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.
Cleveland will have a significantly expanded skyline, downtown's population will balloon above 50,000 and gentrification will have spread across the West Side, and certain parts of the East Side. Our population will begin to increase from people fleeing the increasingly unlivable areas of the South due to global warming, and droughts. Cost of living will rise significantly.
Cleveland will recapture its entrepreneurial roots, and become the home of many new technology and engineering firms.
Houston: with the energy industry transition to polywell (or some other type) fusion, the city has stagnated for more than a decade at about ten to twelve million in the CSA. Oil and gas are still needed, but not at the level they once did. Medicine, aerospace, and the port now are on equal footing. Many petro plants are abandoned and rusting, but not all. It is not Detroit but resembles its northeast cousins somewhat. Inner city revitalization that started in the early part of the century has made the center the desired place to live. Some suburbs are hellish and poor. Light rail and commuter rail cover the city well, but there is no heavy rail subway. High speed rail goes to Dallas, Austin and San Antonio. Some groups are proposing a maglev to New Orleans, but nothing serious has come of that yet.
Surely even you must admit, those are spectacular projections for the broader Toronto area nonetheless.
I definitely don't think the Toronto region is going to be accumulating 20 million people or passing Los Angeles in our lifetimes (Greater Los Angeles should itself be over 20 million by 2030 -- a global hypercity) but I think it is more than fair to expect 12-15 million out of the broader Toronto region. That is, however, if growth trajectory can prove to be sustainable over the long haul. Also as a cue in because I don't want to just drop terms without explaining what they mean, a hypercity pertains to areas that have accumulated a population that exceeds a minimum of 20 million people, such is the case a step lower for megacities as they pertain to areas that have accumulated a minimum population of 10 million people.
How nice though, North America, one day a continent with 3 hypercities (New York, Mexico City, Los Angeles) and 6 other megacities (any particular order; Chicago, Toronto, Houston, Dallas/Fort Worth, Washington DC-Baltimore, San Francisco Bay Area).
Potentially 3 additional megacities as well, however there is less to go off of in the case of these three; Boston, Miami/Fort Lauderdale, and Atlanta. I think they can do it come midcentury but not all too sure, if not, I expect all of them to cross 9 million and just fall short of it.
Also, remember, it doesn't matter what anyone says (most of all a hater), you can't ever have enough big cities.
In 33 yrs I still see IH-35 under construction thru Austin, as well as col being somewhat expensive. With a metropolitan of 4 million congestion will be twice as bad as it is today.
Oh ok I get it now. So that's basically like comparing the Canadian equivalent of CSA to American MSAs. So a more accurate graph would use NY, LA, and Chicago CSAs. Sorry I'm not familiar with Canadian measurement methods.
I also think it's very unlikely that population trends will stay the same in each of those cities or almost anywhere. That's something that changes all the time and is unpredictable.
The reason I think it may not be too unreasonable to think that Toronto will continue to have strong growth in its metro to the tune of about 100K per year is because of consistently strong immigration growth. What is different for Toronto than any other U.S city is its the largest recipient of immigration growth in Canada by a large margin. There aren't a lot of big cities in Canada so Toronto gets a disproportionately larger amount of immigrants than any U.S city would get. Canada for example allows about 300K immigrants/refugees into the country per year vs the U.S about 1 million despite the U.S having 9X the population of Canada - so it allows quite a bit more per capita. Those factors mean I think Toronto will have strong immigration growth as long as Canada has a liberal immigration policy (very likely). Even if the U.S doubles its immigration flows, no single city would be receiving 30-35 percent of that like Toronto does in Canada. There are too many large cities in the U.S eating one anothers' lunch - not nearly so much in Canada.
The Toronto CSA equivalent - the Golden horseshoe has 26 percent of the population of Canada and 1/4th the GDP of Canada. To put that into relative perspective - the U.S would need a city with a CSA of 83 million people (321 million X .26) population and GDP of 4.6 trillion (18.5 trillion/4). In relational terms this is what a U.S city would need to have the same importance Toronto does to Canada that X city would need for the U.S. Even NYC in relative importance to the U.S ie population and GDP falls too short. Canada is far more likely of a country to have a Primate city vs the U.S.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Facts Kill Rhetoric
Surely even you must admit, those are spectacular projections for the broader Toronto area nonetheless.
I definitely don't think the Toronto region is going to be accumulating 20 million people or passing Los Angeles in our lifetimes (Greater Los Angeles should itself be over 20 million by 2030 -- a global hypercity) but I think it is more than fair to expect 12-15 million out of the broader Toronto region. That is, however, if growth trajectory can prove to be sustainable over the long haul. Also as a cue in because I don't want to just drop terms without explaining what they mean, a hypercity pertains to areas that have accumulated a population that exceeds a minimum of 20 million people, such is the case a step lower for megacities as they pertain to areas that have accumulated a minimum population of 10 million people.
How nice though, North America, one day a continent with 3 hypercities (New York, Mexico City, Los Angeles) and 6 other megacities (any particular order; Chicago, Toronto, Houston, Dallas/Fort Worth, Washington DC-Baltimore, San Francisco Bay Area).
Potentially 3 additional megacities as well, however there is less to go off of in the case of these three; Boston, Miami/Fort Lauderdale, and Atlanta. I think they can do it come midcentury but not all too sure, if not, I expect all of them to cross 9 million and just fall short of it.
Also, remember, it doesn't matter what anyone says (most of all a hater), you can't ever have enough big cities.
Oh of course they are impressive projections but I just think we need to be accurate or as accurate as possible and if we are going to compare to U.S cities - try to make things apples to apples as much as possible. Posting a CSA equiv for Toronto is ok - if you compare to CSA's. Its not right to compare a U.S MSA to a Canadian CMA so the opposite is true as well. About Toronto's growth though, I provided a bit of explanation to ThatOneGuy why I think Toronto's historical growth may be more sustainable than most U.S cities (Canada's higher per capita immigration growth than the U.S coupled with Toronto receiving about 1/3rd of that alone pretty consistently because Canada has few large cities). If Toronto's CSA (Golden Horseshoe equivalent) continues to receive the same level of growth as it has over the last Census, which is about 120K per year than by 2071 (assuming similar growth) the population of the horseshoe should be around 16 million. By that time the Horseshoe will be a much more integrated region and Toronto's contiguous urban area population would be around 12.5 million. I think Toronto and maybe 1 or 2 other U.S CSA's will jostle for 3rd largest CSA in the U.S/Can though I think it is likely Toronto will have the 3rd largest urban area after NYC and L.A. While Chicago is likely to lose in CSA prominence over time, I still think its contiguous urbanized area will be top 5 and probably 4th after Toronto.
All said, even if Toronto continues its impressive growth over such a long period of time, L.A CSA could stand still today and Toronto wouldn't likely match it even by 2071 so I think you're right in that it is practically impossible for Toronto to beat L.A in our lifetimes. L.A would need to contract and I just don't see that likely at all. I don't care about haters - I know T.O is going to be a very large city in the future and in Canada/U.S it'll share very large city status with probably about 5-7 other U.S cities (NYC and L.A) are assured but not sure about the other 3-5. I'd like to say Chicago but I don't know. Population growth hasn't been a friend in that cities' CSA for awhile I believe but 50 years from now is a long time and a lot can change for any city over that time. I'm just looking at what has happened over the last half century and the probability over the next half.
The reason I think it may not be too unreasonable to think that Toronto will continue to have strong growth in its metro to the tune of about 100K per year is because of consistently strong immigration growth. What is different for Toronto than any other U.S city is its the largest recipient of immigration growth in Canada by a large margin. There aren't a lot of big cities in Canada so Toronto gets a disproportionately larger amount of immigrants than any U.S city would get. Canada for example allows about 300K immigrants/refugees into the country per year vs the U.S about 1 million despite the U.S having 9X the population of Canada - so it allows quite a bit more per capita. Those factors mean I think Toronto will have strong immigration growth as long as Canada has a liberal immigration policy (very likely). Even if the U.S doubles its immigration flows, no single city would be receiving 30-35 percent of that like Toronto does in Canada. There are too many large cities in the U.S eating one anothers' lunch - not nearly so much in Canada.
The Toronto CSA equivalent - the Golden horseshoe has 26 percent of the population of Canada and 1/4th the GDP of Canada. To put that into relative perspective - the U.S would need a city with a CSA of 83 million people (321 million X .26) population and GDP of 4.6 trillion (18.5 trillion/4). In relational terms this is what a U.S city would need to have the same importance Toronto does to Canada that X city would need for the U.S. Even NYC in relative importance to the U.S ie population and GDP falls too short. Canada is far more likely of a country to have a Primate city vs the U.S.
Oh of course they are impressive projections but I just think we need to be accurate or as accurate as possible and if we are going to compare to U.S cities - try to make things apples to apples as much as possible. Posting a CSA equiv for Toronto is ok - if you compare to CSA's. Its not right to compare a U.S MSA to a Canadian CMA so the opposite is true as well. About Toronto's growth though, I provided a bit of explanation to ThatOneGuy why I think Toronto's historical growth may be more sustainable than most U.S cities (Canada's higher per capita immigration growth than the U.S coupled with Toronto receiving about 1/3rd of that alone pretty consistently because Canada has few large cities). If Toronto's CSA (Golden Horseshoe equivalent) continues to receive the same level of growth as it has over the last Census, which is about 120K per year than by 2071 (assuming similar growth) the population of the horseshoe should be around 16 million. By that time the Horseshoe will be a much more integrated region and Toronto's contiguous urban area population would be around 12.5 million. I think Toronto and maybe 1 or 2 other U.S CSA's will jostle for 3rd largest CSA in the U.S/Can though I think it is likely Toronto will have the 3rd largest urban area after NYC and L.A. While Chicago is likely to lose in CSA prominence over time, I still think its contiguous urbanized area will be top 5 and probably 4th after Toronto.
All said, even if Toronto continues its impressive growth over such a long period of time, L.A CSA could stand still today and Toronto wouldn't likely match it even by 2071 so I think you're right in that it is practically impossible for Toronto to beat L.A in our lifetimes. L.A would need to contract and I just don't see that likely at all. I don't care about haters - I know T.O is going to be a very large city in the future and in Canada/U.S it'll share very large city status with probably about 5-7 other U.S cities (NYC and L.A) are assured but not sure about the other 3-5. I'd like to say Chicago but I don't know. Population growth hasn't been a friend in that cities' CSA for awhile I believe but 50 years from now is a long time and a lot can change for any city over that time. I'm just looking at what has happened over the last half century and the probability over the next half.
The Toronto numbers are likely based on the greater Golden Horseshoe, which is about 500k shy of Chicago CSA. On a graph like that they would he treated as equivalent.
The Toronto numbers are likely based on the greater Golden Horseshoe, which is about 500k shy of Chicago CSA. On a graph like that they would he treated as equivalent.
No I got that and I'm not disputing the variance between Chicago and Toronto CSA's on the graph. Take a look at NYC and particularly L.A however. L.A already has a around 18.5 million and NYC is 23.5 million. That is not what is plotted on the graph for 2016 and the difference is almost 5 million for L.A CSA and 2.5 million for NYC CSA - so it is wrong from the start - esp L.A
Nashville will be around the same size Minneapolis metro is currently, and remain the largest city and metro in the state. Memphis will remain number 2. Murfreesboro and Clarksville should have eclipsed Chattanooga, and Knoxville without city/county consolidation in city population. However, third, fourth, fifth, and sixth spots may become difficult to predict given Murfreesboro and Clarksville's high growth rates and their consideration for metro consolidation may be exceptions to consider. While Clarksville is growing very fast, Montgomery county is significantly smaller in population compared to Rutherford, Hamilton, and Knox counties.
Downtown Tampa will be mostly flooded, and the 275/I-4 interchange will still be under construction. There will still be no light rail or any logical semblance of efficient mass transit, because this town loves voting against its own best interests.
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.
