Five Lost Cities Of The Future
Continuing our theme of lost cities, news editor Ben Ray explores five American cities, which in the distant future could be reclaimed by nature.
Image from oshcan on Flickr
The concept of a lost city has always astounded me, not because I don’t see how you can simply let a civilization dry up, but because I realize that in several hundred years, there will be anthropologists of that age looking at the ruins of whatever modern encampment didn’t quite work out, and asking the same questions we now ask about the Maya, or the Inca, or any other ruins we stumble upon with little explanation.
With that thought in mind, and the coming climate change, what cities are most likely to be abandoned and raising questions?
5. Atlanta
Image from coka koehler
We may have gotten a preview of the untenable expansion the capital city of the south has undertaken with the drought that dominated 2007, and will be felt through 2008 despite above-average rainfall so far. Being located in an area that is far away from any large water source may eventually force Atlanta to scale back, and climate change, as it takes hold, will only complicate matters, transforming the greenest city in America into a semi-desert environment.
4. Miami
Image from Mr. Clean 1982 on Flickr
Atlanta won’t have enough water– Miami might be inundated. With much of the city at sea level, and already in a swampy condition with a high water table, the ground is poised to disappear from under the proud home of Crockett and Tubbs if the oceans begin to rise. Of course, this is the sort of phenomenon that normally takes place after endless amounts of time. Everybody will get out, but it’s possible that Miami will be a future Atlantis - a legend beneath the sea.
3. Detroit
Image from MiRea on Flickr
Detroit is the lone city on this list that’s already in the process of becoming ruins– over fifty percent of the city’s peak population has already moved away, and vast areas of the city have been demolished to hide the occupancy issues posed by this economic tragedy. Obviously there’s hope in radically paring down and repackaging the city, but the possibility of success is yet to be seen.
2. New Orleans
Image from *Toshio* on Flickr
New Orleans, of course, already had one brush with death, and we know Amsterdam has been fine for centuries while existing below sea level–so why is the Big Easy included on this list? New Orleans, unfortunately, has yet to fully recover from the Katrina-inflicted blows, and the concern here is that if a large-scale disaster were to strike again, that the city would simply be left for ruins, tradition and culture or no.
1. Las Vegas
Image from ::Topher:: on Flickr
Sin city, the shining beacon of fun (that your mother wouldn’t approve of) actually happens to be in the midst of a drought so bad that it makes Atlanta’s pale in comparison. The city government is actually paying residents to take grass out of their yards, and writing tickets to people that water their lawn. The Las Vegas aquifer has dried up, and Lake Meade can’t support the demand of this tourist-heavy metropolis, leaving it asking very hard questions about sustainability.
If you have any American cities, that you feel could become wastelands in the future, please let us know and we might do a follow-up post.
Environmental Graffiti is up for four bloggers’ choice awards. You can vote for us for best entertainment blog, best blog of all time, best geek blog and best animal blogger.
If you want to find out all the latest news on the environment, why not subscribe to our RSS feed? We’ll even throw in a free album.
Comments
95 Responses to “Five Lost Cities Of The Future”
-
Ch'Biitoo
Posted: Apr 16th, 2008 at 7:27 pm1Reply to this comment.Detroit City has lost half it’s population, but metro-Detroit is bigger than ever - don’t forget that distinction.
The city of Detroit is in terrible condition mainly because of race issues and the flight to suburbia.
Ironically, as gas prices rise, if they can get the race/corruption issues out of the way, Detroit may rise again as suburbanites re-colonize the city. So I would put it in there as a city that will be re-born! Possibly with refugees from Vegas.
-
dnreply
Posted: Apr 16th, 2008 at 7:40 pm2Reply to this comment.What about LA sinking into the sea?
Or how about
Every city will be lost in the future because nothing is permanent
Or perhaps you could consider things that could change that tide.
For example in detroit you could note that rising gas prices as well as youth getting over racism could increase the population in the city. Or maybe global warming which will make our weather more enjoyable to all of the people force out of atlanta.
-
earthsciencestudent
Posted: Apr 16th, 2008 at 8:25 pm3Reply to this comment.Los Angeles, CA. Same reasons as Las Vegas and Atlanta.
LA pumps in water from the Colorado, two states away.
Talk of unsustainability. -
Ben
Posted: Apr 16th, 2008 at 8:38 pm4Reply to this comment.Wow, I was aware that LA used the aqueduct, but had no idea that the source was in Colorado– that definitely gets it a spot on the list. Consider hopefully-evolving Detroit to get the reprieve.
Then again, at least LA has a pipe to get it in– Atlanta doesn’t have that much. -
Andrew
Posted: Apr 16th, 2008 at 8:47 pm5Reply to this comment.I read something a while ago making this prediction about Perth, Australia which is subject to droughts that may be becoming more frequent.
-
Ashley
Posted: Apr 16th, 2008 at 8:56 pm6Reply to this comment.I have doubts about Phoenix - my home city.
Sure we have pretty sweet water rights from the Colorado right now, but that might not last forever. Also, after another couple hundred years people will probably start asking why it makes sense to live in a geographically isolated area of the Sonoran desert where the usual summer temp is around 110 degrees. On the flip side, Phoenix is the perfect place to generate solar power so maybe that will be a future incentive.
-
Luther
Posted: Apr 16th, 2008 at 9:04 pm7Reply to this comment.It’s not really pumped, per se. It comes from the Colorado river.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorado_River -
Peter
Posted: Apr 16th, 2008 at 9:11 pm8Reply to this comment.Arizona Bay :D
-
sammy
Posted: Apr 16th, 2008 at 9:23 pm9Reply to this comment.Actually, the source of LA’s water is not the state of Colorado, but the Colorado River, which forms its southeastern border with Arizona.
-
Mike
Posted: Apr 16th, 2008 at 9:29 pm10Reply to this comment.@earthsciencestudent
You are incorrect, the majority of the water supply in Los Angeles comes from the Central Valley/Sierra Nevada snowmelt. The Colorado river also provides water, but it comes from the river that runs along the California-Arizona border. The state of Colorado provides no water to the city of Los Angeles.
Cite: http://www.answers.com/topic/los-angeles-california?cat=travel
-
???
Posted: Apr 16th, 2008 at 9:34 pm11Reply to this comment.Uhh no… LA gets most of its water from Sierra Nevada mountain range that is 1/3 of California. I bet that it gets some Colorado river water but most of it is for Nevada and Arizona especially. Phoenix is in more danger of running out of water than LA.
Just my point of view. Feel free to criticize me.
-
Jim
Posted: Apr 16th, 2008 at 9:43 pm12Reply to this comment.Detroit City has lost half it’s population, but metro-Detroit is bigger than ever - don’t forget that distinction.
The city of Detroit is in terrible condition mainly because of race issues and the flight to suburbia.
Ironically, as gas prices rise, if they can get the race/corruption issues out of the way, Detroit may rise again as suburbanites re-colonize the city. So I would put it in there as a city that will be re-born! Possibly with refugees from Vegas.Agreed. Economically, the city of Detroit is in a dire straits, but it’s well situated geographically. If the sea levels rise, Miami and New Orleans are screwed. Las Vegas is counting its days, and is probably a fairly good canary-in-the-cave for the rest of the West that relies on the Colorado River. Detroit needs help, but it won’t face the water shortages of the west and south or rising sea levels. Detroit’s economic canvas is probably being wiped clean, and I think regrowth within the city will come eventually.
-
Lou
Posted: Apr 16th, 2008 at 9:49 pm13Reply to this comment.I live in Yooungstown, a rust belt city that is actually taking steps to plan how to best become a ghost town so it can start over.
-
Roy
Posted: Apr 16th, 2008 at 9:52 pm14Reply to this comment.All these cities will be lost in time, like tears in the rain. Time to die.
-
dima
Posted: Apr 16th, 2008 at 9:54 pm15Reply to this comment.buffalo, ny does not have a drought nor inundation problem. from wikipedia “Buffalo and the surrounding area were long involved in railroad commerce, steel manufacture, automobile production, Great Lakes shipping and grain storage. Most of these industries have left the city through the years.”
-
Angelino
Posted: Apr 16th, 2008 at 9:57 pm16Reply to this comment.Los Angeles water supplies come from 3 sources. About half comes from the Eastern side of the Sierra, another 40% comes, in varying amounts, from the Western side of the Sierra (with which the city competes with Central Valley farmers and Delta smelt) and from the Colorado, and about 10% is local.
Still probably not sustainable, since there is evidence that all three sources have simultaneously experienced 500 year droughts in the past.
-
Edward
Posted: Apr 16th, 2008 at 9:58 pm17Reply to this comment.providing enough water is always a challenge, but I don’t see how that would cause a city to cease to exist, only that the price of water there would go up and perhaps incentivise some people to move away, but not all because then demand would drop back again.
As for the oceans rising, they’ve been rising at a rate of 20cm a century for thousands of years now, and yet it’s never been a giant issue for any city. Even Venice has its problems because it drains the water table beneath it, not because the oceans are rising dramatically. Compound that with the fact that Antarctica’s ice mass is growing, where 90% of the world’s land ice resides, and rising oceans really becomes a near non-issue.
-
Jack
Posted: Apr 16th, 2008 at 10:01 pm18Reply to this comment.LA gets >some ofRiver<. The river runs right along the California-Arizona border. But it is just one source for LA, the other major ones are the Owens Valley aqueduct (mostly just for LA city proper) and the California State aqueduct that comes from all over the state, and services the central valley and all of southern California. And LA also gets a decent amount from local ground water. Las Vegas and Phoenix are FAR more reliant on the Colorado River than LA. Heck, until just the last couple of years, San Diego was more reliant on the Colorado River than LA.
If either the Colorado or the Owens Valley aqueducts were shut off, LA would survive. It might hurt (especially in a drought), but it would not be a death blow. Las Vegas, Phoenix, and probably Palm Springs would be in deep doo-doo if they lost the Colorado. Not to mention the agriculture in the Coachella Valley.
BTW, Las Vegas is building pipelines to northern Nevada to get a new water feed.
-
Brian Gordon
Posted: Apr 16th, 2008 at 10:07 pm19Reply to this comment.Phoenix and Tucson are likely to be in big trouble as water supplies dry up and conditions get hotter. I lived in Phoenix, and it’s a totally car-based city. Where I could see Detroit recovering as the downtown core is revitalized, I can’t see that happening in Phoenix. 3 million people in the desert, where all water comes from far away. On the bright side, they certainly have the means to create unlimited solar power….
-
Scott
Posted: Apr 16th, 2008 at 10:10 pm20Reply to this comment.Well, LA always has the Pacific to desalinate. Not economically efficient, but technology will probably cure that.
Memphis/St. Louis if the New Madrid fault ever goes. Though it may be rebuilt since it wouldn’t be a recurring problem. Same could be said for San Francisco, LA, or Portland if you ever see an 8.5+ magnitude earthquake out there.
-
Posted: Apr 16th, 2008 at 10:11 pm21Reply to this comment.Edit..
The first line of that last post should say…
LA gets >some ofRiver<. -
Sean Mulholland
Posted: Apr 16th, 2008 at 10:20 pm22Reply to this comment.The source is the Colorado *River* - not Colorado the state. The rive actually runs along the California border with Arizona.
-
anon
Posted: Apr 16th, 2008 at 10:25 pm23Reply to this comment.earthsciencestudent and Ben,
please go look at a map. the Colorado river forms the border between California and Arizona. You may also want to go check out Mulholland and his Los Angeles Aqueduct. Yea, that guy really f’d over what was once the beautiful and lush Owen’s valley.
-
matt
Posted: Apr 16th, 2008 at 10:26 pm24Reply to this comment.Atlanta would be fine if they didn’t have to release all their water for Florida and Alabama. Lake Lanier gets a small percentage from the runoff of the basin it is located in, yet provides the majority of water storage for cities and downstream. If the drought continues, more reservoirs will probably be built. But it probably won’t. The only difference in a rainy vs non rainy year for Atlanta is whether or not a hurricane or tropical depression comes through. One storm dropping 10 - 15 inches of rain last fall would have filled everything back up. It’s been a few years now since we had one, so hopefully we get one this year. It’s funny to blame it on global warming though. Last year the media said there would be tons of hurricanes due to global warming. There weren’t, and when we didn’t get enough rain, that was blamed on global warming.
-
Matt
Posted: Apr 16th, 2008 at 10:34 pm25Reply to this comment.If you’re going to talk about cities on the Colorado, you may as well include Phoenix on the list.
In the case of LA, it may take the idea San Diego is using and start on Desalinization. If thats the case, it may not fall off quite so soon.
-
pingback:
Posted: Apr 16th, 2008 at 11:28 pm26Lost Cities of the Future | Urban Planning BlogReply to this comment.[…] have crumbled either due to onslaught of natural disasters or gradual shift in economic trends. Environmental Graffiti takes a look at 5 such cities in the United States that may be endangered. Like before, climate change and changing economies […]
-
Jen
Posted: Apr 16th, 2008 at 11:28 pm27Reply to this comment.What about that huge earthquake that is supposed to hit San Fransisco any day now? The last time they got hit by an earthquake (in the 20’s), half the city was destroyed by the resulting fire.
-
tom totem
Posted: Apr 16th, 2008 at 11:29 pm28Reply to this comment.San Francisco? The big one is due by 2010 (my money’s on April 19 2009 in the office pool)
-
Gulag
Posted: Apr 16th, 2008 at 11:36 pm29Reply to this comment.Almost all modern cities will not exist in the future, (without mankind to keep them from breaking down). The materials that most buildings are constructed from break down quite quickly. After a few hundred years, only buildings made of stone/brick/etc. will still be standing, the rest having crumbled to dust.
-
daretoeatapeach
Posted: Apr 16th, 2008 at 11:46 pm30Reply to this comment.Great idea for a post!
The points about L.A. are right on plus a recent geological survey concluded that there is a 99% chance of a catastrophic earthquake in California in the next thirty years and L.A. is the most likely place for it.I don’t know about Atlanta. It is one of the fastest growing cities for a reason. It developed as a hub between all the smaller cities of the South. As long as those Southern cities still exist Atlanta will not become a ghost town. They do have a river, at least.
Much of Florida would already be under water if they weren’t dragging sand out of the ocean and dumping it on the shore.
This is fun to think about. I imagine some of the cities in Texas and Arizona that aren’t near water. They’re already having sever drought. -
Posted: Apr 16th, 2008 at 11:48 pm31Reply to this comment.Oops! Sorry about the bold. I was going for paragraph breaks.
I understand that you are merely writing what you know but you should consider maybe adding the word “American” to the headline here as it comes off a little ethnocentric.
-
Tavis
Posted: Apr 16th, 2008 at 11:52 pm32Reply to this comment.Not so much a city, but my home Cape Cod is always in danger of being demolished through rising sea levels, hurricanes, and erosion, particularly us people out at the end.
-
elissaf
Posted: Apr 17th, 2008 at 12:53 am33Reply to this comment.NYC: It wouldn’t take long for NYC to fall apart in the absence of electricity. It relies on pumps for removing water from the subway system, pumps for purifying water and lifting water for sanitation above the 3rd floor in any building.
The sanitation problem would be so great that after a week, people would flee.
-
Ernie
Posted: Apr 17th, 2008 at 1:02 am34Reply to this comment.Las Vegas is already looking more and more like Barter Town. I just hope Master Blaster lets me keep my job tending pigs.
-
Obbop
Posted: Apr 17th, 2008 at 1:05 am35Reply to this comment.What about the aspect of the MILLIONS of invading illegal aliens bringing with them a cultural capable only of creating the cesspool that is Mexico?
The barbarians are not assimilating. Their 2nd-world at best culture will alter any area where their horde of fast-breeding people settle, altering that area into a facsimile of what they left behind.
Cultural devestation can be quicker than environmental disaster.
-
grady
Posted: Apr 17th, 2008 at 1:16 am36Reply to this comment.Lubbock texas. It is practically a wasteland already
-
Rob
Posted: Apr 17th, 2008 at 2:12 am37Reply to this comment.Surely somewhere like LA would start to invest really heavily in desalination plants if the water problem continues to get worse (and it will).
There has to be a point there where the cost/benefit of massive desalination plants from the ocean are used to supply coastal cities.
Not a cheap option (although the technology keeps improving), but neither is abandoning a city.Of course, when California has the big earthquake that everyone is waiting for, the whole question will be moot, because LA will be totally underwater anyway.
-
DirtyAddictedGamblingAddict
Posted: Apr 17th, 2008 at 2:29 am38Reply to this comment.Vegas? Soon to be a lost city?
NOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!
-
Posted: Apr 17th, 2008 at 2:32 am39Reply to this comment.“Every city will be lost in the future because nothing is permanent”
Like Jerusalem, and Beirut and Athens…
-
B
Posted: Apr 17th, 2008 at 2:40 am40Reply to this comment.“5 Lost cities of the future - In the US” it should have been written! what about cities in other parts of the world? Osaka-Kobe, Tokyo, Amsterdam (Netherlands), Rotterdam (Netherlands),Dhaka (Bangladesh), Guangzhou (China), Ho Chi Minh City (Vietnam), Shanghai (China), Bangkok (Thailand), Rangoon (Myanmar) and Hai Phong (Vietnam)? (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22099668/)
-
Jake Jackson
Posted: Apr 17th, 2008 at 3:11 am41Reply to this comment.Re: Ben:
—
Wow, I was aware that LA used the aqueduct, but had no idea that the source was in Colorado– that definitely gets it a spot on the list. Consider hopefully-evolving Detroit to get the reprieve.
—Not Colorado. *The* Colorado, as in the river that separates California and Arizona. Piping water from this distance is bad enough, piping it from the state of Colorado would be absurd.
-
Anon
Posted: Apr 17th, 2008 at 4:11 am42Reply to this comment.thankfully the rest of the world cities will survive…. I’m so moving to Venice now.
-
Jeremy
Posted: Apr 17th, 2008 at 4:13 am43Reply to this comment.I live in Atlanta and there’s no question it’s at the breaking point.
The metro population is projected to double by 2017 and there is no way in hell the Chattahoochee river — or Atlanta’s physical infrastructure, with commuters facing 2 hour a day commutes — can support that.
The pictures of Lake Powell and Lake Mead, the water sources for the whole Southwest and Las Vegas, respectively, are pretty staggering. Water levels are so low that some estimates say a 10 year wet period would be needed to restore them; which is about as likely as turning a fistful of dollars into a fortune in Vegas.
Speaking of pictures — I am interested in how you are doing image resizing. Are you using a script/plugin, or resizing by hand, or is there a flickr size that happens to fit your blog so nicely?
Jeremy
-
David
Posted: Apr 17th, 2008 at 4:34 am44Reply to this comment.LA gets much of its water from the Colorado RIVER, which borders CA and AZ. Although not two states away, it’s still a problem.
-
mclaren
Posted: Apr 17th, 2008 at 6:41 am45Reply to this comment.You forgot Phoenix AZ. A colossal ruin waiting to happen. Much worse drought than Las Vegas and it’s growing by leaps and bounds. There’s gonna be a trainwreck within the next few years, and the crash will be spectacular. If global warming continues, expect Phoenix to become a ghost town within another 15 years.
The comment about Los Angeles is also dead on. Not only the water situation, but when gas prices punch up through $4 per gallon later this year and hit $10 per gallon within the next 5 years, you’ll see how unsustainable this city really is. Burning $50 worth of gasoline just to go shopping for $70 worth of groceries is the very definition of “unsustainable.”
Phoenix and HelL.A. compete for the same water with Califronia’s central valley — all from the Colorado River. Trouble is, CA’s central valley generates 30% of the state’s income because of the farming. Both Phoenix and HelL.A. are going to have to depopulate over the next 20 years. In fact, the entire Southwestern part of the United States will have to depopulate as we head toward $1000-a-barrel oil and global warming desertification.
-
Breezy
Posted: Apr 17th, 2008 at 9:59 am46Reply to this comment.Hm, glad I’m on the other side of the pond - sounds like the US is headed for doom time!
-
Golden Boy
Posted: Apr 17th, 2008 at 4:00 pm47Reply to this comment.All this talk of sustainability ignores the one major cause of unsustainability: government. What is the cause of the ruin of Detroit and Buffalo? Government. What is causing the water supply problems in the south? Government. Who ran the levies that protected New Orleans? Government. What is the cause of the boom in environmentally deadly places like Las Vegas, Pheonix and Dubai? Freedom from government.
Sustainability is first of all a government issue: get rid of it.
-
tinnica
Posted: Apr 17th, 2008 at 5:34 pm48Reply to this comment.I can’t belive this…. I’M CRYING………………….
-
Anti Oil Jihadi
Posted: Apr 17th, 2008 at 6:31 pm49Reply to this comment.You people are fools. If vegas and LA run low on water we’ll switch to nuclear powered desalination. LA will export water to vegas if necessary.
death to oil www.oiljihad.org
-
Matt
Posted: Apr 17th, 2008 at 6:31 pm50Reply to this comment.Here’s one. Chicago and most of northern illinois. Most people dont know that the great lakes especially Lake Michigan were created by enormous glaciers. When they melted and dispersed it took a huge amount of weight off of the crust beneath it. Slowly but surely the crust is rebounding in a process referred to as Isostasy. Its pushing down on a pool toy, when the pressure is taken off it shoots back up. But this all happens on the geologic time scale. So it rises a few centimeters a year. The prediction is that this will cause cities like Chicago to become flooded.
-
Charles
Posted: Apr 17th, 2008 at 6:36 pm51Reply to this comment.Vegas’ drought is getting bad, and some of us are dumb enough to stay. The water district just pushed through an increase in monthly charges, which in my case means my monthly usage is going from $17 to $20. When you have two trees and a half dozen shrubs, low flow toilets, and efficient appliances, you really can get by. Community parks are popular, and the grasses that are sold down here are drought resistant strains. Hey, at least I don’t have to mow a lawn. But, the reliance on Lake Mead is being looked at in the way of building a water pipeline from northern Nevada down to the Vegas area. The Southern Nevada Water District has been buying ranch properties up north at above market value…each property includes all water rights…so within 10 years, the valley could be importing water from another source. Oh sure, we’ll have expensive as hell water, but one little upside is that the water that comes from up north might not be tainted with exotic fuels and other shit that’s in Lake Mead.
-
Court
Posted: Apr 17th, 2008 at 6:40 pm52Reply to this comment.I was surprised Memphis wasn’t on that list. It’s overdue for a massive earthquake. Last time that fault gave way, it created the worst earthquake in the history of the United States. The bedrock makes it far worse than anything California can whip up.
-
Schenn
Posted: Apr 17th, 2008 at 6:44 pm53Reply to this comment.Peoria, IL. An overgrown farmers town with a negative population growth
-
mayor neo
Posted: Apr 17th, 2008 at 6:45 pm54Reply to this comment.I live in Yooungstown, a rust belt city that is actually taking steps to plan how to best become a ghost town so it can start over.
Check out this article from CnnMoney from just last week:
I live in Yooungstown, a rust belt city that is actually taking steps to plan how to best become a ghost town so it can start over.
Check out this article from CnnMoney from just last week:
I live in Yooungstown, a rust belt city that is actually taking steps to plan how to best become a ghost town so it can start over.
Check out this article from CnnMoney from just last week:
Just shut off the utilities and stop collecting garbage. It didn’t take 4000+ years of mayor experience in sim city 4 to figure that out.
-
mb
Posted: Apr 17th, 2008 at 6:48 pm55Reply to this comment.What about Dubai when the oil runs out?
-
NateD
Posted: Apr 17th, 2008 at 6:56 pm56Reply to this comment.“Cultural devastation can be quicker than environmental disaster.”
I’m happily surprised to see Detroit on the list. GB, I don’t think government alone bears the blame for the city’s problems.
I fled the city not because of the corrupt council or the current mayor, but because it was a cesspool. There are good people in the city, but there are so many people that would steal from their own family let alone their neighbors, that I don’t want my kids to grow up anywhere near the city. Those people support the city government and continue to elect those same types of people.
The city looks like a wasteland already compared the suburbs besides the few high profile (and high security) business areas. I hope it doesn’t die, just so those people don’t move out and cause more of the surrounding areas to collapse.
-
Omega
Posted: Apr 17th, 2008 at 6:58 pm57Reply to this comment.Pshh youre all wrong. In Los angeles we get our water from fiji.. comes in square bottles and everything!
-
ANNA
Posted: Apr 17th, 2008 at 7:05 pm58Reply to this comment.I’m just happy New York isn’t one of the five cities…. Or is it?
-
Bay Area
Posted: Apr 17th, 2008 at 7:07 pm59Reply to this comment.@court
dude, I live on the Hayward fault in Oakland, CA. First, there was an article published in the SF Chron. a couple days ago saying that a massive quake is due in the next 30 years on one of the faults in the immediate area. When I say massive, I mean over 6.5, sky’s the limit. I haven’t heard anything about an imminent quake in Memphis, although I am somewhat familiar with that fault line. Second, and more importantly, bedrock is GOOD if you have a quake. Bedrock is the most solid ground, shakes the least. What you don’t want is loose soil or landfill, which is what a huge amount of land in this area, including almost half of the city of Alameda (borders Oakland), is sitting on. Get your facts straight. That said, I have heard theories about a massive quake on the San Andreas splitting a piece of CA from Baha up to north of the Bay Area off from the coast, creating a large island that would eventually sink. Bye bye, SF, LA, maybe SD? and all between. I thought that would make the list.
-
Chewy
Posted: Apr 17th, 2008 at 7:11 pm60Reply to this comment.Fiji is awesome, lol
-
Jon
Posted: Apr 17th, 2008 at 7:15 pm61Reply to this comment.San Francisco? The big one is due by 2010 (my money’s on April 19 2009 in the office pool)
You weren’t watching the 1989 World Series on TV, were you? ;)
-
Posted: Apr 17th, 2008 at 7:16 pm62Reply to this comment.Sorry, quoted the wrong thing in my previous comment. I meant to quote the poster who said San Francisco’s last major earthquake was in the 1920s.
-
DNA
Posted: Apr 17th, 2008 at 7:18 pm63Reply to this comment.I’m afraid every American city will be in trouble when China starts dropping the nukes.
-
Bob
Posted: Apr 17th, 2008 at 7:19 pm64Reply to this comment.What about Dubai when the oil runs out?
Actually, the nature of Dubai is specifically about surviving when the oil runs out. It’s not merely a place to spend lots of money, but to make it, too. Smart countries like UAE have gotten into financial services, investments, tourism, entertainment, and resorts in a big way, precisely as a way of having major industries to replace the oil revenue. They know full well that oil is not forever, so they designed Dubai as an economic engine for the era after the oil money is spent.
Now, this does not account for what might happen if sea levels rise and Dubai goes underwater. They seem to have a lot of land right down at the ocean.
-
neo
Posted: Apr 17th, 2008 at 7:23 pm65Reply to this comment.Hm, glad I’m on the other side of the pond - sounds like the US is headed for doom time!
I’m glad Im on this side of the pond where I can piss in public, blow through a red light and hit 160 KPH on the freeway without a CCTV camera watching everything. Freedom its great remember…
-
mactrigger
Posted: Apr 17th, 2008 at 7:27 pm66Reply to this comment.Do not forget NEW YORK! Why?
I saw 2 historia channel docu about it!
If a Tornado from the south derive up north! And it will happen! -
gullagulla
Posted: Apr 17th, 2008 at 7:51 pm67Reply to this comment.@Bay Area - the problem is Memphis has no bedrock. Memphis is built upon clay and an ancient sand aquifer.
-
Michael Lonergan
Posted: Apr 17th, 2008 at 8:01 pm68Reply to this comment.Nah, you American’s have nothing to worry about. When your water starts running out, you’ll do what you’ve always done… invade a country that has lots, killing hundreds of thousands of innocent people, all the while claiming they were a threat to you with their weapons of mass destruction. Hmmmm, Canada has lots of water, and they do have highly trained beavers working on secret military projects…
-
Nancy
Posted: Apr 17th, 2008 at 8:02 pm69Reply to this comment.Scientist are keeping a very close watch on the cities that lie around the base of Mt. Rainier in Washington state. Some of these cities include Orting, Sumner, Ashford, Elbe, Packwood, Randle, and Greenwater. Even Tacoma could be damaged. Now, we’re not talking destroyed by lava flows, rather the danger is landslides. When (not if) Rainier blows, large amounts of snow will melt off the mountain overfilling rivers. These “lahars” moving at high speeds will quickly bury towns in their paths. Say good-bye to these quiet bedroom communities.
And to think, despite this I’m moving to Seattle in a few months…
For more info see this great article: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/mountsthelens/rain12.shtml
-
Thorn
Posted: Apr 17th, 2008 at 8:07 pm70Reply to this comment.NY City pumps it’s water in from distant mountains as well, the one currently in use is drying up so they are in the process of making new ones. This of course does not sit well with the people “upstate” who would like to keep their resources and their mountains pure and untainted.
History:
http://people.hofstra.edu/charles_merguerian/Abstracts%20and%20Papers/CM2000c.htmCurrent:
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/earth/1484317.html -
peters
Posted: Apr 17th, 2008 at 8:26 pm71Reply to this comment.I’m afraid every American city will be in trouble when China starts dropping the nukes.
Wow… At what point did you forget we’re in bed with China for the foreseeable future? Our fates are twined my uneducated commenter. Again… you’re uneducated fears astound me.
-
Luccia
Posted: Apr 17th, 2008 at 8:27 pm72Reply to this comment.I briefly lived in Las Vegas a few years ago. There was a massive suburban sprawl building boom going on that only recently has slowed down. I told my friend who has lived there for over a decade that it didn’t make sense to keep building without enough water for all the people. She said it was no problem since they had all the water behind Hoover Dam and it would last forever.
Both Lakes Powell and Mead are continuing to experience lowering water levels. The aquifer under Las Vegas is drying up. The lakes are drying up. There won’t be water one day at the current rates.
Here in Arizona, the governor tried to pass legislation that housing developments had to prove there was a sustainable water source for the people expected to live in the new houses. It was shot down after a few calls from developers reminding legislators how much they had contributed to their campaigns. Someday in the not-too-distant future, there will not be enough water for the insane sprawl around Phoenix. Yes, being a great location for solar electricity generation may allow the city to exist, but now many people are needed to be sure the computers keep the mirrors pointed at sun?
Vegas may well empty out one day after the water’s gone. But, Phoenix’s status as state capital may keep it alive, but at really decreased levels.
-
Mike Machlin
Posted: Apr 17th, 2008 at 8:37 pm73Reply to this comment.New York.
After taking out loans in the 80’s just as a bank would do, and getting a huge bailout, all while incorporating it’s self. The Corporation of the City of New York is still hopelessly in debt. Inevitably the interest on the loans will become too hard to handle.
Forget a natural disaster, imagine the impact of the country’s biggest city starving to death.
Mass Migration = Dead City. Plain and Simple.
-
Darryl
Posted: Apr 17th, 2008 at 8:38 pm74Reply to this comment.buffalo, ny does not have a drought nor inundation problem. from wikipedia “Buffalo and the surrounding area were long involved in railroad commerce, steel manufacture, automobile production, Great Lakes shipping and grain storage. Most of these industries have left the city through the years.”
Buffalo and Detroit have a surplus of available water being along the great lakes, but the high taxes and crappy weather of both cities is killing them off.
-
Posted: Apr 17th, 2008 at 8:39 pm75Reply to this comment.What about Dubai when the oil runs out?
I was hoping someone would mention Dubai. Oil may be a big part of their current growth, but they’re trying hard to make it more economically sustainable. Tourism will be a big part of it, and importing/exporting businesses, from what I can tell. But there are things in their future that will cripple them… 80% of the people living there, based on hearsay, are temporary workers. How will the economy handle it when the buiding slows? Maybe there will be a housing glut like Miami’s, but much, much worse.
Personally, I think they’re screwed.
-
ROIU
Posted: Apr 17th, 2008 at 8:40 pm76Reply to this comment.well if u would take care of ur cities and envirement some of those things could be prevented. But no… u are more concerned to push ur nose into someone elses business around the world
-
nunya
Posted: Apr 17th, 2008 at 9:08 pm77Reply to this comment.Too bad the oceans aren’t warming. Guess that means Miami and Atlanta can stay where they are and you jackasses can find a new something to fuel your hysteria and genocidal hatred of humans.
-
Jason
Posted: Apr 17th, 2008 at 9:52 pm78Reply to this comment.What about Honolulu?
I lived there for a few years and that city is in definite trouble. Waikiki is actually built in a Swamp. They built the Ala Wai Canal to funnel the water to the ocean. Without the Ala Wai, Waikiki would be a swamp today. If a hurricane hits there, that city is toast…if the water level rises, that city is toast. So in the larger spectrum - that city is doomed.
-
Jared Lorz
Posted: Apr 17th, 2008 at 9:59 pm79Reply to this comment.Patently absurd. The Aquifer has not dried up in Vegas, Sea Levels are predicted to continue to drop over the next century so Miami and New Orleans will be fine, Vegas has the money to create a water pipeline anywhere so if it comes to it the Casinos will pay for it.
As for Detroit and Atlanta, I really have no information on the status, I don’t go to those places so I’m unfamiliar and unable to comment.
P.S.
Drinking out of the Aquifer right now from my Aunt’s well, for anyone who wants to argue with me.
-
phil
Posted: Apr 17th, 2008 at 10:09 pm80Reply to this comment.The water issue isn’t really an issue. Water is a renewable resource. Just capture and reuse it. And fix all the leaky pipes. The city of Denver loses 37% of it’s water supply from leaky lines.
The other piece of the solution is the US needs to move away from growing crops in desert areas. It’s more efficient to quit supporting these areas and moving them to wetter states. Agriculture irrigation uses 80% of the water in dry states (Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, etc)
-
Mike Davis
Posted: Apr 17th, 2008 at 10:18 pm81Reply to this comment.Phoenix’s status as state capital may keep it alive, but at really decreased levels.
The state capital used to be in Prescott, we could move it back.
-
norm
Posted: Apr 17th, 2008 at 10:38 pm82Reply to this comment.noting Post #3,
I agree, LA should be Top 5, and I disagree on the criteria used to select some of the cities chosen.
A highlight of each the criteria used to select each city is as follows.
Atlanta = dry climate will render ATL w/o enough
water for it’s population to survive
Miami = location will render Miami under water
Detroit = lack of industry will lead population
to migrate away from Detroit
New Orleans= location will render NO under water
Las Vegas = dry climate will render LV w/o enough
water for it’s population to survive
The only 2 cities that may meet their demise by the listed reasons are NO and Miami. For a city to become a “lost city,” it would have to meet its end through an act of nature, by war, starvation, or disease.
According to history, cities who have perished by war did so through acts of genocide. Conquering nations seldom killed off an entire city or nations population. Either way, war on U.S. soil is not a concern for obvious reasons.
Starvation is not an issue because the entire nation would decease, not just one city. This is due to the U.S.’s infrastructure and economic system that distributes all goods, including food.
With current medicines the vast spread of disease, such as “the black plague” are a minute concern. Especially with the standards and practices that are enforced by OSHA and other organizations.
This leaves mother nature as the only modern method of leaving a city without population. At that, her only methods of doing so are by intense changes of climate or by bringing instantaneous death or destruction to an entire city or it’s population.
Tectonic shifts, floods, hurricanes, and tsunamis are the forces of nature with the capacity to bring instantaneous destruction. This is why I agree with NO and Miami making the list. Also, tectonic shifts (ie earthquakes) lead me to agree with post #3. The San Andreas fault line in California has the ability to make a large enough movement to end LA. The plates could shift more than enough to set any part of CA west of the fault line below sea level. This would create a new coastline along the San Andreas.
A small 5-10degreeC change in temp. will not be enough to kill populations, perhaps make then uncomfortable, but not kill. Nations with poor infrastructure could experience vast migration from desertification. However, in the U.S. in cities such as ATL or LV, will survive with the installation of water pipelines or reservoirs. -
mike mehuys
Posted: Apr 17th, 2008 at 11:55 pm83Reply to this comment.how about the creeping vine that’s devouring the american southeast and Seattle, WA?
i hear it’s causing huge cracks in concrete buildings.
-
dr
Posted: Apr 18th, 2008 at 1:30 am84Reply to this comment.LA steals water from where ever it can, in fact LA has already through a very sneaky trick caused irreperable damage to the southern sierras.
-
lucidguru
Posted: Apr 18th, 2008 at 2:15 am85Reply to this comment.New Orleans is a waste of money. I would be far cheaper to relocate the people in this city and let the ocean reclaim the area. It’s not like the French Quarter makes enough money to pay for anything. Besides all the oil business in the city can be relocated to Houston… and most of it already has relocated.
Detroit is a dirty POS that needs to fall of the face of the map. The good part about Detroit is that they are polluting the great lakes less and less as the city falls apart. -
Rick Donaldson
Posted: Apr 18th, 2008 at 3:11 pm86Reply to this comment.YOU GUYS ARE ALL WRONG! LA GETS ITS WATER FROM TEH PACIFIC OCEAN AND ATALANTA GETS ITS WATER FROM THE MISISIISSIPI RIVER. GEES GUYS, DO US ALL A FAVOR AND TRY TO GRADUMIKATE FROM ELEMENTARY SCHOOL SOME TIME THIS CENTURY.
-
Rohshambeau
Posted: Apr 18th, 2008 at 3:47 pm87Reply to this comment.I for one welcome OCP’s plans for Delta City where old Detroit once stood.
-
Phil
Posted: Apr 18th, 2008 at 7:07 pm88Reply to this comment.By the time any of this comes to pass, will all be dead by then. Its our children’s children the have to worry.
-
chris
Posted: Apr 19th, 2008 at 1:36 pm89Reply to this comment.Our issues are not only water, but infrastructure, energy and most especially population. Check out http://www.192021.org/ for a powerful story about the future of the planet and its cities.
-
KJ
Posted: Apr 19th, 2008 at 8:13 pm90I see Buffalo the first of any North American city to go. Maybe I get biased news living in Toronto but there is always constant news about decreasing population, increasing crime and high unemployment. Plus the lose of an NFL team which is now in a posistion to move and games mostly supported by those in Ontario Ca