15 Largest Cities by 2046?

[Northern Light]

Originally Posted by Buckeye Native 001

I'd add Phoenix and Las Vegas to the list of cities looking at potentially large natural disasters that could stop the population surge. We're routinely setting new heat records and are in a seemingly neverending drought (the last two monsoon seasons were practically non-existent). California's water rights to the Colorado River supersedes Arizona's and Nevada's and if the Central Arizona Project's canals start to dry up, the Valley is in for a world of hurt.

Very good post.

Can I add, Atlanta is running close to the edge on water supply as well.

As per this article:

https://www.nrdc.org/stories/needing...thern-neighbor

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by DCReid

I think Milwaukee may be added to Chicago.

I don't see that ever happening.

And if the CB ever does combine them, then we'll know that the CSA, as a concept, has officially jumped the shark.

[SIGSEGV]

Originally Posted by Northern Light

Very good post.

Can I add, Atlanta is running close to the edge on water supply as well.

As per this article:

https://www.nrdc.org/stories/needing...thern-neighbor

Yes, I remember hearing about this dispute in this documentary about how the States got their Shapes

It would be kind of hilarious (though not good, obviously) if a surveyor error really had such an impact on Atlanta's growth...

[Buckeye Native 001]

Originally Posted by Northern Light

Very good post.

Can I add, Atlanta is running close to the edge on water supply as well.

As per this article:

https://www.nrdc.org/stories/needing...thern-neighbor

Thanks.

I want Arizona to succeed (I'm eight years into a pension so I might be biased/selfish) but our economy booms and busts on growth and tourism. We're trying to get into the tech sector but it's really difficult going up against and competing with Silicon Valley, Seattle and even Austin. I'd rather plan for the worst and hope for the best but very few people here want to think about the long term effects of our current actions.

We should be leading the country in solar and wind power and other alternative energy investments but seemingly half of our state legislature could care less and thinks that the January 6 storming of the Capitol was righteous and are still trying to overturn the results of the 2020 election.

I think Jon Talton is a sanctimonious/pompous ass for whom nothing will ever be good enough, but he's been our Cassandra for decades, trying to draw attention to how what we're currently doing isn't sustainable. John Fleck at UNM also had great insights into the peril of the dwindling water supplies throughout the Southwest.

[MolsonExport]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

^ that's a typo. They inverted the numbers.


It should read:

2046 metro area population: 10.28 million
Current population: 9.517 million
Percent change: 8%

yeah I saw that too, and deduced that it was a typo.


The article is basically extrapolating current trends all the way through to 2046. clickbait.

[Zapatan]

Originally Posted by DCReid

The biggest areas will remain NY and LA, and I predict Riverside will be included in LA metro. I think Milwaukee may be added to Chicago. US cities continue to spread outward, so I am guessing other metros like DFW, Houston and Atl will gain new counties. It will be interesting to see if Austin and San Antonio merge, although I do not know if how much growth is between them.

The US is obviously an economic powerhouse but I think NYC will be the only US city in the top 50 worldwide by 2046 (well maybe LA with Riverside as near the bottom of the top 50). I wonder if even the US will have any skyscrapers in the top 50 by 2046 as well, and the Empire State Building may not be even in the top 100.

This sounds very overly negative, according to this (not sure how accurate it is though), the US still has three cities in the top 10 by 2035, and currently does too.

https://www.visualcapitalist.com/top-10-cities/

Why would the US not have any skyscrapers in the top 50 by then? It currently has several, one in the top 10, 20 and 30 each and 5 or 6 in total. Considering China has banned skyscrapers and the only megatall U/C is because of PNB118's massive pinnacle I would say 1WTC isn't dropping out of the top 10 anytime in the near future. PNB will push the WTC to #8 globally. I don't see 42 more 550+ meter buildings being built in the next 20 years. I just don't. Even Sears may still be there.

The ESB comparison is a bit unfair, that building was built a century ago and still (barely) makes top 50 today, even w/o the antenna.

[DCReid]

Originally Posted by Zapatan

This sounds very overly negative, according to this (not sure how accurate it is though), the US still has three cities in the top 10 by 2035, and currently does too.

https://www.visualcapitalist.com/top-10-cities/

Why would the US not have any skyscrapers in the top 50 by then? It currently has several, one in the top 10, 20 and 30 each and 5 or 6 in total. Considering China has banned skyscrapers and the only megatall U/C is because of PNB118's massive pinnacle I would say 1WTC isn't dropping out of the top 10 anytime in the near future. PNB will push the WTC to #8 globally. I don't see 42 more 550+ meter buildings being built in the next 20 years. I just don't. Even Sears may still be there.

The ESB comparison is a bit unfair, that building was built a century ago and still (barely) makes top 50 today, even w/o the antenna.

I believe the thread is referencing raw numbers of population not economic output. If rural residents in fast growing Asian and African countries like Pakistan and Nigeria continue to flock to cities, even some of the smaller cities in those countries may have populations over 10 million by 2046. Population size and economic output are two different things,, which is why I said the US cities will remain economic powerhouses of influence even if they are smaller population-wise.... with regards to skyscrapers, the diagram tab on this website has 1 WTC dropping out of the top 10 by 2025 or if you exclude only spires like the Tokyo Sky Tree, dropping to number 10. So by 2046, I am guessing some of the cities like Lagos and New Dehli may have a couple more supertalls. It's not that negative - Russia has way more supertalls than Germany, but that does not make Russia better.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by wwmiv

Houston will also be greatly affected by sea level rise, though not as extensively as Miami.

Most of Houston is pretty far inland. If rising sea levels affects places as far in as downtown, Katy, West University and the Heights, it'll be pretty bad for a lot more than Houston.

[Zapatan]

Originally Posted by DCReid

I believe the thread is referencing raw numbers of population not economic output. If rural residents in fast growing Asian and African countries like Pakistan and Nigeria continue to flock to cities, even some of the smaller cities in those countries may have populations over 10 million by 2046. Population size and economic output are two different things,, which is why I said the US cities will remain economic powerhouses of influence even if they are smaller population-wise.... with regards to skyscrapers, the diagram tab on this website has 1 WTC dropping out of the top 10 by 2025 or if you exclude only spires like the Tokyo Sky Tree, dropping to number 10. So by 2046, I am guessing some of the cities like Lagos and New Dehli may have a couple more supertalls. It's not that negative - Russia has way more supertalls than Germany, but that does not make Russia better.

You mentioned "economic powerhouse" which is why I posted cities by GDP. In terms of population I wouldn't be surprised if LA was still in the top 50 (along with NY). Chicago may drop out though despite making the top 30-40 today.

Tokyo Sky Tree is not a skyscraper it's a tower, many of those other buildings are also stalled / unfinished / unrealistic proposals, like Kingdom Tower, or Tradewinds. I believe the Global Business Center in Seoul may have gotten cut as per the SSC thread.

Nobody can predict the future obviously but this notion that the US will disappear into this void of insignificant-ness in the near future seems a bit exaggerated.

[Northern Light]

Originally Posted by JManc

Most of Houston is pretty far inland. If rising sea levels affects places as far in as downtown, Katy, West University and the Heights, it'll be pretty bad for a lot more than Houston.

https://www.harriscountyfemt.org/


Take a look at the floodplain map above (you need to pick an address, or you can just type Houston, Texas into the address bar to see it light up). That's a fair bit of the map with colour in terms of the 100-year floodplain.

Not sure if that factors in any rise in Ocean level.

The key to that not being permanent flooding, but the regularity of flooding such that it would be cost-prohibitive and disruptive.

[thoughtcriminal]

a minor point, but it's kind of funny how this article says that nyc has been the largest city since the beginning, like it came into being as the largest city in the country on its first day of existence. not true, it didn't become the largest until almost 1800 (maybe 1790), when it beat out Philly, which had been the largest for over a century at that point.

[ChiSoxRox]

Originally Posted by thoughtcriminal

a minor point, but it's kind of funny how this article says that nyc has been the largest city since the beginning, like it came into being as the largest city in the country on its first day of existence. not true, it didn't become the largest until almost 1800 (maybe 1790), when it beat out Philly, which had been the largest for over a century at that point.

While NYC had the largest city proper in 1790, that's due to its city limits already including all of Manhattan. Philadelphia was only Center City at the time. Including surrounding areas like Northern Liberties and Southwark, Philadelphia is larger until the 1810 Census when NYC + Brooklyn pull ahead.

On the thread topic, salinity incursions are already threatening Miami's ground water. Thorough Bloomberg article.

[chris08876]

What the heck is going on in Philly for such a low amount?

I hope it will bounce back. So much potential.

Fabrications.

A lot can happen from 2021 through 2046... so take such lists with a grain of salt.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by Northern Light

https://www.harriscountyfemt.org/


Take a look at the floodplain map above (you need to pick an address, or you can just type Houston, Texas into the address bar to see it light up). That's a fair bit of the map with colour in terms of the 100-year floodplain.

Not sure if that factors in any rise in Ocean level.

The key to that not being permanent flooding, but the regularity of flooding such that it would be cost-prohibitive and disruptive.

Oh much of the area is VERY floody, my neighborhood included but that has more to do with the soil, erosion from overdevelopment, and the networks of bayous and lakes in the area. Plus, we live in a rainy climate prone to hurricanes.

[Northern Light]

Originally Posted by JManc

Oh much of the area is VERY floody, my neighborhood included but that has more to do with the soil, erosion from overdevelopment, and the networks of bayous and lakes in the area. Plus, we live in a rainy climate prone to hurricanes.

Right, but the (potential issues) with climate change aren't strictly ocean-rise.

Though that is a direct issue. Its also that:

a) To the extent that Ocean rise moves the Ocean inland at all, the drainage space available to Houston is less.

b) A rising Ocean typically means a rising water table locally in the area, so greater risk of ground saturation and inability to hold water.

c) The risk of more intense storms, more frequently which dump more rain, more quickly.

d) Storm surge from a higher, closer Ocean.

The prospect is not one of Houston being wiped out; its simply a question of how much of its currently habitable area becomes uninhabitable.

If its 1% or 2%, then all other things being equal the growth machine will stay on course, subject to adequate water supply.

But if 10% or 20% of land comes out of circulation as practically uninhabitable.

That could certainly impair growth and maybe even induce some retrenchment.

[TexasPlaya]

Originally Posted by Northern Light

Right, but the (potential issues) with climate change aren't strictly ocean-rise.

Though that is a direct issue. Its also that:

a) To the extent that Ocean rise moves the Ocean inland at all, the drainage space available to Houston is less.

b) A rising Ocean typically means a rising water table locally in the area, so greater risk of ground saturation and inability to hold water.

c) The risk of more intense storms, more frequently which dump more rain, more quickly.

d) Storm surge from a higher, closer Ocean.

The prospect is not one of Houston being wiped out; its simply a question of how much of its currently habitable area becomes uninhabitable.

If its 1% or 2%, then all other things being equal the growth machine will stay on course, subject to adequate water supply.

But if 10% or 20% of land comes out of circulation as practically uninhabitable.

That could certainly impair growth and maybe even induce some retrenchment.

Which is why Houston has been setting aside land for storm water detention and upgrading its bayous (those areas where the floodplains are). Houston has been dealing with flooding issues before climate change became mainstream.

As far as sea level rising, I'm not sure what sets Houston apart from the rest of the gulf/florida.

[KevinFromTexas]

Austin's projected to have 4.5 million by 2040, which would put us between Minneapolis and Seattle on that list. Austin's city population has doubled and even tripled every 20 years off and on since 1850, so it's a safe bet it'll do it again. The only times it didn't do that was from 1900 to 1920, 1960 to 1980, and 1980 to 2000. Granted, in modern times it's becoming less frequent. Our lowest rate of growth was 16.8% from 1900 to 1920, and it was as high as 455% from 1850 to 1860, but it's been 20 to 52% since 1930. We're projected to hit 3 million in the metro by 2029.

[JManc]

There is still plenty of space in the Houston area to develop but there are a lot that should be off limits that is either already developed or undeveloped. I think the region is finally coming to terms with that realization and forcing developers to take that into consideration. Where I live, there's been considerable dredging and shoring up of flood detention to prevent another Harvey catastrophe. Only reason why I voted for Dan Crenshaw...he helped get wheels of bureaucracy going to improve infrastructure in my immediate area.

Again, I think if we're discussing sea level encroachment more inland, much of the eastern seaboard is at risk.

[pj3000]

Originally Posted by chris08876

What the heck is going on in Philly for such a low amount?

I hope it will bounce back. So much potential.

Fabrications.

What the heck is going on? Quaker Conservatism, that's what's been going on since 1682.

I think I've been hearing about Philadelphia's "potential" for the past 30 years.

[DCReid]

Originally Posted by pj3000

What the heck is going on? Quaker Conservatism, that's what's been going on since 1682.

I think I've been hearing about Philadelphia's "potential" for the past 30 years.

The Philly metro used to be much bigger than the DC metro, but that's not the case anymore. Philly and Baltimore seem to be struggling more than the other North east city, but maybe that will change. It will be interesting to see if Richmond, VA starts to take off since it is retiring its confederate past somewhat, is a capital city, is reasonably priced and is reasonably close to DC to get some of that region's spinoff business. It's growth has been sluggish but may start to accelerate.