Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Wayyy too much here that can change. Predictions can't be made, that far in advance, realistically. Phoenix may not be sustainable, by then. That's a good possibility, as people won't go, where there's not water. Houston could have serious flooding issues, unless they get that under control. Too many variables, to be predicting this. I would assume Great Lakes states would be booming by then, as they are affordable, and have plenty of water. Water will, most likely, be one of the great problems of the future for parts of the US. And, don't think it will be piped from the Great Lakes, as that's not feasible, nor is it going to happen. I also predict more problems for Florida, with the ocean infringing on the land.
How do you ignore that Houston also has a deep water port and just as critical as the cities you mentioned that do have them? In their case, they have more to offer economically then you think. You are correct that Houston could see some problems when it comes to climate change. But that pretty much goes for every city on the coasts, especially the the Gulf and Atlanta coasts.
If Philly annexed some land I could see it still in the top 5,6,7 possibly overtaken by cities like Phoenix, San Diego and Dallas just from sheer size of land area.
Wayyy too much here that can change. Predictions can't be made, that far in advance, realistically. Phoenix may not be sustainable, by then. That's a good possibility, as people won't go, where there's not water. Houston could have serious flooding issues, unless they get that under control. Too many variables, to be predicting this. I would assume Great Lakes states would be booming by then, as they are affordable, and have plenty of water. Water will, most likely, be one of the great problems of the future for parts of the US. And, don't think it will be piped from the Great Lakes, as that's not feasible, nor is it going to happen. I also predict more problems for Florida, with the ocean infringing on the land.
The idea that you can pick one region to be better or worse off as we face major climate changes is like throwing darts blindfolded to see what hits.
Predictions are hard but technology will only get better, by 2050 it will be completely possible to create your own home water supply from the air using solar power, this already happens today. If fresh water becomes extremely scarce the Southwest is far more likely to desalinate than to pump water from the Great Lakes, Phoenix is less than 200 miles from the ocean. But a warmer ocean has already led to more hurricane remnants pushing their way further north into the pacific, this has caused additional rainfall in the southwest and could also lead to more frequent and intense El Niño periods like we’re seeing this winter. It’s hard to predict.
And it’s worth highlighting that Arizona uses far more water on agriculture than households so keep in mind the impact this would have on the entire nations winter vegetable supply when areas like Yuma and El Centro face major water cuts. Over 90% of the country’s winter lettuce comes from here. Don’t be surprised if massive federal water projects are created in the future much like they were in the past to harvest the west’s watersheds as we have.
New York, NY
Los Angeles, CA
Houston, TX
Phoenix, AZ
Chicago, IL
Dallas, TX
San Diego, CA
Philadelphia, PA
San Antonio, TX
Fort Worth, TX
Austin, TX
Charlotte, NC
San Jose, CA
Jacksonville, FL
Columbus, OH
Texas has 5, California has 3, New York, North Carolina, Arizona, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Florida and Ohio have 1.
I don't think San Francisco will cross 1 million. The forces fighting growth in the city are great and prices are forcing families out.
How do you ignore that Houston also has a deep water port and just as critical as the cities you mentioned that do have them? In their case, they have more to offer economically then you think. You are correct that Houston could see some problems when it comes to climate change. But that pretty much goes for every city on the coasts, especially the the Gulf and Atlanta coasts.
Miami - Huge logistics hub!? Other than the seaport, I don't see it. Definitely not tech. And how many Fortune 500 companies have at least a REGIONAL size office presence there? Jacksonville and Tampa are seaports as well. There's not much of a U.S. Military presence either, that's in Tampa.
Not true. Austin is an overpriced and overhyped city for its size. San Antonio is really nothing special at all. Dallas is a pretty established city with a diversified economy and interest range now AFAIK.
As for Houston being like the Bay and DC. I think it's valid to say that the Bay has tech like Houston has energy. But the tech is permeating away from the Bay also. It's a centralized hub of tech, but it's not the lone big player when you have cities like LA to the south, Seattle to the north, Austin/Denver attracting talent, Nashville getting in on the game with Amazon, and then the entire Northeast Corridor. All those areas have large tech employment sectors. Also, there was the tech bubble burst before the current bubble we're in and the Bay suffered during that time. I doubt tech will burst like before, but it could suffer again one day, and even more so if tech continues to grow in other parts of the country that are more affordable.
DC is staying DC. The federal government will never move out of DC unless something apocalyptic happens. There will always be a massive concentration of federal offices in DC.
Houston, OTOH, is stuck in the oil game AFAIK. Has the Houston energy sector attempted anything to look into the future without fossil fuels, or at least less? Are they investing in renewable resource technology? I know the state of Texas would probably pass a law that Houston is not allowed to do research like that if they could...because it's Texas state government. But if we get a stream of more progressive politicians in power and the oil/gas/fossil fuel industry takes a nose dive, what is saving Houston the way that the Bay or DC could be saved? In the Bay, it'll always be the Bay. There's more to it than tech, and tech is not going anywhere. In DC, the fed govt will always be there. In Houston, you can't say the same about oil/gas/fossil fuels.
As for the other cities you listed, LA will always attract those looking for year round mild temperatures and outdoor activities and entertainment industry opportunity. The Bay will always attract the mild weather seekers with different personalities from LA that are irrelevant to this discussion. Chicago will always be the hub of the Midwest and attract top talent from the nearby universities, as evidenced by its continued high-paying job growth despite population loss. Boston will continue to attract people for its educational institutions and the old world culture. Philly will continue attracting people looking for a major urban city like NYC that they're priced out of, and there's nothing bad to say about its strong university presence that can always attract talent, just not as great as Boston.
I'm a native Houstonian. Houston remains the energy capital of the world and much of that is DUE TO TECHNOLOGY. But compared to 30 years ago, the economy is much less dependent on oil and gas. I remember attending symposium back in the late 1990s chaired by a local and very well respected Economics Professor/Consultant. Houston in the 1980s had 80% of its economy directly/indirectly tied to the energy sector. Like Texas as a whole, the region realized it was too reliant on that industry. Now the greater Houston economy is around 50% energy driven with growth in logistics/shipping and Healthcare being the other legs of the economic base. The Texas Medical Center employs over 106,000 people and is the largest complex of its industry in the world. The seaport is one of the three busiest in north America. Houston is a major hub for United and Southwest airlines as well.
Second, regarding renewable energy, yes there are energy companies doing research. Texas, by far, has more wind power than any market in north America, at least 3x what any other state or province produces. Amazon and Facebook both have windfarms in Texas. The state, I believe, is 5th in solar energy generation, far behind California but that's also reflective of the availability of wind for use.
Third, natural gas is hugely abundant and CLEAN in Texas. So why not use it? Now you have motor oil being made from it.
Last an FYI, both Space X and Blue Horizon conduct space rocket testing in Texas which could lead to other
I'm not sure it is honestly. When gas prices tanked a couple of years ago we saw this cripple the city and send it into a full blown recession. I understand why oil is so large in the city it's very lucrative still. I just don't see how it'll b able to adjust.
I work in Finance in Texas, including energy funding. It was NOT a full blown recession in Houston. It I'm old enough to remember the late 1980s. THAT was a recession. in 2014-15 that was a material slowdown but GDP still grew...
Accurate, but I would flip Chicago and Phoenix, the gap between the two is too huge to quantify right now, IMO.
Originally Posted by Losfrisco Here is mine:
1. New York City-too far ahead for anyone to catch regardless of what happens.
2. Los Angeles-the same, could see another 1 million residents in the Wilshire corridor alone by that time.
Hard to see that many more people in a region with cost of living challenges and in stated experiencing outward migration toward neighboring states and especially Texas.
3. Houston-if trends continue, this seems all but certain
4. Phoenix-still under 4000 ppsm, huge Metro rail expansion underway. I don't see it given its water scarcity and its has few large companies as employment draws.
5. Chicago
6. Dallas - interesting that you have Dallas surpassing San Antonio which currently is the second largest city in Texas and surpassed Dallas a few years ago.
7. San Diego
8. Philadelphia
9. San Antonio
10. Fort Worth - This will be interesting given that Austin has blown by it, Charlotte, Nashville, Columbus and Raleigh since the turn of the Century. Austin should hit a million residents within 3 years whereas FW is over 800,000 and likely not to hit 1 million for at least 5 years.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
