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

[CaliNative]

T

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

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.

The problem with these megaregions is that they are not all that interdependent. What does Rochester have to do with Milwaukee (both in Great Lakes conurbation), or Boston with Richmond or Hampton Roads (Norfolk area) in the Northeast conurbation? Richmond and Hampton Roads have more affinity with the southern Piedmont cities like Charlotte.

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by isaidso

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.

I don't know about Los Angeles. I don't know where I can check data about it, but I guess Los Angeles has a very healthy natural growth as result of past of immigration turning its population young. It would require lots of emigration and very few international immigration to place them on negative terrain.

About Chicago, it seems they problem is the "Black flight" and not great numbers of international migration. I guess if the US has a better decade, Chicago might become slight positive again. You see, even places like Detroit and Cleveland haven't had continuous decline since 1970. Some decades up, some decades down.

[Yuri]

A bit off-topic, but as we were discussing Dallas, I've spent time GSVing it. No offence intended, but their suburbs are incredibly unimaginative and bland. I don't understand how people bare to live in such settings. Atlanta, for instance, at least has its charming tree canopy everywhere, some charming roads.

[Acajack]

I apologize if I missed anyone mentioning it, but I am surprised there has been virtually no talk of LA passing NYC in the U.S.

Isn't LA growing faster than NYC?

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by Acajack

I apologize if I missed anyone mentioning it, but I am surprised there has been virtually no talk of LA passing NYC in the U.S.

Isn't LA growing faster than NYC?

In the past that's was a common point, but now Los Angeles barely grows, so it probably won't happen in our lifetime.

I posted that in another thread:

Originally Posted by yuriandrade

^^
The Big 3 has slowed down considerably. It's even more pronounced than the US as a whole:

NEW YORK CSA

2000 --- 21,501,800 --- 8.5%
2010 --- 22,255,628 --- 3.5%
2019 --- 22,589,036 --- 1.5%


LOS ANGELES CSA

2000 --- 16,373,645 -- 12.7%
2010 --- 17,877,006 --- 9.2%
2019 --- 18,711,436 --- 4.7%


CHICAGO MSA

2000 ---- 9,098,970 -- 11.2%
2010 ---- 9,461,537 --- 4.0%
2019 ---- 9,458,539 -- -0.0%


And the United States for comparison:

2000 -- 281,421,906 -- 13.2%
2010 -- 308,745,538 --- 9.7%
2020 -- 330,047,526 --- 6.9%

Between 1980 and 1990, for instance, Los Angeles grew impressive 26%, while New York had had a very hard time between 1970-1990, going full Rust Belt during this period.

[BG918]

Originally Posted by yuriandrade

A bit off-topic, but as we were discussing Dallas, I've spent time GSVing it. No offence intended, but their suburbs are incredibly unimaginative and bland. I don't understand how people bare to live in such settings. Atlanta, for instance, at least has its charming tree canopy everywhere, some charming roads.

It's the southern Plains. Denver is arguably worse as far as bland suburbs go but at least you can sometimes see the mountains in the distance.

[isaidso]

Originally Posted by CaliNative

The problem with these megaregions is that they are not all that interdependent. What does Rochester have to do with Milwaukee (both in Great Lakes conurbation), or Boston with Richmond or Hampton Roads (Norfolk area) in the Northeast conurbation? Richmond and Hampton Roads have more affinity with the southern Piedmont cities like Charlotte.

And they ignored the Quebec City - Windsor corridor completely. They chose to carve it in half and lump Southern Ontario in with the US Great Lakes region instead. From a Canadian POV, that makes no sense whatsoever. Perhaps one could lump Buffalo/Rochester in with that Canadian corridor but even that is a stretch.

[isaidso]

Originally Posted by yuriandrade

I don't know about Los Angeles. I don't know where I can check data about it, but I guess Los Angeles has a very healthy natural growth as result of past of immigration turning its population young. It would require lots of emigration and very few international immigration to place them on negative terrain.

About Chicago, it seems they problem is the "Black flight" and not great numbers of international migration. I guess if the US has a better decade, Chicago might become slight positive again. You see, even places like Detroit and Cleveland haven't had continuous decline since 1970. Some decades up, some decades down.

The 2019 population data according to the US Census Bureau suggest that Los Angeles is shrinking while Riverside grew by roughly the same amount. The overall effect (net change) for the region (+3,009) is close to zero. For a region that big it's essentially 'no growth'. Going forward the overall net change will likely go negative. Migration to the LA CSA isn't going to go up much while natural increase (births - deaths) is trending down. I agree that places like Chicago, Detroit, and Cleveland are treading water but that can't continue because natural increase isn't constant.... it will head to zero as the Boomer generation starts dying off. Couple that with out-migration from these cities and they'll see population decline this decade.


Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim MSA: 13,214,799 (-35,080)
Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario MSA: 4,650,631 (+38,089)
Los Angeles-Long Beach CSA; 18,711,436 (+873)


https://www.census.gov/data/tables/t...al-areas.html#

[SIGSEGV]

Originally Posted by yuriandrade

A bit off-topic, but as we were discussing Dallas, I've spent time GSVing it. No offence intended, but their suburbs are incredibly unimaginative and bland. I don't understand how people bare to live in such settings. Atlanta, for instance, at least has its charming tree canopy everywhere, some charming roads.

It's not just the suburbs . People sure aren't moving to DFW for the urban experience.

[DCReid]

This is an interesting website with city growth trends but I am not sure how accurate it is - for example, it shows the Houston metro is bigger than Dallas.

https://www.macrotrends.net/cities/l...-by-population

It would be interesting what would happen to LA if the Camp Pendleton Base ever closed - "Greater Los Angeles" does not include San Diego County; that county's urbanized area is separated from San Clemente, the southernmost contiguous urbanized area south of Los Angeles, by a 16.4-mile (26.4 km) stretch of the Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton.

[Stay Stoked Brah]

Originally Posted by isaidso

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.

There is no way that New York and LA csa will shrink. LA will continue to outpace NY and both la and ny will be outpaced by Dallas, but none of those will shrink. Since the year 2000, the US has added 51 million people to the population, that is 1 and 1/3 the entire population of 2020 Canada.

[jd3189]

LA could only one day supercede NYC if most of it was dramatically upzoned. Instead of mostly SFH districts, add more small apartments and continue the revitalization of Downtown and the surrounding neighborhoods. NYC is doing the same thing though in its own way.

[DetroitSky]

Originally Posted by mrnyc

all wrong!

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

Didn't they say that Columbus was the fastest growing city in the US, not the largest?

[CaliNative]

Originally Posted by DetroitSky

Didn't they say that Columbus was the fastest growing city in the US, not the largest?

Is the growth due partly to annexation of outlying areas? Columbus does have the capitol advantage + the big state U. advantage that Cleveland & Cincy don't have. Franklinton has grown up. Not all state capitols grow much. Jeff. City, Frankfort, etc. are still pretty dinky. Harrisburg is pretty small. It helps to have the big Univ. also. Madison has grown to a respectably sized small city.

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by BG918

It's the southern Plains. Denver is arguably worse as far as bland suburbs go but at least you can sometimes see the mountains in the distance.

Those suburbs seem affluent, why don't they hire good architects to have a better design for their homes? It's a shame.

Originally Posted by SIGSEGV

It's not just the suburbs . People sure aren't moving to DFW for the urban experience.

While I was checking it, however, I found out a rather interesting section just east of Dallas CDB loop.

Originally Posted by isaidso

The 2019 population data according to the US Census Bureau suggest that Los Angeles is shrinking while Riverside grew by roughly the same amount. The overall effect (net change) for the region (+3,009) is close to zero. For a region that big it's essentially 'no growth'. Going forward the overall net change will likely go negative. Migration to the LA CSA isn't going to go up much while natural increase (births - deaths) is trending down. I agree that places like Chicago, Detroit, and Cleveland are treading water but that can't continue because natural increase isn't constant.... it will head to zero as the Boomer generation starts dying off. Couple that with out-migration from these cities and they'll see population decline this decade.


Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim MSA: 13,214,799 (-35,080)
Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario MSA: 4,650,631 (+38,089)
Los Angeles-Long Beach CSA; 18,711,436 (+873)


https://www.census.gov/data/tables/t...al-areas.html#

Those blips are common on the US yearly estimates. However, I still don't see Los Angeles going negative for a long period (2020-2030).

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by yuriandrade

Those suburbs seem affluent, why don't they hire good architects to have a better design for their homes? It's a shame.

Why do you assume that affluent suburbanites want different home designs? Many (most?) seem to like tacky, outdated architectural trends. Wealth has nothing to do with taste.

Check out this home in an affluent area of suburban Detroit. Horrible, but this style is quite common with higher-end U.S. homes:

https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/4...3712572_zpid/?

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Why do you assume that affluent suburbanites want different home designs? Many (most?) seem to like tacky, outdated architectural trends. Wealth has nothing to do with taste.

Check out this home in an affluent area of suburban Detroit. Horrible, but this style is quite common with higher-end U.S. homes:

https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/4...3712572_zpid/?

But why is that? There are plenty of tackless wealthier people in Brazil, but on the other hand it seems there are a higher share of good designs.

Why American architects don't manage to influence their clients in greater numbers, making them buying better products? They have the money, they have the big suburban plots, so much potential.

[badrunner]

They're not necessarily bad designs. Middle America just has very conservative tastes when it comes to housing.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by yuriandrade

But why is that? There are plenty of tackless wealthier people in Brazil, but on the other hand it seems there are a higher share of good designs.

Don't American architects manage to influence their clients in greater numbers, making them buying better products?

Well, style is subjective. I agree this is horrible, but lots of people like it.

There's probably also a cultural difference. My wife is from a moderately affluent Mexican family, and everyone in the Mexican upper class prefers modernist homes and interiors. I think wealthy Latin Americans generally like modern-style homes, and wealthy Americans generally like fake Italian villa-style homes.

Of course, there are exceptions. The Hamptons and West LA are heavily modernist. Wealthy urban neighborhoods usually have attractively designed homes. Some of the more affluent metros like NY, LA, SF have better design, and Miami is heavily modernist (probably due to Latin influence).

And old money WASP types generally hate the tacky look. Places like Coastal Connecticut, Westchester County, NY and North Shore of Chicago have little tacky design.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Well, style is subjective. I agree this is horrible, but lots of people like it.

There's probably also a cultural difference. My wife is from a moderately affluent Mexican family, and everyone in the Mexican upper class prefers modernist homes and interiors. I think wealthy Latin Americans generally like modern-style homes, and wealthy Americans generally like fake Italian villa-style homes.

Of course, there are exceptions. The Hamptons and West LA are heavily modernist. Wealthy urban neighborhoods usually have attractively designed homes. Some of the more affluent metros like NY, LA, SF have better design, and Miami is heavily modernist (probably due to Latin influence).

And old money WASP types generally hate the tacky look. Places like Coastal Connecticut, Westchester County, NY and North Shore of Chicago have little tacky design.

New money vs old money.