HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
     
     
  #1  
Old Posted Jan 19, 2021, 1:12 AM
Dariusb Dariusb is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Belton, TX
Posts: 741
15 Largest Cities by 2046?

This is from 2018 but thought it an interesting topic. Anyway, do you agree with these projections? If not feel free to post your opinions of what you think the projections should be.
https://www.cheatsheet.com/culture/t...-in-2046.html/
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2  
Old Posted Jan 19, 2021, 1:21 AM
pj3000's Avatar
pj3000 pj3000 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Pittsburgh & Miami
Posts: 5,526
Not sure about the overall projections, but hey, sign me up to live in this gorgeous city! Here I could even afford to buy the crappiest 1980s Porsche to park in the driveway of my prefab house.

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3  
Old Posted Jan 19, 2021, 1:22 AM
iheartthed iheartthed is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: New York
Posts: 4,623
I don't know, but this is weird:

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

One hundred years ago, Chicago was the second-largest city in the country. By 2046, it will have slipped to fifth place. An 8% population increase won’t be enough to keep up with the runaway growth in Sunbelt cities. Still, the region will be one of a handful in the U.S. with more than 10 million people in a few decades.
This suggests a decrease in Chicago, not an increase. Also, that's an extremely large decrease for a 20 year period. I don't think there is anything to suggest now that Chicagoland is on track to contract that much in 25 years.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4  
Old Posted Jan 19, 2021, 1:25 AM
Steely Dan's Avatar
Steely Dan Steely Dan is online now
devout Pizzatarian
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Lincoln Square, Chicago
Posts: 23,292
^ 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%
__________________
If a Pizza is baked in a forest, and no one is around to eat it, is it still delicious?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5  
Old Posted Jan 19, 2021, 6:31 PM
MolsonExport's Avatar
MolsonExport MolsonExport is offline
The Vomit Bag.
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Otisburgh
Posts: 35,329
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Dan View Post
^ 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.
__________________
"If you play a Nickleback song backwards you'll hear messages from the devil. Even worse, if you play it forwards you'll hear Nickleback." -Dave Grohl
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6  
Old Posted Jan 19, 2021, 1:25 AM
Zapatan's Avatar
Zapatan Zapatan is offline
DENNAB
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: NA - Europe
Posts: 4,751
Quote:
Originally Posted by iheartthed View Post
I don't know, but this is weird:



This suggests a decrease in Chicago, not an increase. Also, that's an extremely large decrease for a 20 year period. I don't think there is anything to suggest now that Chicagoland is on track to contract that much in 25 years.
Looks like an error, Chicago would increase by 8% but you just switch the now and then (it's not 10 whatever million now but 9 something).
__________________
Dump Trump 2020
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7  
Old Posted Jan 19, 2021, 1:27 AM
Manitopiaaa Manitopiaaa is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by iheartthed View Post
I don't know, but this is weird:



This suggests a decrease in Chicago, not an increase. Also, that's an extremely large decrease for a 20 year period. I don't think there is anything to suggest now that Chicagoland is on track to contract that much in 25 years.
Go straight to the source. CheatSheet just milks views from other's work. In this case, the numbers were taken from a U.S. Conference of Mayor's report: http://www.usmayors.org/wp-content/u...loyment-12.pdf (PDF WARNING)

Go to Page 72 and you have your answer. CheatSheet inverted the numbers, even though I struggle to see Chicago gaining 800,000 people in the next 25 years when its demographic freefall hasn't even slowed down yet. Hopefully they're right though.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8  
Old Posted Jan 19, 2021, 1:27 AM
JManc's Avatar
JManc JManc is online now
Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Houston
Posts: 29,939
Quote:
Originally Posted by pj3000 View Post
Not sure about the overall projections, but hey, sign me up to live in this gorgeous city! Here I could even afford to buy the crappiest 1980s Porsche to park in the driveway of my prefab house.

[IMG]https://www.cheatsheet.com/wp-conten...mages-75363171.[/IMG]


He/she probably had that Porsche 944 since new and it looks to be in pretty good shape. It's the neighbors' Dodge Caliber that's a total shitbox.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9  
Old Posted Jan 19, 2021, 1:40 AM
pj3000's Avatar
pj3000 pj3000 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Pittsburgh & Miami
Posts: 5,526
Quote:
Originally Posted by JManc View Post
He/she probably had that Porsche 944 since new and it looks to be in pretty good shape. It's the neighbors' Dodge Caliber that's a total shitbox.
Likely true. Also, didn't the 944 come with standard with driver and passenger compartments to hold your coke vial, metal straw, and mirror?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10  
Old Posted Jan 19, 2021, 1:58 AM
llamaorama llamaorama is offline
Unicorn Wizard!
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 3,741
I don't agree with this list.

- Large scale latino immigration and birth rates won't be as relevant to population growth over the next 25 years as it was the previous 25. Immigration from other parts of the world, in an era in which the internet provides connections to services and culture plus an increasingly tolerant and diverse mainstream society, might mean that where newer waves of immigrants, who may occupy a different economic strata than the previous ones, choose to settle could be unpredictable and look very different from what we see now.

- Houston had 15 years of anomalous growth supercharged by oil and gas that can't be extrapolated into the future.

- A new generation of fast-growing, popular cities like Austin, Nashville, Raleigh, Salt Lake City, etc are going to compete with the bigger metros. While they won't change the ranked order of the top cities that much, they will cut into the absolute numbers so all these cities in the top 10 will end up being somewhat smaller than what is predicted.

- Unpredictable, disruptive forces like the ability to work remotely is going to shut off the tap of migration to huge expensive metros from smaller towns and regional cities. People who grow up in or go to college in smaller places won't face as much pressure to move to the largest cities to further their career goals - only the top talent going to silicon valley or wall street would still do this, the middle class professionals will remain in or return to their hometown to buy a house, etc.

- US birth rates and natural demographics seem to be on track to peak lower and go negative faster than originally predicted. The Trump era combined with competition from other developed nations and economic growth across the rest of the world has also permanently reduced immigration somewhat. So over the long term the population of all these places will again, be less than predicted.

Therefore, my prediction is:

All these cities will have a total population less than presented by this list, regardless of rank.

1. New York will still be #1 just because it's huge now, a self fulfilling prophecy
2. Los Angeles will still be #2 but it will be smaller due to higher than expected domestic out-migration and collapse in immigration
3. DFW will be bigger than Chicago but not by as much
4. Chicago will slip behind Dallas but it will not fall behind Houston
5. Houston will grow but not by nearly as much as this says, because the O&G industry is going to gradually fade into the sunset while the number of latino immigrants will fall off and their kids will move out and not have big families.
....

Inland Empire will stop growing because of California's issues and lack of immigration. Phoenix and Miami will keep growing but at a slower pace.

Philly, Boston, DC, etc, will then rank higher than these sunbelt cities. However SF will likely be lower or fall more than expected in this list so it might cancel out.

No. 15 might not be MSP, it could be a wildcard
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #11  
Old Posted Jan 19, 2021, 4:58 PM
iheartthed iheartthed is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: New York
Posts: 4,623
Quote:
Originally Posted by llamaorama View Post
1. New York will still be #1 just because it's huge now, a self fulfilling prophecy
2. Los Angeles will still be #2 but it will be smaller due to higher than expected domestic out-migration and collapse in immigration
3. DFW will be bigger than Chicago but not by as much
4. Chicago will slip behind Dallas but it will not fall behind Houston
5. Houston will grow but not by nearly as much as this says, because the O&G industry is going to gradually fade into the sunset while the number of latino immigrants will fall off and their kids will move out and not have big families.
....

Inland Empire will stop growing because of California's issues and lack of immigration. Phoenix and Miami will keep growing but at a slower pace.

Philly, Boston, DC, etc, will then rank higher than these sunbelt cities. However SF will likely be lower or fall more than expected in this list so it might cancel out.

No. 15 might not be MSP, it could be a wildcard
I agree with a lot of this but I think there needs to be the biggest of asterisks placed next to Miami. Rising sea levels will shut off the growth spigot in Miami at pretty much any time. It will probably be triggered by a hurricane, so other than knowing that it will happen, it's hard to say whether it will happen in 5 years or 25 years.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #12  
Old Posted Jan 19, 2021, 4:59 PM
wwmiv wwmiv is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Austin -> San Antonio -> Columbia -> San Antonio -> Chicago
Posts: 4,051
Quote:
Originally Posted by iheartthed View Post
I agree with a lot of this but I think there needs to be the biggest of asterisks placed next to Miami. Rising sea levels will shut off the growth spigot in Miami at pretty much any time. It will probably be triggered by a hurricane, so other than knowing that it will happen, it's hard to say whether it will happen in 5 years or 25 years.
Houston will also be greatly affected by sea level rise, though not as extensively as Miami.
__________________
Metropolitan Central Texas 2018: 5,672,404 (+19.98% over 2010):
San Antonio: 1,532,233 (+15.43%) + Metro Suburbs: 985,803 (+20.94%)
Austin: 964,254 (+22.00%) + Metro Suburbs: 1,204,062 (+30.04%)
Killeen/Temple Metro: 451,679 (+11.44%) + Waco Metro: 271,942 (+15.77%) + Bryan/College Station Metro: 262,431 (+14.77%)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #13  
Old Posted Jan 19, 2021, 5:04 PM
SIGSEGV's Avatar
SIGSEGV SIGSEGV is online now
He/his/him. >~<, QED!
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: Loop, Chicago
Posts: 3,676
Quote:
Originally Posted by wwmiv View Post
Houston will also be greatly affected by sea level rise, though not as extensively as Miami.
Weren't there plans for a Houston seawall at some point?
__________________
And here the air that I breathe isn't dead.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #14  
Old Posted Jan 19, 2021, 5:10 PM
DCReid DCReid is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 347
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #15  
Old Posted Jan 19, 2021, 6:05 PM
Steely Dan's Avatar
Steely Dan Steely Dan is online now
devout Pizzatarian
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Lincoln Square, Chicago
Posts: 23,292
Quote:
Originally Posted by DCReid View Post
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.
__________________
If a Pizza is baked in a forest, and no one is around to eat it, is it still delicious?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #16  
Old Posted Jan 19, 2021, 6:43 PM
Zapatan's Avatar
Zapatan Zapatan is offline
DENNAB
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: NA - Europe
Posts: 4,751
Quote:
Originally Posted by DCReid View Post
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.
__________________
Dump Trump 2020
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #17  
Old Posted Jan 19, 2021, 8:20 PM
JManc's Avatar
JManc JManc is online now
Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Houston
Posts: 29,939
Quote:
Originally Posted by wwmiv View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #18  
Old Posted Jan 19, 2021, 8:35 PM
Northern Light Northern Light is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 919
Quote:
Originally Posted by JManc View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #19  
Old Posted Jan 19, 2021, 2:46 AM
Dariusb Dariusb is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Belton, TX
Posts: 741
Do you think if this list came out in 2020 as opposed to pre Covid 2018, the list would be a lot different or not really?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #20  
Old Posted Jan 19, 2021, 3:33 AM
BG918's Avatar
BG918 BG918 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 3,390
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dariusb View Post
Do you think if this list came out in 2020 as opposed to pre Covid 2018, the list would be a lot different or not really?
I think it potentially accelerates the population decreases from the largest cities in the short term but long term won’t have a significant effect. I agree with llamaorama’s take especially about secondary cities eating into the populations of cities like NYC, Boston, Chicago, Philadelphia, Seattle, SF and Los Angeles. A city like Miami or Houston is the most at risk to suffer a major natural disaster which could cause a micro impact if/when it happens i.e. there would be an exodus from these metros to others in the region
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 3:47 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.