[Raxozanne]

Ok we have all seen the 'best place post peak' threads so now I thought we could share our opinions on the worst place in the world to go through peak oil. I know all big cities will be bad so I am looking for the worst of the big cities. This is a rather morbid thread I am afraid!!!

I will start by nominating:

Mexico City

closely followed by:

Addis Ababa

as my worst post peak places to be living in.

[EddieB]

My nominations for worst places post Peak

Mexico City is definately up there. Tokyo. Bejing. LA. It's tough to come up with a "number one" worst place... as with most PO guesses there are just so many variables to account for that it becomes impossible to do anything but fire names out into the wild blue yonder. Generally I think big cities will tend to suck all over the world.

[smallpoxgirl]

Las Vegas
Phoenix
New York.
LA
San Francisco
Chicago
Miami
Dallas
Boston
Tokyo
Kaula Lampoor
All of Singapore

[Schneider]

Earth ..

*Waiting to get the next spaceship*

Okay,i am barelly kidding..but to know witch places will be the worst,just watch for the most heavily populated by square km...

Quote from www.citymayors.com (note for moderators : this quote is not available from the main website,got it from the google cache )
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')
Some 640 million people live
in the world’s 300 largest cities

Two of the world’s cities,Seoul and Sao Paulo, have offiicial populations of more than ten million people. But probably there are two or three more cities that can claim to have reached the 10 million mark in 2003. Bombay, Jakarta and Karachi, all had populations well in excess of nine million at the end of the 20th century.

With a population of more than 10.2 million, Seoul, the capital of South Korea, is the world’s largest city in terms of population. Sao Paulo (Brazil), the world’s second-largest city, has a population of just over ten million. Three other cities, Bombay (India), Jakarta (Indonesia) and Karachi (Pakistan), have grown to more than nine million people.

Moscow, the Russian capital, is, according to City Mayors, the largest European city. London is in second place. In The Americas, Sao Paulo and Mexico City are ranked above New York City and Bogota (Colombia). Cairo (Egypt), with a population of 6.8 million, is Africa’s largest city.

Almost 100 Chinese cities each house more than one million people. Other countries with a significant number of ‘Millionenstädte’ include India (18 ), Indonesia (16), Japan (12), the US (9), Brazil (13) and Russia (12).

Some 36 European cities have populations of more than one million people. Most are the countries’ capital cities such as Moscow (8.3 million), London (7.1 million), Berlin (3.4 million) and Paris (2.2 million).

In The Americas, 45 cities can claim Millionenstadt status. Here, the top ranking cities are Sao Paulo (10 million), Mexico City (8.2 million), New York City (8.0 million), Bogota (6.4 million), Lima (5.7 million), Rio de Janeiro (5.6 million), Santiago di Chile (4.8 million) and Los Angeles (3.7 million). Toronto is Canada's largest city with a population of 2.5 million.

More than half of Asia’s ‘Millionenstädte’ are in China. Out of 194 Asian cities with populations of more than one million, some 98 are on the Chinese mainland and on Taiwan. Asia’s ten largest cities are Seoul (10.2 million), Bombay (9.9 million), Jakarta (9.4 million), Karachi (9.3 million), Shanghai (8.2 million), Tokyo (8.1 million), Bangkok (7.5 million), Beijing (7.4 million), Delhi (7.2 million) and Hong Kong (6.8 million).

Africa has 19 cities with more than one million people in each. Cairo, the Egyptian capital, is, with 6.8 million inhabitants by far the largest. African cities with more than two million residents include Alexandria (Egypt) Kinshasa (Congo), Addis Ababa (Ethiopia), Casablanca (Morocco) and Giza (Egypt). (Please note, some of the population figures for African cities are more than 15 years old. For example, the population figure for Kinshasa does not take into account the fall of the Mobutu regime and the subsequent civil upheaval in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, formerly Zaire.)

[JLK]

Internationally, I would say the worst places wil be densely populated Third World areas like Bangladesh, parts of India and Pakistan.

In North America, I would say Mexico City and Los Angeles will be worst. The big Texas cities could be a problem as well.

[Wildwell]

Basildon, Stevenage, Milton Keynes, North Kent, Slough..
(Sorry Chav joke for the Brits)

[Schneider]

From a personnal perspective,i live in the MRC of Montreal,Quebec province of Canada..

Density of population (from stats of 2001) :

3 610,7 hab/km²

Whole Population (from stats of 2001) :

1 812 723 pers. in Montreal
343 005 pers in Laval (same island)

Now guess what i plan to do in the next 18 months !?

Schneider
French-Canadian

[marko]

I think that where not to be will depend on the stage of the crisis. I see an initial crisis of global depression, like the 1930s but worse. High oil prices will provide the spark for this disaster, but the fuel will be the unprecedented credit binge of the past 20 years or so.

During the initial depression, the worst places will be those that are most removed from a real economy of agriculture and manufacturing. These will be the cities of North America and Australia, followed by those in the UK and Japan. Asia and Latin America will be hard hit by this depression, but a majority of urban dwellers in most of those cities (with the exception of Japan and maybe Singapore) are no more than a generation or two away from a farming village. In hard times, many will be able to return to their families and subsistence farming. I think that some of the worst hardship will be in the biggest cities of the most "advanced" (i.e. divorced from reality) economies.

My 10 worst, in order of badness:

New York
Tokyo
London
Los Angeles
Mexico City
Osaka
Boston
Chicago
Sydney
Detroit

[EddieB]

I don't think high population density in and of itself is a huge cause for concern. Cuba isn't sparsely populated and when it faced the sudden end of Soviet subsidies people's lives changed and food availablity declined, but there wasn't a huge die-off. The mega-cities listed here obviously pose a different problem though. Still, I wouldn't want to be in an arid location with a bunch of other people during the next 20 years.

[Falconoffury]

What about London? The british Isles are pretty overpopulated.

[Tyler_JC]

What's with all the hate for Boston??

In defense of "my" city...

First off, it's not that big. Less than 1 million people live in the greater Boston area. Secondly, Boston has been around for almost 400 years. It is mostly walkable. It has plenty of rainfall and the weather is not THAT cold, (well, compared to Chicago or Montreal). The city is in a good location. Right next to the ocean and in an important waterway, it's not going to abandoned any time soon.

So...move Boston off that list. And put Miami or Dallas up there .

[accept_death]

I was going to say the same thing about Boston. It certainly doesn't belong on any top 10 lists. But it will have some problems. Most of the surrounding area is forest, you have to go pretty far out to get to any real farm land. And the inner city section is incredibly dense. Not much room for planting. But that does bode well for transit. Also keep in mind that the area is fairly affluent as well as educated. There are some good resources, and the infrastructure is a little more malleable and less car dependant than some other places. Does it have "clusterfuck" sprawl burbs? Yes, but they are not the norm. Most suburbs are of the pre-WWII era, where the automobile was not quite as dominant. They still feature active town centers. I see my neighborhood, within walking distance of one of these centers, making out pretty well for the next 30 or so years.

I can't think of many major US cities I'd consider better off than Boston. Portland OR is pretty much the only one that comes to mind. Miami? Atlanta? Detroit? St. Louis? Cleveland? San Diego? Charlotte? Kansas City? Salt Lake City? Seattle? New Orleans? etc. etc. All worse off, IMO. If anything, Boston should worry about spill-over from that mess in New York...

[JLK]

New York has a working mass transit system, and food can be floated down the Hudson from upstate NY. Although the land around it is all developed, it is surrounded by good farmland for hundreds of miles around. Stuff grows there. The reservoir system is terrific, and largely gravity fed.

Los Angeles has crappy mass transit, is hundreds of miles from any decent farmland and has a water supply that is tenuous at best. In addition, half the people living there will want to be part of Mexico. LA will be in much worse shape than NY.

[Russian_Cowboy]

Hardest-hit will be the places in the countries that make most money off people's discretionary spending, like the Dominican Republic. I have seen lots of European tourists in DR, despite the fact that DR is a very long distance away from Europe. In addition, the DR's population is booming. So, I'd place Santo Domingo on the top of the list along with the other Carribean capitals. Las Vegas, Havana, Cancun and Orlando will be hit post-peak, but not so hard because their residents can move to the other parts of the countries where they are located. Well, Mexico as well as Thailand and Egypt may be hit quite hard too.

The same applies to the countries that grew large populations making their living primarily by extracting oil and gas. I mean the places like Saudi Arabia, Oman, Brunei, Norway and even Russia after their gas and oil become depleted several decades from now.

Then come the places that live off refining imported oil, like Houston, TX.

[smallpoxgirl]

Honestly, I think Las Vegas and Phoenix have got to top the list. Millions of people crowded together in the middle of the desert? with no water? Who's idea was that?

[frankthetank]

Any large city might be in trouble. When people start getting desperate and hungry...watch out...atleast a smaller town/city allows you to have somewhat of a buffer.

[MicroHydro]

I have to go with Los Angeles as the worst place in the developed world. High rates of gun ownership, no good public transit, no community sense, racism, and a dicey water supply all push it to the top of the list. Also see:
1965 riots
1979-80 gas station line shootings
1992 riots

If you go to the "developing" world, there are lots of really bad places. certainly Lagos deserves a mention.

[Russian_Cowboy]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('smallpoxgirl', 'H')onestly, I think Las Vegas and Phoenix have got to top the list. Millions of people crowded together in the middle of the desert? with no water? Who's idea was that?