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.
There is absolutely no way that Vegas can support 10.5 million people. There is no way Atlanta can support 24 million people. The reason is WATER. Las Vegas is already try to steal water from ranchers in northern Nevada. Las Vegas is expected to run out of water by 2021.
We've already seen just how precarious metro Atlanta's water situation is; a slight drought and Atlantans have no water. If there are water shortages there with not even 6 million people in the metro area how in the world is that area going to support 24 million?
Phoenix's water situation is a lot less unstable than Atlanta's or Vegas'. Unlike those areas Phoenix has many, many water sources. We have been receiving rain and snowfall well above seasonal averages. As long as water conservation continues to take place Phoenix should be able to handle it's expected growth.
One thing that I am concerned about with Phoenix's population mirroring current day LA's population is the urban heat island effect. We have already had nights at 95 and 96 degrees for lows. With 18 million people temperatures will regularly stay above 100 at night. Also quality of life in many of the listed cities will suffer tremendously with so many people.
I just couldn't imagine over 20 million people living in Georgia at all, much less Atlanta having a metro population of 24 million. Of course, I'll be long gone by then. In a hundred years, everyone will be living like the Jetsons anyway.
Location: The Greatest city on Earth: City of Atlanta Proper
8,485 posts, read 14,990,056 times
Reputation: 7333
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben Around
Also, re: you point about 3rd world conditions in Northern cities in the 1950s, I would disagree. 1910 I might agree with but not 1950. Arguably, fewer people living in Northern industrial cities in 1950 lived in 3rd world conditions than they do today. The decade after WWII were the boom years for America's industrial cities.
During the 1940s and '50s, the city of St. Louis, constrained by its 1876 boundaries, was "a very crowded place"; "in almost a classic sense it looked and felt like a 'real' big city ... like something out of a Charles Dickens novel".[7] Its housing stock deteriorated through the interbellum decades and World War II. More than 85 thousand families lived in 19th century tenements; a 1947 official survey found out that 33,000 homes had communal toilets.
Having spent plenty of time in the third world, this sort of thing is very common today. In several cities in Africa and Asia, there are areas we would consider slums that are basically "middle class" housing. Mostly it is older housing stock that the occupants do not have the ability to fix it up as most of their income goes towards food, rent and transportation.
But if you are thinking of actual slums or shanty towns, American cities in the 1950s had those too. Keep in mind that the country was still dealing with the effects of the Great Depression through the 40s and 50s and this was the main impetus for the creation of public housing. For instance, this was one such slum in Atlanta around the mid-50s:
This sort of things were very common sights around just about every major city up until the 1950s. Until of course they were bulldozed to make way for highways and commieblocks.
I just couldn't imagine over 20 million people living in Georgia at all, much less Atlanta having a metro population of 24 million. Of course, I'll be long gone by then. In a hundred years, everyone will be living like the Jetsons anyway.
I don't disagree with you that water will be the big factor for what cities will rise and fall in the next century. My only beef is with the bolded. It was 100 year drought aka "it only happens that bad once in a blue moon". Atlanta never came close to running out of water, and the problem is now over and has been over for a while now. Or did you miss the big floods Atlanta had back in September or how we now flood every times it rains just an inch now? Besides, I doubt highly that by century's end Atlanta would have a population that high. Barring any unforeseen tragedies 10 to 12 million seems more reasonable.
Well these events that were once thought to happen "once in a blue moon" seem to be happening more and more frequently now. Also, if it droughts like the one the Southeast experience are "100 year droughts" then Atlanta should be experiencing another similar drought when population levels are expected to reach 24 million.
The fact that Atlanta had floods less than two years after it's water source was about to dry up just contributes to my argument that water will be the main driver behind growth. Two years prior to Atlanta's horrendous drought I visited a friend there in July and heard stories about how that July was "the wettest on record," due to Atlanta constantly being hit by the remnants of tropical storms and hurricanes. Just two years later and Lake Lanier was close to drying up.
Also, since you don't remember the dire warning of Atlanta running out of water, I fished out just a couple articles about how Atlanta was literally 8 weeks from running out of water.
It wasn't a "slight drought"...it was an extreme drought all across the southeastern U.S. that lasted for a number of years. The same scenario anywhere else would have caused similar water supply issues.
It was a slight drought relative to the drought the Southwest US was in for 10 years. Most locations in the Colorado River area, which supplies water to Las Vegas, Southern California, and many locations in Arizona on average receive anywhere from 2-7 inches of rain per year. During the drought annual rain totals were even below those averages. Yet, there were still no water restrictions or dire warnings about how we were on the verge of losing all water within months.
So, the same scenario does NOT have the same outcome everywhere. Has Atlanta even solved the debacle that almost caused them to have no water? I would hope so. Otherwise 10+ years with only 30-35 inches of rain will result in the same outcome as this last drought wave, only the consequences will come much quicker with an increased population.
It really doesn't make sense to use CURRENT growth rates and apply them to the same cities 100 years down the line, although I know you were just doing this hypothetically. I mean Atlanta has seen huge growth of 1,200,000 people during the 2000's. That's 25% growth off its 2000 population.
To say it's going to keep growing at 25% each decade for the next 100 years means its going to have to keep growing by more and more and more people each decade compared to the last.
So by 100 years from now, Atlanta is going to be growing by almost 8 million people EVERY decade. That's not very sustainable for cities on our planet. Even with technology growth, it's going to be very hard to keep stability or a good standard of living if you're going to be adding millions of people every few years.
I mean if you went back to the early 1900's in Chicago and put forth this same question, people would assume that by 2010 the city should have a little under 30,000,000 people, and by the middle of this century would be nearing 80,000,000.
I think it's really hard to guess as far as %'s going into the future more than 10 years. We tend to live in the moment as far as predicting the future. I mean 25% is really steller growth for Atlanta because it's the size it is and in its current situation. You wouldn't say 25% growth for the New York metro would be in the same category. That would be 5.5 million people in the next 8 years. It would be out of control.
Location: The Greatest city on Earth: City of Atlanta Proper
8,485 posts, read 14,990,056 times
Reputation: 7333
Quote:
Originally Posted by miamiman
Well these events that were once thought to happen "once in a blue moon" seem to be happening more and more frequently now. Also, if it droughts like the one the Southeast experience are "100 year droughts" then Atlanta should be experiencing another similar drought when population levels are expected to reach 24 million.
The fact that Atlanta had floods less than two years after it's water source was about to dry up just contributes to my argument that water will be the main driver behind growth. Two years prior to Atlanta's horrendous drought I visited a friend there in July and heard stories about how that July was "the wettest on record," due to Atlanta constantly being hit by the remnants of tropical storms and hurricanes. Just two years later and Lake Lanier was close to drying up.
Also, since you don't remember the dire warning of Atlanta running out of water, I fished out just a couple articles about how Atlanta was literally 8 weeks from running out of water.
It was a slight drought relative to the drought the Southwest US was in for 10 years. Most locations in the Colorado River area, which supplies water to Las Vegas, Southern California, and many locations in Arizona on average receive anywhere from 2-7 inches of rain per year. During the drought annual rain totals were even below those averages. Yet, there were still no water restrictions or dire warnings about how we were on the verge of losing all water within months.
So, the same scenario does NOT have the same outcome everywhere. Has Atlanta even solved the debacle that almost caused them to have no water? I would hope so. Otherwise 10+ years with only 30-35 inches of rain will result in the same outcome as this last drought wave, only the consequences will come much quicker with an increased population.
While it is possible that climate change will change things in the long run, droughts happen quite frequently in the Piedmont. I've lived through three myself, with the last one lasting the longest. Though it may seem odd for people from sub tropical areas, droughts are normal.
Those stories you report too were just amped up by the media (which we know NEVER happens). Most of the models that showed Atlanta having a "80 day supply of water" were based on water usage in a non-drought year. Since we had been on restrictions and then total water usage bans aside from drinking, that scenario was never going to play out.
Georgia is not the desert southwest. The northern half of the state is a temperate rainforest. That's why we have so many trees here. The only water "problem" we have is a legal one with Florida and Alabama that will be resolved in our favor.
This document talks about water - but there are currently 21 lakes within one hour's drive and several more are being planned. I don't think the largest lake in the area, Lake Texoma, is even used for water consumption on a regular basis.
Also Dallas has planned to become more urban - has large light rail system DART and commuter rail TRE. The DART expansion under construction - finishing up in the next two years - is the largest in the world.
While it is possible that climate change will change things in the long run, droughts happen quite frequently in the Piedmont. I've lived through three myself, with the last one lasting the longest. Though it may seem odd for people from sub tropical areas, droughts are normal.
Those stories you report too were just amped up by the media (which we know NEVER happens). Most of the models that showed Atlanta having a "80 day supply of water" were based on water usage in a non-drought year. Since we had been on restrictions and then total water usage bans aside from drinking, that scenario was never going to play out.
Georgia is not the desert southwest. The northern half of the state is a temperate rainforest. That's why we have so many trees here. The only water "problem" we have is a legal one with Florida and Alabama that will be resolved in our favor.
Exactly. The previous post sounded like wishful thinking to me.
This document talks about water - but there are currently 21 lakes within one hour's drive and several more are being planned. I don't think the largest lake in the area, Lake Texoma, is even used for water consumption on a regular basis.
Also Dallas has planned to become more urban - has large light rail system DART and commuter rail TRE. The DART expansion under construction - finishing up in the next two years - is the largest in the world.
What does it mean to "plan" a lake? You mean constructing dams and forming reservoirs? That's not like "extra" water, that's taking it from one source and moving it to another. I thought Dallas was relatively lush though, so I never pegged Dallas as a city that has any impending water issue.
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.
