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.
It’s interesting that in 1900 LA wasn’t even in the top 25 largest cities. Worcester, MA was bigger, if you can believe that...
In 1900, who would have expected the 36th largest US city to sail past Cleveland, Detroit, New Orleans, Chicago, etc. My point is, it is very difficult to predict who will rise and fall over that time horizon.
The general population was growing a lot faster back then though
While I don't think it will happen due to low natural population growth in the US and rapidly decreasing immigration, I would go with Washington/Baltimore. The Federal government employs so many people and has so much money that it will be a magnet for growth. These two cities also have core cities which can support a lof of high density growth. At the same time they can continue to sprawl outwards like the other contenders.
Climate change will have a big effect on how big cities will get in the future. Places in the West are likely to continue to suffer drought, and w/o enough water, no place west of the Mississippi is likely to reach four, five, six million if things keep getting drier and drier. Places like Phoenix, Las Vegas, Houston, and Los Angeles, have the land to expand, but they well many not have the water to support a huge increase in population. In fact, they may even lose residents over the long term because of that
But that same loss of water might tend to boost populations in Midwest cities, where drought isn't (yet) an issue. So Columbus, Detroit, Minneapolis, Chicago, Cleveland, et al, could see above average growth over the next century. Of those only Chicago, I think, has the possibility of being (regaining) the No.2 spot. It's already a big city with lots of empty/underused land, a solid downtown core, good mass transit, unafraid of building high-rises and multi-family homes, and above-average city amenities. I could easily see it at four million a century from now, while the Sunbelt cities -- even Southeastern ones like Atlanta, Charlotte, and Jacksonville -- decline or stagnate because of a small footprint (Atlanta), political pushback and NIMBYism (Charlotte), or rising sea levels (the coastal Florida cities).
Last edited by citylove101; 09-12-2022 at 01:54 PM..
people are acting like single family homes can't be demolished.
All cities in the US started with single family homes.
I can understand if the theory is that residents won't be willing to give up single family homes, but the mere presence of single family homes right now doesn't mean anything.
For certain they can be demolished but having to navigate the world of individual homeownership is no easy task.
I'll also add that the USA has nowhere near the natural growth or immigration to propel the likes of an Austin to #2 in the nation.
I disagree with the OP's assumption that no city will catch NY.
I always consider metro areas rather than city limits since it's not as if Hoboken is in a different place than Manhattan or Queens. They are economically one unit.
That said the LA metro area has 15 million people, while the New York metro area has 20 million people. LA is still growing briskly metro-wide compared to New York which is slow-growth. I believe LA will eventually surpass New York at the metro level.
Also looking at the metro level the biggest threats to Chicago are DC and the SF Bay Area. Houston is only a threat at the municipal level and as I stated that's not very meaningful when comparing cities.
Climate change will have a big effect on how big cities will get in the future. Places in the West are likely to continue to suffer drought, and w/o enough water, no place west of the Mississippi is likely to reach four, five, six million if things keep getting drier and drier. Places like Phoenix, Las Vegas, Houston, and Los Angeles, have the land to expand, but they well many not have the water to support a huge increase in population. In fact, they may even lose residents over the long term because of that
But that same loss of water might tend to boost populations in Midwest cities, where drought isn't (yet) an issue. So Columbus, Detroit, Minneapolis, Chicago, Cleveland, et al, could see above average growth over the next century. Of those only Chicago, I think, has the possibility of being (regaining) the No.2 spot. It's already a big city with lots of empty/underused land, a solid downtown core, good mass transit, unafraid of building high-rises and multi-family homes, and above-average city amenities. I could easily see it at four million a century from now, while the Sunbelt cities -- even Southeastern ones like Atlanta, Charlotte, and Jacksonville -- decline or stagnate because of a small footprint (Atlanta), political pushback and NIMBYism (Charlotte), or rising sea levels (the coastal Florida cities).
Houston receives more rain than NYC, Boston, or DC. They do not have problems obtaining water nor does any major Texas metro area.
Houston - 55.64
NYC - 49.52
Boston - 43.59
DC - 41.82
If the sea levels flood Houston, NYC and Boston will be way underwater.
I disagree with the OP's assumption that no city will catch NY.
I always consider metro areas rather than city limits since it's not as if Hoboken is in a different place than Manhattan or Queens. They are economically one unit.
That said the LA metro area has 15 million people, while the New York metro area has 20 million people. LA is still growing briskly metro-wide compared to New York which is slow-growth. I believe LA will eventually surpass New York at the metro level.
Also looking at the metro level the biggest threats to Chicago are DC and the SF Bay Area. Houston is only a threat at the municipal level and as I stated that's not very meaningful when comparing cities.
Los Angeles has lost people on the metro level for the last four years.
I always consider metro areas rather than city limits since it's not as if Hoboken is in a different place than Manhattan or Queens. They are economically one unit.
That said the LA metro area has 15 million people, while the New York metro area has 20 million people. LA is still growing briskly metro-wide compared to New York which is slow-growth. I believe LA will eventually surpass New York at the metro level.
Also looking at the metro level the biggest threats to Chicago are DC and the SF Bay Area. Houston is only a threat at the municipal level and as I stated that's not very meaningful when comparing cities.
This assumption ignores climate change and drought in a state like California. California has a significant growing water issue, and unless this is addressed to allow for future growth, the LA area will continue to gradually shrink in population.
NYC's infrastructure (subways/skyscrapers/building and population density) absolutely crushes any US city, and no US city comes close, nor will, in 100 years.
NYC was built up in a golden era where people had to be very near their jobs, and dense, crowded cities, were the place to be for anything.
In the digital era, this is watering down the "need" to live and work in any city, thus a factor that is causing many mid-sized and larger cities to lose populations and lose importance.
Houston receives more rain than NYC, Boston, or DC. They do not have problems obtaining water nor does any major Texas metro area.
Houston - 55.64
NYC - 49.52
Boston - 43.59
DC - 41.82
If the sea levels flood Houston, NYC and Boston will be way underwater.
Yes, I stand corrected. Houston may not suffer from drought or sea level rise.
But climate change is seriously affecting it already with heat, rain and flooding, and snow and ice, as we have seen in the past few years. That's not to mention the increasing possibility of big hurricanes. IMO those climate changes will get worse, not better., and will limit the growth of Houson over the next century.
It’s interesting that in 1900 LA wasn’t even in the top 25 largest cities. Worcester, MA was bigger, if you can believe that...
In 1900, who would have expected the 36th largest US city to sail past Cleveland, Detroit, New Orleans, Chicago, etc. My point is, it is very difficult to predict who will rise and fall over that time horizon.
There needs to be either a TV series or an epic 3 hour movie set in Los Angeles between 1880-1900. It would be so fascinating. I guess the closest we have is "There Will Be Blood."
There was plenty of speculation and boosterism going on by at least 1880, but I'd say it was more regional than national, as L.A. was promoted as a boutique "health destination" in the early days to easterners. The construction of the aqueduct in 1913 is probably the official starting line for L.A. as a world 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.
people are acting like single family homes can't be demolished. 
