Can cities grow to 50 million inhabitants?

ChrisZwolle said:

Doesn't Japan have an aging and declining population? I wonder if Greater Tokyo will still get bigger in the future.

Click to expand...

Japan population is aging and declining, but not the main city.

Same thing in Russia, while Moscow population keep growing.

another part of the city:







:cheers:

The idea of urban areas containing such huge population figures sounds absurd to me. Maybe if some countries continue their irrisponsible way of living away from a more environmentally friendly and sustainable way, then maybe one day we'll see cities made almost entirely of skyscrapers where each skyscraper is vertially a city in it's self. All complete with poxy apartments, shops, offices, indoor parks, entertainment facilities and so on. Taking a trip to the skyscraper next door might seem like going on an overseas holiday.

I'm sorry but I support more population control and a more even spread of population across a nation by not so concentrating of commerce, industry, government facilties and other major centres in the larger cites. But by giving more reason for more people to live in smaller towns.

Westender.

population projection

i made an city population projection for 2050

So by then Shanghai 45 million

Tokyo 50 million
Daka 50 million
Mumbai 50 million
Bejing tianjin 40 million
Jakarta 40 million
Sao Paulo 27 million
Moscow 20 million
Osaka kobe nagoya kyoto 27 million
Paris 14 million
London 15 million
Cairo 30 million
Manila 32 million
Nyc 36 million, the complete boswash must have 100 million by then
Los angeles 38 million
San fran by area 11 million
Toronto 14 million
Chicago milwaukee 15 million
Madrid 12 million
Rio 20 million
rhine ruhr will decline to under 10 million ....

So any forgetten , this are my projections are they possible ...??

Azia said:

i made an city population projection for 2050

So by then Shanghai 45 million

Tokyo 50 million
Daka 50 million
Mumbai 50 million
Bejing tianjin 40 million
Jakarta 40 million
Sao Paulo 27 million
Moscow 20 million
Osaka kobe nagoya kyoto 27 million
Paris 14 million
London 15 million
Cairo 30 million
Manila 32 million
Nyc 36 million, the complete boswash must have 100 million by then
Los angeles 38 million
San fran by area 11 million
Toronto 14 million
Chicago milwaukee 15 million
Madrid 12 million
Rio 20 million
rhine ruhr will decline to under 10 million ....

So any forgetten , this are my projections are they possible ...??

Click to expand...

Madrid will NEVER touch the 10 million, the immigration miracle is over. Spain has unemployment of over 15%. Of course, the economy will rebound but the Spaniards will be more careful with immigration.

Toronto could be, but then Canada will develop into a very centralized country like France.

Rio could touch the 20 million but then will go in population decline. It has the lowest fertility rate in Brazil, it's around 1.55 children/woman in Rio de Janeiro State.

I think Tokyo will touch the 40 million before shrinking but it will never grow to 50 million.

Dhaka and Mumbai have a good chance to go over 50 million. But there will be countless megacities over 10 million people in the ganges river valley. Don't forget Kalkutta and Karachi! They will also have over 40 million people each until 2050. Dhaka by the way is a very interesting case as it will be a primate city in a country of 250-300 million people then. Experience shows that the share of the capital could grow to 50% of the total population, as seen in South Korea.

Moscow could also touch the 20 million people but then will slowly decline as the migration potential in Russia will shrink very fast. Moscow will consume all the population of rural Russia and some cities to reach 20 million people. We'll watch very fast depopulation of rural Russia in the future.

Shanghai and Peking will shrink after they've reached the 40-50 million people. The birth rate in the Chinese cities is among the lowest in the world. So we'll see also very fast depopulation of rural China as Shanghai and the other Chinese megacities want to hold the size of their population to remain competitive. With fertility-rates of around 1 child per woman, Chinese cities will aggressively pull rural people just to compensate the natural decline of the population. When the rural area is nearly empty, the fast decline of the small cities and regional centers will begin. This will all happen until 2050. As the regional economic differences will remain for a long time, we could see Chongqing in decline in 2050.

New York will slowly accelerate it's growth over the course of this century because of the very high birth rates of the ultra-orthodox-jews. I think there are already 250,000 of them doubling every 16-20 years. In 2050 they're at 1 million and in 2100 at 8 million in the NYC metro area alone. As their share in the population grows, the popultion growth in NYC metro area will rise slowly but steadily. London also has a big community and may experience acceleration of growth-rates.
You can watch this demographic effect today in Israel, where the fertility-rate of Jerusalem is already at 4 children per woman and rising slowly but steadily. 4 children per woman means a growth rate of 2.2% a year and a doubling of the population every 30 years.

Istanbul could also reach 30 million inhabitants in 2050.

Mexico City could experience slow decline in 2050 and afterwards.

But i think the biggest potential is in Africa. Nairobi, Kinshasa, Accra and some other cities will grow to megacities.

Another potential is in the USA. I think that Atlanta, Dallas, Houston, Phoenix and Washington will break the 10 million barrier all before 2050.

Chrissib said:

Toronto could be, but then Canada will develop into a very centralized country like France.

Click to expand...

Toronto has a small chance of reaching 14 million. In the past 25 years we've added 100,000/year consistently, but we've also had a ton of land to expand into. Even if this rate of growth doesn't slow down, that's only 4 million more people by 2050 for around 10 million in the Greater Toronto Area. There's a possibility that we'd reach 12-13 million if we start absorbing neighbouring cities via super efficient transit systems that aren't on the drawing board yet like how Tokyo-Yokohama has melded together (there's another 2-3 million possible people by 2050 within 100km of Toronto in neighbouring cities).

I think Tokyo will touch the 40 million before shrinking but it will never grow to 50 million.

Click to expand...

Agreed. I can't possibly see how much more Tokyo can grow when Japan itself is shrinking and will be under 100 million by 2050.

New York will slowly accelerate it's growth over the course of this century because of the very high birth rates of the ultra-orthodox-jews. I think there are already 250,000 of them doubling every 16-20 years. In 2050 they're at 1 million and in 2100 at 8 million in the NYC metro area alone. As their share in the population grows, the popultion growth in NYC metro area will rise slowly but steadily. London also has a big community and may experience acceleration of growth-rates.

Click to expand...

Are you serious? You're completely assuming that this very small group will retain it's religiousity and growth for the next several generations. That's a lot of assume. If for instance peace in Israel were ever made, perhaps a lot of these people would just move there. Or say their kids may not be so religious. Or perhaps NYC being one of the most built up areas in the world won't be able to support that many more people anyway.

Once borders fall in Hong Kong in 2047 and Hong Kong, Shenzhen and Guangzhou merge into one mega city, they could easily top 50 million. Already high speed transport links are being built today to link Hong Kong to Guangzhou in under an hour. With another 40 years this area has huge potential to be over 50 million. While it is a huge area, it could easily be continuous development, and integrated enough so that people would live in relatively cheaper mainland China, commute to Hong Kong for work, or go there at night for a meal, then take the train home. In effect being one urban area. Actually this is the exact stated purpose of the new Hong Kong high speed train to China. Another thing which works in favour of this is that Hong Kong residents already have huge interests in Shenzhen and Guangzhou and business is already highly integrated in this area.


As far as Africa and the third world, I don't see those places coming anywhere near 50 million without major, major changes in their development. It takes a LOT of resources to sustain 50 million non-farmers even at slum levels. Even meeting all of their water and sewage needs without triggering constant pandemics is a challenge and will not be possible unless these places had a LOT more money to develop. Unfortunately having a huge and very poor population makes that development much harder in the first place. While I will not say impossible, I would bet good money that none of these African cities in 3rd world countries ever get near to 50 million.

Personally I think Hong Kong-Shenzhen-Guanzhou(-Macau) will be the only continuous urban area that will reach 50 million in 2050 and be comfortable with it. Hong Kong residents may not LIKE it, but they will have no choice as China will likely make this a reality once the 50 years of one country, two systems is over.

Maybe, and I'm saying a huge maybe here, we'll see Mumbai or New Delhi reach that as well due to massive population overloads in India but it will not be pretty.

Meanwhile China will offer one more small chance with Shanghai if the government opens the floodgates and starts allowing people freedom of movement for real within the country with no restrictions or penalties.


While New York-Philadelphia-Washington DC-Baltimore will offer an urban area of 50 million connected by high speed trains and excellent transport networks, these places due to history will certainly keep very separate identities and their residents will likely resist any characterization of their cities as anything but seperate.

Airports: Regional transit would be far better than Tokyo (which I've ridden a bit) and far, far better than London (which I've ridden many times). Also, the population would be much more centralized. Incoming tourism might be on a scale of London or New York, and much of the outbound tourism would be by train. Add the efficiencies of big planes vs. small ones and efficiently design airports, and the number of airports should be reined in. Perhaps a couple airports within the 200 sm, and a couple more in nearby cities connected by HSR (20 minutes away?). The other two would naturally compete on price, and by serving a lot of smaller destinations. PS, London has one "super" airport and others that are small or midsized.

Even with massive hospitals, my city would have much closer hospitals than any city currently. Even if each served a million people (not that I'm saying that), that's 80 hospitals in just 200 sm! As for traffic, it wouldn't be bad at all. The ground level would be all about pedestrians (some of them) and emergency services.

Logistics are hard in hospitals but they can be much less so when you spend additional money on elevators, skybridges, and simple smart design that groups departments and support services by function, which is an improving area of design these days. But really, the hospitals can be 16 stories without getting in the way of the city I've described, in which many things go tall so other things don't have to.

Yes my city would limit choices, much as New York and Toyko limit choices. I think quality of life would be incredible. The negatives that can come with density would be absent (most air pollution) or reduced due to good planning (overcrowded stores, transit, sidewalks, etc.), while the opportunities that come with density would be supercharged (ease of life, variety, excitement). It's possible to have a great life without sports that require huge fields. Of course my scenario assumes a strong anti-sprawl ethic, a healthy local economy, good government, and other factors that lend themselves to a big, dense city.

The 20 sf of retail figure is an over-rounded version of an industry standard I've heard. Not sure where but I hear a lot of things as marketing guy for a construction company that builds retail (as well as hospital and airport projects, etc.).

Darkness? I don't know what Midtown Manhattan's FAR is, but my guess is it's higher in peak areas than the average of the city I'm talking about.

Supertalls are expensive, but a mid-height (say 50-story) building can be a lot more cost effective. In my city they'd probably be a lot cheaper than usual in most places. The skywalk system might reduce the number of elevator shafts required on lower levels. Hopefully the location wouldn't require extra structure for earthquakes or high winds. Not needing parking would save a ton. Putting the whole city on bedrock -- above it, not in it -- should save a lot as well. Standardizing a lot of building elements should save further. Square footage would still be expensive but prices shouldn't be out of line on a per-unit basis.

Of course, nobody has cars, so they can choose to spend more on housing.

The city I'm imagining would be built new, but perhaps over a generation. (True, attracting 80 million would require something wierd like a mass migration, but it's all just imagination!) By building it with one master plan, it could take advantage of tremendous efficiencies in its tranportation, utility systems, utility usage, building materials, etc.

Epi said:

I guess it all depends WHERE on Earth your city is, and how 'international' you want your city to be. I assume as a 80 million person city built from scratch supported by the service industry, you'd want a very international an integrated city. This means a lot of international travel (too far for train because of great distance (>1000 miles) or oceans. I picked 3 airports, because such massive cities as Tokyo (which has one of the world's best transport networks) have 2 super airports while NYC has 3 and London has 3. So in fact 3 airports is already a gross misunderestimation of how many you'd need, as there would be 5-6x the amount of people in this city as the catchment are of the NYC airports.

There's a physical limit to how many runways an airport can have safely (due to minimizing mid-air collisions and so on), and how many planes can land on each runway in an hour, and so on. So 2 would definately not be enough and I'd actually say 4 but I just settled on a lowball of 3.

Some things to consider about hospitals. Due to emergency services, hospitals need to be within a close distance of where emergencies happen. Of course when you have such high density, traffic will be a problem, so hospitals need to be very close to people. Having less but more 'mega' hospitals might not solve this problem although it's hard for us to say.

Also, due to the nature of hospitals having a TON of inter-floor traffic compared to your average office building even, it would be hard to run a good hospital that is too tall without running into some problems. Having worked in a 16-floor hospital before, I can tell you logistically it's a challenge even at that height. Still I won't say it's impossible, perhaps your city will have tons of skybridges and maybe every 30 floors, there's a new 'ground floor' of your city



Well when you start limiting choices, less people will choose to live in your city. I'm assuming that it's not going to be a 3rd world slum but a modern 1st world city, so having lots of choices of sports is important. Even Japan has soccer and baseball stadiums!



Just wondering how you got these numbers. I agree with office, but retail?



If you had a lot of 50-100 story buildings, I guess you could theoretically make the city less dense. Still, ground floor would be in perpetual darkness! Also there would be problems with fires and emergency services, especially with densely populated supertall residential towers. It would also up the cost of your city greatly.

This creates a bit of a problem. In order to fit 80 million people into your city, they have to be super cramped in. On the other hand, to build a supertall is super expensive. So it means that everyone would be living in super small, super expensive residences. Are there that many rich people who'd actually want to live in a city with no outdoor sports, crazy density, and so on?

So overall even though this is really a completely theoretical exercise, I wonder if it could actually work in real life. Would enough people actually want to live in a city like that so that the resources to build a place like that be justified?

Click to expand...

This is the countryside in the Shanghai metro. If you zoom in on the apparently 'green' fields surrounding the cities, you'll find theyre actually built up:


From the air you can start to see the scale of it, for 150 km







the Yangtze River Delta holds 80 million people as of 2007, 50 million of them urban:


www.jonmonroe.com

westender said:

The idea of urban areas containing such huge population figures sounds absurd to me. Maybe if some countries continue their irrisponsible way of living away from a more environmentally friendly and sustainable way, then maybe one day we'll see cities made almost entirely of skyscrapers where each skyscraper is vertially a city in it's self. All complete with poxy apartments, shops, offices, indoor parks, entertainment facilities and so on. Taking a trip to the skyscraper next door might seem like going on an overseas holiday.

I'm sorry but I support more population control and a more even spread of population across a nation by not so concentrating of commerce, industry, government facilties and other major centres in the larger cites. But by giving more reason for more people to live in smaller towns.

Westender.

Click to expand...

Good points. In the US we have many very depopulated cities in the rustbelt that have the infrastructure, albeit crumbling, that suported populations twice as big. Detroit, Cleveland. St. Louis, Pittsburgh, & Buffalo, all have lost more than half their peak population.

Rather than crowd another hundred million more residents into our coastal & desert metros, increasingly unstastaibable as they are becoming, we'd be better off redirecting more of the immigration flow that accounts for most of the growth into these types of depopulated places. In contrast to places like Phoenix & Vegas, they have access to the abundant water supply availbable from the Great Lakes.

By their presence, these newcomers would help revitalize & stimulate the economies of these places & their families & kids would enjoy a better life & could get higher quality education than in increasingly crowded cities like NYC & LA.