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.
History is a particular reason. There's not much else we can point to in predicting the future. Although, I'd say the region is due for a major earthquake, so that might do it.
Same applies to the bay area.
Learning from history means applying similar situations, not just past versions of the same place.
Seattle in 1970 was about four times as at risk from one company (who then laid off 100,000) we are from any company now. Also even our techs are built upon more solid bases than they were in 2001, the last time tech really got hit that badly.
Agree with others that this is an extremely theoretical exercise given the large number of unknowns, but there are three critical components/factors that will dictate the likelihood of a given city maintaining--let alone increasing--its influence in 2100:
1. Cities whose economies can adapt to what will continue to be greatly shifting demographics, including lowered birthrates, increasing diversity, and greatly increased senior citizen population. This will require massive re-thinking of the labor force and funding models for social services;
2. Cities that can adapt to what is obviously an increasingly volatile climate. Obviously, no city is immune to our shifting weather patterns, but regions with access to fresh water, availability of agricultural land, and a lack of coastal vulnerability (i.e., rising sea levels) seem likely to be much better off overall; and
3. Cities that can sustainably address transportation infrastructure and housing. This means that weaknesses both exist for uber-expensive areas like NYC, SF, LA and Boston relative to maintaining a supply of accessible and affordable housing, as well as the more automobile/highway-heavy cities such as Dallas, Houston, Atlanta, Austin, Nashville, etc. in the Sun Belt relative to their lack of diverse transit options and a VERY expensive roadway-maintenance future. If housing and transportation issues remain unaddressed as they are, and this goes for every city, we will definitely see much of the country begin to stagnate.
All this to say, we have a lot of serious risks and planning needs for the future. None are insurmountable per se, but regions that ignore them will do so at their own peril, and certainly impede their degree of influence.
Lack of water in the desert, is only going to get worse, as people build homes in an area that is the least sustainable in the country. SO, that eliminates some cities, like Phoenix. Any other western state that struggles with water, and has to hope the Colorado River doesn't run dry, is in trouble, as well. As far as earthquakes, the big one will be in the Cascadia Subduction Zone...that eliminates Seattle, and whatever city would suffer from that. From what I've read, that will happen, but no one knows when.
Florida, or parts of it, will be under water (look it up, it's real), so that leaves the rest of the country...not with the potential for running out of water, sinking, or being destroyed by an earthquake of magnitude proportions. The Great Lakes area will become a destination for people, as there will be plenty of water, and the area is already on the upswing.
That's what I predict. People can disagree, but my arguments are valid, and logical.
As far as earthquakes, the big one will be in the Cascadia Subduction Zone...that eliminates Seattle, and whatever city would suffer from that. From what I've read, that will happen, but no one knows when.
Seattle is actually fairly lucky because it's well over 100 miles from the coast and actual subduction zone (where the main impact of the earthquake would be felt). It's also significantly far inland, so there isn't any major tsunami threat, either.
A Cascadia earthquake event would certainly be bad, but probably not catastrophic for Seattle specifically.
We do have some tsunami threat, but it would involve running through Puget Sound and hitting some limited lowlands that area mostly industrial landfill and can be escaped. But good point about the distance. The other main threats would be liquefaction of the same landfill areas as well as landslides on steep greenbelts.
I have been saying essentially the same for years. While the next "big one" is possible within the next 200 years, it may or may not be in any of our lifetimes. Yes, there will be damage in Seattle, but all important scientific projections show the city will not be destroyed as some media reports have claimed in recent years. At the worst, many older structures may collapse, but any tsunami threat would only be minor in Seattle proper.
I expect Texas cities like Houston, Dallas and Austin to be more influential due to their rates of population growth. San Francisco is influential, but I can’t see it will increasing it’s influence more than it already has.
BTW, and earthquake or tsunami in the US isn’t going to have any affect on a city’s future. Even if it costs billions, it’s rather tiny in the trajectory of a city over 80 years.
Chicago and SF were burned and flattened. It didn’t stop their inevitable ascent.
While, I believe in climate change, most people are drastically overstating it effects, the biggest danger is 100% more extreme weather as well as rising waters. Either way it is a proven fact that natural disasters are not a push factor for humanity.
The two most populated islands in the world are Java and Honshu (two island with some of the highest rates of natural disasters), and man historical civilizations where built where flooding was the highest possible chance for example rather than to minimize flooding risk, also the only two islands to have more than 100 million people. Because natural disasters are infrequent (hence the name) historically humans haven't avoided places due to Natural disasters and this has only happened on the micro-scale such as in Galveston, which just ended being moved to the exact same area roughly 50 miles in land.
My point is natural disasters are never a "real" push factor population wise and humans can technologically combat rising sea levels easily just look at The Netherlands for exhibit one. I can't think of a major city were growth has stopped solely because the weather is bad (excluding obviously the freezing arctic, but it wasn't like people there stopped moving because they noticed the weather is bad, the weather was always bad hence it was always a factor).
I personally think the sleeping lion in terms of cities that hasn't been listed yet is Salt Lake City.
Here are the U.S states by birth rate.
SD- 1
UT- 2/3
ND- 3/2
ID- 4
(Texas is in the top 6-7)
Youngest States
Utah is 30 (3-4 years younger than the next state), the U.S average is 38...
These combined demographics, as well as religious reasons keeping the Mormon birth rate relatively high when compared to the average high birth rate American group (Hispanics), which will continue to drop, will lead to 2100 growth being dominated by groups like the Amish, Mormons and Orthodox Jews. Almost all other groups will fall at a much steeper rate than the aforementioned three and combined with the high fertility rates currently and the fact that two of the groups sort of avoid cities or when they are in cities have their rates drop significantly will lead to Salt Lake City on population growth alone to matter in my eyes as much as Denver will matter in the future to the U.S. This will be because Provo-Orem, SLC and Ogden will be so entangled physically they will become one MSA eventually and growth along the highway corridors in Boise/ Las Vegas and St. George will lead to a much denser state of Utah and as a result a politically more important Salt Lake City.
For me their is no other city in the U.S who is certainly going to grow in importance as much as SLC is in the next 40 years at leas, picking a time past then is unpredictable.
There are so many variables, notably climate change and the economy, that make this extremely difficult to predict. I voted for the following:
DC: Unfortunately, I think big business will increasingly move to the greater DC region to be close to the government. DC has traditionally been important as government center, but will increasingly become a business center as well.
Dallas: I don't see the long-term success of Houston due to climate change and general direction in economy/industry. Dallas is better positioned for the future.
Denver: It's current importance is extremely overstated, but I think it will actually be an important hub in the future.
Austin: same reasoning as Denver.
Detroit: The city itself has hit rock bottom, so there is no where to go but up. I think the city will go through a massive transformation to reestablish itself.
Cities I specifically did not vote for:
Seattle: boom and bust cycles define this city. It's already pretty influential and I don't expect it to get significantly more influential just because it has a handful of famous tech businesses.
SF/Bay area: It's climaxed in terms of importance, both globally and nationally. Tech innovation will continue to seep to other metros like Boston, Seattle, San Diego, Austin, etc. It's just too overpriced for residents and businesses. China and India are catching up as well.
Miami, Las Vegas, Phoenix, Tampa: Whether it be droughts or sea level rise, I think these cities will lose billions $ due to climate change. At what point is it a lost cause?
General sunbelt: The incredible amount of new infrastructure that is going into building the sprawling regions of the rapidly growing south (Charlotte, Atlanta, Houston, Tampa) will eventually reach the end of its useful life. These cities are overbuilt and too low-density to afford the massive maintenance costs of their infrastructure. Only a few regions will survive the infrastructure timebomb. It's just not sustainable.
Why is this unfortunate?
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.
