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.
top 5 cities in 2050:
1) NYC
2) Chicago
3) Los Angeles
4) Philadelphia 5) Dallas????
How do you figure? Are you talking about metro meaning Dallas/Ft. Worth? Because the city of Dallas still has to climb 5 spots from 8th ot 9th largest city to even come close to where you predicted? Do you expect Houston to just blow up or sink off the face of the planet? Because Houston's already larger than Philadelphia?
I think NYC should forever hold the title of the largest city. I mean, that was the beginning of American civilization. It's American history! Same with Chicago.
Location: Austin, TX/Chicago, IL/Houston, TX/Washington, DC
10,138 posts, read 16,055,953 times
Reputation: 4047
1. New York City
2. Los Angeles
3. Chicago
4. Houston
5. Don't know....
I really don't know who 5 will be, there is a lot of competition for that spot. Philadelphia, Phoenix, Dallas, & San Antonio are all eying that spot. But for some reason I feel by 2050 there will be a newcomer to the top 10 that will be number 5. Probably one of the most unexpected cities.
Actually, in the Houston/Chicago thread about Houston overtaking Chicago. I have to change my answer from "yes" to "uncertain". I have been underestimating Chicago as a whole.
There had been talks about the city infrastructure, the people who run the city actually know the city has lost 800,000 people, and that is why the massive developments to the already popular downtown is taking place.
The city has been sporadic, it may have lost a lot of population before, but if you look it up it's gained swaths of population randomly to keep it from a mass decline.
I think the awareness has taken place, and there's a massive to the city shift in Chicago.
If I were Los Angeles, I would start drawing up boards to get more people from suburbia to the city, other wise in 40 years they will be seeing someone right on their neck.
And grapico is right, cities like New York City & Chicago have periods of very sporadic growth, they have periods where they go through some mass growth randomly.
The city infrastructure is about to take off and make city living a lot better than it is now, and it's already superb right now.
And to be honest, I really don't know about any other city, but Chicago & New York City are the only two cities that I know for sure are completely ready to handle what 2050 has to throw at them. Los Angeles will be interesting to watch from now on, the city itself has never experienced a decline, mostly due to the way it was developed, in 1950 the automobile affected the cities back then that were "already established" at that time Los Angeles was what Austin is today, a boom town, it wouldn't affect it no matter what, especially given the cities layout.
I think Los Angeles from now on will reflect a very stagnant growth. They are done with their boom days, and done with their high growth days.
1. New York City- I don't think New York City would have had rapid growth as other cities but theres already a huge gap between the population of NYC and the other largest cities. I think its size now with steady to moderate growth will help it retain its title as the largest U.S. city.
2. Los Angeles- I think LA by then would have become more dense and possibly annexed other areas and that would help keep it at #2
3. Houston- I think that Houston and the whole "texas triangle" (DFW, San Antonio, Houston, Austin) is an area that will experience the most rapid growth to come. I see Texas Becoming the largest state. Not only is Houston growing outward but the city is also growing up and becoming more dense. The growth we're seeing now i feel is just a forecast for whats to come.
4. Chicago- Chicago, Theres plenty of freshwater and i think thatll be an advantage. I think that it will follow just on the edges of Houston, its a great city and i see it going somewhere.
5. San Antonio- Theres lots of land and i think that by then San Antonio and Austin would connect even more and be Like DFW making a massive metro area
And when would that happen???? New York is still expanding. It's population is almost triple that of LAs. It's unlikely that NY will lose its position as one of the most influential cities in the world so people will continue to flock here for jobs and opportunities.
The population of Queens + Brooklyn, two out of five of New York's borough, exceeds the population of LA.
And NYC's metro population is 7 million more than that of LA's and expanding.
Unless California decides to become part of Mexico, there is no way Metro LA's population or the pop of the city itself > Metro NY's population/NYC's population.
The only reason why NYC is that far ahead of LA's metro is because the Inland Empire (Riverside + San Bernardino counties) are not included in LA's metro. The Inland Empire solely exists as the suburban bedroom community of Greater LA. It would not be as big as it is without LA. It puzzles me as to why it's not included in LA's metro, as you would think there would be enough commuters into Greater LA (especially when you look at traffic patterns).
Anyway, add in the Inland Empire, and the difference is less than two million, with LA/Inland Empire growing faster.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OmShahi
1. New York City
2. Los Angeles
3. Chicago
4. Houston
5. Don't know....
I really don't know who 5 will be, there is a lot of competition for that spot. Philadelphia, Phoenix, Dallas, & San Antonio are all eying that spot. But for some reason I feel by 2050 there will be a newcomer to the top 10 that will be number 5. Probably one of the most unexpected cities.
Actually, in the Houston/Chicago thread about Houston overtaking Chicago. I have to change my answer from "yes" to "uncertain". I have been underestimating Chicago as a whole.
There had been talks about the city infrastructure, the people who run the city actually know the city has lost 800,000 people, and that is why the massive developments to the already popular downtown is taking place.
The city has been sporadic, it may have lost a lot of population before, but if you look it up it's gained swaths of population randomly to keep it from a mass decline.
I think the awareness has taken place, and there's a massive to the city shift in Chicago.
If I were Los Angeles, I would start drawing up boards to get more people from suburbia to the city, other wise in 40 years they will be seeing someone right on their neck.
And grapico is right, cities like New York City & Chicago have periods of very sporadic growth, they have periods where they go through some mass growth randomly.
The city infrastructure is about to take off and make city living a lot better than it is now, and it's already superb right now.
And to be honest, I really don't know about any other city, but Chicago & New York City are the only two cities that I know for sure are completely ready to handle what 2050 has to throw at them. Los Angeles will be interesting to watch from now on, the city itself has never experienced a decline, mostly due to the way it was developed, in 1950 the automobile affected the cities back then that were "already established" at that time Los Angeles was what Austin is today, a boom town, it wouldn't affect it no matter what, especially given the cities layout.
I think Los Angeles from now on will reflect a very stagnant growth. They are done with their boom days, and done with their high growth days.
I really don't know where any of this is coming from?? Los Angeles has never lost population in a Census before. Not to mention it does have a lot of land, AND is getting much denser throughout the center. LA is already a pretty walkable city, and it's transit options (currently under construction) are improving GREATLY. Many people already want to live in LA...more than Chicago I'd assume (especially since Chicago sends more residents to LA, than LA does to them). I don't see Chicago ever breathing on LA's neck, unless the economy just gets downright terrible, and even then, Chicago has to grow by a lot and LA has to decline fast.
Quote:
Originally Posted by giantsfan11490
Eh whatever. I just think Chicago has more room to expand. I feel like LA has already peaked.
PS while there are tons of kids being born in LA, there are tons of old people dying in LA as well. And I'm not comparing Chicago's 2040 projected pop to LA' 2010 pop. I'm comparing it to LA's 2040 pop. I think it'll start decreasing in the next 10-20 years.
Chicago definitely has an more older population than LA does. Not to mention LA is still a huge international migration center, while Chicago's numbers there have dropped off a lot.
The only reason why NYC is that far ahead of LA's metro is because the Inland Empire (Riverside + San Bernardino counties) are not included in LA's metro. The Inland Empire solely exists as the suburban bedroom community of Greater LA. It would not be as big as it is without LA. It puzzles me as to why it's not included in LA's metro, as you would think there would be enough commuters into Greater LA (especially when you look at traffic patterns).
Anyway, add in the Inland Empire, and the difference is less than two million, with LA/Inland Empire growing faster.
I really don't know where any of this is coming from?? Los Angeles has never lost population in a Census before. Not to mention it does have a lot of land, AND is getting much denser throughout the center. LA is already a pretty walkable city, and it's transit options (currently under construction) are improving GREATLY. Many people already want to live in LA...more than Chicago I'd assume (especially since Chicago sends more residents to LA, than LA does to them). I don't see Chicago ever breathing on LA's neck, unless the economy just gets downright terrible, and even then, Chicago has to grow by a lot and LA has to decline fast.
Chicago definitely has an more older population than LA does. Not to mention LA is still a huge international migration center, while Chicago's numbers there have dropped off a lot.
Doesn't matter. Inland Empire is not part of the LA metro. And regardless 2 million is still a lot. And also, the Inland Empire covers a huge chunk of land! That would be like saying: oh we can add Philadelphia to the NYC metro. If you took the distance from LA to the edge of the Inland Empire and considered that entire area LA metro, the entire Philadelphia metro could be added to the NYC metro. And obviously that doesn't make sense.
And I only said that because I think that LA is in a decline due to the economy. California's economy sucks right now. And unless that turns around quickly, LA's development will retard.
And don't even say that LA is considered walkable. Everyone knows that it isn't. Last time I went there, my friend was busy the first day and couldn't drive me around. And because of that I couldn't really do anything. None of the places I wanted to go to - Rodeo Drive etc. etc. were easily accessible because I really didn't want to have to take a bus. And Chicago is obviously denser.
It may be true that right now, more people want to be in LA. I'm just arguing that I don't know if that'll be the case in 40 years. Maybe it will maybe it won't. Only time will tell.
Doesn't matter. Inland Empire is not part of the LA metro. And regardless 2 million is still a lot. And also, the Inland Empire covers a huge chunk of land! That would be like saying: oh we can add Philadelphia to the NYC metro. If you took the distance from LA to the edge of the Inland Empire and considered that entire area LA metro, the entire Philadelphia metro could be added to the NYC metro. And obviously that doesn't make sense.
I agree with you there. I don't like all the if you add this to that and that to this.
2050 is a very long time away so i'm not even going to guess. NYC has to stop growing some time so I don't think it will still be number one
who is going to knock it off?
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.
