AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

New rules for political content in signatures and user profiles. See this thread for details.

Author Topic: Fastest-growing suburbs  (Read 13599 times)

MNHighwayMan

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 4224
  • Blue and gold forever!

  • Age: 27
  • Location: Des Moines
  • Last Login: Today at 07:27:33 PM
Re: Fastest-growing suburbs
« Reply #25 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.
Logged

vdeane

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 10596
  • Age: 28
  • Location: Latham, NY
  • Last Login: December 13, 2019, 09:56:40 PM
    • New York State Roads
Re: Fastest-growing suburbs
« Reply #26 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.
Logged
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.

Bruce

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2318
  • Transit Commuter

  • Age: 22
  • Location: Snohomish County, WA
  • Last Login: Today at 12:47:52 PM
    • Wikipedia
Re: Fastest-growing suburbs
« Reply #27 on: June 10, 2017, 07:21:55 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.



 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.

JJBers

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 670
  • I'm a road geek in the middle of nowhere

  • Age: 16
  • Location: Willimantic, CT
  • Last Login: October 12, 2018, 08:32:34 PM
Re: Fastest-growing suburbs
« Reply #28 on: June 10, 2017, 07:44:48 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.



 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.
Logged
Clinched Stats,
Flickr,
(2di: I-81 [TN, WV-MD], I-84, I-95 [NH, CT-NY, MD-GA], and I-91)

jwolfer

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2037
  • Age: 49
  • Location: Jacksonville, FL
  • Last Login: November 09, 2019, 11:16:34 AM
Re: Fastest-growing suburbs
« Reply #29 on: June 10, 2017, 09:52:57 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

Logged

Road Hog

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1168
  • Location: Collin County, TX
  • Last Login: December 13, 2019, 09:45:45 PM
Re: Fastest-growing suburbs
« Reply #30 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.
Logged

iBallasticwolf2

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 952
  • :/

  • Location: Kenton County, KY
  • Last Login: April 24, 2019, 05:10:29 PM
Re: Fastest-growing suburbs
« Reply #31 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.
Logged
Only two things are infinite in this world, stupidity, and I-75 construction

Stephane Dumas

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1920
  • Last Login: Today at 02:05:58 PM
Re: Fastest-growing suburbs
« Reply #32 on: June 11, 2017, 01:24:50 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.



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.

And on the other extreme side, some said then the NYC landmarks act and zoning laws bulldozed the future.
Logged

kkt

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4529
  • Location: Seattle, Washington
  • Last Login: Today at 03:04:30 PM
Re: Fastest-growing suburbs
« Reply #33 on: June 12, 2017, 02:04:35 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.
Logged

Desert Man

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 831
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Sou Cal USA
  • Last Login: October 13, 2019, 07:46:46 PM
Re: Fastest-growing suburbs
« Reply #34 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.
Logged
Get your kicks...on Route 99! Like to turn 66 upside down. The other historic Main street of America.

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6165
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 03:55:16 PM
Re: Fastest-growing suburbs
« Reply #35 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.       

Logged

silverback1065

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3037
  • Age: 30
  • Location: Indianapolis
  • Last Login: Today at 01:00:19 PM
Re: Fastest-growing suburbs
« Reply #36 on: June 21, 2017, 02:20:33 PM »

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?
Logged

csw

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 644
  • Age: 22
  • Location: Virginia
  • Last Login: Today at 06:46:31 PM
Re: Fastest-growing suburbs
« Reply #37 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.

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6165
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 03:55:16 PM
Re: Fastest-growing suburbs
« Reply #38 on: June 22, 2017, 02:20:20 AM »

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. 
Logged

TheHighwayMan394

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2479
  • Age: 29
  • Location: Twin Ports/North Shore
  • Last Login: Today at 01:04:53 PM
    • Patrick Lilja's Minnesconsin Highways
Re: Fastest-growing suburbs
« Reply #39 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.
Logged
It sucks that you think where Iím from is whack, but as long as thatís enough to keep your ass from coming back

Clinched 2dis: 24, 35, 39, 41, 43, 76 (W), 84 (E), 88 (both), 96, 97

rantanamo

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 46
  • Last Login: Today at 07:30:32 AM
Re: Fastest-growing suburbs
« Reply #40 on: June 22, 2017, 05:05:36 AM »

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.



 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.
Logged

silverback1065

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3037
  • Age: 30
  • Location: Indianapolis
  • Last Login: Today at 01:00:19 PM
Re: Fastest-growing suburbs
« Reply #41 on: June 22, 2017, 08:14:42 AM »

I wish suburbs didn't abandon the grid
Logged

Chris

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2284
  • International road enthusiast

  • Age: 32
  • Location: the Netherlands
  • Last Login: Today at 05:00:24 PM
    • Flickr
Re: Fastest-growing suburbs
« Reply #42 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.

empirestate

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4157
  • Last Login: December 13, 2019, 10:43:08 PM
    • Empire State Roads
Re: Fastest-growing suburbs
« Reply #43 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." ;-)
Logged

doorknob60

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 728
  • Age: 26
  • Location: Boise, ID
  • Last Login: December 13, 2019, 03:57:25 PM
Re: Fastest-growing suburbs
« Reply #44 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).

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6165
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 03:55:16 PM
Re: Fastest-growing suburbs
« Reply #45 on: June 22, 2017, 04:05:49 PM »

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.
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. 
« Last Edit: June 22, 2017, 04:07:53 PM by sparker »
Logged

empirestate

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4157
  • Last Login: December 13, 2019, 10:43:08 PM
    • Empire State Roads
Re: Fastest-growing suburbs
« Reply #46 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?
Logged

formulanone

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 7371
  • Business with pleasure?

  • Age: 45
  • Location: HSV, and then some
  • Last Login: Today at 06:49:30 PM
Re: Fastest-growing suburbs
« Reply #47 on: June 22, 2017, 09:09:21 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.

tdindy88

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1422
  • Last Login: Today at 06:59:03 PM
Re: Fastest-growing suburbs
« Reply #48 on: June 22, 2017, 09:34:39 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.
Logged

empirestate

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4157
  • Last Login: December 13, 2019, 10:43:08 PM
    • Empire State Roads
Re: Fastest-growing suburbs
« Reply #49 on: June 22, 2017, 10:25:57 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 suburbóbut it's not a suburb of the first-largest city!
Logged

 


Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.