  That trio of cities has the (mis?)fortune of being positioned as accessible from both the northern portion of the Bay area via CA 4 as well as the slog from the South Bay through Livermore and/or Dublin via I-580, I-680, and CA 84.  Discovery Bay is pretty much built out to its maximum, limited by the Delta on its north and east sides; but there seems to be enough property turnover there (it's far enough east to be a part of Valley summer heat, which has made some Bay transplants turn tail and run after a few hot years) to keep it going as a place to resettle.  Oakley stays relatively cool because of its position as "east Antioch" along the banks of the lower San Joaquin river -- but Brentwood is currently "development central" -- a full-fledged heterogeneous city, with new housing, commercial development, and industrial parks being opened almost constantly.  And home prices there are typically 40% less than over the hill in Fremont or Milpitas, so the differential tends to carry the day for those who would rather stay in a Bay county (Contra Costa) rather than locate in the actual Valley, where about another 15-20% housing cost savings can be realized.     
Title: Re: Fastest-growing suburbs
Post by: The Nature Boy on November 27, 2018, 11:00:46 AM
Quote from: silverback1065 on December 18, 2017, 07:28:46 AM
Quote from: Desert Man on December 18, 2017, 02:18:48 AM
Quote from: 1 on December 09, 2017, 01:42:56 PM
I found a list of the top 1000 cities (38k+). This includes growth from 2000-2016 (not 2010-2016 as you would expect). The listing of which major city they are a suburb of was done manually, without using any formal definitions, and may be arguable.

Top growth rates on the list (growth is 2000-2016, population numbers are for 2016):

Maricopa, AZ (Phoenix, 2583%, 47k)
Little Elm, TX (DFW, 842%, 43k)
Buckeye, AZ (Phoenix, 562%, 65k)
Kyle, TX (Austin, 552%, 39k)
Leandar, TX (Austin, 406%, 43k, not recognized by spellcheck)
Frisco, TX (DFW, 364%, 164k)
Surprise, AZ (Phoenix, 310%, 133k)
Lincoln, CA (Sacramento, 300%, 47k)
Beaumont, CA (Inland Empire, 297%, 45k)
Goodyear, AZ (Phoenix, 293%, 77k)
Plainfield, IL (Chicago, 212%, 43k)
Lehi, UT (Provo, 211%, 61k)
McKinney, TX (DFW, 208%, 172k)
Wake Forest, NC (Raleigh-Durham, 207%, 40k)
Wylie, TX (DFW, 205%, 47k)
Marana, AZ (Tucson, 202%, 43k)

Number of suburbs between 100% and 200% growth:
Atlanta: 1
Austin: 3
Bay Area: 1
Boise: 1
Cape Coral FL: 1
Charlotte: 2
Dallas-Fort Worth: 4
Denver: 3
Des Moines: 1
Gold Coast (Miami area): 3
Houston: 2
Indianapolis: 2
Kennewick-Pasco WA: 1
Las Vegas: 1
Orlando: 2
Palm Coast: 1
Phoenix: 3
Raleigh-Durham: 1
Sacramento: 1
Salt Lake City: 1
Seattle: 1
Springdale AR: 1
Temecula-Murrieta CA (is this a separate area?): 4 - Actually Riverside-San Bernardino, but closer to San Diego than L.A. - Desert Man
Tucson: 1

There were also 5 cities on the list that incorporated after 2000 and therefore didn't have growth rate values.

Maricopa, AZ was reportedly home to 112,000 people - may be as a result of winter seasonal residents. All 10 largest cities in the Phoenix Metro area - actually 9 in April and 8 in the summer. Tucson has to be 2nd largest enough, amirite? and Surprise! It's bigger than Yuma in summer, but not in the winter. Phoenix and its suburbs: Mesa is #3, then (in alphabetical order): Chandler, Gilbert, Glendale, Peoria, Scottsdale, Surprise and Tempe. The other 9 cities (12-20th, all under 100k people) in Arizona: Bullhead City, Kingman and Lake Havasu City in Mohave county; Flagstaff, Prescott and Sedona in Northern half of the state; and Casa Grande, Globe (I think Apache Junction is bigger) and Nogales in southern half. And up to 100,000 winter residents in their RVs in Quartzsite 30 miles from the Colorado River (CA-AZ state line).

all those cities will have massive water problems in the future

Our development of the American Southwest is entirely unsustainable and IMO very foolish. In 20 years, it'll be the ecological disaster that we should've seen coming but didn't.
Title: Re: Fastest-growing suburbs
Post by: MantyMadTown on November 29, 2018, 04:17:56 AM
Quote from: The Nature Boy on November 27, 2018, 11:00:46 AM
Quote from: silverback1065 on December 18, 2017, 07:28:46 AM
Quote from: Desert Man on December 18, 2017, 02:18:48 AM
Quote from: 1 on December 09, 2017, 01:42:56 PM
I found a list of the top 1000 cities (38k+). This includes growth from 2000-2016 (not 2010-2016 as you would expect). The listing of which major city they are a suburb of was done manually, without using any formal definitions, and may be arguable.

Top growth rates on the list (growth is 2000-2016, population numbers are for 2016):

Maricopa, AZ (Phoenix, 2583%, 47k)
Little Elm, TX (DFW, 842%, 43k)
Buckeye, AZ (Phoenix, 562%, 65k)
Kyle, TX (Austin, 552%, 39k)
Leandar, TX (Austin, 406%, 43k, not recognized by spellcheck)
Frisco, TX (DFW, 364%, 164k)
Surprise, AZ (Phoenix, 310%, 133k)
Lincoln, CA (Sacramento, 300%, 47k)
Beaumont, CA (Inland Empire, 297%, 45k)
Goodyear, AZ (Phoenix, 293%, 77k)
Plainfield, IL (Chicago, 212%, 43k)
Lehi, UT (Provo, 211%, 61k)
McKinney, TX (DFW, 208%, 172k)
Wake Forest, NC (Raleigh-Durham, 207%, 40k)
Wylie, TX (DFW, 205%, 47k)
Marana, AZ (Tucson, 202%, 43k)

Number of suburbs between 100% and 200% growth:
Atlanta: 1
Austin: 3
Bay Area: 1
Boise: 1
Cape Coral FL: 1
Charlotte: 2
Dallas-Fort Worth: 4
Denver: 3
Des Moines: 1
Gold Coast (Miami area): 3
Houston: 2
Indianapolis: 2
Kennewick-Pasco WA: 1
Las Vegas: 1
Orlando: 2
Palm Coast: 1
Phoenix: 3
Raleigh-Durham: 1
Sacramento: 1
Salt Lake City: 1
Seattle: 1
Springdale AR: 1
Temecula-Murrieta CA (is this a separate area?): 4 - Actually Riverside-San Bernardino, but closer to San Diego than L.A. - Desert Man
Tucson: 1

There were also 5 cities on the list that incorporated after 2000 and therefore didn't have growth rate values.

Maricopa, AZ was reportedly home to 112,000 people - may be as a result of winter seasonal residents. All 10 largest cities in the Phoenix Metro area - actually 9 in April and 8 in the summer. Tucson has to be 2nd largest enough, amirite? and Surprise! It's bigger than Yuma in summer, but not in the winter. Phoenix and its suburbs: Mesa is #3, then (in alphabetical order): Chandler, Gilbert, Glendale, Peoria, Scottsdale, Surprise and Tempe. The other 9 cities (12-20th, all under 100k people) in Arizona: Bullhead City, Kingman and Lake Havasu City in Mohave county; Flagstaff, Prescott and Sedona in Northern half of the state; and Casa Grande, Globe (I think Apache Junction is bigger) and Nogales in southern half. And up to 100,000 winter residents in their RVs in Quartzsite 30 miles from the Colorado River (CA-AZ state line).

all those cities will have massive water problems in the future

Our development of the American Southwest is entirely unsustainable and IMO very foolish. In 20 years, it'll be the ecological disaster that we should've seen coming but didn't.

Makes me glad I live in a state where we have a ton of water. Sooner or later the Southwest is going to have to get their water shipped from somewhere else, probably either fresh water from the Great Lakes states or desalinated water from the Pacific Ocean. Either way it's going to be very expensive.
Title: Re: Fastest-growing suburbs
Post by: Brandon on November 29, 2018, 09:12:11 AM
Quote from: MantyMadTown on November 29, 2018, 04:17:56 AM
Makes me glad I live in a state where we have a ton of water. Sooner or later the Southwest is going to have to get their water shipped from somewhere else, probably either fresh water from the Great Lakes states or desalinated water from the Pacific Ocean. Either way it's going to be very expensive.

Not a fucking chance it's coming from the Great Lakes if we have anything to do about it here.  They can desalinate their way out of it or move back to where there's water.
Title: Re: Fastest-growing suburbs
Post by: The Nature Boy on November 29, 2018, 09:34:41 AM
Quote from: Brandon on November 29, 2018, 09:12:11 AM
Quote from: MantyMadTown on November 29, 2018, 04:17:56 AM
Makes me glad I live in a state where we have a ton of water. Sooner or later the Southwest is going to have to get their water shipped from somewhere else, probably either fresh water from the Great Lakes states or desalinated water from the Pacific Ocean. Either way it's going to be very expensive.

Not a fucking chance it's coming from the Great Lakes if we have anything to do about it here.  They can desalinate their way out of it or move back to where there's water.

I feel like the growth of the Southwest was driven by people from the Midwest and East Coast who were tired of being cold and just thought that living in the Southwest would be a cure for their problems. I mean, Florida's development was driven by people wanting to flee the cold and move to somewhere that's warm year-round. The advent of the air conditioner accelerated this growth and Florida boomed.

I can see where the Southwest might be preferable to Florida because it doesn't have humidity. But of course, those people arrived and wanted the amenities of home, which requires water because those places naturally have a lot of it.

It's basically the epitome of the "ME! ME! ME!" world. The Southwest is breathtakingly gorgeous but people who move there seem to want New York in the Desert so you get what we have now. The Southwest cannot support large urbanization and I have no idea why more people aren't sounding the alarm bells about it.
Title: Re: Fastest-growing suburbs
Post by: abefroman329 on November 29, 2018, 09:37:25 AM
Quote from: Brandon on November 29, 2018, 09:12:11 AM
Quote from: MantyMadTown on November 29, 2018, 04:17:56 AM
Makes me glad I live in a state where we have a ton of water. Sooner or later the Southwest is going to have to get their water shipped from somewhere else, probably either fresh water from the Great Lakes states or desalinated water from the Pacific Ocean. Either way it's going to be very expensive.

Not a fucking chance it's coming from the Great Lakes if we have anything to do about it here.  They can desalinate their way out of it or move back to where there's water.
Also, I'm not sure how much will be left after Foxconn gets their hands on all the Lake Michigan water they were promised in exchange for building their factor in Wisconsin.
Title: Re: Fastest-growing suburbs
Post by: Brandon on November 29, 2018, 09:57:42 AM
Quote from: abefroman329 on November 29, 2018, 09:37:25 AM
Quote from: Brandon on November 29, 2018, 09:12:11 AM
Quote from: MantyMadTown on November 29, 2018, 04:17:56 AM
Makes me glad I live in a state where we have a ton of water. Sooner or later the Southwest is going to have to get their water shipped from somewhere else, probably either fresh water from the Great Lakes states or desalinated water from the Pacific Ocean. Either way it's going to be very expensive.

Not a fucking chance it's coming from the Great Lakes if we have anything to do about it here.  They can desalinate their way out of it or move back to where there's water.
Also, I'm not sure how much will be left after Foxconn gets their hands on all the Lake Michigan water they were promised in exchange for building their factor in Wisconsin.

That's water that will be returned to the lake after use, unlike the Chicago Diversion.  Hell, the Jardine Water Purification Plant takes in over 1 billion gallons of water a day from the lake that is never returned.  Foxconn's only taking 7 million gallons per day, much of which will see the lake again.  It's stunning how hypocritical the two Chicago papers are regarding this use of water when you consider the enormity of the Chicago Diversion from the lake.
Title: Re: Fastest-growing suburbs
Post by: silverback1065 on November 29, 2018, 11:15:16 AM
Quote from: Brandon on November 29, 2018, 09:57:42 AM
Quote from: abefroman329 on November 29, 2018, 09:37:25 AM
Quote from: Brandon on November 29, 2018, 09:12:11 AM
Quote from: MantyMadTown on November 29, 2018, 04:17:56 AM
Makes me glad I live in a state where we have a ton of water. Sooner or later the Southwest is going to have to get their water shipped from somewhere else, probably either fresh water from the Great Lakes states or desalinated water from the Pacific Ocean. Either way it's going to be very expensive.

Not a fucking chance it's coming from the Great Lakes if we have anything to do about it here.  They can desalinate their way out of it or move back to where there's water.
Also, I'm not sure how much will be left after Foxconn gets their hands on all the Lake Michigan water they were promised in exchange for building their factor in Wisconsin.

That's water that will be returned to the lake after use, unlike the Chicago Diversion.  Hell, the Jardine Water Purification Plant takes in over 1 billion gallons of water a day from the lake that is never returned.  Foxconn's only taking 7 million gallons per day, much of which will see the lake again.  It's stunning how hypocritical the two Chicago papers are regarding this use of water when you consider the enormity of the Chicago Diversion from the lake.

let's hope that water will be cleaned when they put it back...
Title: Re: Fastest-growing suburbs
Post by: paulthemapguy on November 29, 2018, 12:09:48 PM
Quote from: The Nature Boy on November 29, 2018, 09:34:41 AM
Quote from: Brandon on November 29, 2018, 09:12:11 AM
Quote from: MantyMadTown on November 29, 2018, 04:17:56 AM
Makes me glad I live in a state where we have a ton of water. Sooner or later the Southwest is going to have to get their water shipped from somewhere else, probably either fresh water from the Great Lakes states or desalinated water from the Pacific Ocean. Either way it's going to be very expensive.

Not a fucking chance it's coming from the Great Lakes if we have anything to do about it here.  They can desalinate their way out of it or move back to where there's water.

I feel like the growth of the Southwest was driven by people from the Midwest and East Coast who were tired of being cold and just thought that living in the Southwest would be a cure for their problems. I mean, Florida's development was driven by people wanting to flee the cold and move to somewhere that's warm year-round. The advent of the air conditioner accelerated this growth and Florida boomed.

I can see where the Southwest might be preferable to Florida because it doesn't have humidity. But of course, those people arrived and wanted the amenities of home, which requires water because those places naturally have a lot of it.

It's basically the epitome of the "ME! ME! ME!" world. The Southwest is breathtakingly gorgeous but people who move there seem to want New York in the Desert so you get what we have now. The Southwest cannot support large urbanization and I have no idea why more people aren't sounding the alarm bells about it.

I loved what you wrote here.  Phoenix has become a second Chicago, complete with Portillo's and Giordano's, because a desert with no winters and nothing else to look at, either, for some reason, sounds like a magical exotic paradise for someone from the flat, snowy Midwest.  It's especially a hotbed for pensioners sourced from the Midwest.  Old people don't like how the cold weather enhances pain and soreness, I think.  And old people have a lot of that.  So now we have God's Waiting Room East (Florida) and God's Waiting Room West (Arizona).  I think it's interesting that both states now have wacky politics and wacky news stories, too, since the demographics have changed in both places. 

Phoenix will probably collectively panic and abandon ship before my lifetime is over, once their water supply runs out.  Maybe they'll try to run a giant water pipeline along I-8 from San Diego to Arizona so they have something to drink.  It should be pretty obvious that a serious desert is not a livable place--unsustainable, at best.  The problem is that land is cheap (because hint hint, the sucks) and people clamor for the right to do whatever they want with property more than they clamor for their own health or their considerations of the future.  If you're old, I suppose your considerations for the future aren't a high priority, though...

I went to Phoenix and had my hand on my head the whole time--not to keep the intense sun out of my eyes, but because looking at this misplaced expanse of suburbia caused a permanent facepalm.
Title: Re: Fastest-growing suburbs
Post by: abefroman329 on November 29, 2018, 12:18:40 PM
Quote from: paulthemapguy on November 29, 2018, 12:09:48 PMI went to Phoenix and had my hand on my head the whole time--not to keep the intense sun out of my eyes, but because looking at this misplaced expanse of suburbia caused a permanent facepalm.
It's Atlanta if Atlanta had a hideously ugly landscape.  And the opaque walls surrounding EVERY PIECE OF PROPERTY explains so, so much.
Title: Re: Fastest-growing suburbs
Post by: sparker on November 29, 2018, 12:49:47 PM
^^^^^^^^
Circa 1964 my great-aunt and her husband, their Glendale, CA property having been taken for the 134 Freeway, moved to the AZ Sun City just west of the other Glendale for much the reasons folks in their 60's have moved to PHX for decades -- low humidity and mild winters for aches & pains.  My great-aunt was a quite outspoken person (our family's equivalent of Bea Arthur's character Maude, originating, of course, on All in the Family).  They seemed to spend more time on trips back to CA than they did at their AZ home; she opined that she had to get away from the "idiots" who where her neighbors in Sun City to maintain her sanity.  They were back in CA by early '67; cited for the move back were much the sentiments mentioned in previous posts -- many of the newer arrivals in PHX were escaping climatic or other troubles -- and once they arrived in the desert they simply hid away behind walls.  And that was 50+ years ago -- imagine that dynamic multiplied to a metro area of over 4M population!  AZ growth appears to be a self-generating phenomenon -- movements by retirees followed by the requisite services for that population, followed in turn by corporate investment looking for relatively cheap lands (and costs of business), followed by more folks in the service sector -- and so on and so forth.  Very much like L.A. but without the beaches -- and outsize development compressed into 60 years rather than the 230+ years it's taken L.A. to get where it is today. 
Title: Re: Fastest-growing suburbs
Post by: abefroman329 on November 29, 2018, 01:29:04 PM
Quote from: sparker on November 29, 2018, 12:49:47 PMAZ growth appears to be a self-generating phenomenon -- movements by retirees followed by the requisite services for that population, followed in turn by corporate investment looking for relatively cheap lands (and costs of business), followed by more folks in the service sector -- and so on and so forth. 
Oh, absolutely, particularly as it relates to health care of the elderly.  My company maintains an office in Phoenix, but it's primarily entry-level employees and the handful of lower management positions that supervise them - anyone higher than that is in the home office.
Title: Re: Fastest-growing suburbs
Post by: silverback1065 on November 29, 2018, 02:24:56 PM
it always surprised me how a city of 4 million people could possibly exist in the middle of the desert.  Albuquerque has less than half the population, but similar weather.  Why is it that Albuquerque and New Mexico as a whole didn't experience the same influx of people?   
Title: Re: Fastest-growing suburbs
Post by: kphoger on November 29, 2018, 02:26:24 PM
Quote from: silverback1065 on November 29, 2018, 02:24:56 PM
it always surprised me how a city of 4 million people could possibly exist in the middle of the desert.  Albuquerque has less than half the population, but similar weather.  Why is it that Albuquerque and New Mexico as a whole didn't experience the same influx of people?   

They tried but got lost due to New Mexico's god-awful signage.  That's how they managed to overshoot their intended destination by one whole state.
Title: Re: Fastest-growing suburbs
Post by: Brandon on November 29, 2018, 02:40:25 PM
Quote from: silverback1065 on November 29, 2018, 02:24:56 PM
it always surprised me how a city of 4 million people could possibly exist in the middle of the desert.  Albuquerque has less than half the population, but similar weather.  Why is it that Albuquerque and New Mexico as a whole didn't experience the same influx of people?   

No sé.
Title: Re: Fastest-growing suburbs
Post by: kphoger on November 29, 2018, 02:50:39 PM
Quote from: Brandon on November 29, 2018, 02:40:25 PM
No sé.

No sabo bien.

( :D )
Title: Re: Fastest-growing suburbs
Post by: hotdogPi on November 29, 2018, 02:56:24 PM
Quote from: silverback1065 on November 29, 2018, 02:24:56 PM
it always surprised me how a city of 4 million people could possibly exist in the middle of the desert.  Albuquerque has less than half the population, but similar weather.  Why is it that Albuquerque and New Mexico as a whole didn't experience the same influx of people?

Albuquerque is nowhere near as desert-like. It's in the mountains.
Title: Re: Fastest-growing suburbs
Post by: silverback1065 on November 29, 2018, 03:20:15 PM
Quote from: abefroman329 on November 29, 2018, 12:18:40 PM
Quote from: paulthemapguy on November 29, 2018, 12:09:48 PMI went to Phoenix and had my hand on my head the whole time--not to keep the intense sun out of my eyes, but because looking at this misplaced expanse of suburbia caused a permanent facepalm.
It's Atlanta if Atlanta had a hideously ugly landscape.  And the opaque walls surrounding EVERY PIECE OF PROPERTY explains so, so much.

Atlanta has a lot of problems as well from a city design standpoint.  Too car oriented.  Phoenix is unsustainable though. 
Title: Re: Fastest-growing suburbs
Post by: US 89 on November 29, 2018, 03:42:39 PM
Quote from: 1 on November 29, 2018, 02:56:24 PM
Quote from: silverback1065 on November 29, 2018, 02:24:56 PM
it always surprised me how a city of 4 million people could possibly exist in the middle of the desert.  Albuquerque has less than half the population, but similar weather.  Why is it that Albuquerque and New Mexico as a whole didn't experience the same influx of people?

Albuquerque is nowhere near as desert-like. It's in the mountains.

Eh, Albuquerque is no more in the mountains than Phoenix, and it's actually similarly desert once you get out of the city. Sure, it's a little cooler than Phoenix, but that's simply due to its 5000-foot elevation (Phoenix is 1500 feet). Rainfall is about the same in both places.

If anything, Albuquerque should have less water problems than Phoenix, because they have the Rio Grande draining some high mountains to the north in Colorado. In fact, you can spot the I-25 corridor south of ABQ on satellite view by the narrow strip of green fields.
Title: Re: Fastest-growing suburbs
Post by: silverback1065 on November 29, 2018, 03:45:35 PM
isn't the largest American suburb Mesa?  If not what is, in terms of area and population?
Title: Re: Fastest-growing suburbs
Post by: The Nature Boy on November 29, 2018, 04:11:12 PM
Quote from: silverback1065 on November 29, 2018, 03:20:15 PM
Quote from: abefroman329 on November 29, 2018, 12:18:40 PM
Quote from: paulthemapguy on November 29, 2018, 12:09:48 PMI went to Phoenix and had my hand on my head the whole time--not to keep the intense sun out of my eyes, but because looking at this misplaced expanse of suburbia caused a permanent facepalm.
It's Atlanta if Atlanta had a hideously ugly landscape.  And the opaque walls surrounding EVERY PIECE OF PROPERTY explains so, so much.

Atlanta has a lot of problems as well from a city design standpoint.  Too car oriented.  Phoenix is unsustainable though.

The entirety of the Phoenix metro area is probably the stupidest development idea in American history.
Title: Re: Fastest-growing suburbs
Post by: abefroman329 on November 29, 2018, 04:24:31 PM
Quote from: silverback1065 on November 29, 2018, 03:20:15 PM
Quote from: abefroman329 on November 29, 2018, 12:18:40 PM
Quote from: paulthemapguy on November 29, 2018, 12:09:48 PMI went to Phoenix and had my hand on my head the whole time--not to keep the intense sun out of my eyes, but because looking at this misplaced expanse of suburbia caused a permanent facepalm.
It's Atlanta if Atlanta had a hideously ugly landscape.  And the opaque walls surrounding EVERY PIECE OF PROPERTY explains so, so much.

Atlanta has a lot of problems as well from a city design standpoint.  Too car oriented.  Phoenix is unsustainable though.
Atlanta has to pipe in water as well, though probably not to the degree Phoenix does.
Title: Re: Fastest-growing suburbs
Post by: Pink Jazz on November 29, 2018, 06:03:21 PM
Quote from: silverback1065 on November 29, 2018, 03:45:35 PM
isn't the largest American suburb Mesa?  If not what is, in terms of area and population?

As of the 2010 Census it was Long Beach, CA, but it looks like Mesa has surpassed it in population per the 2017 estimate.
Title: Re: Fastest-growing suburbs
Post by: bing101 on November 29, 2018, 07:53:59 PM
Quote from: The Nature Boy on November 29, 2018, 09:34:41 AM
Quote from: Brandon on November 29, 2018, 09:12:11 AM
Quote from: MantyMadTown on November 29, 2018, 04:17:56 AM
Makes me glad I live in a state where we have a ton of water. Sooner or later the Southwest is going to have to get their water shipped from somewhere else, probably either fresh water from the Great Lakes states or desalinated water from the Pacific Ocean. Either way it's going to be very expensive.

Not a fucking chance it's coming from the Great Lakes if we have anything to do about it here.  They can desalinate their way out of it or move back to where there's water.

I feel like the growth of the Southwest was driven by people from the Midwest and East Coast who were tired of being cold and just thought that living in the Southwest would be a cure for their problems. I mean, Florida's development was driven by people wanting to flee the cold and move to somewhere that's warm year-round. The advent of the air conditioner accelerated this growth and Florida boomed.

I can see where the Southwest might be preferable to Florida because it doesn't have humidity. But of course, those people arrived and wanted the amenities of home, which requires water because those places naturally have a lot of it.

It's basically the epitome of the "ME! ME! ME!" world. The Southwest is breathtakingly gorgeous but people who move there seem to want New York in the Desert so you get what we have now. The Southwest cannot support large urbanization and I have no idea why more people aren't sounding the alarm bells about it.

Also this the San Joaquin Valley is one of the most ecologically damaged area in California one is the recent wild smoke in the Area and also the ground water issue has been depleted during the drought period. It has lead to debates over how much water will be piped in from the Sacramento Delta (covers Sacramento and Solano Counties). San Joaquin Valley has to cover fast population growth from San Francisco and Los Angeles due to housing affordability issues.
Title: Re: Fastest-growing suburbs
Post by: Bruce on November 29, 2018, 09:09:19 PM
Part of the problem is that even more desirable cities, mainly on the Coasts, refuse to build or allow enough housing to accommodate current and future growth, on top of real estate speculators and unauthorized uses like AirBnBs. So everyone goes for what they can afford: cheap sprawlburb housing in the Southwest or flyover country.
Title: Re: Fastest-growing suburbs
Post by: csw on November 29, 2018, 11:36:53 PM
Quote from: 1 on November 29, 2018, 02:56:24 PM
Quote from: silverback1065 on November 29, 2018, 02:24:56 PM
it always surprised me how a city of 4 million people could possibly exist in the middle of the desert.  Albuquerque has less than half the population, but similar weather.  Why is it that Albuquerque and New Mexico as a whole didn't experience the same influx of people?

Albuquerque is nowhere near as desert-like. It's in the mountains.

To me the difference is that it snows in Albuquerque and it doesn't in Phoenix.
Title: Re: Fastest-growing suburbs
Post by: jakeroot on November 29, 2018, 11:37:26 PM
Quote from: Bruce on November 29, 2018, 09:09:19 PM
Part of the problem is that even more desirable cities, mainly on the Coasts, refuse to build or allow enough housing to accommodate current and future growth, on top of real estate speculators and unauthorized uses like AirBnBs. So everyone goes for what they can afford: cheap sprawlburb housing in the Southwest or flyover country.

One area where dense coastal cities have it hard, is in review processes, especially as they relate to zoning. The government, even in our post-urban freeway world, can still quite easily expropriate private land for public use. But to knock down housing for newer, but still private uses, is a bit (read: a lot) more difficult. I don't quite know how zoning laws are reviewed and modified in places like Seattle or Portland, but if it involves any public comment, it's going to take a long time. All of the comments are going to read the same thing: "don't take my house" or "don't take my land", followed by "keep the character of the neighborhood intact". Frankly, the reviews should be left to a private committee made up of people educated on land use.

I personally appreciate Japanese zoning laws, which allow developers to do almost anything they want with land, assuming the land is zoned for maximum variability (upper tiers), and the design is in-keeping with the tier (which may not permit things like industrial use). American zoning laws are comparatively quite strict and specific. The Japanese may have zones that permit anything from schools, to homes, to commercial property, but American zones often limit land use to only one type of property. Some zones may allow only homes, or only schools, or only shops, etc. There are mixed-use zones, of course, but there's not nearly enough.

I don't know how zoning works in the south, but I think virtually everything outside designated growth areas is "single family housing", where developers need only to acquire the land and complete environmental review processes, to proceed with construction.
Title: Re: Fastest-growing suburbs
Post by: mgk920 on November 30, 2018, 04:12:57 AM
Also strict limits on unit density that require developers to eat up far more land than is necessary - or more than the market is really demanding - to house a certain number of people.

Mike
Title: Re: Fastest-growing suburbs
Post by: Duke87 on November 30, 2018, 06:39:09 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on November 29, 2018, 11:37:26 PM
I don't know how zoning works in the south, but I think virtually everything outside designated growth areas is "single family housing", where developers need only to acquire the land and complete environmental review processes, to proceed with construction.

Zoning regulations are very weak or nonexistent in many interior areas of the country. Part of the reason you see metros like Phoenix, Houston, DFW, etc. growing quickly is because there are no physical or regulatory barriers preventing it. These metros are expanding unrestrained to keep up with demand, which keeps prices low, and this creates a feedback loop that keeps the demand high because it's quite a bargain for a large city.

I'm also not sure what environmental review processes you are speaking of - even up here in the northeast, where zoning regulations are a ubiquitous thing, there isn't an environmental review process associated with building new single family homes. You need to comply with building codes and whatnot but so long as you do this you're good - you don't need to write any lengthy reports explaining all the environmental impacts of the development, and the Sierra Club can't sue you to try and stop it because box turtles live on the property.

When it gets messy is when you want to do something which the established zoning of the property does not allow, and need to apply to the zoning board for a variance. Then you have a public comment process where every NIMBY under the sun has their shot at shutting you down.
Title: Re: Fastest-growing suburbs
Post by: silverback1065 on November 30, 2018, 09:01:45 AM
every time a new development is announced where I live the usual excuses pop up:

1. it will increase traffic!
2. it's too dense!
3. it doesn't match the character of the neighborhood!

These things are almost never true, and it really pisses me off when I hear people say it.  They proposed 4 townhomes and these excuses were brought up, including "parking congestion" WTF?!  :banghead:
Title: Re: Fastest-growing suburbs
Post by: jon daly on November 30, 2018, 09:28:12 AM
Quote from: Duke87 on November 30, 2018, 06:39:09 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on November 29, 2018, 11:37:26 PM
I don't know how zoning works in the south, but I think virtually everything outside designated growth areas is "single family housing", where developers need only to acquire the land and complete environmental review processes, to proceed with construction.

Zoning regulations are very weak or nonexistent in many interior areas of the country. Part of the reason you see metros like Phoenix, Houston, DFW, etc. growing quickly is because there are no physical or regulatory barriers preventing it. These metros are expanding unrestrained to keep up with demand, which keeps prices low, and this creates a feedback loop that keeps the demand high because it's quite a bargain for a large city.

I'm also not sure what environmental review processes you are speaking of - even up here in the northeast, where zoning regulations are a ubiquitous thing, there isn't an environmental review process associated with building new single family homes. You need to comply with building codes and whatnot but so long as you do this you're good - you don't need to write any lengthy reports explaining all the environmental impacts of the development, and the Sierra Club can't sue you to try and stop it because box turtles live on the property.

When it gets messy is when you want to do something which the established zoning of the property does not allow, and need to apply to the zoning board for a variance. Then you have a public comment process where every NIMBY under the sun has their shot at shutting you down.

I was just talking to a coworker an hour ago. We have a satellite office in Phoenix. He visits their and he LIKES it. I think he prefers places further out, though; like Sedona (I haven't looked it up to see how urban that place is.) He was showing me some desert pics from his phone.

Give me northern New England if I want to get away from things.
Title: Re: Fastest-growing suburbs
Post by: abefroman329 on November 30, 2018, 10:11:35 AM
I like Phoenix just fine. In February. To visit, not to live there.
Title: Re: Fastest-growing suburbs
Post by: abefroman329 on November 30, 2018, 10:12:45 AM
Quote from: Pink Jazz on November 29, 2018, 06:03:21 PM
Quote from: silverback1065 on November 29, 2018, 03:45:35 PM
isn't the largest American suburb Mesa?  If not what is, in terms of area and population?

As of the 2010 Census it was Long Beach, CA, but it looks like Mesa has surpassed it in population per the 2017 estimate.
I think it's a stretch to call Long Beach a suburb, given that it has its own industries and doesn't serve primarily as a bedroom community for LA.
Title: Re: Fastest-growing suburbs
Post by: silverback1065 on November 30, 2018, 10:16:29 AM
Quote from: jon daly on November 30, 2018, 09:28:12 AM
Quote from: Duke87 on November 30, 2018, 06:39:09 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on November 29, 2018, 11:37:26 PM
I don't know how zoning works in the south, but I think virtually everything outside designated growth areas is "single family housing", where developers need only to acquire the land and complete environmental review processes, to proceed with construction.

Zoning regulations are very weak or nonexistent in many interior areas of the country. Part of the reason you see metros like Phoenix, Houston, DFW, etc. growing quickly is because there are no physical or regulatory barriers preventing it. These metros are expanding unrestrained to keep up with demand, which keeps prices low, and this creates a feedback loop that keeps the demand high because it's quite a bargain for a large city.

I'm also not sure what environmental review processes you are speaking of - even up here in the northeast, where zoning regulations are a ubiquitous thing, there isn't an environmental review process associated with building new single family homes. You need to comply with building codes and whatnot but so long as you do this you're good - you don't need to write any lengthy reports explaining all the environmental impacts of the development, and the Sierra Club can't sue you to try and stop it because box turtles live on the property.

When it gets messy is when you want to do something which the established zoning of the property does not allow, and need to apply to the zoning board for a variance. Then you have a public comment process where every NIMBY under the sun has their shot at shutting you down.

I was just talking to a coworker an hour ago. We have a satellite office in Phoenix. He visits their and he LIKES it. I think he prefers places further out, though; like Sedona (I haven't looked it up to see how urban that place is.) He was showing me some desert pics from his phone.

Give me northern New England if I want to get away from things.

northern ariz is amazing, phoenix is boring.  never been to tucson, sedona and flagstaff are great beautiful landscape!
Title: Re: Fastest-growing suburbs
Post by: Pink Jazz on November 30, 2018, 10:44:08 AM
Quote from: abefroman329 on November 30, 2018, 10:12:45 AM
Quote from: Pink Jazz on November 29, 2018, 06:03:21 PM
Quote from: silverback1065 on November 29, 2018, 03:45:35 PM
isn't the largest American suburb Mesa?  If not what is, in terms of area and population?

As of the 2010 Census it was Long Beach, CA, but it looks like Mesa has surpassed it in population per the 2017 estimate.
I think it's a stretch to call Long Beach a suburb, given that it has its own industries and doesn't serve primarily as a bedroom community for LA.

Tempe, AZ has its own industries as well but most people still call it a suburb of Phoenix.  And Mesa at times tried to break away from Maricopa County along with Chandler, Gilbert, and Queen Creek, with Mesa being the county seat, which gives a hint that Mesa (and the other mentioned East Valley cities) can maintain its own economy separately from the rest of the Phoenix metro area.
Title: Re: Fastest-growing suburbs
Post by: Rothman on November 30, 2018, 12:56:09 PM
Quote from: Pink Jazz on November 30, 2018, 10:44:08 AM
Quote from: abefroman329 on November 30, 2018, 10:12:45 AM
Quote from: Pink Jazz on November 29, 2018, 06:03:21 PM
Quote from: silverback1065 on November 29, 2018, 03:45:35 PM
isn't the largest American suburb Mesa?  If not what is, in terms of area and population?

As of the 2010 Census it was Long Beach, CA, but it looks like Mesa has surpassed it in population per the 2017 estimate.
I think it's a stretch to call Long Beach a suburb, given that it has its own industries and doesn't serve primarily as a bedroom community for LA.

Tempe, AZ has its own industries as well but most people still call it a suburb of Phoenix.  And Mesa at times tried to break away from Maricopa County along with Chandler, Gilbert, and Queen Creek, with Mesa being the county seat, which gives a hint that Mesa (and the other mentioned East Valley cities) can maintain its own economy separately from the rest of the Phoenix metro area.
Pfft.  Hempstead, NY (775,000) dwarfs any of the places you are discussing (<500,000).  It is left off of typical lists because it is a town and not a city.
Title: Re: Fastest-growing suburbs
Post by: jeffandnicole on November 30, 2018, 01:11:21 PM
Quote from: Rothman on November 30, 2018, 12:56:09 PM
Quote from: Pink Jazz on November 30, 2018, 10:44:08 AM
Quote from: abefroman329 on November 30, 2018, 10:12:45 AM
Quote from: Pink Jazz on November 29, 2018, 06:03:21 PM
Quote from: silverback1065 on November 29, 2018, 03:45:35 PM
isn't the largest American suburb Mesa?  If not what is, in terms of area and population?

As of the 2010 Census it was Long Beach, CA, but it looks like Mesa has surpassed it in population per the 2017 estimate.
I think it’s a stretch to call Long Beach a suburb, given that it has its own industries and doesn’t serve primarily as a bedroom community for LA.

Tempe, AZ has its own industries as well but most people still call it a suburb of Phoenix.  And Mesa at times tried to break away from Maricopa County along with Chandler, Gilbert, and Queen Creek, with Mesa being the county seat, which gives a hint that Mesa (and the other mentioned East Valley cities) can maintain its own economy separately from the rest of the Phoenix metro area.
Pfft.  Hempstead, NY (775,000) dwarfs any of the places you are discussing (<500,000).  It is left off of typical lists because it is a town and not a city.

Most lists are created by people that don't know individual state rules.  In some states, once you hit a certain population, you automatically become a city.
Title: Re: Fastest-growing suburbs
Post by: Brandon on November 30, 2018, 01:48:59 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on November 30, 2018, 01:11:21 PM
Quote from: Rothman on November 30, 2018, 12:56:09 PM
Quote from: Pink Jazz on November 30, 2018, 10:44:08 AM
Quote from: abefroman329 on November 30, 2018, 10:12:45 AM
Quote from: Pink Jazz on November 29, 2018, 06:03:21 PM
Quote from: silverback1065 on November 29, 2018, 03:45:35 PM
isn't the largest American suburb Mesa?  If not what is, in terms of area and population?

As of the 2010 Census it was Long Beach, CA, but it looks like Mesa has surpassed it in population per the 2017 estimate.
I think it’s a stretch to call Long Beach a suburb, given that it has its own industries and doesn’t serve primarily as a bedroom community for LA.

Tempe, AZ has its own industries as well but most people still call it a suburb of Phoenix.  And Mesa at times tried to break away from Maricopa County along with Chandler, Gilbert, and Queen Creek, with Mesa being the county seat, which gives a hint that Mesa (and the other mentioned East Valley cities) can maintain its own economy separately from the rest of the Phoenix metro area.
Pfft.  Hempstead, NY (775,000) dwarfs any of the places you are discussing (<500,000).  It is left off of typical lists because it is a town and not a city.

Most lists are created by people that don't know individual state rules.  In some states, once you hit a certain population, you automatically become a city.

And in others, it's done by government type, thus some states have villages of over 70,000 in population.  I would suspect that if in Illinois, Hempsted would be unincorporated.  If in Michigan, it would be a charter township.
Title: Re: Fastest-growing suburbs
Post by: Mark68 on November 30, 2018, 02:11:26 PM
Aurora, CO (2018 estimate: 368,518) does trail Denver (719,116) and Colorado Springs (484,233) in population, but has had steady growth for the last 7 decades. Its population in the 1940 census was 3437. However, the growth in the 21st century has only been in the teens (of course, the population in 2000 was 276,393).

However, some of the fastest-growing suburban areas near Denver are in Douglas County (which happens to sit between Denver and the Springs). DougCo has quintupled in population since 1990 (from 60,391 to 335,299 in 2017), with most of that growth occurring in unincorporated Highlands Ranch (10,181 to 96,713), Castle Rock (the county seat--from 8708 to 62,276), the Town of Parker (yep, still officially a "Town"--from 5450 to 54,202), and Lone Tree (incorporated 1996--from 4873 in 2000 to 13,271 in 2016). Some of that growth has also occurred in the small portion of Aurora that extends into DougCo.
Title: Re: Fastest-growing suburbs
Post by: Pink Jazz on November 30, 2018, 03:06:12 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on November 30, 2018, 01:11:21 PM
Quote from: Rothman on November 30, 2018, 12:56:09 PM
Quote from: Pink Jazz on November 30, 2018, 10:44:08 AM
Quote from: abefroman329 on November 30, 2018, 10:12:45 AM
Quote from: Pink Jazz on November 29, 2018, 06:03:21 PM
Quote from: silverback1065 on November 29, 2018, 03:45:35 PM
isn't the largest American suburb Mesa?  If not what is, in terms of area and population?

As of the 2010 Census it was Long Beach, CA, but it looks like Mesa has surpassed it in population per the 2017 estimate.
I think it’s a stretch to call Long Beach a suburb, given that it has its own industries and doesn’t serve primarily as a bedroom community for LA.

Tempe, AZ has its own industries as well but most people still call it a suburb of Phoenix.  And Mesa at times tried to break away from Maricopa County along with Chandler, Gilbert, and Queen Creek, with Mesa being the county seat, which gives a hint that Mesa (and the other mentioned East Valley cities) can maintain its own economy separately from the rest of the Phoenix metro area.
Pfft.  Hempstead, NY (775,000) dwarfs any of the places you are discussing (<500,000).  It is left off of typical lists because it is a town and not a city.

Most lists are created by people that don't know individual state rules.  In some states, once you hit a certain population, you automatically become a city.

The U.S. Census Bureau does not consider Hempstead to be an "incorporated place"; it is considered a "minor civil division".  A town in New York is not the same as a town elsewhere.
Title: Re: Fastest-growing suburbs
Post by: mgk920 on November 30, 2018, 03:13:09 PM
Quote from: Mark68 on November 30, 2018, 02:11:26 PM
Aurora, CO (2018 estimate: 368,518) does trail Denver (719,116) and Colorado Springs (484,233) in population, but has had steady growth for the last 7 decades. Its population in the 1940 census was 3437. However, the growth in the 21st century has only been in the teens (of course, the population in 2000 was 276,393).

However, some of the fastest-growing suburban areas near Denver are in Douglas County (which happens to sit between Denver and the Springs). DougCo has quintupled in population since 1990 (from 60,391 to 335,299 in 2017), with most of that growth occurring in unincorporated Highlands Ranch (10,181 to 96,713), Castle Rock (the county seat--from 8708 to 62,276), the Town of Parker (yep, still officially a "Town"--from 5450 to 54,202), and Lone Tree (incorporated 1996--from 4873 in 2000 to 13,271 in 2016). Some of that growth has also occurred in the small portion of Aurora that extends into DougCo.

How different would that be had the 'Poundstone' thing not happened?

Mike
Title: Re: Fastest-growing suburbs
Post by: Mark68 on November 30, 2018, 04:07:09 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on November 30, 2018, 03:13:09 PM
Quote from: Mark68 on November 30, 2018, 02:11:26 PM
Aurora, CO (2018 estimate: 368,518) does trail Denver (719,116) and Colorado Springs (484,233) in population, but has had steady growth for the last 7 decades. Its population in the 1940 census was 3437. However, the growth in the 21st century has only been in the teens (of course, the population in 2000 was 276,393).

However, some of the fastest-growing suburban areas near Denver are in Douglas County (which happens to sit between Denver and the Springs). DougCo has quintupled in population since 1990 (from 60,391 to 335,299 in 2017), with most of that growth occurring in unincorporated Highlands Ranch (10,181 to 96,713), Castle Rock (the county seat--from 8708 to 62,276), the Town of Parker (yep, still officially a "Town"--from 5450 to 54,202), and Lone Tree (incorporated 1996--from 4873 in 2000 to 13,271 in 2016). Some of that growth has also occurred in the small portion of Aurora that extends into DougCo.

How different would that be had the 'Poundstone' thing not happened?

Mike

In DougCo, probably would have no effect. In Aurora, which borders on Denver, maybe not much (as most of the older areas of Aurora are on or near the border with Denver). If anything, Denver would have (probably) incorporated the City of Glendale as well as nearby unincorporated neighborhoods of Arapahoe & Adams counties.

If it had been allowed to expand, Denver probably would be over 800k in population, but I doubt that would have any effect on suburban growth. The areas that are that close to Denver contain some well-established neighborhoods (and some industrial areas). Glendale probably would look much like it actually does today (apartments, high-rise commercial buildings, shopping centers and restaurants).

However, Denver would look much less like a patchwork quilt.
Title: Re: Fastest-growing suburbs
Post by: silverback1065 on November 30, 2018, 04:15:04 PM
I think it's good that denver didn't expand into a massive sprawly mess, it's one of my favorite cities i've been to, love the design!
Title: Re: Fastest-growing suburbs
Post by: kphoger on November 30, 2018, 04:23:48 PM
Quote from: Mark68 on November 30, 2018, 04:07:09 PM
DougCoTM

FTFY.
Title: Re: Fastest-growing suburbs
Post by: mgk920 on December 02, 2018, 12:08:56 PM
Quote from: Mark68 on November 30, 2018, 04:07:09 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on November 30, 2018, 03:13:09 PM
Quote from: Mark68 on November 30, 2018, 02:11:26 PM
Aurora, CO (2018 estimate: 368,518) does trail Denver (719,116) and Colorado Springs (484,233) in population, but has had steady growth for the last 7 decades. Its population in the 1940 census was 3437. However, the growth in the 21st century has only been in the teens (of course, the population in 2000 was 276,393).

However, some of the fastest-growing suburban areas near Denver are in Douglas County (which happens to sit between Denver and the Springs). DougCo has quintupled in population since 1990 (from 60,391 to 335,299 in 2017), with most of that growth occurring in unincorporated Highlands Ranch (10,181 to 96,713), Castle Rock (the county seat--from 8708 to 62,276), the Town of Parker (yep, still officially a "Town"--from 5450 to 54,202), and Lone Tree (incorporated 1996--from 4873 in 2000 to 13,271 in 2016). Some of that growth has also occurred in the small portion of Aurora that extends into DougCo.

How different would that be had the 'Poundstone' thing not happened?

Mike

In DougCo, probably would have no effect. In Aurora, which borders on Denver, maybe not much (as most of the older areas of Aurora are on or near the border with Denver). If anything, Denver would have (probably) incorporated the City of Glendale as well as nearby unincorporated neighborhoods of Arapahoe & Adams counties.

If it had been allowed to expand, Denver probably would be over 800k in population, but I doubt that would have any effect on suburban growth. The areas that are that close to Denver contain some well-established neighborhoods (and some industrial areas). Glendale probably would look much like it actually does today (apartments, high-rise commercial buildings, shopping centers and restaurants).

However, Denver would look much less like a patchwork quilt.

There are some parts of the southern border where a simple straightening of the line would do a lot of good for both the city and the suburbs, making it easier and less expensive for both sides to serve, too.

Mike
Title: Re: Fastest-growing suburbs
Post by: bing101 on December 10, 2018, 02:21:36 PM
I will say the next fastest growing suburbs would have to be ones that are double duty such as serving more that one Census designated areas as in a Temecula and Murrieta type cities where they have to serve both Los Angeles and San Diego commuters at the same time.
Title: Re: Fastest-growing suburbs
Post by: bing101 on December 21, 2018, 08:24:54 PM
Quote from: sparker on November 26, 2018, 12:51:05 PM
Quote from: bing101 on November 26, 2018, 08:06:31 AM
Quote from: sparker on June 21, 2017, 01:31:45 AM
At present, the major suburban/exurban expansion in Northern California can be divided into two distinct regions:  the Madera-Turlock-Modesto-Manteca-Stockton-Lodi continuous corridor, and the Eastern Sacramento "arc" from Elk Grove south of the main city around the east side and ending up at the north side of Lincoln.  The former not only serves its own region (the north San Joaquin Valley) but functions to serve the "spillover" from the Bay Area -- particularly instigated by substantially lower initial housing costs.  Besides the main corridor arrayed along CA 99, there is the western branch along CA 120 and I-205 encompassing Lathrop and Tracy -- the latter being the original Valley exurb to experience the commuter crunch as early as the '80's.  The interim towns such as Ripon and Salida have seen outsized growth as well; even new communities (Mountain Home NW of Tracy as an example) have been established to handle the influx.  Right now, the north side of Stockton is about the farthest suburban area efficiently accessible to Bay Area commuters (partially due to the ACE rail commuter service from San Jose to Stockton); Lodi, to the north, is seeing growth not only from spillover from the North Bay (Vallejo, Fairfield, Benicia, etc.) but also as a budding employment center due to its recent growth as a wine-country destination. 

Greater Sacramento has its own growth pattern, primarily arrayed along a reverse-C arc from Elk Grove south of Sacramento itself and extending northeast through Rancho Cordova, Folsom, Citrus Heights/Orangevale, and up through Roseville and Rocklin before curving NW through Lincoln.  The region has become a major distribution area due to its extensive rail network (the major UP hub/yard in Northern California is in Roseville).  Unlike the 70-80 mile single-direction commutes seen by Stockton-area residents working in the Bay Area, the typical commute around Sacramento is about 20-25 miles, as employment tends to be significantly closer to home there than with the Bay/Valley situation (this is also abetted by the large number of state personnel in the area -- in this respect, being the state capital intrinsically involves a multitude of employees). 

If not for the twin watersheds/"bottomlands" of the Consumnes and Mokelumne Rivers (delineating the north end of Lodi and the south side of Elk Grove respectively), each of which have multiple channels and are prone to severe flooding in wet winters, it's likely that the two growth areas would have merged by this time.  Also, that area between Lodi and Galt (about 10 miles apart) is "wine central", extensively planted with vineyards and dotted with wineries, most of which have tourist-oriented tasting rooms; besides the flooding potential, the acreage has become just too costly to convert to housing tracts. 

Despite almost continual criticism regarding "sprawl", housing starts in the Valley have continued almost unabated since the late 1970's; the housing/mortgage crisis of 2007-2011 was something of a "hiccup", but for the past 5 years or so it has become virtually impossible to traverse the area without witnessing more and more homes, condos, and the strip malls and other such amenities that accompany such development being deployed.  And it's all dollar-driven -- cheap (by relative standards) housing located in areas and communities with the proverbial "welcome mat" out; save another significant recession, the trend is more than likely to continue.     




I remember at one point Oakley, Antioch and Brentwood in Contra Costa County were the fastest growing suburbs in the Bay Area due to the Dot Com boom of the 1990's.

And......they're still growing, particularly Brentwood and Oakley.  Antioch itself is a bit too far north and west to be a really viable commute from the South Bay/"Silicon Valley" area, while Vasco Road, despite its Alameda County substandard segment, functions as a "conveyor belt" to and from the Brentwood/Oakley/Discovery Bay area.  That trio of cities has the (mis?)fortune of being positioned as accessible from both the northern portion of the Bay area via CA 4 as well as the slog from the South Bay through Livermore and/or Dublin via I-580, I-680, and CA 84.  Discovery Bay is pretty much built out to its maximum, limited by the Delta on its north and east sides; but there seems to be enough property turnover there (it's far enough east to be a part of Valley summer heat, which has made some Bay transplants turn tail and run after a few hot years) to keep it going as a place to resettle.  Oakley stays relatively cool because of its position as "east Antioch" along the banks of the lower San Joaquin river -- but Brentwood is currently "development central" -- a full-fledged heterogeneous city, with new housing, commercial development, and industrial parks being opened almost constantly.  And home prices there are typically 40% less than over the hill in Fremont or Milpitas, so the differential tends to carry the day for those who would rather stay in a Bay county (Contra Costa) rather than locate in the actual Valley, where about another 15-20% housing cost savings can be realized.   
The I-505 Corridor in Vacaville have some houses under development and its there to respond to both Bay Area and Sacramento Sprawl at the same time.

What about Solano County, CA. I noticed this area is getting both Sacramento area traffic and Bay Area traffic at the same time though because of housing halfway from both places. Also I-80 traffic is at play though due proximity to jobs in both Davis/Sacramento area and Bay Area. I noticed that Dixon, Vacaville and Fairfield have all been mentioned for getting spillovers from both Sacramento and Bay Area because I noticed on some days both directions of I-80 can get jammed at certain hours. I know Dixon, CA at times gets jammed due to Sacramento  and the nearby UC Davis Campus. Also the CA-12, I-80 and I-680 interchange in Fairfield happens to be the busiest interchange halfway from both places

http://www.dot.ca.gov/dist4/projects/solano8068012/ (http://www.dot.ca.gov/dist4/projects/solano8068012/)
Also this article emphasizes the traffic patterns of Solano County specifically at the Cordelia interchange.
http://www.sta.ca.gov/Content/10081/InterstateHighwayProjects.html (http://www.sta.ca.gov/Content/10081/InterstateHighwayProjects.html)

http://www.dailyrepublic.com/solano-news/solano-county/fairfield-suisun-sits-between-bay-valley/ (http://www.dailyrepublic.com/solano-news/solano-county/fairfield-suisun-sits-between-bay-valley/)  This article does mention how Fairfield and Suisun City are affected by the spillover of both Sacramento and Bay Area characteristics.


https://www.solanocounty.com/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=22347 (https://www.solanocounty.com/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=22347)


See Page 71 of this document Solano County released on its commuter stats.
Title: Re: Fastest-growing suburbs
Post by: bing101 on December 24, 2018, 10:46:36 AM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Menifee,_California




https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wildomar,_California






Menifee and Wildomar would have to be the fastest growing suburbs in Southern California due to southwest Riverside County having to house both San Diego and Los Angeles commuters at the same time.
Title: Re: Fastest-growing suburbs
Post by: jakeroot on December 24, 2018, 03:48:22 PM
The formatting of the above post is...odd...to say the least.
Title: Re: Fastest-growing suburbs
Post by: hotdogPi on December 24, 2018, 08:24:57 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on December 24, 2018, 03:48:22 PM
The formatting of the above post is...odd...to say the least.

He says that it's somehow automatic. I've never seen him use color codes before, though. I have never seen anyone use color=rgb(a,b,c) format before (I thought color=#XXXXXX was the only way to specify exact color), so I believe him.

bing101, can you explain what is causing this?
Title: Re: Fastest-growing suburbs
Post by: bing101 on December 24, 2018, 09:29:55 PM
Quote from: 1 on December 24, 2018, 08:24:57 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on December 24, 2018, 03:48:22 PM
The formatting of the above post is...odd...to say the least.

He says that it's somehow automatic. I've never seen him use color codes before, though. I have never seen anyone use color=rgb(a,b,c) format before (I thought color=#XXXXXX was the only way to specify exact color), so I believe him.

bing101, can you explain what is causing this?
I always manually change the font size to 10 everytime I edit my post.
Title: Re: Fastest-growing suburbs
Post by: hotdogPi on December 24, 2018, 09:31:37 PM
Quote from: bing101 on December 24, 2018, 09:29:55 PM
Quote from: 1 on December 24, 2018, 08:24:57 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on December 24, 2018, 03:48:22 PM
The formatting of the above post is...odd...to say the least.

He says that it's somehow automatic. I've never seen him use color codes before, though. I have never seen anyone use color=rgb(a,b,c) format before (I thought color=#XXXXXX was the only way to specify exact color), so I believe him.

bing101, can you explain what is causing this?
I always manually change the font size to 10 everytime I edit my post.

That doesn't explain color codes or changing the font size to 2.
Title: Re: Fastest-growing suburbs
Post by: MantyMadTown on December 26, 2018, 04:31:59 AM
Wow, with all these new suburbs serving Los Angeles and San Diego, traffic must be a nightmare. Not that SoCal traffic isn't already, so I've heard.
Title: Re: Fastest-growing suburbs
Post by: bing101 on December 26, 2018, 11:42:57 AM
Quote from: MantyMadTown on December 26, 2018, 04:31:59 AM
Wow, with all these new suburbs serving Los Angeles and San Diego, traffic must be a nightmare. Not that SoCal traffic isn't already, so I've heard.


I expect these double duty suburbs/exurbs that serve more than 1 census area to get fast growth as the center of cities like San Francisco, San Jose, Washington D.C., Los Angeles , San Diego and other parts of the country simply get too expensive to get a home in the long term.

Title: Re: Fastest-growing suburbs
Post by: MantyMadTown on December 26, 2018, 11:47:31 PM
Anyway I hope many of these suburbs that serve these urban areas end up becoming cities in their own right, with reasonable transit connections throughout the region and have actual urban centers that attract new jobs, instead of just staying as sprawly bedroom communities that only exist to serve the center city. On another note, I feel like San Bernardino and Riverside could become new hubs that commuters could travel to instead of just Los Angeles or San Diego.
Title: Re: Fastest-growing suburbs
Post by: jakeroot on December 28, 2018, 10:34:20 AM
Quote from: 1 on December 24, 2018, 09:31:37 PM
Quote from: bing101 on December 24, 2018, 09:29:55 PM
Quote from: 1 on December 24, 2018, 08:24:57 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on December 24, 2018, 03:48:22 PM
The formatting of the above post is...odd...to say the least.

He says that it's somehow automatic. I've never seen him use color codes before, though. I have never seen anyone use color=rgb(a,b,c) format before (I thought color=#XXXXXX was the only way to specify exact color), so I believe him.

bing101, can you explain what is causing this?
I always manually change the font size to 10 everytime I edit my post.

That doesn't explain color codes or changing the font size to 2.

And we will never get an explanation. I can't believe he even responded to your inquiry just above.
Title: Re: Fastest-growing suburbs
Post by: bing101 on December 28, 2018, 11:47:24 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on December 28, 2018, 10:34:20 AM
Quote from: 1 on December 24, 2018, 09:31:37 PM
Quote from: bing101 on December 24, 2018, 09:29:55 PM
Quote from: 1 on December 24, 2018, 08:24:57 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on December 24, 2018, 03:48:22 PM
The formatting of the above post is...odd...to say the least.

He says that it's somehow automatic. I've never seen him use color codes before, though. I have never seen anyone use color=rgb(a,b,c) format before (I thought color=#XXXXXX was the only way to specify exact color), so I believe him.

bing101, can you explain what is causing this?
I always manually change the font size to 10 everytime I edit my post.

That doesn't explain color codes or changing the font size to 2.

And we will never get an explanation. I can't believe he even responded to your inquiry just above.


OK its the settings in the browser I was using at the time where it did auto correct to font size 2.
Title: Re: Fastest-growing suburbs
Post by: jakeroot on December 31, 2018, 10:25:32 AM
Quote from: bing101 on December 28, 2018, 11:47:24 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on December 28, 2018, 10:34:20 AM
Quote from: 1 on December 24, 2018, 09:31:37 PM
Quote from: bing101 on December 24, 2018, 09:29:55 PM
Quote from: 1 on December 24, 2018, 08:24:57 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on December 24, 2018, 03:48:22 PM
The formatting of the above post is...odd...to say the least.

He says that it's somehow automatic. I've never seen him use color codes before, though. I have never seen anyone use color=rgb(a,b,c) format before (I thought color=#XXXXXX was the only way to specify exact color), so I believe him.

bing101, can you explain what is causing this?
I always manually change the font size to 10 everytime I edit my post.

That doesn't explain color codes or changing the font size to 2.

And we will never get an explanation. I can't believe he even responded to your inquiry just above.


OK its the settings in the browser I was using at the time where it did auto correct to font size 2.

What's the browser? Such odd behavior.
Title: Re: Fastest-growing suburbs
Post by: Flint1979 on December 31, 2018, 10:45:45 PM
The fastest growing in the Detroit area are probably places like Shelby Township, Macomb Township and around there. I was riding around that area about a month or so ago and the sprawl has moved past 26 Mile Road now.
Title: Re: Fastest-growing suburbs
Post by: webny99 on January 01, 2019, 12:04:01 AM
I maintain that Lakeville, MN, is experiencing one of the largest, if not the largest, housing booms in North America. Seeing is believing.
Title: Re: Fastest-growing suburbs
Post by: bing101 on January 01, 2019, 01:27:03 PM
Chrome on Windows for me had the auto correct for 2 font for some reason when I clicked.
Title: Re: Fastest-growing suburbs
Post by: jakeroot on January 01, 2019, 08:12:13 PM
Quote from: bing101 on January 01, 2019, 01:27:03 PM
Chrome on Windows for me had the auto correct for 2 font for some reason when I clicked.

I see it again when quoting you. What version of Chrome? Is it a work computer?
Title: Re: Fastest-growing suburbs
Post by: MNHighwayMan on January 01, 2019, 08:52:09 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on January 01, 2019, 08:12:13 PM
Quote from: bing101 on January 01, 2019, 01:27:03 PM
Chrome on Windows for me had the auto correct for 2 font for some reason when I clicked.
I see it again when quoting you. What version of Chrome? Is it a work computer?

If he's using Chrome, he's gotta be using some sort of script that automatically adds it to his posts. (Which raises other questions...) There's no other explanation for why it keeps happening.
Title: Re: Fastest-growing suburbs
Post by: kphoger on January 01, 2019, 08:54:28 PM
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on January 01, 2019, 08:52:09 PM
other explanation

poltergeists
Title: Re: Fastest-growing suburbs
Post by: jakeroot on January 01, 2019, 10:39:26 PM
At this point, I think a fucking ghost probably is the most likely culprit. Or a script or extension, yes.
Title: Re: Fastest-growing suburbs
Post by: MantyMadTown on January 02, 2019, 02:45:42 AM
Let's go back to the original topic, please.
Title: Re: Fastest-growing suburbs
Post by: vdeane on January 02, 2019, 08:17:15 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on January 01, 2019, 10:39:26 PM
a fucking ghost
This kind? (https://nypost.com/2018/10/30/woman-who-had-sex-with-20-ghosts-is-now-engaged-to-a-spirit/)
Title: Re: Fastest-growing suburbs
Post by: kphoger on January 02, 2019, 08:51:46 PM
Quote from: vdeane on January 02, 2019, 08:17:15 PM

Quote from: jakeroot on January 01, 2019, 10:39:26 PM
a fucking ghost

This kind? (https://nypost.com/2018/10/30/woman-who-had-sex-with-20-ghosts-is-now-engaged-to-a-spirit/)

Ah, the good old New York Post.  Man, oh man, that article was a good read!
Title: Re: Fastest-growing suburbs
Post by: bing101 on January 03, 2019, 07:11:39 PM



Video by city Beautiful over gated communities.
Title: Re: Fastest-growing suburbs
Post by: Scott5114 on January 04, 2019, 12:26:39 AM
Just a reminder that unnecessary formatting is discouraged under the site rules. Only change the font size if you're, e.g., making a heading. Otherwise, leave it at the default. (Some people may have their browsers configured to increase the font size and overriding that is discourteous to them.) Setting the font size to 10 because you like to set the font size to 10 is not a necessary use of formatting.

Another reason that's in the forum rules is because of browsers coming up with wacky interpretations and autocorrections of font sizes, colors, etc.
Title: Re: Fastest-growing suburbs
Post by: Stephane Dumas on January 05, 2019, 06:16:24 PM
Airdrie, Alberta even if it's a bit far from Calgary and it's more of an exburb instead of a suburb got a big spike in population from the late 1970s to today when we see compare aerial photos from the 1950s to today who was posted on Skyscraperpage.
http://skyscraperpage.com/forum/showpost.php?p=7216263&postcount=271

Title: Re: Fastest-growing suburbs
Post by: MantyMadTown on January 05, 2019, 07:19:39 PM
Quote from: bing101 on January 05, 2019, 06:31:43 PM
As of 2019 if you are near the North Luzon Expressway and the Subic-Clark-Tarlac expressway in Pampanga, Philippines
There's new suburban houses near the freeways to serve commuters to "New Clark City"



Didn't you just post this in "Where will be the newest major city?"
Title: Re: Fastest-growing suburbs
Post by: bing101 on November 22, 2019, 06:48:35 PM



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_County%2C_New_Jersey (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_County%2C_New_Jersey)


The fast growing suburbs will have to serve two or more census areas and we have an example Ocean County, NJ it serves Delaware Valley and New York at the same time though. 
Title: Re: Fastest-growing suburbs
Post by: kevinb1994 on November 22, 2019, 07:01:50 PM
Quote from: bing101 on November 22, 2019, 06:48:35 PM



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_County%2C_New_Jersey (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_County%2C_New_Jersey)


The fast growing suburbs will have to serve two or more census areas and we have an example Ocean County, NJ it serves Delaware Valley and New York at the same time though.
Ocean County always seemed to me as an ideal halfway spot between two major cities and their immediate suburbs. As a matter of fact there was once a continuous railroad line linking North and South Jersey via the Jersey Shore.
Title: Re: Fastest-growing suburbs
Post by: thspfc on November 22, 2019, 09:20:15 PM
Most of the Madison suburbs make up the list for Wisconsin.
Title: Re: Fastest-growing suburbs
Post by: ozarkman417 on November 22, 2019, 10:30:51 PM
The Northwest Arkansas Metro Area is one of the fastest growing in the nation (27th fastest, thanks Walmart  :) ), and has recently surpassed nearby Springfield's metro area in population. In Springfield's metro, Ozark (Springfield's second biggest suburb) was, in 2012, the fastest growing city in the state. This growth would explain the numerous improvements along the US-65 freeway.
Title: Re: Fastest-growing suburbs
Post by: MNHighwayMan on November 26, 2019, 08:39:53 PM
Quote from: ozarkman417 on November 22, 2019, 10:30:51 PM
thanks Walmart

A phrase no one should ever use non-sarcastically.
Title: Re: Fastest-growing suburbs
Post by: kphoger on November 27, 2019, 10:08:35 AM
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on November 26, 2019, 08:39:53 PM

Quote from: ozarkman417 on November 22, 2019, 10:30:51 PM
thanks Walmart

A phrase no one should ever use non-sarcastically.

Other than the thousands of people positively impacted by the economic growth of northwest Arkansas?   :eyebrow: