SkyscraperCity banner
1 - 17 of 17 Posts

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,324 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Hello alltogether.

I read a scientific article, unfortunately I dont have it handy, but it stated, that the population of the US, due to the birthrate and the immigration of some 1 million people /year will grow up to 350 mio in 2030, and maybe even over 400 million in 2050.

Now my question is, where should all these people live?

I mean, now you have 300 million people.
You would have to create 20 cities with 5 million people each to accomodate this.
20 cities with about the size of chicago!!!!!!!!

What does that meand for the future US?
How will it affect the way, the US is organized concerning housing, transportation, public or individual, and workin?

The population density wil reach european or even asian numbers in some areas.

Any comments
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
943 Posts
eventually, suburban sprawl (with such high population numbers) will become insufficient, and subdivisions will be torn down, to accomidate "such high population figures". Making some U.S. Cities Urban from the core, all the way to suburban sprawl. Hopefully our nation will master plan ahead, including lots of public transportation.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,034 Posts
^^ Don't bet on it. As much as I'd rather see your theory actually happen, there's still ALOT of empty land out there.

Even 400 million is only 33% higher than now, over 50 years really isn't that fast.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,973 Posts
Seriously. The US is still 95% rural by land area. 80% of our population lives on 5% of our land right now, we'd be able to manage.
 

·
Mostly Sane
Joined
·
2,326 Posts
^Exactly. If you do the simple calculation, you'll see that you could fit the entire US population inside a giant, suburban-style low-density development that is 400 miles on a side.

But just imagine the nightmarish quality of life. :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,034 Posts
Imagine a continuous strip mall soup of suburban developement from Chicago, through Omaha, to Denver. No interruptions. I'm afraid that will happen before we as Americans choose to give up our "freedoms" of land, oversized houses, and wasting energy (be it gasoline, ethanol, hydrogen, what have you).
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,324 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 ·
thats interesting... I always thought that slowly but steadily this suburban thing is coming to an end... but i am afraid its not....

As i am from germany I would like to know if there are any concepts for areas like Boswash ( do you americans call it so?) whcih are already completely suburbanized..... do you have any concepts for making them denser?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
778 Posts
Everyone in the US can live in Texas and have almost a whole SQ mile to themselves.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
4,217 Posts
I also heard that the US is underpopulated.... so I think the US would manage... I am sure in many cities in the US, there are a lot of empty areas still... plus there is that suburban outward growth.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
700 Posts
Like most people have said we've still got plenty of land. I think the suburbs will keep spreading for a long time yet, but we've got to wait and see what happens.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
240 Posts
Yes, we do have plenty of land, but look at where people actually WANT and/or NEED to live... in and around cities. Maybe this will change somewhat with telecommuting, but I think the majority of Americans will need access to cities for either their jobs or their lifestyles.

This means that suburbanization will eventually come to an end around large cities, IMO. Of course there will still be some suburbs, but the dominant pattern of suburban growth will be replaced with more condos and denser, townhome-style communities. That is, unless we can find a much more efficient and fast mode of transportation.(The air-car???)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,535 Posts
Actually, there’s no need to create any new cities. Let’s first focus on the repopulation of all the emptying out cities that have declined.

There’s much more to the US than just NYC, LA, SF Bay Area, Chicago, Boston, Miami, Seattle, Portland, Houston, Dallas, Atlanta, Charlotte, Orlando, Las Vegas, etc.

St. Louis has lost 60% of its peak population.

Buffalo, Cleveland, Detroit & Pittsburgh have lost roughly half of their population.

Buffalo & Pittsburgh have even lost metropolitan population, over 10%.

Philadelphia, Washington DC, Baltimore, Cincinnati, Milwaukee, Newark, Hartford have lost plenty of people too.

Then there are smaller places like Scranton Wilkes Barre PA, Youngstown OH, Flint MI, Gary IN, East St. Louis, etc.

In addition to these cities, there will be plenty of vacant space in many of the first-tier suburbs of these declining or stagnant areas.

And that’s just a sampling of the places with many housing vacancies to fill.

No sense in fostering more suburban sprawl. Rather, lets re-direct the flow of new immigrants, a million or so annually, to fill up these depopulated places & using their ample, available infrastructure.

Jobs tend to follow people. Particularly now that 70% of the GNP is comprised of services & consumption & 70% of the new jobs are created by small businesses. So the flows of new immigrants will rejuvenate local economies.

Now that’s what I’d call Smart Growth!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,034 Posts
bayviews said:
Now that’s what I’d call Smart Growth!
I agree with you 101%.

But unfortunately America doesn't work that way. Everything has to be shiny and new. It's a sad commentary, really.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
455 Posts
Let’s first focus on the repopulation of all the emptying out cities that have declined.

Go on google earth, then go to detroit, then look about 1.5 miles north of downtown(and all around). In some places theres 2 houses total on 8 blocks. Someday that land will be worth good $$ again.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,324 Posts
Discussion Starter · #16 ·
Yes, I think that its a real problem that there are no real political means in the us for redeveloping old, wrecked areas like detroit.
What really shocke me as a european when i visited the US was the area south of chicaog all the way down to gary...
I mean, it would have such a big potential... a lakeshore.... lots of forests...., close to chicago.....
in europe such a region would be redeveloped and first class.....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
177 Posts
cmj2k2 said:
Go on google earth, then go to detroit, then look about 1.5 miles north of downtown(and all around). In some places theres 2 houses total on 8 blocks. Someday that land will be worth good $$ again.
Damn! WTF happened? Was the land built on and then the buildings razed?
 
1 - 17 of 17 Posts
Top