This is based on the Principal Cities of 1857 thread here (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=23048.0). 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!
The here link does not work.
Iqaluit...
Quote from: NE2 on May 11, 2020, 03:19:30 PM
Iqaluit...
...will be the principal city of Nunavut in 2100.
Quote from: NE2 on May 11, 2020, 03:19:30 PM
Iqaluit...
Maybe if global warning cooks all of America plus much of Canada. Get ready for the new white house in Fairbanks, Alaska.
Quote from: GaryV on May 11, 2020, 03:36:57 PM
Quote from: kphoger on May 11, 2020, 03:34:21 PM
Quote from: NE2 on May 11, 2020, 03:19:30 PM
Iqaluit...
...will be the principal city of Nunavut in 2100.
... unless it's under water.
They don't plan to be underwater.
Based on sea-level rise projections for 2100, the
2010 Climate Change Adaptation Action Plan for Iqaluit states that "All new municipal infrastructure shall be designed and constructed to specifications that withstand projected changes in climate over their expected design life and meet sustainable development standards."
Furthermore, that same plan states that "For Iqaluit, sea level is projected to rise less than the globally averaged amount of projected sealevel rise. This is a consequence of Iqaluit's proximity to the Greenland ice sheet, and strong negative sensitivity to Greenland mass balance through the sea-level fingerprinting phenomenon."
The havoc brought by climate change (even if we manage to partially reverse course) will be enough to spur mass migrations to more temperate areas. The Pacific Northwest is going to be swarmed with Californians (even more than we are today), and that means some inland Northwest cities may break into the top 100.
Quote from: Bruce on May 11, 2020, 04:21:52 PM
The havoc brought by climate change (even if we manage to partially reverse course) will be enough to spur mass migrations to more temperate areas. The Pacific Northwest is going to be swarmed with Californians (even more than we are today), and that means some inland Northwest cities may break into the top 100.
Why don't you foresee people simply moving farther inland in their own urban areas?
Quote from: kphoger on May 11, 2020, 04:24:22 PM
Quote from: Bruce on May 11, 2020, 04:21:52 PM
The havoc brought by climate change (even if we manage to partially reverse course) will be enough to spur mass migrations to more temperate areas. The Pacific Northwest is going to be swarmed with Californians (even more than we are today), and that means some inland Northwest cities may break into the top 100.
Why don't you foresee people simply moving farther inland in their own urban areas?
I think moving inland in California would make things worse for you if we're warming by a noticeable amount.
Oh, I still had my mind on sea level rise rather than temperature.
Tucson needs to be on the list.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 11, 2020, 05:13:55 PM
Tucson needs to be on the list.
He didn't include cities in the desert because of water shortages.
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on May 11, 2020, 05:17:23 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 11, 2020, 05:13:55 PM
Tucson needs to be on the list.
He didn't include cities in the desert because of water shortages.
Phoenix is on there. I don't see the water supply of Tucson as being in the same peril as something like Las Vegas. The Salt River Project up in Phoenix seems to do fairly well for what it is but the city would definitely be impacted by issues on the Colorado River. There are quite a few Chihuahuan Desert cities also on the OP list.
I would probably add Flagstaff and Visalia also. Both are growing a ton presently in semi-arid environments.
Regarding Florida the City of Orlando will he the far least likely to be affected by climate change being so far inland. Most of the City is 80 feet above sea level and would only get more important if sea levels rose the way they are projected.
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.
Even with plans to mitigate its effects, I would take a lot of low-lying east coast cities off of this list due to sea level rise. They certainly won't be growing once it starts really taking a toll. Also anything in or near the delta that connects to the SF Bay, whatever you call it. Joaquin something.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 11, 2020, 05:30:07 PM
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?
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on May 11, 2020, 05:41:24 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 11, 2020, 05:30:07 PM
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.
Quote from: index on May 11, 2020, 05:37:12 PM
Even with plans to mitigate its effects, I would take a lot of low-lying east coast cities off of this list due to sea level rise. They certainly won't be growing once it starts really taking a toll. Also anything in or near the delta that connects to the SF Bay, whatever you call it. Joaquin something.
Sacramento is 30 feet above sea level and Stockton is surprisingly less at 13 feet above sea level. Old Sacramento essentially is elevated above the Sacramento River much akin to Pioneer Square in Seattle for flood purposes.
I'm not so down on the desert cities in terms of water, but could be if we suffer the worst of global warming.
A Yuma AZ topping out at 130 degrees annually could be a problem.
I think the water problem could be solved with desalinization, piping of the water far inland, and using solar power to give it juice to make it semi-carbon neutral. We probably should have been starting this idea over 50 years ago. If you have that at your disposal, and can move enough from the ocean to hit demand, you've resolved that problem. Also allows for returning things like the Colorado River back to a more natural state.
Why Buffalo and no Rochester?
If the intent is to predict what the top 100 cities in North America will be in 2100, it might be helpful to sort by projected population instead of alphabetically. Or, even better, put it side by side with a current list of the top 100 so we can see the trends/changes.
Quote from: webny99 on May 11, 2020, 07:49:55 PM
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?
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 11, 2020, 07:54:21 PM
Quote from: webny99 on May 11, 2020, 07:49:55 PM
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.
Quote from: kphoger on May 11, 2020, 04:49:46 PM
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.
Quote from: 1 on May 11, 2020, 07:58:34 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 11, 2020, 07:54:21 PM
Quote from: webny99 on May 11, 2020, 07:49:55 PM
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.
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.
Quote from: 1 on May 11, 2020, 08:43:23 PM
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.
I think Des Moines may be a contender for the list, possibly Lincoln, Nebraska (which I think could break 300k with the 2020 Census).
Quote from: 1 on May 11, 2020, 07:58:34 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 11, 2020, 07:54:21 PM
Quote from: webny99 on May 11, 2020, 07:49:55 PM
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.
Quote from: 1 on May 11, 2020, 07:58:34 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 11, 2020, 07:54:21 PM
Quote from: webny99 on May 11, 2020, 07:49:55 PM
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.
Quote from: webny99 on May 11, 2020, 07:49:55 PM
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?
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.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 11, 2020, 06:10:35 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on May 11, 2020, 05:41:24 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 11, 2020, 05:30:07 PM
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/ (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.
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
Quote from: DTComposer on May 12, 2020, 01:15:24 AM
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.
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.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 12, 2020, 08:01:47 AM
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.
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).
Quote from: DTComposer on May 12, 2020, 01:15:24 AM
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.)
Quote from: webny99 on May 12, 2020, 09:24:19 AM
Quote from: DTComposer on May 12, 2020, 01:15:24 AM
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. (https://www.census.gov/geographies/reference-maps/2010/geo/2010-census-urban-areas.html)
Quote from: cabiness42 on May 12, 2020, 08:27:24 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 12, 2020, 08:01:47 AM
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.
Quote from: DTComposer on May 12, 2020, 10:16:32 AM
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.
Quote from: SectorZ on May 11, 2020, 06:16:05 PM
A Yuma AZ topping out at 130 degrees annually could be a problem.
Those Yumans are such weenies when it comes to heat.
Quote from: kphoger on May 12, 2020, 01:39:37 PM
Quote from: SectorZ on May 11, 2020, 06:16:05 PM
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.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 11, 2020, 05:30:07 PM
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.
Quote from: DTComposer on May 12, 2020, 10:16:32 AM
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.
No Jackson, MS?
Quote from: 1 on May 11, 2020, 01:21:07 PM
This is based on the Principal Cities of 1857 thread here (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=23048.0). 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
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.
Quote from: thspfc on August 16, 2020, 12:51:51 PM
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.
I'm not that on board with worries regarding the looming new Ice Age, but I do see long term problems with water in the southwestern USA based on supply v. demand and the fact that there is a treaty between Canada and the USA that prohibits the diversion of water from the Great Lakes drainage basin to points west. Within the past few weeks there was an agreement that was finalized that allows the City of Waukesha, WI to buy filtered/treated Lake Michigan tap water from the City of Milwaukee, WI (the former is a suburb of the latter) - the complicating matter being that the Eastern Continental Divide passes between them and thus that treaty is in full effect. Part of the agreement requires that treated wastewater from Waukesha must then be returned across that divide into Lake Michigan.
I also see the Fox Valley region of Wisconsin (Green Bay to Oshkosh, my home metro) continuing its growth and becoming a more major agglomeration, possibly enough to collectively make that list.
Mike
Quote from: thspfc on August 16, 2020, 12:51:51 PM
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.
I expect quantum leaps in desalination technology to be made in the next 80 years out of necessity.
Quote from: thspfc on August 16, 2020, 12:51:51 PM
Mark my words, Chicago will be bigger than LA again by 2100.
Lately I am beginning to think Chicago may take a turn like Detroit and St. Louis in the next couple of years. There was a story on WBBM a few weeks back that a number of Chicago residents were looking at housing in the suburbs (partially due to Covid-19 issues).
Quote from: Revive 755 on August 18, 2020, 11:30:18 PM
Quote from: thspfc on August 16, 2020, 12:51:51 PM
Mark my words, Chicago will be bigger than LA again by 2100.
Lately I am beginning to think Chicago may take a turn like Detroit and St. Louis in the next couple of years. There was a story on WBBM a few weeks back that a number of Chicago residents were looking at housing in the suburbs (partially due to Covid-19 issues).
Houses in my town priced below $350k sell within a week, often within a day. More expensive houses take a bit longer, but still sell well. Not all are coming from Chicago, but enough to keep the market extremely hot.
Quote from: Revive 755 on August 18, 2020, 11:30:18 PM
Quote from: thspfc on August 16, 2020, 12:51:51 PM
Mark my words, Chicago will be bigger than LA again by 2100.
Lately I am beginning to think Chicago may take a turn like Detroit and St. Louis in the next couple of years. There was a story on WBBM a few weeks back that a number of Chicago residents were looking at housing in the suburbs (partially due to Covid-19 issues).
I would say a combination of COVID-19 and high crime could turn parts of Chicago proper into Detroit or St. Louis
I'll believe it when I see it. There's an entire industry these days that profits off of people believing that Chicago and California are hellholes, where should you cross the boundary defining them, you will immediately get mugged, your dog will get mugged, you will instantly declare bankruptcy, you will be forced to go to the doctor, your car will be repossessed, you will be forced onto a train, and you'll have to spend time around some guy with a scary-sounding name whose skin color doesn't match your own.
Quote from: Scott5114 on August 19, 2020, 12:44:12 PM
I'll believe it when I see it. There's an entire industry these days that profits off of people believing that Chicago and California are hellholes, where should you cross the boundary defining them, you will immediately get mugged, your dog will get mugged, you will instantly declare bankruptcy, you will be forced to go to the doctor, your car will be repossessed, you will be forced onto a train, and you'll have to spend time around some guy with a scary-sounding name whose skin color doesn't match your own.
Declare bankruptcy may be overstating it, but a house 500 feet west of mine with the same value has a 8x higher property tax bill.
Quote from: michravera on August 16, 2020, 02:27:09 AM
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.
Earlier in this thread OP clarified that the listed cities were metros, not cities proper, so by listing San Jose he was considering the whole Bay Area, and by listing Los Angeles he was including Orange County and the Inland Empire.
Quote from: cabiness42 on August 19, 2020, 12:48:57 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on August 19, 2020, 12:44:12 PM
I'll believe it when I see it. There's an entire industry these days that profits off of people believing that Chicago and California are hellholes, where should you cross the boundary defining them, you will immediately get mugged, your dog will get mugged, you will instantly declare bankruptcy, you will be forced to go to the doctor, your car will be repossessed, you will be forced onto a train, and you'll have to spend time around some guy with a scary-sounding name whose skin color doesn't match your own.
Declare bankruptcy may be overstating it, but a house 500 feet west of mine with the same value has a 8x higher property tax bill.
Can you clarify? From what I could tell for Lake County vs. Cook County, I could find rates that were two to three times as much, but nowhere near eight. Are there a bunch of special districts and/or assessments?
As far as Chicago pulling a Detroit, I can't see that. Sure, certain areas may decline (or decline further), but the city as a whole is too large with too diverse an economy and has too much of a national/worldwide influence. Detroit was/is heavily tied into a single manufacturing industry.
As of 2019, Chicago is the third largest city, metro, and CSA in the country. By 2040, Houston will likely pass Chicago as the third largest city-proper; the Dallas-Fort Worth and Houston metros could pass the Chicago metro; and the Washington-Baltimore, Bay Area, Dallas-Forth Worth and Houston CSAs will all pass the Chicago CSA (Washington-Baltimore likely already has).
Quote from: DTComposer on August 19, 2020, 02:24:59 PM
Quote from: michravera on August 16, 2020, 02:27:09 AM
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.
Earlier in this thread OP clarified that the listed cities were metros, not cities proper, so by listing San Jose he was considering the whole Bay Area, and by listing Los Angeles he was including Orange County and the Inland Empire.
Quote from: cabiness42 on August 19, 2020, 12:48:57 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on August 19, 2020, 12:44:12 PM
I'll believe it when I see it. There's an entire industry these days that profits off of people believing that Chicago and California are hellholes, where should you cross the boundary defining them, you will immediately get mugged, your dog will get mugged, you will instantly declare bankruptcy, you will be forced to go to the doctor, your car will be repossessed, you will be forced onto a train, and you'll have to spend time around some guy with a scary-sounding name whose skin color doesn't match your own.
Declare bankruptcy may be overstating it, but a house 500 feet west of mine with the same value has a 8x higher property tax bill.
Can you clarify? From what I could tell for Lake County vs. Cook County, I could find rates that were two to three times as much, but nowhere near eight. Are there a bunch of special districts and/or assessments?
As far as Chicago pulling a Detroit, I can't see that. Sure, certain areas may decline (or decline further), but the city as a whole is too large with too diverse an economy and has too much of a national/worldwide influence. Detroit was/is heavily tied into a single manufacturing industry.
As of 2019, Chicago is the third largest city, metro, and CSA in the country. By 2040, Houston will likely pass Chicago as the third largest city-proper; the Dallas-Fort Worth and Houston metros could pass the Chicago metro; and the Washington-Baltimore, Bay Area, Dallas-Forth Worth and Houston CSAs will all pass the Chicago CSA (Washington-Baltimore likely already has).
OK so I just checked again on a house that is listed for sale at the exact price my house appraised for within the last year. Taxes on that house are 4.8 times higher than mine. Not 8, but still a pretty significant difference. If that house sells for list price, the buyer finances 80% of the purchase price at 3.0%, monthly mortgage payment is 20% less than the monthly property tax payment.
Quote from: cabiness42 on August 19, 2020, 12:48:57 PM
OK so I just checked again on a house that is listed for sale at the exact price my house appraised for within the last year. Taxes on that house are 4.8 times higher than mine. Not 8, but still a pretty significant difference. If that house sells for list price, the buyer finances 80% of the purchase price at 3.0%, monthly mortgage payment is 20% less than the monthly property tax payment.
Thanks for the clarification. I didn't doubt there was a serious difference in taxes. I wonder if there's similar differences in other multi-state metros (New York/New Jersey/Connecticut, Maryland/Virginia/DC, etc).
Quote from: Scott5114 on August 19, 2020, 12:44:12 PM
I'll believe it when I see it. There's an entire industry these days that profits off of people believing that Chicago and California are hellholes, where should you cross the boundary defining them, you will immediately get mugged, your dog will get mugged, you will instantly declare bankruptcy, you will be forced to go to the doctor, your car will be repossessed, you will be forced onto a train, and you'll have to spend time around some guy with a scary-sounding name whose skin color doesn't match your own.
About once a generation there seems to be a swell of press on the impending demise of California. Between 1989 and 1995 there were two major earthquakes, a series of destructive wildfires, social unrest and rioting, and a downturn in the economy (pre-first wave internet boom). The amount of sky-is-falling in the media was impressive (there was a whole special issue of Time dedicated to it). And yet...
Don't get me wrong - I will be first in line to tell you about the myriad of serious issues in California today - but the relish with which some people wish the state to slide into the ocean (figuratively or literally) is a bit much. I don't understand - if you're happy with where you live, great, but why is it necessary to tell everyone else that their city/state/country sucks?
Quote from: DTComposer on August 19, 2020, 02:52:41 PM
Don't get me wrong - I will be first in line to tell you about the myriad of serious issues in California today - but the relish with which some people wish the state to slide into the ocean (figuratively or literally) is a bit much. I don't understand - if you're happy with where you live, great, but why is it necessary to tell everyone else that their city/state/country sucks?
It's because there are things about California that rich and powerful people fear will spread elsewhere, so they have to sell California as being a disaster zone. They can then convince people like my dad that the things they don't like caused that made-up disaster.
Meanwhile, you look at the real-world California and the biggest problems have the root cause of
too many people want to live in California. If it sucks so badly, why do so many people want to live there?
Quote from: Scott5114 on August 19, 2020, 05:02:35 PM
Quote from: DTComposer on August 19, 2020, 02:52:41 PM
Don't get me wrong - I will be first in line to tell you about the myriad of serious issues in California today - but the relish with which some people wish the state to slide into the ocean (figuratively or literally) is a bit much. I don't understand - if you're happy with where you live, great, but why is it necessary to tell everyone else that their city/state/country sucks?
It's because there are things about California that rich and powerful people fear will spread elsewhere, so they have to sell California as being a disaster zone. They can then convince people like my dad that the things they don't like caused that made-up disaster.
Meanwhile, you look at the real-world California and the biggest problems have the root cause of too many people want to live in California. If it sucks so badly, why do so many people want to live there?
The US population from 2010-2019, per census data, went up 6.1%. California went up... 6.1%, so doesn't seem like there is additional demand to live there if their rate of increase is the same as the nation as a whole.
Meanwhile, Illinois dropped 1.2%, second worse state to West Virginia's 3.3% drop. Vermont and Connecticut are the other losers at about 0.2-0.3%.
Yeah, but if the California in my dad's mind had any bearing on reality, it would have a —78% change in population every year, because it's just that horrible.
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/proxy/TrSWWXsEKzzevCnt_cj4AqLXooEYeaVTovBvp4bxsDnhH7GHTIkmu3o96orIV1myvFKnnu7UnHBdmK5SHeFnIOlO_rFK3qw4wtlTlaF7l0KitBzLX-VHfchrhn2MOdGUDrcHVCoDxKP2x1ojmsIC5BiZIGN08snpKr-C)
Fig. 1. A typical Los Angeles street scene, according to my dad.
Quote from: SectorZ on August 19, 2020, 05:28:39 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on August 19, 2020, 05:02:35 PM
Quote from: DTComposer on August 19, 2020, 02:52:41 PM
Don't get me wrong - I will be first in line to tell you about the myriad of serious issues in California today - but the relish with which some people wish the state to slide into the ocean (figuratively or literally) is a bit much. I don't understand - if you're happy with where you live, great, but why is it necessary to tell everyone else that their city/state/country sucks?
It's because there are things about California that rich and powerful people fear will spread elsewhere, so they have to sell California as being a disaster zone. They can then convince people like my dad that the things they don't like caused that made-up disaster.
Meanwhile, you look at the real-world California and the biggest problems have the root cause of too many people want to live in California. If it sucks so badly, why do so many people want to live there?
The US population from 2010-2019, per census data, went up 6.1%. California went up... 6.1%, so doesn't seem like there is additional demand to live there if their rate of increase is the same as the nation as a whole.
Meanwhile, Illinois dropped 1.2%, second worse state to West Virginia's 3.3% drop. Vermont and Connecticut are the other losers at about 0.2-0.3%.
Yes, since 1990 California's percentage growth has been on track with the national average. But that also means that, in spite of the naysaying and predictions of doom and collapse, its population growth has remained consistent and healthy.
I should add re: my earlier remarks that I wasn't just referring to people bashing California. You see that kind of negativity hurled at New York, Florida, the Midwest, Appalachia, the South, Texas, Arizona, the Northwest, and so on. (check out the city vs. city threads on City-Data.com if you want some extreme examples of this)
Quote from: DTComposer on August 19, 2020, 07:48:02 PM
I should add re: my earlier remarks that I wasn't just referring to people bashing California. You see that kind of negativity hurled at New York, Florida, the Midwest, Appalachia, the South, Texas, Arizona, the Northwest, and so on. (check out the city vs. city threads on City-Data.com if you want some extreme examples of this)
Thank you for excluding my area.
Quote from: 1 on August 19, 2020, 08:07:36 PM
Quote from: DTComposer on August 19, 2020, 07:48:02 PM
I should add re: my earlier remarks that I wasn't just referring to people bashing California. You see that kind of negativity hurled at New York, Florida, the Midwest, Appalachia, the South, Texas, Arizona, the Northwest, and so on. (check out the city vs. city threads on City-Data.com if you want some extreme examples of this)
Thank you for excluding my area.
"And so on" must have been referring to New England. :)
Quote from: 1 on August 19, 2020, 08:07:36 PM
Quote from: DTComposer on August 19, 2020, 07:48:02 PM
I should add re: my earlier remarks that I wasn't just referring to people bashing California. You see that kind of negativity hurled at New York, Florida, the Midwest, Appalachia, the South, Texas, Arizona, the Northwest, and so on. (check out the city vs. city threads on City-Data.com if you want some extreme examples of this)
Thank you for excluding my area.
Yeah, the...(checks profile) Massachusetts/New Hampshire border really sucks. Worst place ever. It starts off all straight and flat, and you're like, good, cool, simple east-west border...then you get to Methuen and then it's like, who designed this shit, a bunch of (checks Massachusetts stereotype list)...pilgrims...drunk on...(checks again) fermented cranberries? What, was everyone too busy (checks list of things I know about New Hampshire) voting in primary elections when they drew the border to bother making it straight or something?
Quote from: Scott5114 on August 20, 2020, 12:59:34 AM
Quote from: 1 on August 19, 2020, 08:07:36 PM
Quote from: DTComposer on August 19, 2020, 07:48:02 PM
I should add re: my earlier remarks that I wasn't just referring to people bashing California. You see that kind of negativity hurled at New York, Florida, the Midwest, Appalachia, the South, Texas, Arizona, the Northwest, and so on. (check out the city vs. city threads on City-Data.com if you want some extreme examples of this)
Thank you for excluding my area.
Yeah, the...(checks profile) Massachusetts/New Hampshire border really sucks. Worst place ever. It starts off all straight and flat, and you're like, good, cool, simple east-west border...then you get to Methuen and then it's like, who designed this shit, a bunch of (checks Massachusetts stereotype list)...pilgrims...drunk on...(checks again) fermented cranberries? What, was everyone too busy (checks list of things I know about New Hampshire) voting in primary elections when they drew the border to bother making it straight or something?
The original charter for the Massachusetts Bay Colony specified a northern border three miles north/east of the Merrimack River. After the creation of New Hampshire, the two colonies disputed their border - NH claimed a line three miles north of the mouth of the Merrimack heading west, MA claimed everything south of the north end of the Merrimack all the way between NY and the point three miles east of the river. The King eventually drew a line heading west from the point where the Merrimack turns north, heavily favoring New Hampshire (the Puritans had been on the side of the English Civil War that had previously overthrown the monarchy, and NH was singing his praises).
Quote from: vdeane on August 20, 2020, 09:20:08 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on August 20, 2020, 12:59:34 AM
Quote from: 1 on August 19, 2020, 08:07:36 PM
Quote from: DTComposer on August 19, 2020, 07:48:02 PM
I should add re: my earlier remarks that I wasn't just referring to people bashing California. You see that kind of negativity hurled at New York, Florida, the Midwest, Appalachia, the South, Texas, Arizona, the Northwest, and so on. (check out the city vs. city threads on City-Data.com if you want some extreme examples of this)
Thank you for excluding my area.
Yeah, the...(checks profile) Massachusetts/New Hampshire border really sucks. Worst place ever. It starts off all straight and flat, and you're like, good, cool, simple east-west border...then you get to Methuen and then it's like, who designed this shit, a bunch of (checks Massachusetts stereotype list)...pilgrims...drunk on...(checks again) fermented cranberries? What, was everyone too busy (checks list of things I know about New Hampshire) voting in primary elections when they drew the border to bother making it straight or something?
The original charter for the Massachusetts Bay Colony specified a northern border three miles north/east of the Merrimack River. After the creation of New Hampshire, the two colonies disputed their border - NH claimed a line three miles north of the mouth of the Merrimack heading west, MA claimed everything south of the north end of the Merrimack all the way between NY and the point three miles east of the river. The King eventually drew a line heading west from the point where the Merrimack turns north, heavily favoring New Hampshire (the Puritans had been on the side of the English Civil War that had previously overthrown the monarchy, and NH was singing his praises).
One of my go-to books for...bathroom reading is "How the States Got Their Shapes" by Mark Stein. This sort of stuff is fascinating to me.
Quote from: DTComposer on August 20, 2020, 10:40:06 PM
Quote from: vdeane on August 20, 2020, 09:20:08 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on August 20, 2020, 12:59:34 AM
Quote from: 1 on August 19, 2020, 08:07:36 PM
Quote from: DTComposer on August 19, 2020, 07:48:02 PM
I should add re: my earlier remarks that I wasn't just referring to people bashing California. You see that kind of negativity hurled at New York, Florida, the Midwest, Appalachia, the South, Texas, Arizona, the Northwest, and so on. (check out the city vs. city threads on City-Data.com if you want some extreme examples of this)
Thank you for excluding my area.
Yeah, the...(checks profile) Massachusetts/New Hampshire border really sucks. Worst place ever. It starts off all straight and flat, and you're like, good, cool, simple east-west border...then you get to Methuen and then it's like, who designed this shit, a bunch of (checks Massachusetts stereotype list)...pilgrims...drunk on...(checks again) fermented cranberries? What, was everyone too busy (checks list of things I know about New Hampshire) voting in primary elections when they drew the border to bother making it straight or something?
The original charter for the Massachusetts Bay Colony specified a northern border three miles north/east of the Merrimack River. After the creation of New Hampshire, the two colonies disputed their border - NH claimed a line three miles north of the mouth of the Merrimack heading west, MA claimed everything south of the north end of the Merrimack all the way between NY and the point three miles east of the river. The King eventually drew a line heading west from the point where the Merrimack turns north, heavily favoring New Hampshire (the Puritans had been on the side of the English Civil War that had previously overthrown the monarchy, and NH was singing his praises).
One of my go-to books for...bathroom reading is "How the States Got Their Shapes" by Mark Stein. This sort of stuff is fascinating to me.
That book was made into a TV series on the History Channel. Should still be available on demand somewhere if you haven't watched it yet. I watch it every 2-3 years.
Quote from: DTComposer on August 20, 2020, 10:40:06 PM
Quote from: vdeane on August 20, 2020, 09:20:08 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on August 20, 2020, 12:59:34 AM
Quote from: 1 on August 19, 2020, 08:07:36 PM
Quote from: DTComposer on August 19, 2020, 07:48:02 PM
I should add re: my earlier remarks that I wasn't just referring to people bashing California. You see that kind of negativity hurled at New York, Florida, the Midwest, Appalachia, the South, Texas, Arizona, the Northwest, and so on. (check out the city vs. city threads on City-Data.com if you want some extreme examples of this)
Thank you for excluding my area.
Yeah, the...(checks profile) Massachusetts/New Hampshire border really sucks. Worst place ever. It starts off all straight and flat, and you're like, good, cool, simple east-west border...then you get to Methuen and then it's like, who designed this shit, a bunch of (checks Massachusetts stereotype list)...pilgrims...drunk on...(checks again) fermented cranberries? What, was everyone too busy (checks list of things I know about New Hampshire) voting in primary elections when they drew the border to bother making it straight or something?
The original charter for the Massachusetts Bay Colony specified a northern border three miles north/east of the Merrimack River. After the creation of New Hampshire, the two colonies disputed their border - NH claimed a line three miles north of the mouth of the Merrimack heading west, MA claimed everything south of the north end of the Merrimack all the way between NY and the point three miles east of the river. The King eventually drew a line heading west from the point where the Merrimack turns north, heavily favoring New Hampshire (the Puritans had been on the side of the English Civil War that had previously overthrown the monarchy, and NH was singing his praises).
One of my go-to books for...bathroom reading is "How the States Got Their Shapes" by Mark Stein. This sort of stuff is fascinating to me.
That would be where I looked up everything in that paragraph. It's amazing how many times I've referred to that book after offhand comments here and elsewhere.
Quote from: cabiness42 on August 21, 2020, 07:20:55 AM
Quote from: DTComposer on August 20, 2020, 10:40:06 PM
Quote from: vdeane on August 20, 2020, 09:20:08 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on August 20, 2020, 12:59:34 AM
Quote from: 1 on August 19, 2020, 08:07:36 PM
Quote from: DTComposer on August 19, 2020, 07:48:02 PM
I should add re: my earlier remarks that I wasn't just referring to people bashing California. You see that kind of negativity hurled at New York, Florida, the Midwest, Appalachia, the South, Texas, Arizona, the Northwest, and so on. (check out the city vs. city threads on City-Data.com if you want some extreme examples of this)
Thank you for excluding my area.
Yeah, the...(checks profile) Massachusetts/New Hampshire border really sucks. Worst place ever. It starts off all straight and flat, and you're like, good, cool, simple east-west border...then you get to Methuen and then it's like, who designed this shit, a bunch of (checks Massachusetts stereotype list)...pilgrims...drunk on...(checks again) fermented cranberries? What, was everyone too busy (checks list of things I know about New Hampshire) voting in primary elections when they drew the border to bother making it straight or something?
The original charter for the Massachusetts Bay Colony specified a northern border three miles north/east of the Merrimack River. After the creation of New Hampshire, the two colonies disputed their border - NH claimed a line three miles north of the mouth of the Merrimack heading west, MA claimed everything south of the north end of the Merrimack all the way between NY and the point three miles east of the river. The King eventually drew a line heading west from the point where the Merrimack turns north, heavily favoring New Hampshire (the Puritans had been on the side of the English Civil War that had previously overthrown the monarchy, and NH was singing his praises).
One of my go-to books for...bathroom reading is "How the States Got Their Shapes" by Mark Stein. This sort of stuff is fascinating to me.
That book was made into a TV series on the History Channel. Should still be available on demand somewhere if you haven't watched it yet. I watch it every 2-3 years.
IMO the original two hour special is the best. Season 1 was good, but at times felt like it was taking footage shot for but not used in the special, mixing it with footage originally aired in the special, with some additional interviews, to milk the special for more money. Season 2 was just a game show that didn't really add anything.
Quote from: vdeane on August 21, 2020, 12:56:42 PM
That would be where I looked up everything in that paragraph. It's amazing how many times I've referred to that book after offhand comments here and elsewhere.
Offhand and, in this case, completely not serious, so I hope your response was all in fun as well.
Quote from: webny99 on August 22, 2020, 09:30:59 PM
Quote from: vdeane on August 21, 2020, 12:56:42 PM
That would be where I looked up everything in that paragraph. It's amazing how many times I've referred to that book after offhand comments here and elsewhere.
Offhand and, in this case, completely not serious, so I hope your response was all in fun as well.
The post included a question. I answered it. After consulting with the book.
Quote from: vdeane on August 22, 2020, 10:08:56 PM
Quote from: webny99 on August 22, 2020, 09:30:59 PM
Quote from: vdeane on August 21, 2020, 12:56:42 PM
That would be where I looked up everything in that paragraph. It's amazing how many times I've referred to that book after offhand comments here and elsewhere.
Offhand and, in this case, completely not serious, so I hope your response was all in fun as well.
The post included a question. I answered it. After consulting with the book.
I get that - just pointing out that it was some fun-spirited New England-bashing that happened to have a question mark at the end, not an actual serious question.
For your Canadian picks, interesting that you picked Red Deer, AB when you could have picked Hamilton, ON, which has about 6x as many people in the metro.
Quote from: jayhawkco on August 24, 2020, 05:41:56 PM
For your Canadian picks, interesting that you picked Red Deer, AB when you could have picked Hamilton, ON, which has about 6x as many people in the metro.
Hamilton, ON, is very industrial. It's basically like the US Rust Belt, with it's fair share of bad neighborhoods but mostly small, crowded housing and big city prices. I've been to the area quite a bit and I would not want to live there at all.
Quote from: webny99 on August 24, 2020, 09:34:34 PM
Quote from: jayhawkco on August 24, 2020, 05:41:56 PM
For your Canadian picks, interesting that you picked Red Deer, AB when you could have picked Hamilton, ON, which has about 6x as many people in the metro.
Hamilton, ON, is very industrial. It's basically like the US Rust Belt, with it's fair share of bad neighborhoods but mostly small, crowded housing and big city prices. I've been to the area quite a bit and I would not want to live there at all.
Be that as it may (I'll take your word for it), Red Deer still strikes me as the least likely (along with Trois Rivieres that the OP already said might have been an error) to actually matter then. How about Halifax? Plenty big and nice.
Chris