Waning for decades, England’s big cities are growing fast again

[M II A II R II K]

The city roars back


Jul 21st 2012



Read More: http://www.economist.com/node/21559338

PEOPLE in Britain are living longer and having more babies—and more foreigners are joining them. That is the main finding from the 2011 census results released on July 16th. The population of England and Wales is growing faster than most demographers thought, at 7.1% for the decade, thanks mainly to immigration and a rise in fertility fuelled by the newcomers. But there is another, still less expected, change: big cities that were shedding people a decade ago are growing at a terrific rate.

- London has been swelling since the late 1980s, but its rate of growth has increased sharply. All eight of England’s “core” cities outside the capital have expanded, whereas only one—Leeds, in West Yorkshire—grew even slightly between 1991 and 2001. For years, as manufacturing jobs ebbed from the Midlands and the north and city centres decayed, big conurbations like Liverpool and Manchester tended to pull down their region’s performance, points out John Salt of University College London. No longer. Newcastle, for example, grew by 5% in the past decade as the North East virtually stood still.

- Manchester’s population grew by 19% in the ten years to March 2011, much faster than its surroundings. Not so long ago the city centre housed a few hundred people. Now it holds perhaps 15,000-20,000, as students and professionals have moved in droves into converted warehouses and factories. In Manchester, the number of residents between 20 and 40 years old has increased spectacularly, and with it the number of children. There are 43% more twenty-somethings, and the number of those who are aged four or younger is up by 40%. It is an extreme example of a national trend. Manchester’s expansion is not entirely due to a yuppified city centre. Moss Side, a run-down district once famous for gun crime, is also growing exceptionally quickly.

- Are urban populations growing because people want to live in cities again or because they have to? It is a mixture of the two, says Tony Travers of the London School of Economics. Moving to London generally enhances a career because so many companies are based there and people change jobs a lot—the so-called “elevator effect”. This may just about be true of Manchester. Lately sticky jobs and housing markets have glued urbanites in place. But supply makes a difference, too. As big cities have welcomed growth in their centres, many small towns have resisted it. The return to city living is not unique to Britain. Berlin and—at least until recently—some southern European cities have also been growing strongly. In America, the foreclosure crisis has pushed people back into cities and inner suburbs, says William Frey of the Brookings Institution, though it is not clear whether that trend will last.

Three things have contributed to this resurgence.

• The first is the investment in reclaiming city centres, inspired partly by Lord Rogers, an architect and urban booster. The middles of once-hollow cities have been filled with flats just as constraints on the use of green land around many of them have tightened.

• Another is jobs. Public-sector investment under the last Labour government created well-paid work outside the south-east. Big-city universities have grown, attracting both British and foreign students. As cities have improved, more graduates want to stay on in them. Employers are drawn by a skilled labour force, and the virtuous circle attracts other newcomers.

• The third is immigration. Census figures on national and ethnic origins are not yet out, but many of the places that have seen the greatest increase over this past decade of unprecedented immigration are those where newcomers have historically been most apt to settle.

.....

[nito]

Since the release of the 2011 Census data, I have been working on putting the figures into graphs and charts, a couple of them are below.

For reference, dark green refers to local authorities (boroughs) in London; other colours: city local authorities; dark blue: non-city local authorities.



Source: Office for National Statistics


Source: Office for National Statistics


Source: Office for National Statistics


Source: Office for National Statistics


Source: Office for National Statistics


Source: Office for National Statistics


Source: Office for National Statistics


Source: Office for National Statistics


Source: Office for National Statistics


Source: Office for National Statistics


Source: Office for National Statistics


Source: Office for National Statistics

[Allnatural85]

WOW London grew by leaps this census. So by official numbers London and NYC are about the same population wise

[Minato Ku]

But the size of London is twice the size of New York City area wise, it is not really comparable.
If you take about 1,500 km² (600 sq mi) of New York and its inner suburbs, it would have about 12 million inhabitants.

[MonkeyRonin]

Originally Posted by nito

Source: Office for National Statistics

Not exactly fair to compare Greater London with the municipalities of New York, Houston, Toronto, and Los Angeles.

[SHiRO]

Why not? In case of LA and Houston it's totally fair. Don't see that huge a problem with comparing to New York City or the (amalgated) city of Toronto either.
Great graphs nito!

[SHiRO]

[Allnatural85]

well if measured by metros would London still have grown so much more then the other NA cities mentioned? just wondering

[nito]

Originally Posted by Minato Ku

But the size of London is twice the size of New York City area wise, it is not really comparable.
If you take about 1,500 km² (600 sq mi) of New York and its inner suburbs, it would have about 12 million inhabitants.

The definition of what a city is naturally differs due to geographical, social, historical and political factors; however the areas are roughly comparable for all intents and purposes. Comparing Paris to London, etc... however would have an unfair comparison due to the substantial discrepancy in area.

Ultimately cities develop along separate paths incorporating areas (e.g. waterways) that may not be truly considered a part of a city. For example, due to the Green Belt (http://www.london.gov.uk/thelondonpl...g/map-3d-3.jpg) there is farmland and expanses of virgin countryside inside London (#1 + #2).

Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin

Not exactly fair to compare Greater London with the municipalities of New York, Houston, Toronto, and Los Angeles.

‘Greater’ London ought not to be confused with say the definition of Greater Los Angeles Area; they might share a word, but the meaning is entirely different. For instance the London figure refers only to the administrative ‘city’, not the urban or metro area.

Originally Posted by Allnatural85

well if measured by metros would London still have grown so much more then the other NA cities mentioned? just wondering

London technically doesn’t have a metro area, at least not in the same recognised vein as say in the US, of course that isn’t to say that attempts haven’t been made to map such an area. The Office for National Statistics (2005 data) came out with a figure of close to 9.2mn, while Eurostat (2005 data) claim 11.9mn. I also recall work undertaken some years ago by a French forum member over at skyscrapercity called Manuel who (using US metro area methodology) produced a figure of 18mn.

As to what the present figures are, I would hazard to guess that both have increased substantially in light not just of the population growth in London, but because of the two regions that border London: the South East and East that compose part of London’s urban and metro area.

As the following graphic illustrates (2001 population at the bottom, 2001-2011 population change above), while London experienced the strongest numerical growth of any area, the South East and East were strong performers, with combined population growth of circa 1.06mn. Factor in London, and that figure increases to 1.9mn. The issue is where the line is drawn as to what parts of the South East and East are and aren’t composed of a US-style metro area.


Source: Office for National Statistics


The following graphic looks at the population change of four CMSA areas, London, and a hypothetical London CMSA metro (London + ((East + South East)*80%)). Naturally not to be taken too seriously.


Source: Office for National Statistics

[SHiRO]

I think its safe to say that in absolute numbers metropolitan London grew the most and is only rivalled by LA in that respect. Probably a little known fact that side of the Atlantic where all the attention went to fast relative growers like Houston, Dallas, Atlanta and Phoenix.

[MonkeyRonin]

Originally Posted by SHiRO

Why not? In case of LA and Houston it's totally fair. Don't see that huge a problem with comparing to New York City or the (amalgated) city of Toronto either.
Great graphs nito!

Because Greater London accounts for the large majority of the hypothetical metropolitan London. Going by Nito's numbers of 9.2 million or 11.9 million, Greater London would account for 69-89% of the metro area, whereas those other municipalities range from 30-45% of the metro population - and which are fully built out. London still has plenty of untouched land for potential development (though I imagine most of it is protected).

[SHiRO]

There's no way that metropolitan London is just 12 million. That would be just ridiculous. Greater London is not even half of the metro area when comparing against North American metro areas, not in population and certainly not in area! (New York CSA is 30,000 km2 how would that compare to Greater London's 1,500 km2 ???)

Greater London contains the entire urban core, some inner ring suburbs and pieces of the Greenbelt.
One could argue that NYC is not the entire urban core of metropolitan New York and eventhough it contains Staten Island which is suburban in nature I would go along with that because I think that parts of New Jersey (Jersey City, Hoboken) are part of the urban core.
The city of LA, contains the vast majority of the urban core for that metropolitan area though added with large swaths of suburban areas in the SF Valley. The fact that some small parts of the urban core (West Hollywood, Beverly Hills, Santa Monica) are not technically part of the city of LA doesn't matter much.
In case of Houston, it definately contains the entire urban core plus large swaths of suburban areas that the City of Houston annexed.
Toronto is also an amalgated city which pretty much already hints at it consisting of more than just the urban core.

The fact that LA and Houston are the same size in area despite having just 1/2 and 1/4 the population makes it a more than fair comparison versus London. Toronto too, which is 1/3 the population size on 1/2 the area. Proportionally it's a fair comparison, slightly favouring TO even.

So really only in case of NYC there's a slight discrepancy, but that can be easily fixed by subtracting Staten Island and adding areas of New Jersey untill you get to 1,500 km2.
But if you do that and want to be real consistent, you should also downsize LA and Houston. Toronto is roughly proportionally right.
Or you could just compare the administrative boundaries like nito did while keeping in mind each city's specifics. In any case it's clear that metro London added a lot more people than metro New York the past decade, so it's a moot point really.



btw London's "MSA" should be in the 14-16 million range and its "CSA" in the 18-20 million range. Canadian metros are more strictly defined than US ones so Toronto's official CMA of 5.5 million would be a low "MSA" (just like Paris' 12 million is a very low/strict "MSA"), the GTA with 6 million perhaps more comparable to US MSAs and the entire Golden Horseshoe with 7-9 million would be the "CSA".

[someone123]

Originally Posted by SHiRO

The fact that LA and Houston are the same size in area despite having just 1/2 and 1/4 the population makes it a more than fair comparison versus London. Toronto too, which is 1/3 the population size on 1/2 the area. Proportionally it's a fair comparison, slightly favouring TO even.

What do you mean by "fair"? The Toronto CMA, which is a perfectly reasonable definition of the city, grew by more than five times as much as the number indicated on the graph. Even if the statistical areas were comparable, there's no indication on that graph of what exactly is being measured, so the graph is misleading.

Growth within a certain land area is clearly not the right way to look at this given the dramatic differences in density across metropolitan areas and in the differences in where the urban growth is happening. You cannot form an accurate picture of urban growth by excluding the fastest-growing areas of one metropolitan area and including them in another.

[SHiRO]

This is not just a British thing btw. Most western European cities experienced modest to substantial growth in the last decade. From the top of my head Toulouse and Oslo gained the most relatively speaking. The Dutch cities also had healthy growth.

Amsterdam from 730,000 in 2000 to 790,000 now (+60,000)
Rotterdam from 590,000 in 2000 to 617,000 now (+27,000 although 12,000 is through annexation and R'dam experienced slight population loss around 2004)
The Hague from 440,000 in 2000 to 502,000 now (+62,000 yay! broke half a mill and also the >50% ethnic non Dutch composition of the population. Amsterdam and Rotterdam were already there)
Utrecht from 234,000 in 2000 to 318,000 now (+84,000 !!! pretty impressive for a smaller, yet established city)

[SHiRO]

Originally Posted by someone123

What do you mean by "fair"? The Toronto CMA, which is a perfectly reasonable definition of the city, grew by more than five times as much as the number indicated on the graph. Even if the statistical areas were comparable, there's no indication on that graph of what exactly is being measured, so the graph is misleading.

There's nothing misleading about those graphs, not if you understand what they're showing anyway.
It basically compares growth within the city boundaries of these cities, eventhough the difference in names used (Greater London is basically just London proper or London city if you will) can be confusing. I'd say London and Toronto are the most comparable because both consist of the urban core plus some areas that are basically inner ring suburbs. New York is least comparable because its a much smaller area (absolute and relative) and is missing part of the urban core. Houston annexed vast amounts of suburban areas and LA has an unique layout that's somewhere in the middle of urban and suburban. So any comparison of these two cities to London already favours them (also the vast areas relative to their population).

If you want to compare metropolitan areas, be our guest. I'm sure you can make as good a graph as nito did. But be aware that if metropolitan Toronto indeed added 650,000 in the last decade, that's still a far cry from the 1.7 million+ metropolitan London added. The only thing that might equilize it is if you make a graph proportionately to the population. Toronto might have added more %wise, but quickly calculating it, I don't think that's the case either. Plus cities like Houston, Dallas, Atlanta, Phoenix and Las Vegas might have something to say in that case.

Growth within a certain land area is clearly not the right way to look at this given the dramatic differences in density across metropolitan areas and in the differences in where the urban growth is happening. You cannot form an accurate picture of urban growth by excluding the fastest-growing areas of one metropolitan area and including them in another.

Except, as nito showed, growth was high throughout the London metropolitan area. A quick glance also shows that it makes no difference because we get the same picture when comparing metro areas (LA excluded which grew as much as London did). So it's starting to feel like another instance of SSPers trying to downplay developments in parts of the world that are not well represented here and didn't have dozens of threads dedicated to it over the last decade.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by SHiRO

There's nothing misleading about those graphs, not if you understand what they're showing anyway.

Isn't this true of every graph ever made?

Except, as nito showed, growth was high throughout the London metropolitan area. A quick glance also shows that it makes no difference because we get the same picture when comparing metro areas (LA excluded which grew as much as London did). So it's starting to feel like another instance of SSPers trying to downplay developments in parts of the world that are not well represented here and didn't have dozens of threads dedicated to it over the last decade.

You say LA is an exception and grew as much as London, but LA is dead last in the graph, with less than 1/8 the population growth of London. Similarly I also pointed out that most of Toronto's population growth didn't make it onto that graph, and that's probably true of all four that are not London. I'm not sure that it's true of London.

I think you're seriously stretching when you talk about people wanting to downplay growth in London or anywhere outside of North America. I have no particular impression of how much London is growing, and everybody knows London is bigger than, say, Toronto.

[SHiRO]

Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin

Not exactly fair to compare Greater London with the municipalities of New York, Houston, Toronto, and Los Angeles.

What it comes down to is this:

Greater London = the municipality of London for all intents and purposes.

How someone from Toronto of all place can question this is beyond me because that city and East York, Etobicoke, North York, Scarborough and York amalgated into what we now call the City of Toronto. Why would you accept the City of Toronto as municipality and not Greater London for London? It's basically the exact same thing. Area propertionate to the population is also almost an exact fit so there's really nothing left to call this an unfair comparison. Were not comparing the City of Paris to Greater London here which would be unfair.

[SHiRO]

Originally Posted by someone123

You say LA is an exception and grew as much as London, but LA is dead last in the graph, with less than 1/8 the population growth of London. Similarly I also pointed out that most of Toronto's population growth didn't make it onto that graph, and that's probably true of all four that are not London. I'm not sure that it's true of London.

The City of Los Angeles had slow growth but metropolitan LA (including Riverside and Bakersfield/Inland Empire) grew as much as metropolitan London did. And both metro areas happen to be of similar size population wise (around 18 million) so perfectely comparable. Greater London (= city proper of London) grew as much as the entire New York CSA did so the remarkable thing I think we should be noticing is the slow growth of metropolitan New York.

If you read the graphs correctly you'll notice that roughly half of London's growth was in the urban core. That's a good thing! Almost none of LA's growth was in its urban core (at least not in the City of LA, but LA has more centers that might have had strong growth, I don't know). And going by what you said about Toronto only 1/5 of Toronto's growth was in its urban core. Props to London is all I can say.

I think you're seriously stretching when you talk about people wanting to downplay growth in London or anywhere outside of North America. I have no particular impression of how much London is growing, and everybody knows London is bigger than, say, Toronto.

I wish I could still have your faith. This is a forum afterall that explodes in flamewar when you try to challenge the claim that Seattle is bigger than Rome...

[M II A II R II K]

Aside from technicalities, what feels urban on the ground is urban.

[MonkeyRonin]

The UK's "Travel to Work Areas" put London's at 9.3 million in 2005 (so maybe ~10.3 million today); the EU's LUZ of London is 11.9 million; the European Spatial Planning Observation Network puts the London Commuter Belt at 12 million.

So, in the absence of an official national metropolitan definition & number, I'd say something around 12 million seems a fair figure for London.


14-20 million would make it cover something like this:




In red: The entirety of Greater London + Southeast England + the East of England: A total of 22 million people (2011) over 40,000 sqkm covering a number of distinct cities at the centre of their own metropolitan areas.

In green: Greater London + the Home Counties: 14 million people (2001), over maybe 20-30,000 sqkm.


As a side note, people need to stop using CSAs as a measurement of metropolitan population (both Americans trying to inflate their numbers and everyone else with the smarmy well my city would be this big if we measured like the Americans thing) - they simply are not measuring a city's metro population - the first letter gives it away, it is a combined statistical area, measuring multiple metro areas in close proximity with an economic relation to one another.

Originally Posted by SHiRO

If you want to compare metropolitan areas, be our guest. I'm sure you can make as good a graph as nito did. But be aware that if metropolitan Toronto indeed added 650,000 in the last decade, that's still a far cry from the 1.7 million+ metropolitan London added.

This isn't supposed to be a contest to see who's grown the most. The problem is the comparison of a large semi-metropolitan entity to smaller single-tier municipalities. But that comparison right there is at least a little more comparable than the one in the graph. Though for the record, Greater Toronto grew by 972,365 between 2001 and 2011.