Power Shift: Cities

[New Brisavoine]

Another interesting shift is Paris and London. In fact there were two shifts: one around 1700, when London passed Paris, and the 2nd one in 1966 when Paris got ahead of London again. Interestingly ,the French GDP also passed the UK GDP in 1964. I don't know whether that's just a coincidence.

[Yuri]

^^
There is not shift there. London metro area is still larger than Paris and lately is adding much more people.

[New Brisavoine]

London metro area is only larger than Paris's depending on which definitions are used. In terms of urban areas, which are much easier to define and less debatable, the Paris urban area is definitely larger than the London urban area, based on any definition (national, UN, Geopolis, Demographia), and that's a very clear shift because until the 1960s the Paris urban area was less populated than the London urban area (having been overtaken by London around 1700).

As for London's growth, it is receding. Have you checked the latest figures? In 2012 the decline in the growth rate was noticeable, and I believe it will be even more marked in 2013 when the figures are published, with the British government making great efforts to bring down the UK net migration to under 100,000 per year.

[Yuri]

They added 1 million people in Greater London only (2001-2011). I didn't check for metro area, but on a broader definition, it might be 2 million more than 2001.

About the definitions, 1,500 km² is London city proper only. About urban area, London's Green Belt doesn't allow comparisons as they prevented the urban sprawl outside it. Therefore, the only realistic metric for this area is the metropolitan area definition. You defined it quite well in your GDP list.

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by softee

Buffalo and Toronto is another case where two neighbouring cities pulled a major switcharoo.

Buffalo

IMG_2431 by Mark Bofinger, on Flickr

vs

Toronto

Toronto Waterfront by Brady Fang, on Flickr

I didn't realise it, but there actually were two shifts:

1860/1861
Toronto ------ 194,000
Buffalo ------ 142,000

1900/1901
Buffalo ------ 509,000
Toronto ------ 440,000

1930/1931
Buffalo ------ 912,000
Toronto ------ 810,000

1940/1941
Buffalo ------ 958,000
Toronto ------ 900,000

1950/1951
Toronto ---- 1,262,000
Buffalo ---- 1,089,000

1960/1961
Toronto ---- 1,919,000
Buffalo ---- 1,307,000

1970/1971
Toronto ---- 2,628,000
Buffalo ---- 1,349,000

1980/1981
Toronto ---- 2,999,000
Buffalo ---- 1,243,000

1990/1991
Toronto ---- 3,894,000
Buffalo ---- 1,189,000

2000/2001
Toronto ---- 4,683,000
Buffalo ---- 1,170,000

2010/2011
Toronto ---- 5,583,000
Buffalo ---- 1,136,000

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by yuriandrade

They added 1 million people in Greater London only (2001-2011). I didn't check for metro area, but on a broader definition, it might be 2 million more than 2001.

No. Greater London added 882,000 inhabitants in 10 years, and the London LUZ (Greater London + 42 districts around it) added 1,230,000 inhabitants in 10 years. The 42 districts grew much less than Greater London.

As for Paris, the Paris metro area added 793,000 inhabitants in 10 years. It's not like Paris is not growing either.

And the population growth in the London LUZ decreased significantly in 2012, and will have probably decreased some more in 2013.

If the growth rates from the past 10 years kept the same (which is unlikely given London's decelerating growth rate), it would take the London urban area 15 to 19 years to pass the Paris urban area.

[Allan83]

Originally Posted by ue

Montreal was originally a settlement of New France, but after the Seven Years War, in 1763, when the British formally took over New France, the city slowly began developing an Anglo minority population.

It grew over the centuries to the point where, by the early 20th century, although vastly outnumbered by Francophones, the Anglophones controlled almost all of Montreal's wealth. Business, culture, politics, all Anglo-dominated. French was unnecessary for newcomers to know and largely relegated to the poor, Francophone underclass.

Eventually, the Francos had enough and revolted, first with the Quiet Revolution in the '60s, which sought to make Quebec into a secular state (where it was previously very Roman Catholic, even politically). But there was also a sense of not wanting Quebecois culture to wither away like other French-speaking cultures have done in the Americas, namely Acadia and Louisiana. Starting in the mid-'60s, the Front de liberation du Quebec (FLQ) started bombing various places in Montreal, mostly mailboxes, and mostly in Westmount, an affluent Anglo district of Montreal.

Then in 1970, the FLQ provoked the October Crisis, wherein the federal government invoked the War Measures Act for the first and only time outside of wartimes. The act basically temporarily revokes certain democratic rights for the safety of the country. Armed forces were deployed to the streets of Montreal, Quebec City, and Ottawa while the FLQ kidnapped a British diplomat and killed Quebec's minister of labour.

Eventually, the members of FLQ were caught, and while that meant the FLQ ceased to exist, their sentiments lived on in Quebecois, allowing for the separatist movement of the '70s and increasing demands for more autonomy from Ottawa. Referendums were held on Quebec independence in 1980 and 1995, with the latter being just under 50% for 'oui.'

With this growing sense of nationalism and the reclamation of the French language within Quebec, many of the former Anglo aristocracy fled the city en masse for Toronto in the '70s and '80s. It was also coincidental that around this time Toronto overtook Montreal as Canada's largest city, adding fuel to fire.

And of course the biggest single event during that time was the election of the separatist Parti Quebecois government in 1976, with the charismatic Rene Levesque as the new premier. This is when the separation of Quebec became a very real possibility, and after that Anglophones, Allophones, and businesses started leaving Quebec in large numbers. The exodus stemmed somewhat after the PQ lost the referendum in 1980, but the threat of separation has hung over Quebec since then and the uncertainty has greatly restricted growth. Recently a new PQ government and its proposed Charter of Values has destabilized things again, and once again many people are talking about leaving Quebec.

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

No. Greater London added 882,000 inhabitants in 10 years, and the London LUZ (Greater London + 42 districts around it) added 1,230,000 inhabitants in 10 years. The 42 districts grew much less than Greater London.

As for Paris, the Paris metro area added 793,000 inhabitants in 10 years. It's not like Paris is not growing either.

And the population growth in the London LUZ decreased significantly in 2012, and will have probably decreased some more in 2013.

If the growth rates from the past 10 years kept the same (which is unlikely given London's decelerating growth rate), it would take the London urban area 15 to 19 years to pass the Paris urban area.

I don't know where you got those figures, but I found this:

London

2001 --- 7,172,036
2011 --- 8,173,941

UK Census

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by yuriandrade

I don't know where you got those figures, but I found this:

London

2001 --- 7,172,036
2011 --- 8,173,941

UK Census

The 2001 UK census underestimated the population of Greater London by 150,000 people. You have to use ONS mid-year estimates to make time comparisons.

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by Allan83

And of course the biggest single event during that time was the election of the separatist Parti Quebecois government in 1976, with the charismatic Rene Levesque as the new premier. This is when the separation of Quebec became a very real possibility, and after that Anglophones, Allophones, and businesses started leaving Quebec in large numbers. The exodus stemmed somewhat after the PQ lost the referendum in 1980, but the threat of separation has hung over Quebec since then and the uncertainty has greatly restricted growth. Recently a new PQ government and its proposed Charter of Values has destabilized things again, and once again many people are talking about leaving Quebec.

Anglophone propaganda.

The reality is the shift between Montréal and Toronto was already under way before the PQ came to power, had not much to do with linguistic policies, and would have happened even if the PQ had never come to power.

As for the situation now, Québec and Montréal are currently experiencing the biggest population growth in decades, and have almost reached the growth rate of Ontario and Toronto, something which would have seemed unthinkable only 10 years ago. Immigration in Québec is currently at its highest in decades, and the fact that the PQ got back into power in 2012 hasn't changed that. Québec has found new growth in the immigration of people from the Francophone world (Haiti, France, the Maghreb, and subsaharan Francophone Africa), and obviously these people are not deterred by the linguistic policies of the PQ. Even the Charter of Values, for all the talk, is not really deterring immigrants from the Maghreb, because the vast majority of them are young urban educated types, and couldn't care less about the old-fashioned veil. Besides, the Maghrebans are quite aware of France's concept of "laïcité" (secularism), so I don't think they would be disoriented by finding the same concept in Québec.

Between 2008 and 2012, among the 5 countries that sent the most immigrants to Québec, 4 were Francophone ones (Morocco, Algeria, France, and Haiti), the 5th one being China. Immigrants from France in particular are more and more numerous, as young French people find the economic situation in France blocking their future. In 2012, France rose to the 2nd position for the countries of origin of immigrants in Québec. In 2013, we don't have the figures yet, but judging from the many articles in the press it's quite possible that France was the #1 country of origin of immigrants in Québec. Le Figaro published an article a few days ago explaining that in 2012 when the Canadian embassy in Paris opened the online application for working holiday visas, it took 2 weeks for all the available visas to be claimed by young French people. In 2013, it took only 48 hours. And this year they expect it will take only 20 minutes, because there is insane demand from young French people to move to Canada, especially Québec, and especially the Montréal region.

You can see the article here: http://etudiant.lefigaro.fr/les-news/etu...ur-les-visas-jeunes-pour-le-canada-4072/

PS: In parenthesis, more French people migrated to Québec between 2008 and 2012 than during the entire French colonial period in the 17th and 18th centuries, which is slightly insane when you think about it.

[Leo the Dog]

Originally Posted by babybackribs2314

The coastal cities in the South were also devastated in the Civil War, and following events. Savannah burned down, New Orleans saw major economic hardship, and so did Charleston -- which was further damaged by a major earthquake in the late 1800s.

Air conditioning + automobiles have given rise to the major Southern cities of today.

The physical geography had a big impact. Devasting coastal storms and hurricanes in largely up developable waterways and low-lying swamps played a role too.

[Wizened Variations]

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

Anglophone propaganda.

Immigrants from France in particular are more and more numerous, as young French people find the economic situation in France blocking their future. In 2012, France rose to the 2nd position for the countries of origin of immigrants in Québec. In 2013, we don't have the figures yet, but judging from the many articles in the press it's quite possible that France was the #1 country of origin of immigrants in Québec. Le Figaro published an article a few days ago explaining that in 2012 when the Canadian embassy in Paris opened the online application for working holiday visas, it took 2 weeks for all the available visas to be claimed by young French people. In 2013, it took only 48 hours. And this year they expect it will take only 20 minutes, because there is insane demand from young French people to move to Canada, especially Québec, and especially the Montréal region.

You can see the article here: http://etudiant.lefigaro.fr/les-news/etu...ur-les-visas-jeunes-pour-le-canada-4072/

Now, if the new immigre can learn the correct pronunciations!

[Allan83]

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

Anglophone propaganda.

The reality is the shift between Montréal and Toronto was already under way before the PQ came to power, had not much to do with linguistic policies, and would have happened even if the PQ had never come to power.

As for the situation now, Québec and Montréal are currently experiencing the biggest population growth in decades, and have almost reached the growth rate of Ontario and Toronto, something which would have seemed unthinkable only 10 years ago. Immigration in Québec is currently at its highest in decades, and the fact that the PQ got back into power in 2012 hasn't changed that. Québec has found new growth in the immigration of people from the Francophone world (Haiti, France, the Maghreb, and subsaharan Francophone Africa), and obviously these people are not deterred by the linguistic policies of the PQ. Even the Charter of Values, for all the talk, is not really deterring immigrants from the Maghreb, because the vast majority of them are young urban educated types, and couldn't care less about the old-fashioned veil. Besides, the Maghrebans are quite aware of France's concept of "laïcité" (secularism), so I don't think they would be disoriented by finding the same concept in Québec.

Between 2008 and 2012, among the 5 countries that sent the most immigrants to Québec, 4 were Francophone ones (Morocco, Algeria, France, and Haiti), the 5th one being China. Immigrants from France in particular are more and more numerous, as young French people find the economic situation in France blocking their future. In 2012, France rose to the 2nd position for the countries of origin of immigrants in Québec. In 2013, we don't have the figures yet, but judging from the many articles in the press it's quite possible that France was the #1 country of origin of immigrants in Québec. Le Figaro published an article a few days ago explaining that in 2012 when the Canadian embassy in Paris opened the online application for working holiday visas, it took 2 weeks for all the available visas to be claimed by young French people. In 2013, it took only 48 hours. And this year they expect it will take only 20 minutes, because there is insane demand from young French people to move to Canada, especially Québec, and especially the Montréal region.

You can see the article here: http://etudiant.lefigaro.fr/les-news/etu...ur-les-visas-jeunes-pour-le-canada-4072/

PS: In parenthesis, more French people migrated to Québec between 2008 and 2012 than during the entire French colonial period in the 17th and 18th centuries, which is slightly insane when you think about it.

Um, I’m afraid what I said was just the historical facts, and I didn’t even mention Toronto. With the election of the PQ for the first time in 1976 the threat of separation became very real, and that’s when the major exodus started. The PQ was formed for the purpose of pushing for Quebec separation, and when the people of Quebec elected them it seemed very likely they would also vote for separation. When that didn’t happen in 1980 the flow of people out of the province slowed down a bit.

And saying that Quebec’s growth rate is now equal to Ontario’s isn’t much to boast about. Ontario’s growth has been slow for some years now and is below the national average.
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/tables-tableaux/sum-som/l01/cst01/demo02b-eng.htm

As far as the Charter of Values goes, it’s been very controversial and many people have said publically that if it passes they’ll leave Quebec. It hasn’t passed yet, (and even if it does it could also lead to the defeat of the PQ government and the subsequent repeal of the law), but a lot of those people could easily be serious about leaving Quebec if it passes. This has happened before, after all, except this time they’d probably be moving to the west instead of to Toronto.

[coyotetrickster]

Originally Posted by brickell

If we take the whole southern US, there was a big shift from the coasts (Charleston, Savannah, Wilmington) to points further inland (Atlanta, Colombia, Charlotte).

That is a simplistic, but accurate observation. Southern ports were occupied after the civil war and were prohibited from exporting merchandised. Manufacturing in the south was non-existent following the war and kept in check by railroad statutes that would allow only raw goods (commodities), etc. be moved out of the south. The entire low country region (NC, SC and GA) was capital starved and the bank bank of 1907 savaged the poorly-capitalize regions of the US. All of the southern cities that grew were linked to railroads early and later to interstate systems.

[Chicago103]

Chicago


VS.

Los Angeles


Year City Population Growth City Population Growth Notes
larger city in bold

1850 Chicago 29,963 570.3% Los Angeles 1,610 1st Los Angeles census
1860 Chicago 112,172 274.4% Los Angeles 4,385 172.4%
1870 Chicago 298,977 166.5% Los Angeles 5,728 30.6%
1880 Chicago 503,185 68.3% Los Angeles 11,183 95.2% Los Angeles' growth rate exceeds Chicago's for the first time and remains so till today.
1890 Chicago 1,099,850 118.6% Los Angeles 50,395 350.6% Chicago becomes the second largest city in the United States.
1900 Chicago 1,698,575 54.4% Los Angeles 102,479 103.4%
1910 Chicago 2,185,283 28.7% Los Angeles 319,198 211.5%
1920 Chicago 2,701,705 23.6% Los Angeles 576,673 80.7%
1930 Chicago 3,376,438 25.0% Los Angeles 1,238,048 114.7%
1940 Chicago 3,396,808 0.6% Los Angeles 1,504,277 21.5%
1950 Chicago 3,620,962 6.6% Los Angeles 1,970,358 31.0%
1960 Chicago 3,550,404 −1.9% Los Angeles 2,479,015 25.8%
1970 Chicago 3,366,957 −5.2% Los Angeles 2,816,061 13.6%
1980 Chicago 3,005,072 −10.7% Los Angeles 2,966,850 5.4% Chicago is just barely larger than Los Angeles and the latter would become the second largest city in the United States in the early 1980's.
1990 Chicago 2,783,726 −7.4% Los Angeles 3,485,398 17.5% Los Angeles is officially the second largest city in the United States with this census.
2000 Chicago 2,896,016 4.0% Los Angeles 3,694,820 6.0% Los Angeles surpasses Chicago's 1950 peak population.
2010 Chicago 2,695,598 −6.9% Los Angeles 3,792,621 2.6% Chicago experiences population decline after gain in 2000 census and Los Angeles has the lowest growth rate in it's history.

This is no doubt the largest city vs. city power shift in American history. As others have said even though New York City and Chicago share a common history in many ways there was never any real danger of a change in the positions of power. The Chicago vs. Los Angeles shift represented the change in American culture from relatively high density and centralized cities in the northeast and Midwest to relatively low density and decentralized cities in the sunbelt. Also I don't think before Los Angeles became the second largest city there was that much of a bi-coastal elitism, i.e. the coasts vs. the rest of the country. Prior to World War II and for a time afterwards it was more east vs. west, north vs. south or if anything New York City vs. everyone else. Chicago was pretty well respected as a cultural and economic powerhouse and if anything the west coast was kind of looked down upon by city dwellers east of the Mississippi. A classic example of this attitude was Al Smith's famous statement that he would rather be a lamppost on Park Avenue in New York City than the Governor of California.

[kenc]

I am surprised no one did the Houston vs Dallas posting

[DCReid]

Originally Posted by kenc

I am surprised no one did the Houston vs Dallas posting

A San Antonio vs Austin comparison would be better.

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by Wizened Variations

Now, if the new immigre can learn the correct pronunciations!

I heard from Montrealers that there is indeed more France's French accent heard in Montréal these days. Not sure how they react to it. It would be interesting to ask them what they think.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by kenc

I am surprised no one did the Houston vs Dallas posting

Houston and Dallas have barely changed. They've been roughly similar size for quite some time.

[prelude91]

Originally Posted by Chicago103

Chicago


VS.

Los Angeles


Year City Population Growth City Population Growth Notes
larger city in bold

1850 Chicago 29,963 570.3% Los Angeles 1,610 1st Los Angeles census
1860 Chicago 112,172 274.4% Los Angeles 4,385 172.4%
1870 Chicago 298,977 166.5% Los Angeles 5,728 30.6%
1880 Chicago 503,185 68.3% Los Angeles 11,183 95.2% Los Angeles' growth rate exceeds Chicago's for the first time and remains so till today.
1890 Chicago 1,099,850 118.6% Los Angeles 50,395 350.6% Chicago becomes the second largest city in the United States.
1900 Chicago 1,698,575 54.4% Los Angeles 102,479 103.4%
1910 Chicago 2,185,283 28.7% Los Angeles 319,198 211.5%
1920 Chicago 2,701,705 23.6% Los Angeles 576,673 80.7%
1930 Chicago 3,376,438 25.0% Los Angeles 1,238,048 114.7%
1940 Chicago 3,396,808 0.6% Los Angeles 1,504,277 21.5%
1950 Chicago 3,620,962 6.6% Los Angeles 1,970,358 31.0%
1960 Chicago 3,550,404 −1.9% Los Angeles 2,479,015 25.8%
1970 Chicago 3,366,957 −5.2% Los Angeles 2,816,061 13.6%
1980 Chicago 3,005,072 −10.7% Los Angeles 2,966,850 5.4% Chicago is just barely larger than Los Angeles and the latter would become the second largest city in the United States in the early 1980's.
1990 Chicago 2,783,726 −7.4% Los Angeles 3,485,398 17.5% Los Angeles is officially the second largest city in the United States with this census.
2000 Chicago 2,896,016 4.0% Los Angeles 3,694,820 6.0% Los Angeles surpasses Chicago's 1950 peak population.
2010 Chicago 2,695,598 −6.9% Los Angeles 3,792,621 2.6% Chicago experiences population decline after gain in 2000 census and Los Angeles has the lowest growth rate in it's history.

This is no doubt the largest city vs. city power shift in American history. As others have said even though New York City and Chicago share a common history in many ways there was never any real danger of a change in the positions of power. The Chicago vs. Los Angeles shift represented the change in American culture from relatively high density and centralized cities in the northeast and Midwest to relatively low density and decentralized cities in the sunbelt. Also I don't think before Los Angeles became the second largest city there was that much of a bi-coastal elitism, i.e. the coasts vs. the rest of the country. Prior to World War II and for a time afterwards it was more east vs. west, north vs. south or if anything New York City vs. everyone else. Chicago was pretty well respected as a cultural and economic powerhouse and if anything the west coast was kind of looked down upon by city dwellers east of the Mississippi. A classic example of this attitude was Al Smith's famous statement that he would rather be a lamppost on Park Avenue in New York City than the Governor of California.

While LA proper passing chicago proper in the '80s was a significant milestone, I believe at the metro level, LA passed chicago in the 50s or 60s.