Is there ever going to be another "new, big city" in the US or Canada?

[GreaterMontréal]

Originally Posted by mhays

Big tech companies locate their HQs and major offices where star employees and best young recruits want to live. These people earn six figures, and often like expensive coastal cities.

they also prefer a non car based life.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by GreaterMontréal

they also prefer a non car based life.

Silicon Valley is pretty solidly car dependent. Perhaps younger people in tech prefer a non car based life, but it hasn't filtered down to most corporate HQ decision making.

[hammersklavier]

Originally Posted by The North One

The thing is, Montreal is also at risk, maybe not as much as New York, Philly, Boston, D.C. and Miami, but the city still needs to worry about rising sea levels. Vancouver is definitely the most at-risk city in Canada for sea level rise, just a 6-meter rise and almost all of Richmond is under water.

And I doubt many Americans will come running to Canada, those on the American coasts will move inland to cities that will stay wet in the Great Lakes region. I think in a century from now you'll see small cities in the far north connected to the Great Lakes like Duluth and Marquette explode in population as they're already in beautiful environments, have shipping access to the sea and the weather will be warmer.

It'll depend a lot on the city and the hydrology. The beach towns will likely have to be abandoned and rebuilt where the new beaches are, sure, but most of the major urban areas on the East Coast were built on protected harbors and in other environments where mitigation is significantly easier. For example, a tidal barrier built in the St. Lawrence narrows (where Québec City is) would protect Montréal; a similar such barrier built at the mouth of the Chesapeake would protect Richmond, Baltimore, DC, and the Hampton Roads, even if Virginia Beach has to be abandoned and rebuilt behind a levee system.

Plus, of special interest to Vancouver, the entire Ringsted is built in the Rhine's delta. Humans have plenty of knowledge of what it takes to convert deltaic wetland wastelands into arable land.

I would also augur that water issues become increasingly important in Southwestern and Southern politics as these regions become increasingly arid; they are unimportant in the humid Northeast and Midwest.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by hammersklavier

I would also augur that water issues become increasingly important in Southwestern and Southern politics as these regions become increasingly arid; they are unimportant in the humid Northeast and Midwest.

?
You're saying you're expecting climate change to turn the dark blue and cyan blue areas of the South into arid zones somehow?!?

[hammersklavier]

Originally Posted by lio45

?
You're saying you're expecting climate change to turn the dark blue and cyan blue areas of the South into arid zones somehow?!?

"Increasingly arid" is just a fancy way of saying "dryer". And what is "drought" if not "dryer" or "increasingly arid"?

[James Bond Agent 007]

With the Gulf of Mexico there I don't think we can ever expect any part of the eastern half of the US to become anything resembling "dry." Warm, yes. Dry, probably not. Even if it became a little dryer it would still be pretty wet.

[lio45]

In fact, many areas of the South would actually become more desirable if they were slightly less wet.

In the arid Southwest, it's the opposite.

So it's absolutely ridiculous to lump all cases of "Region X might become somewhat drier" together, in terms of their effect on where people might want to live.

[BevoLJ]

I know this has gotten way OT, but I recently went to a JPL/NASA lecture @ CalTech that discussed how climate change has caused changes in clouds and is pushing the tropics north. Potentially up to 10° north of current.

So they predict an increase in clouds and rainfall anywhere south of 33° (San Diego/Dallas/Charlestown), while a decrease in clouds and rainfall between 33° and 53° (south of Hudson Bay, Canada).

[mhays]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Silicon Valley is pretty solidly car dependent. Perhaps younger people in tech prefer a non car based life, but it hasn't filtered down to most corporate HQ decision making.

Amazon is a huge exception to this. They've been very open about why they're in Downtown Seattle, and it's heavily tied to being urban and fostering the urban lifestyles many employees want. Apparently 20% walk to work. Their RE head spoke at an event I went to and said that basically equaled the need for 20 highrise apartment buildings.

Oh hell, here's an article with some of that. http://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/b...ake-union.html

[montréaliste]

Originally Posted by mhays

Amazon is a huge exception to this. They've been very open about why they're in Downtown Seattle, and it's heavily tied to being urban and fostering the urban lifestyles many employees want. Apparently 20% walk to work. Their RE head spoke at an event I went to and said that basically equaled the need for 20 highrise apartment buildings.

Oh hell, here's an article with some of that. http://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/b...ake-union.html

There is something heartwarming in the thought Amazon personnel would reside in 20 highrises near company HQ. I wonder whether these people have nixxed the need for retail in their nabes or not? Perhaps a little drone drop on especially designed balconies???

[lio45]

Originally Posted by BevoLJ

I know this has gotten way OT, but I recently went to a JPL/NASA lecture @ CalTech that discussed how climate change has caused changes in clouds and is pushing the tropics north. Potentially up to 10° north of current.

So they predict an increase in clouds and rainfall anywhere south of 33° (San Diego/Dallas/Charlestown), while a decrease in clouds and rainfall between 33° and 53° (south of Hudson Bay, Canada).

Climate change predictions generally call for dry areas to become drier, wet areas to become wetter, and extreme events to become more extreme and more frequent.

"anywhere south of 33°" seems a bit too broad a prediction...

(They might well be right, of course. But it might be a general statement, as well; maybe they never intended that statement to apply to interior SoCal and SW AZ, areas dry as bone.)

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by mhays

Amazon is a huge exception to this. They've been very open about why they're in Downtown Seattle, and it's heavily tied to being urban and fostering the urban lifestyles many employees want. Apparently 20% walk to work. Their RE head spoke at an event I went to and said that basically equaled the need for 20 highrise apartment buildings.

Oh hell, here's an article with some of that. http://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/b...ake-union.html

Twitter made a point to be in downtown San Francisco as well for similar reasons, instead of in Palo Alto and Mountain View with their peers.

[ChargerCarl]

Believe it or not I think it's actually considerable cheaper to be located in SF. Real estate is so fucked up here.

[isaidso]

Originally Posted by hammersklavier

I would also augur that water issues become increasingly important in Southwestern and Southern politics as these regions become increasingly arid; they are unimportant in the humid Northeast and Midwest.

There's also these 2 maps:

[lio45]

Your second map actually proves my point, unless you believe that places like Prince Rupert BC and Thunder Bay will have water supply problems because they're purple, while a place like the Eastern Sahara Desert or the southeastern interior of Saudi Arabia won't because they're dark blue.

What matters isn't relative change, but rather the absolute level of water availability in the future. Plus, we can just get it from the oceans. In a very sunny place like Los Angeles, power will eventually be basically "free" at some point, so even if desalinization plants are energy guzzlers, it won't be a big deal.