Projection: Metropolitan areas in 2050

[Yuri S Andrade]

São Paulo's data is quite problematic. For 2050, you should regard the current macrometropolitan area as metropolitan area:



As 2010, 11.3 million people live in São Paulo municipality, 19.7 million in the official metro area, 22.5 million in the de facto metro area (including Jundiaí, Atibaia, São Roque regions and the seabord) and 31.5 million in the macrometropolitan area (Campinas, Piracicaba, Sorocaba, São José dos Campos regions).

By 2050, I guess 35-40 million people will be living in São Paulo metro area.

[sebvill]

Is it possible that Sao Paulo and Rio metro areas merge? In that map I see the macrometropolitan area of Sao Paulo limits with the State of Rio de Janeiro. Considering the construction of the high speed train between the two cities the distance will be shorten a lot.

[Yuri S Andrade]

I don't think so. First of all, Brazilian demographic growth is quite slow. Secondly, the link between São Paulo capital and the hinterland of São Paulo state is way stronger, economic, cultural and even physical (very good highways, plain landscape).

We should look beyond Campinas, to Ribeirão Preto, to São José do Rio Preto, to see where this macrometropolis can expand itself.

[isaidso]

40,655 sq km is too big to be considered one metropolitan area. That's the same size as the Netherlands.

[CNB30]

[Yuri S Andrade]

Originally Posted by isaidso

40,655 sq km is too big to be considered one metropolitan area. That's the same size as the Netherlands.

That's why it's a "macrometropolitan", not a "metropolitan" area. Very close to your Golden Horseshoe concept. Also, the bulk of the population is centered in a much smaller area, along the highways. In any case, we're thinking 40 years into the future, so it could well turn into a single metropolitan area.

P.S. The current New York CSA (22 million people) has about 30,670 km².

[isaidso]

Originally Posted by Yuri S Andrade

That's why it's a "macrometropolitan", not a "metropolitan" area. Very close to your Golden Horseshoe concept. Also, the bulk of the population is centered in a much smaller area, along the highways. In any case, we're thinking 40 years into the future, so it could well turn into a single metropolitan area.

P.S. The current New York CSA (22 million people) has about 30,670 km².

If you're talking about metropolitan area (rather than macro metropolitan area), you're saying that the 19.7 million is expected to get to the 35-40 million range by 2050?

The GGH is too broad a catchment area as well, in my opinion. The GTA + Hamilton is a more reasonable/fairer representation of metropolitan Toronto. The New York CSA is a ridiculously huge area as well.

[HRLR]

Originally Posted by isaidso

40,655 sq km is too big to be considered one metropolitan area. That's the same size as the Netherlands.

The Pearl River Delta mega-city has about 40,000 sq km too.

[HRLR]

Originally Posted by Chrissib

As promised, here the list of the 70 megacities in 2050 (not 69 as I previously counted, sorry about that):

I disagree with this list.

Los Angeles with almost the same number of inhabitants that São Paulo?? No way!

[èđđeůx]

thats going by metropolitan area. It's already at 12.9 million, so 22-26 million isn't very far-fetched.

[Yuri S Andrade]

Originally Posted by isaidso

If you're talking about metropolitan area (rather than macro metropolitan area), you're saying that the 19.7 million is expected to get to the 35-40 million range by 2050?

The GGH is too broad a catchment area as well, in my opinion. The GTA + Hamilton is a more reasonable/fairer representation of metropolitan Toronto. The New York CSA is a ridiculously huge area as well.

No, what I'm saying is metropolitan definitions change as time goes by. And São Paulo de facto metropolitan area (12,000 km²) is already on 22.6 million people. Maybe more, in a broader definition.

By 2050, the macrometropolitan area might be very well regarded as a metropolitan area.

Originally Posted by HRLR

The Pearl River Delta mega-city has about 40,000 sq km too.

I thought the same. I almost used it as an example.

[Chrissib]

Originally Posted by èđđeůx

thats going by metropolitan area. It's already at 12.9 million, so 22-26 million isn't very far-fetched.

For LA I used the 17-18 million figure. The LA metro area is clearly larger than just LA and Orange county.

[Chrissib]

Originally Posted by Yuri S Andrade

That's why it's a "macrometropolitan", not a "metropolitan" area. Very close to your Golden Horseshoe concept. Also, the bulk of the population is centered in a much smaller area, along the highways. In any case, we're thinking 40 years into the future, so it could well turn into a single metropolitan area.

P.S. The current New York CSA (22 million people) has about 30,670 km².

But there are several differences between Sao Paulo, the Pearl River Delta and New York. First of all, Sao Paulo is the densiest metropolitan area (in terms of population per built up area) and the population is expected to grow the least (according to the projection of overall urban population growth). So unless there will be a huge wave of suburban sprawl hitting the outskirts of Sao Paulo, I can't see it merging with Campinas and the other cities you have mentioned.

[geococcyx]

Originally Posted by brisavoine

Only if you can bulldoze some 4,500 m high mountains.

Some people!

You forget that mexicans live in the mountains! LOL

México City and Toluca are the facto alredy connected by small populations:

[brisavoine]

I took that road, I know exactly how it looks.

[Yuri S Andrade]

To me, as 2010, Mexico City metro area definition could well be the entire Mexico state, Morelos and the Distrito Federal, counting 25.8 million people, with a 11.2% growth over the decade.

By 2050, of course that will be the best definition for Mexico City metro area, or maybe including cities like Puebla or Pachuca.

Originally Posted by Chrissib

But there are several differences between Sao Paulo, the Pearl River Delta and New York. First of all, Sao Paulo is the densiest metropolitan area (in terms of population per built up area) and the population is expected to grow the least (according to the projection of overall urban population growth). So unless there will be a huge wave of suburban sprawl hitting the outskirts of Sao Paulo, I can't see it merging with Campinas and the other cities you have mentioned.

New York growing more than São Paulo? Over the past decade, New York CSA grew 3.4% against 10.6% of São Paulo de facto metro area. The macrometropolitan grew even more: Campinas metro area, for instance, with 2.9 million people, grew 19.6%.

About the suburban sprawl, according to the 2010 Census, Brazilian population grew 12%. On the other hand, the number of households grew 27%. It's clear Brazilian cities will keep expanding in a rather fast pace regardless the population growth.

And finally, there is no need for merging (although São Paulo and Campinas are almost linked by a continuous built up area) to have one single metropolis, otherwise the Rhein-Ruhr or the Randstad couldn't be regard as metro areas.

To me, it's impossible to have a 35-40 million people São Paulo macrometropolitan area which is not regard as a single metropolis. It will necessarily be.

[Chrissib]

Originally Posted by Yuri S Andrade

To me, as 2010, Mexico City metro area definition could well be the entire Mexico state, Morelos and the Distrito Federal, counting 25.8 million people, with a 11.2% growth over the decade.

By 2050, of course that will be the best definition for Mexico City metro area, or maybe including cities like Puebla or Pachuca.




New York growing more than São Paulo? Over the past decade, New York CSA grew 3.4% against 10.6% of São Paulo de facto metro area. The macrometropolitan grew even more: Campinas metro area, for instance, with 2.9 million people, grew 19.6%.

About the suburban sprawl, according to the 2010 Census, Brazilian population grew 12%. On the other hand, the number of households grew 27%. It's clear Brazilian cities will keep expanding in a rather fast pace regardless the population growth.

And finally, there is no need for merging (although São Paulo and Campinas are almost linked by a continuous built up area) to have one single metropolis, otherwise the Rhein-Ruhr or the Randstad couldn't be regard as metro areas.

To me, it's impossible to have a 35-40 million people São Paulo macrometropolitan area which is not regard as a single metropolis. It will necessarily be.

According to the UN, the urban population of the US is projected to grow faster than the Brazilian urban population. Since my projection is based on these figures, New York would grow faster than Sao paulo over the next 38 Years.

Yes, the household sizes will shrink further in Brazil, but nevertheless Brazilian cities are still much denser when compared to American or European cities. They seem to be even denser than Chinese cities or at least at the same density.

[Yuri S Andrade]

You should consider, however, São Paulo grows as faster as Brazil while New York usually grows twice, three times slower than the national average. The unbalance between metro areas/states demographic growth in Brazil is way smaller than it is in the US.

[Chrissib]

Originally Posted by Yuri S Andrade

You should consider, however, São Paulo grows as faster as Brazil while New York usually grows twice, three times slower than the national average. The unbalance between metro areas/states demographic growth in Brazil is way smaller than it is in the US.

That is true of course. But if I considered different growth rates within countries that would have made the projection too complicated. I just want to show a general trend, not the development of particular cities.

[unusualfire]

Originally Posted by Chrissib

According to the UN, the urban population of the US is projected to grow faster than the Brazilian urban population. Since my projection is based on these figures, New York would grow faster than Sao paulo over the next 38 Years.

Yes, the household sizes will shrink further in Brazil, but nevertheless Brazilian cities are still much denser when compared to American or European cities. They seem to be even denser than Chinese cities or at least at the same density.

With rising sea levels some parts of NYC may be underwater in 38 years.