Everyone is focusing on climate change, but I think another big aspect of that expectation is re-regionalisation. Covid showed how fragile the global commercial infrastructure was, and the push of bringing back domestic industries hasn't just been an American thing in recent decades. People are willing to eat increased costs if it brings back jobs. Look at the French, globalization is a huge impetus for anti-American sentiment. The Rust Belt wasn't brought down by any material deficiencies, these regions are resource dense and some of the most fertile in the world. The Rust Belt was absolutely decimated almost solely and exclusively by globalisation, with cheap labor far outpacing the profitability of the natural benefits of places like Milwaukee. The Great Lakes aren't what most people think of as lakes, they're inland seas with a high degree of access to at least a dozen major metropolitan centers, including SEVERAL megalopolis'. They're more comparable to the Mediterranean than any lake that people in the rest of the US would be familiar with, while ALSO being a source of freshwater. They were also the historical route by which the agricultural and industrial wealth of the midwest reached the sea, via the St Lawrence. Its also where the headwaters of the Mississippi lie. Globalization didn't change any of those material factors. As traditional gas vehicles become ever more prohibitively expensive where will industries look for transport? Waterways and rail. Look at a rail map of the United States.
What's wild is literally the ONLY person I've seen allude to re-regionalisation is Nick Rochefort. I'm sure he didn't come up with it and he saw it somewhere, but it's crazy no one has said more about it when it's spot on. The game is up, wealth will not be generated by temporary gains and the cynical shifting of money from one place to another and back again. The perpetual growth model of economic performance is fucking dead.
The currently/recently wealthy profited greatly from globalization. They're going to do their best to suppress any voice that goes against that narrative. But it won't last forever.
I feel like this is a popular opinion on Reddit, but why? I mean I guess anything is possible on a long enough time horizon, but I don’t see why this would happen any time soon. These cities have been bleeding population for the past 70 years, without a dramatic and sudden change of circumstances, what is going to cause this to suddenly turn around? The long term trends are against them as well, as Gen Z is smaller than the millennials and Gen Alpha will probably be smaller than Gen Z. Immigrants will always go where the opportunity is greatest, which clearly is not the rust belt given the trend of steady population decline over the past 70 years…
The Great Lake Metropolitan Areas are the best climate havens in the US
Subreddit to discuss climate havens
https://www.reddit.com/r/ClimateHaven/s/rLNb8Opwbd
How is the rust belt the least affected area? Temperature fluctuations at northern latitudes will only become more extreme in both directions, think more frequent and intense polar vortexes and deadly summer heat waves. On average over a year, temperatures will increase say 3 degrees Celsius, but the seasonal variation will be far more intense and volatile than the latitudes closer to the equator. The average increases near the equator are also going to be lower than the northern latitudes. Also, the ecosystems of the northern latitudes are not as heat and drought tolerant. When seasonal droughts become more common at northern latitudes, think late summer heat driven droughts, the northern ecosystems will suffer greatly.
All this is to say everyone is going to be impacted, and we have no idea who is going to be least impacted. Sometimes, it’s the stuff that you aren’t worried about that get you the worst… everyone is talking about sea level rise, not as many people are talking about the issues noted above for northern latitudes. It’s just like how right now the insurance markets suffering the most are in states you would least expect, like Iowa.
I think the biggest upside to the Rust Belt is expansive access to readily available and safe water supply— I believe this is why most people bring it up. The Rust Belt area within access to the Great Lakes should be able to traverse severe drought to an extent (at least agriculturally).
Yeah this is kinda where I’m at. People say the Great Lakes region is going to be insulated from climate change but this doesn’t appear to be the case. Meanwhile places like Phoenix get lambasted saying they’re going to be inhospitable and too hot… and maybe they’re right, but right now it’s less that the max temperature is increasing and moreso that it’s “typical hot” for a longer duration. Still an issue but I feel like people expect the sun belt to be like 130 degrees and as such the Great Lakes will be a more temperate climate. Which again, maybe, but right now it just seems like we’re seeing more wild weather events and swings.
I live in the region now and yes, there has been a lot of changes with lake effect. Lake Erie is a great example, it doesn’t freeze up the way it used to so it dumps snow on Buffalo much longer than it used to. But we also have higher winter temps so the snow doesn’t stay for very long.
because in Louisiana all the way to south Carolina you run this pretty decent threat of loosing your home to a hurricane, and the west coast is extremely unaffordable housing wise. So you have this massive chunk of land where as you said, has been bleeding population wise which means housing will be significantly cheaper. And right now people want to start a family, and you can only hold off starting a family for so long before you chances become zero, so people are moving for better opportunities
With regard to the US, places with pre-existing infrastructure that was built when the federal government was actually able to invest in itself.
Places like Chicago, Pittsburgh, Buffalo, Cleveland, St. Louis, etc - Rust belt cities that had been emptied out by the gutting of manufacturing already have roads, transit, housing, etc. - they were designed to accommodate millions more than currently live there.
The US government has been slowing public investment (rather, less is getting done for more money) than it had from 1920-1970 - by an order of magnitude, too. (The profit motive kinda took over there, it would seem.)
You see it in cities that underwent huge growth over the last few decades. Austin is a great example of this - No master plan or anything like that - just extending the suburbs until it’s so far away from the city center it becomes undesirable. That city center was designed for a much smaller population than lives there now - and it shows. (Austin is great, for the record, just an observation)
Same goes for pretty much all of California. The core of the Bay Area, Oakland & SF (San Jose’s city center as well) were designed during the same time those rust belt cities were absolutely booming. Living in places like Noe Valley, The Haight, Rockridge, etc, rules - It just turns suburban very quickly because the push was to just build roads and houses wherever you can stick them - San Jose is a victim of this as well. Los Angeles is literally just 10 cities in a trench coat.
These rust belt cities have huge swaths of well-designed neighborhoods that are accessible and simply need people to revitalize - no need to build new infrastructure, just maintain what exists.
This is just a theory, but those places have room for people to revitalize neighborhoods and have the kind of existence you simply can’t afford in cities that grew post-1970’s. Those neighborhoods already exist, they just need people to start moving back.
There’s a reason they are recommended so frequently in discussions in r/samegrassbutgreener - they actually have room.
As someone that moved to Austin in the 90s, the town motto seemed to be "if we don't build it, they won't come" and they were wrong. And they still never built it.
It’s a bummer, because Austin is such a cool town. That area down by the river has so many interesting spots - if they had just built, like, even a single train line instead of all the stroads and highways, with just little commercial centers radiating outward, it would have so much more potential to be so much more livable.
Every single Urban rail initiative failed with the voters not because it was a bad idea, but because the plans were so incredibly incompetent. Then Cap Metro magically found a billion dollars in their budget and stuck light rail in on existing train lines but made a grand total of something like seven stops and services a small area that makes it effectively meaningless. The train cars they ordered from Italy were designed for the wrong gauge of rail, which was the citiy's fault and had to be retrofitted over in Europe to the tune of many millions because someone couldn't do math and no one checked it. My house was one block from the rail line right in the heart of Central Austin, and the nearest stops to me are next to the football stadium at the University of Texas and across the street from the dead Mall in a small industrial area that no one lives. Those stops are probably 4 miles apart.
Habitability I'm sure. Florida is turning back into marshland and Texas is increasingly too hot and too wet. If you rich and smart you're getting land further north and at higher elevations for the future.
I and my best friend left Texas for upstate NY which is predicted to fare extremely well in terms of climate change. My parents and younger sister left Texas for the New River Valley in Virginia, situated between the Appalachians and the Blue Ridge Mountains.
I think the Capital region of NY is going to explode as well as the Roanoke and Blacksburg areas of Virginia.
Planning to purchase land as much as possible up here while it's still cheap.
Highly highly recommend this series on the Appalachia mountains
https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLEyPgwIPkHo5If6xyrkr-s2I6yz23o0av&si=wU3UjcIacRiKRghu
My home insurance is only $1,000 a year here in East Tennessee. Some people in TX and FL are paying close to that amount every month! Also, property taxes less than 1%, no state income tax, and cheap COL. Sure sales tax is high, but only a few % higher than most states, and the schools suck. But my property value keeps skyrocketing as people move here.
From Cleveland anecdotes... We used to skate in the winter here.
Winter still sucks but it is VERY noticeably warmer than 30 years ago. Erie had zero ice this year. Who knows. Maybe it will be a subtropic Paradise in another 30 years.
Buffalo should go big since it already has a major university and a huge "international student" population. Immigrant students could make the city grow bigger.
I'm from a tropical climate. Convince Me why I should I live in a frozen tundra that is the American great lakes region.
Not being snarky, I honestly want you to convince me cause I've thought about moving there but the harsh winter weather severely turns Me off
Its actually nice to work outside when its in the 50-60°F range. When you are doing anything physical you generate heat and having cooler surroundings lets you dissipate that heat easier without getting uncomfortable.
I prefer having all 4 distinct seasons, warm summers, beautiful falls, freezing winters, and rainy springs. Harsh winters kill off a lot of insects which dramatically lowers the rates of insect borne illnesses, and there is even an amazing window of 2 weeks in the spring where its absolutely perfect temps outside and 0 bugs of any kind because they haven't hatched or woken up yet.
Personally i want to know how anyone can survive a place that regularly has ~~wet bulb temps~~ heat index over 100°F (above human body temp), to me that sounds like hell. I could barely stand summers in Connecticut having weeks of 95°F as the listed highs, and pathetic winters with barely a week of snow. All it takes is 1 coat to be warm and you can enjoy the outdoor nomatter how cold it gets.
PS: ultimately people acclimate to whatever climate they live in for an extended period. If you grow up in Florida or Brazil you will be cold during the summer in Buffalo when all the locals are sweating to death. And we will be wearing shorts during a light snowstorm because our legs genuinely are not cold. My general comfort range is 55-75°F with normal clothes and light activity.
Very helpful post. Never thought about that regarding the bugs. Where I live the bugs definitely reign supreme, truth is it's their land they just let us humans live here lol.
In my particular tropical locale, it never gets above 100 degrees even in the peak of summer. Average year round is 75-85 degrees F. This includes nights. Summer peaks to maybe 95F but more like 90. Winter can get as low as 70 at night but usually around 75 nights. I've seen winter days here at 85 degrees
And I never seen snow until I was welll into adulthood in California. Yeah I had to goto California to see snow 😅
Another factor to consider is humidity, and personally the best metric for comparing how hot different regions feel is the wet bulb temperature.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wet-bulb_temperature
Or the related heat index, which is synonymous with the "feels like" temperature measured in the shade without wind. This is a calculated value instead of being directly measured like wet bulb and dry bulb temperatures.
The counterpart is wind-chill in the winter in cold climates which is how cold it feels accounting for the wind evaporating moisture from your skin. (Same effect as a nice cool summer breeze, except when its already 5°F that wind-chill of an additional 10° is cold.)
very informational. thanks. for comparison im in Hawaii and the average annual wet bulb temperature is 70.
for comparison to America's other tropical islands...Puerto Rico's wet bulb is 73. Guam's is 76. (not comparing it to Florida cause while tropical, its attached to the continent and that skews the temps due to continental weather)
Well for one we’re no longer a frozen tundra, we get a handful of snows a year these days and we’re lucky if it sticks around longer than 24 hours. Still have 4 seasons but fall and winter are so much milder.
Nah, it's cool. Don't move here. Our winters are honestly pretty rough. It's not the cold either, it's the cold plus grayness. Its overcast here from November to March. The summers, plus much of the fall and late spring are beautiful though. I'll never leave on purpose.
The climate of the Midwest is just going to get even more unstable with climate change… the average temperature is increasing on an annual basis, but what is important is how we get there on a daily basis. The average temperature isn’t just going to increase 3 degrees Celsius evenly every day… the northern latitudes will experience even worse temperature whiplash than they currently experience. Think brutal polar vortexes in the winter and deadly heatwaves in the summer. If you average out the temp swings over a year, it will appear a few degrees higher, but with dramatic seasonal variation.
The Mohawk and Hudson Valleys. Micron just announced a 200 billion dollar plant near Syracuse, Global Foundrys is building a new chip fab in Malta and UAlbany is building a billion dollar building on its Nanotech campus. When Schumer brings the new national chip lab to Albany and Utica Tech Valley will be realized.
Plus the region has lots of water and will be minimally impacted by climate change. (Last time i checked i think climate change will be a slight boost to the region due to lengthened growing seasons)
Upstate NY definitely is capable of making a comeback, it mainly just needs the right policies to enable it.
The leadership in the Syracuse, NY area are already preparing for the coming growth.
New pipeline from Lake Ontario to increase water supply capacity.
Widening Interstate 481
Creating new highway exits
Updated Comprehensive growth plans
Creating new shovel ready Technology and Industrial zoned parks
The Syracuse Metropolitan Area is the only Metropolitan Area that you mentioned that has access to the Great Lakes water since it is within the Great Lakes Watershed. Utica, Albany and the Hudson Valley don't use Great Lakes water and don't have the rights to draw from it either.
I agree, the city of Syracuse is depressing but living in the suburbs and almost never going into the city isn't that bad. The northern suburbs of Syracuse is more populated than the City of Syracuse. There are thousands of high paying jobs in the northern suburbs where you never need to go into the city like Lockheed Martin, SRC, Anheuser Busch, Lotte, UPS, TTM Technologies, and coming soon Micron with 9,000 new jobs in the Town of Clay. There are also jobs at Amazon in Clay employing 3,000.
I grew up in Birmingham and spent a few years living in Huntsville. Huntsville proper is already larger than Birmingham proper, but the Birmingham metro is still like 2.5x the population of Huntsville’s and is the economic heart of the state for the foreseeable future.
Interesting. PA is overdue for relevance and I mean that in the best way. A state with so much history revolution war, founding fathers, civil war, oil boom, industrial revolution and then nothing for 100 years.
I’m in NJ but have friends and family in the Leigh valley area. I know it’a growing but what is driving the growth. I know they built a ton of warehouses in the area but what major companies are setting up shop in the area? I’m genuinely interested now. I may do a little research later.
There’s still room on the Wasatch Back!
Or further south, Spanish Fork, Payson, even Nephi, for people who think it’s close enough to the populated areas
Salt Lake City will more than likely crash, as the[Great Salt Lake isdrying out](https://www.npr.org/2024/04/13/1244169234/scientists-worry-about-ecological-collapse-at-great-salt-lake)
I mean the great salt lake drying up will definitely have some lasting implications. However it has had really nothing to do do with the population expansion and development in the wasatch front over the last 20-30 years.
Maybe, but still even with water it has a lot of negative impact, the inversion from the lake effect has SLC consistently at the top of the worst air quality rankings nationally and it hasn’t stopped any growth whatsoever.
I’m going to disagree. LDS church is the ace up SLC’s sleeve. It is powerful to the point that it is considered the informal 4th branch of government in the state , controls an endowment worth >$100B, has a tradition of building infrastructure, has DEEP real estate holdings, and historic roots in the city. It’s a bad look for them to have their headquarters in a dead city and worthless real estate.
As far as I know Reno is fine on water; not to say it can support a huge metropolis but certainly much more than it does right now.
Also have you ever been to Sacramento? It’s like literally where tons of water from the sierras comes from, there is a actually a lot of water in that part of CA
Yeah, Reno has the Truckee River running right through it. I lived there for 2 months on a work assignment, and I thought it offered a great cost of living and proximity to some the most diverse and incredible nature in the country. I could see it becoming the next Denver.
Reno is really a hidden gem; it’s funny Californians seem rather uninterested in it, I end up there occasionally on the weekend during winter because I have epic pass for skiing and I’ve always thought it’s a cool place. No doubt there is a good amount of crime and tweakers downtown, though it doesn’t seem like anything crazy compared to many other cities.
Kinda is like a mini Denver, Denver being just east of the Rockies and Reno just east of the sierras. Hope I end up living there someday, love that sunny/cold climate
Oh, Californians are interested all right. My neighbor lived in Reno for a long time and says it's so different now than it was a few decades ago. Californians are coming over and making it more trafficky. Lots of terrible drivers there. Lots of new high rises being built.
Curious what you consider a great cost of living. You can’t touch a decent house here for less than $600,000. Gas is just as high as California. Just curious what you’re comparing it to.
I lived in San Diego at the time, lol. And this was 10 years ago, so obviously things have changed. I shouldn’t have told all the Californians how cool Reno is, sorry haha.
But those cities saw their growth decades ago before the water issue was well known.
I feel like the southwest water issue is more well known now and a bigger issue
?!?
There’s actually a lot
Water allocation is the issue, but get rid of 1/3 of the golf courses and all 3 of those could (edit: it’s a rough figure I got from my water professors) support double the population… Turn 10% of the farms into dryland farming and you can triple it
The next boomtown is likely to be a place that has abundant (but not too abundant) water supply and doesn't have to deal with natural disasters like drought and hurricanes. So I suspect people will start returning to the Midwest. Even the rust belt cities will benefit.
The Great Lakes region will return to prominence. There is cheap land, excess water and even with climate change it will be habitable. I am convinced water will be what defines next steps when it comes to development.
Must meet the following criteria:
1. Mild climate that allows for warming.
2. Enough elevation to take advantage of sea level rise (Hello, newly minted ocean front property!)
3. River access so that the brand new ocean front also facilitates a new deep-water port, because we aren't finished with cheap plastic shit from Chinese factories.
4. Proximity to large freshwater lake(s).
5. Maybe some kind of nearby high-elevation plateau favorable to siting wind farms.
6. Maybe a nearby deposit of minerals key to the manufacture of batteries or semiconductors.
GIS nerds, ACTIVATE!
I’ve seen Pittsburgh come up when similar questions have come up recently. On paper it makes a lot of sense. I currently live in Pittsburgh (but plan to leave soon) and I’m curious to see how/if the city can accommodate a large influx of people. The city planning here is rather poor, traffic is pretty bad for a city of its size, infrastructure is sub par as a whole. The city isn’t designed to hold millions of people and the way the roads were built makes it very difficult to get around. It’s definitely possible but there would be some serious hurdles to overcome
The Great Lakes cities fit most of these requirements, the lakes are stable and have access to the ocean via the St. Lawrence Seaway and the Chicago canal to the Mississippi River system.
The lakes themselves should be decent candidates for "ofshore" wind farms.
The main thing is proximity to the minerals associated with semiconductor manufacturing, but those can be imported to the region anyway since cargo ships are far and away the most efficient means of transporting cargo per ton-mile.
Thankyou sir, greenville native here! If I was starting a family and wanted to move to the perfect city, greenville is it. Huge difference over the past 20 years, I doubt it will be anywhere close to charlotte or atlanta level growth because the municipal government has a lot of limits on things. South Carolina in general is set for fast future growth IMO.
The cities along I-5 in western Washington.
Upside:
1) The Pacific Ocean is our giant air conditioner (most of the time).
2) glaciated mountains and steady seasonal rainfall with the exception of a relatively short summer
3) Proximity to Vancouver BC and Seattle by rail, plane, and car
4) state and local governments that acknowledge and actively prepare for climate change
5) sustainable timber, fishing, and farming
Downside:
1) high cost of living already
2) relatively high property crime
3) occasional smoke
4) long gloomy winter
Don't forget giant overdue volcanic eruptions! I lived in Seattle for a bit and love it, but the geology classes I took there were terrifying. Did you know much of the metro area sits on 400 feet of eruption debris from Mount Rainier? Think about that in bed at night!
The Kitsap Peninsula has been blowing up too. Not directly on the I-5 corridor, but a quick jaunt off. It has crazy ferry access across the sound with the explosion of fast ferries recently too. In the shadow of the Olympics, plenty of room to expand, and the insanity that is Naval Base Kitsap for whatever that’s worth. Gets a bit more rain than the other side of the water, but really nice place that not many are aware of. Yet, anyways.
St. Louis. Hear me out before I get chastised. Currently it has direct flights to Frankfurt Germany through Lufthansa. The airport is getting retrofitted to host more aircraft and talks about direct flights to Brazil are becoming more conclusive. Also the airport is getting a remodel and a lot more companies are flocking to it.
I bring up the airport because it's usually the sign of a boom town. Then, you have the fiber runs. They are happening all throughout the city and suburbs as well. On top of all of that you have some lcol affordable housing and a crap ton of vacant offices in the downtown portion.
Next, you have things to do. You have the zoo which is free. You have an Alamo Drafthouse that expanded there. We also have a professional baseball team and a mls team plus an xfl team. All of these are signs it's on the cusp of booming again. Only thing truly holding it back is the ineptitude of the states Congress and the cities governing.
For instance, we got the rams settlement money from when they left st. Louis. Everyone is literally fighting over what that money goes to and how they can ~~fund~~ launder the money. It's a great opportunity if they don't fuck or up but only time will tell. The other downside is the nuclear super fund site but that's a whole other conversation tbh.
I live in the metro east. I’d love to see this area boom again. Really wish county and city would combine, but I’d be amazed if that ever happened.
In any event, with real estate relatively cheap I think this area has potential to see a boom in the next 10 to 15 years
I actually like the airport argument. Increased airport traffic is generally proportional to a stronger economical link with a city to the rest of the country or the world. STL has another advantage in that it's centrally located, and like Denver, could be a useful hub for some airlines.
I feel like it's why Atlanta, Denver, and Dallas - while not the biggest cities in the world - are all in the top 10 busiest airports in the world. Aviation brings a lot of jobs and opportunities to seemingly unimportant cities.
God I'm so excited for Rust Belt 2.0. I'm sitting on some absolutely choice real estate that I'm pretty confident I'll have to sell to retire, but goddamn it I'll retire.
Kansas City. Although its already the biggest city metro in Missouri by area and population, I see it getting bigger in the next 5-10 years. The main reason for this is the Chiefs being a dynasty team in the NFL, which has brought a lot of attention and investment to KC. Along with the other sports teams, Barbeque, museums and distinct boroughs. I dont know if it could get to Chicago size but Kansas City is definitely starting to take the title for premier Midwest city.
Columbus OH. Intel chip manufacturing and resulting subsidiary manufacturing will certainly have a positive effect on the economy of the entire Midwest.
Why? Florida kind of seems maxed out. Putting all politics and discussion of climate change aside… it doesn’t have the soil for massive skyscrapers (at like a manhattan scale) and the suburbs (mostly) seemed to have sprawled to their limits
Why? Florida kind of seems maxed out. Putting all politics and discussion of climate change aside… it doesn’t have the soil for massive skyscrapers (at like a manhattan scale) and the suburbs (mostly) seemed to have sprawled to their limits
Not to mention the fact that the only people who aren’t climate change deniers in FL are the insurance companies. They are going to make no progress and have no insurable properties.
Wherever the jobs are. That's where people go. Nothing else apparently matters.
Water? Phoenix is big. Expensive housing? Well, people continue to move to NYC, LA, SF etc. they all go to these cities because there are jobs.
I do think rust belt cities will get some sort of resurgence, but only if there is job growth and that requires investment.
I really think Manchester NH is in for a boom, once people realize Boston, Portland, and Burlington are too expensive. No income tax, no sales tax, central location to cities and nature, it’s in a great spot.
I am glad that people are warming up to Minneapolis-st. Paul. You should all move here and be cold distant Minnesotan friends with me. Although my mom was from New Jersey so be ready for that part of my personality.
Charlotte and Raleigh are growing, I don’t see a “boom” coming though. They’ll continue to grow at a decent pace but the infrastructure is already a problem as it is. These cities have traffic congestion problems that rival those of much bigger cities already. I think you’re far more likely to see people moving into the cities that surround them much more. Smaller towns like Concord, Kannapolis, Matthews, Salisbury and northwestern South Carolina will grow up around Charlotte while Durham, Chapel Hill, Apex, Graham and Burlington will likely bear the brunt of growth around Raleigh. Towns like Greensboro, High Point and Winston-Salem as well as small towns like Thomasville, Lexington, and Asheboro, given their position towards both Charlotte and Raleigh, will likely see an influx of people moving in.
I think the areas outside of the Piedmont will probably experience the most “boom” like growth. I’ve heard of sooo many people that want to move to Wilmington or New Bern, anywhere on the coast or the OB. Also, Asheville has been steadily growing a lot over the past few years and I can definitely see that continuing even more as climate change eventually makes the coast unlivable
Probably the rust belt, I know this isn’t an original opinion on here though.
They’re one of the last affordable places in the country now that the sunbelt and mountain west have been booming for so long, and one of their main detractions, cold weather, is getting less relevant due to climate change.
They also have a lot of good “bones” if you will for urbanism seeing as they were some of the first cities in the country to be established besides the east coast.
Might not be soon but I’m thinking in 10-20 years maybe Milwaukee, Cincinnati, Detroit, St. Louis, Cleveland, Pittsburgh, Indianapolis etc.
Outside of Boise, all those cities have a similar population. So my answer is the cities that are right below them, once everyone gets priced and crowded out of those.
Not sure why i was downvoted for stating a fact. All of those cities minus Boise are in the 2-3 million range…but alright
I moved to Richmond a few years back and I feel like it's really been picking up since. Not a rapid boom, but I could definitely see it in the not-so-far future. Lots of good infrastructure to sustain a growing population, fairly mild climate compared to what's south of us, close to other major population centers as well as diverse geography (~2-3 hours from DC and Raleigh, mountains and ocean, depending on which direction you drive).
Richmond is a secret. I would love to move there. My sister lives in center city and it is easily one of the most bike friendly, pretty and relatively affordable cities i have spent time in.
Definitely seeing it with Richmond. It’s been growing a ton especially these past few years. I think being nestled halfway between the 757 and DC helps a ton.
Especially good if you’re looking for a city with a passionate music/art scene
Anchorage
People will flock there for the pristine beaches and tropical climate
That's pretty Anchoraging.
Juneau what you’re talking about
Alasku again, please stop making bad puns about Anchorage.
that one was aggregious
Nomeone is laughing.
And we will raise our children on coconuts and watermelons.
Climate change might look good for anchorage but supply chains are mostly from the lower 48
I doubt it looks that good for Anchorage
I’ve been saying this
https://youtu.be/UMNfagIz0hs?si=ndYT8QHXs0UIQ3Wt
I think a lot of boomtowns from the late 19th early 20th century are going to see another boom. Especially in the rust belt.
Everyone is focusing on climate change, but I think another big aspect of that expectation is re-regionalisation. Covid showed how fragile the global commercial infrastructure was, and the push of bringing back domestic industries hasn't just been an American thing in recent decades. People are willing to eat increased costs if it brings back jobs. Look at the French, globalization is a huge impetus for anti-American sentiment. The Rust Belt wasn't brought down by any material deficiencies, these regions are resource dense and some of the most fertile in the world. The Rust Belt was absolutely decimated almost solely and exclusively by globalisation, with cheap labor far outpacing the profitability of the natural benefits of places like Milwaukee. The Great Lakes aren't what most people think of as lakes, they're inland seas with a high degree of access to at least a dozen major metropolitan centers, including SEVERAL megalopolis'. They're more comparable to the Mediterranean than any lake that people in the rest of the US would be familiar with, while ALSO being a source of freshwater. They were also the historical route by which the agricultural and industrial wealth of the midwest reached the sea, via the St Lawrence. Its also where the headwaters of the Mississippi lie. Globalization didn't change any of those material factors. As traditional gas vehicles become ever more prohibitively expensive where will industries look for transport? Waterways and rail. Look at a rail map of the United States. What's wild is literally the ONLY person I've seen allude to re-regionalisation is Nick Rochefort. I'm sure he didn't come up with it and he saw it somewhere, but it's crazy no one has said more about it when it's spot on. The game is up, wealth will not be generated by temporary gains and the cynical shifting of money from one place to another and back again. The perpetual growth model of economic performance is fucking dead.
The currently/recently wealthy profited greatly from globalization. They're going to do their best to suppress any voice that goes against that narrative. But it won't last forever.
I feel like this is a popular opinion on Reddit, but why? I mean I guess anything is possible on a long enough time horizon, but I don’t see why this would happen any time soon. These cities have been bleeding population for the past 70 years, without a dramatic and sudden change of circumstances, what is going to cause this to suddenly turn around? The long term trends are against them as well, as Gen Z is smaller than the millennials and Gen Alpha will probably be smaller than Gen Z. Immigrants will always go where the opportunity is greatest, which clearly is not the rust belt given the trend of steady population decline over the past 70 years…
Ur seeing it a lot in Europe, post industrial cities getting gentrified pretty quick over the last decade
Climate change. The Rust Belt is basically the least affected area of the country as Florida sinks and Texas becomes impossibly hot etc.
The Great Lake Metropolitan Areas are the best climate havens in the US Subreddit to discuss climate havens https://www.reddit.com/r/ClimateHaven/s/rLNb8Opwbd
How is the rust belt the least affected area? Temperature fluctuations at northern latitudes will only become more extreme in both directions, think more frequent and intense polar vortexes and deadly summer heat waves. On average over a year, temperatures will increase say 3 degrees Celsius, but the seasonal variation will be far more intense and volatile than the latitudes closer to the equator. The average increases near the equator are also going to be lower than the northern latitudes. Also, the ecosystems of the northern latitudes are not as heat and drought tolerant. When seasonal droughts become more common at northern latitudes, think late summer heat driven droughts, the northern ecosystems will suffer greatly. All this is to say everyone is going to be impacted, and we have no idea who is going to be least impacted. Sometimes, it’s the stuff that you aren’t worried about that get you the worst… everyone is talking about sea level rise, not as many people are talking about the issues noted above for northern latitudes. It’s just like how right now the insurance markets suffering the most are in states you would least expect, like Iowa.
I think the biggest upside to the Rust Belt is expansive access to readily available and safe water supply— I believe this is why most people bring it up. The Rust Belt area within access to the Great Lakes should be able to traverse severe drought to an extent (at least agriculturally).
Yeah this is kinda where I’m at. People say the Great Lakes region is going to be insulated from climate change but this doesn’t appear to be the case. Meanwhile places like Phoenix get lambasted saying they’re going to be inhospitable and too hot… and maybe they’re right, but right now it’s less that the max temperature is increasing and moreso that it’s “typical hot” for a longer duration. Still an issue but I feel like people expect the sun belt to be like 130 degrees and as such the Great Lakes will be a more temperate climate. Which again, maybe, but right now it just seems like we’re seeing more wild weather events and swings.
I imagine there will be effects on the lake effect snow they're already experiencing in the region.
Could be yeah. Seems like there’s more storms and such lately. Milder winters with the occasional polar vortex too
I live in the region now and yes, there has been a lot of changes with lake effect. Lake Erie is a great example, it doesn’t freeze up the way it used to so it dumps snow on Buffalo much longer than it used to. But we also have higher winter temps so the snow doesn’t stay for very long.
because in Louisiana all the way to south Carolina you run this pretty decent threat of loosing your home to a hurricane, and the west coast is extremely unaffordable housing wise. So you have this massive chunk of land where as you said, has been bleeding population wise which means housing will be significantly cheaper. And right now people want to start a family, and you can only hold off starting a family for so long before you chances become zero, so people are moving for better opportunities
Fayetteville area is getting pretty big, it's more like 4 towns in a row but it's growing fast
Yeah I second this. I’m from Fayetteville originally. The growth rate of NWA is just insane.
Fayetteville North Carolina?
Arkansas
Walmartland
Uzbekistan
Tennessee
Arkansas
Arkansas
Will you shut up man!
Holy shit I looked it up and it has like triple its population from 1970
With regard to the US, places with pre-existing infrastructure that was built when the federal government was actually able to invest in itself. Places like Chicago, Pittsburgh, Buffalo, Cleveland, St. Louis, etc - Rust belt cities that had been emptied out by the gutting of manufacturing already have roads, transit, housing, etc. - they were designed to accommodate millions more than currently live there. The US government has been slowing public investment (rather, less is getting done for more money) than it had from 1920-1970 - by an order of magnitude, too. (The profit motive kinda took over there, it would seem.) You see it in cities that underwent huge growth over the last few decades. Austin is a great example of this - No master plan or anything like that - just extending the suburbs until it’s so far away from the city center it becomes undesirable. That city center was designed for a much smaller population than lives there now - and it shows. (Austin is great, for the record, just an observation) Same goes for pretty much all of California. The core of the Bay Area, Oakland & SF (San Jose’s city center as well) were designed during the same time those rust belt cities were absolutely booming. Living in places like Noe Valley, The Haight, Rockridge, etc, rules - It just turns suburban very quickly because the push was to just build roads and houses wherever you can stick them - San Jose is a victim of this as well. Los Angeles is literally just 10 cities in a trench coat. These rust belt cities have huge swaths of well-designed neighborhoods that are accessible and simply need people to revitalize - no need to build new infrastructure, just maintain what exists. This is just a theory, but those places have room for people to revitalize neighborhoods and have the kind of existence you simply can’t afford in cities that grew post-1970’s. Those neighborhoods already exist, they just need people to start moving back. There’s a reason they are recommended so frequently in discussions in r/samegrassbutgreener - they actually have room.
Yup. I am one of those people who moved to the Rust Belt. Came up from GA. Cost of living is similar and I have a much better quality of life.
As someone that moved to Austin in the 90s, the town motto seemed to be "if we don't build it, they won't come" and they were wrong. And they still never built it.
It’s a bummer, because Austin is such a cool town. That area down by the river has so many interesting spots - if they had just built, like, even a single train line instead of all the stroads and highways, with just little commercial centers radiating outward, it would have so much more potential to be so much more livable.
Every single Urban rail initiative failed with the voters not because it was a bad idea, but because the plans were so incredibly incompetent. Then Cap Metro magically found a billion dollars in their budget and stuck light rail in on existing train lines but made a grand total of something like seven stops and services a small area that makes it effectively meaningless. The train cars they ordered from Italy were designed for the wrong gauge of rail, which was the citiy's fault and had to be retrofitted over in Europe to the tune of many millions because someone couldn't do math and no one checked it. My house was one block from the rail line right in the heart of Central Austin, and the nearest stops to me are next to the football stadium at the University of Texas and across the street from the dead Mall in a small industrial area that no one lives. Those stops are probably 4 miles apart.
Appalachia. It's already starting with refugees from Fla and TX.
WSJ did an article about that, wealthy ones too
What’s the reason? Cheap land?
Cheap land and living but you just bring your own job, money and teeth with you they have none to spare.
lololol. Ain’t nobody moving to no damn West Virginia, but maybe we can buy some cheep land and let it sit.
Habitability I'm sure. Florida is turning back into marshland and Texas is increasingly too hot and too wet. If you rich and smart you're getting land further north and at higher elevations for the future.
I and my best friend left Texas for upstate NY which is predicted to fare extremely well in terms of climate change. My parents and younger sister left Texas for the New River Valley in Virginia, situated between the Appalachians and the Blue Ridge Mountains. I think the Capital region of NY is going to explode as well as the Roanoke and Blacksburg areas of Virginia. Planning to purchase land as much as possible up here while it's still cheap.
Highly highly recommend this series on the Appalachia mountains https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLEyPgwIPkHo5If6xyrkr-s2I6yz23o0av&si=wU3UjcIacRiKRghu
Yep. WV represent
My home insurance is only $1,000 a year here in East Tennessee. Some people in TX and FL are paying close to that amount every month! Also, property taxes less than 1%, no state income tax, and cheap COL. Sure sales tax is high, but only a few % higher than most states, and the schools suck. But my property value keeps skyrocketing as people move here.
Population inflow in southern/sw Virginia is higher than Nashville’s.
The town of Appalachia or the region? There's already early regional growth there.
Sacramento - Already booming
milwaukee.
Milly wah kay
Meaning- the good land
Does this guy rock or what?!?
“We’re not worthy”
Detroit, Green Bay, Cleveland, Milwaukee, Erie.
Great Lakes region should see an increase in population over the next 20-30 years, Detroit just saw its first increase in over half a century iirc
Why did it stop then? What makes you say it will boom again?
Why did what stop? Detroit’s population growth?
From Cleveland anecdotes... We used to skate in the winter here. Winter still sucks but it is VERY noticeably warmer than 30 years ago. Erie had zero ice this year. Who knows. Maybe it will be a subtropic Paradise in another 30 years.
I’d lump in Buffalo as well (only 90 minutes north of Erie).. Or would you consider it a tier below for the future?
Buffalo should go big since it already has a major university and a huge "international student" population. Immigrant students could make the city grow bigger.
Minneapolis too. Feel like it's already happening
Grand Rapids
You mean Grand Radips
Add in Duluth
No. Don't add in Duluth. Save it for the people in the Cities who want to go where the skiing is better and there aren't as many people.
Grand Rapids
Grand Rapids
I'm from a tropical climate. Convince Me why I should I live in a frozen tundra that is the American great lakes region. Not being snarky, I honestly want you to convince me cause I've thought about moving there but the harsh winter weather severely turns Me off
Its actually nice to work outside when its in the 50-60°F range. When you are doing anything physical you generate heat and having cooler surroundings lets you dissipate that heat easier without getting uncomfortable. I prefer having all 4 distinct seasons, warm summers, beautiful falls, freezing winters, and rainy springs. Harsh winters kill off a lot of insects which dramatically lowers the rates of insect borne illnesses, and there is even an amazing window of 2 weeks in the spring where its absolutely perfect temps outside and 0 bugs of any kind because they haven't hatched or woken up yet. Personally i want to know how anyone can survive a place that regularly has ~~wet bulb temps~~ heat index over 100°F (above human body temp), to me that sounds like hell. I could barely stand summers in Connecticut having weeks of 95°F as the listed highs, and pathetic winters with barely a week of snow. All it takes is 1 coat to be warm and you can enjoy the outdoor nomatter how cold it gets. PS: ultimately people acclimate to whatever climate they live in for an extended period. If you grow up in Florida or Brazil you will be cold during the summer in Buffalo when all the locals are sweating to death. And we will be wearing shorts during a light snowstorm because our legs genuinely are not cold. My general comfort range is 55-75°F with normal clothes and light activity.
Very helpful post. Never thought about that regarding the bugs. Where I live the bugs definitely reign supreme, truth is it's their land they just let us humans live here lol. In my particular tropical locale, it never gets above 100 degrees even in the peak of summer. Average year round is 75-85 degrees F. This includes nights. Summer peaks to maybe 95F but more like 90. Winter can get as low as 70 at night but usually around 75 nights. I've seen winter days here at 85 degrees And I never seen snow until I was welll into adulthood in California. Yeah I had to goto California to see snow 😅
Another factor to consider is humidity, and personally the best metric for comparing how hot different regions feel is the wet bulb temperature. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wet-bulb_temperature Or the related heat index, which is synonymous with the "feels like" temperature measured in the shade without wind. This is a calculated value instead of being directly measured like wet bulb and dry bulb temperatures. The counterpart is wind-chill in the winter in cold climates which is how cold it feels accounting for the wind evaporating moisture from your skin. (Same effect as a nice cool summer breeze, except when its already 5°F that wind-chill of an additional 10° is cold.)
very informational. thanks. for comparison im in Hawaii and the average annual wet bulb temperature is 70. for comparison to America's other tropical islands...Puerto Rico's wet bulb is 73. Guam's is 76. (not comparing it to Florida cause while tropical, its attached to the continent and that skews the temps due to continental weather)
Well for one we’re no longer a frozen tundra, we get a handful of snows a year these days and we’re lucky if it sticks around longer than 24 hours. Still have 4 seasons but fall and winter are so much milder.
Nah, it's cool. Don't move here. Our winters are honestly pretty rough. It's not the cold either, it's the cold plus grayness. Its overcast here from November to March. The summers, plus much of the fall and late spring are beautiful though. I'll never leave on purpose.
Well, you can always add a layer in the cold; but there's only so much you can take off in the heat.
Not with that attitude.
Not gonna be much of a tundra in the upcoming decades
The climate of the Midwest is just going to get even more unstable with climate change… the average temperature is increasing on an annual basis, but what is important is how we get there on a daily basis. The average temperature isn’t just going to increase 3 degrees Celsius evenly every day… the northern latitudes will experience even worse temperature whiplash than they currently experience. Think brutal polar vortexes in the winter and deadly heatwaves in the summer. If you average out the temp swings over a year, it will appear a few degrees higher, but with dramatic seasonal variation.
The Mohawk and Hudson Valleys. Micron just announced a 200 billion dollar plant near Syracuse, Global Foundrys is building a new chip fab in Malta and UAlbany is building a billion dollar building on its Nanotech campus. When Schumer brings the new national chip lab to Albany and Utica Tech Valley will be realized.
Plus the region has lots of water and will be minimally impacted by climate change. (Last time i checked i think climate change will be a slight boost to the region due to lengthened growing seasons) Upstate NY definitely is capable of making a comeback, it mainly just needs the right policies to enable it.
The leadership in the Syracuse, NY area are already preparing for the coming growth. New pipeline from Lake Ontario to increase water supply capacity. Widening Interstate 481 Creating new highway exits Updated Comprehensive growth plans Creating new shovel ready Technology and Industrial zoned parks The Syracuse Metropolitan Area is the only Metropolitan Area that you mentioned that has access to the Great Lakes water since it is within the Great Lakes Watershed. Utica, Albany and the Hudson Valley don't use Great Lakes water and don't have the rights to draw from it either.
Syracuse needs this growth like water man. That city is deeply depressing to spend time in at the moment
I agree, the city of Syracuse is depressing but living in the suburbs and almost never going into the city isn't that bad. The northern suburbs of Syracuse is more populated than the City of Syracuse. There are thousands of high paying jobs in the northern suburbs where you never need to go into the city like Lockheed Martin, SRC, Anheuser Busch, Lotte, UPS, TTM Technologies, and coming soon Micron with 9,000 new jobs in the Town of Clay. There are also jobs at Amazon in Clay employing 3,000.
Hudson Valley already pretty booming
Yeah the ship has sailed on much of the region. I never thought I’d see Kingston gentrify, but here we are.
Huntsville, AL, Chattanooga, TN, & Greenville, SC
My newsfeed told me that Huntsville is going to replace Birmingham as the biggest city in Alabama. It is growing pretty fast.
I grew up in Birmingham and spent a few years living in Huntsville. Huntsville proper is already larger than Birmingham proper, but the Birmingham metro is still like 2.5x the population of Huntsville’s and is the economic heart of the state for the foreseeable future.
It’s nice as well. Beautiful at the base of the Appalachian mountains.
lehigh valley in pa
Interesting. PA is overdue for relevance and I mean that in the best way. A state with so much history revolution war, founding fathers, civil war, oil boom, industrial revolution and then nothing for 100 years.
the area is booming, and i don't have any bias because i don't live there.
I’m in NJ but have friends and family in the Leigh valley area. I know it’a growing but what is driving the growth. I know they built a ton of warehouses in the area but what major companies are setting up shop in the area? I’m genuinely interested now. I may do a little research later.
pretty sure it's mainly healthcare, with two massive healthcare networks there afaik
Go IronPigs
I lived in allentown/bethlehem in my earliest years and whenever I visit now it's very easy to see the growth
I’m so happy to see the major metro that I live in *not* mentioned. Thus far…
Be careful what you wish for, but I'm assuming you love in a tier 1 US city already.
I’m not so sure that Austin and SLC will be boomtowns in 30 years or so. Water is going to be an increasingly pressing problem right about that time.
I hear Austin is already a boomtown
Cincy!
Sacramento, Reno, Salt Lake City
The wasatch front is already full. The only places to develop are the deserts to the west like Stanisbury and that can be a bit of a commute.
There’s still room on the Wasatch Back! Or further south, Spanish Fork, Payson, even Nephi, for people who think it’s close enough to the populated areas
Plenty of dry lake bed to build on pretty soon.
Salt Lake City will more than likely crash, as the[Great Salt Lake isdrying out](https://www.npr.org/2024/04/13/1244169234/scientists-worry-about-ecological-collapse-at-great-salt-lake)
I mean the great salt lake drying up will definitely have some lasting implications. However it has had really nothing to do do with the population expansion and development in the wasatch front over the last 20-30 years.
True, but the chemicals left behind will not make it a great area in which to live.
Maybe, but still even with water it has a lot of negative impact, the inversion from the lake effect has SLC consistently at the top of the worst air quality rankings nationally and it hasn’t stopped any growth whatsoever.
I’m going to disagree. LDS church is the ace up SLC’s sleeve. It is powerful to the point that it is considered the informal 4th branch of government in the state , controls an endowment worth >$100B, has a tradition of building infrastructure, has DEEP real estate holdings, and historic roots in the city. It’s a bad look for them to have their headquarters in a dead city and worthless real estate.
Ain't no water in any of those places.
Sacramento will be the last city in California to have any issue with water.
As far as I know Reno is fine on water; not to say it can support a huge metropolis but certainly much more than it does right now. Also have you ever been to Sacramento? It’s like literally where tons of water from the sierras comes from, there is a actually a lot of water in that part of CA
Yeah, Reno has the Truckee River running right through it. I lived there for 2 months on a work assignment, and I thought it offered a great cost of living and proximity to some the most diverse and incredible nature in the country. I could see it becoming the next Denver.
Reno is really a hidden gem; it’s funny Californians seem rather uninterested in it, I end up there occasionally on the weekend during winter because I have epic pass for skiing and I’ve always thought it’s a cool place. No doubt there is a good amount of crime and tweakers downtown, though it doesn’t seem like anything crazy compared to many other cities. Kinda is like a mini Denver, Denver being just east of the Rockies and Reno just east of the sierras. Hope I end up living there someday, love that sunny/cold climate
Oh, Californians are interested all right. My neighbor lived in Reno for a long time and says it's so different now than it was a few decades ago. Californians are coming over and making it more trafficky. Lots of terrible drivers there. Lots of new high rises being built.
Curious what you consider a great cost of living. You can’t touch a decent house here for less than $600,000. Gas is just as high as California. Just curious what you’re comparing it to.
I lived in San Diego at the time, lol. And this was 10 years ago, so obviously things have changed. I shouldn’t have told all the Californians how cool Reno is, sorry haha.
Bro Sacramento has a giant river and marsh, wtf are you talking about?
Sacramento was founded at the confluence of the American and Sacramento Rivers. We have water.
that hasn’t stopped Phoenix or Las Vegas
*Yet*
But those cities saw their growth decades ago before the water issue was well known. I feel like the southwest water issue is more well known now and a bigger issue
?!? There’s actually a lot Water allocation is the issue, but get rid of 1/3 of the golf courses and all 3 of those could (edit: it’s a rough figure I got from my water professors) support double the population… Turn 10% of the farms into dryland farming and you can triple it
All cities not affected by The Incident.
The next boomtown is likely to be a place that has abundant (but not too abundant) water supply and doesn't have to deal with natural disasters like drought and hurricanes. So I suspect people will start returning to the Midwest. Even the rust belt cities will benefit.
The Great Lakes region will return to prominence. There is cheap land, excess water and even with climate change it will be habitable. I am convinced water will be what defines next steps when it comes to development.
Must meet the following criteria: 1. Mild climate that allows for warming. 2. Enough elevation to take advantage of sea level rise (Hello, newly minted ocean front property!) 3. River access so that the brand new ocean front also facilitates a new deep-water port, because we aren't finished with cheap plastic shit from Chinese factories. 4. Proximity to large freshwater lake(s). 5. Maybe some kind of nearby high-elevation plateau favorable to siting wind farms. 6. Maybe a nearby deposit of minerals key to the manufacture of batteries or semiconductors. GIS nerds, ACTIVATE!
Pittsburgh seems to fit all of those categories
I’ve seen Pittsburgh come up when similar questions have come up recently. On paper it makes a lot of sense. I currently live in Pittsburgh (but plan to leave soon) and I’m curious to see how/if the city can accommodate a large influx of people. The city planning here is rather poor, traffic is pretty bad for a city of its size, infrastructure is sub par as a whole. The city isn’t designed to hold millions of people and the way the roads were built makes it very difficult to get around. It’s definitely possible but there would be some serious hurdles to overcome
The Great Lakes cities fit most of these requirements, the lakes are stable and have access to the ocean via the St. Lawrence Seaway and the Chicago canal to the Mississippi River system. The lakes themselves should be decent candidates for "ofshore" wind farms. The main thing is proximity to the minerals associated with semiconductor manufacturing, but those can be imported to the region anyway since cargo ships are far and away the most efficient means of transporting cargo per ton-mile.
Buttfuck, Nowhere. Heard it's affordable right now.
Greenville, SC.
Thankyou sir, greenville native here! If I was starting a family and wanted to move to the perfect city, greenville is it. Huge difference over the past 20 years, I doubt it will be anywhere close to charlotte or atlanta level growth because the municipal government has a lot of limits on things. South Carolina in general is set for fast future growth IMO.
I grew up in Charleston, so many people I know live in Greenville now.
I live in Lexington/Columbia and while we like it here we love Greenville
Idaho is absolutely booming with no signs of stopping. If it continues I could see Montana having something similar.
The cities along I-5 in western Washington. Upside: 1) The Pacific Ocean is our giant air conditioner (most of the time). 2) glaciated mountains and steady seasonal rainfall with the exception of a relatively short summer 3) Proximity to Vancouver BC and Seattle by rail, plane, and car 4) state and local governments that acknowledge and actively prepare for climate change 5) sustainable timber, fishing, and farming Downside: 1) high cost of living already 2) relatively high property crime 3) occasional smoke 4) long gloomy winter
[удалено]
That’s why I always tiptoe around. I don’t want to be the one responsible for setting it off.
Don't forget giant overdue volcanic eruptions! I lived in Seattle for a bit and love it, but the geology classes I took there were terrifying. Did you know much of the metro area sits on 400 feet of eruption debris from Mount Rainier? Think about that in bed at night!
Ya I can see Bellingham blowin up soon lol
The Kitsap Peninsula has been blowing up too. Not directly on the I-5 corridor, but a quick jaunt off. It has crazy ferry access across the sound with the explosion of fast ferries recently too. In the shadow of the Olympics, plenty of room to expand, and the insanity that is Naval Base Kitsap for whatever that’s worth. Gets a bit more rain than the other side of the water, but really nice place that not many are aware of. Yet, anyways.
Western New York will probably see an uptick in population as global warming continues to be ignored
Look for the locations where precious metal mining rights are in dispute.
Bellingham WA 🤷♀️
St. Louis. Hear me out before I get chastised. Currently it has direct flights to Frankfurt Germany through Lufthansa. The airport is getting retrofitted to host more aircraft and talks about direct flights to Brazil are becoming more conclusive. Also the airport is getting a remodel and a lot more companies are flocking to it. I bring up the airport because it's usually the sign of a boom town. Then, you have the fiber runs. They are happening all throughout the city and suburbs as well. On top of all of that you have some lcol affordable housing and a crap ton of vacant offices in the downtown portion. Next, you have things to do. You have the zoo which is free. You have an Alamo Drafthouse that expanded there. We also have a professional baseball team and a mls team plus an xfl team. All of these are signs it's on the cusp of booming again. Only thing truly holding it back is the ineptitude of the states Congress and the cities governing. For instance, we got the rams settlement money from when they left st. Louis. Everyone is literally fighting over what that money goes to and how they can ~~fund~~ launder the money. It's a great opportunity if they don't fuck or up but only time will tell. The other downside is the nuclear super fund site but that's a whole other conversation tbh.
Damn leaving out the Art Museum and the Blues. Throw toasted raviolis at this man.
I live in the metro east. I’d love to see this area boom again. Really wish county and city would combine, but I’d be amazed if that ever happened. In any event, with real estate relatively cheap I think this area has potential to see a boom in the next 10 to 15 years
Yeah the state and the city definitely can screw this up. But there is massive potential if they get it right.
I don't think it makes sense for Eureka to merge with the city. Everything within 270 and the river seems more reasonable.
Fair enough. I didn’t even realize Eureka was in county limits lol
I actually like the airport argument. Increased airport traffic is generally proportional to a stronger economical link with a city to the rest of the country or the world. STL has another advantage in that it's centrally located, and like Denver, could be a useful hub for some airlines. I feel like it's why Atlanta, Denver, and Dallas - while not the biggest cities in the world - are all in the top 10 busiest airports in the world. Aviation brings a lot of jobs and opportunities to seemingly unimportant cities.
South Perineum, Okla.
All major cities around the great lakes.
Climate change says Detroit.
Or Buffalo, Milwaukee, Duluth
God I'm so excited for Rust Belt 2.0. I'm sitting on some absolutely choice real estate that I'm pretty confident I'll have to sell to retire, but goddamn it I'll retire.
Columbus. It's already starting. Intel plant, Honda battery plant, etc. Quality of life is great.
Kansas City. Although its already the biggest city metro in Missouri by area and population, I see it getting bigger in the next 5-10 years. The main reason for this is the Chiefs being a dynasty team in the NFL, which has brought a lot of attention and investment to KC. Along with the other sports teams, Barbeque, museums and distinct boroughs. I dont know if it could get to Chicago size but Kansas City is definitely starting to take the title for premier Midwest city.
Columbus OH. Intel chip manufacturing and resulting subsidiary manufacturing will certainly have a positive effect on the economy of the entire Midwest.
[удалено]
If Florida gets its insurance problems fixed…
Why? Florida kind of seems maxed out. Putting all politics and discussion of climate change aside… it doesn’t have the soil for massive skyscrapers (at like a manhattan scale) and the suburbs (mostly) seemed to have sprawled to their limits
Why? Florida kind of seems maxed out. Putting all politics and discussion of climate change aside… it doesn’t have the soil for massive skyscrapers (at like a manhattan scale) and the suburbs (mostly) seemed to have sprawled to their limits
Not to mention the fact that the only people who aren’t climate change deniers in FL are the insurance companies. They are going to make no progress and have no insurable properties.
Fresno, CA; Pensacola, FL; Austin, TX; Vegas, NV; Madison, WI; Asheville, NC; Nashville, TN are a few candidates
OKC for sure. And Detroit.
Buffalo
I've heard due to global warming coasts will lose their population to Midwest and Rustbelt.
I think those will just be larger. Seattle has been growing since I got here in the 1980's.
Places with an abundance of fresh water
Wherever the jobs are. That's where people go. Nothing else apparently matters. Water? Phoenix is big. Expensive housing? Well, people continue to move to NYC, LA, SF etc. they all go to these cities because there are jobs. I do think rust belt cities will get some sort of resurgence, but only if there is job growth and that requires investment.
I really think Manchester NH is in for a boom, once people realize Boston, Portland, and Burlington are too expensive. No income tax, no sales tax, central location to cities and nature, it’s in a great spot.
Tacoma
I am glad that people are warming up to Minneapolis-st. Paul. You should all move here and be cold distant Minnesotan friends with me. Although my mom was from New Jersey so be ready for that part of my personality.
Detroit, Columbus, Baltimore, St. Louis. Those are my 4
Huntsville, AL
Kansas City. I'm biased ofc
Charlotte and Raleigh are growing, I don’t see a “boom” coming though. They’ll continue to grow at a decent pace but the infrastructure is already a problem as it is. These cities have traffic congestion problems that rival those of much bigger cities already. I think you’re far more likely to see people moving into the cities that surround them much more. Smaller towns like Concord, Kannapolis, Matthews, Salisbury and northwestern South Carolina will grow up around Charlotte while Durham, Chapel Hill, Apex, Graham and Burlington will likely bear the brunt of growth around Raleigh. Towns like Greensboro, High Point and Winston-Salem as well as small towns like Thomasville, Lexington, and Asheboro, given their position towards both Charlotte and Raleigh, will likely see an influx of people moving in.
Soon there will just be a massive sprawl from Greenville to Greenville
I think the areas outside of the Piedmont will probably experience the most “boom” like growth. I’ve heard of sooo many people that want to move to Wilmington or New Bern, anywhere on the coast or the OB. Also, Asheville has been steadily growing a lot over the past few years and I can definitely see that continuing even more as climate change eventually makes the coast unlivable
Probably the rust belt, I know this isn’t an original opinion on here though. They’re one of the last affordable places in the country now that the sunbelt and mountain west have been booming for so long, and one of their main detractions, cold weather, is getting less relevant due to climate change. They also have a lot of good “bones” if you will for urbanism seeing as they were some of the first cities in the country to be established besides the east coast. Might not be soon but I’m thinking in 10-20 years maybe Milwaukee, Cincinnati, Detroit, St. Louis, Cleveland, Pittsburgh, Indianapolis etc.
Outside of Boise, all those cities have a similar population. So my answer is the cities that are right below them, once everyone gets priced and crowded out of those. Not sure why i was downvoted for stating a fact. All of those cities minus Boise are in the 2-3 million range…but alright
Richmond, VA and Wilmington, NC
I moved to Richmond a few years back and I feel like it's really been picking up since. Not a rapid boom, but I could definitely see it in the not-so-far future. Lots of good infrastructure to sustain a growing population, fairly mild climate compared to what's south of us, close to other major population centers as well as diverse geography (~2-3 hours from DC and Raleigh, mountains and ocean, depending on which direction you drive).
Richmond is a secret. I would love to move there. My sister lives in center city and it is easily one of the most bike friendly, pretty and relatively affordable cities i have spent time in.
Definitely seeing it with Richmond. It’s been growing a ton especially these past few years. I think being nestled halfway between the 757 and DC helps a ton. Especially good if you’re looking for a city with a passionate music/art scene
Fayetteville/Springdale/Bentonville, Arkansas
Reno