Principal cities of 2100?

[Max Rockatansky]

Oh, I still had my mind on sea level rise rather than temperature.

What's 110F in Fresno versus 100F.  We only get about 11 inches of rain annually anyways.  About the biggest change probably would be someone actually pushing to have San Joaquin Valley classified as a desert when the total rain fall drops below 10 inches annually for a couple decades. 

[Max Rockatansky]

Why Buffalo and no Rochester?

I think the OP is assuming people will want to repopulate Rust Belt cities.  Detroit was on there and I kind of was questioning how much of a principal city it is even now with how much it has declined since the 1950s.  Climate change or not there I couldn't fathom a mass migration back to rusted out industrial cities in the Midwest.  Maybe smaller cities will develop into something more signifiant or there will be a greater influx to the Plains States?

I'm imagining some of them remaining near their current levels (they're currently in the top 100), not going off the list and coming back. Note that Pittsburgh is off the list. Also note that Detroit's suburbs aren't doing that poorly; the principal city might shift to one of the suburbs.

As healthy as those suburbs are there isn't any of them that even really come close to being the "heir apparent"  to Detroit.  There is something of a "new urban"  movement on Woodward Avenue in Detroit but I can't see it gaining steam around the city when there are so many neighborhoods have half their population living in poverty.  The Auto Industry domestically isn't likely to get bigger either, so a new industry would need to emerge to encourage people to come to the City and Metro Area.  Given the historically hostile business climate I find that to be a hard sell in the next 20-30 years.  I would imagine it's only a decade or two before Detroit beginning lapping 500,000 residents.  That kind of decline has never been seen in the U.S. before on such a large scale and probably could the model of how a modern city died.  Granted, most truly modern American cities don't have such one-egg-in-the-basket economies. 

[hotdogPi]

Keep in mind that Toledo, Fort Wayne, Akron (if considered its own area), and Grand Rapids would all be on the current list. The list of Rust Belt cities is declining, not expanding.

[Max Rockatansky]

Keep in mind that Toledo, Fort Wayne, Akron (if considered its own area), and Grand Rapids would all be on the current list. The list of Rust Belt cities is declining, not expanding.

I don't disagree with every instance, but I really do with Detroit.  There is so much wrong there that isn't going to probably ever be fixed that it will make it close to what it once was.  Being relevant on the National stage is probably the best the City and Metro Area probably could hope for in any future.  The Metro Detroit Area like you said is far more likely to sustain a pulse even if the core city remains rotten. 

Maybe I'm just cynical after an entire life time of hearing things would get better in Detroit just for them only to get even worse. 

[Revive 755]

I think Des Moines may be a contender for the list, possibly Lincoln, Nebraska (which I think could break 300k with the 2020 Census).

[briantroutman]

Why Buffalo and no Rochester?

I think the OP is assuming people will want to repopulate Rust Belt cities.

Note that Pittsburgh, Cincinnati... are off the list.

Could you share your logic behind those predictions? I'm trying to envision the future in which Pittsburgh and Cincinnati, both of which currently anchor metro areas twice the size of Buffalo's, stagnate, while "the nickel city"  city more than doubles for some reason.

Of course any prediction that's the better part of a century in the future is little more than a wild guess. But assuming that the changing natural environment is a major factor–warmer temperatures, rising sea levels, increasing water supply insecurity–I see it as being generally good news for the Great Lakes region and the Rust Belt, regardless of how the particulars shake out.

[Roadgeekteen]

Why Buffalo and no Rochester?

I think the OP is assuming people will want to repopulate Rust Belt cities.  Detroit was on there and I kind of was questioning how much of a principal city it is even now with how much it has declined since the 1950s.  Climate change or not there I couldn't fathom a mass migration back to rusted out industrial cities in the Midwest.  Maybe smaller cities will develop into something more signifiant or there will be a greater influx to the Plains States?

I'm imagining some of them remaining near their current levels (they're currently in the top 100), not going off the list and coming back. Note that Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, and Louisville are off the list. Also note that Detroit's suburbs aren't doing that poorly; the principal city might shift to one of the suburbs.

I also can't imagine a scenario where the only city between Iowa and central Pennsylvania in the top 100 is Chicago.

I've heard that Pittsburgh is making a bit of a comeback lately.

[vdeane]

Why Buffalo and no Rochester?

Yeah, I'm having a hard time seeing a future where Trois-Rivières becomes a principal city but the Rochester area isn't, even though the latter currently has eight times the population and is doing reasonably well economically (and had the hottest real estate market in the country last year)... especially since Trois-Rivières is more vulnerable to sea level rise than Rochester.

Although it does make me wonder if many backburned/cancelled autoroute projects would happen if that were to occur.  Maybe a full A-55 freeway with A-40 and A-30 completed (existing A-40 renumbered to A-755), maybe even twinning le Pont Laviolette?

[J3ebrules]

Maybe I've been over-influenced by sensationalist Hollywood (think AI: Artificial Intelligence), but somehow I figured NYC would be underwater by 2100.

Even if not; with rising population and cost of living that already flung New Yorkers all over the northern counties of NJ, I'm thinking there may be a major Renaissance/gentrification of a city like Newark, maybe even as far west as Paterson, as New York continues to spread into this area of Jersey.

[DTComposer]

Regarding San Francisco, I can't see that city being a total loss to sea level rise.  Most of the modern city is solidly above the projected sea level rise and is already growing upwards into the hill side.  Oakland would probably have a much rougher time given most of the city is at lower elevations...ditto San Jose.

I thought that San Jose was further inland?

A lot of the northern part of the city is on a tidal flat. 

Yes, but much of that section is undeveloped wetlands. According to the NOAA sea level rise maps (https://coast.noaa.gov/slr/),  a 10-foot increase (the highest that map will go) would take out the Alviso district and a bit south - maybe 2 square miles of residential and low-density office parks. Not insignificant, but the vast majority of San Jose's commercial/retail/cultural/industrial centers (downtown, Valley Fair/Santana Row, most of North First Street, all the neighborhood centers) are untouched. (from a larger Silicon Valley perspective, it should be noted that Santa Clara, Sunnyvale, and Mountain View would all be much more significantly impacted.)

On the other hand, a 10-foot rise would take out the entirety of San Francisco's Financial District, a good portion of South of Market, and all of China Basin and Mission Bay (including UCSF Medical Center, Chase Center, Oracle Park, Salesforce Tower, Transamerica Pyramid, Ferry Building, etc.). So not much land is lost, but a huge component of the city's economic and cultural engines are.

Most of downtown Oakland would be intact, but most of the port and railyards would be underwater, which would be a huge blow.

Also of note: SFO and OAK would be underwater, but SJC would be OK.

[DTComposer]

For reference, I've taken the OP list, pulled the 2010 (USA) and 2011 (Canada) census figures for the urban areas, ranked them and listed here.

2010/2011 Rank - City - 2010/2011 Population
01 - New York, NY - 18,351,295
02 - Los Angeles, CA - 12,150,996
03 - Chicago, IL - 8,608,208
04 - Miami, FL - 5,502,379
05 - Philadelphia, PA - 5,441,567
06 - Toronto, ON - 5,144,412
07 - Dallas, TX - 5,121,892
08 - Houston, TX - 4,944,332
09 - Washington, DC - 4,586,770
10 - Atlanta, GA - 4,515,419
11 - Boston, MA - 4,181,019
12 - Detroit, MI - 3,734,090
13 - Phoenix, AZ - 3,629,114
14 - Montreal, QC - 3,387,653
16 - Seattle, WA - 3,059,393
17 - San Diego, CA - 2,956,746
18 - Minneapolis, MN - 2,650,890
20 - Denver, CO - 2,374,203
22 - St. Louis, MO - 2,150,706
23 - San Juan, PR - 2,148,346
23 - Vancouver, BC - 2,124,443
26 - Portland, OR - 1,849,898
28 - San Antonio, TX - 1,758,210
30 - Sacramento, CA - 1,723,634
31 - San Jose, CA - 1,664,496
33 - Kansas City, MO - 1,519,417
35 - Indianapolis, IN - 1,487,483
36 - Norfolk, VA - 1,439,666
37 - Milwaukee, WI - 1,376,476
40 - Charlotte, NC - 1,249,442
42 - Calgary, AB - 1,094,379
43 - Jacksonville, FL - 1,065,219
44 - Memphis, TN - 1,060,061
45 - Salt Lake City, UT - 1,021,243
47 - Nashville, TN - 969,587
48 - Richmond, VA - 953,556
49 - Ottawa, ON - 945,592
50 - Buffalo, NY - 935,906
51 - Edmonton, AB - 935,361
55 - Raleigh, NC - 884,891
56 - Oklahoma City, OK - 861,505
58 - El Paso, TX - 803,086
59 - Honolulu, HI - 802,459
61 - Albuquerque, NM - 741,318
62 - McAllen, TX - 728,825
63 - Omaha, NE - 725,008
66 - Quebec City - 681,804
68 - Winnipeg, MB - 670,025
71 - Fresno, CA - 654,628
81 - Colorado Springs, CO - 559,409
83 - Columbia, SC - 549,777
84 - Charleston, SC - 548,404
85 - OgdeN, UT - 546,026
87 - Bakersfield, CA - 523,994
90 - Spokane, WA - 486,225
91 - Provo, UT - 482,819
92 - Wichita, KS - 472,870
102 - Madison, WI - 401,661
103 - Greenville, SC - 400,492
104 - Reno, NV - 392,141
109 - Chattanooga, TN - 381,112
114 - London, ON - 365,715
115 - Modesto, CA - 358,172
118 - Boise, ID - 349,684
127 - Victoria, BC - 314,596
131 - Greensboro, NC - 311,810
133 - Fayetteville, NC - 310,282
137 - Halifax, NS - 304,979
145 - Huntsville, AL - 286,692
146 - Asheville, NC - 280,648
155 - Fort Collins, CO - 264,465
158 - Savannah, GA - 260,677
163 - Anchorage, AK - 251,243
165 - Eugene, OR - 247,421
177 - Wilmington, NC - 219,957
193 - Portland, ME - 203,914
202 - Regina, SK - 192,079
211 - Fargo, ND - 176,676
230 - Sioux Falls, SD - 156,777
231 - Medford, OR - 154,081
251 - Kelowna, BC - 140,131
256 - Pueblo, CO - 136,550
269 - Yakima, WA - 129,534
271 - Las Cruces, NM - 128,600
296 - Kingston, ON - 114,928
297 - Billings, MT - 114,773
304 - Trois-Rivières, QC - 112,626
349 - Idaho Falls, ID - 90,733
354 - Red Deer, AB - 89,715
377 - Bend, OR - 83,794
381 - Missoula, MT - 82,157
386 - Rapid City, SD - 81,251
397 - Lethbridge, AB - 79,364
414 - Cheyenne, WY - 73,588
423 - Flagstaff, AZ - 71,957
456 - Cleveland, TN - 66,777
530 - Farmington, NM - 53,049
** - Butte, MT - 30,287
** - Juneau, AK - 24,537
** - Twin Falls, ID - 48,836

** - these don't currently qualify as urban areas (they are urban clusters instead)

Urban areas in the top 60 (2010/2011) which are not on the above list:
15 - San Francisco, CA - 3,281,212
19 - Tampa, FL - 2,441,770
24 - Riverside, CA  - 1,932,666
25 - Las Vegas, NV - 1,886,011
27 - Cleveland, OH - 1,780,673
29 - Pittsburgh, PA - 1,733,853
32 - Cincinnati, OH - 1,624,877
34 - Orlando, FL - 1,510,516
38 - Columbus, OH - 1,358,035
39 - Austin, TX - 1,362,416
41 - Providence, RI - 1,190,956
46 - Louisville, KY - 972,546
52 - Hartford, CT - 924,859
53 - Bridgeport, CT - 923,311
54 - New Orleans, LA - 899,703
57 - Tucson, AZ - 843,168
60 - Birmingham, AL - 749,495

[hotdogPi]

Urban areas in the top 60 (2010/2011) which are not on the above list:
15 - San Francisco, CA - 3,281,212
19 - Tampa, FL - 2,441,770
24 - Riverside, CA  - 1,932,666
25 - Las Vegas, NV - 1,886,011
27 - Cleveland, OH - 1,780,673
29 - Pittsburgh, PA - 1,733,853
32 - Cincinnati, OH - 1,624,877
34 - Orlando, FL - 1,510,516
38 - Columbus, OH - 1,358,035
39 - Austin, TX - 1,362,416
41 - Providence, RI - 1,190,956
46 - Louisville, KY - 972,546
52 - Hartford, CT - 924,859
53 - Bridgeport, CT - 923,311
54 - New Orleans, LA - 899,703
57 - Tucson, AZ - 843,168
60 - Birmingham, AL - 749,495

Riverside and San Francisco were excluded because they're part of the Bay Area (I listed San Jose) and the LA metro respectively, not because they're no longer important.

[Max Rockatansky]

I find it kind of weird that someone in the Census Bureau hasn't updated some of the definition of some of these Metro Area.  The Inland Empire is clearly part of greater Los Angeles now and the Bay Area cities have all grown together into one big mega city. 

[NWI_Irish96]

I find it kind of weird that someone in the Census Bureau hasn't updated some of the definition of some of these Metro Area.  The Inland Empire is clearly part of greater Los Angeles now and the Bay Area cities have all grown together into one big mega city. 

While we provide the data, OMB actually determines the areas.

[hotdogPi]

Based on feedback, I believe that two cities should not have been included:

1. Trois-Rivi̬res. I saw it as a current medium-sized city that would remain about the same (maybe grow slightly РI'm expecting US:Canada to change from current 10:1 to future 7:1), not realizing that it would need to grow significantly faster than the average to be included.
2. Las Cruces. I checked the elevation, saw that it was moderately high, and thought there wouldn't be a water problem. I imagined it to be similar to Flagstaff in that many of the people in the desert would move to the mountains. Apparently not.

I'm replacing them with Augusta, GA (didn't realize it was on the edge of the list currently) and Hartford, CT (which I previously saw as "too close to NYC" but decided to reconsider).

[webny99]

Urban areas in the top 60 (2010/2011) which are not on the above list:
15 - San Francisco, CA - 3,281,212
19 - Tampa, FL - 2,441,770
24 - Riverside, CA  - 1,932,666
25 - Las Vegas, NV - 1,886,011
27 - Cleveland, OH - 1,780,673
29 - Pittsburgh, PA - 1,733,853
32 - Cincinnati, OH - 1,624,877
34 - Orlando, FL - 1,510,516
38 - Columbus, OH - 1,358,035
39 - Austin, TX - 1,362,416
41 - Providence, RI - 1,190,956
46 - Louisville, KY - 972,546
52 - Hartford, CT - 924,859
53 - Bridgeport, CT - 923,311
54 - New Orleans, LA - 899,703
57 - Tucson, AZ - 843,168
60 - Birmingham, AL - 749,495

Also 52 - Rochester, NY - 1,079,671

Note that 52 is the current ranking, not the 2010 ranking.
(You have all ranks between 45 and 60 used for other cities, so I'm not sure what went wrong, but I do know that Rochester was definitely somewhere in that range in 2010.)

[DTComposer]

Urban areas in the top 60 (2010/2011) which are not on the above list:
15 - San Francisco, CA - 3,281,212
19 - Tampa, FL - 2,441,770
24 - Riverside, CA  - 1,932,666
25 - Las Vegas, NV - 1,886,011
27 - Cleveland, OH - 1,780,673
29 - Pittsburgh, PA - 1,733,853
32 - Cincinnati, OH - 1,624,877
34 - Orlando, FL - 1,510,516
38 - Columbus, OH - 1,358,035
39 - Austin, TX - 1,362,416
41 - Providence, RI - 1,190,956
46 - Louisville, KY - 972,546
52 - Hartford, CT - 924,859
53 - Bridgeport, CT - 923,311
54 - New Orleans, LA - 899,703
57 - Tucson, AZ - 843,168
60 - Birmingham, AL - 749,495

Also 52 - Rochester, NY - 1,079,671

Note that 52 is the current ranking, not the 2010 ranking.
(You have all ranks between 45 and 60 used for other cities, so I'm not sure what went wrong, but I do know that Rochester was definitely somewhere in that range in 2010.)

Nothing went wrong. I used urban areas, not metropolitan areas - and used population centres for Canada. That's why I was using 2010/2011 data - urban areas are only updated with each census.

The Rochester urban area in 2010 had 720,572 people, putting it 62nd on the above list.

Maps of the urban areas can be found here.

I find it kind of weird that someone in the Census Bureau hasn't updated some of the definition of some of these Metro Area.  The Inland Empire is clearly part of greater Los Angeles now and the Bay Area cities have all grown together into one big mega city. 

While we provide the data, OMB actually determines the areas.

My understanding is OMB uses commuting data to determine the splits, and that (at least in 2010) there wasn't enough commuting crossover between the areas to combine them (I think the threshold is 15%). I find that singular data point to be wildly outdated - probably fine when there were primarily one-income households where in most metro areas the majority of commuters went from a residential area to a central business district. But feels archaic now with multiple income-earner households, telecommuting, regions with significant non-downtown employment centers, etc. A metropolitan area is much more than where someone works. It's about where people go to shop, have cultural and leisure activities, go to school, where their media outlets are located - there's so much more available data to use.

All that said, you're absolutely right. From a functional standpoint, the Bay Area is one unified metro, as is L.A./Orange County/Inland Empire.

[NWI_Irish96]

My understanding is OMB uses commuting data to determine the splits, and that (at least in 2010) there wasn't enough commuting crossover between the areas to combine them (I think the threshold is 15%). I find that singular data point to be wildly outdated - probably fine when there were primarily one-income households where in most metro areas the majority of commuters went from a residential area to a central business district. But feels archaic now with multiple income-earner households, telecommuting, regions with significant non-downtown employment centers, etc. A metropolitan area is much more than where someone works. It's about where people go to shop, have cultural and leisure activities, go to school, where their media outlets are located - there's so much more available data to use.

All that said, you're absolutely right. From a functional standpoint, the Bay Area is one unified metro, as is L.A./Orange County/Inland Empire.

You're not wrong about that but the problem is getting that data.  We have a survey that tracks commuting patterns for work, but I'm not aware of any that track where people go for shopping/leisure/cultural activities.  I know that some stores ask for ZIP Codes of shoppers and state DOT's do various traffic studies, but nothing that is uniform nationwide that could provide the data needed to be better than work commuting data for redfining these areas.

[kphoger]

A Yuma AZ topping out at 130 degrees annually could be a problem.

Those Yumans are such weenies when it comes to heat.

[Max Rockatansky]

A Yuma AZ topping out at 130 degrees annually could be a problem.

Those Yumans are such weenies when it comes to heat.

Not so much the natives to the City but the Snow Bird crowd certainly hates the summer heat.  The population of the City essentially halves during the summer time.  Quartzsite was the one that I always thought was weird.  The population would jump to around 20,000 during snow bird season but was about 2,000 the rest of the year if I remember right. 

[michravera]

Regarding San Francisco, I can't see that city being a total loss to sea level rise.  Most of the modern city is solidly above the projected sea level rise and is already growing upwards into the hill side.  Oakland would probably have a much rougher time given most of the city is at lower elevations...ditto San Jose.

Sacramento and Stockton would have it much worse.

San Francisco and Oakland both have hills. The highest places in Sacramento are freeway overpasses. Stockton is already tidal.

[webny99]

Nothing went wrong. I used urban areas, not metropolitan areas - and used population centres for Canada. That's why I was using 2010/2011 data - urban areas are only updated with each census.

The Rochester urban area in 2010 had 720,572 people, putting it 62nd on the above list.

Oh, OK. My bad then. I just assumed that we were talking about metropolitan areas, not thinking that specifying urban area would, by definition, exclude some population.

[golden eagle]

No Jackson, MS?

[michravera]

This is based on the Principal Cities of 1857 thread here. These are what I believe will be the principal cities in 2100, excluding suburbs. US and Canada are included; Mexico is not.

You can see that I expect the population to trend a specific way: out of the extremely hot areas of Florida and the Southwest desert due to climate change (and there's a lack of water in the desert), and toward the Northwest and to a lesser extent the VA/NC/SC/GA area.

This list contains 100 cities.

Albuquerque, NM
Anchorage, AK
Asheville, NC
Atlanta, GA
Bakersfield, CA
Bend, OR
Billings, MT
Boise, ID
Boston, MA
Buffalo, NY
Butte, MT
Calgary, AB
Charleston, SC
Charlotte, NC
Chattanooga, TN
Cheyenne, WY
Chicago, IL
Cleveland, OH
Colorado Springs, CO
Columbia, SC
Dallas, TX
Denver, CO
Detroit, MI
Edmonton, AB
El Paso, TX
Eugene, OR
Fargo, ND
Farmington, NM
Fayetteville, NC
Flagstaff, AZ
Fort Collins, CO
Fresno, CA
Greensboro, NC
Greenville, SC
Halifax, NS
Honolulu, HI
Houston, TX
Huntsville, AL
Jacksonville, FL
Juneau, AK
Kansas City, MO
Kelowna, BC
Kingston, ON
Idaho Falls, ID
Indianapolis, IN
Las Cruces, NM
Lethbridge, AB
London, ON
Los Angeles, CA
Madison, WI
McAllen, TX
Medford, OR
Memphis, TX
Miami, FL
Milwaukee, WI
Minneapolis, MN
Missoula, MT
Modesto, CA
Montréal, QC
Nashville, TN
New York, NY
Norfolk, VA
Ogden, UT
Oklahoma City, OK
Omaha, NE
Ottawa, ON
Philadelphia, PA
Phoenix, AZ
Portland, ME
Portland, OR
Provo, UT
Pueblo, CO
Québec, QC
Raleigh, NC
Rapid City, SD
Red Deer, AB
Regina, SK
Reno, NV
Richmond, VA
Sacramento, CA
Salt Lake City, UT
San Antonio, TX
San Diego, CA
San Jose, CA
San Juan, PR
Savannah, GA
Seattle, WA
Sioux Falls, SD
Spokane, WA
St. Louis, MO
Toronto, ON
Trois-Rivières, QC
Twin Falls, ID
Vancouver, BC
Victoria, BC
Washington, DC
Wichita, KS
Wilmington, NC
Winnipeg, MB
Yakima, WA

Agree? Disagree? Create your own list!

I think that you have left off a number of cities in Southern California that you mistakenly believe are suburbs of LA. Most people in Orange County and even northern and western LA county do not think of themselves as living in an LA suburb. Also, Stockton, Oakland, Fremont, and San Francisco are not and will not become suburbs of Modesto. San Francisco, isn't on your list, but some city in the Bay Area besides San Jose needs to be. Oakland is not a suburb of San Jose (or San Francisco) any more than Anaheim is a suburb of LA.

Las Vegas is also

[thspfc]

The Great Lakes region is going to see a huge boom once water shortages really start to hit. Mark my words, Chicago will be bigger than LA again by 2100.