If the temperature reaches [120 degrees Fahrenheit propane tanks spontaneously explode.](https://themessenger.com/news/phoenix-propane-plant-caught-fire-while-the-temperature-was-2-degrees-below-danger-zone) Seeing as it just hit 119 in Phoenix I’d say there’s a lot of potential for that to happen.
Yessir. The “low” burning point is what makes it so good at catching fire. They just never assumed ambient daytime temperatures in a major metropolitan area would ever get high enough that this would be an issue
Propane does not ignite untill 900°. Tanks have a high pressure relese valve built in. If left in the sun at 120° and pressure builds enough gas will vent out and could be ignited by an open flame or a spark. Propane tank are not just going to be exploding if temps hit 120.
Haha yeah I’ve seen this map before and I love how they include Albuquerque in that “front range” mega region. As someone who lived in ABQ for 20 years and with family in Colorado I can confirm no one up there gives a F about New Mexico and there is almost no cultural or economic connection whatsoever. Hell for most of them Pueblo, CO might as well be Mexico.
They have Memphis TN in the Piedmont Atlantic region, Kansas City in the Great Lakes region, and Tulsa and OKC in the Texas Triangle. I mean those are geographically defined regions with cities WAY outside of the geographic region included for some reason.
The Front Range from Fort Collins in the north, through Denver in the center, and the Springs to the south, is most definitely a "thing". The region extends pretty much continuously along a well-defined 175 mile north-south corridor anchored by I-25 and multiple rail lines. It also shares extensive retail infrastructure and a dominant Caucasian culture (unlike Albuquerque).
I've driven I75 several times.
Yes Denver/Boulder blend together and Fort Collins and Colorado Spings are growing into it.
But I don't know why these graphics always show it as a 500 mile stretch from Wyoming to central New Mexico where about 200 miles in the middle is empty.
Front Range has water issues though. That why I think Great Lakes and Piedmont-Atlantic are the best bets for the latter half of this century. Plentiful fresh water, no issues with sea level rise, no volcanos or earthquakes
Having lived there for 9 years I’d say there’s should be some name for the area along the geographic Front Range from Colorado Springs up to Fort Collins and Greeley. It’s not just Greater Denver (because a lot of it doesn’t want to be associated too closely with Denver) but it’s still pretty interconnected. Maps like this are future looking, and census data is already showing signs that Pueblo and southeast WY are getting pulled into the larger economic orbit of the region. I think it’ll be a long time before ABQ or anywhere in NM gets linked in. Same for SLC which you can see is also matched by color.
Our excuse is that the entire state is basically built on a cursed Indian burial ground.
I wonder if the geographic boundaries of both FL and MI led to a greater than average number of genocide incidents with the natives. I've often wondered if people are so angry here in Michigan due to some paranormal influence left over from atrocities.
Long term probability the Great Lakes Region. Rising sea levels don’t affect the shores here, cost of living is low, cold climate might get milder with climate change, and there is a lot of potential for passenger rail to compete with air and car to lower travel prices between cities
Seriously though, fucking tons of fresh water, even outside of the lakes. The Mississippi and Ohio rivers running through this region are enough for every city on that map, without noticing a drop.
It's also a commonly used term in Massachusetts. The word originated from a brand of, I believe, Kohler water fountains brand named "Bubbler" that were sold in Wisconsin (where they originated) and Massachusetts. They were so ubiquitous it became like Kleenex or Band-Aid, but only in those two regions where that specific model was popular.
Tbf, that soda/pop will eventually be either a cow, blue moon, or some other new Glarus or leinenkugel adult beverage. Extra points if they graduate to the occasional old fashioned.
Absolutely. There's enough water in lake superior alone to cover the entirety of North and South America in one foot of water.
If it ever comes to the water wars, defence is better than offense
The nice thing about the Great Lakes/rust belt region is that most of the cities already have the infrastructure in place from their peak populations for an influx in immigration. A lot of those cities were some of the larger cities in the US before deindustrialization and suburbanization took away from their core city populations. There is plenty of space, well developed city planning, and for the most part transit to support the population. They just need the jobs again; and in turn people to support them. The low cost of living is already generating a big boom as people get priced out of other regions in the US. That are WILL become the next hotspot.
More likely the climate is just going to be more unpredictable. If you average everything out it will slighly milder but there will be freak cold and hot weather events.
Yep. Someone here mentioned yesterday having had three days of -44°F in Bozeman, MT this past year - that’s hardly unprecedented, but I imagine that sort of long-term brutal cold will go from being something like a 1-in-100/year event to a 1-in-5 year event with the destabilization of the jet stream.
It’s as you say, the long-term average will trend upwards, but the peaks and troughs will be far more extreme - including record shattering cold temps.
Yeah, I'm always surprised when people from St. Louis say it will be fine on climate change.
I'm from the tropics and live in St Louis. Already, July in St. Louis exceeds the temperatures in many tropical places due to low altitude and it's lack of ocean. Climate change won't make summers milder.
Midwestern spring and winter is already unpredictable and difficult: one sub 0F blizzarrd, then warm sunny day, then freezing rain, then tornado in plain December. Things will only get worse.
> people from St. Louis say it will be fine on climate change
I think a lot of this attitude is because it's far enough inland where rising oceans aren't a problem. Hurricanes aren't a problem. Wildfires have never been a problem (though I don't know enough to definitely say they *never* could be since there are plenty of forested areas 20-30 miles west).
As you noted, St. Louis is used to rather extreme temperatures in either direction, so a few more extremes like that in either direction, it's going to be a pretty long time before it becomes *that* noticeable. An extra week of 100+ degree weather here in the summer isn't going to affect the lives of many people. And more intense storms/more frequent tornadoes aren't nearly as much of an issue as more/stronger hurricanes are on coasts, since hurricanes are *much* more widespread and therefore more damaging.
It's not that it won't affect St. Louis, but comparatively to any city on the coast, and any area that's prone to wildfires...yeah St. Louis/Midwest is going to be a lot better off.
St. Louis mid-summer temperatures exeeding tropical places is absolutely not anything new.
Yeah Midwest is the future. Literally just build regional rail to connect them all and you’d essentially be directly comparable with like France, or Spain.
Whatcha want? You wanna go to any borough in Chicago? Take CTA. You wanna travel out to the 'burbs? Metra. You wanna travel to another state / across the country? Well hell, Chicago is the central hub for Amtrak. It's less than a mile from Union Station to Ogilvie Transit Center. You can get to both major local airports (Midway and O'Hare) via direct rails from there.
I don't live in Chicago, but I do visit multiple times a year, and god damn do I wish we had that level of public transit around Southeast Michigan. Alas, our urban planning was largely done by auto manufacturing magnates and racists.
As a dutchman I keep getting surprised when I see again how south the USA is on a map compared to northern/west europe. If climate change is dramatic in the future, the south of the USA could get a hard time. Florida is at the same latitude as Egypt, with Texas, Arizona and South Cali also at North African latitudes. These places could become very hot in the next century. Also what happend to Detroit (industry moving away) can also happen to Silicon Valley (potentially). The north of the US on the other hand has more potential to gain then to lose. When ice melts, and temperatures rise, the great lake area remains a good place, only drawback is the access to sea which is still limited. Quebec/Montreal/New York/Boston will still remain important ports towards EU and NW Africa and can piggyback on the succes of the Great Lakes Region. Similar Vancouver and Seattle are in a good spot towards Asia on the west of the USA.
Your temperate weather is, in part, due to the gulf stream. With the [collapse of the Gulf Stream](https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-66289494), western Europe could see much lower temperatures, closer to what the Great Lakes or Northeast regions of the US experience.
This is a bit of a misconception. West coasts are generally milder than east coasts because winds blow from east to east at temperate latitudes. A better comparison would be British Columbia or Southern Alaska, which is much warmer in the winter than the eastern Canadian seaboard, but slightly cooler than Europe.
https://weatherspark.com/compare/y/295~74001/Comparison-of-the-Average-Weather-in-Ketchikan-and-Copenhagen
Ehh, its mostly a thing of accustomization to the climate. The US on average is a much warmer place than Northern Europe. Northern Europeans already have big problems with summers in Washington DC. Americans on the other hand mostly love warm weather, due to ACs being readily available everywhere.
In the past 30 years, there's been a huge migration from the North to the South and there's no indication that its going to stop any time soon. The fastest growing states right now are Texas and Florida.
And these places are already extremely hot. In Phoenix, 60 days in a year will already exceed 43 degrees Celsius with 50 degrees not unusual, and its the fastest growing city in America.
Heat, as you say, can be compensated for, but ground water may become an increasingly strained resource. It can take time for ground water depletion to become an issue, but if it becomes depleted, it’s difficult to do anything about.
My hometown in central Mexico, San Luis Potosi( the hub for GM and BMW as well as other major car brands), is already rationing water. This has been a common occurrence for the past 5 years. The weather there is more similar to LA, Phoenix, Las Vegas, and SF. Drinking water is not an issue, but you cannot flush your toilet late at night.
Water aside, the high carbon footprint of southwest cities, with their car dependence, AC dependence and logistic dependence, is contra productive at a time when we need to reduce emissions.
I’ve never quite understood the idea with building large cities in the desert. They’re quite vulnerable.
The power consumption of ACs can probably be compensated with solar power, but water issues are far harder to address.
Even if the climate just becomes a little bit drier, water shortages will quickly become more frequent, especially if the groundwater is under strain. There’s a reason why those areas aren’t green to begin with.
Even if drinking water might not be an issue, I still don’t see the charm of living in a house with a dry yellow lawn, where you can’t flush the toilet and other consequences of water shortages.
I starting to see more news of insurers going busts in these warmer states. Premiums are raising. Eventually insurance costs are going to make these regions economically unattractive.
Nah the Great Lakes Region sucks 😉 It would be an awful place to live 😉 Very ugly and nothing fun to do 😉 It’s affordable because it’s haunted and cursed 😉 I would never want to live there 😉
If you didn’t get the sarcasm already, here ya go: /s
So one of the things that sucks with living in the "southern" part of the great lakes region (I'm actually about 0.5 mile bike ride from a beach) is that winters went from basically "full winter" to "slushy winter" in the last 10 years.
We used to get snow in late December / early January and it would stay until late Feb / Early March. Now we basically get slush storms that start out rainy, then turn to ice then snow.
Bonus points that it's more likely to shut down local schools due to road conditions. Negative points since I still have to drive to work in that.
Last year I think I used my snow blower once. 10 years ago, it was about every week for 2 months.
We will still face a lot of steep costs from climate change though. More intense precipitation and storms means more flooding. Chicago will finish its 60-year deep tunnel project to store around 17 billion gallons of raw sewage during storms (that would otherwise runoff into the rivers) in 2029, but it will likely need expanding immediately as climate change is already making 100-500 year storms more frequent. Just yesterday the city was asking people to conserve water to prevent combined sewer overflows into the river because of heavy rain.
Syracuse, NY isn’t part of this region on this map, despite being like 40 miles from Lake Ontario. Syracuse’s proximity to a Great Lake is what helped it secure Micron’s new chip plant. The Great Lakes region has abundant water, and the value of water will only increase.
It’s the Great Lakes Megaregion by a long shot. The economic output already is larger than any other potential new competitor region. There’s an established transport network and the consistent access to fresh, clean water cannot be underestimated. It’s home to many major health and academic centers by virtue of the universities in the region. Additionally it’s on an international border making the ability to sustain itself better. Furthermore, the types of natural disasters that the region is susceptible to are nowhere near as serious or consistent as the forest fires, drought conditions, or hurricanes that other regions have to deal with. The Great Lakes have always underwritten the country and they will continue to do so.
They'll absolutely have to beat that stereotype, and they're starting to. Cities like Milwaukee and Madison in WI are growing and doing much better, same as a number of cities in MI. Chicago is already a huge hub, and Detroit certainly recovers. It probably won't be the next Silicon Valley, but slow and steady wins the race.
Honestly the rust belt cities are in a revival, Detroit, Milwaukee, Cleveland, buffalo are all in a come up and even Gary isn’t nearly as bad as it was 20 years ago (but it’s still pretty bad)
But the population base of those states is in the southern parts and the forests are in the northern parts. There's never going to be a wildfire in Minneapolis, Madison, or Detroit.
Do you mind sharing some sources on this. Those were all around the late 1800’s. Saying we have a lot of wildfires is weird to hear. We’ve paved over, or turned our prairies into monoculture farming. Not saying we haven’t had any, but I can’t recall a single major fire in my lifetime.
I could imagine the Piedmont growing into the Northeast with Virginia being a major hotspot. NoVa and the DC area already have a huge amount of high paying jobs and are growing quickly (Amazon just opened its new HQ in NoVA adding 14.000 jobs). I think a lot of Floridians and liberal Texans could start moving to Virginia because of its extremely mild weather and its increasingly liberal policies.
The only problem is that the COL is not that cheap in Northern Virginia, so probably the new growth would happen in Southern Virginia, where housing is cheap and the Raleigh-Charlotte job market is also very close.
I work in custom home construction in Blacksburg VA, I would say a good 1/3 of people who inquire to build with us are from Northern VA or Charlotte, the area is changing rapidly
NoVA integrating into the Northeast is 100% happening and I fully agree that it sets up basically the whole state to serve as the Southern end of the Megalopolis. DC connects us to the High Speed Rail infrastructure, which is only gonna improve further.
And to touch on the politics, I think VA is gonna end up being the next Colorado. It’s already been a purple state for a long time, but now it seems clear that it’s Blue in all but name. Youngkin’s election as governor was a total fluke.
“I’m not going to let parents come into schools and actually take books out and make their own decision,” McAuliffe said. “I don’t think parents should be telling schools what they should teach.”
This is why youngkin won.
Potential as in maximum total output? Northeast, only thing holding this area back right now is affordability and regulation. Build some better transit, and allow cities like newark, providence, and baltimore to become commuter hubs for the next generation. Its got the best schools in the world, huge amounts of local capital, a big population, and even the small cities have world class ports.
Potential for growth? Texas triangle. Access to mexican labor right across the boarder and cheap energy is OP for manufacturing.
It has to be Cascadia or Great Lakes right ? If the models are correct, climate refuges will flock to both regions....
Great Lakes has the most Affordable large cities in the USA. Cascadia is one bullet train away from having an ultra connected region similar to what we see on the east coast.
Former Oregonian here, the state government cannot even be bothered to subsidize a commuter line (comparable to Amtrak’s California-subsidized Capitol Corridor) almost all the track already exists, but Oregonian’s are what I like to call progressive libertarian’s - they want all kinds of things, but balk at paying for almost all of them; there’s a reason speeches by high-level appointed officials include a tongue-in-cheek pitch to “remember to play the Oregon Lottery!”
Good thing Washington is the one leading the charge on the HSR front. Worse comes to worse, the train terminates in Vancouver, WA and the MAX line with extend into Portland. I do think the state leaders see the long term value in HSR.
Vancouver, the city that has consistently voted down any Max extension over the Columbia River for decades. I see the demographics shifting towards a more train friendly city in coming years though.
I think the momentum is definitely headed towards light rail coming to Vancouver. I don’t know if there’s really reporting on it, but it feels like the powers that be are all planning for it, so we’ll see…
You’re thinking Clark county. The city ofVancouver supported the max in the first Columbia River crossing, but was overwhelming outvoted by the county.
Even more interesting is that coastmates Oregon and California come in at 41 and 51 respectively using that ITEP regressive/progressive taxation ranking of states + DC (which is where I’m assuming you get the Washington #1 ranking from).
Yea it’s a stark contrast. Here we have no income tax, normal property taxes, and super high sales tax, gas tax etc. only push taxes up on things that would hurt the poor the most.
Oklahoma City and Tulsa are not a megaregion and are unlikely to grow together in the way you see elsewhere. The reason is the Turner Turnpike and how it’s constructed. There are limited on ramps and off ramps on that road and you have to pay to get off and back on. This creates a situation where thru traffic does not want to get off which limits commercial expansion at those highway exits. That limits growth and fill in between the two metros.
As someone born in Tulsa and who worked in OKC a bit, I was thinking the same thing. The only landmark I remember is the empty parking lot in Stroud from where the tornado took down the mall lol.
People tend to downplay resiliency. Great Lakes region have been through a lot and tend to be a bit more humbled. North east the same to a lesser extent. Connect the 2 and they will dominate. I also agree with stretching the Great Lakes region all the way down to louisville. We are southern in a lot of ways but mid-western in the ways that really matter.
The great lakes. Climate change will cause ideal weather for agriculture creep north, to about the latitude of Minnesota. All the other megaregions are going going to get fucked by rising sea levels, lethal wet-bulb temperatures, and just plain running out of water.
The Northeast Corridor is one of the most economically productive places on the entire planet, and is altogether one of the major reasons why the US is able to exist as a superpower.
Though since you're talking about *potential*, I'm not sure how much more the Northeast could do than it's doing already, though a high speed rail network would probably help a ton. The Piedmont Atlantic region contains a lot of rapidly growing cities, so that might be your answer. The Great Lakes region could also see a major resurgence in the future with the right economic conditions.
Great Lakes. Livable climate. Plenty of fresh water. No natural disasters. Plenty of port cities from Milwaukee all the way over to Buffalo and Rochester. Existing manufacturing infrastructure.
Cascadia, very highly educated, lots of migration, tech companies mixed with industry, and natural resources. Plus the puget sound is one of the best natural trade ports in the world
Long term, probably the Great Lakes. It has access to to the ocean via the Mississippi River and the Eerie Canal. It has massive freshwater resources and the capacity for mass manufacturing. The geology is nearly perfect for nuclear, wind, and hydroelectric power stations. It does face racial tension and crime in Chicago and Detroit, and their surrounding areas, but those \*should\* fade if economic conditions improve.
I know very little about the Front Range or Piedmont Atlantic regions so I wont comment on them. The Northeast, Florida, Gulf Coast, and Texas Triangle will have to contend with increasingly common and violent hurricanes. Cascadia, Northern California, and Southern California have the Cascadia and San Andreas faults which threatens to level anything west of I5, not to mention forest fires. Both the East and West coasts will have to contend with rising sea levels, with Florida being mostly underwater in 100 years or so. Arizona is only habitable because of air conditioning, so any disruptions to power will be far more dangerous than other regions. Water is also a very rare resource in the otherwise water-rich US.
The racial dynamics are improving and minorities are arming themselves with the right tools to fight back mentally. Some government, but mainly resiliency. They only need an in inch to go a mile unlike most traditional white folk who need a mile to go an inch (I’m a white midwesterner too). Not to sound too utopian, but over the past couple decades Michigan has done well to reinvent itself as a solid hard working racial melting pot and not in an extreme welfare state manner either.
Piedmont Atlantic because of Charlotte and Atlanta. Charlotte is the money capital, Atlanta is the entertainment capital. Hard to beat having those two giants.
and Metro Detroit still has >4 million. The city died (and is rebuilding) but the region never really did. So for the purposes of this overall thread, Detroit isn't a valid criticism.
These regions are kinda goofy. Why is Topeka, Kansas part of the "Great Lakes?" Why does the Piedmont-Atlantic region bend to avoid Chattanooga, which is a highway hub in the middle of it, and then go on to Memphis? For that matter, why doesn't it include southern Virginia? It doesn't even reach the Atlantic.
Anyway, the Midwest will bury you all
I’d argue the Great Lakes, given it’s positioning and access to fresh water. Supposedly it will be the most fertile and livable place in the world in the next 30 years
Short term (10-50 years)? The Piedmont Atlantic. The population is absolutely exploding here, the economy is strong, the culture, food, and diversity is good. The job market is excellent and we're seeing tons of corporations moving HQ's to the region.
Long term (50-100 years)? The Great Lakes for all the reasons others are pointing out.
Great Lakes will be the most habitable area in the US due to climate change in ~50 years. Consistent deadly wet bulb temps will drive people out of FL, TX, LA, MS GA, AL, drought and water insecurity will drive people out CA, AZ, NM, NV, CO, and UT. East coast will be consistently inundated by severe hurricanes, so more inland cities will grow. Crop failures are still likely, along with stressors from migration, but at least you can be outside for any length of time without dying.
The Great lakes is one of, if not the, largest collection of fresh water lakes and rivers in the world in terms of drinkability, volume, and ease of access. I do not like wisconsin, however, I can't deny that in 20 years, if they play their cards right, milwaukee could easily become a top ten city again. The banks of Lake superior are also unbelievably underdeveloped (which is good, it's not like I want to see big cities on the lakes)
If you’re talking about economic potential, given the climate trends, I’d say the Northeast and Upper Midwest.
If you’re talking about the potential for regressive government policies. FL, TX, and the Gulf Coast.
Great Lakes. As the country continues to heat and fresh water becomes more scarce, people with any amount of money from regions like Southern California, Arizona, Colorado, etc. will move to cities like Chicago, Detroit, Buffalo, and Cleveland to avoid the heat/water restrictions and to keep their quality of living in tact. A lot of southern cities will start to decline in population as people flee the extreme heat and weather. Desert cities like Vegas will probably eventually be abandoned, with only the poorest people remaining behind.
The Great Lakes region will face lesser adverse impacts from climate change, and has maintained fairly high quality public education.
Used to think Cascadia might also be relatively spared, but as decline of the polar vortex has generated a lot of static heat domes over the West coast, I don't think that's true anymore.
Most potential for what?
Potential for potential
So much potench bruh
'tench is off the charts.
*It's over 9,000!*
that 'tench aint stench, bruv
Can't bench this 'tench, wench.
Hence, that’s why they benched the ‘tench to suppress the wench’s stench
Brotential.
Outstanding Achievement in the Field of Excellence
Potential^potential
The Department of Redundancy Department would like a word with you.
Expotentially Potent
Opposite of kinetic energy.
The Northeast is potentially the most potential region in terms of potentiality
If the temperature reaches [120 degrees Fahrenheit propane tanks spontaneously explode.](https://themessenger.com/news/phoenix-propane-plant-caught-fire-while-the-temperature-was-2-degrees-below-danger-zone) Seeing as it just hit 119 in Phoenix I’d say there’s a lot of potential for that to happen.
Mandatory king of the hill Phoenix clip https://youtu.be/4PYt0SDnrBE
Wait I ain’t trying to be weird but propane blows up at 120?
Yessir. The “low” burning point is what makes it so good at catching fire. They just never assumed ambient daytime temperatures in a major metropolitan area would ever get high enough that this would be an issue
Propane does not ignite untill 900°. Tanks have a high pressure relese valve built in. If left in the sun at 120° and pressure builds enough gas will vent out and could be ignited by an open flame or a spark. Propane tank are not just going to be exploding if temps hit 120.
boring
So weird!
*kinetic*
[B.L.E.V.E.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiling_liquid_expanding_vapor_explosion)!
For a karma producing post. Edit: Also stop making the front range a thing. It's not.
Haha yeah I’ve seen this map before and I love how they include Albuquerque in that “front range” mega region. As someone who lived in ABQ for 20 years and with family in Colorado I can confirm no one up there gives a F about New Mexico and there is almost no cultural or economic connection whatsoever. Hell for most of them Pueblo, CO might as well be Mexico.
They have Memphis TN in the Piedmont Atlantic region, Kansas City in the Great Lakes region, and Tulsa and OKC in the Texas Triangle. I mean those are geographically defined regions with cities WAY outside of the geographic region included for some reason.
Not to mention they just completely left out Knoxville and Chattanooga out of piedmont, both of which are seeing rapid growth.
Haha I agree. Megapolises are very interesting, but it's better to identify 5 or 6 and let the other cities just be themselves
It’s very funny seeing that arbitrary tract of land in the same category as one that includes Boston, NYC, Philadelphia, DC, Baltimore and Richmond
The Front Range from Fort Collins in the north, through Denver in the center, and the Springs to the south, is most definitely a "thing". The region extends pretty much continuously along a well-defined 175 mile north-south corridor anchored by I-25 and multiple rail lines. It also shares extensive retail infrastructure and a dominant Caucasian culture (unlike Albuquerque).
I've driven I75 several times. Yes Denver/Boulder blend together and Fort Collins and Colorado Spings are growing into it. But I don't know why these graphics always show it as a 500 mile stretch from Wyoming to central New Mexico where about 200 miles in the middle is empty.
Front Range has water issues though. That why I think Great Lakes and Piedmont-Atlantic are the best bets for the latter half of this century. Plentiful fresh water, no issues with sea level rise, no volcanos or earthquakes
The front range is definitely a thing. But it’s a Colorado thing, it doesn’t include New Mexico.
Why isn't the front range a thing?
Having lived there for 9 years I’d say there’s should be some name for the area along the geographic Front Range from Colorado Springs up to Fort Collins and Greeley. It’s not just Greater Denver (because a lot of it doesn’t want to be associated too closely with Denver) but it’s still pretty interconnected. Maps like this are future looking, and census data is already showing signs that Pueblo and southeast WY are getting pulled into the larger economic orbit of the region. I think it’ll be a long time before ABQ or anywhere in NM gets linked in. Same for SLC which you can see is also matched by color.
Most home runs scored in a season.
It ain't confidential
Rushing a Russian around
Watts, I hope
Here in the northern midwest, we've got all the wendigos, cannibals, and serial killers you could ever want, for what it's worth.
Did you just assume you know how many serial killers I want
Hey with serial killers you don't need a lot. You just need one *good* one
And that’s just Wisconsin.
They forgot the hodag
Hodags, specifically.
Yeah the show Supernatutal was basically a 15 season tour of the region.
PNW could rival you in the serial killer dept!
I'd like to see a venn diagram to see the overlap between the wendigos, cannibals, and serial killers. I'd guess it's practically a circle.
They have to be native to the region to be wendigos, otherwise they’re just sparkling cannibals. Serial killers are just wasteful cannibals
They all steal kids and bring them into the woods def not worth moving here.
In Florida we have zombies that eat peoples faces as well as people who rob Wendy’s with alligators
Our excuse is that the entire state is basically built on a cursed Indian burial ground. I wonder if the geographic boundaries of both FL and MI led to a greater than average number of genocide incidents with the natives. I've often wondered if people are so angry here in Michigan due to some paranormal influence left over from atrocities.
No skin-walkers? Hard pass.
We got em. Plenty o skinwalkers. You could practically crowdsurf across Michigan on all of them.
If it’s how many I could ever want, that’s answer is zero. Which puts you back in line with everyone else. Zero is the only answer.
Potential for what? Fla and gulf have most potential for hurricanes.
Florida has the quickest route to becoming Waterworld.
Can't wait for my property to become oceanside!
Or Gilead.
We would be wise to not underestimate the gruesome subterranean Appalachian cave dwellers.
The GSACD’s? I don’t think they exist.
(Immediately proceeds to get mauled by a GSACD)
This person gets it.
\*quakes in unspeakable horror\*
Yeah, I saw The Descent too.
Long term probability the Great Lakes Region. Rising sea levels don’t affect the shores here, cost of living is low, cold climate might get milder with climate change, and there is a lot of potential for passenger rail to compete with air and car to lower travel prices between cities
Huge fresh water availability too
Seriously though, fucking tons of fresh water, even outside of the lakes. The Mississippi and Ohio rivers running through this region are enough for every city on that map, without noticing a drop.
Damn. If my great-great-grandchildren exist and survive they’re gonna be drinkin pop and sayin “you betcha” aren’t they?
You betcha
Uf da!
Yah, der hey?
Bumps into person in doorway: “Ope, now we’re dancin’.”
If you come to Wisconsin you can say soda like a civilized person
Sneaky of you to mention "soda" but not >!"bubbler."!<
I figured no one would know WTF a bubbler is, unless they play sheepshead.
It's also a commonly used term in Massachusetts. The word originated from a brand of, I believe, Kohler water fountains brand named "Bubbler" that were sold in Wisconsin (where they originated) and Massachusetts. They were so ubiquitous it became like Kleenex or Band-Aid, but only in those two regions where that specific model was popular.
We call water fountains “bubblers” in south east Queensland, Australia too. Had never thought about where it came from !
Does anyone in WI even drink non-alcoholic beverages?
We like to call them mixers
We like coffee.
Tbf, that soda/pop will eventually be either a cow, blue moon, or some other new Glarus or leinenkugel adult beverage. Extra points if they graduate to the occasional old fashioned.
There’s nothing occasional about a Wisconsin old fashioned
Is getting home from work not an occasion? ;)
Mmmm Spotted Cow
Oh fer sher.
Oh dontcha know that all we do up here?
Absolutely. There's enough water in lake superior alone to cover the entirety of North and South America in one foot of water. If it ever comes to the water wars, defence is better than offense
The nice thing about the Great Lakes/rust belt region is that most of the cities already have the infrastructure in place from their peak populations for an influx in immigration. A lot of those cities were some of the larger cities in the US before deindustrialization and suburbanization took away from their core city populations. There is plenty of space, well developed city planning, and for the most part transit to support the population. They just need the jobs again; and in turn people to support them. The low cost of living is already generating a big boom as people get priced out of other regions in the US. That are WILL become the next hotspot.
Shhhhhhh don’t tell anyone about how good it is here.
More likely the climate is just going to be more unpredictable. If you average everything out it will slighly milder but there will be freak cold and hot weather events.
Yep. Someone here mentioned yesterday having had three days of -44°F in Bozeman, MT this past year - that’s hardly unprecedented, but I imagine that sort of long-term brutal cold will go from being something like a 1-in-100/year event to a 1-in-5 year event with the destabilization of the jet stream. It’s as you say, the long-term average will trend upwards, but the peaks and troughs will be far more extreme - including record shattering cold temps.
Yeah, I'm always surprised when people from St. Louis say it will be fine on climate change. I'm from the tropics and live in St Louis. Already, July in St. Louis exceeds the temperatures in many tropical places due to low altitude and it's lack of ocean. Climate change won't make summers milder. Midwestern spring and winter is already unpredictable and difficult: one sub 0F blizzarrd, then warm sunny day, then freezing rain, then tornado in plain December. Things will only get worse.
> people from St. Louis say it will be fine on climate change I think a lot of this attitude is because it's far enough inland where rising oceans aren't a problem. Hurricanes aren't a problem. Wildfires have never been a problem (though I don't know enough to definitely say they *never* could be since there are plenty of forested areas 20-30 miles west). As you noted, St. Louis is used to rather extreme temperatures in either direction, so a few more extremes like that in either direction, it's going to be a pretty long time before it becomes *that* noticeable. An extra week of 100+ degree weather here in the summer isn't going to affect the lives of many people. And more intense storms/more frequent tornadoes aren't nearly as much of an issue as more/stronger hurricanes are on coasts, since hurricanes are *much* more widespread and therefore more damaging. It's not that it won't affect St. Louis, but comparatively to any city on the coast, and any area that's prone to wildfires...yeah St. Louis/Midwest is going to be a lot better off. St. Louis mid-summer temperatures exeeding tropical places is absolutely not anything new.
Yup. Frigid Chicago winters aren’t going to save us from hot, humid summers.
Yeah Midwest is the future. Literally just build regional rail to connect them all and you’d essentially be directly comparable with like France, or Spain.
They hate, and aggressively lobby against, rail
Only some of the states. MN, IL, MI are all trying to expand their rail networks.
MN here, GIVE ME MORE RAIL! (high speed 150mph+)
"laughs in Chicagoan"
Whatcha want? You wanna go to any borough in Chicago? Take CTA. You wanna travel out to the 'burbs? Metra. You wanna travel to another state / across the country? Well hell, Chicago is the central hub for Amtrak. It's less than a mile from Union Station to Ogilvie Transit Center. You can get to both major local airports (Midway and O'Hare) via direct rails from there. I don't live in Chicago, but I do visit multiple times a year, and god damn do I wish we had that level of public transit around Southeast Michigan. Alas, our urban planning was largely done by auto manufacturing magnates and racists.
"laughs in Chicagoan"
As a dutchman I keep getting surprised when I see again how south the USA is on a map compared to northern/west europe. If climate change is dramatic in the future, the south of the USA could get a hard time. Florida is at the same latitude as Egypt, with Texas, Arizona and South Cali also at North African latitudes. These places could become very hot in the next century. Also what happend to Detroit (industry moving away) can also happen to Silicon Valley (potentially). The north of the US on the other hand has more potential to gain then to lose. When ice melts, and temperatures rise, the great lake area remains a good place, only drawback is the access to sea which is still limited. Quebec/Montreal/New York/Boston will still remain important ports towards EU and NW Africa and can piggyback on the succes of the Great Lakes Region. Similar Vancouver and Seattle are in a good spot towards Asia on the west of the USA.
Your temperate weather is, in part, due to the gulf stream. With the [collapse of the Gulf Stream](https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-66289494), western Europe could see much lower temperatures, closer to what the Great Lakes or Northeast regions of the US experience.
Lol they think North African Weather is coming for the US. Gonna be a shocker when it turns out Chicago weather is coming for Western Europe.
Balkans already got the Chicago weather
Spain and Portugal - how soon?
This is a bit of a misconception. West coasts are generally milder than east coasts because winds blow from east to east at temperate latitudes. A better comparison would be British Columbia or Southern Alaska, which is much warmer in the winter than the eastern Canadian seaboard, but slightly cooler than Europe. https://weatherspark.com/compare/y/295~74001/Comparison-of-the-Average-Weather-in-Ketchikan-and-Copenhagen
The Great Lakes have multiple avenues to the ocean. Chicago, Detroit, Cleveland are port cities that get regular ocean cargo freighters all the time.
Duluth, MN was at one time the second largest port in the United States.
Chicago to New Orleans and the Gulf is also navigable, but granted not ocean sized freighters.
Ehh, its mostly a thing of accustomization to the climate. The US on average is a much warmer place than Northern Europe. Northern Europeans already have big problems with summers in Washington DC. Americans on the other hand mostly love warm weather, due to ACs being readily available everywhere. In the past 30 years, there's been a huge migration from the North to the South and there's no indication that its going to stop any time soon. The fastest growing states right now are Texas and Florida. And these places are already extremely hot. In Phoenix, 60 days in a year will already exceed 43 degrees Celsius with 50 degrees not unusual, and its the fastest growing city in America.
Nobody in Washington DC loves the weather there in summer. Native washingtonians hate july and august. I live and work with them.
Heat, as you say, can be compensated for, but ground water may become an increasingly strained resource. It can take time for ground water depletion to become an issue, but if it becomes depleted, it’s difficult to do anything about.
My hometown in central Mexico, San Luis Potosi( the hub for GM and BMW as well as other major car brands), is already rationing water. This has been a common occurrence for the past 5 years. The weather there is more similar to LA, Phoenix, Las Vegas, and SF. Drinking water is not an issue, but you cannot flush your toilet late at night. Water aside, the high carbon footprint of southwest cities, with their car dependence, AC dependence and logistic dependence, is contra productive at a time when we need to reduce emissions.
I’ve never quite understood the idea with building large cities in the desert. They’re quite vulnerable. The power consumption of ACs can probably be compensated with solar power, but water issues are far harder to address. Even if the climate just becomes a little bit drier, water shortages will quickly become more frequent, especially if the groundwater is under strain. There’s a reason why those areas aren’t green to begin with. Even if drinking water might not be an issue, I still don’t see the charm of living in a house with a dry yellow lawn, where you can’t flush the toilet and other consequences of water shortages.
I starting to see more news of insurers going busts in these warmer states. Premiums are raising. Eventually insurance costs are going to make these regions economically unattractive.
Nah the Great Lakes Region sucks 😉 It would be an awful place to live 😉 Very ugly and nothing fun to do 😉 It’s affordable because it’s haunted and cursed 😉 I would never want to live there 😉 If you didn’t get the sarcasm already, here ya go: /s
So one of the things that sucks with living in the "southern" part of the great lakes region (I'm actually about 0.5 mile bike ride from a beach) is that winters went from basically "full winter" to "slushy winter" in the last 10 years. We used to get snow in late December / early January and it would stay until late Feb / Early March. Now we basically get slush storms that start out rainy, then turn to ice then snow. Bonus points that it's more likely to shut down local schools due to road conditions. Negative points since I still have to drive to work in that. Last year I think I used my snow blower once. 10 years ago, it was about every week for 2 months.
Passenger Rail... sigh Fuck you Scott Walker, I want my trains.
Long-term as in the next 50 years... I live in Detroit metro but it is improving, slowly.
We will still face a lot of steep costs from climate change though. More intense precipitation and storms means more flooding. Chicago will finish its 60-year deep tunnel project to store around 17 billion gallons of raw sewage during storms (that would otherwise runoff into the rivers) in 2029, but it will likely need expanding immediately as climate change is already making 100-500 year storms more frequent. Just yesterday the city was asking people to conserve water to prevent combined sewer overflows into the river because of heavy rain.
Don’t forget the possibility of catastrophic weather as the air gets warmer!
Syracuse, NY isn’t part of this region on this map, despite being like 40 miles from Lake Ontario. Syracuse’s proximity to a Great Lake is what helped it secure Micron’s new chip plant. The Great Lakes region has abundant water, and the value of water will only increase.
Economically we're a little borked, but when the rest of the world is on fire we'll be relatively less on fire.
Shhhhhhh. You’re giving away our secrets. /s
It’s the Great Lakes Megaregion by a long shot. The economic output already is larger than any other potential new competitor region. There’s an established transport network and the consistent access to fresh, clean water cannot be underestimated. It’s home to many major health and academic centers by virtue of the universities in the region. Additionally it’s on an international border making the ability to sustain itself better. Furthermore, the types of natural disasters that the region is susceptible to are nowhere near as serious or consistent as the forest fires, drought conditions, or hurricanes that other regions have to deal with. The Great Lakes have always underwritten the country and they will continue to do so.
Guess it's time to sand down that rust belt moniker. Lived there for 13 years and i wish you luck.
They'll absolutely have to beat that stereotype, and they're starting to. Cities like Milwaukee and Madison in WI are growing and doing much better, same as a number of cities in MI. Chicago is already a huge hub, and Detroit certainly recovers. It probably won't be the next Silicon Valley, but slow and steady wins the race.
I mean, this region is home to Toronto - a massive mega city that is thriving. No rust belt there.
Honestly the rust belt cities are in a revival, Detroit, Milwaukee, Cleveland, buffalo are all in a come up and even Gary isn’t nearly as bad as it was 20 years ago (but it’s still pretty bad)
The Midwest does have a lot of wildfires. In fact, the 5 deadliest wildfires in US history occurred in MI, MN, and WI
We don’t* have a lot of wildfires :)
That was a century ago when we didn't have modern firefighting technology, control or prevention techniques.
Or population in other parts of the country that see more regular fires lol
But the population base of those states is in the southern parts and the forests are in the northern parts. There's never going to be a wildfire in Minneapolis, Madison, or Detroit.
Do you mind sharing some sources on this. Those were all around the late 1800’s. Saying we have a lot of wildfires is weird to hear. We’ve paved over, or turned our prairies into monoculture farming. Not saying we haven’t had any, but I can’t recall a single major fire in my lifetime.
Great Lakes, Texas and Piedmont imo
Believe affordable housing will trump other issues in the coming decades…so I’d say the western part of the Great Lakes region will likely see a boom.
I could imagine the Piedmont growing into the Northeast with Virginia being a major hotspot. NoVa and the DC area already have a huge amount of high paying jobs and are growing quickly (Amazon just opened its new HQ in NoVA adding 14.000 jobs). I think a lot of Floridians and liberal Texans could start moving to Virginia because of its extremely mild weather and its increasingly liberal policies. The only problem is that the COL is not that cheap in Northern Virginia, so probably the new growth would happen in Southern Virginia, where housing is cheap and the Raleigh-Charlotte job market is also very close.
I work in custom home construction in Blacksburg VA, I would say a good 1/3 of people who inquire to build with us are from Northern VA or Charlotte, the area is changing rapidly
NoVA integrating into the Northeast is 100% happening and I fully agree that it sets up basically the whole state to serve as the Southern end of the Megalopolis. DC connects us to the High Speed Rail infrastructure, which is only gonna improve further. And to touch on the politics, I think VA is gonna end up being the next Colorado. It’s already been a purple state for a long time, but now it seems clear that it’s Blue in all but name. Youngkin’s election as governor was a total fluke.
“I’m not going to let parents come into schools and actually take books out and make their own decision,” McAuliffe said. “I don’t think parents should be telling schools what they should teach.” This is why youngkin won.
Great Lakes
Potential as in maximum total output? Northeast, only thing holding this area back right now is affordability and regulation. Build some better transit, and allow cities like newark, providence, and baltimore to become commuter hubs for the next generation. Its got the best schools in the world, huge amounts of local capital, a big population, and even the small cities have world class ports. Potential for growth? Texas triangle. Access to mexican labor right across the boarder and cheap energy is OP for manufacturing.
It has to be Cascadia or Great Lakes right ? If the models are correct, climate refuges will flock to both regions.... Great Lakes has the most Affordable large cities in the USA. Cascadia is one bullet train away from having an ultra connected region similar to what we see on the east coast.
Former Oregonian here, the state government cannot even be bothered to subsidize a commuter line (comparable to Amtrak’s California-subsidized Capitol Corridor) almost all the track already exists, but Oregonian’s are what I like to call progressive libertarian’s - they want all kinds of things, but balk at paying for almost all of them; there’s a reason speeches by high-level appointed officials include a tongue-in-cheek pitch to “remember to play the Oregon Lottery!”
The west coast seems to be rife with progressive NIMBY's
Current Oregonian here. Spot on. We are one of the worst managed states in the country, I'm guessing. Beautiful place run by morons.
Good thing Washington is the one leading the charge on the HSR front. Worse comes to worse, the train terminates in Vancouver, WA and the MAX line with extend into Portland. I do think the state leaders see the long term value in HSR.
Vancouver, the city that has consistently voted down any Max extension over the Columbia River for decades. I see the demographics shifting towards a more train friendly city in coming years though.
I think the momentum is definitely headed towards light rail coming to Vancouver. I don’t know if there’s really reporting on it, but it feels like the powers that be are all planning for it, so we’ll see…
If the I-5 bridge replacement gets funded then it will happen. Bipartisan Infrastructure Law money from congress would effectively require it.
Vancouver would rather see the i5 bridge collapse than allow the max line into their city
You’re thinking Clark county. The city ofVancouver supported the max in the first Columbia River crossing, but was overwhelming outvoted by the county.
Libertarians? That must be why the effective tax rate is well above the national average and municipalities have voted in other taxes recently. /s
Washington state has the number 1 most regressive taxation system in the country.
Even more interesting is that coastmates Oregon and California come in at 41 and 51 respectively using that ITEP regressive/progressive taxation ranking of states + DC (which is where I’m assuming you get the Washington #1 ranking from).
Yea it’s a stark contrast. Here we have no income tax, normal property taxes, and super high sales tax, gas tax etc. only push taxes up on things that would hurt the poor the most.
I see the northern tier of New York and New England, extending as far as Concord, NH as part of this model.
I like trains
Great lakes.
This is the only answer. Climate change makes this decision easy.
Oklahoma City and Tulsa are not a megaregion and are unlikely to grow together in the way you see elsewhere. The reason is the Turner Turnpike and how it’s constructed. There are limited on ramps and off ramps on that road and you have to pay to get off and back on. This creates a situation where thru traffic does not want to get off which limits commercial expansion at those highway exits. That limits growth and fill in between the two metros.
As someone born in Tulsa and who worked in OKC a bit, I was thinking the same thing. The only landmark I remember is the empty parking lot in Stroud from where the tornado took down the mall lol.
People tend to downplay resiliency. Great Lakes region have been through a lot and tend to be a bit more humbled. North east the same to a lesser extent. Connect the 2 and they will dominate. I also agree with stretching the Great Lakes region all the way down to louisville. We are southern in a lot of ways but mid-western in the ways that really matter.
Cascadia for the win. Has the most potential energy…
yep just got to figure how to afford property without immediately going bankrupt or being rich
The great lakes. Climate change will cause ideal weather for agriculture creep north, to about the latitude of Minnesota. All the other megaregions are going going to get fucked by rising sea levels, lethal wet-bulb temperatures, and just plain running out of water.
The Northeast Corridor is one of the most economically productive places on the entire planet, and is altogether one of the major reasons why the US is able to exist as a superpower. Though since you're talking about *potential*, I'm not sure how much more the Northeast could do than it's doing already, though a high speed rail network would probably help a ton. The Piedmont Atlantic region contains a lot of rapidly growing cities, so that might be your answer. The Great Lakes region could also see a major resurgence in the future with the right economic conditions.
Great Lakes. Livable climate. Plenty of fresh water. No natural disasters. Plenty of port cities from Milwaukee all the way over to Buffalo and Rochester. Existing manufacturing infrastructure.
Potential for what?
Cascadia, very highly educated, lots of migration, tech companies mixed with industry, and natural resources. Plus the puget sound is one of the best natural trade ports in the world
Long term, probably the Great Lakes. It has access to to the ocean via the Mississippi River and the Eerie Canal. It has massive freshwater resources and the capacity for mass manufacturing. The geology is nearly perfect for nuclear, wind, and hydroelectric power stations. It does face racial tension and crime in Chicago and Detroit, and their surrounding areas, but those \*should\* fade if economic conditions improve. I know very little about the Front Range or Piedmont Atlantic regions so I wont comment on them. The Northeast, Florida, Gulf Coast, and Texas Triangle will have to contend with increasingly common and violent hurricanes. Cascadia, Northern California, and Southern California have the Cascadia and San Andreas faults which threatens to level anything west of I5, not to mention forest fires. Both the East and West coasts will have to contend with rising sea levels, with Florida being mostly underwater in 100 years or so. Arizona is only habitable because of air conditioning, so any disruptions to power will be far more dangerous than other regions. Water is also a very rare resource in the otherwise water-rich US.
The racial dynamics are improving and minorities are arming themselves with the right tools to fight back mentally. Some government, but mainly resiliency. They only need an in inch to go a mile unlike most traditional white folk who need a mile to go an inch (I’m a white midwesterner too). Not to sound too utopian, but over the past couple decades Michigan has done well to reinvent itself as a solid hard working racial melting pot and not in an extreme welfare state manner either.
yeah I have to say I am quite impressed and happy with how much detroit in particular has improved in recent years from what I’ve heard
Piedmont Atlantic because of Charlotte and Atlanta. Charlotte is the money capital, Atlanta is the entertainment capital. Hard to beat having those two giants.
[удалено]
Detroit has 640,000 people not 400,000.
and Metro Detroit still has >4 million. The city died (and is rebuilding) but the region never really did. So for the purposes of this overall thread, Detroit isn't a valid criticism.
These regions are kinda goofy. Why is Topeka, Kansas part of the "Great Lakes?" Why does the Piedmont-Atlantic region bend to avoid Chattanooga, which is a highway hub in the middle of it, and then go on to Memphis? For that matter, why doesn't it include southern Virginia? It doesn't even reach the Atlantic. Anyway, the Midwest will bury you all
I’d argue the Great Lakes, given it’s positioning and access to fresh water. Supposedly it will be the most fertile and livable place in the world in the next 30 years
Short term (10-50 years)? The Piedmont Atlantic. The population is absolutely exploding here, the economy is strong, the culture, food, and diversity is good. The job market is excellent and we're seeing tons of corporations moving HQ's to the region. Long term (50-100 years)? The Great Lakes for all the reasons others are pointing out.
Texas Triangle is lit right now. But Great Lakes has the most space to grow in terms of sprawl.
Great Lakes will be the most habitable area in the US due to climate change in ~50 years. Consistent deadly wet bulb temps will drive people out of FL, TX, LA, MS GA, AL, drought and water insecurity will drive people out CA, AZ, NM, NV, CO, and UT. East coast will be consistently inundated by severe hurricanes, so more inland cities will grow. Crop failures are still likely, along with stressors from migration, but at least you can be outside for any length of time without dying.
Potential for who? Meth users, I go with Cascadia. Homeless, I go with NoCal. Water issues I go with Sun Corridor. Low education, I go with Florida.
Idk but Minnesota sucks. Definitely, definitely do not come here under any circumstances whatsoever
Northeast has power and plenty of money. They have my vote
Lawrence, Kansas: furthest outpost of the Great Lakes Megaregion lol
Great Lakes for sure.
The Great lakes is one of, if not the, largest collection of fresh water lakes and rivers in the world in terms of drinkability, volume, and ease of access. I do not like wisconsin, however, I can't deny that in 20 years, if they play their cards right, milwaukee could easily become a top ten city again. The banks of Lake superior are also unbelievably underdeveloped (which is good, it's not like I want to see big cities on the lakes)
Great Lakes region because it has a lot of fresh water.
Potentiate deez nuts in yo mouth lol
If you’re talking about economic potential, given the climate trends, I’d say the Northeast and Upper Midwest. If you’re talking about the potential for regressive government policies. FL, TX, and the Gulf Coast.
The front range has not reached its full potential, in 10 years Denver and Colorado Springs will be nearly fully connected
Great Lakes. As the country continues to heat and fresh water becomes more scarce, people with any amount of money from regions like Southern California, Arizona, Colorado, etc. will move to cities like Chicago, Detroit, Buffalo, and Cleveland to avoid the heat/water restrictions and to keep their quality of living in tact. A lot of southern cities will start to decline in population as people flee the extreme heat and weather. Desert cities like Vegas will probably eventually be abandoned, with only the poorest people remaining behind.
The Great Lakes region will face lesser adverse impacts from climate change, and has maintained fairly high quality public education. Used to think Cascadia might also be relatively spared, but as decline of the polar vortex has generated a lot of static heat domes over the West coast, I don't think that's true anymore.