HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #101  
Old Posted Jan 2, 2019, 7:46 PM
Obadno Obadno is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 6,586
Quote:
Originally Posted by BG918 View Post
In the 1960's metros like Detroit, Pittsburgh and St Louis were in the Top 10 largest in the U.S. and look where they are now. Which current Top 10 metros will be bumped out and replaced in 50 years?

1. New York
2. Los Angeles
3. Chicago
4. Dallas
5. Houston
6. Washington DC
7. Miami
8. Philadelphia
9. Atlanta
10. Boston
Phoenix has likely already surpassed or at least tied with Boston in 2018 but it will stay at 10 for quite some time, Atlanta is 1mm+ people larger and growing just as fast.

Today:

1. New York
2. Los Angeles
3. Chicago
4. Dallas
5. Houston
6. Washington DC
7. Miami
8. Philadelphia
9. Atlanta
10. Phoenix

2028:

1. New York
2. Los Angeles
3. Dallas
4. Chicago
5. Houston
6. Washington DC
7. Atlanta
8. Miami
9. Phoenix
10. Philly (possibly Seattle)

Miami, Atlanta, DC and Houston are all potentially too close to call it would be possible for those cities to change up significantly depending on how growth goes over the next 10 years.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #102  
Old Posted Jan 3, 2019, 9:16 PM
bossabreezes bossabreezes is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 958
Although South America is somewhat out of focus on this site, the metropolitan region between Goiânia and Brasília, Brazil is growing quickly.

There is about 100 miles between the two cities. Brasília has a bit over 3 Million inhabitants and Goiânia has about 2.5 million in it's metro, and these are the two fastest growing cities in Brazil.

The terrain between the two cities is somewhat rugged, although there is already a few cities (including Anápolis) with over 200,000 residents which sits between Brasília and Goiânia which is also growing rapidly. This region likely will not be strictly urban between the two, as Brazilian cities don't sprawl like American cities, but it will no doubt be a large conurbated urban center.

I can see Goiânia and Brasília being home to around 20 million people collectively in the next 30 years, which would make it one of the world's newest big metropolises. It is also a very wealthy region, with per capita incomes in both cities much higher than most other metro regions South of the United State. São Paulo and Rio de Janeiro might be the only cities south of the US in the Americas to have more wealth.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #103  
Old Posted Jan 3, 2019, 9:22 PM
Crawford Crawford is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NYC/Polanco, DF
Posts: 30,550
Quote:
Originally Posted by bossabreezes View Post
ASão Paulo and Rio de Janeiro might be the only cities south of the US in the Americas to have more wealth.
Mexico City probably has the most wealth in Latin America. Guadalajara, Queretaro and Monterrey are rather prosperous too.

Santiago, Chile would have high household incomes too.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #104  
Old Posted Jan 3, 2019, 9:25 PM
MonkeyRonin's Avatar
MonkeyRonin MonkeyRonin is offline
¥ ¥ ¥
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 9,871
Quote:
Originally Posted by bossabreezes View Post
Although South America is somewhat out of focus on this site, the metropolitan region between Goiânia and Brasília, Brazil is growing quickly.

There is about 100 miles between the two cities. Brasília has a bit over 3 Million inhabitants and Goiânia has about 2.5 million in it's metro, and these are the two fastest growing cities in Brazil.

The terrain between the two cities is somewhat rugged, although there is already a few cities (including Anápolis) with over 200,000 residents which sits between Brasília and Goiânia which is also growing rapidly. This region likely will not be strictly urban between the two, as Brazilian cities don't sprawl like American cities, but it will no doubt be a large conurbated urban center.

I can see Goiânia and Brasília being home to around 20 million people collectively in the next 30 years, which would make it one of the world's newest big metropolises. It is also a very wealthy region, with per capita incomes in both cities much higher than most other metro regions South of the United State. São Paulo and Rio de Janeiro might be the only cities south of the US in the Americas to have more wealth.

If the region has about 6 million people right now, it would need to grow at nearly 500,000 people/year to hit 20 million in the next 30 years. Is it really expected to grow that fast? (I honestly have no idea - though I would certainly be surprised as that would put it in line with booming third world megacities like Dhaka & Lagos. Brazil is a comparatively slow-growth and already mostly urbanized country)
__________________
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #105  
Old Posted Jan 3, 2019, 9:48 PM
bossabreezes bossabreezes is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 958
^^The area comprising the two cities actually has 9 million people as of 2011.

I cited Brasília proper's population of 3 million- the metro region actually has over 4.2 million inhabitants.

Brasília is the fastest growing city of Brasil with over 60.000 newcoming inhabitants moving to the city annually- this doesn't include natural population increase via births. This 60.000 does not include any of the neighboring suburban city's population growth, which is similar. Also, Goiânia proper adds over 40.000 migrants per year.

If this growth continues, that will put Brasília and Goiânia only (the municipality proper, no suburban growth included) with an extra 2.700.000 migrants, not including any births. This brings us close to 12.000.000 inhabitants. This doesnt include any organic growth within or in the space between the two cities.

Also, to add to the mix, the state where most of this metro is located (Goiás), is one of only 9 states in Brasil where the birth rate is higher than replacement.

Although hard to formulate, 15-20.000.000 between the two cities is possible if current growth maintains. And all signals are showing the growth rate of this region is accelerating. Rural Brazil continues to empty out and cities continue to grow rapidly.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #106  
Old Posted Jan 29, 2019, 1:12 PM
ThePhun1 ThePhun1 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Houston/Galveston
Posts: 1,870
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pedestrian View Post
There needs to be an economic factor to make cities grow: A port, a major university, a government capital, a dynamic industry.

I'd put Sacramento and Raleigh NC on my list.
Both are already there and imo won't grow much bigger than they already are.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #107  
Old Posted Jan 29, 2019, 1:23 PM
Sun Belt Sun Belt is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: The Envy of the World
Posts: 4,926
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThePhun1 View Post
Both are already there and imo won't grow much bigger than they already are.
Both are projected to continue to have high rates of growth over the next coming decades. There's not much to stop the North Carolina arch from growing.

Raleigh
1] Land - check
2] Water - check
3] Lack of Federal lands, preserves - check
4] Tons of little towns, with their own ambitions - check

The Triangle's recent growth:
1990 735,480 -- 31.2%
2000 1,187,941 -- 61.5%
2010 1,912,729 -- 61.0%
2017 2,199,459 -- 15.0%

North Carolina growth:
1990 6,628,637 -- 12.7%
2000 8,049,313 -- 21.4%
2010 9,535,483 -- 18.5%
2018 10,383,620 -- 8.9%

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #108  
Old Posted Jan 29, 2019, 3:49 PM
isaidso isaidso is offline
The New Republic
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: United Provinces of America
Posts: 10,791
In most places population is skewed to the coast. What are the reasons for the inverse being true in North Carolina?
__________________
World's First Documented Baseball Game: Beachville, Ontario, June 4th, 1838.
World's First Documented Gridiron Game: University College, Toronto, November 9th, 1861.
Hamilton Tiger-Cats since 1869 & Toronto Argonauts since 1873: North America's 2 oldest pro football teams
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #109  
Old Posted Jan 29, 2019, 3:54 PM
skyscraperpage17 skyscraperpage17 is offline
Closed account
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 2,016
Quote:
Originally Posted by isaidso View Post
In most places population is skewed to the coast. What are the reasons for the inverse being true in North Carolina?
There's nothing of value along the NC coast.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #110  
Old Posted Jan 29, 2019, 4:02 PM
BG918's Avatar
BG918 BG918 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 3,549
Quote:
Originally Posted by isaidso View Post
In most places population is skewed to the coast. What are the reasons for the inverse being true in North Carolina?
Lots of swampland and barrier islands, similar to South Carolina, Louisiana and to a certain extent Texas.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #111  
Old Posted Jan 29, 2019, 4:38 PM
iheartthed iheartthed is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: New York
Posts: 9,782
Quote:
Originally Posted by isaidso View Post
In most places population is skewed to the coast. What are the reasons for the inverse being true in North Carolina?
Not really. Atlanta is just as far inland as Charlotte.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #112  
Old Posted Jan 29, 2019, 5:03 PM
Obadno Obadno is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 6,586
Quote:
Originally Posted by isaidso View Post
In most places population is skewed to the coast. What are the reasons for the inverse being true in North Carolina?
Most populations are skewed towards navigable waterways weather thats a port or a navigable river but also they will locate at the center of an agricultural region and/or at major trade/transportation hubs.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #113  
Old Posted Jan 29, 2019, 5:15 PM
Tuckerman Tuckerman is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Atlanta
Posts: 979
Quote:
Originally Posted by iheartthed View Post
Not really. Atlanta is just as far inland as Charlotte.
Actually, Atlanta is quite far inland and south of Detroit.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #114  
Old Posted Jan 29, 2019, 5:17 PM
iheartthed iheartthed is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: New York
Posts: 9,782
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tuckerman View Post
Actually, Atlanta is quite far inland and south of Detroit.
Yes, directly south of Detroit. That's how they came to share I-75.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #115  
Old Posted Jan 29, 2019, 9:37 PM
Sun Belt Sun Belt is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: The Envy of the World
Posts: 4,926
Quote:
Originally Posted by isaidso View Post
In most places population is skewed to the coast. What are the reasons for the inverse being true in North Carolina?
It has to do with the Fall Line geographical feature defining the edge of the Piedmont region [the same region that Atlanta is located in].
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #116  
Old Posted Jan 29, 2019, 9:39 PM
Sun Belt Sun Belt is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: The Envy of the World
Posts: 4,926
Quote:
Originally Posted by skyscraperpage17 View Post
There's nothing of value along the NC coast.
The coast holds a lot of value, however, it's just that the land wasn't suitable for development very easily. The water table is just below the surface and there are a lot of swamps and low lying lands, along with powerful Hurricanes that frequent the Cape Fear area.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #117  
Old Posted Jan 29, 2019, 9:44 PM
Sun Belt Sun Belt is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: The Envy of the World
Posts: 4,926
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tuckerman View Post
Actually, Atlanta is quite far inland and south of Detroit.
Atlanta is surprisingly, landlocked for a city in a coastal state. It's about 4.5 hours to Tybee Island, just outside of Savannah. 5 hours to Charleston, Jacksonville and Panama City.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #118  
Old Posted Jan 29, 2019, 9:47 PM
skyscraperpage17 skyscraperpage17 is offline
Closed account
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 2,016
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sun Belt View Post
The coast holds a lot of value, however, it's just that the land wasn't suitable for development very easily. The water table is just below the surface and there are a lot of swamps and low lying lands, along with powerful Hurricanes that frequent the Cape Fear area.
When referring to value, I meant assets conducive to cultivating a population center as things stand today. All of the universities, jobs, cultural amenities, airports, etc are well inland.

Although what you say though may be the reason why the aforementioned assets were established well inland
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #119  
Old Posted Jan 29, 2019, 9:53 PM
Sun Belt Sun Belt is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: The Envy of the World
Posts: 4,926
Quote:
Originally Posted by skyscraperpage17 View Post
When referring to value, I meant assets conducive anchoring the state's population as things stand today. All of the universities, jobs, cultural amenities, airports, etc are well inland.

Although what you say though may be the reason why the aforementioned assets were established well inland
I think the only urbanized coastal opportunity in N.C. is the Wilmington region, but due to the jutting out of the coastline, it makes it ground zero for incoming tropical systems.

The sounds are too remote from interstates and other commerce.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #120  
Old Posted Jan 30, 2019, 12:53 AM
DCReid DCReid is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,047
Quote:
Originally Posted by Obadno View Post
Phoenix has likely already surpassed or at least tied with Boston in 2018 but it will stay at 10 for quite some time, Atlanta is 1mm+ people larger and growing just as fast.

Today:

1. New York
2. Los Angeles
3. Chicago
4. Dallas
5. Houston
6. Washington DC
7. Miami
8. Philadelphia
9. Atlanta
10. Phoenix

2028:

1. New York
2. Los Angeles
3. Dallas
4. Chicago
5. Houston
6. Washington DC
7. Atlanta
8. Miami
9. Phoenix
10. Philly (possibly Seattle)

Miami, Atlanta, DC and Houston are all potentially too close to call it would be possible for those cities to change up significantly depending on how growth goes over the next 10 years.
Kind of a deceptive conjecture as the economic impact of areas is also important. For example, the Bay area is not in the top 10 but it obviously has more 'economic impact' than much bigger Phoenix. Same could also be said of Boston vs Phoenix. It might be better Consolidated metros, which would produce a different top 10 list. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combined_statistical_area

If you look at that list, I could see Philly dropping out of the top 10, Cleveland and St Louis out of the top 20, and a new CSA of Austin-San Antonio in the top 20, joined in the top 20 by either 2 of the 3 - Columbus, Las Vegas, and Raleigh-Durham. Orlando and Tampa may also be combined as a CSA and reach be close to the top 10 (they are only 85 miles apart).
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 9:09 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.