The Metropolises of Tomorrow
 

The Metropolises of Tomorrow

http://i951.photobucket.com/albums/a...xx/BosWash.jpghttp://i951.photobucket.com/albums/a...llxx/RioSP.jpg
http://i951.photobucket.com/albums/a...llxx/SoCal.jpghttp://i951.photobucket.com/albums/a...hicagoland.jpg

I created this thread to discuss how the demographic growth will forge new metropolises and expand the borders of the current ones.

I'll start with examples in the US and Brazil:

-------------------------------- 2014 -------- 2010 ----- Growth %
BosWash ------------------- 51,164,919 --- 49,788,631 --- 2.76%
Southern California ------ 22,254,387 --- 21,396,214 --- 4.01%
Chicagoland --------------- 11,972,216 --- 11,866,918 --- 0.89%
Greater Bay Area --------- 11,918,876 --- 11,338,725 --- 5.12%

BosWash --- New York, Washington-Baltimore, Boston, Philadelphia, Hartford, Springfield CSAs and Lancaster MSA
SoCal --- Los Angeles CSA and San Diego and Santa Barbara MSAs
Chicagoland --- Chicago and Milwaukee CSAs
G. Bay Area --- San Francisco, Sacramento and Modesto CSAs

-------------------------------- 2014 -------- 2013 ----- Growth %
São Paulo ------------------ 33,596,475 --- 33,304,296 --- 0.88%
Rio de Janeiro ------------- 15,242,909 --- 15,161,638 --- 0.54%

São Paulo --- Metropolitana de São Paulo, Macro Metropolitana Paulista, Vale do Paraíba, Campinas and Piracicaba mesorregions and the microrregion of Itanhaém
Rio de Janeiro --- the entire state minus Norte e Noroeste mesorregions

Using the year 2020 as a target when both the US and Brazil hold their census:

Bos-Wash might be relatively its best moment in demographic terms compared to the rest of the country. Their growth isn't be that far from the national average.

Without annexing any counties to the CSAs, we'll have the following population (provided the current growth patterns remain the same):

BosWash heading for 52 million as 2020.

Southern California, going to 23.5 million people:

And Chicagoland, with its very slow growth won't see major changes (12.1 million people):

Rio-São Paulo

São Paulo macrometropolitan area will be around 35.3 million people by 2020, acting more and more like an ordinary metropolitan area. In fact, São Paulo and Campinas (100km apart) are already linked by continuous urban sprawl. Rio de Janeiro expanded area will be at 15.8 million.

Therefore, the Rio-São Paulo axis will above 51 million people, few years away to overtake Bos-Wash corridor as the most populated megalopolis in the American continent.

Next year will be interesting, as Canadians hold their inter-census, and we'll be able to see how their metro areas growth has been developing. I'd guess the Greater Golden Horseshoe will have been slowed down. They will probably count 10-11 million people by 2021.

Another interesting case will be London expanded area (London, East and Southeast England). Over 25 million people will be living there by 2021 UK Census.

Only 33 million people in São Paulo? I thought that was more like 55 million. And you forgot to include Glasgow in the London "expanded area".

Thanks for the contribution, Brisavoine. Very mature indeed.

I won't be dragged into your childish rants. 33 million "in São Paulo MACROMETROPOLITAN area", not "in São Paulo". All the 3 posts of the thread are perfectly clear. No need to troll.

Is there a logical test used to create the "metropolises?" If you're using urbanized continuity then I suspect you're missing a few population centers in the midwest and southern Ontario. I believe that the area around Lake Erie is urbanized (or nearly so) from Toronto/Buffalo towards Detroit and down through Cleveland, and possibly to Pittsburgh.

This is a contiguous population center but most don't recognize it since it spills across international borders in multiple places. However, it is probably the second largest population cluster in North America outside of the northeast/mid-Atlantic U.S. It is easily the second largest if you combine it with the Milwaukee-Chicago population cluster. But I think the case is stronger for connecting Buffalo-Toronto-Detroit-Cleveland-Pittsburgh than it is to connect that cluster to Milwaukee-Chicago.

The list is not exhaustive. I just threw some important areas to have a debate starter.

The problem with the Cleveland-Pittsburgh corridor, is the lack of growth, which prevents a further integration of the corridor. BosWash, on the other hand, has been an area of low population growth for decades, and now they are almost catching up the national average, and they will probably add 2.0-2.5 million people in this decade. That's a lot for an already consolidated region.


Let's see how the US part of it will behave in the next decade. Pittsburgh and Buffalo metro areas, for the first time since the 1960's and 1970's respectively, are showing positive growth.

Detroit and Cleveland go up and down, let's see if they arrive in 2020 with positive growth.

Los Angeles and San Diego could have been linked to form one continuous region a long time ago. BUT. Camp Pendleton and the now defunct and recently decommissioned San Onofre Nuclear Power plant creates a 20-30 mile gap between LA and San Diego. When I say LA I mean the far south portion of Orange County.

Without Camp Pendleton and the San Onfore power plant, LA and San Diego would have been joined back in the 90s.

Instead, That growth spilled over into the surrounding valleys.

I'm so glad Camp Pendleton exists for that very reason!

Yeah, driving across the base is like a nature preserve. Untouched coastal Southern California. It's a nice break-up from San Clemente to Oceanside.

Yes. As long as Brazil and the UK appear on top of the list, you're on the safe side of things with Yuriandrade. :)

not just because I live there, but Chicagoland may be the most interesting in the US, along with SF

Chicago proper still seeing hyper growth in the center, cranes everywhere, and crime-ridden neighborhoods emptying out. Slowly gentrification creeps from the center. Where will it balance out. Now getting national and international attention for its parts that might as well be (insert third-world murder capital here).
while at the same time the official metro will top 10 million and qualify for mega city status - as suburbs grow slowly also. Basically two forces pushing against each other. It's Singapore-dropped-into-Detroit syndrome.

SF dealing with housing crisis and some of the most out of balance real estate pricing the world has ever seen. Let's see how that affects the numbers. If it had more open real estate and the ability to absorb more building it would shock the world

While the metro areas of Cleveland/Akron/Canton, Youngstown/Warren and Pittsburgh/Wheeling may not be growing in absolute population numbers, they all continue to sprawl out and closer together. They are far from being completely built up, urban areas in between, but then again, so is BosWash.

From the aerial shot, Chicagoland could sprawl forever and could easily absorb another 10 million if future growth were steered over there.

CA cities are pretty much locked up between the mountains, federal lands (and Mex in SD's case) and the ocean.

If it isn't the fastest growing, Toronto is probably easily in the top 3 fastest growing major metropolises in North America this decade. I don't think it matters much for Detroit and Cleveland to have stagnant or declining population growth. It's being more than made up for by Toronto.

That region will probably still be the second most populated region of North American in 2020 and the foreseeable future.

I have a feeling (and hope) that Chicagoland might accelerate its growth on the second half of this decade. Let's see.

Yes, the urban footprint has kept growing constantly. However, if the population doesn't grow, the bonds might be weaken. If Cleveland CSA reaches 4 million, Pittsburg 3 million and Youngstown 1 million, we would definitely have a very strong corridor there.


I wouldn't say that. First of all, the American side of it, has a much bigger population weight. If it's declining, Toronto's growth won't be enough to counter balance it, specially as I don't see Toronto growing as fast as they used to be.

Also, we would only see one link of this chain of metro areas growing, while all the others were stagnant or declining.

It would be neat if the official census for the U.S. was every 5 years versus every 10 years. Sure there are yearly estimates, and those tend to be somewhat on the ball (especially for cities when estimates comes from the tax department), but it would be nice to not wait a decade, especially for stat guys like us who like, well, stats.

I'm wondering if its just costs and logistics that keep it at 10 years or that intervals of 10 look better on paper?

I made this using Google Maps for a thread in another forum...thought it might be pertinent to this thread. Maps are to-scale...
https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/617/22...6dd77ba1_o.jpg