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.
Do you think if the USA had a megacity that had 50 million people in it (or maybe a metro of 50 million) that it would be beneficially to the USA as a whole economically, socially, and enviornmentally?
Like what if the New York metropolitan area and slightly beyond it's borders had like 50-60 million people in it rather than the 22 some million it had now? Instead replace some of the McMansion suburbs that may be found in the New York MSA with Manhattan-type density cities and it would be a cluster of cities there in close proximity. It would be full of maglev trains and maglev subways that go very fast and are fully automated to transport from anywhere in the MSA to any other part of it quickly, conveniently, and cheaply.
I think it would be beneficial if the USA had a megacity like this because of the agglomeration effect on business and productivity. I heard that when people work in a dense city center, they are more productive overall per capita worker than those who work in the suburbs.
It would also be enviornmetally good because there'd be lot less car usage and most people would take the maglev trains or walk or bike since stores and such would be on the ground floor of big apartment buildings.
There'd be a ton of city centers and every person who ever wants to live in an urban enviornment can do so. A big problem with big cities in the US now is that lots of people want to live in them, but it is impossible to meet the demand so the price is too high for most people. With this megacity, there'd be enough vacancy rate to fill the demand in the USA for big city living in the ultimate big city ever, thus big city living will be affordable since supply will more match demand without having to demolish historical buildings and districts in existing big cities to do so.
Also, the rest of the US would have a lot more nature/wilderness space preserved and there would be less suburbs because those people who live in suburbs and want to live in big cities can do so because it wouldn't be so expensive. Then all those who want to live in suburbs and rural areas will find they have more space and less neighbors around.
Or do you think it would be bad to have a megacity like this in America?
Sure, it'll be cool, and based on the way cities are growing it will eventually happen.
What I would prefer to see is some of the city-planning moves you are talking about now, without doubling populations. There are "urban" cities outside NYC already and NYC could certainly benefit from super-fast transit to these satellite cities right now. Why wait for 50 million people? After all, "if you build it they will come".
That is way too many people living in a metro.
Some countries have most of their entire population in one city but half of them live is horrible conditions.
There's actually a lot of countries that have one fifth or more of their populations living in one city, for example Metro London (13 m against 62m in the UK), Metro Paris (12m against 64m in France), Metro Athens (4m against 11m in Greece), Metro Istanbul (14m against 72m in Turkey).
If you'd have the same situation in the United States, you'd have one metropolitan area that would hold more than 60 million people .
It will happen. Its not a matter of "if" but "when" especially if you look at MSA's or CSA's. Yes I think it will be good for the country to have more then one city or CSA that large.
There's actually a lot of countries that have one fifth or more of their populations living in one city, for example Metro London (13 m against 62m in the UK), Metro Paris (12m against 64m in France), Metro Athens (4m against 11m in Greece), Metro Istanbul (14m against 72m in Turkey).
If you'd have the same situation in the United States, you'd have one metropolitan area that would hold more than 60 million people .
Tokyo (35m) - Japan (128m)
Seoul (25m) - South Korea (49m)
Manila (24m) - Philippines (94m)
Cairo (19m) - Egypt (80m)
Buenos Aires (13m) - Argentina (40m)
Location: northern Vermont - previously NM, WA, & MA
10,749 posts, read 23,822,981 times
Reputation: 14665
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josseppie
It will happen. Its not a matter of "if" but "when" especially if you look at MSA's or CSA's. Yes I think it will be good for the country to have more then one city or CSA that large.
so where would all the garbage go? On a rocket into space?
so where would all the garbage go? On a rocket into space?
They will find a way to dispose of the trash. In 1800 NYC was the largest city in the U.S. and was only 60,000 people. That is half the size Pueblo is today. Actually the largest 5 cities in 1800 (NYC, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Boston and Charleston) combined were about the same size as the Pueblo MSA is today. I am sure if you told them the NYC MSA would one day be close to 20 million people they would think you were mad and tell you there is no way a city could sustain itself with that many people. Yet they do it. Same thing with 50 million people in a MSA.
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.
.
