[tablemtn]

The national population of Japan, for example, is currently in contraction. It is declining. However, this has not yet led to a decline in the population of the country's largest metro areas, such as Tokyo-Yokohama, Osaka, Nagoya, or Fukouka. Instead, Japan's smaller cities and towns are gradually depopulating, though attrition and migration to the largest urban areas. So, for purposes of Japan's biggest metro areas, the country's overall population decline hasn't showed up yet.

Germany's population is also in slight contraction. I'm not as familiar with German demographic research as I am with similar research from Japan, so I can't speculate on the effects of this decline on Germany's metro areas.

But as the populations of several more European countries go into decline, or continue to decline, what will be the effect on the largest cities of those countries? Will we see the same effect as Japan, where the countryside hollows out and the population consolidates into the cities? Or will the decline be spread more evenly?

[muppet]

Thats already happening in places like Russia and E Europe, youth are much more inclined to leave rustbelt, depopulated towns for the lights of the big city, which see in unprecedented growth.

[MayorOfChicago]

I believe the larger cities in Germany, especially Berlin, are growing at the moment.

I would agree too people would leave the smaller and struggling town for the larger cities.

[Crawford]

I believe the larger cities in Germany, especially Berlin, are growing at the moment.

I would agree too people would leave the smaller and struggling town for the larger cities.

Berlin is shrinking at the moment. Its economy is poor.

Most German cities are stable (or stagnant, depending on your perspective).
Cologne and Hamburg are stable.

Munich, Stuttgart and Frankfurt are growing.

East German cities are all declining. The Ruhrgebiet cities (Essen, Dortmund, Duisburg, etc.) are also declining.

[liat91]

I guess it's good that the U.S. rustbelt cities are redefining themselves well before the U.S. finally reaches peak population(probably not for another 50 years or so).

[Gordo]

I guess it's good that the U.S. rustbelt cities are redefining themselves well before the U.S. finally reaches peak population(probably not for another 50 years or so).

I highly doubt US population will peak in 50 years or even 100 years, unless there is a major lockdown on immigration or a destroyed economy.

As soon as major population centers in Europe and Japan start to show a decrease of any meaningful number in population, expect immigration controls (legal and illegal) to be relaxed. Growth in population affects the economy too much for any country to not WANT growth over the long run. As long as there are poor countries and rich countries, there will be a way for rich countries to grow (which will happen in most cases).

[BnaBreaker]

If and when the U.S. does start declining in population, my guess would be that the first places to lose it are the sparsely populated, less permanent settlements, with low quality infrastructure. Of course I'm talking about sprawl. :)

[tablemtn]

There are places in the US losing population right now - they tend to be smaller towns in rural areas of the plains states (e.g. Nebraska, Kansas, the Dakotas, etc.). Kids don't want to live there anymore, jobs are hard to find, and the people who used to live there are dying of old age.

[liat91]

I highly doubt US population will peak in 50 years or even 100 years, unless there is a major lockdown on immigration or a destroyed economy.

As soon as major population centers in Europe and Japan start to show a decrease of any meaningful number in population, expect immigration controls (legal and illegal) to be relaxed. Growth in population affects the economy too much for any country to not WANT growth over the long run. As long as there are poor countries and rich countries, there will be a way for rich countries to grow (which will happen in most cases).

It is pretty well documented that the worlds population will hit it's peak somewhere around the middle of this century. Currently the world's fertility rate is at 2.59 children born per woman, and continues to drop precipitously.

[R@ptor]

I believe the larger cities in Germany, especially Berlin, are growing at the moment.

I would agree too people would leave the smaller and struggling town for the larger cities.

Actually Berlin is declining in population, as is all of Eastern Germany (with the sole exceptions of Dresden and Potsdam). The people are primarily moving to the metro areas of Southern Germany (Bavaria & Baden-Wuerttemberg)

[Gordo]

It is pretty well documented that the worlds population will hit it's peak somewhere around the middle of this century. Currently the world's fertility rate is at 2.59 children born per woman, and continues to drop precipitously.

I have no doubt the world will peak - but there will still be places in the world gaining population and other places losing population. Places with wealth and opportunity will continue to grow long after any world peak - and as some places with wealth start to shrink, there will be increased pressure from the inside to stop the bleeding and from the outside to accept more immigrants from poorer places.

[Minato Ku]

I highly doubt US population will peak in 50 years or even 100 years, unless there is a major lockdown on immigration or a destroyed economy.

As soon as major population centers in Europe and Japan start to show a decrease of any meaningful number in population, expect immigration controls (legal and illegal) to be relaxed. Growth in population affects the economy too much for any country to not WANT growth over the long run. As long as there are poor countries and rich countries, there will be a way for rich countries to grow (which will happen in most cases).

Exept France, the only european (with Ireland) country wich don't depend of the immigration. :notacrook:
Unlike that many think actually the immigration rate in France is quite low compared at Spain or Italy, Too low according me. :(

[Jesus in a Geo]

In the rust belt, population decline is a self-fufilling propechy. It leads to low civic self-esteem toward one's environment, feelings of frustration that ultimately engender more decline.

[shane453]

There are places in the US losing population right now - they tend to be smaller towns in rural areas of the plains states (e.g. Nebraska, Kansas, the Dakotas, etc.). Kids don't want to live there anymore, jobs are hard to find, and the people who used to live there are dying of old age.

Don't you mean most small towns in rural areas of ALL states? I don't think it's necessarily a plains state exclusive.

But yeah, even with a growing population, we have the same sort of situation- people moving away from small towns and into the big metropolitan areas, and people within the metropolitan areas moving from the fringes to the center in many cases. Maybe it's not so much a trend related to population growth as it is related to changing life patterns in relation to the nation and the world. Kind of like the new city revolution... first it was industrialization and population explosion, then it was suburban expansion, now urban growth rural decay.

[Crawford]

^
Yes, it's true even in boom states. Texas' population is booming, but most of its counties are losing population. The difference is that sprawl around the four major metros is expanding at a blistering pace.

[DiggerD21]

Cologne and Hamburg are stable.

No, Hamburg is growing in population...slowly. Out of the last 30 months only 3 months show a lower population than the respective previous month.

Population of Hamburg (main residence only) in
January 2005: 1 735 288
January 2006: 1 744 769
January 2007: 1 755 264
June 2007: 1 760 322

Source (http://www.statistik-nord.de/index.php?id=749)

[dfane]

Europe will not lose population, since they have very leiberal immigration laws and millions from Africa and Asia flowing in.
Europeans besides the French believe it or not (not sure if it is due to the roughly 20-30% Muslim population who have big families still) and the Irish stopped having kids and the abortion rate in the UK and Russia is off the charts high, but their are millions waiting to step in and take over, which is what is happening.
So some older cities may lose population in the short term but will eventually level off or grow due to immigration.
America is sort of in the same position esp in certain areas and will go in ebs and flow, but I think it will level off.

[Minato Ku]

Europeans besides the French believe it or not (not sure if it is due to the roughly 20-30% Muslim population who have big families still).

:koko:

Most of muslim in France are French and born in France, so it is not due at recent immigration.
There is muslim in France since the debut of the 20th century even if most of them was arrived just after the second world war.
It is like Italian in USA, would we said that there kids are immigrant ?

[tablemtn]

Some countries in Europe already ARE losing population, so it's not just a theoretical question. Germany is probably the most notable example, due to its size and the fact that it is considered a 'western' European country, rather than a central or eastern one.

[liat91]

If you look at the latest stats, the fertility rates in Europe have bottomed out finally and are starting their way up due to pro-fertility programs in many European countries. Japan and Korea on the other hand don't seem to be able to reverse their super low fertility trend. The rest of the world barring China, India and United States saw their fertility continue to drop this year. Low fertility in many cases means increased prosperity. Just look at Tunisia as compared to Algeria. Eastern Europe is considered a boom region right now. Compare China and India, one has a low fertility rate and the other a high one, which one is doing better. My point is when the world stops growing I guarantee you there won't be many people clammering to come to the U.S. or Europe like some people think will continue indefinitely.

[Gordo]

If you look at the latest stats, the fertility rates in Europe have bottomed out finally and are starting their way up due to pro-fertility programs in many European countries. Japan and Korea on the other hand don't seem to be able to reverse their super low fertility trend. The rest of the world barring China, India and United States saw their fertility continue to drop this year. Low fertility in many cases means increased prosperity. Just look at Tunisia as compared to Algeria. Eastern Europe is considered a boom region right now. Compare China and India, one has a low fertility rate and the other a high one, which one is doing better. My point is when the world stops growing I guarantee you there won't be many people clammering to come to the U.S. or Europe like some people think will continue indefinitely.

True - I just don't see that happening in 50 years or even 100 years. Perhaps mid next century there will be a small enough gap between the haves and the have nots to make the incentive to come to a rich country less so. Eastern Europe may be a macroeconomic boom region right now, but there are still millions who leave each year, because the boom isn't necessarily trickling down to everyone.

And as has been stated by others here - even when the world stops growing, there will be places that do not stop growing. And where will those places be? Poorer countries, with fewer economic options for people - meaning pressure for them to leave and find better opportunities will still be high.

[Nantais]

Europeans besides the French believe it or not (not sure if it is due to the roughly 20-30% Muslim population who have big families still) and the Irish.
Where did you get your stats ?
There are about 8% of Muslims in France.

[liat91]

True - I just don't see that happening in 50 years or even 100 years. Perhaps mid next century there will be a small enough gap between the haves and the have nots to make the incentive to come to a rich country less so. Eastern Europe may be a macroeconomic boom region right now, but there are still millions who leave each year, because the boom isn't necessarily trickling down to everyone.

And as has been stated by others here - even when the world stops growing, there will be places that do not stop growing. And where will those places be? Poorer countries, with fewer economic options for people - meaning pressure for them to leave and find better opportunities will still be high.

When the world reaches zero growth the wealthy and less wealthy areas are expected to have almost identicle birth rates. In poor countries people are rushing to the cities where incidentally people tend to have smaller families. Africa may be the only place on Earth in 2050 where there will still be substantial pressures to emigrate, but not Asia or Latin America.

[Gordo]

When the world reaches zero growth the wealthy and less wealthy areas are expected to have almost identicle birth rates. In poor countries people are rushing to the cities where incidentally people tend to have smaller families. Africa may be the only place on Earth in 2050 where there will still be substantial pressures to emigrate, but not Asia or Latin America.

It all depends on the level of economic disparity that still exists then. Emigration pressures are typically caused by population growth AND economic situations. As an example, take a look at Uruguay over the last three decades. Very, very low birthrate (one of the lowest in the world), yet one of the highest emigration rates in South America. Why? Education is relatively good, but economic opportunities have been crappy. Much of Eastern Europe has seen the same. As India and China better their primary education systems, expect some of the same - unless they can keep economies tearing at the same speed.