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.
One thing to remember is growth begins to slow once a metro area becomes very large. If Dallas-Fort Worth (or Atlanta, Houston, etc) doubles its current size it will lose its low cost of living that now drives its growth.
California is a trend setter for the US and it's major metros are really slowing (growth since 00: LA 9%, SF 4%) while smaller cities are booming (Sac +16%, Fresno 14%, Bakersfield 20%). In less developed states (like Kentucky) the large metros will probably still be growing in 100 years but I think peripheral cities in the larger states will handle most of the growth in 2110.
Well, what you have in California is people moving away from the big metros (LA and SF) into exurbs which will eventually connect to the big metros, making them even bigger. 20 years ago, San Bernardino and Riverside were pretty far out in the boonies with their own identity and distinct development pattern. Now, these areas are developmentally connected to Greater Los Angeles!
This is why areas like the Inland Empire and the northern San Joaquin Valley (Stockton, Tracy, Manteca, Modesto) have been growing. That's why, in a weird twisted kind of way, I'm kind of glad that the housing crisis happens so people can stop driving long commutes just so they can afford a house. It's not a healthy lifestyle by any stretch of the imagination.
To give you an example, I have an aunt who commutes from Corona (near Riverside) to Downtown LA..5 days a week. That's nearly 100/day just to go to work, and that's pretty common in her area. Even crazier is my dad has co-workers who live in Bakersfield and commute to Hollywood (220 miles/day)!
In the next census, don't be surprised which areas are going to become part of which metro area. It's insanity really!
Predicting out into 2100 is pretty useless though. It's a nice thought exercise, but it's impossible to predict all that can happen in 100 years. Hell, some of us think we can't even make it to 2012
I don't know why the mentality is 'population growth = good' or 'bigger population = better'. If that were the case, India and China would be the great powerhouses of the world and Africa would be the hottest spot to move right now.
I'm wondering why people didn't get this memo as well as why they fail to realize the area was never "out of water."
Even if it were an issue, who knows what technologies and advancements will exist 100 years from now to address the "problem."
Update: Lake Lanier has to be partially drained to remain at/below FULL POOL now, because Metro Atlanta has gotten TOO MUCH WATER over the last year. I believe 2009 was the wettest (or 2nd wettest) year for the area in record-keeping history. So, the current discussion is about releasing a few million more gallons downstream each day as not to flood the area.
The long term issue is politics, not resources...what people fail to understand is any 'water shortage' that may occur in future is due to the constraints placed on water consumption by the Army Corps of Engineers on Lake Lanier (Atlanta's primary water source). Atlanta has never had a legal right to use the water for this purpose, and Gov. Perdue is finally taking action to amend this. We are not 'drying up', as so many are suggesting...2007 was the culmination of a 500 year drought, for Pete's sake. The water sources have come back...with a vengeance.
I think that the census stats for the 25 largest US cities in 1900 was quite interesting ... and useful in this forum.
Cleveland ... as 6th largest city in America? What a proud ( and somewhat sad ) footnote in this particular cities rich history.
Signs of that "long ago fact" are abundantly evidenced everywhere in Cleveland ... especially with regards to the cities immense cultural riches ( the museums, Orchestra and institutions ) and its sprawling suburbs.
It just goes to show that TODAYS BIGGEST CITIES could ultimately suffer the same fate ... as none of us really knows what the future will hold for our already deteriorating economy and world prominence.
What is interesting is that there is no city from the south on the list.
Except for NOLA. NOLA was (and is) a port, most of the rest of the South was agricultural back in 1910. Atlanta was important back then, but mostly just to the region. In the 21 century, even before Katrina NOLA's importance and size had considerably been eclipsed by Houston, Dallas, and Atlanta.
Way too many variables to predict what might be. Water, though, will be a huge factor in dry areas - enough so that those high population predictions won't be sustainable.
I'll mirror everyone else and say that trying to figure out what cities will be the largest 100 years from now is next to impossible. Growth rates are dependent on a LOT of factors that can change in a blink of an eye. Chicago and Detroit are big examples of that since they are both relatively new cities (despite what people claim on C-D) in America, and grew unbelievably large in a short amount of time. Inversely, we can see exactly what happens when that engine for growth dies just as fast in the case of Detroit.
Just to get an idea of how variable this can be, let's just take a look back at the top 25 of the past.
In 1900, the 25 largest Metros (not city populations) were:
This was the last census before automobiles became common, modern assembly line style factories were built en masse, and the Great Migrations of European immigrants and African Americans from the south to the Northern cities went in to full swing.
Places like Los Angeles, Houston and Dallas weren't even on anyone's radar outside their region and Atlanta was still rebuilding from the Civil War.
If we jump ahead to the 1930 census, the landscape almost completely changes.
Now we see the effect of mass immigration, massive industrialization, and the "irrational exuberance" of the 1920s on the Northern cities. But this was also before the worst economic effects of the Great Depression on the cities, the Dust Bowl Migration, and the Second World War.
Because of those three things, the picture completely changed again in 1950:
In 1950 things seemed grand in the big cities on the outside. American cities weren't in ruins like the big cities of Europe and Asia were from WWII and we took advantage of that. Every city in the top 10 hit their peak population in their city proper that year (Except for New York City and San Francisco which have since surpassed their 1950 totals). Even places that are characterized as "sprawlvilles" (If I could shoot a term with a gun, that would be it) today like Dallas, Houston and Atlanta had the majority of their population in their city centers. Every city had a subway or an extensive street car network and things looked they wouldn't change much at all.
Of course, nothing is ever what it seems it is. Though extremely prosperous, most people in the Northern industrial cities lived in what would be considered third world conditions today. One article I read once about St. Louis in the 1950s described it as looking like something out of a dark Charles Dickens novel.
Environmental controls were not in place, so the factories that were making their owners rich were also filling the skies and waters with pollution and poisoning the residents. Most people still lived in tenement housing which had, if it had one, only one restroom for the entire building that often had hundreds of residents.
These conditions plus the building of the interstate highway system, "urban renewal", massive suburbanization, the third African-American Great Migration back to the South, baby boomers, the lifting of immigration bans on Asian and Latin immigrants and the deindustrialization of the United States led directly to the world we have today.
Largest Metropolitan Areas as of 2008:
As you can see, only 12 of the top 25 from 1900 are even on the list today. An even starker fact is that of the metros that remained in the top 10 for most of the first half of the 20th century, only five remain today (DC doesn't count in this regard. Even though it has had a large city center for a while now, it's metro didn't become a top 10 until it's suburbs began to sprawl.)
So what will happen in the next 90 years? Chances are that many in the top 10 today will remain, but who knows. Most Americans, even who live in high density cities, will probably not go for Asian mega city style density which in turn will mean some other city will benefit from an influx of other people.
The economies that will take shape, the wars that will be fought, the overconsumption of oil, and the impending aging of the baby boomers that make up 60 million of our population will have dramatic effect on which cities will rise and fall. For all we know Des Moines, Iowa could be the next Houston.
It's fun to think about though, so I'll rep you OP
Thanks for adding this to the discussion! I wasn't aware that the census bureau had identified metro areas before 1960. (That's why I just used CITY stats from 1910) How were they defined?
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.
I'm wondering why people didn't get this memo as well as why they fail to realize the area was never "out of water."
Even if it were an issue, who knows what technologies and advancements will exist 100 years from now to address the "problem."
Update: Lake Lanier has to be partially drained to remain at/below FULL POOL now, because Metro Atlanta has gotten TOO MUCH WATER over the last year. I believe 2009 was the wettest (or 2nd wettest) year for the area in record-keeping history. So, the current discussion is about releasing a few million more gallons downstream each day as not to flood the area.
The media made it seem that way. If you solely relied on CNN/NBC/FOX, and didn't look up things for yourself you would think that there was no water at all in northern GA.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben Around
Except for NOLA. NOLA was (and is) a port, most of the rest of the South was agricultural back in 1910. Atlanta was important back then, but mostly just to the region. In the 21 century, even before Katrina NOLA's importance and size had considerably been eclipsed by Houston, Dallas, and Atlanta.
Mainly by Houston since New Orleans' economy was originally centered around the port and the energy industry. One thing though, when the oil companies up and moved to Houston the only moved the HQs and white collar employees. Most of the blue collar work and refineries are here, and the majority of the pipelines still run from here. The important people are all in TX, but a good chunk of the infrastructure is in LA. Here's a 2007 editorial on Houston, NO, & the oil/energy sector -> What's Houston got that N.O. doesn't? Plenty | Breaking News Updates New Orleans - Times-Picayune - NOLA.com - NOLA.com. <-is almost 3 years old, so N.O. wasn't expected to do as well as it is right now.
I'll be interesting to see what's in store for NOLA over the next 10 years.
Last edited by WestbankNOLA; 02-03-2010 at 12:13 PM..
The media made it seem that way. If you solely relied on CNN/NBC/FOX, and didn't look up things for yourself you would think that there was no water at all in northern GA.
Yeah, I noticed that too. They really played it up, big time.
What was bad was that even though we have the headwaters AND the lake itself, we were the only ones under water restrictions during the peak of the drought. Alabama and the Florida panhandle never imposed them. So while they were bitching the entire time about us "taking" their water, they were free to wash their cars and water their lawns.
Yeah, I noticed that too. They really played it up, big time.
What was bad was that even though we have the headwaters AND the lake itself, we were the only ones under water restrictions during the peak of the drought. Alabama and the Florida panhandle never imposed them. So while they were bitching the entire time about us "taking" their water, they were free to wash their cars and water their lawns.
Talk about adding insult to injury!
When did flooding become a problem in Atlanta though?
..and another question: Since the current trend is to gentrify, fill-in, and move to the city, how does that affect Metro Atlanta in the long run?
When did flooding become a problem in Atlanta though?
..and another question: Since the current trend is to gentrify, fill-in, and move to the city, how does that affect Metro Atlanta in the long run?
Just within the past 6 months, really.
The ground is super-saturated now due to historic rainfall over the last year. Once this clay is saturated, the water really has nowhere to go. Now we have flooding issues in low-lying areas and anywhere near a major creek or midsize river during what used to be a normal rain. On a positive note, this should probably be one of the lushest, most beautiful Springs we've ever had in a month or so.
As far as the long run, until the court decides the direction of this current situation in 2012, I have no idea. I do know that there are several new resovoirs proposed, but Alabama and Florida have sued to stop them too! People don't usually realize that metro Atlanta's water outtake is miniscule compared to what is mandated to be sent downstream for AL & FL by the Corps of Engineers.
It certainly doesn't bode well for the exurbs in the future, but that really doesn't bother too many people closer in (including me).
The City itself is in the midst of a $4 Billion sewer system overhaul as we speak, so they should be in great shape. (This includes DeKalb and Sandy Springs, they contract some water services from the City).
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.
