Worldwide Demographics

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

Another proof that citypopulation cannot be trusted for anything other than the population of legally defined administrative areas. They — at statistical areas.

And yes, it's the only international definition we have. Even Brazil's IBGE uses it (they call it arranjos populacionais).

With their own set of (arbitrary) rules, regarding commute, absolute numbers, relative numbers, definition of the core city, which in Brazil is the municipality, whose sizes range from 3.6 km² (Águas de São Pedro, SP) to 159,533 km² (Altamira, PA; bigger than England & Wales).

And of course, no one uses them. In Brazil, when metropolitan area is dicussed, it's only the official ones, as definited by respective state legislation. That's São Paulo Metropolitan Area, for example: https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regi%C3%A3o_Metropolitana_de_S%C3%A3o_Paulo . Exact the same boundaries since 1970 and widely used by government bodies and academia.

Every country, every single academic paper are free to set up their own rules. IBGE, for instance, is still on the 2nd edition of "arranjos" (note they don't even use "metro area" to designate them) and rules were changed a bit between the two studies.

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

It depends how you define Lille. The urban region of Lille including Roubaix and Tourcoing was ahead of the urban region of Lyon from the 1890s until 1914, but it wasn't really a city, more like an industrial conurbation. Roubaix and Tourcoing still functioned as independent cities back then, so I don't think anyone would have thought of as Lille being larger than Lyon.

A more narrowly-defined urban territory, like this one of 118 km² (the delineated red territory in the center of each urban territory is the extent of the Medieval walled city before the expansion of the Industrial Revolution) shows that at its peak in 1911 Lille 118 km² had 333,000 inhabitants, whereas Lyon 118 km² had 550,000 inhabitants, so Lille was at 60.5% the population of Lyon.



Note that Lille was closer to Lyon at the 1806 census (first modern and fully accurate French census). Lille 118 km² had 68.3% the population of Lyon 118 km² in 1806, then Lyon grew more than Lille until 1855 (at the 1856 census, Lille 118 km² had only 45.9% the population of Lyon 118 km²), then after 1855 Lille grew more than Lyon until 1911 but never went back to having 68.3% of Lyon's population.

If you take a larger area, let's say 500 km²: how Lille vs Lyon compared over time?

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by Yuri

With their own set of (arbitrary) rules, regarding commute, absolute numbers, relative numbers, definition of the core city, which in Brazil is the municipality, whose sizes range from 3.6 km² (Águas de São Pedro, SP) to 159,533 km² (Altamira, PA; bigger than England & Wales).

The largest Brazilian metro areas don't have municipalities of Amazonian size, and you know it. In any case, criticizing the FUA is like criticizing the referee just because your team didn't win the game. It's a bit childish. There is an international definition, and demographers and urban researchers had been waiting for it in a long long time.

Originally Posted by Yuri

If you take a larger area, let's say 500 km²: how Lille vs Lyon compared over time?

500 km² would take us into Belgian territory...

At 171 km² and designing an elongated territory stretching from Lille to Roubaix and Tourcoing then like I've said there are more inhabitants in those 171 km² than in the 171 km² of Lyon from the 1890s until 1914. But it's not really comparable to Lyon. It's a conurbation in an industrial region. It wasn't a unified urban area as it is now.

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

There a sharp population drop in many urban areas across Europe and North America in the 1960s. According to the Detroit thread it was because of black people, but something tells me that isn't a sufficient explanation for Europe. For many of those urban areas, such as New York, it was the first time in history that they had ever experienced population contractions.

Most Western urban areas experienced population decline in their central areas in the 1970s (and sometimes also in the 1960s and 1980s), as people relocated to larger, more modern homes in the suburbs. The city of Lyon for instance (48 km²) went from 535,746 inhabitants at the 1962 census to a nadir of 413,095 at the 1982 census, while its urban area never stopped growing during that period.

The rebound has taken place sometimes as early as the 1980s, but more often in the 1990s, and sometimes only in the 2000s, as people prefer to live more centrally, and the central areas have gentrified, with their old urban stock either replaced by new modern apartments, or modernized while preserving the old buildings.

Since Covid I have a feeling the movement is again towards the suburbs, but it's a bit early to say. The city of Paris has been losing population again since the 2010s due to the awful mismanagement of the Paris city hall. The city of Lyon is stagnating since the late 2010s. Some cities like Toulouse and Bordeaux still manage to grow significantly in their central areas, so it's a mixed picture.

On a side note, probably in the census figures that will be published in December 2027 we will have official confirmation that the city of Toulouse has passed the city of Lyon in population and has become the 3rd largest city in France. This will be a big shock for Lyon (their local newspapers are already talking about it, because it's obvious from the current trend that it will happen within 2 years, i.e. it already happened in the 2025 census as yet unpublished). The reason for that is because the city of Toulouse (118 km²) has a much larger territory than the city of Lyon (48 km²), where they have refused municipal mergers since the 1960s (the last time the city of Lyon annexed a suburban municipality was in 1963).

For Detroit, there was a combination of moving to larger and more modern houses in the suburbs, as elsewhere in the Western world, and specific racial issues which compounded the effect of urban flight.

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

The largest Brazilian metro areas don't have municipalities of Amazonian size, and you know it. In any case, criticizing the FUA is like criticizing the referee just because your team didn't win. It's a bit childish. There is an international definition, and demographers and urban researchers had been waiting for it in a long long time.

Do you realize some municipalities might have more than two urban cores, separated by tens of kilometers? The average size of a Brazilian municipality is 1,500 km². Do you realize if they were much bigger or much smaller, results would vary big?

There are also very massive bias against more polycentric metro areas (and they do exist). Let's take my native northern Paraná: Londrina vs Maringá. Note both urban areas stretch over are formed by 4 municipalities (Cambé, Ibiporã, Rolândia) and (Marialva, Sarandi and Paiçandu).

Municipalities in Londrina are much bigger population wise and they're as wealth as the central city while Maringá follow the more traditional rich core, poor periphery. As result Maringá extends greatly over tiny rural villages tens of kilometers away whereas Rolândia which is pretty much connected to Londrina by continuous urbanized area and it's still out of Londrina's arranjo.

I really don't understand why you're so fixated! I'm not discussing wether FUA is good or bad. I'm only stating the obvious: there are thousands of ways on how you define metro area. Every country has their own definition, in fact, there are countless of definitions inside the same country. And no, "arranjo" and "FUA" are not the same thing, "arranjo" and "official metro area" are also not the same thing either.

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

500 km² would take us into Belgian territory...

Just keep it inside France. Choose other communes.

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

There a sharp population drop in many urban areas across Europe and North America in the 1960s. According to the Detroit thread it was because of black people, but something tells me that isn't a sufficient explanation for Europe. For many of those urban areas, such as New York, it was the first time in history that they had ever experienced population contractions.

I'd say it's the manufacturing decline that accelerated after the 1973 shock, which explain why Britain and places in Pennsylvania, with a more dated manufacturing, started to decline even before this event.

As North America and Northwestern Europe were the most industrialized regions in the world, they were more affected.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

The city of Paris has been losing population again since the 2010s due to the awful mismanagement of the Paris city hall.

Wouldn't Airbnbs be a primary culprit? Paris doesn't have strict rules (are there any rules?) on renting homes to travelers, so there are huge numbers of units sitting empty, reserved for tourists.

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by Yuri

I'd say it's the manufacturing decline that accelerated after the 1973 shock, which explain why Britain and places in Pennsylvania, with a more dated manufacturing, started to decline even before this event.

As North America and Northwestern Europe were the most industrialized regions in the world, they were more affected.

Southern Europe was as affected as Northern Europe. It has little to do with de-industrialization. It has to do with the car society, the possibility to live in the suburbs in a large and modern house.

Central areas have declined everywhere in Southern Europe. The city of Turin (130 km²) went from a peak of 1,167,968 inhabitants at the 1971 census to a nadir of 865,263 at the 2001 census. The city of Florence (102 km²) went from a peak of 457,803 at the 1971 census to a nadir of 356,118 at the 2001 census. The city of Marseille (ca. 154 km² of urbanized territory) went from a peak of 908,600 inhabitants at the 1975 census to a nadir of 795,518 at the 1999 census. The city of Bordeaux (49 km²) went from a peak of 284,494 at the 1954 census to a nadir of 208,159 at the 1982 census. Even the city of Toulouse (118 km²) went from a peak of 373,796 at the 1975 census to a nadir of 347,995 at the 1982 census.

In Spain the city of Barcelona (101 km²) went from a peak of 1,752,627 at the 1981 census to a nadir of 1,503,884 at the 2001 census. The city of Valencia (139 km²) went from a peak of 752,909 at the 1991 census to a nadir of 738,441 at the 2001 census. The city of Lisbon (100 km²) went from a peak of 807,937 at the 1981 census to a nadir of 545,796 at the 2021 census.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

Southern Europe was as affected as Northern Europe. It has little to do with de-industrialization. It has to do with the car society, the possibility to live in the suburbs in a large and modern house.

Central areas have declined everywhere in Southern Europe. The city of Turin (130 km²) went from a peak of 1,167,968 inhabitants at the 1971 census to a nadir of 865,263 at the 2001 census. The city of Florence (102 km²) went from a peak of 457,803 at the 1971 census to a nadir of 356,118 at the 2001 census. The city of Marseille (ca. 154 km² of urbanized territory) went from a peak of 908,600 inhabitants at the 1975 census to a nadir of 795,518 at the 1999 census. The city of Bordeaux (49 km²) went from a peak of 284,494 at the 1954 census to a nadir of 208,159 at the 1982 census. Even the city of Toulouse (118 km²) went from a peak of 373,796 at the 1975 census to a nadir of 347,995 at the 1982 census.

In Spain the city of Barcelona (101 km²) went from a peak of 1,752,627 at the 1981 census to a nadir of 1,503,884 at the 2001 census. The city of Valencia (139 km²) went from a peak of 752,909 at the 1991 census to a nadir of 738,441 at the 2001 census. The city of Lisbon (100 km²) went from a peak of 807,937 at the 1981 census to a nadir of 545,796 at the 2021 census.

There were regional population declines across Europe and North America, not just in central cities. It could not have just been suburbanization alone that caused it, but suburbanization did obviously exacerbate the situation for central cities. In addition to the well known cases in the northern U.S. industrial cities, there were regional declines in the UK, the Netherlands, France, Italy, etc.

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

Southern Europe was as affected as Northern Europe. It has little to do with de-industrialization. It has to do with the car society, the possibility to live in the suburbs in a large and modern house.

Central areas have declined everywhere in Southern Europe. The city of Turin (130 km²) went from a peak of 1,167,968 inhabitants at the 1971 census to a nadir of 865,263 at the 2001 census. The city of Florence (102 km²) went from a peak of 457,803 at the 1971 census to a nadir of 356,118 at the 2001 census. The city of Marseille (ca. 154 km² of urbanized territory) went from a peak of 908,600 inhabitants at the 1975 census to a nadir of 795,518 at the 1999 census. The city of Bordeaux (49 km²) went from a peak of 284,494 at the 1954 census to a nadir of 208,159 at the 1982 census. Even the city of Toulouse (118 km²) went from a peak of 373,796 at the 1975 census to a nadir of 347,995 at the 1982 census.

In Spain the city of Barcelona (101 km²) went from a peak of 1,752,627 at the 1981 census to a nadir of 1,503,884 at the 2001 census. The city of Valencia (139 km²) went from a peak of 752,909 at the 1991 census to a nadir of 738,441 at the 2001 census. The city of Lisbon (100 km²) went from a peak of 807,937 at the 1981 census to a nadir of 545,796 at the 2021 census.

It started later on southern Europe, between the late 1970’s and early 1980’s. In the old industrial regions, the first signs started to appear in the late 1950’s.

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Wouldn't Airbnbs be a primary culprit?

The population has declined in all the arrondissements, including those with little Airbnb. For example the 19th arrondissement lost 4.5% of its population between 2017 and 2023. The 20th lost 5.5% of its population between 2017 and 2023.

The reason why the population is fleeing is because families cannot raise kids in Paris anymore, the city has become too complicated, impossible to drive and park anywhere with the new rules of the more-Green-than-the-king city hall. All urban policies favor the cyclists, i.e. the young, fit, childless urban hipsters. Add to that the rising insecurity which also pushes people to leave to the suburbs, with the city hall not really concerned with law-and-order issues (police is too right-wing for them). Also add to that the big increase in local taxes.

The city has embarked on a completely crazy redesign of nearly all avenues, squares, circles, which wasn't needed at all, but they hate the bourgeois Haussmannian Paris and want to "transform" the city, which has meant non-stop works for the past 15+ years, which makes everyday life impossible for people, and it has swollen the debt of the city, a city which used to have very little debt before the Socialists and their Green and Communist allies took control of the city in 2001. The city of Paris's public debt was only 1.1 billion euros in 2001 when the center-right were last in power in Paris. After 23 years of Socialist-Green-Communist management that debt reached 10.6 billion euros in 2024. To plug the massive deficit, mayor Anne Hidalgo decided to raise the city-wide property tax by 52%. So imagine, you pay 2000 euros in property tax for your flat in Paris, and suddenly you have to pay 3000 euros to finance the crazy "urban transformation" of these ideologues. So of course you flee to suburban municipalities that are better managed, where streets are clean, public debt low, etc.

Crossing the border of the city of Paris these days often feels like crossing the San Diego-Tijuana border, and it's not an exaggeration, but you wouldn't believe it if you didn't see it with your own eyes. There are some videos on Twitter which you can find where people film riding their bike while crossing the border between the shamble that is the city of Paris into some neatly ordained municipalities surrounding Paris. It's pretty shocking.

Airbnb plays a role, but only in the most central areas, like the Marais. In most of Paris, it's not Airbnb that explains the decline in population.

Originally Posted by Crawford

Paris doesn't have strict rules (are there any rules?) on renting homes to travelers, so there are huge numbers of units sitting empty, reserved for tourists.

There are rules, but I don't know to what extent they are being enforced. The Paris city hall is manned by incompetent and couldn't-give-a-dam ideologues who notoriously are not really concerned with monitoring things on the ground or following through on policies (for example, the scandal of never-ending public works, with construction companies not being inspected or controlled by the city hall). Think of Mexico, and you'll have an idea how things work in Paris now (whereas 25 years ago it was definitely a northern European city with strict rules and supervision).

[biguc]

Jeez, who needs facebook when you can read a load of — here

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

The city of Milan (182 km²) had 701,411 inhabitants in 1911 when the city of Rome (1,287 km²) had only 511,076 inhabitants. This is really the core of Milan, not a conurbation, whereas the municipal territory of Rome included large expanses of countryside with dozens of villages. If we took 1,287 km² around Milan, we would find even more inhabitants and a larger gap with Rome.

Even compared to Lyon, France's 2nd largest city, Rome wasn't all that big. At the 1881 census, there were 268,922 inhabitants in the city of Rome vs 584,185 in 1,287 km² around the center of Lyon. Even in 1911 after 40 years of being the capital city of Italy and having experienced much faster growth than Lyon, the city of Rome had as I've said 511,076 inhabitants whereas the 1,287 km² of Lyon had 723,754 inhabitants.

The evolution of population in the city of Rome (1,287 km²) and in 1,287 km² around the center of Lyon since 1876.

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Wouldn't Airbnbs be a primary culprit? Paris doesn't have strict rules (are there any rules?) on renting homes to travelers, so there are huge numbers of units sitting empty, reserved for tourists.

I don't understand how people make money with Airbnb. Downtown São Paulo and other central neighbourhoods are flooded with them. Landmarks like Copan Building is like half Airbnb now.

BTW, I've never used Airbnb. I see nothing positive about it.

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by Yuri

BTW, I've never used Airbnb. I see nothing positive about it.

As a parent, it's pretty much the only decent way to travel with kids.

My wife has gotten very anti AirBNB (having the home next door converted into one was the last straw) but the options for traveling as a family of four without it are just awful.

You have:

1. The old-style hotel rooms with two queen beds. There's no way my 12-year old son and 16-year old daughter would share a bed, so that's out.

2. Trying to book those adjacent hotel rooms with a pass-through door. The thing is, you can't make these bookings online, which makes all the online reservation aggregators useless.

3. Finding a multi-bedroom suite. However, again, all of the sites like kayak and Travelocity are completely useless for this. There are a few sites that let you look for only "suites," but they're 90% single-bedroom suites, and don't help. So we just look for chains like Residence Inn where we know a two-bedroom suite is available. Even then, we pay way more than an AirBNB, and my son doesn't get a private room and has to sleep on the couch.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Yuri

I don't understand how people make money with Airbnb. Downtown São Paulo and other central neighbourhoods are flooded with them. Landmarks like Copan Building is like half Airbnb now.

BTW, I've never used Airbnb. I see nothing positive about it.

I imagine that it's pretty lucrative in cities where Airbnb operators can exploit the purchasing power of tourists accustomed to spending foreign currencies. That's pretty much what international hotel operators have been doing for decades.

I was an early adopter of Airbnb and it enabled me to become acquainted with the less touristy parts of cities across the globe. As a visitor, your experience and understanding of any city is going to be fairly limited if you're sticking only to the areas of the city where the Hiltons or Marriotts are located. However, the Airbnb experience has gotten heavily commoditized in the past 7 - 10 years. And, it is quite obviously driving up the cost of living in cities where it has not been regulated.

[Yuri]

@eschaton and @iheartthed , but nothing of those applies to São Paulo. There aren't many families coming in nor foreigners. It's mostly Brazilians and younger. And still Airbnbs are everywhere. Even in my building, with rather big apartments, there are some.

It's not for me: imagine the anxiety of dealing with apps, keys, electronic keys. I want a comfortable hotel where I don't need to think about anything.

The good thing is São Paulo is building like crazy so I don't think Airbnb will impact much, except for specific spots on the trendiest areas around Copan, Paulista Avenue.

[Yuri]

We were discussing Italy and Poland regarding immigration on page 56 and I came across with this:

The Telegraph

How Meloni quietly flooded Italy with migrants
Ageing population and declining birth rate behind policy to allow entry to 500,000 non-EU immigrants

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by Yuri

It's not for me: imagine the anxiety of dealing with apps, keys, electronic keys. I want a comfortable hotel where I don't need to think about anything.

I think iheartthed touched on this, but not all travelers want to be tourists, per se.

Some people love the whole hotel experience; from hanging out in overpriced hotel bars to room service. But other folks want to have the experience of living like a local for a short period; having their own kitchen, hanging out in a neighborhood off the beaten path, etc.

I'll also say as an American that in the smaller cities I've stayed in - places like Boone, NC, Kingston, NY, or Northampton, MA - the hotels are all in unwalkable locations off of the highways. So if you want to just roll out of bed and walk to breakfast in town, a hotel isn't really the right option.

As Airbnb has gotten more dominated by corporate types, however, the units available have gotten to be more bland and samey. I briefly looked at what was on the market in Seattle, for example. 90% of them were in bland modern condo buildings or townhouses, and furnished essentially identically. So it was more space (and cheaper) than a hotel, but not really that atheistically different.

[Yuri]

Weekend again, so I decided to group some metropolitan complexes. Starting with North America, Europe and Japan:

----------------------------------- 2020 ------- 2010 ------- 2000 ------- Area ------- Growth

------------------------ 2020 ------ 2010 ------ 2000 ------ Area ------ Growth
Kanto ------------------ 43,110,850 -- 41,996,104 -- 39,792,632 -- 25,020 Km² --- +2.7% --- +5.5%

Hudson-Delaware -------- 30,060,154 -- 28,389,983 -- 27,331,830 -- 37,789 Km² --- +5.9% --- +3.9%

Southeast England ------ 24,281,998 -- 22,554,150 -- 20,578,700 -- 36,740 Km² --- +7.7% --- +9.6%

Southern California ---- 22,391,543 -- 21,396,214 -- 19,586,825 - 105,967 Km² --- +4.7% --- +9.2%

North-Midlands --------- 19,184,108 -- 18,169,561 -- 17,175,000 -- 25,191 Km² --- +5.6% --- +5.8%

Kansai ----------------- 18,603,894 -- 18,752,230 -- 18,549,889 --- 9,032 Km² --- -0.8% --- +1.1%

Rhine-Ruhr ------------- 15,554,057 -- 15,232,293 -- 15,693,331 -- 26,455 Km² --- +2.1% --- -2.9%

Central Netherlands ---- 14,189,860 -- 13,422,075 -- 12,853,068 -- 20,269 Km² --- +5.7% --- +4.4%

Seine-Oise ------------- 13,533,547 -- 13,142,616 -- 11,939,381 -- 19,737 Km² --- +3.0% -- +10.1%

Northern California ---- 12,552,687 -- 11,497,989 -- 10,532,992 -- 57,495 Km² --- +9.2% --- +9.2%

Lake Michigan Corridor - 12,219,842 -- 12,049,327 -- 11,568,095 -- 35,933 Km² --- +1.4% --- +4.2%

North-Central Belgium -- 10,674,542 -- 10,134,494 --- 9,498,290 -- 20,917 Km² --- +5.3% --- +6.7%

Great.Golden Horseshoe - 10,563,849 --- 9,466,755 --- 8,189,929 -- 42,664 Km² -- +11.6% -- +15.6%

Chukyo ----------------- 10,211,377 -- 10,144,400 --- 9,733,258 --- 9,171 Km² --- +0.7% --- +4.2%

Lombard-Po Corridor ---- 10,005,095 --- 9,765,176 --- 9,084,820 -- 22,238 Km² --- +2.5% --- +7.5%

Potomac-Chesapeake ------ 9,458,172 --- 8,567,543 --- 7,573,360 -- 22,812 Km² -- +10.4% -- +13.1%

We have all types of configurations available, from the more monocentric ones like Tokyo, London, and Paris to others that are super polycentric. If you have any questions about the definitions, just let me know.

[New Brisavoine]

The information was a bit drowned among other more pressing international news, but last January the French-speaking part of Switzerland (called 'Romandie') was officially enlarged to the detriment of German-speaking Switzerland. After a very very long process going as far back as the 1970s and including even political violence and terror bombings, the city of Moutier finally left the German-speaking canton of Bern and joined the French-speaking of Jura!

As a result, on New Year's Day the canton of Jura went overnight from a population of 74,840 to a population of 82,096, whereas the canton of Bern decreased from 1,071,216 to 1,063,960. Oddly, despite the decades of political fights, the German-speaking authorities of the canton of Bern were quite accepting of the canton change and did not oppose the results of the local referendum. Try to imagine the mayhem if, say, the city of Edmundston voted to leave New Brunswick and join Québec! I doubt the (largely Anglophone) authorities of New Brunswick would accept the province change.

This is the first change in canton borders in Switzerland since 1978.

The Jura nationalists, however, are not entirely satisfied and are still claiming all the rest of the territory south of Moutier all the way to Lake Bienne/Biel, a territory containing 47,000 inhabitants, but it seems unlikely this territory will join the canton of Jura for the time being, due to religious opposition (the canton of Jura is Catholic whereas the Bernese Jura south of Moutier is Calvinist, like the rest of the canton of Bern).

Images from the ceremonies on New Year's Eve to mark the accession of the city to the canton of Jura. The pro-Jura supporters were ecstatic, but ca. 40% of the population in town still oppose their entry in the canton of Jura and would have preferred to remain in the canton of Bern.

• Video Link

Speech by the mayor of Moutier, Marcel Winistoerfer, during the accession ceremonies. Despite his German-sounding name, he's a Francophone (and was in favor of leaving German-speaking Bern and joining French-speaking Jura).



Jura supporters waving the flag of the canton of Jura. The German-speaking authorities of the canton of Bern had tried for more than 150 years to prevent the secession of the French-speaking Jura, until they gave up in the end of the 1970s due to political violence, but this time, like I've said, they have shown no opposition to the secession of Moutier. Must be odd to watch from Belgium or Canada where the same situation would trigger a major national/federal crisis.



The new map of the canton of Jura. The city of Moutier is the yellow growth to the south-east.