The City of the Future

Ponca City, We Love You writes "One century ago, many Americans still had not seen a movie or ridden in an automobile. The New York World greeted its readers on January 1, 1908 with a stirring rumination about the past and future of America: 'We may have gyroscopic trains as broad as houses swinging at 200 miles an hour up steep grades and around dizzying curves,' the newspaper said. 'We may have aeroplanes winging the once inconquerable air. The tides that ebb and flow to waste may take the place of our spent coal and flash their strength by wire to every point of need.' Today the NY Times asked ten knowledgeable New Yorkers to imagine New York City a century from today. Their visions include archaeological excavations at the Fresh Kills landfill, the waterfront at Third Avenue and Seventh Avenue, a dome over Central Park, and a virtual reality grid superimposed over the city."

Comments

Comp Sci prediction is a bit Orwellian

[xmas2003]

From Ken Perlin, professor of computer science at New York University "... everyone's eyes will be implanted with tiny displays. All the information we need about the city will be accessible to us without conscious effort: where to go, what to buy ... how to hook up with friends."

And not surprisingly, Robin Nagle from the New York City Department of Sanitation predicts "Sanitation workers ... will be heroes"

On a lighter note for the holiday season, here are the Christmas Lights of the Future! ;-)

As fun as these can be

[Joe Tie.]

I've come to really respect scientists who tell reporters to shove off when they ask about the world of the future. So much of future technology has to do with culture, and so little actual science, that it's like asking what color of clothing will be 'in' on 2106.

Just a bit down on the future, aren't they?

[arthurh3535]

New York will be under water, owned for foreigners and be infested with alligators with huge advertisements covering entire buildings with lights.

I don't think we can really 'predict' the future, of course. We might have truly artificial intelligence, brain-machine interfaces and very advanced cybernetics along with genetic engineering *really* advancing. Nuclear power is going to be really used and not just feared... and we'll have new problems that we can only dimly see like losses of personal freedoms due to corporate greed, an out of touch government and seemingly out of control costs.

As a Geographer and 5 generation New Yorker

[Urger]

No. The New York City of tomorrow is here right now. Most of the building that will be here then are built already. More then you may think were already there in 1908. New York is physically highly resistant to change. There will be some differences yes. Fresh Kills is well on the way to being a major park. (No really) If anything the radical changes will be occurring in Hoboken and Jersey City. They are the natural extensions of the city and with the Access to Regions Core project, future PATH tunnels, Cross Harbor Tunnel and likely increased ferry service the west shore of the Hudson will become just another borough except that they'll be independent cities in another state. Oh and the Mets may have won a World Series by then (We can't give up hope!)

Will the "action" be here?

[bogaboga]

While I agree that New York will definitely be standing 100 years from today, I doubt that the "action" among world cities will be in New York. Think about finance and entertainment.

Having visited Shanghai just last month and I must say I was very very impressed. Traffic lights, the weather, the transport system were all on track to be more modern as compared to what we have here in New York.

Sadly, the status quo here in New York will not change anytime soon, and that will seal our fate mainly because of corruption.

Also

[obeythefist]

The RIAA tracks your DNA and listens to everything you hear through implanted microphones, extracting micropayments wirelessly for everything you hear.

Re:Trains?

[Anonymous Coward]

This just shows how far we have come. Dan Quayle once said "The future will be better tomorrow." These days nobody would take the train idea seriously. Now the goal is teleportation.

Except that we're rediscovering that if you have more than 5000 people or so that all want to go from point A to point B, the most efficient way we have to get them there is by a mass transit device that can expand to the required capacity... say, by adding cars. The future from "back then" is still coming. It'll be here tomorrow ;)

Re:Paleo-Future

[sgt_doom]

People far more prescient than myself have stated (and correctly so) many times over the years that the inherent problem with even contemplating the future is the problem of human greed and avarice. The General Motors Futurama Exhibit at the 1964 World's Fair (held in NYC) had many pragmatic predictions, which certainly should have come to past.

Alas, vile greedheads interfered. As those lowbrows who are forever exclaiming about, "...if they can put a man on the moon...." Of course, they murdered the man behind that project (JFK), which killed many a future prediction and dream. Therein lies the problem.

Urban transportation in America, a pathetic pipe dream in most places - but it could have been realized many, many years ago. As that House Select Committee Investigation, back in 1974, demonstrated, General Motors, Firestone and Sun Oil conspired to curtail any valid and optimal urban and exurban transportation systems throughout America as they wish to sell tires, large vehicles running on gas (buses) and oil.

Can anyone seriously ponder any predictions of the future given the imbeciles currently being elected as president? Given the criminals being currently elected to VP? SecDef? SecState?

The real NYC

[NASA NERD]

its not gonna be all that shiny and new. it probably gonna be pretty dirty. Trust me, i live in New York. Also, the story said some "knowledgeable" and intelligent New Yorkers, and not many intelligent people go to School of the Future (the brains are at The Salk School of Science!)

View of New York in 100 years

[earthforce_1]

Very good multimedia presentation of what New York will look like in the near and far future if we would just leave it alone.

http://www.worldwithoutus.com/multimedia.html

A forgotten city

[dorpus]

Will it become a place where Latin American and African Christians live in tense coexistence with Moslems, while absentee landlords from Asia own everything? Will whites become so rare that New Yorkers will stare in fascination at white people? Jews will have long since have converted to Buddhism or intermarried with others, that they are a regarded as a mysterious ancient people like the Druids or Manicheans. The world's economic center of gravity will have long since shifted South and East, so New York will be a historical curiosity like Philadelphia or Pittsburgh today. (In their time, Philadelphia and Pittsburgh were the apex of American culture and technology.) At the request of France's Islamic government, the Statue of Liberty will be replaced with a statue of Sayyid Qutb, every schoolkid will take museum trips to the "Palestinian Holocaust Museum", Chinese financiers will turn Central Park into a replica of the Forbidden City, while trendy New Yorkers will receive cosmetic gene therapy to look more Arab, African, or Hispanic.

Re:A forgotten city

[moosesocks]

1) The parent poster needs to chill out, and drop the racist undertones before I have to invoke Godwin's Law.

2) A truly "global" society probably will cause most of the major races will blend together. Because of the current population distribution, and the way in which skin pigmentation genes work, this will probably result in the end of your beloved aryan race. All in all, we'll sunburn less easily..... and that's about it. It'll take hundreds of years, and really.... who cares?

3) If the economic center of the world shifts to the southeast, I wouldn't be particularly surprised. The world's population is densest there, and Asia is rapidly industrializing. The tiny island of Great Britain is no longer the economic center of the world, although they seem to do pretty well for themselves these days nevertheless. The emergence of southeast-asian markets doesn't necessarily have to occur at the expense of western economies.

4) Europe's learned its lesson about religious governments many times over, especially France. I hate to make generalizations, but the people of France tend to be some of the most politically active and aware people on the planet. An Islamic (or Christian, Buddhist, etc.....) government is not going to emerge in France. The people simply won't allow it.

5) Sayyid Qutb isn't exactly well-respected in many Islamic circles (although many Americans would like to see all Muslims as carbon-copies of Qutb in order to justify their war). If you want a different perspective on Islam by a respected scholar, read up on Tariq Ramadan. If you want to try a conspiracy theory on for size, read up on his US Visa troubles.

6) What's wrong with Buddhists? Buddhism has easily got to be the single most inoffensive religion on the planet.

7) Israel/Palestine is an incredibly complicated issue, mainly because it's been carried over across several generations, and both sides are guilty of essentially the same crimes. However, whether you like it or not, Palestine was there first.

Re:There won't be a New York

[arminw]

.....in the nuclear war of 2072, New York City will be incinerated........

About 2000 years ago someone named John made some predictions. According to him, NY among the other cites of the world will some day experience this:

"And there was a great earthquake, such as has not been since men were on the earth, so mighty and so great an earthquake. And the great city came to be into three parts, and the cities of the nations fell." (Revelation 18:18-19)

A 50-100 mile diameter asteroid striking the earth would make quite a mess and cannot be categorically ruled out. Hailstones of a hundred pounds each, and the other things described in this part of the Bible, maybe as a result of such an event, are not impossible either.

Mass extinctions happened before and can happen again.

It all depends on energy

[Animats]

If we don't find a new energy source to replace fossil fuels, industrial civilization won't last another century.

Since the Industrial Revolution, there's been a new major power source at least once every fifty years. Until the last fifty.

Think about it. In 1800, everything was human or animal powered, except for a windmill or waterwheel here and there, and a few wood-burning Newcomen steam engines pumping away. By 1850, the European countries and the United States had substantial railroad systems, and coal and steam powered factories. By 1900, most major cities had electric lights and street cars, and gasoline engine powered cars were starting to appear. By 1950, petroleum powered everything mobile, gas turbines powered aircraft, and nuclear power was just starting to work.

So what do we have now that we didn't have fifty years ago? Solar cells were demonstrated in 1954. The first commercial nuclear reactor started up in December 1957. Sputnik I had been launched. Megawatt-scale windmills had been tried (1941), but weren't worth the trouble in an era of cheap oil. Oil had been found in the Middle East. Natural gas was being moved through long pipelines. Even ethanol from corn had been tried. Every major energy source we have today was working in 1957. Nothing new and big enough to matter has come along since.

In the 1970s, there was hope that Government spending via the Department of Energy would yield something. Didn't work. In the 1980s, there was hope that the free market would yield some solution. Didn't happen.

What's actually happening is that all the old ideas that used to be too expensive are now competitive with oil. There's oil from tar sands. Deep offshore drilling. Ethanol from corn. Wind farms. Solar panels. At $100/bbl, these all look good. But energy is expensive from here on.

The real difference between 1908 and 2008 ...

[l0ungeb0y]

Is unabated pessimism.

In 1908, the sky seemed the limit and the predictions tended to focus on new, marvelous machines and how they would make life better for all.

In 2008, it's not so much about the technology or science but about how so few are wealthy and the general feeling is that we are on the edge of a long hard decline. The only upshot beeing that we'll somehow continue to have cutting edge tech.

Is it just me or are people genuinely very worried, frightened and so deeply unhappy with world affairs to the point that they think it's just crap from here on out and we should welcome an age of mechanized oppression?

To say no US Citizen would be able to afford to live in NYC while Oil Barons owned entire burroughs is complete and utter BS in my book.
It reeks of weakness and apathy. The same weakness and apathy that brings us all the people who whine and cry about Bush and his administration yet fail to do anything about it. The same weakness and apathy that has Americans crying about Global Warming, but they all shut their faces about it when they go home to waste several hundred kilowatts watching Survivor and American Idol.

This was supposed to be a dreamy piece, about "what if" and where "anything" could happen. What do we get? Hit over the head with "FAIL FAIL FAIL" again and again throughout the article. Not one prediciton was positive, each was somehow foreseeing a darker future where we are all worse off except the monied elite. From these predictions, it seems people have given up and the future they are grateful to accept is one where Asia leads and we just consume their tech and get whatever kind of living they give us.

Pretty sad if you ask me.