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.
In reality, from a climate change standpoint, the Great Lakes region (essentially what many would consider some of the least desirable cities) will be the most insulated from the worst of its effects. This region is already considered the safest from natural disasters.
Exactly this. The places on the list may be safe spots for folks to avoid the rising sea levels, but Houston, Las Vegas, etc. are going to be greatly affected by other impacts of climate change. Much of the southwest will be completely uninhabitable, while the Great Lakes region will be the least impacted overall.
I voted Las Vegas.
It is the only west city. And despite the dryness and heat, people enjoy living in those type of places already.
The west coast will not see dire results of rising sea levels. Only a small fraction of people live in flooding areas up to 20ft rise is oceans in Los Angeles Metro. At 50 feet, a little more. At 200 ft. A lot of coastal areas are gone but you can live 10 miles inland and be fine. Downtown LA and Hollywood are above 200 ft. Have the entire valleys at above 300-500 ft. Then you have the high desert areas from Palmdale to Victorville above 2000 ft. on the way to Las Vegas which is mostly empty.
Wildfires are not a big problem. Wildfires are common for millions of years, but only bad because people have homes in in places surrounded by flammable vegetation. Just build no homes or fire resistant homes like a hobbit. Most people are not in dangers only have to deal with bad air for a bit. People are like what about water? There is an ocean there, and technology to make it fresh water. California already has a system of aqueducts to transfer water throughout the state with enough water to for 120 million people if agriculture uses 50% less water than currently. California could pump water to Las Vegas with an aqueduct system.
This whole list of cities makes no sense. Houston? The place floods with regular rain. Vegas? None of these I would consider "Cities of the Future" when talking about climate change. They are only on the list because they are the closest large cities to the nearby climate refugees precisely because they are in poor climate locations already.
I think the OP did some editorializing with the title of this thread.
There is no way to predict scenarios of the US here out 40+yrs. For all we know the Midwest will become the migration region??? We do not know how well our current boom cities will age and cost rising fast in them. The link used here uses purely rising sea levels. No other factors seem included that could play a roll in weather pattern changes.
The link also says this - But when it comes to projecting such movements into the future, as climate change rapidly transforms landscapes on a never-before-seen scale, “I don’t think we know that much at the moment,” says Amir Jina, an environmental economist at the University of Chicago. “It’s hard to think of what’s going to happen with long-term [climate] change.”
My point is -- why would we be limited to even these cities in the list? We already have signs of new cities are now growing further north then the typical Sunbelt. Also many cities do not build housing that is projected to last a couple generations and more? Yet many well-built structures from the past century .... were built to last and have 100+yrs in these Legacy cities. They show no signs of not lasting many more decades.
If climate change does truly show its ugly head in a couple decades more and more? We also do not know how weather patterns will be altered.
- Might Arctic blast be a thing of the past dipping into the US Northern tier to moderate our states now that people leave because of winters as they moderate?
- Will merely inland Sunbelt cities get even hotter and not help their future predictions of migrations continued.
- Speaking of migrations currently southward.... might that end it reasons and even reverse as Corporate America plays a key roll too to begin with and they could steer it Northward again or totally new city regions?
It is nice to see Philadelphia on this list as a Northern City. Just surprising as it too would have some issues with rising sea-levels as it has a Port that ocean-going vessels can reach because the Delaware River there leads to the Chesapeake Bay to the open seas. Though only parts of Philadelphia might eventually be effected and it is a large metro afterall. Near future prospects of the Philadelphia region getting more attention has its proximity to mighty NYC now might help it as some relocate there while still close to NYC.
Still there is no current reasons to even exclude our many other inland cities including the Midwest that lost favor for migrations and experience slow growth to losses that could REVERSE as future migration and growth cities, but guess that is another thread..... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ From this list given for this thread ..... Vegas and Atlanta are furthest from Ocean rise threats. Just not climate change of course.
This whole list of cities makes no sense. Houston? The place floods with regular rain. Vegas? None of these I would consider "Cities of the Future" when talking about climate change. They are only on the list because they are the closest large cities to the nearby climate refugees precisely because they are in poor climate locations already.
I think the OP did some editorializing with the title of this thread.
My god. Somehow I’m not surprised it is you having difficulty with this topic. Did you even bother to read the link?
Quote:
A 2017 study projected 10 U.S. regions as the most likely destinations for people fleeing sea level rise by 2100. The top three areas could each see population booms of more than 250,000.
My god. Somehow I’m not surprised it is you having difficulty with this topic. Did you even bother to read the link?
If you have a problem with the projected cities on this list, take it up with the writers of the article.
You clearly didn't read the rest of my post. I totally understand the topic and why those cities are picked. You just don't seem to realize that the reason these cities are going to have population booms is that they are in regions most likely to be impacted by climate change. I don't have a problem with the projected cities on this list, but your editorializing the thread title with "City of the Future" and "Where your grandchildren will grow up" as if these are the cities in best shape for climate change.
It's like saying Dhaka, the capital of Bangladesh, will see huge population booms because Bangladesh will be under water with climate change. This is true, but I would not call Dhaka the city of future and best city to weather climate change. You get it? Clearly not. It is also why Houston, a place that floods with regular rain, is on this list.
You clearly didn't read the rest of my post. I totally understand the topic and why those cities are picked. You just don't seem to realize that the reason these cities are going to have population booms is that they are in regions most likely to be impacted by climate change. I don't have a problem with the projected cities on this list, but your editorializing the thread title with "City of the Future" and "Where your grandchildren will grow up" as if these are the cities in best shape for climate change.
It's like saying Dhaka, the capital of Bangladesh, will see huge population booms because Bangladesh will be under water with climate change. This is true, but I would not call Dhaka the city of future and best city to weather climate change. You get it? Clearly not. It is also why Houston, a place that floods with regular rain, is on this list.
I read the article, so yes, I know the methodology behind the list. Read the article, and like I said, if you have a problem, contact the writer. And if you still have a problem, then don’t comment. It’s quite simple for most people. You have a problem with 2100 likely being the time period that our grandchildren will be alive? Or do you have a problem with the term “city of the future”? Get over it. You’re a well-known booster, so more than likely, you’re just upset that your precious Seattle didn’t get a mention, and so you’ve taken offense like you usually do. It’s sad at this point.
It's all futile. We're already seeing stuff occurring now that wasn't meant to happen until 2100 at earliest, between recent events at Siberia/Arctic, as well as trends with tropical cyclonic strength. The entirety of civilization and life on Earth, is staring down the barrel, topless of just a few cities.
So really, all bets are 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.
