15 Largest Cities by 2046?

[Dariusb]

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/

[pj3000]

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.

[iheartthed]

I don't know, but this is weird:

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.

[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%

[Zapatan]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

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).

[Manitopiaaa]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

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.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by pj3000

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.

[pj3000]

Originally Posted by JManc

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?

[llamaorama]

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

[Dariusb]

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?

[xzmattzx]

The top 15 will be the metros that the Census Bureau adds the most counties to. It starts to get a little ridiculous when the Poconos count towards New York City, or Cecil County, Maryland towards Philadelphia, or West Virginia's eastern panhandle towards DC. So, you'll see Atlanta most up on this list because they will begin to include parts of Tennessee, and maybe even parts of Alabama and South Carolina; Houston move up on this list because they will begin to include parts of Louisiana; Dallas move up on this list because they will begin to include parts of Oklahoma; Las Vegas because they will begin to include parts of Arizona and Utah; and so on.

[Manitopiaaa]

Originally Posted by xzmattzx

The top 15 will be the metros that the Census Bureau adds the most counties to. It starts to get a little ridiculous when the Poconos count towards New York City, or Cecil County, Maryland towards Philadelphia, or West Virginia's eastern panhandle towards DC. So, you'll see Atlanta most up on this list because they will begin to include parts of Tennessee, and maybe even parts of Alabama and South Carolina; Houston move up on this list because they will begin to include parts of Louisiana; Dallas move up on this list because they will begin to include parts of Oklahoma; Las Vegas because they will begin to include parts of Arizona and Utah; and so on.

Why is that ridiculous? Lots of Washingtonians super commute from McMansions in West Virginia. If enough commute from there, it gets added to the MSA. There's no real mystery or unfairness to that.

[BG918]

Originally Posted by Dariusb

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

[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.

[BG918]

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.

Good point, I imagined lack of water would already limit growth in those two cities but constant drought due to climate change could accelerate it. Denver is also in a position to be severely impacted by water issues in the future, and it will absolutely limit its growth potential.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by llamaorama

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.

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

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.

[SIGSEGV]

Originally Posted by wwmiv

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?

[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.

[Buckeye Native 001]

I know there's reasons, but having lived in Orange County and spending way more time in the Inland Empire than I cared to, it baffles me that Riverside/San Bernardino and San Jose/Silicon Valley are technically separate metros (CSA's?) than LA and the Bay Area...