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.
Haha, How about we let Jan have his predictions instead of nitpicking what he thinks about it, its really not fair to him or anyone else here? Unless you have a device that shows you what 2050 looks like Jan is just about right as anyone else here. His guess is honestly as good as any of ours. And you may not know this but the inner loop is 96 square miles, population 527,386 with a density of 5,493 people per square mile.
In Houston no one cares about the city outside of inner loop where everything besides Energy Corridor is located and inner loop is also where almost all the developments are taking place, and where all of the rail expansion will be and connect every district in it. Thats the real city, so who cares if its density ever reaches 8,000 or not? The inner loop is going to reach that density regardless.
lol, you do know that two of the densest zips in Houston are outside the loop right?
77081 has 17777 people per square mile
77036 has 11361 people per square mile, and that area is almost 8 square miles. That is a sizeable population core.
The population density of Houston's southwest ranges between 8000 and 17,000. So Paul's assertion that we don't have a high density core is inaccurate. Our high density core just happens to be somewhere other than the central portion of the city
Quote:
My guess for 2050:
01. New York City (duhhhh everyone should have guessed this )
02. Los Angeles (4,800,000, In my opinion I never see Los Angeles passing 5 million)
03. Chicago (4,100,000 I personally think by Mid-century it will see some large stroke of influx and will surpass its 1950 peak, but it depends solely if it can keep its growth going)
04. Houston (3,600,000 wont surpass Chicago as far as I can tell if Chicago STARTS to keep its growth going)
I personally think trying to guess the population outcomes for 2050 are pointless, none of us can ever guess what it will be like even tomorrow little less 2050. And since this thread is for fun, it would probably be more fun if people can say what they want without any nitpickings and people getting so carried away with their theories, THEIR theories not a generalized fact.
Your Numbers look spot on. Maybe I would decrease Houston and LA's numbers by about 100K each
lol, you do know that two of the densest zips in Houston are outside the loop right?
77081 has 17777 people per square mile
77036 has 11361 people per square mile, and that area is almost 8 square miles. That is a sizeable population core.
The population density of Houston's southwest ranges between 8000 and 17,000. So Paul's assertion that we don't have a high density core is inaccurate. Our high density core just happens to be somewhere other than the central portion of the city
Your Numbers look spot on. Maybe I would decrease Houston and LA's numbers by about 100K each
Its funny that Houston's highest density is under 18,000 ppsm.
There are many suburban counties that are over 5K, not sure what you mean - many many places are over that and many more are not.
I do agree with Danny in that estimating this far out is very difficult - over time the one thing that has been constant is change and growth rates are never sustained among the most accelerated areas for large periods of time.
I really doubt NYC can grow any further, at least not as much as some of the figures proposed here, it's changed very little since 1930, when it had 7 million people. Today just over 8 million. If in 80 years time it only increased by 1 million people, I doubt it will grow 200 times faster in 40 years.
The city is as built up as it can get, realistically.
I really doubt NYC can grow any further, at least not as much as some of the figures proposed here, it's changed very little since 1930, when it had 7 million people. Today just over 8 million. If in 80 years time it only increased by 1 million people, I doubt it will grow 200 times faster in 40 years.
The city is as built up as it can get, realistically.
I don't know about that, I think there's always still room to grow. Think about Staten Island filling out and building up at some point, or maybe Queens building up, realistically you could really cram alot more people in anywhere if you wanted to.
It's not like there didn't use to be more anyway. Look at Manhattan, at it's peak population in 1920 it was 2,744,183, then it dropped til 1990 when it started growing again and now it's up to like 1,700,000. Brooklyn's peak was in 1950 with 2,738,175 then it also dropped until 1990 and it's growing again, currently at about 2,500,000. The Bronx peaked in 1970 at 1,471,701 and dropped til you guessed it, 1990 and it's growing, currently about back at 1,400,000. My point is, the city can still support alot more people, and the boroughs filling in and up even more isn't out of the question. I'm not saying it'll be a fast growth or anything, but it can still definitely grow plenty.
And also, it has changed alot since 1930. Compared to then, Queens grew by over a million people, Staten Island by over 300,000, Manhattan lost a million, the Bronx is 100,000 ahead of where it was, and Brooklyn is almost exactly where it was, and they're all still growing now.
Only time will tell, of course, but if statistic trends continue, certain cities will remain at or near the same, some will decrease, and many will increase. If I had to venture a guess though, it would be that the Southern California cities will grow even more dramatically, while cities like Detroit and Philadelphia decrease in population, Florida cities will continue to experience urban sprawl with a lot of cities that now have 50,000 having 100-150 thousand.
Ugh... I know you have checked the United States Census Bureau's population clock, and I'm sure they had stayed the same as on October, but according to the population clock there are one birth every 8 seconds, so if ya do some math, it will be, say, 9 thousand? 10 thousand?
San Jose will not be in the top ten for the simple fact that it's land locked by other municipalities and pretty well developed. For it to contend with cities that have massive land masses and ability to annex, it would have to do a whole lot of tear-down and infill. I just don't see it happening.
On the other hand, Jacksonville has a MASSIVE amount of land to develop and can easily add a million people in a rather suburban model. N. Florida is the cheap part of Florida. I can easily see it happening.
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.
)
