Predict the most populous city in the world in 2050 and in 2100

[SIGSEGV]

Originally Posted by The North One

Dallas is horribly positioned for growth in the distant future. Did you just totally forget about climate change?

New York will fall really hard by 2100, that's guaranteed. but I'm also not so sure LA will become #1 since it has it's own set of problems. Something inland will skyrocket that people wont be able to predict. Could be Atlanta or even a Midwest city.

Yes and no. If/when Houston becomes destroyed by a superstorm, where do you think all of those people will go?

[MolsonExport]

Cities in the West always plateau at a certain point, and sustaining a high growth rates becomes very difficult. We saw this with London, New York, Los Angeles, Paris, San Francisco....

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

Interesting. Do you reckon Calgary will add the 3,100,000 needed to surpass your Montreal 2050 prediction by 2100, and that Montreal's growth will cease, or do you think that while Montreal will still grow, Calgary will explode by 5-7 million more people in the space of just 50 years?

Especially since the value of the main commodity Calgary trades in is expected to decline significantly well before 2100. Pardon the pun but I don't see what Calgary is gonna hitch its wagon to in order to pass Montreal (a much more diversified city economically).

[Obadno]

Originally Posted by CaliNative

I would guess somewhere is Asia, Africa or South America. Possibly Lagos, Cairo, New Delhi, Mumbai, Sao Paulo, Manilla, Seoul. Doubt Tokyo remains #1. Japanese birth rate low. Also, predict the largest 5 cities/metro areas in your nation in 2050/2100? In U.S. I would say NY, LA, Houston, Dallas-FW, Chicago by 2050 as top 5 metros.Houston & Dallas leapfrog Chicago. Only caveat is that sea level rise could impeed growth in Houston especially. But maybe not. It would also impact cities like Lagos and Manilla.

ITs quite frankly a fools errand to make predictions out that far, Sure a couple of decades you can make some solid inferences but over 80 + years.

There is no saying what kind of cultural, technological, political events might occur that completely alter demographics, birthrates, migration patterns and economic opportunities out that far.

[isaidso]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

Interesting. Do you reckon Calgary will add the 3,100,000 needed to surpass your Montreal 2050 prediction by 2100, and that Montreal's growth will cease, or do you think that while Montreal will still grow, Calgary will explode by 5-7 million more people in the space of just 50 years?

It's more a fun exercise than anything but I do see Alberta's meteoric rise continuing for a very long time. They've moved beyond being a one trick pony and that boom/bust economic cycle. It speaks volumes that their energy sector is tanking yet their population is still growing 2% annually. Alberta is a stunningly beautiful province, has lots of space, it's much cheaper than Ontario/BC, but the key is their mindset.

Alberta is the epitome of a 'Can-Do' society; they have a lot of moxie. When everyone told them that the oil sands weren't economically viable they pressed ahead anyway and turned what easterners said was worthless into a $100 billion+ industry. The future of the oil sands is questionable but that ambitious, 'Yes We Can' mentality remains. A few years back I drove out there and I sensed it immediately. I said to myself 'this place is going to be a big powerful province one day'.

My rankings have more to do with Alberta growing like gangbusters rather than Montreal faltering. I think Montreal will do well but see its growth rate head down 2050-2100 like most places in Canada. I see Alberta exploding in population from 2020 through to 2100 and growing into a legitimate rival to Ontario...... well I'd like it to.

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by 333609543

I doubt any city will surpass 50 or 60 million in population, the logistics in regulating a city of that size is incredibly complicated and generally commutes would take longer than a day. What makes Tokyo so special was that Japan invested heavily into rail transport after WW2 (I was taught that it was a rubber shortage = no tires for automobiles), eventually that public transit backbone enabled many to be able to commute the the special wards for work, many also use the bullet train as commuter rail on the outskirts of the Kanto region. But Tokyo capped out at roughly 36 million, and is a highly developed urban centre that was able to start from scratch after a bunch of the city was turned to rubble.

None of the cities that are currently growing have this factor, and only chinese cities are generally developed enough to encourage this kind of megacity (Pearl River Delta) but it seems like the cities in the Pearl River Delta are largely separate commutersheds so i don't think it's fair to classify it as one city. (Shenzhen & Guangzhou are ~90-100km apart as the crow flies) The major employment nodes of the Tokyo area are no greater than 30km from central Tokyo (Saitama/Yokohama/Chiba).

My point in saying all that is that I see projections putting cities like Lagos and Kinshasa at over 50 million, even up to 80-100 million and I don't think that counts, not only will birth rates fall in Africa as more people move to cities (infant mortality is low enough that you don't need to have 8 children to ensure a few survive) and urban life makes having children a net negative (as opposed to using their labour in a rural setting for self sufficiency). As African urbanization increases the birth rate will fall as well.

My bet for 2050 is Delhi; for 2100 I'd say it's a toss up between Delhi, Kinshasa, Kampala, Nairobi, or Khartoum. Lagos is situated in a very low lying area and will certainly be very negatively affected by rising sea levels by this time.

New Delhi and its neighbouring districts (16,373 km² - as comparison New York MSA is at 17,315 km²) had 34.7 million inh. according to the 2011 Census. It will probably be above 41 million for 2021.

So I guess New Delhi is on its way to reach those 60 million inh.

[isaidso]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Especially since the value of the main commodity Calgary trades in is expected to decline significantly well before 2100. Pardon the pun but I don't see what Calgary is gonna hitch its wagon to in order to pass Montreal (a much more diversified city economically).

Easterners have been dismissing Alberta for almost a century. Every time, Alberta proves the East wrong and finds a way. If it's not oil it will be something else. There are a lot of very young bright ambitious people in Alberta. It's not the backward redneck Bible thumping province easterners think it is. And despite their #1 industry cratering Alberta is still the wealthiest province in the country..... and by a long shot. That seems to get lost on people.

[isaidso]

Originally Posted by BG918

Not understanding why climate change would impact DFW’s growth? The coastal cities are in trouble and people will migrate inland to cities like Dallas.

There is the risk of increased desertification in the southern Plains that could eventually have an impact. The line used to be the 100th Meridian but has been migrating eastward. Cities like Dallas, Austin and San Antonio will deal with more drought conditions and less water unless they start desalinizing the Gulf.



The lack of water will hurt future growth Denver, Las Vegas and Phoenix. Inland cities in the southern US with access to water will be where the majority of growth will be in United States.

The US Great Lakes states have been growing much slower than the rest of the US for decades but it's this region that will likely be least affected by climate change/depleted aquifers. The Great Lakes are a massive natural built in advantage. Besides, if temperature are going to rise will people keep flocking to the Sun Belt? Americans might start looking at northern states in a new light.

[MolsonExport]

Originally Posted by isaidso

Easterners have been dismissing Alberta for almost a century. Every time, Alberta proves the East wrong and finds a way. If it's not oil it will be something else. There are a lot of very young bright ambitious people in Alberta. It's not the backward redneck Bible thumping province easterners think it is. And despite their #1 industry cratering Alberta is still the wealthiest province in the country..... and by a long shot. That seems to get lost on people.

Albertans have been dismissing Quebec as an economic basket case for almost as long.

Neither perspective is justified.

[MolsonExport]

I don't think Canada will ever grow much beyond 500K per year, and even that is doubtful as the birthrate remains low and the public appetite for much greater immigration rates remains even lower.

So the question is: where are all of these tens of millions of future Canadians going to come from? I can see Canada getting up around 50-70 million then leveling off indefinitely. Which would be just fine.


Statistics Canada's Crystal Ball:

55 million Canadians by 2068?

While the populations of many developed countries are expected to decrease, Canada's population is projected to grow over the next 50 years, largely because of strong immigration.

Population growth, however, is likely to vary across the country, with the population of some provinces and territories increasing and others decreasing. As a result, the provinces and territories may experience diverse opportunities and challenges over the coming decades.

The Canadian population has grown substantially in recent years, increasing from 30.7 million people in 2000 to 37.1 million in 2018.

The projections show that growth would continue in Canada over the next 50 years, and that the population could reach between 44.4 million and 70.2 million inhabitants by 2068. In the medium-growth scenario, the Canadian population would grow from 37.1 million inhabitants in 2018 to 55.2 million by 2068.

According to the low- and medium-growth scenarios, the rate of population growth would slow in the coming years, owing mainly to an increasing number of deaths relative to births. The expected increase in the number of deaths is mainly related to population aging.

In all scenarios, immigration would remain the key driver of population growth over the next 50 years, as has been the case since the early 1990s.

https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/dail...90917b-eng.htm

[AviationGuy]

Originally Posted by BG918

Does Dallas continue to sprawl toward Oklahoma or is there large-scale densification of its suburban areas? To get to these population levels I would imagine it’s a combination.

No other metro in the U.S. is set up as well as DFW for massive growth. Surrounded by mostly flat land, dynamic and diverse economy, major international airport, central location within the country but without harsh winter weather like the northern cities and increasingly diverse population. The big x-factor is Texas itself; do they stay a low-tax Red State with a great business climate or do they morph into more of a Blue State as more coastal people move there? Not happening anytime soon but who knows by 2050. Look at Colorado, 20 years ago it was like Texas now it has more in common with California and Oregon.

One thing to consider is that the major Texas cities (e.g., Houston, Dallas, Austin, San Antonio, El Paso) are already very blue, with the suburbs getting there quickly. How quickly the state goes blue depends on growth in the cities and suburbs, diversity, etc. relative to the rural areas, which still have a massive number of red voters who are usually more likely to vote.

[AviationGuy]

Originally Posted by SIGSEGV

Yes and no. If/when Houston becomes destroyed by a superstorm, where do you think all of those people will go?

It practically was already by Harvey in 2017 but the city bounced back rapidly. Even if hit directly by a mega hurricane, it would rebuild. Galveston was pretty much destroyed by Ike in 2008, but you'd never know it today.

[SLO]

Originally Posted by BG918

Not understanding why climate change would impact DFW’s growth? The coastal cities are in trouble and people will migrate inland to cities like Dallas.

There is the risk of increased desertification in the southern Plains that could eventually have an impact. The line used to be the 100th Meridian but has been migrating eastward. Cities like Dallas, Austin and San Antonio will deal with more drought conditions and less water unless they start desalinizing the Gulf.

The lack of water will hurt future growth Denver, Las Vegas and Phoenix. Inland cities in the southern US with access to water will be where the majority of growth will be in United States.

DFW and north Texas in general gets large amounts of rain now. With higher temperatures there will be more moisture in the atmosphere, but of course they don't know exactly where it will release. Drier areas get more dry, wet areas get more wet? Maybe.
I would imagine in an immediate real crisis at least in the countries that have the resources there would be major water infrastructure and desalinization projects.

[CaliNative]

Will Melbourne surpass Sydney in population and economic importance by 2050? Are they considered codominant equals now? In skyline growth, Melbourne seems to have overtaken Sydney.

[CaliNative]

Originally Posted by AviationGuy

It practically was already by Harvey in 2017 but the city bounced back rapidly. Even if hit directly by a mega hurricane, it would rebuild. Galveston was pretty much destroyed by Ike in 2008, but you'd never know it today.

Didn't the seawall do a pretty good job in protecting the city? The 1900 hurricane was the real catastrophe. Then they built the seawall.

[CaliNative]

Originally Posted by sentinel

It would be interesting to see what people's lists would look like if things such as climate change were factored in, instead of using past population growth to assume future growth.

Not just climate change. I worry about earthquakes. What would an 8 do to L.A. or S.F., or a 9 on Cascadia to the northwest cities? Of course sea level rise is still the biggest global threat to the coastal cities. Even 12 feet of rise from Greenland melt would essentially submerge so many around the world. Antarctica, fogetaboutit. If the Yellowstone caldera ever erupts (some scientists say it is due) that would have massive effects all the way to the midwest and even east in terms of ash fall, crop losses, etc. You could have weeks or months with darkness in daytime some scientists say. Well, at least it would solve global warming. Might have to wear coats in August., kind of like what happened when Tambora erupted in the early 19th century. Had a "year without a summer" and crops failed. These are the kind of unexpected curve balls that can throw off predictions.

"How to make God laugh: make plans" (or predictions)

[muppet]

They predict Lagos, Kinshasa and Dar Es Salaam at having a stab at over 80 million.

West Africa and the East African lakes (even the small towns of Blantyre and Lilongwe will have ballooned to over 40 million by then) will become new centres of humanity, to join the Indian subcontinent and East Asia.



A spanner in the works is China, where although singular cities may limit their populations, will conjoin into other cities alongside, as has already been seen in the Pearl River Delta, where Guangzhou-Shenzhen is now the worlds biggest city as of 2015 (pop 41 million).

The biggest city may well still be Shanghai - the Yangzte River Delta is home to the biggest tract of adjacent cities in the world, and a population of 120 million. Hangzhou, Nanjing, Suzhou, Yangzhou, Wuxi, Changzhou, Kunshan, Ningbo, Shaoxing, Nantong etc.

It'll stretch in two arms 350 km in from the coast. By density alone it could already be considered a city:



Basically the 'countryside' in the region now looks like this due to residency laws, midrise farmer's apartments as far as the eye can see, in every direction for hours:









Huaxi 'village' even has a supertall -the area is still classed as rural due to those local bylaws

[CaliNative]

Originally Posted by muppet

They predict Lagos, Kinshasa and Dar Es Salaam at having a stab at over 80 million.

West Africa and the East African lakes (the small towns of Blantyre and Lilongwe will have ballooned to over 40 million by then) will become new centres of humanity, to join the Indian subcontinent and East Asia.



A spanner in the works is China, where although singular cities may limit their populations, will conjoin into other cities alongside, as has already been seen in the Pearl River Delta, where Guangzhou-Shenzhen is now the worlds biggest city as of 2015 (pop 41 million).

The biggest city may well still be Shanghai - the Yangzte River Delta is home to the biggest tract of adjacent cities in the world, and a population of 140 million. Hangzhou, Nanjing, Suzhou, Yangzhou, Wuxi, Changzhou, Kunshan, Ningbo, Shaoxing, Nantong etc.

It'll stretch in two arms 350 km in from the coast. By density alone it could already be considered a city:



Basically the 'countryside' in the region now looks like this due to residency laws, midrise farmer's apartments as far as the eye can see, in every direction for hours:

Malawi is a small nation, smaller than the state of Maine. Can it really have two cities with 40 million people? Can they grow enough food to support these huge cities? When places get that crowded, won't people migrate? Those Chinese pictures of even farmers living in mid rise apartments in farm areas with city densities for hundreds of miles, maybe that is the crowded future for many places.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by isaidso

Easterners have been dismissing Alberta for almost a century. Every time, Alberta proves the East wrong and finds a way. If it's not oil it will be something else. There are a lot of very young bright ambitious people in Alberta. It's not the backward redneck Bible thumping province easterners think it is. And despite their #1 industry cratering Alberta is still the wealthiest province in the country..... and by a long shot. That seems to get lost on people.

This is a major overreaction to my post. I never said Calgary would die due to oil declining in importance.

But I still do not see how it can pass much larger Montreal in 80 years without oil or something equivalent as a driver of a major boom. And something catastrophic happening to Montréal.

[muppet]

Originally Posted by CaliNative

Malawi is a small nation, smaller than the state of Maine. Can it really have two cities with 40 million people? Can they grow enough food to support these huge cities? When places get that crowded, won't people migrate? Those Chinese pictures of even farmers living in mid rise apartments in farm areas with city densities for hundreds of miles, maybe that is the crowded future for many places.

Yep it's all still very far off for any accurate rendition from here. Although Malawi looks like a sliver of a country on many map projections it's actually about 10% larger than England, and the population will rise from the 20 million today to the 70 million mark, drawing equal to England's current density (but still less than both those city projections combined). However for the higher end of the estimate it may be as high as 100 million, mostly in those two cities if they ever reach that size.