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

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by BG918

I don’t think anyone was saying it would extend into Oklahoma but continue toward Oklahoma. Look at all of the new development north in cities like McKinney, Frisco and Allen, these were small towns 20 years ago. Not difficult to think that towns like Prosper and Anna will be a similar size in 20 years with Gunter and Van Alstyne next in line. The growth along US 75 has been unbelievable.

I was checking at Wikipedia the Collin County, north of Dallas County and the last one inside the MSA. Then we have Grayson and then Oklahoma, on the CSA. Anyway, look the crazy rates of growth:

1970 -------- 66,920
1980 ------ 144,576 --- 116%
1990 ------ 264,036 ---- 83%
2000 ------ 491,675 ---- 86%
2010 ------ 782,341 ---- 59%
2019 --- 1,034,730 ---- 32%

Grayson County, TX and Bryan County, OK are still to be seen those crazy growth rates, but I guess it's only a matter of time for Collin County to export its growth excess northwards.

[austlar1]

Originally Posted by yuriandrade

I was checking at Wikipedia the Collin County, north of Dallas County and the last one inside the MSA. Then we have Grayson and then Oklahoma, on the CSA. Anyway, look the crazy rates of growth:

1970 -------- 66,920
1980 ------ 144,576 --- 116%
1990 ------ 264,036 ---- 83%
2000 ------ 491,675 ---- 86%
2010 ------ 782,341 ---- 59%
2019 --- 1,034,730 ---- 32%

Grayson County, TX and Bryan County, OK are still to be seen those crazy growth rates, but I guess it's only a matter of time for Collin County to export its growth excess northwards.

Denton County, just west of Collin and north of Fort Worth, has grown almost as fast. It now has a population of about 900,000, up from 662,000 in 2010.

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by austlar1

Denton County, just west of Collin and north of Fort Worth, has grown almost as fast. It now has a population of about 900,000, up from 662,000 in 2010.

So we have 2 million people living in 2 fast-growing counties running out of room for low density sprawl. They will soon spill loads of people northwards, so it's not like Dallas CSA is an oversized version of Dallas metropolitan area. It's about right.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by yuriandrade

So we have 2 million people living in 2 fast-growing counties running out of room for low density sprawl. They will soon spill loads of people northwards, so it's not like Dallas CSA is an oversized version of Dallas metropolitan area. It's about right.

Right, it makes sense that Dallas is extending into Oklahoma. The sprawl is almost to the state line, and the northside of the metro has almost all the growth.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by yuriandrade

so it's not like Dallas CSA is an oversized version of Dallas metropolitan area.

it's COMPLETELY over-bloated, just as most US MSA/CSA's are because of the census bureau's wacky county mash-up game.

dallas CSA - 14,000 square miles

dallas UA - 1,800 sq. miles

the vast majority of land area in the CSA is rural.

[MolsonExport]

How much of the USA is NOT in one CSA or another?

The whole CSA definition is just stupidly over bloated.

or maybe the problem lies with skyscraper nerds who get super excited about the burgeoning populations that CSAs suggest, despite this disconnection from reality. Adding a bunch of podunk towns does not make a city greater or larger.

Canadians aren't any better. I hear people talking about continuous population corridors, say between Edmonton and Calgary, when in reality, there are a few towns, one city, and a shitload of rural areas between these cities. Same thing with the Greater Golden Horseshoe that is centred on Toronto but stretches nearly to Siberia.

[austlar1]

Originally Posted by yuriandrade

So we have 2 million people living in 2 fast-growing counties running out of room for low density sprawl. They will soon spill loads of people northwards, so it's not like Dallas CSA is an oversized version of Dallas metropolitan area. It's about right.

I think it will be a mixed result. Collin County (and to a lesser extent Denton County) will tend to "double-deck" especially in the vicinity of the shopping/transit nodes or town centers, in much the same way that development in eastern Los Angeles County or Orange County has done over the past several decades. Collin is a huge employment hub as well as a bedroom community. It's definitely part of Dallas, but it has it's own economic engines. SFH growth is already spilling over into Grayson County. Sherman/Dennison is much more tied to the DFW area today than it was when I was growing up 60 plus years ago.

[maru2501]

I think by 2100 we are going to see different development patterns altogether, and major flight from some cities due to water intrusion and also heat. This will be incredibly destabilizing even in the US.

In 2020 we are already seeing outward pressure from cities sparked by COVID. I am not sure emerging viruses will continue to have an impact then but who knows. But what the pandemic has shown is that many white-collar jobs especially do not necessarily require proximity to carry out, so city centers have grown quieter. That has a trickle-down effect into service sectors and corporate-support functions.

All that to say there is likely due to be more pressure against urban centers by 2100, because of climate change and new tech. Basically humans may only need to congregate in numbers that make sense for critical mass in terms of food distribution by then. Why would 20 million more people head TOWARD some of these places by that point to live half underwater and make sure they catch COVID-98, with its 78 percent kill rate.

I'm sure my descendants will be in a protected settlement, capped at 10,000 residents, in one of the four countries that will make up the former US territory by then, which takes shared food delivery of MREs from a government super drone bi-weekly

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

or maybe the problem lies with skyscraper nerds who get super excited about the burgeoning populations that CSAs suggest, despite this disconnection from reality.

ding ding ding ding ding!

always measure your dick with whatever ruler makes your junk sound largest.

"nah, baby, it ain't 6 inches, it's 152 millimeters!"




tangentially, did you know that the great lakes/midwest is home to a MEGAREGION of over 60M people!?! OMG, it's HUGE!!!!!!!!!


source: wikipedia


or, you know, it's just the midwest. a smattering of major cities dispersed among 1,000,000 sq. miles of corn fields with some gigantic lakes in the middle.

[jigglysquishy]

Both Lagos and Mumbai are coastal cities that will severely restrict their growth going forward.

Delhi is the easy candidate in India, as it has room to grow and is in the centre of the densest region in the planet.

I think people will be disappointed with the cities in poor countries. Infrastructure is expensive and I see Lagos as still an impoverished city with low quality infrastructure in 2050.

The three mega regions in China are all great candidates for largest city in 2050. I think Shanghai is most likely .

[Stay Stoked Brah]

In the year 2050, I'll go with Lagos. 2100, who knows, any guess is good tbh.

[MolsonExport]

tangentially, did you know that the great lakes/midwest is home to a MEGAREGION of over 60M people!?! OMG, it's HUGE!!!!!!!!!

Wow, we live in the same "city" and it is bigger than Tokyo!!!

except where I live it feels very much like a middling Canadian city of less than 500K

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

it's COMPLETELY over-bloated, just as most US MSA/CSA's are because of the census bureau's wacky county mash-up game.

dallas CSA - 14,000 square miles

dallas UA - 1,800 sq. miles

the vast majority of land area in the CSA is rural.

That's why we talk about urban areas (UA in the US) and metropolitan areas (MSA and CSA in the US), which are always based on political entities and follow political boundaries instead of being based at the urban footprint. So in the US you have counties, in Brazil and most of Latin America you have municipalities and so on.

It's not like a 40,000 people county in Oklahoma (and where a good share of its inhabitants work inside Dallas MSA, that's why they are part of the CSA) will make much difference.

[Buckeye Native 001]

I predict we're all fucked

[badrunner]

This is a throwaway timeline. We'll do better next time, I promise.

[Yuri]

That's São Paulo metropolitan area, formed by 39 municipalities. Unlike the US MSAs which are always revisited and updated based on commute patterns, São Paulo metropolitan area definition was set in stone in 1970 when it had a 1/3 of the inhabitants it has today:





It has 7,900 km² (3,000 sq mi) and the urbanized footprint about 2,400 km² (900 sq mi). About 21.5 million people in the (official) metropolitan area and 21 million (?) in the urbanized area. As it happens in the US, it doesn't make much difference in terms of population.

[isaidso]

Originally Posted by yuriandrade

isaidso, I was not talking about Dallas not slowing down per se. It surely might. Chicago, for instance, went from double-digit growth in the 1990's to zero by the late 2000's. I meant we can't assume Dallas will slow down just because it became "too big".

You see, Dallas (at current CSA borders) was just above 4 million in 1990 and growing at 28%. Now we have an 8 million Dallas growing at very impressive 20% rate, even though the US growth was cut by half over this period.

It seems this yearly reduction on Dallas growth is in line with the fall of the US as a whole. It doesn't seem Dallas is losing much of its share of country's total growth.

I see and agree. Dallas will probably supplant Chicago as the #3 metro in the US. I see Dallas CSA growing by about 13-15% this decade. New York CSA, Los Angeles CSA, and Chicago CSA will all shrink.

[isaidso]

Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin

The problem with these type of predictions is that they seemingly fail to account for the fact that growth in developing countries is either already levelling off, or inevitably will slow as they urbanize & become wealthier. That, and cities naturally slow down as they increase in size as smaller centres start to feed off of them (we can see this in the US for example, where most growth has now shifted from NY & LA to smaller & mid-sized cities). Growth is not infinite.

I doubt any of these cities will ever reach those populations - though they will still no doubt be amongst the world's largest in the coming decades.

Yes, they've simply taken current growth rates and extrapolated for the next 80 years. It's more a statistical analysis about what would happen if things remained constant. It shouldn't be taken as a prediction or forecast.

[mrnyc]

all wrong!

speilberg said columbus will be biggest city top dawg by 2045.


https://www.cincinnati.com/story/ent...rse/472550002/

[CaliNative]

Originally Posted by mrnyc

all wrong!

speilberg said columbus will be biggest city top dawg by 2045.


https://www.cincinnati.com/story/ent...rse/472550002/

Well Columbus is becoming Ohio top dog anyway. It's good to be the capitol and where the big U. is (although having the big U often means more covid cases).