# Your City by the year 2050?



## Robert Stark

how do you imagine your city obe like by the year 2050?


----------



## Mahratta

Mumbai?

Very, very good.


----------



## unfrequented

I imagine London getting up on its hydraulic legs to fight Tokyo for resources...


----------



## LMCA1990

Bogota's 3 skylines will have merged into 1 by then making the world's longest skyline. It's Metro and new airport should be done by then.


----------



## PedroGabriel

Greener, and respecting the landscape and integrating it in the city as leisure or historic areas.canals, lakes, trees, loads of palmtrees, the rocky islets turned into islands, with sand an all, green spaces near the beaches. recovering and modernizing the traditional architecture homes, prohibiting flying cars and remove or modernize all the 1970s and 1980s buildings. light Metro all over the city, not just in the entrance.


----------



## erbse

As the capital of the world. We're goin to overtake the world domination :gunz: :rock:


----------



## Xusein

Hartford won't be a city anymore, it will be part of the new Northeast megacity which sprawls nearly 800km from what is now Boston to Washington DC, with some real HSR connecting everywhere. I say we have 80 million by then. It will be just one huge continuous city.

And everyone will be driving in hovercars like the shits on the Jetsons. :lol:


----------



## PresidentBjork

With any luck it will be a bit more homogenized, house prices will be more affordable, making the inequalities in terms of housing a thing of a past - no more dilapidated housing estates. The industrial wastelands towards the estuary will have been built upon responsibly with good public transport connecting them with the rest of the metropolis. There should be direct high speed train or mono rail links with all other major European cities. Plus the A40 will have been removed. Oh, and a bit less trash.


----------



## _00_deathscar

The Pearl River Delta will have merged to create the world's biggest metropolis, with three of the world's most awesome skylines within miles of each other - the whole metropolis headed from it's Hong Kong headquarters.


----------



## emzeti

heh my small city kuching, sarawak (malaysia)..become a big city..as well as KL now..more public park..clean..safe..


----------



## LondonBVE

Singapore probably a complete subway system, better transport and tourism boom and so does economic. A more complete skyline but buildings will not be higher than 245m. And also orderly manner for skyline and try and be shorter along the coast, we do not want to be suffocated like Hong Kong which tall building sprout out along the coast and thus having problem now.


----------



## Xelebes

Edmonton will have 2 million people in its CMA. It will have at least 2 lines on its LRT... maybe.


----------



## Cristovão471

My current city = Canberra, Australia

To atleast have 500,000 people.
A proper CBD (buildings above 100 metres)
Light Rail system.
High speed rail to Melbourne and Sydney.


----------



## forrestcat

Kuala Lumpur would have spread until KLIA and Putrajaya.Those palm oil plantations brtween KL and KLIA/Putrajaya will turn into cities:banana: .


----------



## RawLee

I think Budapest will complete its 4th metro line,and the M0 ringroad(both are u/c now). Maybe 1-2 new bridges will be present by then too. And maybe it will become a more liveable city.


----------



## melbguy

melbourne:

A few more supertalls. Southbank and Docklands expansion and completion. New soccer stadium complete. Taller skyscrapers along Port Phillip Bay. New rail lines, especially to the east. More freeways and tunnels under the the city. New subway system linking north to south.

population? catch up to Sydney, probably 5-6 million, well hopefully.

Possibly holding a Summer Olympic Games before 2050.

umm i think that's it :lol:


----------



## gladisimo

Some big earthquake will probably happen before that time, who knows what might happen.


----------



## -Corey-

yeah, hno: San Diego too..


----------



## wcgokul

an indian city...........don't know what to expect..........


----------



## wjfox

Hopefully a few more supertalls and iconic landmarks, but I don't want London to change too much. I'd like to think it will retain most of its older buildings. What I do want to see changing is the transport/infrastructure and especially the Underground, which is going to need major upgrades over the coming decades.

I expect Canary Wharf will cover at least half the Isle of Dogs by 2050.


----------



## forrestcat

forrestcat said:


> Kuala Lumpur would have spread until KLIA and Putrajaya.Those palm oil plantations brtween KL and KLIA/Putrajaya will turn into cities:banana: .





Blue_Sky said:


> This is how KL look like from Putrajaya


This is a pic of KL from Putrajaya.Distance between both cities are about 30km. Only palm oil plantations between. KLIA and Putrajaya was meant to be abit far from KL so that development from KL in the future would spill towards the airport and adiministrative city.


----------



## ØlandDK

Copenhagen will get it's first skyscraper...


----------



## Gaeus

DC Area will be a big suburban area and probably bigger than any other cities in United States except Los Angeles. However, I doubt if there are going to be skyscrapers because there is still too many spaces around.


----------



## monkeyronin

Toronto should have over 10,000,000 people, and a few thousand new skyscrapers. Pretty much all I can predict based on current trends really, going that far into the future.


----------



## OMH

Munich will have about 2 mio people...and i hope a better skyline!but anyway,its almost perfect now,it only needs a few skyscrapers about 150-200 m high!


----------



## BoulderGrad

Seattle will have well over 1 million people in the city proper, and well over 8 million in the new "Lake Washington/Puget Sound" CSA. Its new twin city Bellevue will dominate the east side of Lake Washington as it overgrows its boundaries and annexes all the surrounding communities between Kirkland and Renton, becoming almost the same size (both by population and geographical area) as Seattle. 

The Skyline will have a dense mix of >300' tall buildings all the way from Mercer Street to just south of the stadium district , and across I-5 (which has since had a hat built over it thru downtown) all the way up to Broadway. It will include at least 2 new 900' sky scrapers, as 1000' will still be hard to come by because of increased air traffic into Sea-Tac airport which has become the second busiest airport on the west coast, just behind LAX. The new stadium district now includes Google Field (Formerly Microsoft Field, the 120,000 seat home of the 6 time NFL champion Seattle Seahawks), the 60,000 seat Jones Soda park (home of the Seattle Mariners, the perpetual disappointment of the World Baseball League), and the 30,000 Seat Amazon.com Arena (Home of the 4th incarnation of the Seattle Sonics and the World Hockey League's Seattle Jets). 

The whole metro area will be connected by a fully automated Heavy rail transit system that connects Everett, Tacoma, Bellevue, and Seattle, with more than 10 lines, and over 800,000 daily ridership. A newly constructed high speed rail line will connect The Sea-Tac-Bell area with the twin cities of Portland and Fort Vancouver (they change it to finally stop people from confusing it with the Canadian City) and Vancouver B.C., and while most of the upper middle class still get around the outer city in their electric cars, most downtown residents use the vast network of street trolleys and trams.

Due to strict environmental laws, Salmon, killer whales and other wildlife now flourish in a clean and healthy puget sound/lake washington ecosystem. A large bird population has also developed among the forested green roofs of many of downtown's newer buildings and the Seattle Landmark waterfront Park which occupies the land where the Alaskan Way Viaduct once stood.

I can't wait to see it happen


----------



## goschio

Coastal german and european cities will get flooded and the refugees will migrate to Frankfurt. Population might then reach several millions.


----------



## raggedy13

Vancouver will be a metro of 5 million people encompassing the entire Lower Mainland of BC and parts of Vancouver Island after the Island Bridge is completed in the late 2020s, linking the metro with Nanaimo and bringing about its annexation into that of Metro Vancouver.

Rapid rail transit/commuter rail will have been extended to all suburban municipalities throughout the Lower Mainland as well as a rail link to the Island and an extensive Island rapid transit system. It will have become more of a twin city metro as Surrey's rapid growth has allowed it to match Vancouver in political clout and financial might. Surrey will have the undisputed 2nd place downtown in the region with a strong residential and commercial core - the benefits of its central location and designation as the new major transit hub in the region.

The skyline of downtown Vancouver will have grown upwards and outwards - the current view cone/height restriction policy will have been abolished to maximize potential for development in an area with little land and high demand. The skyline will stretch from its current position into the downtown eastside, leap frogging over the designated to-be-preserved neighbourhoods of Chinatown and Strathcona, and wrapping around False Creek to as far west as Arbutus - giving Vancouver a sort of horseshoe-shaped skyline centered around False Creek. There will be an extensive streetcar network criss-crossing the new enlarged downtown and long since completed Skytrain down Broadway that extends all the way to UBC as well as a Hastings line that largely serves Vancouver's new, extended CBD in the Downtown Eastside.

A wave of redevelopment will have swept through the West End, making it home to some of Vancouver's tallest residential towers. The tallest building in the city will be a 350m mixed use tower that will be located in the Downtown Eastside. The Shangri-la (Vancouver's tallest in 2007) will be only the 9th tallest. Iconic cultural institutions will be found around the city such as the 'new' Vancouver Art Gallery, the National Museum of Native Art, and the Dalai Lama Centre for Peace and Education. The age of the typical Vancouver condo will have passed and more interesting architectural forms will have long since become the norm.

The regions ethnic diversity will continue to increase. The metro will be roughly 25% European descent, 35% Chinese descent, 35% 'other', and 5% mixed ethnicities.

That's all I got for now.


----------



## sequoias

Where did my post go? Did it get deleted? I remember posting it in here. o O (???)


----------



## BoulderGrad

sequoias said:


> Where did my post go? Did it get deleted? I remember posting it in here. o O (???)


They started the thread in 2 places. One on the US fourm, and the other here


----------



## Evil Bert

wjfox2002 said:


> Hopefully a few more supertalls and iconic landmarks, but I don't want London to change too much. I'd like to think it will retain most of its older buildings. What I do want to see changing is the transport/infrastructure and especially the Underground, which is going to need major upgrades over the coming decades.
> 
> I expect Canary Wharf will cover at least half the Isle of Dogs by 2050.



Can you see that perhaps by the year 2100 this could look like a massive manhatten! would create a whole different land mark view for London looking northwards across the river. would be amazing


----------



## flesh_is_weak

Cebu would hopefully look like another Hong Kong with scrappers sprouting on the harbourfront all the way to the mountains...but considering the threat of global-warming, well, it would be a cross between HK and Venice


----------



## la bestia kuit

Buenos Aires will end the genetics experiments to finnaly make an honest politician to do the thing that we need... ¬¬


----------



## ChicagoFan

Computer City- The World of Tomorrow
A very interesting video, from Discovery's 2057.


----------



## Cristovão471

^^ Cool!


----------



## willkill

In London I'm sure most of the housing built between 1900 and 1930 will still be there and will continue to be for quite a while longer except further towards the centre where more dense housing will be built as the population expands. New houses further out I see as still being bricks and mortar as they are today and have been for the last 150 or so years. Although many of the '60s tower blocks and anything crappy and concrete will probably be replaced.



PresidentBjork said:


> Plus the A40 will have been removed.


The elevated section of the M4 from J1-2 will have collapsed a long time ago and been replaced. (If you look under it now lots of the steel supporting the crumbling concrete pillars is rusting away although there are often construction workers working on it)

Hopefully there will be a few more Crossrail-like underground heavy rail schemes and larger combined central rail stations/termii completed or being planned such as a Kings Cross/Euston/St Pancras super terminal (although the beautiful St Pancras building will still be there.) Transport will hopefully also be more integrated in the suburbs and several more trams such as the Wimbledon, Croydon tram will be built in dense areas that are being regenerated. As the South East continues to grow I would think more railways into London would need to be double/quadruple tracked to increase capacity.


----------



## TalB

I doubt that we would have a Computer City within the next 50 years.


----------



## Cristovão471

The discovery 2057 documentary is pretty cool, here is a link to 
the "City of 2057" Episode:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6979560348655713314


----------



## ChicagoFan

Computers, 50yrs ago.....
Today computers......
Computers, 50yrs from today.....

A computer city possible? I think so, maybe even a small country.


----------



## ERGO PROXY

ChicagoFan said:


> Computers, 50yrs ago.....
> Today computers......
> Computers, 50yrs from today.....
> 
> A computer city possible? I think so, maybe even a small country.


You all are big optimists. *Empire State Building *is more then *70* years old and it has still the tallest building in the city. Architecture does not progress nearly as fast as computer science.


----------



## SG1978

Mexico City will be slow economy! Mexico always slow and slow economy!

New York City will move to First Large North America Metro!

Project Population in 2050 was only my opinion so we can find out in next 43 years later


----------



## SG1978

NYC will be 25 to 30 Million Population? I would disagreed it and I know NYC will be pass 40 Million Population, because 43 years is too far!

2030 - NYC will pass 25 Million Population
2050 - NYC will pass 40 Million Population


----------



## monkeyronin

OMH said:


> well,i don't see that reason the cities should grow so much!!


Because they're already growing very heavily? (with many metros gaining over 100,000 new residents a year) Though I agree SG1978's estimates are a bit generous...


----------



## isaidso

OMH said:


> sorry,but thats just nonsense...why should this cities become so big!?i don't really think so...why should NY have more inhabitants than mexico city?more realistic IMO is:NY 28 mio,mexico city 30 mio,LA 28 mio,chicago 13 mio,Toronto 8 mio,Washington-baltimore 8 mio..


Agree. According to this projection, New York City would have to be the fastest growing large city in North America. It isn't.

Mexico City 35 million, New York 30 million, Los Angeles 28 million, Chicago 14 million, Toronto 12 million seems more likely. Toronto will easily increase from 5.5 million to 10 million by 2050 at current growth rates.

The area around Toronto is heavily populated, but not considered part of the metro area today. Toronto is already built right up to Hamilton (700,000) and Oshawa (330,000). Neither of these are counted in Toronto's figures today. Neither is Kitchener-Waterloo (450,000), Guelph (130,000), Barrie (180,000), or St. Catharines (400,000). Most of these cities will merge with Toronto within the next few decades. There are 2.2 million here already. Even if they shrink by 10%, they will boost Greater Toronto past 12 million.

It is more likely that the metro population would approach 14 million since most of these satelite cities are growing even faster than Toronto. So, 12 million is a conservative projection taking into account a slowing of the growth rate of Metro Toronto and surrounding region. Toronto should be a solid #5, possibly #4.

Chicago, London, and Toronto should all be duking it out by then, for the title of 3rd largest city in the English speaking world.


----------



## urbanfan89

isaidso said:


> Chicago, London, and Toronto should all be duking it out by then, for the title of 3rd largest city in the English speaking world.


So what about Jo'Burg and Lagos, on the African continent? Or the Indian cities like Mumbai or Kolkata? There's no chance those will ever be surpassed. Perhaps you should also consider Sydney, as a strong contender, if you want to narrow it down to the "WASP" countries.


----------



## Chicagoflo

Dallas at 9m in 2057 is that right? ;(


----------



## Chicagoflo

I can't wait until they call it CHI-YORK or NEW-AGO replacing BOS-WASH anyway if that where to ever happen it would be the 1st Mega City in the 75-100m pop. range in 2057


----------



## Xusein

^^Huh?


----------



## benficafan1013

Hopefully a couple supertalls in Boston


----------



## Dallascaper

Chicagoflo said:


> Dallas at 9m in 2057 is that right? ;(


That seems very low. Even the NTCOG projects metro DFW at 9.1 million by 2030, and they tend to be conservative in their estimates. 

I'm guessing DFW will be between 11 - 13 million by 2050, unless there is major shift in the Texas economy or a natural disaster.


----------



## Chicagoflo

Yea, I was also guessing around there why aren't you never on the Dallas Forrum?


----------



## OMH

isaidso said:


> Agree. According to this projection, New York City would have to be the fastest growing large city in North America. It isn't.
> 
> Mexico City 35 million, New York 30 million, Los Angeles 28 million, Chicago 14 million, Toronto 12 million seems more likely. Toronto will easily increase from 5.5 million to 10 million by 2050 at current growth rates.
> 
> The area around Toronto is heavily populated, but not considered part of the metro area today. Toronto is already built right up to Hamilton (700,000) and Oshawa (330,000). Neither of these are counted in Toronto's figures today. Neither is Kitchener-Waterloo (450,000), Guelph (130,000), Barrie (180,000), or St. Catharines (400,000). Most of these cities will merge with Toronto within the next few decades. There are 2.2 million here already. Even if they shrink by 10%, they will boost Greater Toronto past 12 million.
> 
> It is more likely that the metro population would approach 14 million since most of these satelite cities are growing even faster than Toronto. So, 12 million is a conservative projection taking into account a slowing of the growth rate of Metro Toronto and surrounding region. Toronto should be a solid #5, possibly #4.
> 
> Chicago, London, and Toronto should all be duking it out by then, for the title of 3rd largest city in the English speaking world.


well,i'm not convinced about toronto and 12 million..most would be 10 mio IMO


----------



## monkeyronin

urbanfan89 said:


> So what about Jo'Burg and Lagos, on the African continent? Or the Indian cities like Mumbai or Kolkata? There's no chance those will ever be surpassed. Perhaps you should also consider Sydney, as a strong contender, if you want to narrow it down to the "WASP" countries.


Mumbai and Kolkata are as much English cities as Toronto is a French one, with Hindi being the main language. I don't think South African cities are experiencing too much population growth, and Sydney does not have the same level of growth as North American cities to be a strong contender. 

But yeah, Lagos is already the second largest English city and will no doubt surpass NYC in the not-too-distant future.

(Oh, and Australia and Canada are not "WASP" countries, what with most people not being Protestant and of English descent)


----------



## vancouverite/to'er

OMH said:


> sorry,but thats just nonsense...why should this cities become so big!?i don't really think so...why should NY have more inhabitants than mexico city?more realistic IMO is:NY 28 mio,mexico city 30 mio,LA 28 mio,chicago 13 mio,Toronto 8 mio,Washington-baltimore 8 mio..


Since when was Chicago faster growing than Toronto-explain??:nuts:


----------



## vancouverite/to'er

OMH said:


> well,i'm not convinced about toronto and 12 million..most would be 10 mio IMO


Too bad Toronto/Ontario is in Canada, I know it sounds assanine but really... The feds take soooo much from Ontario to pump up the Maritmes and Quebec. It's incredible Toronto is experiencing the growth it has as of now.


----------



## Xusein

vancouverite/to'er said:


> Since when was Chicago faster growing than Toronto-explain??:nuts:


I'm not sure about the city (census estimates suck), but the suburbs seem to be growing at a good clip. Although small, the second-fastest growing county in the entire US is a Chicago suburban county.

But Toronto is growing faster, no doubt.


----------



## isaidso

urbanfan89 said:


> So what about Jo'Burg and Lagos, on the African continent? Or the Indian cities like Mumbai or Kolkata? There's no chance those will ever be surpassed. Perhaps you should also consider Sydney, as a strong contender, if you want to narrow it down to the "WASP" countries.


No, you are right, I shouldn't have overlooked them. It was more ignorance to the fact that Lagos was an English speaking city. India is officially a Hindi speaking nation with English meant as a subsidiary language. This is the official stance, but you are right, Mumbai and Kolkata could be classified as English speaking despite this.

I didn't overlook Johannesburg or Sydney though. Both are listed as having smaller metro populations from the sources that I have checked. Both are growing substantially, but neither have the growth prospects of Toronto.

By the way, Toronto is hardly a WASP city. By 2050, it won't even be predominantly of European stock.

OMH: The Golden Horseshoe is already over 8 million. Another 4 million over 45 years seems quite reasonable considering that Toronto alone absorbs 120,000 immigrants/year. Of course, these are all projections. Who knows what will happen over the next 4 decades. This is all speculation based on what exists now, and demographic trends extrapolated.

Vancouverite: how is Chicago growing faster based on those projections? Even with that low projection for Toronto at 8 million, Toronto is growing quicker. 45% bigger vs. 36% bigger


----------



## goschio

Townsville will be a metropolis with 800,000 people and daily flights to Singapore.


----------



## SG1978

2000-2005 US Census:
Chicago Metropolitan Area have only near 70,000 per year

2001-2006 Canada Census:
Greater Toronto Area have near 90,000 per year

Toronto really fast grew number than Chicago


----------



## Cristovão471

With your estimates for New York, It would have to gain 1 million people a year for the next 40 years?

Plus I read an article saying that New York has reached it's capacity. As in it won't e able to hold another 20 million in existing areas.



goschio said:


> Townsville will be a metropolis with 800,000 people and daily flights to Singapore.


That would be cool.


----------



## [email protected]

The population of Tokyo of now is 35 millions people. 
However, the population of the Kanto has already surpassed 46 milions people, if It match it with an American standard.

2006
*Tokyo: 35 Million Population
*Kanto: 43 Million Population （Population density 　1730 / ｋ㎡）



-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


----------



## SG1978

chris_underscore47 said:


> With your estimates for New York, It would have to gain 1 million people a year for the next 40 years?..


No, right now New York Metropolitan Area add 190,000 per year from 2000 to 2005



chris_underscore47 said:


> Plus I read an article saying that New York has reached it's capacity. As in it won't e able to hold another 20 million in existing areas.


Good Question, NYC can do it by demolish old building then under construction to build new tallest tower with more room, more space and more population, come on?


----------



## Cristovão471

^^ lol I doubt that will happen, whats the point of having 40 million people in one city anyways, whats the point? 20 million sounds enough, even just 10 million lol.

Australia will have to start being more generous with it's intake of immigrants, We have plenty of water/space up north (Darwin) They could build a new metropolis up there.


----------



## SG1978

chris_underscore47 said:


> ^^ lol I doubt that will happen, whats the point of having 40 million people in one city anyways, whats the point? 20 million sounds enough, even just 10 million lol.


you don't watch movie? Judge Dredd, Mega-City One (NYC) for over 800 Million Population by end of 21st Century or The Fifth Element, I saw this movie and look like over 500 Million Population in 2263

Judge Dredd Mega-City One in 2139









The Fifth Element in 2263











chris_underscore47 said:


> Australia will have to start being more generous with it's intake of immigrants, We have plenty of water/space up north (Darwin) They could build a new metropolis up there.


Where is Darwin?


----------



## SG1978

NYC can reach 40 Million Population by around 2050 for sure


----------



## haze

EDITED


----------



## monkeyronin

SG1978 said:


> NYC can reach 40 Million Population by around 2050 for sure


But it would have to grow at 500,000/year for the next 40 if it were to be able to reach 40 million. 30 million is a much more realistic goal. Just to compare historically, its took NYC about 60 years to double from 10 to 20 million.


----------



## SG1978

monkeyronin said:


> But it would have to grow at 500,000/year for the next 40 if it were to be able to reach 40 million. 30 million is a much more realistic goal. Just to compare historically, its took NYC about 60 years to double from 10 to 20 million.


Right now is differenet than past!

Earth did reached 6 Billion Population by 2000 but Earth will reach 7 Billion by 2009-2010

how come Earth did get 1 Billion for less 10 years? how come Earth did grew up too fast? Right now is 6,755,000,000?


----------



## SG1978

Oh yeah, There is no World War III yet! and Iraq & Afghanistan is small war! because World War II did reached near 60 Million Death! Iraq and Afghanistan like only less 600,000 Death since 2001

so If there is no World War III till 2050 then Population will be VERY HIGH!


----------



## Cristovão471

Okay you live in your magical world where new york will be demolished and replaced with ugly ass super towers to accomodate 40 million people.



SG1978 said:


> you don't watch movie? Judge Dredd, Mega-City One (NYC) for over 800 Million Population by end of 21st Century or The Fifth Element, I saw this movie and look like over 500 Million Population in 2263
> [/IMG]
> 
> Where is Darwin?


What's that got to do with anything? Those are science FICTION movies, just visions of what it 'could' look like. It would be impossible for NYC to hold 800 million people. Keep dreaming.

Anyways Darwin is at the top in this:


----------



## SG1978

chris_underscore47 said:


> Australia will have to start being more generous with it's intake of immigrants, We have plenty of water/space up north (Darwin) They could build a new metropolis up there.


You mean Darwin in Australia?


----------



## Cristovão471

SG1978 said:


> You mean Darwin in Australia?


Yes Bebeh. It's practically in asia aswell.


----------



## SG1978

chris_underscore47 said:


> Okay you live in your magical world where new york will be demolished and replaced with ugly ass super towers to accomodate 40 million people.


oh well, NYC have too many old building like have to demolish most building around 1800's between 1960's with low height by less 400 feet then replace with awesome nice tallest with beautiful glass and light with over 1,000 feet height then will be fit it and more population number! lol



chris_underscore47 said:


> What's that got to do with anything? Those are science FICTION movies, just visions of what it 'could' look like. It would be impossible for NYC to hold 800 million people. Keep dreaming.


I know Movie just a science fiction but I'm sure Mayor would love to see NYC to become Mega-City as True Dream so wait to see and find out to see what NYC look like in 2050 when I will turn 72 years old! lol



chris_underscore47 said:


> Anyways Darwin is at the top in this:


Ahh! North of Australia! sound like Awesome! but I was wondering what about North of Canada? or Middle of Russia? because I did see on Map and they have plenty of space room!


----------



## Cristovão471

North of Canada and Russia look very un-desirable as they have extremely harsh winters, 
whilst Darwin has temperatures of 30°C all year round(around 86°F)

Because it's located in the tropics they get plenty of rain, right now Darwin of just over 100,000 people


----------



## goschio

Yes, Darwin is nice. Certainly needs some growth. Its proximity to Asia might help a bit.


----------



## SG1978

chris_underscore47 said:


> North of Canada and Russia look very un-desirable as they have extremely harsh winters,
> whilst Darwin has temperatures of 30°C all year round(around 86°F)
> 
> Because it's located in the tropics they get plenty of rain, right now Darwin of just over 100,000 people


WOW!!! Darwin look very nice place, Are you really Aussie?


2050 ... snow might NEVER exist again and North Pole might be GONE! because of Pollution, Global Warming been changed all weather in Canada lately ... not much snow and mostly time warm weather not same in 1980's and 1990's


----------



## [email protected]

SG1978 said:


> NYC can reach 40 Million Population by around 2050 for sure


In NYC of 2050, African, Asian, Hispanic, will occupy the majority. 
The European falls to the minority.

In the shore part in China, hundreds of millions of urban areas may be formed. 

Tokyo, Nagoya, Osaka are connected, and Japan will transform in the city state, too.


----------



## SG1978

[email protected] said:


> In NYC of 2050, African, Asian, Hispanic, will occupy the majority.
> The European falls to the minority.
> 
> In the shore part in China, hundreds of millions of urban areas may be formed.
> 
> Tokyo, Nagoya, Osaka are connected, and Japan will transform in the city state, too.


China really Big, I think China will have Big Mega City.


----------



## OMH

SG1978 said:


> Right now is differenet than past!
> 
> Earth did reached 6 Billion Population by 2000 but Earth will reach 7 Billion by 2009-2010
> 
> how come Earth did get 1 Billion for less 10 years? how come Earth did grew up too fast? Right now is 6,755,000,000?


but this is mostly because of huge growth in africa and asia...North American cities just don't grow so fast!Ny will have maybe 28 mio by 2050,but certainly not more!


----------



## SG1978

OMH said:


> but this is mostly because of huge growth in africa and asia...North American cities just don't grow so fast!Ny will have maybe 28 mio by 2050,but certainly not more!


We can't see in the future and my project was only my opinion :lol:


----------



## Cristovão471

SG1978 said:


> WOW!!! Darwin look very nice place, Are you really Aussie?


yes I my nationality is Australian, why you ask?


----------



## trainrover

monkeyronin said:


> you don't read too many statistics do you?


Reading?!? Canadian statisticians' babbling-offs are even worse! :bash:


----------



## Canuck514

trainrover said:


> Reading?!? Canadian statisticians' babbling-offs are even worse! :bash:




I'm sure that Québecois statisticians are so much better. All you ever do is bitch - it's so boring. Just shut up dude!


----------



## trainrover

Canuck514 said:


> I'm sure that Québecois statisticians are so much better.


'Doubt it, coz this is still yankeeland, gallic or not....





Canuck514 said:


> All you ever do is bitch


Hé! It be time to jazz stuff up 'roun' 'ere, hein?....





Canuck514 said:


> Just shut up dude!


Psssst.....just try ignoring me, for the choice does lie with you after all....


----------



## Boscorelli

Oelanddk said:


> Copenhagen will get it's first skyscraper...


Copenhagen will probably be under water as much of Denmark and southern Sweden.


----------



## erbse

Yeah, they'll all found a flat share and spend their live henceforth on the not-so-icy-anymore Greenland. Niice!


----------



## OMH

Boscorelli said:


> Copenhagen will probably be under water as much of Denmark and southern Sweden.


surely it won't..all this hype about rising seas is annoying! sure there's global warming,but it won't lead to sea rises more than 5 cm!


----------



## erbse

Good to know, cordial thanks reliable scientist.


----------



## isaidso

OMH said:


> surely it won't..all this hype about rising seas is annoying! sure there's global warming,but it won't lead to sea rises more than 5 cm!


I apologize for being blunt, but have you been living in a cave? Arctic ice larger than Ontario has disappeared in the last decade. That's 4 times the size of Germany. Where do you propose all that water is going? It didn't simply disappear. And please don't argue that this hasn't been proven yet. Northern Canadians have lived and traversed this region for thousands of years. It isn't there any more! Thousands of scientists aren't all wrong. Thousands of locals aren't blind. They can tell the difference between ice and water you know.

Hype? It's being hyped because the implications are potentially catastrophic. What is annoying is the shocking level of ignorance some people display. It's as mindboggling as those flat earth people.


----------



## TheMann2000

Toronto in 2050?

My guesses:

The city will have hit its hard sprawl limits around the Greenbelt and will have spent 30-40 years going up with gusto. The first 400-450m skyscrapers will probably be built by then, the city's tallest office tower now is 298m.

Development will be practically solid all the way form Hamilton to Newcastle, a distance of 160 km. The city will have rebuilt its transit systems long before then, including major new subway lines and dedicated high-speed rail transit on current GO routes and probably a bunch of new routes. GO's regular operations will be conducted on dedicated electrified double-track mainlines all the way as far as Newmarket, Barrie, Oshawa and Aldershot. GO Buses will run every 10 minutes on really busy routes such as the Highway 2 Express in the eastern part of the city. Hovercraft will probably provide some form of transport along the lakefront, stretching from the port in Hamilton (the steel plant will be long gone by 2050) all the way to the port in Oshawa. Highway 401 will be double-decked from Oshawa to Milton by then, with dedicated bus lanes. The Don Valley Parkway and Gardiner Expressway will probably be largely underground by them, with the rail line through the Don River Valley built entirely above ground, with the bottom being a huge park. City Center Airport will no longer be there, as high speed rail will connect it with the Pearson and Pickering airports, but a heliport will be there. The Port of Toronto will be rebuilt as a huge container terminal, and a second major port facility will be built in Hamilton. The Island homes will be gone as well as the school and water treatment plant, and it will be one huge parkland. This will include a new amusement park and perhaps a casino.

The tallest skyscrapers will be downtown, with lines of large buildings following Bloor and Yonge Streets from downtown. Several other clusters of 75-125m buildings will sprout up in Brampton, Vaughan, Mississauga (already happening here), Markham, Newmarket and Oshawa. The CN Tower sill still reign supreme, but by then competition will start to exist.

Single family homes will be replaced by walkups of 5-6 stories as the local maximum, but the tallest residential towers will likely be up to 80-85 stories with large, expansive apartments in order to keep a family feel. The Humber and Don River valleys will be huge parklands with massive, soaring bridges connecting Scarborough on one side with downtown on the other, with the parkland stretching all the way to Eglinton Avenue. Yonge Street will be a shopper's paradise, with stores running from downtown most of the way to Highway 401. By this time, above-ground transit, likely monorails or above-ground rail, will run above the middle of the street in order top keep transit working and relieve pressure on the subway underneath it. The Entertainment district will not just be a major center for the arts in Canada but the entire world.

Cars will still be commonplace, but by then GO, TTC and GTAA will between them average more than 2 million riders daily. Major shopping areas will have no-car zones to facilitate street traffic. The Eaton Center will have been drawfed as a shopping mall by several upstarts.

The base of the Don River will be home to Olympic Stadium, as Toronto will probably have held the Summer Olympics by then. Several other venues will see usage for this purpose - Rogers Center and BMO Field chief among them. The Toronto Car races, now host of the Formula 1 World Championship Canadian Grand Prix, will use part of the old Indycar circuit at Exhibition Place, but also loop through Ontario Place and use more of Lakeshore Blvd.

the surrounding countryside will be a massive maze of corn and wheat farms farther from Lake Ontario, near it will be a huge stack of wineries. Niagara will still have its reputation, but Prince Edward Country and Quinte will have gained one too and the Northumberland and Clarington wineries will have started to mature. High speed rail will run from Chicago to Quebec City, with links from Montreal and Toronto to New York and the megacities along the US East Coast. Pollution in Lake Ontario will be a fading memory, though invasion of other species due to global ship movements will still be a major problem.

The city will still have Europeans as its largest population group, but that will only account for about 35-40% of the population. Major sections of the city will be dominated by minorites, from Indians in Brampton to Orientals in Markham, Caribbeans in Scarborough and Africans in Ajax-Pickering and Vaughan. There will be numerous neighborhoods where these ocmmunities meet, and these places such as the Danforth, Yorkville, Whitby, Etobicoke, East Vaughan and Mississauga will have gained reputations too. The global media will use Toronto as a major base, with everything from CNN and BBC to Al-Jazeera and NHK having major studios and operations in Toronto.

FC Toronto will have a new stadium by then (probably in Scarborough or the Beaches) with a capacity of at least 60,000. Canada will be a regular World Cup contender and the city will be as mad about MLS Soccer as they are about NHL hockey. (Hopefully by then the Maple Leafs will have won a Stanley Cup, too. :lol: ) Canadian Teams will dominate Major League Soccer, with FC Toronto and the Vancouver Grizzlies winning multiple MLS titles each.

The city will be powered by huge hydroelectric projects in the North, projects which have given new life to economically-troubled Northern Ontario. These projects will have spread across Northern Canada, will be providing a major share (10-15%) of North America's electrical power. Cottages will have spread all the way through the Canadian Shield to was far away as North Bay and Sudbury, and by then controlled access highways with higher speed limits as well as fast passenger trains designed specifically for cottage dwellers (think Auto Train style stuff) will get them to the cottages relaxed and happy in good time.

Union Station in Downtown Toronto will have three decks, the bottom level one for intercity trains and the top 2 serving the commuter rail system. Every commuter will buy a transit pass which will allow them to use it like a swipe card to track the number of trips taken by the user. The city will almost quadruple its current subway system size and GO will run more than a dozen routes with its electrified trains and their distinctive double-deck "skyview" passenger cars.

Heavy industry will still exist in Toronto, based largely on the automotive and aerospace industries. GM will still make cars in Oshawa, Ford in Oakville, Chrysler in Brampton and Honda in Alliston. By 2050, Toyota, Hyundai, Peugeot, Mitsubishi and Fiat will also be active in Canada and have plants for cars or car parts in Toronto. Bombardier will take over the old Downsview airport and will be have become a bonafide competitor to Boeing and Airbus, and by 2050 will be producing hydrogen-fueled airliners at its monster facilities at Downsview and Brampton. GM's third plant in Oshawa will have been expanded and will be producing rail locomotives by then.

Chrysler will by 2050 have moved its headquarters north of the border to lessen the impact of US legislation that is very much against Detroit. (GM's new Canadian headquarters in Oshawa will be a lot bigger than its old one, too......) The Chrysler tower on Front Street will one of a vast number of major corporate headquarters in downtown Toronto.


----------



## WawaY[625]

NAIA TIII will finally open :lol:


----------



## Maxxclip

^^:lol::rofl: Finally


----------



## monkeyronin

TheMann2000 said:


> Cars will still be commonplace, but by then GO, TTC and GTAA will between them average more than 2 million riders daily.


So you propose transit ridership to shrink? The TTC alone averages over 2 million daily riders already. 




TheMann2000 said:


> The city will still have Europeans as its largest population group, but that will only account for about 35-40% of the population.


With current trends, no more than 20% of the city would be European. Indians would likely make up the plurality.


----------



## xlchris

Well, I don't know because Hoofddorp isn't that big:lol70.000)

But Rotterdam Look at my signature. Those buildings (and many many others) are build in 2011/2012, so in 2050 it will have 300m+ and much more:banana:


----------



## OMH

isaidso said:


> I apologize for being blunt, but have you been living in a cave? Arctic ice larger than Ontario has disappeared in the last decade. That's 4 times the size of Germany. Where do you propose all that water is going? It didn't simply disappear. And please don't argue that this hasn't been proven yet. Northern Canadians have lived and traversed this region for thousands of years. It isn't there any more! Thousands of scientists aren't all wrong. Thousands of locals aren't blind. They can tell the difference between ice and water you know.
> 
> Hype? It's being hyped because the implications are potentially catastrophic. What is annoying is the shocking level of ignorance some people display. It's as mindboggling as those flat earth people.


man,man i think people overreact..they make it a favorite theme and do like they would be concerned about this,but continue driving SUV's and live in single-family homes!!sure its hyped,sorry,but i don't see the weather getting warmer..and which cities are flooded by now..tell me?-none!!so,why should they be flooded in 5o years,even when the co2 emissions are lower or will be lower than they where 50 years ago...but its probably because i never liked people who propagate,and this is nothing but propaganda!(if they really wanted to change something,then they should stop building gas-guzzlers and start building commieblocks!but IMO its nothing much more than a hype,they're really bigger catastrophs,like what the US is currently doing IMO!


----------



## poshbakerloo

in london we will finaly have the london bridge tower!


----------



## Dallascaper

nt


----------



## gugasounds

> Mexico City will be slow economy! Mexico always slow and slow economy!
> 
> New York City will move to First Large North America Metro!
> 
> Project Population in 2050 was only my opinion so we can find out in next 43 years later


Well lets say that a massive wave of terrorist attaks to Washington, NYC and the pentagon by the arabs, south korea, cuba, venezuela and all the millions and millions of people that hate the united states will make nyc, washington and the pentagon look like a war zone.
And in the southern states like california, texas, arizona, new mexico, SPANISH will now be a legal language because the spanish speakers now double the number of persons who speak spanish. This opens the possibility for more latins polititians, and maybe more latin Presidents. 
If right now there is a latin candidate imagine how many will be in 50 years, haha. 
Now in the economy part, well, by this time china will be along with the U.S the world´s superpower and the aumenting corruption in the U.S opens a bigger chance that will take mexco to a much better economical situation that right now. I cant wait for spanish to be the legal second language in the U.S


----------



## ChicagoFan

^^Whats up with the CAPITAL LETTERS. hno:
I think the Hispanic population thing is overblown, Mexico and Chile are right now Latin Americas and one of the worlds fastest growing economies. And for the population to occur you need to keep Mexico's economic situation the same today and the same in 50yrs. A nation could change in a decade, just look at China. And while NYC is moving forward, other cities like M.C is doing the same.


----------



## nygirl

gugasounds said:


> Well lets say that a massive wave of terrorist attaks to Washington, NYC and the pentagon by the arabs, south korea, cuba, venezuela and all the millions and millions of people that hate the united states will make nyc, washington and the pentagon look like a war zone.
> And in the southern states like california, texas, arizona, new mexico, SPANISH will now be a legal language because the spanish speakers now double the number of persons who speak spanish. This opens the possibility for more latins polititians, and maybe more latin Presidents.
> If right now there is a latin candidate imagine how many will be in 50 years, haha.
> Now in the economy part, well, by this time china will be along with the U.S the world´s superpower and the aumenting corruption in the U.S opens a bigger chance that will take mexco to a much better economical situation that right now. I cant wait for spanish to be the legal second language in the U.S




Are u fking kidding me? Wishful thinking there, champ.


----------



## Chrissib

Nielsiej13 said:


> I actually don't think Shanghai will get 170mln inhabitants in 2050, and I think LA doesn't 37mln in 2050  I think randstad is not 9mln but 12mln Nice prognosis


The yangtze-delta has already 80 million inh. Shanghai and the other metro-areas will grow together. It's not like LA for example, where you have one core where the growth starts, but many cores like in the randstad where you live. These cores will grow until they merge to one big metropolitan area like the randstad. Simply replace Amsterdam with Shanghai, Rotterdam with Nanking and Utrecht with Hangzhou, then it's understandable what I mean with the 170 million


----------



## TallBox

I think Western cities like NYC and LA going up to 40 million is unrealistic.

I think most growth will happen in poorer cities. We could see places like Sao Paulo, Lagos, Bombay and Shanghai hitting 50 million


----------



## ParisianStyle

wazabi said:


> 2372


Can you explain me how the Eiffel Tower could be there ? 
In this picture the Eiffel Tower is at the very place of Jussieu University, so at the opposite of the city by East/West.


Personaly I imagine Paris in 2058 as the most wonderful city of the world, with many towers around 200m all over the city (exept on the banks of the the Seine, on the islands like in the picture, and near most beautiful monuments like Opera, le Louvre and others)

I imagine that London could be the Paris suburb, just as a little city in the countryside compared with Paris (I think I'm dreaming now)


----------



## Chrissib

ParisianStyle said:


> Can you explain me how the Eiffel Tower could be there ?
> In this picture the Eiffel Tower is at the very place of Jussieu University, so at the opposite of the city by East/West.
> 
> 
> Personaly I imagine Paris in 2058 as the most wonderful city of the world, with many towers around 200m all over the city (exept on the banks of the the Seine, on the islands like in the picture, and near most beautiful monuments like Opera, le Louvre and others)
> 
> I imagine that London could be the Paris suburb, just as a little city in the countryside compared with Paris (I think I'm dreaming now)


And Marseille a suburb to the south?^^


----------



## ParisianStyle

Chrissib said:


> And Marseille a suburb to the south?^^


Lyon, Montpellier and Toulon in the suburb of Marseille if you want, but Marseille will never be a part of Paris, even the tiniest


----------



## Chrissib

ParisianStyle said:


> Lyon, Montpellier and Toulon in the suburb of Marseille if you want, but Marseille will never be a part of Paris, even the tiniest


But it's more likely that Paris becomes a suburb of London. Paris is the densiest city in Europe. Both Cities do have the same population growth rate, so London is spreading a bit faster.  Anyway, Paris is much more beautiful!^^


----------



## Beware




----------



## Jardoga

I Believe if things keep going the way they are going and the earth doesnt cut gass imissions, i believe my city will be under water. Or the ozone layer will de-teriorate, and everyone will be fried to a crisp.


----------



## Azia

*re.*



Mr. Uncut said:


> I would say: Shanghai + 40 (world´s greatest), Jakarta 35, Delhi 35, Mumbai 33, Tokyo 36, Beijing 35, Karachi 25, Berlin 7, Paris 15, London 13, Frankfurt 8, NYC 30, LA 28, Chicago 15, Toronto 11 (not in order only several big cities)
> 
> North American:
> 
> NYC 30 mil
> Mexico City 30 mil
> LA 28 mil
> Chicago 15 mil
> Miami 12 mil
> SF 11 mil
> Toronto 11 mil
> Dallas 10 mil
> Houston 10 mil
> Las Vegas 9 mil


hmm i am thinking shanghai will catch the 30 million mark before 2050, madrid will have 13 million , berlin 8 million , LA can catch the 30 million mark in 2060 , and nyc the 35 million in 2050 ????? so who knows ??


----------



## DG




----------



## WeimieLvr

> Quote:
> Originally Posted by Mr. Uncut
> I would say: Shanghai + 40 (world´s greatest), Jakarta 35, Delhi 35, Mumbai 33, Tokyo 36, Beijing 35, Karachi 25, Berlin 7, Paris 15, London 13, Frankfurt 8, NYC 30, LA 28, Chicago 15, Toronto 11 (not in order only several big cities)
> 
> North American:
> 
> NYC 30 mil
> Mexico City 30 mil
> LA 28 mil
> Chicago 15 mil
> Miami 12 mil
> SF 11 mil
> Toronto 11 mil
> Dallas 10 mil
> Houston 10 mil
> Las Vegas 9 mil


I would definitely add Atlanta to the North America list...Atlanta is at 5.6 million now, so maybe at 11-12 million or so by 2050. The area is currently growing by about 1 million residents every 6-7 years since 1990, so in 40 years it isn't far fetched to estimate adding another 6 million people. The city is now growing rapidly as well - adding 125,000 residents since 2000 after years of decline - so it's not just the suburbs anymore, and hopefully that trend will continue. The city proper, at that rate of growth, should be at about 1.5-2 million in 2050.


----------



## isaidso

^^That's what I was thinking. It's amazing how fast Atlanta is growing. To an outsider, the knee-jerk reaction is always, why Atlanta? 

Is it mostly in migration from the US southeast? Atlanta became the 'capital' of this region, and so, big city seekers from the southeast who 40 years ago might have gone to New York or Los Angeles now have their own metropolis to move to?

That coupled with cheaper real estate than NY and LA has fueled the boom further. The future looks to remain much the same. Atlanta's economy is strong because of the population growth, and vice versa. 

A huge generalization, I admit, but do you see my summation as accurate, thus far?

Toronto will probably be closer to 13 million, however. There's already 8.5 million in the Greater Golden Horseshoe which is growing by 1 million+ a decade. It's an area of comparable size to that of the Dallas-Fort Worth Metroplex.


----------



## karim aboussir

by 2050 spain mighty have 10 million romanian immigrants and 24 million moroccans immigrants and maybe 30 million south american immigrants ??


----------



## Timon91

My town will be disappeared if the polar ice keeps on melting (and if John McCain becomes the next US president ). I mean, my town is 3 to 4 meters below sea-level.


----------



## jayo

City Areas.

London-10 million.
Paris-9 million
Lyon-1.2 million
Birmingham-2.5 million
Leeds-3 million
Sheffield-1.3 million
Manchester-1.4 million
Liverpool-1.2 million

Metro areas

Liverpool/manchester-10 million (Its already at 5 million)
Leeds/Bradford-5 million
Birmingham/west mids-6 million
Tyne & wear/Newcastle-3 million.
London-18 million.
Lyon-4 million
Paris-15 million.


----------



## WeimieLvr

isaidso said:


> ^^That's what I was thinking. It's amazing how fast Atlanta is growing. To an outsider, the knee-jerk reaction is always, why Atlanta?
> 
> Is it mostly in migration from the US southeast? Atlanta became the 'capital' of this region, and so, big city seekers from the southeast who 40 years ago might have gone to New York or Los Angeles now have their own metropolis to move to?
> 
> That coupled with cheaper real estate than NY and LA has fueled the boom further. The future looks to remain much the same. Atlanta's economy is strong because of the population growth, and vice versa.
> 
> A huge generalization, I admit, but do you see my summation as accurate, thus far?
> 
> Toronto will probably be closer to 13 million, however. There's already 8.5 million in the Greater Golden Horseshoe which is growing by 1 million+ a decade. It's an area of comparable size to that of the Dallas-Fort Worth Metroplex.


The explosive growth is truly migration from all over the U.S., but more transplants from the Northeast and Great Lakes areas than any other region. There is still a good bit of movement within the Southeast, but there are more choices of large cities now (Charlotte, Nashville, Raleigh, Tampa, Orlando, etc.)...but still Atlanta has historically been "the big city" in the N.C./S.C./TN/AL/MS/North Florida area. 

The weather is probably the #1 attraction for Northeastern migration...there is still a "winter", but it's very mild and lasts about 2 months. Fall and Spring weather is about 3 months each, and hot Summer weather is about 4 months - longer than up North but no hotter...

Real estate is another draw, but many people are disappointed in the small price differences. Go 30 miles out of the city and you can get a great bargain, and if that's where people want to live then they are happy. But you're not going to get much of a bargain renting or buying in Midtown, Downtown, Buckhead, or any of the popular in-town neighborhoods. It's expensive city living. You can find bargains, but like in any city you have to really look in transitional or up-and-coming neighborhoods.

Jobs are another draw...the job market stays pretty healthy here, and the economy is very diverse with lots of corporate headquarters and lots of banks, hospitals, tech, universities, manufacturing, and service industry/hospitality/professional, etc...

There are a lot of entertainment options in Atlanta as well...just like any other big city. Nightlife, shopping, restaurants, etc. There are many worse places to live, so people are attracted to the big city amenities.


----------



## Chicagoago

I don't know who told you the summer in the south is no hotter than up north, but they were very mistaken. It's much hotter and much more humid in the south than anywhere up in the northeast and midwest. The Chicago area might get into the 90's for a few days at a time, maybe 3 times a summer, but otherwise it's usually low 80's.

I don't see Atlanta getting to 2 million either....you really think it's going to become more dense than Chicago or San Fran??


----------



## Chicagoago

A lot of growth rates aren't going to keep going forever. If that was the case New York, Chicago and Philadelphia should probably be in the tens of millions, let alone their metro populations. Every city has its cycles of very strong growth, moderate growth and possibly even shrinking.


----------



## isaidso

WeimieLvr:

Thank you for the information. I met some Atlantans who came up here for PrideWeek, but they didn't seem to know too much about their city. Atlanta seems set to become one of the dominant cities in the US. It's not as dominant as Chicago yet, but the gap seems to be narrowing. 20 years ago, I wouldn't have thought it probable at all.



Chicagoago said:


> A lot of growth rates aren't going to keep going forever. If that was the case New York, Chicago and Philadelphia should probably be in the tens of millions, let alone their metro populations. Every city has its cycles of very strong growth, moderate growth and possibly even shrinking.


It's true that growth rates fluctuate. Atlanta won't keep growing like that forever, but there seems to be a lot of what needs to be in place for that city to keep growing quite rapidly in the near future. In 15-20 years from now, it's more of a guessing game. What about Chicago? Back in the 1970s and 1980s, it looked likely that Chicago was going to flat line, as far as significant population growth is concerned. 

Lately, it seems that Chicago is beginning a new growth spurt. It started with things like Boeing relocating to Chicago from Seattle, and is continuing with efforts like landing the 2016 Olympics and the Chicago Spire.


----------



## Homer J. Simpson

^Chicago's little issues were part of the exodus to the suburbs. (A trend that is likely to go into some reverse with the cost of oil increasing)

Chicago itself always remained healthy.


----------



## chinatown

saigon (aka HoChiMinh city) currently have 7mil ppl in 2,000 m2 land, by 2020 its population is estimated to be around 10mil in the main city core and another 5mil in metro cities which boost the total area of Metro Saigon to an approximate of 5,000 m2, and GDP per capita would be around 14,000 USD.

And in 2050, Metro Saigon would expand equally to 1/3 of south Vietnam which accounted for 50% of the national economy, and inhabited by 30 mil ppl, and would be the 3rd largest metropolitan in Southeast Asia behind Jakarta and Bangkok.

Hope i'm not daydreaming LOL.


----------



## benedetton_alexandra

Azia said:


> hmm i am thinking shanghai will catch the 30 million mark before 2050, madrid will have 13 million , berlin 8 million , LA can catch the 30 million mark in 2060 , and nyc the 35 million in 2050 ????? so who knows ??


its already 30 million mark


----------



## isaidso

Homer J. Simpson said:


> ^Chicago's little issues were part of the exodus to the suburbs. (A trend that is likely to go into some reverse with the cost of oil increasing)
> 
> Chicago itself always remained healthy.


Yes, I know the economy remained strong, but I'm referring to the population. The population of Chicagoland stopped growing at the rate it used to. I'm not referring to migrations from one part of Chicagoland to another. Chicagoland looked set to register growth rates approaching zero, but then this trend reversed itself. It's picking up momentum, but still growing slowly. In the most recent period from 2000 to 2007, Chicagoland only managed to increase it's population by 4.68% from 9,098,316 to 9,524,673. That's way below the US average.

If this continues, Toronto will catch Chicago in the not too distant future. The thought of that would have been inconceivable just 20 years ago.

Chicagoland: 9,524,673 in 2007; area: 7,212 sq mi 
Golden Horseshoe: 6,488,062 in 2006; area: 3,899 sq mi 

The Horseshoe grows by 10% every 5 years. If current trends continue, by 2035, Chicagoland will have 11,436,811, while Toronto will have 11,493,998 in 2036.


----------



## WeimieLvr

Chicagoago said:


> I don't know who told you the summer in the south is no hotter than up north, but they were very mistaken. It's much hotter and much more humid in the south than anywhere up in the northeast and midwest. The Chicago area might get into the 90's for a few days at a time, maybe 3 times a summer, but otherwise it's usually low 80's.
> 
> I don't see Atlanta getting to 2 million either....you really think it's going to become more dense than Chicago or San Fran??


Ok, you know all...:lol:

The summers ARE NO HOTTER IN ATLANTA THAN ANYWHERE ELSE...they are longer, but not any hotter. I remember many days in a row of 100 degree temperatures in CHICAGO where dozens of people died...remember that? It's not unheard of. Average highs in July: Chicago, 84 and Atlanta, 87....a difference of 3 degrees.

Tell me NYC isn't humid...I need a good laugh.

Atlanta is in the foothills of the Appalachian Mountains...why would you think it's hotter here than near the coast? or on a Great Lake? That doesn't even make sense.

And yes, I see Atlanta getting as dense or at least as populated as Chicago. Do you think people said the same about L.A. back in 1900? "Do you really see L.A. becoming as dense or populated as Detroit?"


----------



## WeimieLvr

Homer J. Simpson said:


> ^Chicago's little issues were part of the exodus to the suburbs. (A trend that is likely to go into some reverse with the cost of oil increasing)
> 
> Chicago itself always remained healthy.


Chicago may have remained healthy, but it's population numbers didn't:

1960 3,550,404 2 -1.9% 
1970 3,366,957 2 -5.2% 
1980 3,005,072 2 -10.7% 
1990 2,783,726 3 -7.4% 
2000 2,896,016 3 4.0% 
2003 2,869,121 3 -0.9% 
2006 2,873,790 3 0.2%

That isn't a knock on Chicago (one of my favorite cities EVER)...Atlanta peaked in 1970 and steadily declined as well. Most older cities experienced the same phenomenon.

1970 496,973 1,763,626 
1980 425,022 2,233,324 
1990 394,017 2,959,950 
2000 416,474 4,112,198 
2007 519,145 5,626,400


----------



## TEHR_IR

the population of iran grows with 45 million in 20years imagine over 50 years it would be around 100million!


----------



## wjfox




----------



## xlchris

^Wow, they did a good job making that.

If that will ever happen, it will be the same for Rotterdam, Amsterdam, The Hague etc.!


----------



## karim aboussir

xlchrisij said:


> ^Wow, they did a good job making that.
> 
> If that will ever happen, it will be the same for Rotterdam, Amsterdam, The Hague etc.!


so many cities are in danger just like that in the future that includes places like miami florida I wonder if global warming is real or a myth or just a natural cycle


----------



## xlchris

^Overreacted by many people. Won't be so bad


----------



## massp88

isaidso said:


> WeimieLvr:
> 
> Thank you for the information. I met some Atlantans who came up here for PrideWeek, but they didn't seem to know too much about their city. Atlanta seems set to become one of the dominant cities in the US. It's not as dominant as Chicago yet, but the gap seems to be narrowing. 20 years ago, I wouldn't have thought it probable at all.
> 
> 
> 
> It's true that growth rates fluctuate. Atlanta won't keep growing like that forever, but there seems to be a lot of what needs to be in place for that city to keep growing quite rapidly in the near future. In 15-20 years from now, it's more of a guessing game. What about Chicago? Back in the 1970s and 1980s, it looked likely that Chicago was going to flat line, as far as significant population growth is concerned.
> 
> Lately, it seems that Chicago is beginning a new growth spurt. It started with things like Boeing relocating to Chicago from Seattle, and is continuing with efforts like landing the 2016 Olympics and the Chicago Spire.


Atlanta is not prepared at all for even more rapid growth for the next 15-20 years. Look at their traffic. Look at their mass transit system. Atlanta is so sprawled out, a car is the only option for pretty much everyone. Atlanta will not keep growing at the clip it has for the last 5-7 years. Atlanta benefits more so than any other city for the pure fact of its location. Atlanta is the southern U.S. Within Atlanta, there is not another major city within 250 miles of it. Cheap land and a good job market are what has driven their growth.


----------



## massp88

Mr. Uncut said:


> I would say: Shanghai + 40 (world´s greatest), Jakarta 35, Delhi 35, Mumbai 33, Tokyo 36, Beijing 35, Karachi 25, Berlin 7, Paris 15, London 13, Frankfurt 8, NYC 30, LA 28, Chicago 15, Toronto 11 (not in order only several big cities)
> 
> North American:
> 
> NYC 30 mil
> Mexico City 30 mil
> LA 28 mil
> Chicago 15 mil
> Miami 12 mil
> SF 11 mil
> Toronto 11 mil
> Dallas 10 mil
> Houston 10 mil
> Las Vegas 9 mil


Las Vegas at 9 million people? They better hope they can evolve their economy into something other than tourism related. Miami will have a lot of growing pains as the area just doesn't have enough land. All they can do is go north south.


----------



## wapo5050

Madrid under the attack of Mazinger Z in 2050


----------



## wapo5050

And Madrid under a tsunami caused by global warming:


----------



## Chicagoago

isaidso said:


> Yes, I know the economy remained strong, but I'm referring to the population. The population of Chicagoland stopped growing at the rate it used to. I'm not referring to migrations from one part of Chicagoland to another. Chicagoland looked set to register growth rates approaching zero, but then this trend reversed itself. It's picking up momentum, but still growing slowly. In the most recent period from 2000 to 2007, Chicagoland only managed to increase it's population by 4.68% from 9,098,316 to 9,524,673. That's way below the US average.


Right, Chicago slowed way down during the 70's and 80's with the regional economy. It could have slipped even further and been another Detroit, but the city and metro successfully re-tooled their economy from the 70's to the 90's. They shed off the manufacturing sectors and built up more technology and service areas. Because of this, I think Chicago is probably more incline to grow faster than during it's recent past since this transition is taking hold.

The CSA:

1950: 5,645,697
1960: 6,981,635
1970: 7,814,906
1980: 8,081,100
1990: 8,268,924
2000: 9,312,305
2010: 9,903,676 (based off 2000-2007 rates)

Change:

50's: 1,335,938
60's: 833,271
70's: 266,194
80's: 187,824
90's: 1,043,381
00's: 597,371

From the 50's through the 80's it looked like the city was going to die, but it's come back nicely since then. The 2000's weren't as robust as the 90's, but 600,000 is still decent growth.


----------



## wjfox

xlchrisij said:


> ^Overreacted by many people. Won't be so bad


It will be worse than you can possibly imagine. Half the species on this planet will be gone, the Amazon rainforest will become a desert, whole nations will be uninhabitable, freak weather everywhere. Read *this* book and see for yourself.


----------



## Qaabus

^^ 
Why don't you just kill yourself right now and be done with it?

:nuts: :lol:


----------



## Tom_Green

When China, India, Brasil and other developing countries will get richer people will stop emegrating to the west. 
The only thing i am sure for 2050 is that Shanghai will be damm big


----------



## BrickellResidence

^^^^^^^^^^^ or mexico city allover central mexico to the west coast of mexico


----------



## isaidso

Chicagoago said:


> Right, Chicago slowed way down during the 70's and 80's with the regional economy. It could have slipped even further and been another Detroit, but the city and metro successfully re-tooled their economy from the 70's to the 90's. They shed off the manufacturing sectors and built up more technology and service areas. Because of this, I think Chicago is probably more incline to grow faster than during it's recent past since this transition is taking hold.
> 
> The CSA:
> 
> 1950: 5,645,697
> 1960: 6,981,635
> 1970: 7,814,906
> 1980: 8,081,100
> 1990: 8,268,924
> 2000: 9,312,305
> 2010: 9,903,676 (based off 2000-2007 rates)
> 
> Change:
> 
> 50's: 1,335,938
> 60's: 833,271
> 70's: 266,194
> 80's: 187,824
> 90's: 1,043,381
> 00's: 597,371
> 
> From the 50's through the 80's it looked like the city was going to die, but it's come back nicely since then. The 2000's weren't as robust as the 90's, but 600,000 is still decent growth.


Thanks for that break down. Chicago does seem to have secured its future. It wasn't looking promising back in the 1980s. Does the CSA number include Milwaukee and into Indiana as well? I'm not that familiar with US census definitions, but know that they are more generous than comparable figures at Stats Canada.

It's often difficult to make meaningful comparisons between US and Canadian metro for this reason. From what I've observed, the Inner Golden Horseshoe is a better reflection of metro Toronto's population if US definitions of census tracts were used. That would put metro Toronto at about 6.7 million in 2008. The Dallas-Ft. Worth Metroplex is actually almost as big as the entire Greater Golden Horseshoe. Using that as a starting point, Toronto is at about 8.3 million in 2008.

Looks like Chicago is set to pass that imaginary line of 10 million very shortly.



massp88 said:


> Atlanta is not prepared at all for even more rapid growth for the next 15-20 years. Look at their traffic. Look at their mass transit system. Atlanta is so sprawled out, a car is the only option for pretty much everyone. Atlanta will not keep growing at the clip it has for the last 5-7 years. Atlanta benefits more so than any other city for the pure fact of its location. Atlanta is the southern U.S. Within Atlanta, there is not another major city within 250 miles of it. Cheap land and a good job market are what has driven their growth.


That sounds rather ominous for Atlanta. If a cheap alternative to gas isn't found, Atlanta could go from an affordable place, to an expensive place to live because of transportation costs. Gas might be cheaper right now, but it's finite. It will start climbing again. The nightmare scenario is people walking 2 km to get a loaf of bread because gas for the car is too expensive.

Just curious. Are you from Atlanta, and if so, do you drive? How often would you use a car each week?


----------

