Climate Change Will Create A New Urban Equilibrium
Will coastal sea rise, wildfires and drought benefit Midwestern cities? Yes. Will Sun Belt cities disappear? No.
A view of Miami Beach, with Miami in the background. Source: wikipedia.org
More than a few of my Midwestern urbanist compatriots have pinned their hopes on climate change to lead the way in revitalizing our cities. The threat of natural disasters like hurricanes and wildfires, and the subtle and gradual impact of sea rise and drought, we tell ourselves, will mean people will give a new look to the Midwest. Yes, the Midwest can be cold, cloudy and snowy in the winter, and hot and humid in the summer. We have tornadoes. But most of the region has a fantastic supply of fresh water. And the threats we face in the Midwest aren’t existential in the way they are in the Gulf Coast and Desert Southwest of the U.S.
But the truth is, I've gone back and forth on whether climate change would benefit the Midwest. At first, I agreed with the climate change migration narrative, believing disaster recovery and the loss of fresh water would be too much for Sun Belt cities to overcome. Later, when the drought out west reached a peak a few years ago and people there started talking about pumping Mississippi River water (!) or even Great Lakes water (!!) westward, I became resigned to the fact that a political solution might one day be in the offing.
Today I’m back at my original position. The Midwest will benefit from climate change, but in a much more gradual fashion.
First, I think a lot of Midwesterners need to rid ourselves of a particular climate change fantasy. I used to think that climate change would produce climate refugees -- people displaced by Category 5 hurricanes, or Chicago/San Francisco-type fires. There will be elements of this; Hurricane Katrina displaced tens of thousands of New Orleans residents back in 2005, and Houston was an immediate and direct beneficiary, at least in relocation terms. A devastating fire could have the same impact as the Lahaina fire in Hawaii last year. But people will find a way to return and rebuild, eventually. Rebuilding is a testament to human resilience, and people will want to claim it.
Improved technology and public education will help places rebuild as well. Architects and engineers will design and build structures that can withstand high winds and pounding rains. They’ll probably also let coastal areas return to their natural state, and focus building further inland. Places prone to wildfires may try to widen the “wildland-urban interface” areas so that wildfires don’t immediately touch human-inhabited spaces.
We’ll find that shade will become more used as a tool against heat and humidity, and that air conditioning will cool covered public spaces to offer comfort (I’ll never forget visiting Las Vegas and seeing alfresco dining accompanied by air conditioning). Water conservation and recycling will fight against drought. As much as I’d hate to see it – and would fight against it – I could envision excess Midwestern water sent west in a pipeline. In the end, the Sun Belt cities of the Gulf Coast and Desert Southwest will survive.
But their survival will come at a steadily rising price. Each hurricane or wildfire causes insurance companies to reconsider their position on insuring disaster-prone homes and businesses. Banks will question whether they would want to finance new construction, for the same reasons. At some point it will cost more to live in the Sun Belt than it does now. Pleasant winter seasons is what first attracted Northeasterners and Midwesterners to the Sun Belt. A low cost of living made them stay. If the Sun Belt loses its affordability and climate advantage, things can change dramatically.
The Midwest lost its economic way when it lost its economic advantage. The region was the world’s producer of timber, iron, steel, automobiles, food, and more. Its position in the center of the country made it a critical transportation hub, able to easily serve the needs of a growing nation. The region became prosperous as a result. But the world found a way to chip at the region’s economic advantage and prosperity.
The Midwest did not decline because of manufacturing’s collapse, or agriculture’s collapse. Both industries adapted, and are still producing at high levels. However, the world learned how to produce similar or better products at a lower cost. The quality of foreign manufactured products caught up with and later surpassed that of American products. When manufacturers realized that they could pay nonunion workers less in Southern cities and (later) overseas, they built factories there to capitalize on the difference. When machines and robots became effective enough to replace workers, they did exactly that.
After a time it became cost-prohibitive to do business in the Midwest, so things were produced elsewhere. I can imagine it slowly becoming cost-prohibitive to live and work in places that have strong climate change risks, and people will choose to live and work elsewhere.
The adaptations that Sun Belt cities will need to make will be costly. New construction and infrastructure won’t come easily. With each succeeding natural disaster from hurricanes, fires or extended droughts, prices will tick upward, slowly.
There’s one important caveat that will mask the changes that will take place in Sun Belt cities. The Midwest will be warmer and wetter because of climate change, but it will remain a colder and snowier region relative to the Sun Belt. The allure of living in warmer climates during the winter months won’t completely go away. People who can afford it will continue to move to those places, the ones who can afford it and are already there will stay. I think over time that makes Sun Belt cities wealthier, but perhaps smaller, places.
I envision Sun Belt metros, especially those on the Gulf Coast or in the Desert Southwest, basically staying as large vacation resort-style places (Orlando, Palm Springs) or reverting back to that if they’ve surpassed that level already (Tampa/St. Petersburg). Inland Southern cities like Atlanta, Nashville, Dallas and Austin will probably do fine, but it will cost more to supply and store water and protect them from heat.
I don’t anticipate a wholesale realignment, with people completely vacating the Sun Belt for the Rust Belt. Instead, I anticipate the two regions achieving an equilibrium. The Cleveland and St. Louis of the 1980’s-1990’s were not sustainable at their previous sizes when the economy changed, and they shrank. Perhaps we’ll find that Miami and Houston will become unsustainable in the next era, and do the same.
I've been to Houston and Phoenix recently and the regions are obviously growing rapidly. I'd love to see legacy cities in the U.S. that are in more pleasant environments and with more attractive urban and suburban forms re-capture a healthy part of that growth. But Not if it means growing in *the way* Houston has been. My plan to deal with an abandoned Dollar General and Houston is nearly identical.