Principal cities of 2100?

[hotdogPi]

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!

[Roadgeekteen]

The here link does not work.

[hotdogPi]

The here link does not work.

Fixed.

[NE2]

Iqaluit...

[kphoger]

Iqaluit...

...will be the principal city of Nunavut in 2100.

[Roadgeekteen]

Iqaluit...

Maybe if global warning cooks all of America plus much of Canada. Get ready for the new white house in Fairbanks, Alaska.

[GaryV]

Iqaluit...

...will be the principal city of Nunavut in 2100.

... unless it's under water.

[kphoger]

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."

[Bruce]

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.

[kphoger]

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?

[SectorZ]

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.

[kphoger]

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

[Max Rockatansky]

Tucson needs to be on the list. 

[Roadgeekteen]

Tucson needs to be on the list.

He didn't include cities in the desert because of water shortages.

[Max Rockatansky]

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. 

[Max Rockatansky]

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. 

[index]

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.

[Roadgeekteen]

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?

[Max Rockatansky]

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. 

[Max Rockatansky]

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. 

[SectorZ]

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.

[webny99]

Why Buffalo and no Rochester?

[webny99]

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.

[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?

[hotdogPi]

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.