jump to last post 1-1 of 1 discussions (4 posts)

Sustainable Populations for Cities

  1. gmwilliams profile image85
    gmwilliamsposted 3 years ago

    There are over 20 megacities in the world. The average population of a megacity is 10 million.  However, there are some megacities with populations in excess of 20 million people. In many megacities and/or other large cities with a high population density of 1 million and more, there are problems such as severe congestion, high crime rate, air pollution, slums, and fierce competition for city resources.   

    In addition to that, city services are stretched to the limit to accommodate the large population.  In order for a city to be totally sustainable and manageable, an urban population should be from 40,000 to 100,000 people.  In other words, no city should have a population beyond 100,000 people.  This population is more easily managed than a population of 1 million or more. 

    If a city has a population of 40,000 to 100,000, there is no overcrowding nor overuse of city resources.  There will also be a high quality of life since there is no urban overpopulation.  Do YOU agree with this premise?

    1. wilderness profile image96
      wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      No.  Population of Boise, Idaho (where I live) coupled with it's surrounding bedroom communities is near 1/2 million. 

      It is a small city in today's world, and has very few population related problems.  Sure, we whine about the rush hour traffic and such, but compared to major population centers it's nothing - 1/2 hour will get you to any of the smaller communities during rush hour.  Pollution is bad only when weather produces an inversion that hangs over the valley for weeks.  Depending on location, climate, resources, etc.  cities of a million should be quite workable.

      Much smaller and the culture possibilities will begin to disappear - it takes a lot of people to provide an audience for major concerts, shows, etc.  Large manufacturing centers also need a large population to provide employees - downsizing will increase costs for everyone.  In addition, towns 50-100 miles away depend on larger cities for top health care and other needs.

    2. Quilligrapher profile image88
      Quilligrapherposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Hi there, Grace. Thanks for starting this thread.

      I noticed your two statements: “In order for a city to be totally sustainable and manageable, an urban population should be from 40,000 to 100,000 people. In other words, no city should have a population beyond 100,000 people.” I find myself curious about these statements on two levels:

      How can you, or any authority on this subject, make such statements based solely on raw population numbers and without any mention or consideration of population density? Secondly, can you offer a source for these assumptions or are they yours?

      I have seen others define a megacity as a metropolitan area with a minimum population density of at least 2,000-persons/square km.

      Without including density, a major piece of the puzzle seems missing. What do you think?

    3. prettydarkhorse profile image63
      prettydarkhorseposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Sustainable Development means quality of life at present without compromising the future. It involves environmental resources (renewable plus non renewable) and population dynamics. What is the stable number of population to have so as not to compromise resources. The cities are dependent on outside natural resources.
      The computation is highly mathematical. big_smile

      I think the lure of the city is that the employment rate is high so people flock there. People work there and then go back to their homes which are located at the periphery of the big cities. Compute day time population against night time population. In short, for example are all people who work in NY are from NY  or there are some people who commute from NJ, PA etc.