3 ms·

The exact number is not particularly relevant and is deliberately vague since it doesn't say in what area or what kind of city I'm talking about. This is becau

The exact number is not particularly relevant and is deliberately vague since it doesn't say in what area or what kind of city I'm talking about. This is because the point is to illustrate the ridiculousness of suggesting that infrastructure should only be meted out once demand is known in the concrete with people living there by pointing out that until you build the sewer system, N people still need to poop, not to talk about what kind of population growth is normal for a large city.

Retric 8y ago
I was assuming you where being approximate and continuing to talk about the Seattle area. Anyway, my point is more the US population is growing so just about every Metro area needs to deal with continuous growth. And 10k homes are generally not going to fill up in a single day it’s going to relate to the areas migration pattern. City’s can’t just stay static while continuing to be viable. That said, OP seemed more concerned with Developers not paying for infrastructure which is a reasonable concern, growth on the other hand is not optional long term.
- DataWorker 8y ago
  Cities “can’t just stay static while continuing to be viable.” I have to wonder what you mean by static and viable. Seems like the cities most derided for being static are also quite viable: San Francisco, San Jose, etc...
  - Retric 8y ago
    From 2000 to 2017 San Francisco grew 13.5% and San Jose grew 14.5%. Going back San Francisco county grew from 680k in 1980 to 884k in 2017 that’s significant growth which tracks fairly well with overall US population growth. https://www.biggestuscities.com/city/san-francisco-california https://www.biggestuscities.com/city/san-francisco-californi... So, it was ranked 13 in 1980 and is ranked 13th in 2017. San Jose grew faster than the national average from 1960 to 2017. https://www.biggestuscities.com/city/san-jose-california https://www.biggestuscities.com/city/san-jose-california Thus, perception does not match reality in these cases. On the other hand overall US population does not grow that fast. So, things can feel static in the short term.

Retric 8y ago

I was assuming you where being approximate and continuing to talk about the Seattle area. Anyway, my point is more the US population is growing so just about every Metro area needs to deal with continuous growth. And 10k homes are generally not going to fill up in a single day it’s going to relate to the areas migration pattern. City’s can’t just stay static while continuing to be viable. That said, OP seemed more concerned with Developers not paying for infrastructure which is a reasonable concern, growth on the other hand is not optional long term.

DataWorker 8y ago
Cities “can’t just stay static while continuing to be viable.” I have to wonder what you mean by static and viable. Seems like the cities most derided for being static are also quite viable: San Francisco, San Jose, etc...
- Retric 8y ago
  From 2000 to 2017 San Francisco grew 13.5% and San Jose grew 14.5%. Going back San Francisco county grew from 680k in 1980 to 884k in 2017 that’s significant growth which tracks fairly well with overall US population growth. https://www.biggestuscities.com/city/san-francisco-california https://www.biggestuscities.com/city/san-francisco-californi... So, it was ranked 13 in 1980 and is ranked 13th in 2017. San Jose grew faster than the national average from 1960 to 2017. https://www.biggestuscities.com/city/san-jose-california https://www.biggestuscities.com/city/san-jose-california Thus, perception does not match reality in these cases. On the other hand overall US population does not grow that fast. So, things can feel static in the short term.