HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > United States


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
     
     
  #1  
Old Posted Apr 29, 2008, 1:42 PM
tdawg's Avatar
tdawg tdawg is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Astoria, NY
Posts: 2,935
1,000,000,000 Americans by 2100?

Saw this in USAToday this morning. Anyone else find this prediction a bit of a stretch?

Expert: U.S. population to hit 1 billion by 2100

By Haya El Nasser, USA TODAY
If the USA seems too crowded and its roads too congested now, imagine future generations: The nation's population could more than triple to 1 billion as early as 2100.

That's the eye-popping projection that urban and rural planners, gathered today for their annual meeting in Las Vegas, are hearing from a land-use expert.

"What do we do now to start preparing for that?" asks Arthur Nelson, co-director of the Metropolitan Institute at Virginia Tech, whose analysis projects that the USA will hit the 1 billion mark sometime between 2100 and 2120. "It's a realistic long-term challenge."

The nation currently has almost 304 million people and is the world's third most populous, behind China (1.3 billion) and India (1.1 billion). China passed the 1 billion mark in the early 1980s.

Jeff Soule, director of outreach for the American Planning Association, hopes it will be provocative enough to inspire planners who anticipate development patterns and infrastructure needs to look beyond their lifetimes and localities. "We have to be more aggressive about looking out at the long term," Soule says. "It may get people thinking beyond their jurisdictions. … It's clear we have to think about such issues as food, water and basic transportation infrastructure."

Nelson says China and India are accommodating billion-plus populations on less land area than the USA occupies.

"We have a surprising amount of space in existing urban areas," he says. "We can easily triple the population in our urbanized areas with much of that growth occurring on, of all things, parking lots."

Nelson advocates converting parking lots into commercial and residential buildings and extending light-rail lines and rapid transit to reduce dependence on cars.

"We could accommodate half or more of the new population (on parking lots)," he says. "For the other half, we need to figure out which parts of urban areas need to be redeveloped. We should start asking these larger questions now."

The population projection is provoking some skepticism.

Robert Lang, Nelson's co-director at the Virginia Tech institute, says he expects immigration to decline, largely because birth rates in other countries are declining.

"People are not going to have as many children, and their children won't have as many children, and there'll be (fewer) people to immigrate to the U.S.," Lang says. "I would rather focus on the near certainty that we will gain 100 million people by 2043. … No one plans for 100 years from now except to preserve a national park."

Population projections for most countries do not extend much beyond 2050. Carl Haub, senior demographer at the non-profit Population Reference Bureau, has estimated that India's population could reach 2 billion around 2075. That won't happen, however, if India's fertility rates decline at a faster rate than they have been, he says.

Nelson, who will become the founding director of the Center for the New Metropolis at the University of Utah this fall, says many events from disease to famine could throw his projections off course.

"We could certainly have a comet hit the planet and pulverize the atmosphere," he says. "But what if none of these things happen? … Do we plan on a calamity, do we assume that half the population's planet might be wiped out? I don't think that's very responsible."
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2  
Old Posted Apr 29, 2008, 2:18 PM
urbanactivist's Avatar
urbanactivist urbanactivist is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Houston
Posts: 3,271
Too crowded.... yeah, those houses that are 1/2 an acre apart are really crowding me in
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3  
Old Posted Apr 29, 2008, 2:38 PM
lfc4life's Avatar
lfc4life lfc4life is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 544
if the USA had the same population density as england its population would be more than 4 billion

and it would be 12 billion if it had malta's population density of 1272 people per km²

there is basically nobody living in the likes of montana, idaho, wyoming, the dakotas. Montana is bigger than germany but yet has only 11% of its population
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4  
Old Posted Apr 29, 2008, 4:19 PM
mello's Avatar
mello mello is offline
Babylon falling
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: San Diego
Posts: 2,605
Quote:
Originally Posted by lfc4life View Post
if the USA had the same population density as england its population would be more than 4 billion

and it would be 12 billion if it had malta's population density of 1272 people per km²

there is basically nobody living in the likes of montana, idaho, wyoming, the dakotas. Montana is bigger than germany but yet has only 11% of its population

Wow didn't realize that Montana had 8 million people. When did Billings become the size of DFW As far as the article goes, totally bogus, predicting that far in to the future is not credible and I don't see the US being such a big draw for immigrants far in to the future to push the population that high.
__________________
<<<<< I'm loving this economic "recovery" >>>>>
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5  
Old Posted Apr 29, 2008, 5:41 PM
Marcu Marcu is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 1,649
Quote:
Originally Posted by mello View Post
As far as the article goes, totally bogus, predicting that far in to the future is not credible and I don't see the US being such a big draw for immigrants far in to the future to push the population that high.
Agreed with the first part but not the second part. US will remain as big of a draw as any country over the next 50 years. In spite of all of the growth in India and places like Ukraine, much of the world's population remains remarkeably poor. Hopefully though it will come in the form of higher skilled workers through programs like the H1B. That is if Congress ever gets off its ass and decides to mondernize our immigration laws to resemble a point-type system they have in Canada. Until then, we'll have a free for all like we do now since most people do not see any hope of ever clearing the horrible visa backlogs.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6  
Old Posted Apr 29, 2008, 10:11 PM
nomarandlee's Avatar
nomarandlee nomarandlee is offline
My Mind Has Left My Body
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 3,334
Quote:
Originally Posted by lfc4life View Post
there is basically nobody living in the likes of montana, idaho, wyoming, the dakotas. Montana is bigger than germany but yet has only 11% of its population

If Montana had 11% of Germany's population it would have around 8 million people. It doesn't even have close to that and off the top of my head I want to say it has around perhaps 1 million. Much of the interior west is greatly devoid of people which I like though I would like to see a few more large urban centers in the future places in stretches.

Quote:
People thought that 06/6/2006 would be the end of the world; on what basis do you believe that 2014 will be the end?
Didn't the Aztecs predict sometime in 2012?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7  
Old Posted Apr 29, 2008, 10:19 PM
JDRCRASH JDRCRASH is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: San Gabriel Valley
Posts: 8,087
Quote:
Originally Posted by nomarandlee View Post
Didn't the Aztecs predict sometime in 2012?
If i'm correct, your right.

However, do I believe it?
__________________
Revelation 21:4
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8  
Old Posted May 6, 2008, 9:50 PM
dollaztx dollaztx is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Midcities
Posts: 566
Talking

Quote:
Originally Posted by nomarandlee View Post
If Montana had 11% of Germany's population it would have around 8 million people. It doesn't even have close to that and off the top of my head I want to say it has around perhaps 1 million. Much of the interior west is greatly devoid of people which I like though I would like to see a few more large urban centers in the future places in stretches.



Didn't the Aztecs predict sometime in 2012?
You are right about the year but they didnt predict the world would come to an end. Thats just when their calendar will come to an end. After this a new age will begin. It is people that tie it to everything from flooding, alien encounter, major catastrophies, global enlightment.... Maybe its overpopulation?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9  
Old Posted May 26, 2012, 2:10 AM
bhammer bhammer is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanactivist View Post
Too crowded.... yeah, those houses that are 1/2 an acre apart are really crowding me in
This, this, and only this.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10  
Old Posted Jun 8, 2012, 1:05 AM
KnoxfordGuy's Avatar
KnoxfordGuy KnoxfordGuy is offline
New Brunswick booster!
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Fredericton, New Brunswick
Posts: 1,623
If you get too many people you can alaways send some up to Canada. Our population is only going to be something like 41 million by 2050. LOTS OF ROOM!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #11  
Old Posted Apr 29, 2008, 2:48 PM
M II A II R II K's Avatar
M II A II R II K M II A II R II K is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Toronto
Posts: 52,200
Yea that's what I was thinking, there's plenty and plenty of room.

In terms of resources hopefully they will have tapped the sun for all energy needs by then.
__________________
ASDFGHJK
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #12  
Old Posted Apr 29, 2008, 3:00 PM
JackStraw JackStraw is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 2,824
One hundred years from now is to far to project anything. Hell, there is suppose to be an apocalypse in 6 and a half years. It could be 0.

Lets hope that the skeptics are right, and fewer people are having babies, and the world population and immigration starts going down. More population is anything but good.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #13  
Old Posted Apr 29, 2008, 8:01 PM
JDRCRASH JDRCRASH is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: San Gabriel Valley
Posts: 8,087
Quote:
Originally Posted by Row_Jimmy View Post
One hundred years from now is to far to project anything. Hell, there is suppose to be an apocalypse in 6 and a half years. It could be 0.

Lets hope that the skeptics are right, and fewer people are having babies, and the world population and immigration starts going down. More population is anything but good.
People thought that 06/6/2006 would be the end of the world; on what basis do you believe that 2014 will be the end?
__________________
Revelation 21:4
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #14  
Old Posted May 9, 2008, 12:17 AM
babybackribs2314 babybackribs2314 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: UWS, Manhattan
Posts: 1,728
1,000,000,000 is unreasonable... I'm not qualified to guess, but I'd say that something in between 500,000,000 and 700,000,000 is definitely possible. Roughly doubling our current population would definitely be feasible, with the biggest increases occurring in the Northeast, Southeast, and Midwest, where water is plentiful. I'm not sure about how much food we produce but I'd imagine we could easily provide for over a billion people.

Things going for doubling the population include our relatively high birth rates here (overall it's around 2.1, which is replacement rate, but it's increasing), and immigration... I'm guessing there won't be the kind of mass migration of today in 2100 because more countries will be wealthy, but through 2050 we'll probably recieve another hundred million immigrants, at least.

Even with 600,000,000 people, the US still won't be that crowded... unless everyone wants to live in the suburbs, which is probably unlikely.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #15  
Old Posted May 10, 2008, 3:23 AM
kcexpress69's Avatar
kcexpress69 kcexpress69 is offline
Beer Stampede
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Metro KCMO
Posts: 2,283
I'll be dead!! I won't care!!
__________________
"We are what we pretend to be, so we must be careful about what we pretend to be." Kurt Vonnegut
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #16  
Old Posted May 11, 2008, 8:38 PM
weatherguru18 weatherguru18 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 303
Quote:
Originally Posted by babybackribs2314 View Post
1,000,000,000 is unreasonable... I'm not qualified to guess, but I'd say that something in between 500,000,000 and 700,000,000 is definitely possible. Roughly doubling our current population would definitely be feasible, with the biggest increases occurring in the Northeast, Southeast, and Midwest, where water is plentiful. I'm not sure about how much food we produce but I'd imagine we could easily provide for over a billion people.

Things going for doubling the population include our relatively high birth rates here (overall it's around 2.1, which is replacement rate, but it's increasing), and immigration... I'm guessing there won't be the kind of mass migration of today in 2100 because more countries will be wealthy, but through 2050 we'll probably recieve another hundred million immigrants, at least.

Even with 600,000,000 people, the US still won't be that crowded... unless everyone wants to live in the suburbs, which is probably unlikely.

Actually studies show that people are gravitating toward desert areas or places with insufficient water needs. Take a look at the Sahara for example. The stress on the land is hastening the pace of desertification as millions apon millions continue to poor into the desert countries Egypt, Algeria, Libya, and Moracco.

As far as the U.S...I believe the NE is the slowest growing area in the country and many of the major cities have a stagnant population...same as in the Midwest. It's clear that the majority of the U.S. population will be centered in the Southeast and the West...Houston, Atlanta, Phoenix, Los Angeles, and Las Vegas. Cities such as Houston and Atlanta will have over 10 million in the metro by 2050. That's huge!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #17  
Old Posted May 13, 2008, 6:48 PM
JDRCRASH JDRCRASH is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: San Gabriel Valley
Posts: 8,087
Quote:
Originally Posted by babybackribs2314 View Post
1,000,000,000 is unreasonable... I'm not qualified to guess, but I'd say that something in between 500,000,000 and 700,000,000 is definitely possible. Roughly doubling our current population would definitely be feasible, with the biggest increases occurring in the Northeast, Southeast, and Midwest, where water is plentiful. I'm not sure about how much food we produce but I'd imagine we could easily provide for over a billion people.
Northeast? I don't think so. Not only is it too overpopulated, but rising sea levels will make it impossible anyway.

I mostly agree with WeatherGuru; I predict most influxes of people will occur in Midwest, Northwest, Southeast and the Southwest, including California. I say that because i'm predicting that people will be supporting more Desalinization Plants and Water Recycling in the near future as Mountain water resources become increasingly scarce.

By 2020: (these are just guesses on city pop.)

New York City: 9 Million

Los Angeles: 6.5 Million

Chicago: 4.0 Million

Atlanta, Phoenix and Las Vegas: 3 Million
__________________
Revelation 21:4
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #18  
Old Posted May 13, 2008, 7:03 PM
PittPenn 03 PittPenn 03 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 732
Didn't another so called expert say we would top out at 450,000,000? That sounds more reasonable to me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by babybackribs2314 View Post
1,000,000,000 is unreasonable... I'm not qualified to guess, but I'd say that something in between 500,000,000 and 700,000,000 is definitely possible. Roughly doubling our current population would definitely be feasible, with the biggest increases occurring in the Northeast, Southeast, and Midwest, where water is plentiful. I'm not sure about how much food we produce but I'd imagine we could easily provide for over a billion people.

Things going for doubling the population include our relatively high birth rates here (overall it's around 2.1, which is replacement rate, but it's increasing), and immigration... I'm guessing there won't be the kind of mass migration of today in 2100 because more countries will be wealthy, but through 2050 we'll probably recieve another hundred million immigrants, at least.

Even with 600,000,000 people, the US still won't be that crowded... unless everyone wants to live in the suburbs, which is probably unlikely.
__________________
Brendan Gill, architecture writer for The New Yorker, 1990: "The three most beautiful cities in the world are Paris; St. Petersburg, Russia; and Pittsburgh. If Pittsburgh were situated somewhere in the heart of Europe, tourists would eagerly journey hundreds of miles out of their way to visit it."
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #19  
Old Posted Apr 29, 2008, 2:56 PM
10023's Avatar
10023 10023 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: London
Posts: 21,146
This isn't unreasonable. Especially if by that time, most of the coastal third world is under water and the resource wars have led a few hundred million East Asians to mass migrate to North America.

The U.S. would have 1 billion people and be about 30% white, of course.
__________________
There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there always has been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge." - Isaac Asimov
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #20  
Old Posted Apr 29, 2008, 2:57 PM
mhays mhays is offline
Never Dell
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 19,748
That's not a mainstream prediction. Other experts have predicted much lower numbers.

Not an expert, but so would I. The first two reasons that come to mind:

1. Birth rates are plummeting in key countries, like Mexico, as they already did in countries like China, and as they'll do in other countries as they develop.

2. The US will not remain the economic valhalla it might be currently in immigrants' eyes. Globalization of labor is causing wages to migrate toward the middle everywhere -- rising in cheap countries, falling or stagnating in expensive countries. The grass won't be much greener here.
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 > Regional Sections > United States
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:35 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

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