SkyscraperCity banner

Status
Not open for further replies.
1 - 20 of 668 Posts

·
Kibic
Joined
·
537 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Is Chicago the only urban area in the developed world that is growing fast enough to become a megacity by 2050?
 

·
Mơמkƹ͛ƴ∆ґ&#4
Joined
·
5,767 Posts
Hong Kong, The Bay Area, and Toronto will all certainly be megacities by then as well. Maybe even some others like Madrid, Singapore, and Sydney.

But these are in presently developed countries only. We have to take into account the many developing countries which will become developed by 2050 and will no doubt have new megacities as well.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
823 Posts
Toronto will definately be a megacity by 2050. Its metro is already 6 + million and is increasing very rapidly
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
27,860 Posts
By 2050, Hartford will be swallowed by New York City. :lol:

Other than extreme changes in the CSA, I don't think there is much potential for more megacities in the US Northeast. The population is too stagnant. Boston and Philadelphia both have over 7 million apparently, but they have too much areas in their CSAs, plus their growth is too slow anyway.

Meh, population growth is overrated anyway. :)
 

·
Seeking Affiliation
Joined
·
1,217 Posts
Re: Mega-Cities in the Developed World of 2050

By 2050, all countries in the world will be developed except for much of Sub-Saharan Africa. Therefore, the only non-developed mega-cities by then will be:

List [in no particular ranked-order]:
1. Lagos
2. Kinshasa
3. Addis Ababa
4. Khartoum

By that time, the world will be more-defined as: clumps of mega-cities and hyper-cities rather than politically-sub-divided landmasses and islands (into countries and non-sovereign states).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
922 Posts
How would you define a megacity? I would say appropriate standards for the current year would be 10 million in the city proper/downtown area and at least 20 million in the metropolitan area. The only two cities in the developed world that truly fit the definition of a megacity are New York City and Tokyo.

Most of the cities mentioned (Toronto, Atlanta, Dallas, Houston, and Miami) have what I like to describe as New World city structure, which is low-density, car-reliant, single family detached house suburban sprawl type city. It is very prevalent in the "New World" ie: Australia, New Zealand, Canada, and United States. On the other hand, Old World city structure is high-density, subway/suburban rail reliant, mid or highrise apartment suburban sprawl type city. These are very prevalent in the "Old World" ie: Europe and Asia. Of course there are exceptions like the Northeast United States, which certainly has a number of Old World cities and Saudi Arabia, which is clearly New Word city type.

With that being said, I feel like it is very hard for a "New World" type city to achieve megacity status because it would be too energy inefficient and infrastructure will not be able to handle a megacity. No matter how many freeways a city builds, it won't be able to handle 20 million people all using their cars to get around. I could see a scenario where a city for example Houston, starts to "crunch up against itself" when it can sprawl no more and yet the population keeps growing. So huge tracts of inner suburbs immediately outside the downtown area gets rezoned as high-rise sections. More buildings begin to get built where parking lots used to be. And a massive subway/suburban rail system gets built. In effect, Houston would have transformed itself from a New World city to an Old World city.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
823 Posts
By 2050, Hartford will be swallowed by New York City. :lol:

Other than extreme changes in the CSA, I don't think there is much potential for more megacities in the US Northeast. The population is too stagnant. Boston and Philadelphia both have over 7 million apparently, but they have too much areas in their CSAs, plus their growth is too slow anyway.

Meh, population growth is overrated anyway. :)
Boston and Philidelphia don't have 7 millio^^...Bostons metro is about 4.8 million and phili's is 5.9 million

That would make them bigger than Toronto and their not, Toronto's metro is around 6.2 million and increasing fast, it's currently the 6th largest city in North Amercia.
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
27,860 Posts
I was talking about CSAs, not MSAs. There is a difference.

They are ridiculously huge, but they are the main metro area stats used in the US. Most of the reason why Boston is even to 7 million is because the metro area swallowed the entire state of Rhode Island and parts of New Hampshire...hell, even parts of Connecticut too! :shocked:

I exaggerated a bit on Philly, it has 6.3 million. That seems more accurate, although the Philly metro area goes all the way to Atlantic City, I believe. Bottom line: American metro definitions are ridiculous, but they are what we use.

You could check the stats here:
http://www.census.gov/population/www/estimates/CBSA-est2007-annual.html

Boston: 7,476,689
Philadelphia: 6,385,461
Toronto is growing faster than both, and if Statscan used the metro figures like the US census does, it would be much larger than both, probably more than 8 million. Neither Boston nor Philadelphia have the potential to grow to 10 million by 2050, they are growing too slow.

But, we don't care about this thing called population growth here in the US Northeast. :lol:

I do think that NYC will hit 25 million by then though.
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
27,860 Posts
With that being said, I feel like it is very hard for a "New World" type city to achieve megacity status because it would be too energy inefficient and infrastructure will not be able to handle a megacity. No matter how many freeways a city builds, it won't be able to handle 20 million people all using their cars to get around. I could see a scenario where a city for example Houston, starts to "crunch up against itself" when it can sprawl no more and yet the population keeps growing. So huge tracts of inner suburbs immediately outside the downtown area gets rezoned as high-rise sections. More buildings begin to get built where parking lots used to be. And a massive subway/suburban rail system gets built. In effect, Houston would have transformed itself from a New World city to an Old World city.
For that to take place, there would have to be MASSIVE zoning and development changes. I'm talking a 180 degree change. Unless gasoline hits $5 or above here in the US (or the subprime crisis continues to stop sprawl like it is now), there will be no change...especially in Houston of all places.

I do agree with you though...there are only a handful of cities in this world that can actually sustainably be a megacity. New York is one. I don't want to think about a Houston with 10 million people though. :lol:
 

·
Seeking Affiliation
Joined
·
1,217 Posts
@ drunkenmunkey888

With that being said, I feel like it is very hard for a "New World" type city to achieve megacity status because it would be too energy inefficient and infrastructure will not be able to handle a megacity. No matter how many freeways a city builds, it won't be able to handle 20 million people all using their cars to get around. I could see a scenario where a city for example Houston, starts to "crunch up against itself" when it can sprawl no more and yet the population keeps growing. So huge tracts of inner suburbs immediately outside the downtown area gets rezoned as high-rise sections. More buildings begin to get built where parking lots used to be. And a massive subway/suburban rail system gets built. In effect, Houston would have transformed itself from a New World city to an Old World city.
^^ Los Angeles may reach mega-city (defined as one city--as opposed to urban agglomerations or metropolitan areas) status by 2050. And, according to your definitions (based on your posts/comments), it is a "New World" city. IMO, it is the only "New World" city that might.

BTW, the minimum population requirement to be met before a city is to be considered a "megacity" is 10 million. The 20 million-figure is for cities that are considered as "hypercities".
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,545 Posts
We're going to need alot of oil to keep these megacites running without causing a worldwide famine and if not oil the issue of renewable energy seriously needs to be addressed. Although cities will get big in the future they will be very fragile if we don't take care of how we power them.
 

·
Nerd Fest '08
Joined
·
277 Posts
take a look at the growth patterns of vancover, bc. lots of highdensity downtown, but also in the surrounding suberbs like burnaby and north van. i dont know that its growth rate is high enough to make it a mega city by 2050, but certainly lots of potential in that brilliant urban planing.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,120 Posts
Depends what you mean by 'mega cities' and what you already count within that definition. Also depends on what you mean by developed. Assuming you mean countries with >$15,000 USD/capita GDP and taking the '10 million people in the greater area' definition we get:
Tokyo
New York
Los Angeles
London
Paris
Seoul


Of cities which are already considered in the 'developed world' and not yet >10 million but will surely reach that in the next 42 years:
Hong Kong (Will likely coalesce with Shenzhen into one hyper city)
Chicago (8-9 million now, will reach 10 million in 40 years no doubt)
Toronto (5.6 million in 2006, growing at 100,000/year for the last 25 years, will reach 10 million by 2050 if this continues)

Of course any speculation that far into the future is probably pointless. For instance if California falls into the sea, maybe you'll see a regression of cities there. If there's major upheaval in Eastern Europe, maybe the western Europe cities will suddenly expand exponentially. Who knows.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
554 Posts
For that to take place, there would have to be MASSIVE zoning and development changes. I'm talking a 180 degree change. Unless gasoline hits $5 or above here in the US (or the subprime crisis continues to stop sprawl like it is now), there will be no change...especially in Houston of all places.

I do agree with you though...there are only a handful of cities in this world that can actually sustainably be a megacity. New York is one. I don't want to think about a Houston with 10 million people though. :lol:
Dude, gasoline will probably reach $5/gallon summer 2009, at least in some areas.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
172 Posts
Washington-Baltimore is already at 8.2 million and should easily reach 10 million by 2050.

Madrid is a city that could manage that too if immigration to Spain continues it's recent trend. It's adding 1,000,000 a decade at it's current growth rate and has the 6 million mark.

Toronto should be able to reach the 10 million threshold especially as it merges with Hamilton.

Milan is another city that could reach that mark. It's currently at 7.4 million and with immigration increasing could also do that.

Chicago will obviously reach 10 million well before 2050.
 
1 - 20 of 668 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top