# Does Europe have any fast growing cities?



## polako

We all know that the US, Japan, Canada and Australia have many fast growing cities(over 20% a decade). I have searched online for fast growing cities in Europe, but haven't found any. So my question to Europeans on this board is, are there any fast growing cities in Europe? Since the European population is set to decline sharply in the coming decades are there any growing cities at all or are most of the cities there just stagnant/declining in population? Or maybe there are some areas of Europe where cities are still growing fast?


----------



## Mekky II

Toulouse is the fastest of France (passed over 1.1 million inhabitants, was 900 000 in 1999 and 700 000 in 1982), I think also cities like Madrid grow quite quickly with high immigration.


----------



## rocky

Five fastest growing urban areas of the European Union
Rank Urban Area Annual change
(1990s) 
1 Toulouse, France 1.47% 
2 Helsinki, Finland 1.46% 
3 Braga, Portugal 1.27% 
4 Stockholm, Sweden 1.08% 
5 Dublin, Republic of Ireland 0.89% 


but this is urban area only , didnt find figures for metro area.


heres some info about toulouse

The population of the city proper (French: commune) was 390,350 (as of the 1999 census), with 964,797 inhabitants in the metropolitan area (French: aire urbaine) (as of 1999 census). As of February 2004 estimates, the population of the city proper reached 426,700 inhabitants, which means a record 1.8% population growth per year between 1999 and 2004 for the city proper.

Toulouse is the fourth largest city in France, after Paris, Marseille and Lyon. In 1999 Toulouse was the fifth largest metropolitan area in France, after Paris, Lyon, Marseille and Lille.

Fueled by booming aerospace and high-tech industries, population growth of 1.5% a year in the metropolitan area in the 1990s (compared with a sluggish 0.37% for metropolitan France), and a record 2.2% yearly growth in the 2000s (0.58% for metropolitan France), means Toulouse metropolitan area hit the 1,000,000 inhabitants mark in 2002 or 2003. Boasting the highest population growth of any French metropolitan area larger than 500,000 inhabitants, Toulouse is well on its way to overtake Lille as the fourth largest metropolitan area of France.

With 2.2% yearly population growth in the metropolitan area, Toulouse is also by far the fastest growing metropolitan area larger than one million inhabitants in Europe. Smaller metropolitan areas, such as Montpellier, France, may have higher growth rates than Toulouse, but their growth involves a much smaller number of inhabitants than in Toulouse. Even for North American standards, the population growth of Toulouse is quite remarkable. According to the US Census 2000, in the 1990s there were only 14 US metropolitan areas with a population over one million inhabitants that had a population growth superior to 2.2% per year. With 2.2% per year, Toulouse is growing almost twice as fast as, for instance, the San Francisco Bay Area in the 1990s (1.2% per year), and approximately at the same pace as Nashville or Salt Lake City did in the 1990s, these last two also being two US metropolitan areas with about the same number of inhabitants as the Toulouse metropolitan area.


----------



## Tubeman

Plenty. Milton Keynes and Swindon in London's outer Metro are good examples

*Swindon:*

1901=45,006 
1911=50,751 
1921=57,486 
1931=66,779 
1951=76,714 
1961=102,930 
1971=117,312 
1981=129,461 
1991=147,979 
2001=157,000 
2011=208,000 (estimate)

Link

*Milton Keynes* has grown from 40,000 at its 1967 foundation to 219,240 in 2005:

(1971) 46,500
(1981) 98,500
(1991) 144,700
(2001) 177,500
(2005) 219,240

MK is planned to surpass 300,00 by 2030


----------



## polako

Some interesting figures.


----------



## DiggerD21

A fast growing town (for german standards) is Lüneburg near Hamburg.

From 1994 till 1997 the county of Lüneburg (which is basically the town of Lüneburg and the surrounding municipalities) grew by 6% in population. In 1998 the town of Lüneburg had a population of ca. 66.000 and in 2004 a population of ca. 71.000. in 2005 it were a bit over 70.000, but if the university continues to expand, I expect a further grow. The University of Lüneburg, which is mainly located on a former military base, currently has already 11.000 students.


----------



## Bikkel

Almere, NL: 0 around 1978, about 180k now but that's a newtown in a new polder. Utrecht booms, to gain about 100k over a decade, now around 270k.


----------



## Monkey

London, Madrid, Barcelona, Moscow, and Istanbul are all booming with fast growing populations and economies and masses of impressive construction projects.


----------



## polako

The fastest growing city in US(over 100K) in the last 14 years has been Gilbert town(a suburb) in the southern Phoenix Metro. But in the next few years there are many towns that will surpass 100K all over US that are growing super-fast(faster than Gilbert). Northern suburbs of Dallas are growing crazy right now. Many towns are about to pass 100K and are growing at over 5% yearly rate. Now that is impressive.

1990c:29,000
2000c:110,000
2004e:157,000

1990-2000:279%
2000-2004:43%


----------



## You are to blame

How about metro's over 1 million, i don't care about some small town growing fast. 
So which large european metro's are growing as quickly as cities in the new world.

an example, Toronto

*4,883,800* in 2001
*5,304,100* in 2005
*420,300* net increase in 4 years -*105K a year*


----------



## bustero

There are a couple of reasons cities grow, internal migration , which moves people from one side of the country to another (more like a lifestyle choice as can be seen quite often in the US move to the sunbelt). And traditional migration which is allowing new nationalities to move in. 

In general with a very low or negative birth rate for most European countries it's very hard to grow a city unless they allow migration from outside. This is helped somewhat by Classifying the whole EU as one place with ease of movement from one side to the other but overall the increase in population even if you include the new countries is quite small , specially compared with outside Europe. Hence you will not see so many European cities grow so fast . Literally this is the old world unless some drastic changes take place.


----------



## Justme

One thing to keep in mind is that most other parts of the world think in terms of metropolitan area's, whilst this is still a new concept in Europe. Statistics for European cities are usually based on city proper political boundary's, and as we know, much growth in cities, in Europe as in elsewhere in the world, is based in the suburbs or MA surrounding a city. 

This is often why many European cities seem to be stagnant in size or even loosing population. The drift is in many cases simply to the suburbs or MA, and in fact, the whole MA usually has experienced growth.

One classic example is how it is often pointed out that London's population is smaller than it was after WWII. Publications that point this out rarely mention that the reason was that a great deal of people shifted to the surrounding suburbs and MA. At the same time, that MA has experienced enormous growth.


----------



## Justme

bustero said:


> There are a couple of reasons cities grow, internal migration , which moves people from one side of the country to another (more like a lifestyle choice as can be seen quite often in the US move to the sunbelt). And traditional migration which is allowing new nationalities to move in.
> 
> In general with a very low or negative birth rate for most European countries it's very hard to grow a city unless they allow migration from outside. This is helped somewhat by Classifying the whole EU as one place with ease of movement from one side to the other but overall the increase in population even if you include the new countries is quite small , specially compared with outside Europe. Hence you will not see so many European cities grow so fast . Literally this is the old world unless some drastic changes take place.



I don't agree with this, as the cities have grown enormously within the MA (see my post above). It's the city proper's that have not experienced much growth, but this is quite normal in other cities around the world (including Australia or the U.S.)

Internal migration can enormously enlarge a city, particualy an MA. Just look at Australia. This country has a very small population, but several reasonably sized cities. Much of the growth of these cities has been internal migration as well as external, with large numbers of the rural population moving into the various MA's.

Few of the city proper's have grown at all, with the exception of Brisbane (because it is so large it encompases a good deal of the MA) and Sydney (Because it annexed another city a few years ago).

But even then, after 200 years, Sydney still only has 146,000 people. Although it's MA has jumped to 4.2million. Perth, still only has around 8,000 people, though it's MA has grown to 1.4million.

If you look at European MA's, you will also see the large increases in population. The problem is, that Metropolitan Area's is a new concept in Europe, so records don't go back very far.


----------



## nick_taylor

You are to blame said:


> How about metro's over 1 million, i don't care about some small town growing fast.
> So which large european metro's are growing as quickly as cities in the new world.
> 
> an example, Toronto
> 
> *4,883,800* in 2001
> *5,304,100* in 2005
> *420,300* net increase in 4 years -*105K a year*


Obviously there are problems in such comparisons as London having a metro of 18mn is a relatively recent idea and there is no definate idea as to its exact geographical coverage and thus hard to find any previous figures. But for city proper you get te following:

*Toronto*
2001: 2,481,494
2004: 2,518,772
4 Years: 37,278
/Year: *9,319*

*London*
2001: 7,172,091
2005: 7,500,000
5 Years: 327,909
/Year: *65,581*


----------



## picassoborseli

Barcelona is not a booming city. No space enough to grow anymore.

Madrid in fact is growing very much. Building new residential areas in the north and south. 

here some pics.

The north: 
(Sanchinarro)


(Las Tablas)


(Madrid Arena - Towers)


The south:

The purple area will be constructed. Resedential area (and industrial)


----------



## DonQui

^ Barcelona city may not be growing, but the metropolitan area, which matters more in most instances, is growing rather healthily. With improved transport, I would not be surprised if the number of people comgin from other provinces to Barcelona would increase too.


----------



## polako

picassoborseli said:


> Barcelona is not a booming city. No space enough to grow anymore.
> 
> Madrid in fact is growing very much. Building new residential areas in the north and south.
> 
> here some pics.
> 
> The north:
> (Sanchinarro)
> 
> 
> (Las Tablas)
> 
> 
> (Madrid Arena - Towers)
> 
> 
> The south:
> 
> The purple area will be constructed. Resedential area (and industrial)


WOW. Those pics are amazing.


----------



## Justme

DonQui said:


> ^ Barcelona city may not be growing, but the metropolitan area, which matters more in most instances, is growing rather healthily. With improved transport, I would not be surprised if the number of people comgin from other provinces to Barcelona would increase too.



This is very true. Most of the growth are at the outer edges of the metropolitan area, especially the two demographic regions known as the RMB (Metropolitan Region of Barcelona which covers 3,236km²) and the CPSV (Functional Metropolitan Area of Barcelona, which covers 4,592km²)

This link, shows the 2001 population of the RMB at 4,390,390 people:
http://www.isprs.org/istanbul2004/comm1/papers/53.pdf

And this link show's the 2004 figure at 4,673,648 people
http://www.bcn.es/estadistica/angles/dades/sintesi/images/sintesi1.pdf

An increase of 283,285 or an increase of 94,419 people per year, only slightly smaller than Toronto, and if you consider the area covered by the CPSV, you would have something similar to Toronto's growth.


----------



## polako

You are to blame said:


> How about metro's over 1 million, i don't care about some small town growing fast.
> So which large european metro's are growing as quickly as cities in the new world.
> 
> an example, Toronto
> 
> *4,883,800* in 2001
> *5,304,100* in 2005
> *420,300* net increase in 4 years -*105K a year*


You want to see fast growth of a large metro, check this out.

Las Vegas Metro

1990c:853,000
2000c:1,563,000
2005e:1,965,000

1990-2000
yearly growth-71,000
yearly % inc.-8.3

2000-2005
yearly growth-80,000
yearly % inc.-5.1

Metro Las Vegas is booming, because of job availabilities and very supreme economic conditions. In November the 2 million Metro recorded an unemployment of 30,000 and unemployment rate of around 3%. That is just simply amazing. And some sectors of the economy are reporting worker shortages. Las Vegas keeps on booming. And it is the fastest growing US Metro over 500K.


----------



## SE9

^^ wow Toronto & Las Vegas are growing fast.


----------



## birminghamculture

Birmingham City Council and the West Midlands, were increasingly worried over the growth of Milton Keynes. Although also classified as the midlands there were reports not long ago that it could surpass the 1,000,000 population earlier then everyone expects with proposals of new housing schemes by the Deputy PM if this is were to be the case, thier proximity to London would more or less steal most things from Birmingham.



> *Second city status is safe Jun 16 2005*
> 
> There is no way that Milton Keynes will be able to swipe second-city status from Birmingham, says the chief executive of Milton Keynes council.
> 
> John Best said that "wild estimates" predicting that Milton Keynes will supersede Birmingham in size over the next ten years were "complete nonsense".
> 
> He said: "Our population will only rise from a quarter to a third of a million over the next 30 years - there is no way we can challenge Birmingham as the second city, not in 30 years or 130 years."
> 
> Mr Best's comments come at the start of a twoday visit to talk to Birmingham business leaders about possible collaborations between the two cities.
> 
> The events, organised by Birmingham Forward, will involve a meeting today between Mr Best and 25 members of the Birmingham business community at the Hotel du Vin followed by a breakfast event tomorrow for 80 city business leaders.
> 
> Sean Hickey, chief executive of Milton Keynes Chamber of Commerce and Juniper Strong, head of strategy and growth at Milton Keynes council, will also be part of the discussions.
> 
> 
> Simon Murphy, chief executive of Birmingham Forward, said he hoped the meeting would dispel the "bizarre fear" that Milton Keynes would threaten business in the city.
> 
> 
> He said: "We and the professional community are worried about the negative noises about the development of Milton Keynes.
> 
> 
> "We want people to realise the huge opportunity that Birmingham has to service the development of the south.
> 
> 
> "We're really well placed to give property, marketing and construction advice quickly, with good service and at better value- for- money than London."
> 
> 
> Both Mr Best and Mr Murphy agreed that Birmingham and Milton Keynes had a number of shared interests on which they could collaborate - namely the continued development of the West Coast Mainline for trains and Birmingham International Airport.
> 
> 
> Mr Best said: "I am looking forward to having
> 
> 
> good open conversation with the Birmingham business community.
> 
> 
> "I don't have all the answers and I'd like to hear ideas that I haven't thought of."
> 
> 
> James Watkins, executive director of the West Midlands Business Council, also welcomed the dialogue between the two cities.
> 
> 
> However, he said that the wider Milton Keynes area would still significantly impact on the West Midlands and called on the Government to conduct a quick assessment of the issue.
> 
> 
> "The area from Milton Keynes to Northampton has been earmarked for residential development, and it will be twice the size of Birmingham in population terms."


Milton Keynes have also just built a 32,000 seater football stadium.


----------



## SE9

From the Greater London Authority:

London Population now 2005-2006: 7,500,000

London Poplation in 2016: 8,100,000

10 year growth of *600,000*


(City Proper Figures)


----------



## Azn_chi_boi

SE9 said:


> ^^ wow Toronto & Las Vegas are growing fast.


LV is growing too fast and it is in the Desert...


----------



## rocky

outside of toulouse,

paris metro is growing quite fast..it has 11.5ml people 

you can see pics from the link in my signature














































And its getting faster and faster, its growing like crazy, especialy in 2004-2005
the suburb of paris where the pics were taken


----------



## S.Yorks Capital

Nearly all of the UK's cities and regions are growing but jsut not as fast as in the USA thats all. By 2025 the UK popualtion would have grown by another 6 million people with 4 million of them being from other countries. This may seem quite small for USA but for a country of 66 million people living on a land space the same as Oregon this is quite big.


----------



## NorthStar77

Oslo grows fast, and the growth only seems to get higher and higher. This year, the growth will be the highest, in percent, for a hundred years. In real numbers it will probably be the highest ever. This year's growth is expected to be 8400, or 1.6%. The reason is a record number of births, fewer deaths, quite high immigration(both international and domestic), and fewer people moving to the suburbs.

City:
1.1.1990: 458.364
1.1.1995: 483.401
1.1.2000: 507.467
1.1.2005: 529.846
1.1.2006: 538.200(estimate)

Metro:
1.1.1990: 872.867
1.1.1995: 917.852
1.1.2000: 974.519
1.1.2005: 1.024.064
1.1.2006: 1.038.000(estimate)

Urban area:
810 000 - 1.09% - 4'th highest growth in Europe in the 90'ies acording to wikipedia, but as said, the growth has accelerated in recent years.

New population estimates from Statistics Norway was released last week. And it predicts that the population in Norway will most likely grow for the next 55 years. And we'll probably be between 4.8-7.5 millions in 2060, compared to 4.63 now.

The various estimates:


----------



## beta29

The most growing cities by population in Germany are Stuttgart, München and Bonn

Stuttgart will reach 600.000 inhabitants soon(city pop.).
So it will be the 6th biggest city in Germany.

München will reach 1.300.000 inhabitants soon(city pop.).
It is the 3rd biggest city in Germany!

Bonn has now 313.000 inhabitants, growing fast, has a big metro area!

Berlin is growing slowly in the city, more in the metro area.

Hamburg is also growing well!

Ruhrgebiet is loosing poulation!

Also Leipzig and Dresden are growing again!


----------



## S.Yorks Capital

My city of Sheffield has declined for a few years from around 545,000 in the 80's to 513,200 in the 2001 census with the metro area at 1,800,000. The latest census figures were for 2004 and they said Sheffield City was 516,100 and the metro 1,811,000. So a slow growth but growth is still growth.


----------



## Aquarius

The population of Madrid metro:


1998:5,091.336
1999:5.145.325 *(+55.000)*
2000:5.205.408 *(+60.000)*
2001:5.372.926 *(+168.000)*
2002:5.527.152 *(+155.000)*
2003:5.718.942 *(+191.000)*
2004:5.813.319 *(+95.000)*
2005:5.964.143 *(+151.000)*

and Barcelona:

1998:4.666.271 
1999:4.706.325 *(+40.000) * 
2000:4.736.277 *(+30.000)*
2001:4.804.606 *(+68.000)*
2002:4.906.117 *(+102.000)*
2003:5.052.666 *(+146.000)*
2004:5.117.885 *(+65.000)*
2005:5.226.354 *(+109.000)*


----------



## rocky

seems like madrid is in raw numbers booming.

in % it must still be toulouse


----------



## BMXican

Justme said:


> If you look at European MA's, you will also see the large increases in population. The problem is, that Metropolitan Area's is a new concept in Europe, so records don't go back very far.



exactly. the frankfurt metro area grew by 400,000 ppl in the 90s (that's over 10%), but the city itself grew only marginaly.


----------



## Galatia

*The population of Istanbul;*
*4th century:* 200.000 (estimates, in this century Istanbul was declared to be capital for Romans)
*6th century:* 1 million (estimates, Istanbul became the biggest city in the world by far)
*13th century:* Istanbul was invaded by Christian Catholics crusaders (aka Latin invasion), they killed hundreds of thousands orthodox Christian Istanbullers. City population dramaticly dropped from 1 million to just 150.000 :shocked: : 
*16th century: *Ottomans rebuilt the whole city population rised to 500.000-750.000

Between 17th and 20th centuries population didn't change that much.

Population after Turkish Republic;

1927: 699.796
1935: 739.171
1950: 1.166.477
1955: 1.533.822
1960: 1.882.092
1965: 2.293.823
1970: 3.019.032
1975: 3.904.588
1980: 4.741.890
1985: 5.842.985
1990: 7.309.190
1997: 9.198.809
2000: 10.030.000
2005: 11.300.000


----------



## SHiRO

polako said:


> Since the European population is set to decline sharply in the coming decades...


This is not true...

Why this myth keeps perpetuating itself on SSC I don't know. :?


----------



## You are to blame

^^^ why is it a myth, europe has the lowest birth rate in the develop world and has a lower level of immigration compare to coutries like Canada, Australia and the US. everyone predicts a sharp decline in the european population as it ages rapidly.


----------



## rocky

its true for some countries (mostly eastern european) and not for some others (mostly western)


----------



## eklips

France's population is fastly growing the UK's one is not declining, Spain's is booming thanks to Imigration, Ireland has a growing population, the Netherlands is not declining neither.


----------



## HelloMoto163

berlin was before the war very fast growing city , got more size..
berlin was in the 20th the 2. biggest city after L.A ..only in size

1. Dezember 1885 ¹ 1.315.287
1. Dezember 1890 ¹ 1.578.794
2. Dezember 1895 ¹ 1.678.924
1. Dezember 1900 ¹ 1.888.848
1. Dezember 1905 ¹ 2.042.402
1. Dezember 1910 ¹ 2.071.257
1. Dezember 1916 ¹ 1.712.679
5. Dezember 1917 ¹ 1.681.916
8. Oktober 1919 ¹ 1.902.509
16. Juni 1925 ¹ 4.024.286
16. Juni 1933 ¹ 4.242.501
17. Mai 1939 ¹ 4.338.756
12. August 1945 ¹ 2.807.405
29. Oktober 1946 ¹ 3.170.832
31. Dezember 1950 3.336.026
31. Dezember 1960 3.274.016
31. Dezember 1970 3.208.719
31. Dezember 1980 3.048.759
31. Dezember 1990 3.433.695
31. Dezember 2000 3.382.169
31. August 2005 3.392.026


----------



## Mekky II

You are to blame said:


> ^^^ why is it a myth, europe has the lowest birth rate in the develop world.


It depends which countries.



You are to blame said:


> Europe has a lower level of immigration compare to coutries like Canada, Australia and the US.


Europe welcomes more immigrants that whole north america combined since 1997.



You are to blame said:


> everyone predicts a sharp decline in the european population as it ages rapidly.


Everyone predicted that population of France would be the same in 2050, but actually with new stats, the population will be between 80 and 100 millions.



I want to add that Europe is the most populated landmass of the world by km2, and European Union comes 3rd in density after China and India...


----------



## Kazurro

Because the immigration, there are a lot of "boomtowns" in Spain.

These are data of several municipalities for year 2000 and 2005. Neither of them are suburbs of a big city, and most of them have a higher increase in their MA (for example Valencia) 

Murcia---> 357.000/410.000
Cartagena--->180.000/204.000
Alicante--->276.000/319.000
Palma de Mallorca--->333.000/375.000
Valencia--->739.000/796.000
Girona--->73.000/87.000
Madrid--->2.882.000/3.155.000

There are several other boomtowns in Spain, these are the first came to my mind

Spain is growing very fast in population (year 2000 40,5 millions, 2005 44,1 millions) so it's obvious There are several other boomtowns in Spain. These are the first came to my mind


----------



## VansTripp

Mekky II said:


> It depends which countries.
> 
> 
> 
> Europe welcomes more immigrants that whole north america combined since 1997.
> 
> 
> 
> *Everyone predicted that population of France would be the same in 2050, but actually with new stats, the population will be between 80 and 100 millions.*
> 
> 
> 
> I want to add that Europe is the most populated landmass of the world by km2, and European Union comes 3rd in density after China and India...


I feel that Muslim population would predict to be majority (over 50%) in France by 2050.


----------



## Bikkel

Pat Buchanone probably is a forumer on whitefront, stormfront whatever :rofl:
And he'd better notice how a Moroccan woman in The NL used to have 4 children ten years ago, and that's now down to 3. I have yet to find a sharper decline on www.cbs.nl

The natural growth is connected to wealth rather than to religion :yes: And Pat Buchanone seems to forget christian-democrat parties rule in several countries, and there are no islam-democratic factions; as a matter of fact the first muslim in my city's council was a member of the christian-democrat faction. Just what does this Buchanone know? :rofl:


----------



## carlisle

The thing with metro areas in Europe, is because Europe is so densely populated. To give an example the UK contains a quarter of the US's population (or twice California's) in an area the size of Oregon (an average sized state I think, so that would be something like a fiftieth the US's land area) The result of this is that rather than cities with their metro areas of suburbia extending into the suburbs, the metro areas just extend into other cities so many major metropolitain cities in the UK, extend into other towns or even other metropolis' (such as Leeds and Bradford)

Also, I don't know who introduced the concept of area as a measure of size, but the countryside in the UK is at such a premium that it is unlikely any major city will be allowed to expand to swallow up the countryside. This puts a stop to any major population booms like in New World and Asian cities.


----------



## Robert Stark

SHiRO said:


> Pat Buchannan...are you serious???
> 
> :bash:
> 
> Tip: don't read books written by crazy neo cons


Pat Buchannan is a Paleo Con!


----------



## london-b

carlisle said:


> The thing with metro areas in Europe, is because Europe is so densely populated. To give an example the UK contains a quarter of the US's population (or twice California's) in an area the size of Oregon (an average sized state I think, so that would be something like a fiftieth the US's land area) The result of this is that rather than cities with their metro areas of suburbia extending into the suburbs, the metro areas just extend into other cities so many major metropolitain cities in the UK, extend into other towns or even other metropolis' (such as Leeds and Bradford)
> 
> Also, I don't know who introduced the concept of area as a measure of size, but the countryside in the UK is at such a premium that it is unlikely any major city will be allowed to expand to swallow up the countryside. This puts a stop to any major population booms like in New World and Asian cities.


But much of the countryside is being built on, as well as brown feild sites and some green belt land.


----------



## Jonesy55

There's no way that Las vegas style growth would be good for the quality of life of Europeans were it to happen in most places here. Europe is already far more densely populated than North America or Australia due to having centuries more population explosion.

What Europe needs to concentrate on is making its systems and institutions able to function well with a fairly static and gradually aging population. This will involve hard choices but a system that needs a constantly expanding population is not the answer for Europe or in the longer term for the world as a whole.


----------



## carlisle

Countryside being built on depends where you live. Bedfordshire, being in the Milton Keynes and south midland growth area is one of the few areas where wanton concreting of the countryside is taking place to address the housing crisis, but come up north, or go out west and you'll find the majority of development goes on on brownfield sites, well over the 60% average, and that which is on greenfield is small, selective and necessary. Many planning authorities in the North are being told to stop pretending things are getting better and plan their own depopulations to minimise damage. managed decline this is called though they prefer to call it managed transition.


----------



## Jonesy55

carlisle said:


> Many planning authorities in the North are being told to stop pretending things are getting better and plan their own depopulations to minimise damage. managed decline this is called though they prefer to call it managed transition.


And it could be a good thing, getting rid of the worst housing and getting more green spaces in northern cities will make them better places to live.

Most people don't care how economically "powerful" their city or region or country is but how good their quality of life and that of their friends and family is.


----------



## eklips

Jonesy55 said:


> What Europe needs to concentrate on is making its systems and institutions able to function well with a fairly static and gradually aging population. This will involve hard choices but a system that needs a constantly expanding population is not the answer for Europe or in the longer term for the world as a whole.



I agree (it is valid for the economy too) we can't base our systems on constant growth, it is simply not possible.

This is especialy true for places such as northen france, the UK, Germany or the Netherlands, the rest of France or Eastern Europe can still manage a little population increase.


----------



## Bikkel

Jonesy55 said:


> And it could be a good thing, getting rid of the worst housing and getting more green spaces in northern cities will make them better places to live.


The Greens opted for a Britain at 25mln people, didn't they? There still is space in countries like NL though: above infrastructure.
This is a project in the new town of Almere:









http://www.almere.nl/smartsite.dws?id=4007&lang=en


----------



## Dinosaurus

Mekky II said:


> Toulouse is the fastest of France (passed over 1.1 million inhabitants, was 900 000 in 1999 and 700 000 in 1982), I think also cities like Madrid grow quite quickly with high immigration.


Wrong. Nantes is actually the fastest growing city for the last decade.


----------



## Justme

Metropolitan said:


> Paris metro area is slightly larger than Ile-de-France. Here is a map :
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> However, I'm a bit confused with this concept of metro area... I tend to feel better with the concept of urban area, which is about the contiguous urbanized area. Paris urban area exceeds 10,000,000 people by the way. The metro area on the other side is certainly growing over 100,000 people a year. I've read in the news that it was calculated over 11.7 million for 2005 (compared with 11.1 million in 1999)... though it's not the result of a census and hence certainly means nothing. If it's not over 100,000, it's certainly not far from that figure.


Thanks for the excellent map of the MA for Paris!

To help you with the MA concept, think of it like this.

If you were working in HR for a large company, you would need to know the potential larbour market for your firm. Natually, an Urban Area population figure has no actual meaning for you, as people would apply for the job well outside this region and commute in.

Because Paris has a large urban area that is not much smaller than the metropolitan area, the difference is not so critical. However, many cities have green belts close to the city area (Frankfurt is a classic example) and to know the full potential labour market, one must look at the MA rather than Urban Area.

London is another good example, as it has a very large population surrounding the GLA on the other side of the green belt, and there is massive commuting within this wider region.

There are many other business and government departments that require something more than Urban Area figures, such as potential market area, real estate, public transport infrastructure, city planning etc. Much of the daytime crowds in the center of big cities come from the surrounding metropolitan area - cities have to take this into account when building inner city infrastructure as well.

People don't live by political or urban boundary's, but by what their needs are, and what is practical. Many people may move outside the direct urban area into the MA for cheaper land and larger housing for their kids, but still commute into their same job. In effect, they are still part of the city.

Whether urban area's are connected by ultra low density housing like in parts of the U.S. or Australia, or dense urban area's in a European MA are split by green belts have no effect on commuting. People from outside Frankfurt's UA still come into the city for shopping and entertainment, just like American's at the outskirts of their UA's would cross the large expanses of low density housing to reach the city center.

Urban Area figures are more important for environmental statistics, which is why the UN prefers these.

Having grown up in Australia which has large low density urban area's, I see no difference to how people "use" a city region than in Frankfurt, where instead of crossing an area of low density housing (and avoiding it to reach the city center) they would cross a green belt like here in Frankfurt.


----------



## Metropolitan

Justme said:


> Thanks for the excellent map of the MA for Paris!
> 
> To help you with the MA concept, think of it like this.
> 
> If you were working in HR for a large company, you would need to know the potential larbour market for your firm. Natually, an Urban Area population figure has no actual meaning for you, as people would apply for the job well outside this region and commute in.
> 
> Because Paris has a large urban area that is not much smaller than the metropolitan area, the difference is not so critical. However, many cities have green belts close to the city area (Frankfurt is a classic example) and to know the full potential labour market, one must look at the MA rather than Urban Area.
> 
> London is another good example, as it has a very large population surrounding the GLA on the other side of the green belt, and there is massive commuting within this wider region.
> 
> There are many other business and government departments that require something more than Urban Area figures, such as potential market area, real estate, public transport infrastructure, city planning etc. Much of the daytime crowds in the center of big cities come from the surrounding metropolitan area - cities have to take this into account when building inner city infrastructure as well.
> 
> People don't live by political or urban boundary's, but by what their needs are, and what is practical. Many people may move outside the direct urban area into the MA for cheaper land and larger housing for their kids, but still commute into their same job. In effect, they are still part of the city.
> 
> Whether urban area's are connected by ultra low density housing like in parts of the U.S. or Australia, or dense urban area's in a European MA are split by green belts have no effect on commuting. People from outside Frankfurt's UA still come into the city for shopping and entertainment, just like American's at the outskirts of their UA's would cross the large expanses of low density housing to reach the city center.
> 
> Urban Area figures are more important for environmental statistics, which is why the UN prefers these.
> 
> Having grown up in Australia which has large low density urban area's, I see no difference to how people "use" a city region than in Frankfurt, where instead of crossing an area of low density housing (and avoiding it to reach the city center) they would cross a green belt like here in Frankfurt.


Thanks for this Justme, I'm fully aware of the concept. I simply believe that it can't apply in countries with a high population density in general. Such a concept of metro area fits well for countries where main cities are fully independent of one another due to a sparse population density, such as the US (outside the Northeast), Canada or Australia, but it works a lot less well in Europe.

Statistically, Amsterdam, The Hague and Rotterdam makes only one metro area... but you'll never find any Dutch guy saying that it is actually only one city simply because there are people living around The Hague and working around Rotterdam.

We all know that in general cities are getting less dense than they used to be before. As a consequence, they are getting wider of course. However, I tend to believe that with such an evolution the measurement of the population of the city is losing the economical interests it had in the past. The metro area has been invented somewhere in that purpose... to measure the "economical population" of the city. However, when cities are too close of one another, as in the Netherlands, it's getting totally pointless. I tend to believe that measures of density of employment or such things are far better to measure the weight of a city in an economy.

That's the reason why I feel the metro area is actually nothing else than a statistical construction... which don't say that much about the reality of cities.

Taking Frankfurt for instance. I'm sure that the Rhein-Main conurbation makes only one economically speaking... but Mainz and Wiesbaden can't be considered as "suburbs" of Frankfurt. They are still independent cities. I hope I've helped you.


----------



## Justme

Metropolitan said:


> Thanks for this Justme, I'm fully aware of the concept. I simply believe that it can't apply in countries with a high population density in general. Such a concept of metro area fits well for countries where main cities are fully independent of one another due to a sparse population density, such as the US (outside the Northeast), Canada or Australia, but it works a lot less well in Europe.
> 
> Statistically, Amsterdam, The Hague and Rotterdam makes only one metro area... but you'll never find any Dutch guy saying that it is actually only one city simply because there are people living around The Hague and working around Rotterdam.
> 
> We all know that in general cities are getting less dense than they used to be before. As a consequence, they are getting wider of course. However, I tend to believe that with such an evolution the measurement of the population of the city is losing the economical interests it had in the past. The metro area has been invented somewhere in that purpose... to measure the "economical population" of the city. However, when cities are too close of one another, as in the Netherlands, it's getting totally pointless. I tend to believe that measures of density of employment or such things are far better to measure the weight of a city in an economy.
> 
> That's the reason why I feel the metro area is actually nothing else than a statistical construction... which don't say that much about the reality of cities.
> 
> Taking Frankfurt for instance. I'm sure that the Rhein-Main conurbation makes only one economically speaking... but Mainz and Wiesbaden can't be considered as "suburbs" of Frankfurt. They are still independent cities. I hope I've helped you.


I fully understand your points.

MA's require an element of perception. But then so do city proper's.

Just as you point out a person from Mainz or Wiesbaden would still feel independent, and never as a suburb of Frankfurt, this is also true for those of Offenbach.

A person who lives in Offenbach, _never_ claims they are from Frankfurt.

This is despite the fact that Offenbach is directly connected to the Frankfurt urban area, is 10minutes from downtown frankfurt, is even close enough for the local frankfurt tram network to include it etc.

German's, like many European's are new to the concept of MA's and simply find it difficult to both accept they exist and to imagine other parts of the world are different.

I will always remember one of my first German friends I met in Australia when he was on holiday. When I asked where in Germany he was from, he said “Bad Homburg, it’s a small city, not a big one where I lived in like Sydney”. When I arrived in Europe, I was going to surprise him with a visit. I looked endlessly on my map of Germany, but couldn’t find Bad Homburg. There was little Internet in those day’s, so I had no choice but to call him from London and found a more detailed map of Germany. He told me to just book a flight to Frankfurt and he’d pick me up. When I finally found out it was 15minutes from the center of Frankfurt and within the UA, I asked him why he didn’t just tell me he lived in “Frankfurt”. Who cares about Bad Homburg to someone from the otherside of the world.

His response was oh so European. “Nein, because I live in Bad Homburg, not Frankfurt”.

When I asked him where he worked, he said “Frankfurt”, where he shopped he said “Frankfurt”, where he went out to clubs, the answer was “Frankfurt”. But No, he lived in Bad Homburg. Quite funny when he pointed out Bad Homburg back in Australia, when I was living in Dee Why. Dee Why is _not_ part of Sydney, it’s a different city just like Bad Homburg, but if I told people on the other side of the world that I live in Dee Why, come over and visit, they would have no idea where.

MA's work in Europe _just_ as accurately as they do in any other part of the world. The proximity of various urban area's makes absolutely no difference. MA's are calculated by commuter percentages, and that is an effect of people moving between different cities. Having lived in both parts of the world I can see this for myself. Anyone who tells me that it's different in any meaningful context has obviously not lived in Australia or North America.

The only difference is this:

A person who lives on the outskirts of Sydney to reach their work in downtown may cross large expanses of ultra low density housing that has no reason to stop.

A person who lives on the outskirts of Frankfurt's MA, may cross a green belt that leaves them no reason to stop.

People still live the same lifestyles. The vast majority of residents at the far end of Sydney rarely ever visit downtown Sydney, the majority stay's in their local area, just as a person from Mainz may stay in the Mainz region.

And likewise, other MA's in the world have surrounding cities with a great deal of independence that they also use a universal name to define them. San Francisco's MA is called the "Bay Area" so people from other centers such as San Jose don't feel left out and called "suburbs of SF" just like those from Mainz in relation to Frankfurt - hence the Rhein Main MA.


----------



## carlisle

We have a few things like this cropping up in the UK.

Firstly are city regions. These are cities and their associated regions. for example, the Manchester city region stretches out as far as Warrington, Macclesfield, Hadfield and Bolton. These are seperate towns, some of them with populations as big as 200,000 but the need to recognise their attachment to Manchester and create plans which cater for the whole city region has been recognised.

Secondly, and much older are travel to work areas (TTWs) these were areas around a town or city in which a certain amount of people worked in the town or city. Unlike city regions there weren't any cultural reasons for certain villages being in one TTW and not another, it was entirely calculated from employment figures. also unlike city regions they were only used by councils and businesses for statistical analysis, and not for planning.


----------



## sk

data for cyprus and some major cities on the island:
cyprus population in 2000 : 697,5 k
cyprus population in 2004 : 749,2 k
population of nicosia(the capital)in 2000: 204,1 k
population of nicosia(the capital)in 2004: 219,2 k

in 4 years the population of the island increased by approximately 52,000 k
in 4 years the population of nicosia increased by approximately 15,000 k

for 2005 the population of the island is estimated to increase by another 15,000k
these are very big numbers for such a small country and the population increase is quite "felt" on the island


----------



## Metropolitan

Justme said:


> I fully understand your points.
> 
> MA's require an element of perception. But then so do city proper's.
> 
> Just as you point out a person from Mainz or Wiesbaden would still feel independent, and never as a suburb of Frankfurt, this is also true for those of Offenbach.
> 
> A person who lives in Offenbach, _never_ claims they are from Frankfurt.
> 
> This is despite the fact that Offenbach is directly connected to the Frankfurt urban area, is 10minutes from downtown frankfurt, is even close enough for the local frankfurt tram network to include it etc.
> 
> German's, like many European's are new to the concept of MA's and simply find it difficult to both accept they exist and to imagine other parts of the world are different.
> 
> I will always remember one of my first German friends I met in Australia when he was on holiday. When I asked where in Germany he was from, he said “Bad Homburg, it’s a small city, not a big one where I lived in like Sydney”. When I arrived in Europe, I was going to surprise him with a visit. I looked endlessly on my map of Germany, but couldn’t find Bad Homburg. There was little Internet in those day’s, so I had no choice but to call him from London and found a more detailed map of Germany. He told me to just book a flight to Frankfurt and he’d pick me up. When I finally found out it was 15minutes from the center of Frankfurt and within the UA, I asked him why he didn’t just tell me he lived in “Frankfurt”. Who cares about Bad Homburg to someone from the otherside of the world.
> 
> His response was oh so European. “Nein, because I live in Bad Homburg, not Frankfurt”.
> 
> When I asked him where he worked, he said “Frankfurt”, where he shopped he said “Frankfurt”, where he went out to clubs, the answer was “Frankfurt”. But No, he lived in Bad Homburg. Quite funny when he pointed out Bad Homburg back in Australia, when I was living in Dee Why. Dee Why is _not_ part of Sydney, it’s a different city just like Bad Homburg, but if I told people on the other side of the world that I live in Dee Why, come over and visit, they would have no idea where.
> 
> MA's work in Europe _just_ as accurately as they do in any other part of the world. The proximity of various urban area's makes absolutely no difference. MA's are calculated by commuter percentages, and that is an effect of people moving between different cities. Having lived in both parts of the world I can see this for myself. Anyone who tells me that it's different in any meaningful context has obviously not lived in Australia or North America.
> 
> The only difference is this:
> 
> A person who lives on the outskirts of Sydney to reach their work in downtown may cross large expanses of ultra low density housing that has no reason to stop.
> 
> A person who lives on the outskirts of Frankfurt's MA, may cross a green belt that leaves them no reason to stop.
> 
> People still live the same lifestyles. The vast majority of residents at the far end of Sydney rarely ever visit downtown Sydney, the majority stay's in their local area, just as a person from Mainz may stay in the Mainz region.
> 
> And likewise, other MA's in the world have surrounding cities with a great deal of independence that they also use a universal name to define them. San Francisco's MA is called the "Bay Area" so people from other centers such as San Jose don't feel left out and called "suburbs of SF" just like those from Mainz in relation to Frankfurt - hence the Rhein Main MA.


I totally agree with this. I live in a country which is even more extreme than Germany in that behaviour : France.

Municipalities in France have been elaborated during the French revolution, which means in the end of the 18th century, at a time when France was a rural country. At the opposite of most of what we can see in Germany, Italy, Spain or Britain, French municipalities haven't changed much during the 19th century, and even less during the 20th century.

There are 36,000 municipalities in France, which means that France alone represents nearly half of all the municipalities in the EU (about 80,000) !!

Paris has grown only once in size since the French revolution, it was in 1860, and it's been painfully welcomed by the population. Today, only 18% of Paris "metro area" population lives in the city of Paris : 2.1 million people on 11.5 million.

That doesn't mean that 82% of the population lives in houses around Paris since the heavily urbanized area, made of appartment buildings, is a lot more extended than is administratively the city of Paris.

Here is a picture showing you what I'm talking about :









_See next post to see a full version of that picture._

Parisians will never agree to say that this is a picture of Paris... because nothing in that picture is in the _city_ of Paris. This picture shows Suresnes, Rueil-Malmaison, Nanterre, Puteaux, Courbevoie, Neuilly-sur-Seine, Colombes, etc... All cities being perfectly independent administratively speaking, and considered as such by their inhabitants. However, as weird as it sounds, those cities are also the place where is booming the most employment in Paris area. In a near future, more people will work in the Hauts-de-Seine department (the place where you find all those municipalities), then in the city of Paris itself.

The more it goes, the less it's significant to consider those places as independent from Paris... as those multiple cities, which are factually simply neighbourhoods of Paris, are becoming the employment core of Paris... somewhere... Paris "downtown".

That's why I believe, that we should create a Greater Paris, encompassing those municipalities. I believe the 3 departments of Val-de-Marne (94), Seine-Saint-Denis (93) and Hauts-de-Seine (92) should be part of the municipality of Paris. However, you must know that I'm a marginal in believing this way. No one in Paris will agree with me. Despite the obvious fact that the political authorities would be a lot more efficient if they would work together, rather than fully independent from one another.

When you see this, you can understand that the concept of metropolitan area, which would be even larger than the whole Ile-de-France region, is even more abstract to the residents of that area.


----------



## Metropolitan

Full version of the picture.

Please scroll ====>>>>


----------



## rocky

i think parisians feel themselve people of the "region parisienne"
but the reason people in europe are more attached to small cities within metros is that many of the cities where here before they became eaten by a big metro area.
they have different styles, looks, paterns. in new countries i can imagine that suburbs all look the same. while in europe some suburbs have castles, old city centers that have autonomy.. Etc
for example i live in a suburb of paris that has a strong city center with shops , restaurants, old houses, even a joan of arc sword is supposed to be lying somewhere under the city.


----------



## Justme

thanks for those photo's.

An excellent paper to read regarding Metropolitan Area's in Europe, and the problems when comparing with other country's especially the U.S. can be found below. The Author, Alan Freeman, is working with various bodies across the EU to create a standard that would use a similar method comparable to the U.S. MSA and CMSA. 

He describes the issue as mentioned here, where many European's consider themselves "different" because of the history and density of their cities and that they don't need MA's, and points out similar issues exist in the U.S. to no lesser degree, but for purposes of demographic and statistical data, the U.S. government simply ignores the politics and defines a national standard. He also writes that this is less of a problem than the European method of not having any standards at all.

It's a very interesting read, and discusses so many of the issues we often bring up here at SSC.

http://www.london.gov.uk/mayor/economic_unit/docs/wp13_towards_a_common_standard.pdf


----------



## Justme

rocky said:


> i think parisians feel themselve people of the "region parisienne"
> but the reason people in europe are more attached to small cities within metros is that many of the cities where here before they became eaten by a big metro area.
> they have different styles, looks, paterns. in new countries i can imagine that suburbs all look the same. while in europe some suburbs have castles, old city centers that have autonomy.. Etc
> for example i live in a suburb of paris that has a strong city center with shops , restaurants, old houses, even a joan of arc sword is supposed to be lying somewhere under the city.



All these issues also exist in the U.S. - A person from Ft Worth, does not feel like they live in Dallas, hence the official name for the Metropolitan Area, Dallas-Ft.Worth. The same goes for those in the Rural winelands of the Nappa Valley. They would never consider themselves to be from San Francisco.

It is mentioned in the paper I linked above.


----------



## rocky

sk said:


> data for cyprus and some major cities on the island:
> cyprus population in 2000 : 697,5 k
> cyprus population in 2004 : 749,2 k
> population of nicosia(the capital)in 2000: 204,1 k
> population of nicosia(the capital)in 2004: 219,2 k
> 
> in 4 years the population of the island increased by approximately 52,000 k
> in 4 years the population of nicosia increased by approximately 15,000 k
> 
> for 2005 the population of the island is estimated to increase by another 15,000k
> these are very big numbers for such a small country and the population increase is quite "felt" on the island


its immigration? or natural increase ? that is a lot of growth


----------



## sk

if the population increases by about 15,000 a year, then 3,000 is natural increase and about 12,000 immigration(approximately).
the majority of immigrants are from eastern europe(including russia and the balkans) and the rest from some asian countries(sri lanka,philippines ,pakistan etc).
cypriot cities are now suffering from traffic congestion ,i need about 40 min to go from one site of nicosia to the other!!!!its a nightmare in such a small city!!!!


----------



## Metropolitan

rocky said:


> i think parisians feel themselve people of the "region parisienne"
> but the reason people in europe are more attached to small cities within metros is that many of the cities where here before they became eaten by a big metro area.
> they have different styles, looks, paterns. in new countries i can imagine that suburbs all look the same. while in europe some suburbs have castles, old city centers that have autonomy.. Etc
> for example i live in a suburb of paris that has a strong city center with shops , restaurants, old houses, even a joan of arc sword is supposed to be lying somewhere under the city.


That's maybe true for Saint-Denis, Vincennes, Sceaux or Versailles, but I doubt this is true for all municipalities around Paris. Many of the municipalities didn't even exist before the 19th century actually, they've been split up from other municipalities while their population was increasing and hence threatening "Paris". Here is a non-exhaustive liste of municipalities created after 1850.

1867 : Creation of Levallois-Perret.
1867 : Creation of Les Lilas.
1875 : Creation of Le Vésinet.
1883 : Creation of Malakoff.
1885 : Creation of Alfortville.
1892 : Creation of Neuilly-Plaisance.
1896 : Creation of Bois-Colombes.
1896 : Creation of Le Kremlin-Bicêtre.
1899 : Creation of Le Plessis-Trévise.
1905 : Creation of Les Pavillons-sous-Bois.
1910 : Creation of La Garenne-Colombes.
1929 : Creation of Villeneuve-la-Garenne.




Justme said:


> All these issues also exist in the U.S. - A person from Ft Worth, does not feel like they live in Dallas, hence the official name for the Metropolitan Area, Dallas-Ft.Worth. The same goes for those in the Rural winelands of the Nappa Valley. They would never consider themselves to be from San Francisco.
> 
> It is mentioned in the paper I linked above.


The thing is that Fort Worth, Oakland or San José are real "independent" cities in some way as they aren't directly connected to San Francisco or Dallas.

This isn't true with Paris. Those suburbs are more neighbourhoods of Paris than anything else. Some of them which are stuck to the city of Paris have a population density superior to the one of the city itself. La Défense is located for instance on two municipalities : Courbevoie and Puteaux, grabbing all local taxes and distributing nothing to their neighbours.

Furthermore, those municipalities are extremely small. Paris urban area is divided in nothing less than 414 municipalities. Paris metropolitan area is divided in more than 1,500 municipalities. That's more than the number of municipalities in the whole Belgium !

As I've told it to you. Municipalities have not moved their shape in France since 1789, despite the demographic, industrial and urbanization booming we've known during the last 216 years. Municipalities in France have been determined at a time when the country was massively rural, with more than 80% of people being peasants. And today, they are still the same.


----------



## eklips

my suburb was created in 1977


----------



## th0m

My hometown Zoetermeer in The Netherlands has grown pretty fast in the past, and is now almost reaching the city borders so the only real growth will be to the sky 

Here some figures:

1935: 4544
1970: 17130
1985: 41094
1980: 63832
1990: 96234
2000: 109936
2005: 115793
Expected:
2009: 124093
2014: 125674
2019: 123566
2024: 121822

As you can see, a quick grow spurt, but at the moment it is almost at the top, and will decline in about 10 years due to no room to expand, and less people living in one house.


----------



## Robert Stark

Check out this article on The future of Euroupe http://www.Amren.com/mtnews/archives/2006/01/its_the_demography_stupid.php


----------



## Robert Stark

:bash:


----------



## staff

Metropolitan said:


> The thing is that Fort Worth, Oakland or San José are real "independent" cities in some way as they aren't directly connected to San Francisco or Dallas.
> 
> This isn't true with Paris. Those suburbs are more neighbourhoods of Paris than anything else. Some of them which are stuck to the city of Paris have a population density superior to the one of the city itself.


Right.

One good, and even more extreme example is the municipality of Fredriksberg in Copenhagen. 
Yes, I wrote *in*, because it is totally surrounded by the municipality of Copenhagen. It is not a suburb, it is not even a neighbourhood - it's actually located in the middle of the inner city/city centre. Because of this, it is by far the most dense municipality in Scandinavia, probably in Northern Europe (and probably one of the most dense municipalities/cities in Europe), boasting almost 100.000 on a spot barely visible on a map of the Copenhagen area (~2,8 million inh. including Malmö area). 

Fredriksberg kommune starts just a couple of hundred meters from the main square and grand central station in Copenhagen and consists totally of densely built up multistory buildings (like in all European cities). Fredriksberg functions completely on it's own, with a city council, own taxes etc. etc. (and a city hall, located not many meters from the Copenhagen city hall :lol: ). 

And of course, the inhabitants don't live in Copenhagen - they live in Fredriksberg! 

----------

It's extremely difficult to compare the size of European cities (or should they be called regions?) to that of American, Canadian and Australian cities. It's even hard to understand sometimes. 
This thread, as well as a couple of other recent ones, can be connected to the "Most deceptive cities"-thread. The way forumers in general, and "ordinary people" in particular, compares city sizes of different continents is of course totally misleading. No wonder why Europeans often are disapointed and surprised with the vibrancy/bustle/nightlife of many cities on the other side of the Atlantic. It's not only about "Europeans living in the city and Americans living in the suburbs" - the population figures for European cities/metros/regions are simply too low (or the other way around of course, but that's unlikely since there is a defined standard in the US).

Even though Phoenix, Madrid, Houston and Berlin show approx. the same "metro area" population, the numbers are obviously ridiculously misleading. It's really nothing to make fuss about (at least not "when you know"), but it should be important to keep in mind - especially on forums like these. 

Claiming that Amsterdam, for example, is a 'city' of 10 million inhabitants may not be totally accurate - but in reality it is not far from the truth.


----------



## NorthStar77

staff said:


> One good, and even more extreme example is the municipality of Fredriksberg in Copenhagen.
> Yes, I wrote *in*, because it is totally surrounded by the municipality of Copenhagen. It is not a suburb, it is not even a neighbourhood - it's actually located in the middle of the inner city/city centre. Because of this, it is by far the most dense municipality in Scandinavia, probably in Northern Europe (and probably one of the most dense municipalities/cities in Europe), boasting almost 100.000 on a spot barely visible on a map of the Copenhagen area (~2,8 million inh. including Malmö area).
> 
> Fredriksberg kommune starts just a couple of hundred meters from the main square and grand central station in Copenhagen and consists totally of densely built up multistory buildings (like in all European cities). Fredriksberg functions completely on it's own, with a city council, own taxes etc. etc. (and a city hall, located not many meters from the Copenhagen city hall :lol: ).
> 
> And of course, the inhabitants don't live in Copenhagen - they live in Fredriksberg!


I remember beeing totally surprised by this when I visited Copenhagen. We took a bus from our hotel near the central train-station to the zoo, and just one or two stops from the hotel, I saw these road-construction signs with Fredriksberg kommune on them. I just assumed that kommune had to have a different meaning than in Norwegian. I cannot understand why this municipality isn't incorprated into Copenhagen decades, if not centuries ago!! And even after the new municipality reform, it remains the same:bash:


----------



## staff

NorthStar77 said:


> I remember beeing totally surprised by this when I visited Copenhagen. We took a bus from our hotel near the central train-station to the zoo, and just one or two stops from the hotel, I saw these road-construction signs with Fredriksberg kommune on them. I just assumed that kommune had to have a different meaning than in Norwegian. I cannot understand why this municipality isn't incorprated into Copenhagen decades, if not centuries ago!! And even after the new municipality reform, it remains the same:bash:


Yeah, it's totally ridiculous, but I think the kommune has simply became too "independent" and it's inhabitants more and more patriotic (Fredriksberg is considered a very nice area to live in - living costs are astromical).

It's probably considered downright rude to claim that Fredriksberger lives in Copenhagen, even though he or she lives right in the centre of Copenhagen.
And that, my friends, is very, very European.


----------



## Jonesy55

Robert Stark said:


> Check out this article on The future of Euroupe ( Caution this site might affend the Politically correct) http://www.Amren.com/mtnews/archives/2006/01/its_the_demography_stupid.php


Not offensive but not true either, he seems to revel in painting the worst case scenario. Europe's population isn't collapsing it is still slowly increasing. 

If the only way to maintain our civilisation is by a continuously expanding population that makes life ever more difficult and unpleasant for the inhabitants of this earth, you have to ask, is it worth it?


----------



## Newcastle Guy

London, actually is growing fast. Apparently the rate of increase in the population is about the same as a few hundred years ago at the height of the empire. Their is a project, the thames gateway, that will have something like 400,000 new homes. London also has europes biggest building project, Heathrow T5.


----------



## London

> does europe have any fast growing cities?


yes, if you concider London as part of europe... (since the Tony Blair is Chairman of the UE)


----------



## Manuel

newcastle kid said:


> London, actually is growing fast. Apparently the rate of increase in the population is about the same as a few hundred years ago at the height of the empire. Their is a project, the thames gateway, that will have something like 400,000 new homes. London also has europes biggest building project, Heathrow T5.


I think ppl are talking in relative terms here. No offence but london annual growth is strong compared to other big cities in Europe but nothing extraordinary. 

The rate of increase is no way near those recorded in the XIX century.

Thames Gateway should provide something like 200,000 new homes, part of them will be outside the GL boundaries.


----------



## Skylandman

London said:


> (since the Tony Blair is Chairman of the UE)



actually he was but right now he is not.


----------



## London

lol, fibber!


----------



## Robert Stark

Do you think Europe is dying, or will it remain a great civilization for years to come? Will the cultures of Europe remain intact, or will they become dilluted with immigration and globalization?


----------



## Justme

Robert Stark said:


> Do you think Europe is dying, or will it remain a great civilization for years to come?


Why would it die?

I don't know where you live, but if it was Europe, you would certainly not see it as dying. Maybe it's because you read news reports about the economy in some country's being slow at the moment, but you have to remember, that such downturns in economy are temporary things, and can affect any country in the world (and has). You also have to keep in mind that not all country's are experiencing a downturn in economy, some country's have been riding a boom of recent years, the U.K., Spain, Ireland, and a good deal of Eastern Europe.

Many cities in Europe are positively booming, such as London, (and most other U.K. cities), the Spanish cities of Barcelona, Valencia and Madrid (not to mention the smaller ones as well), Warsaw, Budapest, Prague... the list is very long. It certainly doesn't feel like these places are dying.

Europe is at one of it's best periods in History. There was a time, when Europeans flocked out of the continent in search of better lives in the new world, populating new country's such as the U.S., Canada, Australia, NZ etc. This trend has now reversed. Never before has European emmigration been so low, and it now recieves more immigrants ever before (some reports state the EU has the region with the largest number of immigrants in the world)

Even the tradition U.K. to Australia emmigration changed. In fact, according to news reports last year, it has actually reversed. Now, more Australian's apparently migrate permanently to the U.K. than British people migrating permanently to Australia. 7 Years ago I saw this trend beginning whilst living in Sydney. At least half of my friends that were originally from Europe had returned to their home country - I myself am an Australian immigrant to Europe.

Europe has enormous economic ties with other parts of the world as well, whether the booming nations of Asia or the America's, and these ties have only shown signs of growing stronger.

The economies of Germany, France and a handful of others that have had economic slowdowns in the last few years, are showing signs of breaking through.

Just look at the enormous numbers of developments in Europe right now, which surely is a sign that things are not on the way out.




Robert Stark said:


> Will the cultures of Europe remain intact, or will they become diluted with immigration and globalization?


All cultures in Europe will remain intact, and at the same time, all will evolve as well. Evolution is not a negative sign of dilution of culture. Look at the U.S, Canada and Australia. These are very different countries to what they were in the 1950's and 1960's. They are much more multicultural now (some American's argue to the point where English shouldn't be considered the only main language) but do they still feel like America, Canada and Australia? Of cause they do.

Many European's felt that when the single currency emerged it would wipe away their individualism and national identity. What rubbish that proved to be. Germany still feels like Germany, Spain still feels like Spain. If someone is going to try and tell me that sitting in a plaza in Valencia feels no different than sitting in a platz in Berlin, then wake up and smell the roses.

Europe has survived years measured in the thousands, and wars more destructive than anything anyone can imagine, but it's still here, and I expect for quite some time to come.


----------



## bustero

Justme said:


> I don't agree with this, as the cities have grown enormously within the MA (see my post above). It's the city proper's that have not experienced much growth, but this is quite normal in other cities around the world (including Australia or the U.S.)
> 
> Internal migration can enormously enlarge a city, particualy an MA. Just look at Australia. This country has a very small population, but several reasonably sized cities. Much of the growth of these cities has been internal migration as well as external, with large numbers of the rural population moving into the various MA's.
> 
> Few of the city proper's have grown at all, with the exception of Brisbane (because it is so large it encompases a good deal of the MA) and Sydney (Because it annexed another city a few years ago).
> 
> But even then, after 200 years, Sydney still only has 146,000 people. Although it's MA has jumped to 4.2million. Perth, still only has around 8,000 people, though it's MA has grown to 1.4million.
> 
> If you look at European MA's, you will also see the large increases in population. The problem is, that Metropolitan Area's is a new concept in Europe, so records don't go back very far.



For purposes of discussion then we need to agree on the semantics as to what fast growing city will mean, I actually assumed it to be the Metropolitan Area for simplicity sake otherwise one gets into confusion similar to the posts above. From an growth discussion I also use the phrase fast growing relative to worldwide growth rates. Hence point I quite simply point out that Europe's total population is decreasing from reports I've read. It is also trending to lossing more people in the continent as opposed to most other's which are gaining. Assuming that no great policy change is made with regards to increasing the current migration rates, it would be difficult for a MA's growth to depend on this and hence would need to attract people from other MA's in a zero sum game. 

Dying is not the correct word but definitely greying and for many places changing color and ethnicity as the native populations actually begin to peter out! I'm curious as to which sizable city or Metropolitan Area of at least a million people is the fastest growing from a five year historical perspective. As these are demographic changes the longer term trends are more significant as opposed to spikes and fads (unless this is the future for Earth, where the hot place to live in increases and changes over the span of just a few years).


----------



## DocentX

*Michał Borowski, Chief Architect of Warsaw: Future City * 

Interview with Michał Borowski, Chief Architect of Warsaw.

_Q: Is Warsaw an attractive investment location?_

A: It is very attractive because the city will be developing. *In the coming 20 years Warsaw’s population within its existing boundaries, that is 512 sq. km, will double.* This is very important news for all investors. There is still a lot of undeveloped space in the central part of the city. At almost any intersection, one can see that there are still empty plots. The Warsaw housing market, which now offers around 12,000 homes annually (really a lot compared to other European capitals), will probably offer 20,000 homes in 2007. [...]

http://www.polishmarket.com.pl/index.php?p=/current_issue/&a=10326


----------



## Justme

bustero said:


> For purposes of discussion then we need to agree on the semantics as to what fast growing city will mean, I actually assumed it to be the Metropolitan Area for simplicity sake otherwise one gets into confusion similar to the posts above. From an growth discussion I also use the phrase fast growing relative to worldwide growth rates. Hence point I quite simply point out that Europe's total population is decreasing from reports I've read. It is also trending to lossing more people in the continent as opposed to most other's which are gaining. Assuming that no great policy change is made with regards to increasing the current migration rates, it would be difficult for a MA's growth to depend on this and hence would need to attract people from other MA's in a zero sum game.


Europe's population is not decreasing, it is still growing. What many analysts argue, is that the rate of growth is slowing down, and if this continues with no government policies to encourage further immigration and children, then in the future the population would in fact drop.

However, in reality, the governments know about this and will enact. It would be immpossible to imagine that they wouldn't. Immigration is already increasing (it's at the highest level in history, whilst emmigration out of Europe is at it's lowest in history) and the next step would be to encourage larger family's, most likely through tax breaks.

I also suggest that European cities will see a major jump in the near future in Metropolitan Area population figures. Currently, there are no standards in the way metropolitan area's are measured, and in almost all cases, they use a far more restrictive definition than that used in the U.S. The E.U. is now working on a standard which uses a very similar formula used to create America's MSA's and CMSA's. This would encompus a much larger area in most cases than currently used, and it's in this wider area where more families exist, and thus higher birth rates (it's no hidden statistic that families in inner city area's of the U.S. are usually smaller than those in the suburbs, same goes for Europe)



bustero said:


> Dying is not the correct word but definitely greying and for many places changing color and ethnicity as the native populations actually begin to peter out! I'm curious as to which sizable city or Metropolitan Area of at least a million people is the fastest growing from a five year historical perspective. As these are demographic changes the longer term trends are more significant as opposed to spikes and fads (unless this is the future for Earth, where the hot place to live in increases and changes over the span of just a few years).


Have a look at the previous posts, and you can see many cities in Europe that have as high growth rates as found in many U.S. and Canadian cities.


----------



## Jonesy55

Interesting article from the Economist on declining populations.

http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=5358255

Incredible shrinking countries
Jan 5th 2006
From The Economist print edition

Rich countries' populations are beginning to shrink. That's not necessarily bad news

DURING the second half of the 20th century, the global population explosion was the big demographic bogey. Robert McNamara, president of the World Bank in the 1970s, compared the threat of unmanageable population pressures with the danger of nuclear war. Now that worry has evaporated, and this century is spooking itself with the opposite fear: the onset of demographic decline. 

The shrinkage of Russia and eastern Europe is familiar, though not perhaps the scale of it: Russia's population is expected to fall by 22% between 2005 and 2050, Ukraine's by a staggering 43%. Now the phenomenon is creeping into the rich world: Japan (see article) has started to shrink and others, such as Italy and Germany, will soon follow. Even China's population will be declining by the early 2030s, according to the UN, which projects that by 2050 populations will be lower than they are today in 50 countries. 

Demographic decline worries people because it is believed to go hand in hand with economic decline. At the extremes it may well be the result of economic factors: pessimism may depress the birth rate and push up rates of suicide and alcoholism. But, in the main, demographic decline is the consequence of the low fertility that generally goes with growing prosperity. In Japan, for instance, birth rates fell below the replacement rate of 2.1 children per woman in the mid-1970s and have been particularly low in the past 15 years.

But if demographic decline is not generally a consequence of economic decline, surely it must be a cause? In a crude sense, yes. As populations shrink, GDP growth will slow. Some economies may even start to shrink, too. The result will be a loss of economic influence.

Governments hate the idea of a shrinking population because the absolute size of GDP matters for great-power status. The bigger the economy, the bigger the military, the greater the geopolitical clout: annual GDP estimates were first introduced in America in the 1940s as part of its war effort. Companies worry, too: they do not like the idea of their domestic markets shrinking. People should not mind, though. What matters for economic welfare is GDP per person.

The crucial question is therefore what the effect of demographic decline is on the growth of GDP per person. The bad news is that this looks likely to slow because working-age populations will decline more rapidly than overall populations. Yet this need not happen. Productivity growth may keep up growth in GDP per person: as labour becomes scarcer, and pressure to introduce new technologies to boost workers' efficiency increases, so the productivity of labour may rise faster. Anyway, retirement ages can be lifted to increase the supply of labour even when the population is declining.

People love to worry—maybe it's a symptom of ageing populations—but the gloom surrounding population declines misses the main point. The new demographics that are causing populations to age and to shrink are something to celebrate. Humanity was once caught in the trap of high fertility and high mortality. Now it has escaped into the freedom of low fertility and low mortality. Women's control over the number of children they have is an unqualified good—as is the average person's enjoyment, in rich countries, of ten more years of life than they had in 1960. Politicians may fear the decline of their nations' economic prowess, but people should celebrate the new demographics as heralding a golden age.


----------



## Robert Stark

Justme said:


> Why would it die?
> 
> I don't know where you live, but if it was Europe, you would certainly not see it as dying. Maybe it's because you read news reports about the economy in some country's being slow at the moment, but you have to remember, that such downturns in economy are temporary things, and can affect any country in the world (and has). You also have to keep in mind that not all country's are experiencing a downturn in economy, some country's have been riding a boom of recent years, the U.K., Spain, Ireland, and a good deal of Eastern Europe.
> 
> Many cities in Europe are positively booming, such as London, (and most other U.K. cities), the Spanish cities of Barcelona, Valencia and Madrid (not to mention the smaller ones as well), Warsaw, Budapest, Prague... the list is very long. It certainly doesn't feel like these places are dying.
> 
> Europe is at one of it's best periods in History. There was a time, when Europeans flocked out of the continent in search of better lives in the new world, populating new country's such as the U.S., Canada, Australia, NZ etc. This trend has now reversed. Never before has European emmigration been so low, and it now recieves more immigrants ever before (some reports state the EU has the region with the largest number of immigrants in the world)
> 
> Even the tradition U.K. to Australia emmigration changed. In fact, according to news reports last year, it has actually reversed. Now, more Australian's apparently migrate permanently to the U.K. than British people migrating permanently to Australia. 7 Years ago I saw this trend beginning whilst living in Sydney. At least half of my friends that were originally from Europe had returned to their home country - I myself am an Australian immigrant to Europe.
> 
> Europe has enormous economic ties with other parts of the world as well, whether the booming nations of Asia or the America's, and these ties have only shown signs of growing stronger.
> 
> The economies of Germany, France and a handful of others that have had economic slowdowns in the last few years, are showing signs of breaking through.
> 
> Just look at the enormous numbers of developments in Europe right now, which surely is a sign that things are not on the way out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All cultures in Europe will remain intact, and at the same time, all will evolve as well. Evolution is not a negative sign of dilution of culture. Look at the U.S, Canada and Australia. These are very different countries to what they were in the 1950's and 1960's. They are much more multicultural now (some American's argue to the point where English shouldn't be considered the only main language) but do they still feel like America, Canada and Australia? Of cause they do.
> 
> Many European's felt that when the single currency emerged it would wipe away their individualism and national identity. What rubbish that proved to be. Germany still feels like Germany, Spain still feels like Spain. If someone is going to try and tell me that sitting in a plaza in Valencia feels no different than sitting in a platz in Berlin, then wake up and smell the roses.
> 
> Europe has survived years measured in the thousands, and wars more destructive than anything anyone can imagine, but it's still here, and I expect for quite some time to come.


I was talking more about population decline. I just read Pat Buchannans "Death of The West", and it sounds like Europe is declining and Aging, and could loose up to half of its indiginous population by mid century. Also large scale immigration is rapidly tranforming Europe, and there could be a muslim majority by the end of The Century.


----------



## SHiRO

Haven't you figured out yet Pat Buchannan isn't an authority on anything but just a neocon pundit?

For most of us the purpose to come to SSC is to learn. Weren't people telling you (and proving to you) that this "mayority muslim"/"death of the west" is pure bollocks?

I guess with some people it is no use trying...:no:


----------



## SHiRO

Haven't you figured out yet Pat Buchannan isn't an authority on anything but just a neocon pundit?

For most of us the purpose to come to SSC is to learn. Weren't people telling you (and proving to you) that this "mayority muslim"/"death of the west" is pure bollocks?

I guess with some people it is no use trying...:no:


----------



## rocky

majority muslim is not possible, but its possible in a century if they keep on coming like this...and this would be the death of white people. 
but i dont think this will happen as governements are closing borders or will do it


----------



## Robert Stark

SHiRO said:


> Haven't you figured out yet Pat Buchannan isn't an authority on anything but just a neocon pundit?
> 
> Pat Buchannan is A Paleo-Con not a Neo-Con ( look it up on Wikipedia)


----------



## eklips

rocky said:


> majority muslim is not possible, but its possible in a century if they keep on coming like this...and this would be the death of white people.
> but i dont think this will happen as governements are closing borders or will do it



Actually, it isn't close to possible, even if trends continue to be like that.


----------



## rocky

^^ im talking the whole europe not only france.


----------



## eklips

rocky said:


> ^^ im talking the whole europe not only france.



Then it is even less than possible, exept maybe in Scandinavia


----------



## Audiomuse

London, Moscow, Frankfurt, Manchester. Paris is not growing. It is decreasing but yeah the metro is growing. I am surprised at how international people are in Europe. More than U.S. to me. Every small town i go to there are plenty of Indians, Chinese, Pakistanis, or Middle Eastern people.


----------



## Mekky II

macon4ever said:


> London, Moscow, Frankfurt, Manchester. Paris is not growing. It is decreasing but yeah the metro is growing. I am surprised at how international people are in Europe. More than U.S. to me. Every small town i go to there are plenty of Indians, Chinese, Pakistanis, or Middle Eastern people.


Actually Paris (the city alone) grew between 1999 and 2004 by 20 000 inhabitants. ...


----------



## pricemazda

Some sections of the American right love to suggest that Europe will be called 'Eurabia' and that Europe is an economic basket case and is eventually going to die off. 

I wouldn't place too much faith in Pat Buchanan.


----------



## Fallout

Moscow has grown quite a lot, from 8 million to 11 million in last 15 years. Which is even more surprising, as population of Russia has been decreasing all this time.


----------



## Robert Stark

:runaway:


----------



## thryve

Woah Woah Woah... isn't London growing really really fast? Or did I miss something...?


----------



## Robert Stark

:cheers:


----------



## Lee

pricemazda said:


> Some sections of the American right love to suggest that Europe will be called 'Eurabia' and that Europe is an economic basket case and is eventually going to die off.
> 
> I wouldn't place too much faith in Pat Buchanan.


Especially since many of these claims come from conservative parties within Europe.


----------



## Peshu

I think Europe is past its prime.I think Asia and Australasia is where the future is.Even Latin America has yet to realise 1% of its potential.
So i think there is going to be a big downturn in Europe without end.


----------



## SHiRO

Yeah sure...:|
The US too right?


----------



## Mekky II

Peshu said:


> I think Europe is past its prime.I think Asia and Australasia is where the future is.Even Latin America has yet to realise 1% of its potential.
> So i think there is going to be a big downturn in Europe without end.


You are right, and considering half of Asia territory is russian, Russia will save Europe ahahah !


----------



## Robert Stark

I expect European cities to remain vibrant well into the century, though their unique indentities may be lost to multiculteralism. I do expect many of the small towns in Europe to become ghost towns by the middle of the century, or be bought up as vacation homes by foreigners. I visited some small town in SW England such as Modbury, and literally didnt see a single person under 60. :runaway:


----------



## DonQui

I don't understand why some Americans are so giddy at the low birthrates of Europe. While fertility rates among the native born in the US are significantly higher than in Europe, at 1.9, this is still below the replacement rate of 2.1 The US, like Europe, would not be growing were it not for immigration.


----------



## eklips

With multiculturalism Europe is not loosing it's identity, it's just evolving like it has always evolved before.

_Europe has always been multicultural at one point or another, When north america started receiving italian and irish immigrants, france was receiving poles and spaniards, and we are already very multicultural regionaly.

South-east europe and the balkans have always interacted with their middle eastern neighbors, as did spain in north africa, and east-east europe has had asian influence before columbus was even born.

Immigration is not making europe all alike, simply because the immigrants are very different from one european country to the other, only in the UK will you find such south asian and jamaican influence, only in Spain will you find such latin american influences, only in France will you find such north and west african influences etc.


Multiculturalism is not Europe's doom or whatever, it is a strengh, and all those non-europeans who fantacise about a false and struck in time vision of Europe as if it was a them park stuck in the 30's should open their eyes a bit.


----------



## Peshu

SHiRO said:


> Yeah sure...:|
> The US too right?


Quite right actually.Except for the U.S. Ithink the U.S is also on its way down.As history has so far proven.A new century.A new super power.No one is going to stop the rise of China and Asia.I believe that even countries like Australia and New Zealand will also become more important due to their proximity to Asia.Latin America is also a sleeping giant with great potential.
We should all start learning Chinese :cheers:


----------



## SHiRO

And what do you base this on?


----------



## Robert Stark

Pat Buchannan's "Death of The West" really provides a doom scenario for The West especially Europe. Its hard to say if those predictions will come true, or will join the rest of the conspiricy theories in the dust bin of history.
I dont think Europe is going to die, but you probebly wont recognize the place in 50-100 yrs.


----------



## marathon

Spain has the largest number of municipalities growing at over 5% a year by far, with 21:

Torrevieja, Alicante	+15.2
Jávea, Alicante	+13.6
Arona, Santa Cruz	+12.0
Adeje, Santa Cruz	+11.2
Granadilla de Abona, Santa Cruz	+10.2
San Bartolomé de Tirajana, Las Palmas	+9.3
Lloret de Mar, Gerona	+7.6
Benidorm, Alicante	+6.8
Orihuela, Alicante	+6.7
Puerto del Rosario, Las Palmas	+6.6
Calvià, Baleares	+6.5
Calpe, Alicante	+6.5
Mazarrón, Murcia	+6.2
Benalmádena, Málaga	+5.5
Puerto de la Cruz, Santa Cruz	+5.4
Níjar, Almeria	+5.4
San Javier, Murcia	+5.3
Valdemoro, Madrid	+5.2
Rivas-Vaciamadrid, Madrid	+5.2
Agüimes, Las Palmas	+5.2
El Campello, Alicante	+5.1


----------



## Jonesy55

Robert Stark said:


> I do expect many of the small towns in Europe to become ghost towns by the middle of the century, or be bought up as vacation homes by foreigners. I visited some small town in SW England such as Modbury, and literally didnt see a single person under 60. :runaway:


The SW of England has always been a place where people from the cities go to retire. The pace of life is slower and the climate is better than the rest of the UK. Many of the fastest growing places in the UK however are the small and medium sized towns.


----------



## Peshu

SHiRO said:


> And what do you base this on?


On the fact that in a few years time just about anything produced will come from China.Europe has enormous problems with homelessnes as does the U.S.
It's getting more and more difficult to find well paid work in Europe.Their are way too many over-qualified persons with no where near enough work for them.There is more construction going on in Shanghai alone then the whole of Europe put together.Millions of well qualified Europeans are looking to migrate elsewhere as they don't see much of a future in their homeland.
Although parts of Europe are still receiving a massive influx of immigrants.The vast majority of these are coming from developing nations.Which means that they will lower the locals wages.


----------



## Peshu

marathon said:


> Spain has the largest number of municipalities growing at over 5% a year by far, with 21:
> 
> Torrevieja, Alicante	+15.2
> Jávea, Alicante	+13.6
> Arona, Santa Cruz	+12.0
> Adeje, Santa Cruz	+11.2
> Granadilla de Abona, Santa Cruz	+10.2
> San Bartolomé de Tirajana, Las Palmas	+9.3
> Lloret de Mar, Gerona	+7.6
> Benidorm, Alicante	+6.8
> Orihuela, Alicante	+6.7
> Puerto del Rosario, Las Palmas	+6.6
> Calvià, Baleares	+6.5
> Calpe, Alicante	+6.5
> Mazarrón, Murcia	+6.2
> Benalmádena, Málaga	+5.5
> Puerto de la Cruz, Santa Cruz	+5.4
> Níjar, Almeria	+5.4
> San Javier, Murcia	+5.3
> Valdemoro, Madrid	+5.2
> Rivas-Vaciamadrid, Madrid	+5.2
> Agüimes, Las Palmas	+5.2
> El Campello, Alicante	+5.1


Please.The majority of immigrants arriving in Spain are doing so from developing nations.Lowering the already disgracefully low workers wages of that nation.Don't get me wrong.I believe that any human is as good as the next.But the reality is that Spain is having enormous racial problems due to the strain on the already low wages and scarcity of work that exists in that country.
Very few Spaniard don't get married or have children these days due to un-affordability.So iguess that the only way of getting a population increase is by letting a vast number of immigrants.This though does not mean that Spain is well prepared for an influx of immigrants.Quite the contrary.


----------



## marathon

Peshu said:


> Please.The majority of immigrants arriving in Spain are doing so from developing nations.Lowering the already disgracefully low workers wages of that nation.Don't get me wrong.I believe that any human is as good as the next.But the reality is that Spain is having enormous racial problems due to the strain on the already low wages and scarcity of work that exists in that country.
> Very few Spaniard don't get married or have children these days due to un-affordability.So iguess that the only way of getting a population increase is by letting a vast number of immigrants.This though does not mean that Spain is well prepared for an influx of immigrants.Quite the contrary.


These cities are all growing at more than 5% a year. The reasons behind it are beside the point...


----------



## Peshu

I don't believe it's beside the point at all.Spain is forced to allow a huge influx of immigrants due to Spaniards having very few children.But the country is certainly not prepared for them.The country is just going to have more problems.


----------



## marathon

Peshu said:


> I don't believe it's beside the point at all.Spain is forced to allow a huge influx of immigrants due to Spaniards having very few children.But the country is certainly not prepared for them.The country is just going to have more problems.


The thread title is whether Europe has fast growing cities. Spain has plenty. The reasons behind the growth are irrelevent to the basic question posed...


----------



## SHiRO

Peshu said:


> On the fact that in a few years time just about anything produced will come from China.Europe has enormous problems with homelessnes as does the U.S.
> It's getting more and more difficult to find well paid work in Europe.Their are way too many over-qualified persons with no where near enough work for them.There is more construction going on in Shanghai alone then the whole of Europe put together.Millions of well qualified Europeans are looking to migrate elsewhere as they don't see much of a future in their homeland.
> Although parts of Europe are still receiving a massive influx of immigrants.The vast majority of these are coming from developing nations.Which means that they will lower the locals wages.


Nothing of what you posted has any basis in thruth whatsoever.
It's just your perception, nothing more.


----------



## Metropolitan

Spanish demographic booming is mainly explained by the life expectancy which have greatly improved in the latest years.

Spaniards may have less babies than in the past, but they also have even less seniors dying than they used to. As less people are dying than birthing, there's a demographic booming.


----------



## SHiRO

Actually it is recent immigration that fuels the boom.


----------



## Metropolitan

SHiRO said:


> Actually it is recent immigration that fuels the boom.


Well if you say so...

It's weird because I had the feeling immigration was stronger in Germany, and we can't feel such a boom over there.


----------



## Manuel

Metropolitan said:


> Spanish demographic booming is mainly explained by the life expectancy which have greatly improved in the latest years.
> 
> Spaniards may have less babies than in the past, but they also have even less seniors dying than they used to. As less people are dying than birthing, there's a demographic booming.


It's immigration that's responsible for the booming population. Longer life expectancy has an effet, but marginal compared to immigration.


----------



## Peshu

marathon said:


> The thread title is whether Europe has fast growing cities. Spain has plenty. The reasons behind the growth are irrelevent to the basic question posed...


O.K then.Europe has some fast growing cities at the moment.But not for long.


----------



## Justme

Peshu said:


> And where exactly are yours from?I don't know what you do for a living.But if it's a very well paid job and you have wealthy friends then you are quite simply very far from the reality of Europe.


I work in IT and yes, I am well paid. I wouldn't call myself wealthy though. Well paid work to me, simply means that I don't have to think about money for day to day things. Whether that's going to a restaurant as I feel, flying to another European country for a weekend etc.

Being wealthy is not having to think about money for expensive things, such as buying a large house overlooking the waterfront, or a luxury car.

It seems to me you have lost some touch to reality. When I look at the job sites to see what else is out there, there are countless pages of IT jobs available offering my salary. I simply don't have the time to browse through them all. That tells me that finding well paid work isn't as hard as you try to make out.

Where exactly do you live?


----------



## Justme

Peshu said:


> Try telling that to a Mexican :|


What would that achieve? As I suggested before, I think you have lost touch with reality.

To be honest, there are not many Mexicans around here. I only know one, and he is a customer to our facility. I could ask him, as he's a wonderfully friendly guy, but I suspect it would mean little as I would guess he earns more than me from what I know about his position.


----------



## Peshu

Justme said:


> What would that achieve? As I suggested before, I think you have lost touch with reality.
> 
> To be honest, there are not many Mexicans around here. I only know one, and he is a customer to our facility. I could ask him, as he's a wonderfully friendly guy, but I suspect it would mean little as I would guess he earns more than me from what I know about his position.



I was specifically refering to one of your previous posts.According to your calculations low un-employment means many high paid positions available.Mexico has for a long time had quite low un-employment.Getting a high paid job on the other hand is a different matter.


----------



## Peshu

Justme said:


> I work in IT and yes, I am well paid. I wouldn't call myself wealthy though. Well paid work to me, simply means that I don't have to think about money for day to day things. Whether that's going to a restaurant as I feel, flying to another European country for a weekend etc.
> 
> Being wealthy is not having to think about money for expensive things, such as buying a large house overlooking the waterfront, or a luxury car.
> 
> It seems to me you have lost some touch to reality. When I look at the job sites to see what else is out there, there are countless pages of IT jobs available offering my salary. I simply don't have the time to browse through them all. That tells me that finding well paid work isn't as hard as you try to make out.
> 
> Where exactly do you live?



I'm glad to hear that life is treating you well.And ofcourse there are countless jobs available in IT.Problem is that there are more people looking at those positions then what's actually available.The competition with IT is scarry to be perfectly honest.And when you do say that you are financially comfortable.What exactly do you mean.I don't know your marital status.But earning say 60,000 Euros a year being single as i am.Is a different financial strain to earning that same amount of money and being married with kids.

By the way i'm a Canadian that's been living in Melbourne for 11 years now,


----------



## Justme

Peshu said:


> I was specifically refering to one of your previous posts.According to your calculations low un-employment means many high paid positions available.Mexico has for a long time had quite low un-employment.Getting a high paid job on the other hand is a different matter.



There is a very big difference between the economy of Mexico - a developing nation, beautiful as it is, and the economic levels of Western Europe.


----------



## Justme

Peshu said:


> I'm glad to hear that life is treating you well.And ofcourse there are countless jobs available in IT.Problem is that there are more people looking at those positions then what's actually available.The competition with IT is scarry to be perfectly honest.And when you do say that you are financially comfortable.What exactly do you mean.I don't know your marital status.But earning say 60,000 Euros a year being single as i am.Is a different financial strain to earning that same amount of money and being married with kids.
> 
> By the way i'm a Canadian that's been living in Melbourne for 11 years now,


Ok, well, I don't know where you get your idea's about Western Europe, but there really are plenty of well paying jobs here. Keep in mind, many Australian's come over to Europe to find these jobs. There are countless in London and I know plenty here in Frankfurt. Hell, I'm one myself.


----------



## SHiRO

Peshu said:


> I'm glad to hear that life is treating you well.And ofcourse there are countless jobs available in IT.Problem is that there are more people looking at those positions then what's actually available.The competition with IT is scarry to be perfectly honest.And when you do say that you are financially comfortable.What exactly do you mean.I don't know your marital status.But earning say 60,000 Euros a year being single as i am.Is a different financial strain to earning that same amount of money and being married with kids.
> 
> By the way i'm a Canadian that's been living in Melbourne for 11 years now,


Actually there is more demand for IT jobs then IT workers here (NL) and the gap is growing.

No offense, but a Canadian in Australia shouldn't make the assumptions you made about the actual situation here.


----------



## nick_taylor

Peshu said:


> By the way i'm a Canadian that's been living in Melbourne for 11 years now,


I thought you said some time ago, that you were born, raised and reside currently in Madrid?


----------



## Peshu

nick-taylor said:


> I thought you said some time ago, that you were born, raised and reside currently in Madrid?


 :nuts: 
When the f--k did i say that i was born,raised and currently reside in Madrid.
I resided in Madrid for a few months.If you could please show me that i ever said that.Please.Go ahead.


----------



## Peshu

SHiRO said:


> Actually there is more demand for IT jobs then IT workers here (NL) and the gap is growing.
> 
> No offense, but a Canadian in Australia shouldn't make the assumptions you made about the actual situation here.


What do you mean. :jk:


----------



## Peshu

Justme said:


> Ok, well, I don't know where you get your idea's about Western Europe, but there really are plenty of well paying jobs here. Keep in mind, many Australian's come over to Europe to find these jobs. There are countless in London and I know plenty here in Frankfurt. Hell, I'm one myself.


Look,i know for a fact that there are many very well paid jobs in Europe.I'm looking at the future.And i honestly don't see a great one for Europe.Unlike Europe.There are certain other continents that have had their potential un-tapped.A few weeks ago i read about some Taiwanese telecomunications company buying out the German giant Siemens.What is that telling you?
It's something that would have been un-imaginable a couple of decades ago.


----------



## smartlake

Well I am certainly no expert in demographics, but it is predicted that the ENTIRE population will level off sometime in this century, so i find it hard to believe that France will reach 100 any time (ever). 
Also, again, not being an expert, but the immigrants are from countries that are developing. I am guessing that in the future, life in the 'homeland' will greatly improve for [Arabs, Asians, and maybe Africans] so there will be little need to go to Europe. In fact, this HAS already happened--With Europe!! Europeans are no longer coming to America, Canada etc. because life in Europe has gotten better and some cases, better that in the US (maybe not Canada, i dunno, though)
This is just my prediction.
And People get all defensive when someone else says that Europes population is declining, while it may be incorrect, a stagnant or declining population is not a bad thing! Look at Africa--how they live in poverty and they the fastest growing continent. Growth does not bring much anything good. And if it is the 'accused dissappearing' of European cultures what makes you offended, people must not be too concerned about it if they readily welcome millions of non-European (cultured) immigrants (not a bad thing).


----------



## Justme

Peshu said:


> Look,i know for a fact that there are many very well paid jobs in Europe.I'm looking at the future.And i honestly don't see a great one for Europe.Unlike Europe.There are certain other continents that have had their potential un-tapped.A few weeks ago i read about some Taiwanese telecomunications company buying out the German giant Siemens.What is that telling you?
> It's something that would have been un-imaginable a couple of decades ago.


Well, your look of the future does not really mean anything other than your personal perspective.

Honestly, the fact that a Taiwanese company tried to buy out Siemens means nothing more than a powerful Asian company trying to buy out a powerful German company.

This happens all the time.

Asian company's have bought many American and Australian company's, does this mean that Australia and the U.S. is on the way down?

European companies buy many big U.S. companies all the time, and vise versa, but when this happens it doesn't mean anything like your prediction.

It's just part of global business.


----------



## Mr Bricks

"Actually, it's about the same. US unemployment is 4.9% and UK is 5.0%. A year ago, the UK's was lower."

Quite funny, actually, you can´t compare the US to western europe. There are so many people in the US that "don´t excist". The 4.9% figure is based on people they know about, there is much more unemplloyment in the US that in the UK. You rally think all afroamericans, indians, mexicans etc and other poor people are included? No! The UK is far more healthy and has less unemployment


----------



## 909

Peshu said:


> I'm looking at the future.And i honestly don't see a great one for Europe.Unlike Europe.There are certain other continents that have had their potential un-tapped.A few weeks ago i read about some Taiwanese telecomunications company buying out the German giant Siemens.What is that telling you?
> It's something that would have been un-imaginable a couple of decades ago.


Same story as always on SSC, people are only focused on growth and predictions, what sometimes results in a logical fallacy. Just an example:

- X (for example: the economy of Europe / EU)
- Y (for example: the economy of China / Asia, any booming country)

- X is bigger than Y
- Y is growing faster than X

It seems logic that Y will become bigger then X, but does it? Nobody knows, nothing is what it seems to be, especially when it comes to demographic or economic predictions and/or visions.

So often, people seem to think that when Y grows faster than X, it does mean that:
- Y has a better future than X, and because of that Y is a threat for X but X isn't a threat for Y;
- X doesn't grow and in the future will be replaced by something that does grow, like Y.

People are too many times focused on growth (here on SSC), of which the result is that they become narrow-minded when is comes to some subjects. Just open a thread here about the future of Europe and Asia, and it comes clear what i mean: most people are only focused on growth.
The fact that Asia's economy is growing faster then th economy of Europe doens't mean that Asia only can win and Europe only can loose.

And the fact that an Asian company wants to buy a German one, it doesn't prove a thing: Germany Overtakes America To become World's Biggest Exporter

What is that telling you and what does it proves about the future and/or potential? Nothing... 


__________________


----------



## polako

delete


----------



## Peshu

Justme said:


> Well, your look of the future does not really mean anything other than your personal perspective.
> 
> Honestly, the fact that a Taiwanese company tried to buy out Siemens means nothing more than a powerful Asian company trying to buy out a powerful German company.
> 
> This happens all the time.
> 
> Asian company's have bought many American and Australian company's, does this mean that Australia and the U.S. is on the way down?
> 
> European companies buy many big U.S. companies all the time, and vise versa, but when this happens it doesn't mean anything like your prediction.
> 
> It's just part of global business.




Oh,well.I guess it really is all subjective in the end.


----------



## Peshu

909 said:


> Same story as always on SSC, people are only focused on growth and predictions, what sometimes results in a logical fallacy. Just an example:
> 
> - X (for example: the economy of Europe / EU)
> - Y (for example: the economy of China / Asia, any booming country)
> 
> - X is bigger than Y
> - Y is growing faster than X
> 
> It seems logic that Y will become bigger then X, but does it? Nobody knows, nothing is what it seems to be, especially when it comes to demographic or economic predictions and/or visions.
> 
> So often, people seem to think that when Y grows faster than X, it does mean that:
> - Y has a better future than X, and because of that Y is a threat for X but X isn't a threat for Y;
> - X doesn't grow and in the future will be replaced by something that does grow, like Y.
> 
> People are too many times focused on growth (here on SSC), of which the result is that they become narrow-minded when is comes to some subjects. Just open a thread here about the future of Europe and Asia, and it comes clear what i mean: most people are only focused on growth.
> The fact that Asia's economy is growing faster then th economy of Europe doens't mean that Asia only can win and Europe only can loose.
> 
> And the fact that an Asian company wants to buy a German one, it doesn't prove a thing: Germany Overtakes America To become World's Biggest Exporter
> 
> What is that telling you and what does it proves about the future and/or potential? Nothing...
> 
> 
> __________________


Well i suppose you are correct dude.Politics and the world economy is a very complex issue.


----------



## Peshu

polako said:


> I think my question was answered so this thread can be closed now, because it's not going anywhere. People are discussing things that are not related to the topic. Thanks Administrator.


Well i guess that sometimes things can get a bit off topic.But in the end it ai'nt such a bad thing.It's just a discussion after all.So peace out dude :cheers:


----------



## Robert Stark

:cheers: :cheers: :cheers: :cheers: :cheers: :cheers: :cheers:


----------



## conorworld

Dododododo.....

http://www.esri.ie/content.cfm?t=Irish Economy&mId=4

http://www.ntma.ie/SectionIntros/irishEconomy.htm

http://www.ntma.ie/IrishEconomy/keyEconomicIndicators.htm

http://www.cso.ie/releasespublications/documents/population/current/poppro.pdf


----------



## Erasmus

There's another issue which makes it difficult to compare Europe with other continents: Europe consists of smaller states, the European Union is just the total of these states, what makes it harder to migrate than for example the U.S. The smaller entities of the European states mean also less inhabitants, so it is harder to get a large annual growth just as in the U.S. The different states in Europe are also protecting their markets and employment: so it is very hard to transfer employment as easy as in the U.S. We, Europeans, are unable to transfer a large amount of employment coast to coast, and as we are unable to do so, we are also unable to transfer our people in the same direction, and because of that our major city's will never be able to realize such growth-numbers


----------



## SHiRO

What are you talking about?
Ever heard of the single European market?
Freedom of movement of goods and people?


----------



## neil

Yes but Shiro it is not as simple as that. Look at what happen when the ten new member states joined in 2004. All the member states shut there borders in fear of losing jobs to the cheaper work force. Even the countries that did open their markets for all (Britain and Ireland) adopted rules to stop benefit-seekers, and Britain created a registration scheme. Sweden also kept its labour market open, after its parliament rejected restrictions.


----------



## Justme

^^^ @Neil, Erasmus: It's a lot more free than you think. I live in Germany under a British passport. Aquiring a job here took me two weeks and a short visit to the townhall to register (even Germans have to do this when they move house).

There are many other British residents in Frankfurt as well, more than 60,000 in the metro area (and not related to armed forces or embassy staff) and this is small compared to the "popular" places like Spain and France. The numbers of British people moving to Spain is staggering, large enough that primetime TV has shows about it, and an entire channel is devoted to it on Sky.

And that is just the British who move around. There is a work friend sitting next to me that is currently thinking of a new job. He is German, but when checking out jobs on Monster, looks equally at Britain and Ireland for oportunities just like looking at the jobs around Germany. His point is, there is no real difference to moving up to Berlin, or to London. Both are a relocation, and it's just as easy for him.

I have the same way of thinking, and many others. For the original 15 states in the EU, the only thing holding people back is either language (which isn't always as hard as issue as some think) and their own mindset.

Moving between the 15 country's in the EU is really easy. I know, I have done it myself, I'm sure if you gave it a go, you'd find it pretty damn easy as well.


----------



## Jonesy55

neil said:


> Yes but Shiro it is not as simple as that. Look at what happen when the ten new member states joined in 2004. All the member states shut there borders in fear of losing jobs to the cheaper work force. Even the countries that did open their markets for all (Britain and Ireland) adopted rules to stop benefit-seekers, and Britain created a registration scheme. Sweden also kept its labour market open, after its parliament rejected restrictions.


There are restrictions onthe 10 new members yes, but anyone in the old 15 members can work anywhere without restrictions. The restrictions for the new 10 will come to an end in the next few years too.

The EU will probably never have a labour market that is geographically flexible as the US simply because language issues make it more difficult to transfer a career around Europe freely (unless you speak 20 or so languages fluently) but it is certainly easier than in the past and is easier than in any other comparable group of countries.


----------



## Robert Stark

Isnt EU expansion inceasing growth in cities like London?


----------



## SGoico

See table below




Pop increased in Spain in the last 5 years: *3608740*
Inmigrants that came over Spain in same period: *2806731*

These, of course, are officials figures, the real figure is much higher. Still, Spain is not very populated compared to other European countries: is twice the size of the UK and our pop is 44 millions against Uk's 60 million


----------



## Mekky II

Robert Stark said:


> Isnt EU expansion inceasing growth in cities like London?


I would say Dublin... eheheh !


----------



## pricemazda

Dublin pop 500'000
London 7.3 million 

over the next 10 years Londons population will increase by 600'000.


----------



## Mekky II

pricemazda said:


> Dublin pop 500'000
> London 7.3 million
> 
> over the next 10 years Londons population will increase by 600'000.


But polish became recently the biggest foreign community of Ireland, also there is no data to know the metropolitan area population of Dublin ! it's not because Dublin is smaller that the growth of population is smaller either, considering also irish make more babies that english lol


----------



## pricemazda

yes but London is 35% foreign born. The poles only make up 5% of Dublin. So yes whoever said London would be the beneficiary of any increased migration was correct.

And I would guess the biggest foreign community in Ireland are Brits.


----------



## Metropolitan

Jonesy55 said:


> There are restrictions onthe 10 new members yes, but anyone in the old 15 members can work anywhere without restrictions. The restrictions for the new 10 will come to an end in the next few years too.
> 
> The EU will probably never have a labour market that is geographically flexible as the US simply because language issues make it more difficult to transfer a career around Europe freely (unless you speak 20 or so languages fluently) but it is certainly easier than in the past and is easier than in any other comparable group of countries.


Actually, even inside each European country, mobility is less developped than in the US. If I remember correctly some studies I've read few years ago, the job mobility isn't even significantly stronger from one region to another region inside a same country than it is from one European country to another European country.

To take an example, there aren't a lot more people moving from Madrid to Barcelona than there are people moving from Madrid to Paris.


----------



## Mekky II

pricemazda said:


> yes but London is 35% foreign born. The poles only make up 5% of Dublin. So yes whoever said London would be the beneficiary of any increased migration was correct.
> 
> And I would guess the biggest foreign community in Ireland are Brits.


http://www.eubusiness.com/Employment/051218043646.9lhkcc7b/view?searchterm=polish ireland

polish in Dublin => 
:dance: 

ahahah !


----------



## Dezz

In the Netherlands, we have some (relative) fast growing cities to 

They are all situated within Randstad Holland, with some 7.6 million inhabitants. 

*Almere:*

Inhabitants November 2005:
178.626 (City)
1.465.405 (Metro Amsterdam)

Growth rate in %:
2.07% (City)
0.59% (Metro Amsterdam)

Growth rate in inhabitants:
3.619 (City)
8.590 (Metro Amsterdam)

*Haarlemmermeer*

Inhabitants November 2005:
135.221 (City)
1.465.405 (Metro Amsterdam)

Growth rate in %:
2.58% (City)
0.59% (Metro Amsterdam)

Growth rate in inhabitants:
3.405 (City)
8.590 (Metro Amsterdam)

*Utrecht*

Inhabitants November 2005:
281.055 (City)
577.389 (Metro)

Growth rate in %:
2.11% (City)
1.23% (Metro)

Growth rate in inhabitants:
5.797 (City)
7.030 (Metro)


----------



## SHiRO

Thanks for the numbers, but those are not the metro numbers, rather the urban area numbers.

Amsterdam metro is more like 2,5 million
Utrecht 1,2 million

Not sure I would call Almere and Haarlemmermeer "cities". More like municipalities containing suburbs.


----------



## conorworld

pricemazda said:


> yes but London is 35% foreign born. The poles only make up 5% of Dublin. So yes whoever said London would be the beneficiary of any increased migration was correct.
> 
> And I would guess the biggest foreign community in Ireland are Brits.


Oh Dublin's population is bigger than 500,000 easily. The Greater Dublin area has traditionally been home to a third of the popylation of the Republic.

London has had a very long tradition of immigration so it is expected that it would have a large immigrant population as opposed to Dublin. Let me remind you that immigration has only happened in Ireland in the last 7 years or so and even in 1994 it was EMIGRATION and not immigration that happened in Ireland. So it has been a remarkable turnaround for ireland as a whole and as now one of the richest countries in the world, other people from less well off countries are noticing that now. 

Also, Irelands economy is growing much faster that Britains and its potential growth rate easily outstrips Britains for the foreseeable future. Also, as Britains unemplyment rate has begun to increase, in Ireland it is on a downward sate and at 4.4% it has already begun to be very tight, thus necessatatin wage increases and/or more immigration to help with that. You have to realize aswel that 120,000 polish people plus another 40,000 from other former Soviet states of the East alone in the space of 18 months to a nation of 4 million is one heck of a feat and as a proportion of the population far outstrips Britain and/or London.

Also in relation to what was pointed out. Yes, British people make up the largest foreign community in Ireland but thats an erroneous statistic when taken other factors into account. Many are either Irish themselves or the progeny of Irish people who emigrated up to 10 years ago but the vast majority are from Northern Ireland, which stripping out the plitical status of that region is a part of the island of Ireland and many people in the North as you already know would not consider the island separated into two identities. Also , due to the free access between the North and South of ireland it is as easy as someone from Belfast to work in Dublin as it is someone from manchester working in London.

And as a Dubliner living in Dublin I am very glad for this remarkable turnaround in events in our country which has halted our tradition in emigration and has allowed people from other nations to live a life here like we did in other countries.


----------



## Dezz

SHiRO said:


> Thanks for the numbers, but those are not the metro numbers, rather the urban area numbers.
> 
> Amsterdam metro is more like 2,5 million
> Utrecht 1,2 million
> 
> Not sure I would call Almere and Haarlemmermeer "cities". More like municipalities containing suburbs.


You're totally right  

But it's hard to define a metro in the Netherlands, with all those build up space everywhere.


----------



## SHiRO

No, because metro areas are defined by commuter statistics, not by built up area...

The problem is that it's hard to come by those commuter statistics in a comparable way, so we must figure out some things for ourselves...


----------



## zapotek

Highest growth rate per year between 1990 and 1999 in france according the insee ( a national statistic institute ) :

1. Montpellier, 1,9 %
2. Toulouse, 1,4 %
3. Rennes, 1,3 %
4. Nantes, 1,1 %


----------



## Jonesy55

Chicagoago said:


> In Iowa our capital was Des Moines, which is seen as a small backwater, stagnant and overlooked by 90% of the country. The urban area grew from 392,000 people in 1990 to 557,000 people in 2010. That would be pretty impressive growth for Europe I feel, adding 165,000 people or 42% to your population in 20 years.
> 
> God forbid you have a metro area that hardly grew at all in the past 20 years. Detroit has the same metro population now that it did in 1990 - yet people scream that the entire area is "disappearing". It's not going away, it's just not growing.
> 
> St. Louis metro only grew by 400,000 in the past 20 years, but I hear people talk about it like it's shrinking cause that was less than 20% growth.


From other threads and information I've seen there still seems to be a rural to urban migration effect going on in the US with many counties outside metro areas losing population to the suburbs of cities. Is that the case?


----------



## the spliff fairy

Ive heard alot of US urban growth is due to internal migration from a depopulating rustbelt (certain areas in the East and central) to a suburbanised sunbelt (southwest and west). Since the housing crisis though this has fallen dramatically. Also downtowns are slowly revitalising in population as more young people ditch the suburban aspirations of old for a return to the faster pace and densities of an urban realm.


----------



## DiggerD21

The population of Hamburg, Germany grew by 13.7% from 1986 (1,571,267 inhabitants) to 2010 (1,786,448). However, Hamburg had already 1,857,431 inhabintants at its peak in 1964. The municipal borders didn't change since 1938. The surrounding counties usually grew in population as well.


----------



## Federicoft

Rome is growing quite fast for Western European standards.
2002: 2,545,860
2011: 2,761,477
Total: +215,617 (+23,957 per year)

Considering the whole province the trend is even more pronounced.
2002: 3,704,396
2011: 4,194,068
Total: +489,672 (+54,408 per year)


----------



## royal rose1

Jonesy55 said:


> From other threads and information I've seen there still seems to be a rural to urban migration effect going on in the US with many counties outside metro areas losing population to the suburbs of cities. Is that the case?


You Europeans have horrible misconceptions. Maybe in certain places population is declining. But look at rustbelt metros! Philly is still grimy significantly, and most of the other ones are growing slowly. The increase in the population of us cities is from external migration and high birth rates among minorities. The us is one of the most urbanized countries, our rural areas are far too small to contribute that much growth.


----------



## Jonesy55

royal rose1 said:


> You Europeans have horrible misconceptions. Maybe in certain places population is declining. But look at rustbelt metros! Philly is still grimy significantly, and most of the other ones are growing slowly. The increase in the population of us cities is from external migration and high birth rates among minorities. The us is one of the most urbanized countries, our rural areas are far too small to contribute that much growth.


Is it a misconception?

Looks like plenty of rural counties have declining populations. :dunno:


----------



## julesstoop

While not as spectacular as some cities in this thread, Utrecht has seen some decent growth from 2000 to 2010.

Municipality (Utrecht) - both figures are using the 2010 municipal borders
2000: 254k
2010: 307k (+20,7%)

Metro Area (Regio Utrecht)*
2000: 555k
2010: 625k (+12,5%)

Province (Provincie Utrecht)
2000: 1.118k
2010: 1.221k (+9%)

The city is actually responsible for most of the growth. This is not a real surprise as a large new residential area is still under construction at the western side of the city.

(*Please note this is probably not the metro-area as per standardized definition. I suspect the 'real' figure to be somewhat larger.)


----------



## pesto

the spliff fairy said:


> Ive heard alot of US urban growth is due to internal migration from a depopulating rustbelt (certain areas in the East and central) to a suburbanised sunbelt (southwest and west). Since the housing crisis though this has fallen dramatically. Also downtowns are slowly revitalising in population as more young people ditch the suburban aspirations of old for a return to the faster pace and densities of an urban realm.


This sounds roughly correct. But I think that young people always went to more urban areas and then moved to the suburbs when they could afford to buy a home and start a family. Now, more people are never getting the money together to buy a home or delaying forming families and therefore don't miss the suburban amenities.

In southern and western cities the distinction between suburb and urban is less clear. Mostly the choice is between denser suburbs and less dense suburbs. While much of SF City is urban, most of the towns on the SF Bay are dense suburbs as are the areas around and west of DT LA; the rest of these areas are less dense (generally). I'm not sure LV or Phoneix have a DT in the classic sense.


----------



## dexter26

I read somewhere that Oslo together with Toulouse has been two of the strongest growing cities in Europe over the last few years (was roughly a year or a year and a half ago I read it, tho). I don't know Toulouse's numbers, but it is indeed true that Oslo has had a strong growth (yes I know it's already mentioned in this thread...)

This is just the municipality numbers, the urban zone has grown from (I believe) less than 700 000 to more than 900 000 in the same period.

Oslo year-on-year growth (municipality), January 1st each year.


Code:


1990	 458 364
1991	 461 644
1992	 467 441
1993	 473 454
1994	 477 781
1995	 483 401
1996	 488 659
1997	 494 793
1998	 499 693
1999	 502 867
2000	 507 467
2001	 508 726
2002	 512 589
2003	 517 401
2004	 521 886
2005	 529 846
2006	 538 411  
2007	 548 617  +10 206
2008	 560 484  +11 867
2009	 575 475  +14 991
2010	 586 860  +11 385
2011	 599 230  +12 370


PS: In 1970 Oslo municipality had 487 363 inh. which is more than it had in 1990, so there was several years of either declining or stagnant population mostly in the 80s and 70s.


----------



## Slartibartfas

royal rose1 said:


> The increase in the population of us cities is from external migration and high birth rates among minorities. The us is one of the most urbanized countries, our rural areas are far too small to contribute that much growth.


The level of urbanization of the US is not drastically different from Europe, while I would not expect large scale rural flight, rural migration can add to urban growth even in developed countries like the US.


----------



## LtBk

Too bad most of the growth in past 20 years is car-centric sprawl.


----------



## Slartibartfas

LtBk said:


> Too bad most of the growth in past 20 years is car-centric sprawl.


Things are changing. 

For Vienna most of the sprawl has always been somewhat well connected by PT but nowadays really well connected high density projects are an increasingly larger share of new developments. 

That said, there is still enough sprawl construction going on.


----------



## Chicagoago

the spliff fairy said:


> Ive heard alot of US urban growth is due to internal migration from a depopulating rustbelt (certain areas in the East and central) to a suburbanised sunbelt (southwest and west). Since the housing crisis though this has fallen dramatically. Also downtowns are slowly revitalising in population as more young people ditch the suburban aspirations of old for a return to the faster pace and densities of an urban realm.


The "rust belt" and Midwest though have grown by 10,500,000 people since 1970 though when things started going downhill for select cities in that region. The Midwest certainly isn't LOSING population, it's just growing much slower than out west and down south. Many people are moving away, but others are moving in and people are still having kids.

The rural population is certainly moving to the cities. In 1910 the rural population was 72% of the country. In 2010 it was only 16%. 

The rural population peaked at 57.5 million in 1940, then shrunk to 53.5 million by 1970. Today it is around 49.7 million people.


----------



## Isek

New stats for Munich, Germany:
Municipal 1 410 741 (+2,1 % in 2011)
Urban 2 732 103 (+1,8 % in 2011)
District 4 502.848 (+0,9 % in 2011)

At least the +2,1 % for the municipal data should be pretty fast for European scales.
Any data for Vienna and Toulouse?


----------



## Jonesy55

Ten highest growth UK urban municipalities (excluding <100k municipalities) from mid-2009 to mid-2010

City of Cambridge +3.80%
City of Manchester +3.10%
City of Oxford +2.95%
City of Newcastle-upon-Tyne +2.78%
City of Canterbury +2.75%
City of Norwich +2.43%
London borough of Barking and Dagenham +2.33%
Luton +2.32%
Colchester +2.20%
Crawley +2.18%

Overall UK population growth in the year was 0.76%


----------



## Jonesy55

An analysis of the population change in Greater London between mid-2009 and mid-2010

Mid-2009 population 7,753,560

Births 130,840
Deaths 48,050

Natural change +82,790 (+1.07%)

Domestic in-migration 200,860
Domestic out-migration 243,380

Net Domestic migration -42,520 (-0.55%)

International in-migration 156,140
International out-migration 124,670

Net international migration +31,470 (+0.41%)

Total net migration -11,050 (-0.14%)

Other -130

Total population change +71,620 (+0.92%)

Mid-2010 population 7,825,180


----------



## Bannor

Galro said:


> Oslos growth this year (current estimates):
> 
> Oslo muni population 614 798 (up +15 568 from last year)
> Oslo + Akershus population 1 170 831 (up +25 948 from last year)
> 
> http://www.ssb.no/english/subjects/02/01/10/folkber_en/


If nothing changes in regards to the socialist immigration policy, Oslo + Akershus is set to grow 25-30% easily from 2010-2020. As the best economy in Europe, the unemployed EU population is flocking in at an ever increasing rate.


----------



## Chrissib

Bannor said:


> If nothing changes in regards to the socialist immigration policy, Oslo + Akershus is set to grow 25-30% easily from 2010-2020. As the best economy in Europe, the unemployed EU population is flocking in at an ever increasing rate.


The bigger the city, the faster the growth in Norway it seems. All Scandinavian countries are concentrating their population more and more in it's capitals.


----------



## Federicoft

Growth is still quite strong in the Rome province. Between Sept 10 and Sept 11 population grew from 4,184,283 to 4,225,244, that is 0.98%
It was 3,738,812 in Sept 03, that is a growth of 13% over the period or 1.53% per year.


----------



## Sweet Zombie Jesus

The City of Inverness has seen a lot of growth... but it's still a tiny city. (more of a large town really) It grew from 44,180 in 2001 to 56,660 in 2009. An increase of over a quarter in 8 years. Between 1998 and 2008, Inverness and the rest of the Central Highlands showed the largest growth of average economic productivity per person in Scotland and the second greatest growth in the United Kingdom as a whole, with an increase of 86%.

Still a tiny city, but known for being surrounded by fantastic natural beauty and having a high quality of life.


----------



## Mr Bricks

Jonesy55 said:


> An analysis of the population change in Greater London between mid-2009 and mid-2010
> 
> Mid-2009 population 7,753,560
> 
> Births 130,840
> Deaths 48,050
> 
> Natural change +82,790 (+1.07%)
> 
> Domestic in-migration 200,860
> Domestic out-migration 243,380
> 
> Net Domestic migration -42,520 (-0.55%)
> 
> International in-migration 156,140
> International out-migration 124,670
> 
> Net international migration +31,470 (+0.41%)
> 
> Total net migration -11,050 (-0.14%)
> 
> Other -130
> 
> Total population change +71,620 (+0.92%)
> 
> Mid-2010 population 7,825,180


What is London's current population? 8 million?


----------



## Galro

Chrissib said:


> The bigger the city, the faster the growth in Norway it seems. All Scandinavian countries are concentrating their population more and more in it's capitals.


Not sure how true that is. Almost all Norwegian cities have strong growth at the moment. It's more a cause of strong immigration in combination with that it have suddenly become popular to live in cities again.


----------



## gotin

I wonder when the big growing cities will "eat" the small ones around it...


----------



## Jonesy55

Mr Bricks said:


> What is London's current population? 8 million?


Probably 7.95m by now if that rate of growth has been continued, might pass 8m by mid 2012.


----------



## Jonesy55

Looking at whole metro areas rather than just the municipalities or urban areas now

I've used the district boundaries marked on the map below to approximate the largest metropolitan areas in the UK (not perfect, I know, don't shoot me), I've come up with the population change figures from mid 2009 to mid 2010.

The Bristol metro area is growing at the fastest rate while Liverpool metro area is the slowest.










These 19 largest metro areas are home to just over 60% of the UK population by the definitions I've used.


----------



## apinamies

Why Edinburg grow much faster than Glasgow?


----------



## Isek

^^

Because of oil industries (mostly engineering) and its beauty?


----------



## Mr. B

apinamies said:


> Why Edinburg grow much faster than Glasgow?


Due to it being the Capital of Scotland, since the opening of the Scottish Parliament and government offices, there has been a tendency for growth there. 

The oil sector is mostly in Aberdeen, not Edinburgh.


----------



## Bannor

Chrissib said:


> The bigger the city, the faster the growth in Norway it seems. All Scandinavian countries are concentrating their population more and more in it's capitals.


Yes, it is a result of two things.

- "social immigrants" (mostly from the middle east and africa) comming to scandinavia thinking they get everything handed to them for free, refuses to live in rural areas where they have to do hard labor (some european immigrants are thankfully not obliged by this bad norm). Even if they get sent to asylum hospits in rural/smaller towns, they all congest in the larger cities (especially oslo) after a year or two.

- More and more bureocracy, thus increasing the amount of jobs in the capitols.


----------



## Jonesy55

apinamies said:


> Why Edinburg grow much faster than Glasgow?





Isek said:


> ^^
> 
> Because of oil industries (mostly engineering) and its beauty?





Mr. B said:


> Due to it being the Capital of Scotland, since the opening of the Scottish Parliament and government offices, there has been a tendency for growth there.
> 
> The oil sector is mostly in Aberdeen, not Edinburgh.


I guess its because Glasgow has been traditionally an industrial city while Edinburgh is more a financial/governmental city with a better reputation for good living standards.... :dunno:

Aberdeen is the main centre for the oil industry but the metro area is only around 300,000 so it didn't make this list.


----------



## Galro

Bannor said:


> Yes, it is a result of two things.
> 
> - "social immigrants" (mostly from the middle east and africa) comming to scandinavia thinking they get everything handed to them for free, refuses to live in rural areas where they have to do hard labor (some european immigrants are thankfully not obliged by this bad norm). Even if they get sent to asylum hospits in rural/smaller towns, they all congest in the larger cities (especially oslo) after a year or two.


Yes, especially the middle east country known as Poland.










http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_Norway#cite_note-8


----------



## Chrissib

Galro said:


> Yes, especially the middle east country known as Poland.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_Norway#cite_note-8


But you got a lot of Somalis, the hardest to integrate immigration group ever.


----------



## Galro

^^ Yes, that is true and it's also true that Somalis haven't been particularly well integrated into the Norwegian society either. However the comment I answered wasn't about that, but rather that our recently strong growth were due to immigration from Africa and the Middle east which is not true.


----------



## Isek

^^
I wouldn't make a big difference between Somalis and Pakistanis when it comes to integration. I think it is impossible at least for the large majority to accept, tolerate or even intigrate to European societies. Poor Norway having such loads of culturally very far people.


----------



## Jonesy55

Some longer term population growth figures for the main UK metro areas.

I've also redefined the London metro to match the EU LUZ definition although that does lead to the anomaly of London Gatwick airport not being in the London metro!


----------



## KingNick

Isek said:


> New stats for Munich, Germany:
> Municipal 1 410 741 (+2,1 % in 2011)
> Urban 2 732 103 (+1,8 % in 2011)
> District 4 502.848 (+0,9 % in 2011)
> 
> At least the +2,1 % for the municipal data should be pretty fast for European scales.
> Any data for Vienna and Toulouse?


In 2011 Vienna saw a 0,9 % growth. No idea about the Speckgürtel.


----------



## Bannor

Galro said:


> ^^ Yes, that is true and it's also true that Somalis haven't been particularly well integrated into the Norwegian society either. However the comment I answered wasn't about that, but rather that our recently strong growth were due to immigration from Africa and the Middle east which is not true.


But my comment was about urbanisation, and not population growth in total. I know loads of polish immigrants living in rural places in norway working in the industry. I actually know one or two Somalis too, but not a single Pakistani. They got to be the most lazy immigrants ever. Actually the Somalis are much better, but they haven't been here as long as the pakistani's... They don't even come close to the swedes or the vietnamese though. Who both rank over even the germans on my list. That goes towards work willingness, and not integratian. The vietnamese for example work like hell, but they are lazy at integrating. What matters is that they are willing to work and can give something back to the society. I don't see that from certain other groups... And unfortunately those groups tend to build up semi ghettos.


----------



## Jonesy55

Why not try to cram even more racial and national generalisations into one post. :laugh:

First generation Pakistani migrants here are often small business owners and that means working looong hours with few holidays. Not exactly what I would call lazy.....

Non-European migrants have only been in Scandinavia in relatively large numbers for a couple of decades I think so its not realistic to expect complete integration so that they are culturally identical to the rest of society yet even if you consider that desirable.


----------



## Bannor

Jonesy55 said:


> Why not try to cram even more racial and national generalisations into one post. :laugh:
> 
> First generation Pakistani migrants here are often small business owners and that means working looong hours with few holidays. Not exactly what I would call lazy.....
> 
> Non-European migrants have only been in Scandinavia in relatively large numbers for a couple of decades I think so its not realistic to expect complete integration so that they are culturally identical to the rest of society yet even if you consider that desirable.


For one, I'm not being racist at all here. I might generalise based on cultural backgrounds, but that is a completely different thing.

Being a small business owner of some grocery store is not the same as working in a factory, building bridges, or being a welder working on boats. I would classify that as much harder work. Sitting behind a desk in a shop is lazy imo.

It is not about integration either, hence why I mentionned the vietnamese who are a very workwilling group of immigrants, yet refuses to integrate just as much as any other group.

It is about attitude towards hard work. I believe Vietnam will one day be a large economic power the size of France or even Germany. Does that make me a racist? Even my german friend who I was in Hanoi with last year said the same thing. "These guys have a really great attitude towards work".

After all, we are all socially engineered by the culture we are brought up in. So to generalize based on culture is something completely different from generalizing based on race. I thought, or hoped we were past that. And that people on this board were somewhat educated.


----------



## Jonesy55

Bannor said:


> For one, I'm not being racist at all here. I might generalise based on cultural backgrounds, but that is a completely different thing.
> 
> Being a small business owner of some grocery store is not the same as working in a factory, building bridges, or being a welder working on boats. I would classify that as much harder work. Sitting behind a desk in a shop is lazy imo.


Well in developed countries often 70% or more workers are in the service sector, I wouldn't call them all lazy especially if they are working 60-70 hour weeks as many small business owners in retail or restaurants do. Even so, many Pakistanis came to the UK to work in textile mills in the 1950s/60s among other manual jobs.

It's all very well saying Pakistanis are x, Somalis are y, Vietnamese are z but nationality is far from being the sole or even main determinant of cultural norms and individual behaviours. Social class background in both original country and new country, regional differences, personality, education, economic circumstances etc etc are all just as important.


----------



## Chrissib

Slartibartfas said:


> ^^ The Birth rates in Vienna were so low because first people had no time for kids as they had to rebuild and afterwards when there
> was the babyboomer time a large part especially of potential young families moved out to the suburbs.


Actually, Vienna's birth rates was a huge chunk lower than Hamburg and Berlin, which had a similar demographic history as Vienna. In the early 1950s, Berlin and Hamburg had 1.5 children/woman but Vienna only 1.2. 

Vienna seemed to ditch below the 1.3 in 1930 and then had the lowest fertility rate ever recorded in a big city in the late 1930s, an unbelievalble 0.7 children/woman. I guess even Shanghai or Beijing haven't seen levels like that until now. And I think there wasn't much of a suburbanisation in the 1930s. Just an econiomic crisis that seemed to affect the Viennese family plans more than everywhere else.


----------



## Slartibartfas

Chrissib said:


> Actually, Vienna's birth rates was a huge chunk lower than Hamburg and Berlin, which had a similar demographic history as Vienna. In the early 1950s, Berlin and Hamburg had 1.5 children/woman but Vienna only 1.2.
> 
> Vienna seemed to ditch below the 1.3 in 1930 and then had the lowest fertility rate ever recorded in a big city in the late 1930s, an unbelievalble 0.7 children/woman. I guess even Shanghai or Beijing haven't seen levels like that until now. And I think there wasn't much of a suburbanisation in the 1930s. Just an econiomic crisis that seemed to affect the Viennese family plans more than everywhere else.


As far as I know Austria was hit even a lot harder by depression than Germany. You can't compare Berlin and Vienna after WWI either because the one was the capital of a Reich that was beaten but alive and the other was the former capital of an Empire that exploded and large parts of the capital lost its reason d'être as a consequence. Vienna was a sinking ship these days. The economic crises really just came to an end after the Anschluss, when first of all the German economic sanctions ended for the annexed realm (mission accomplished after all) and Hitler made sure that investments were done to bring the Austrian economy on track again (in militarily relevant businesses mainly of course).

PS: To continue the analogy of the sinking ship. After WII it was lying on the ground, sliding further into the open sea (tourists liked the diving tours to visit the famous wrack) and only from the 1980's onwards they started to stabilize the wrack and in 90's after the fall of the iron curtain it was finally slowly recovered and made operational again.


----------



## wc eend

^^ Ironically it's this kind of depression in modern times that makes cities like Vienna look good nowadays.


----------



## Isek

Slartibartfas said:


> ^^ The Birth rates in Vienna were so low because first people had no time for kids as they had to rebuild and afterwards when there
> was the babyboomer time a large part especially of potential young families moved out to the suburbs.


People that have moved out of the municipial of Vienna can not be that much. Vienna - along with Berlin - is for West European scales still a city lacking of large suburban structures. Just compare it with Munich's massive suburban belt. I guess that Vienna and also Berlin suffered a lot of 'far away migration'. So like Berlin people settled down in Bavaria or Frankfurt area.


----------



## neil

From the Manchester Evening News:

It's official: Manchester is Britain's boom City

Manchester has cemented its place as Britain’s most thriving city after its population grew by a fifth over the last decade. The Census has revealed Manchester’s 19 per cent population growth to be almost three times more than the national average. And it shows that the number of 20 to 30-year-olds coming to the city has soared, with 123,600 living here compared to 78,301 10 years ago. 
The Census, taken last year, records Manchester’s population as 503,100 - an increase of 80,400 since the last survey in 2001. It is the third biggest rise in England - and the biggest percentage growth for a city - behind the London boroughs of Newham and Tower Hamlets. The council says the figures show its regeneration efforts have transformed Manchester into a thriving place to live and work. Experts say the huge increase is due to a hike in the number of people travelling from other parts of the country to study and work in Manchester, as well as people coming to the city from Europe and elsewhere. 

Manchester council leader Sir Richard Leese said: “A growing population reflects a thriving city so it is excellent news that more people are seeing the attractions of Manchester as a place to work, live and invest. “Manchester had undergone a long period of population decline but the reversal of this trend in the last decade is a testament to the way the city has established itself as a world-class international city. Population growth brings with it many opportunities but the challenge ahead is to ensure that we have the services and infrastructure which meet the needs of the growing population so that the city can reach its full potential.” 
Elsewhere in the region Salford, Trafford, Bolton and Wigan saw increases in line with the national average of seven per cent. There were smaller rises of around three per cent in Bury, Rochdale, Tameside and Oldham. The number of people living in Stockport fell by 0.5 per cent. In Manchester, the birth rate has also increased, with 36,400 children aged four or under recorded last year compared to 24,693 in 2001. The number of over-65s has bucked the national trend, failing to rise despite an ageing population nationally. Only nine per cent of Manchester’s residents are retirement age. 
Dr Steve Millington, an expert in human geography at Manchester Metropolitan University, said it was good news for the city. He added: “Not only are they attracting more people, those people are of working age so as long as they do work they will fuel the local economy and start to balance out the deprivation in the city. However the city must also make provision for the growth of the population by increasing healthcare, school places and other services. The next step for the council is to make sure they retain older working people within the city boundaries, by creating attractive neighbourhoods with larger houses close to the city boundaries rather than building more high-rise apartment blocks.” He warned that numbers could fall when students are faced with rising university tuition fees from September. 
Town hall bosses had aimed to increase the city’s population to 480,000 by 2015. The Census results show they have already surpassed that. The M.E.N. revealed last month that Manchester is expecting to have another 80,000 residents by 2027. Nationally, the Census records the largest growth in numbers in any decade since records began, the Office for National Statistics said. There were 56.1m people living in England and Wales on the day of Census – March 27 last year – an increase of 3.7m since 2001, when there were 52.4m. The total population figure was about half a million bigger than estimates had shown a year earlier. The Census paints a picture of an ageing population with one in six people in England and Wales in 2011 aged 65 and over. Across England and Wales 430,000 people were aged 90 and over, compared with only 13,000 when the Census was carried out 100 years earlier in 1911. The number of women over 90 was 315,000, nearly three times higher than the number of men over that age, at 114,000. The average age of the population has increased to 39 in 2011, up from 35 in 2001 and 25 in 1911. But there was also an increase in the number of under fives, with more than 400,000 more in 2011 than in 2001. 
Town hall bosses who dared to dream Manchester has been unashamed in its ambition to grow into a world class city, which is why those at the top of the town hall will be over the moon with the endorsement the Census provides. The figures have exceeded the expectations of even the most senior officers and politicians and show that what Manchester sets its mind to, it achieves. The fact that our population boom is almost three times the national average is a reflection not only of the city's many parts – public and private sector, education, culture – but of the way they work together to create a place where people want to be. The biggest growth includes the graduate age range and age of young professionals which shows that working with universities and businesses to combat 'brain drain', and preventing the best talents heading south, is also paying off. 
There is no doubt that growth on a major scale was planned for and necessary – Manchester's record for regeneration over the past 15 years has been a shining example of urban rebirth. But it would be naive to pretend the city has been completely prepared in every way. The pressure of a bigger than expected population swell has been felt in the demand for housing, school places and healthcare – a problem exacerbated, since 2008, by the recession and cuts in government funding. Thousands of people are on housing waiting lists while the rental sector in the city centre cannot keep up with demand, from graduates and young professionals in particular – the very people the city has sought to attract. Meanwhile, the effect on primary schools has left parents battling to find places for their children and the town hall is having to think quick to come up with enough desks. Confirmation of the scale of Manchester's growth will prove a valuable tool when it comes to securing future funding from government and creating the neighbourhoods needed to ensure that those are problems of the past when we celebrate another boom in 2022. 

Why our city is now the place to be: 

Airport 

From Amsterdam to Barcelona, every world class city has a world class airport – and Manchester has worked hard to join that elite league. More major airlines than ever are now flying from Manchester – opening up a wealth of new routes and opportunities to attract visitors and investors to the city. Despite the recession, passenger figures remain strong, rising by over five per cent in the last year to 19.4m. Bosses have embarked on a campaign to win back long-haul travellers from London airports – introducing more direct flights to far-flung destinations. Growth has also been fuelled by services to the United States and Middle East. And the transformation from Manchester Airport from a regional transport hub into a world class international business destination in its own right is set to be sealed by the £650m Airport City development. The project will create up to 20,000 jobs over the next 15 years. 

Business 

Developing the growth industries of the future has been key to attracting more people to live and work in Manchester. The city has long proved itself to be ahead of the game in that respect, first as the birthplace of the Industrial Revolution and later as a world-leading centre for science and discovery that became home to the likes of atomic theorist John Dalton, physicist James Joule and the team behind the first stored-program computer. In recent years, city leaders have worked to nurture the sectors that will not only attract new people to Manchester but encourage others to stay, including those graduating from university. One key example of that is professional services, covering law firms, accountancy practices and banks. With more than 250,000 people working for 26,000 different companies across Greater Manchester, it now accounts for more than 20 per cent of all employment in the city region. The digital and creative industries are also vital, with the development of MediaCityUK and other sites like the Sharp Project. Those plotting Manchester's future prosperity have also singled-out advanced manufacturing and biomedicine as key sectors for the future, with developments like The Corridor, in the city centre, and the University Hospital of South Manchester's MediPark scheme key to this strategy. 

Music 

Music fans choose to live in Manchester simply because there is so much going on – from the multitude of smaller live music venues, through the eclectic club scene, to the Manchester Arena, which is guaranteed to secure a slot with every big name on tour. The city has been a hive of musical activity since the beat boom of the 1960s. But the rule of thumb before the late Tony Wilson and others launched the independent Factory Records in 1979, was that, at the first whiff of success, the Manc pop star would decamp to the south. If Factory's acts, such as Joy Division, tended to highlight the industrial grimness of Manchester, its maverick business model was a ray of sunshine for many Mancunians inspired to join the creative industries. Another Factory enterprise, the Hacienda became, in the late 1980s, officially, the coolest club in the world, spawning another generation of Manc music stars such as the Happy Mondays. Then from 1989, when the Stone Roses' debut album was released, through the 1990s, when Oasis bestrode the pop world like a colossus, Manchester was it. Londoners, the rumour went in the mid-1990s, were even feigning Manc accents. The legacy of so much Manchester music – from the giddy pop of Take That to the miserablist pinings of The Smiths – has resulted in a burgeoning live music scene that can not be heard anywhere else. 

Sport 

Wherever you went in the world and said you were from Manchester, up until City's astonishing revival, you were associated with United or indeed Sir Bobby Charlton. Now, however, City have joined United in being a worldwide force and together, the big two have made Manchester the undisputed sporting capital. But its not just the Reds and Blues - Greater Manchester boasts the highest density of professional football in the world. There is also the two top Rugby League teams at Wigan and Salford together with the Rugby Union giants Sale Sharks. County cricket champions Lancashire Cricket Club are also just around the corner from the more famous Old Trafford home of United.

Read more at: http://menmedia.co.uk/manchestereve...its-official-manchester-is-britains-boom-city


----------



## the spliff fairy

Similarly London's population has now jumped to 8.2 million (although thousands of households didn't fill in the census form), a whopping 400,000 over projection, and averaging growth of 85,000 per year over the last decade. The metro has an additional 8 million. It's basically now the size of NYC but growing 6x faster.


.


----------



## Slartibartfas

Isek said:


> People that have moved out of the municipial of Vienna can not be that much. Vienna - along with Berlin - is for West European scales still a city lacking of large suburban structures. Just compare it with Munich's massive suburban belt. I guess that Vienna and also Berlin suffered a lot of 'far away migration'. So like Berlin people settled down in Bavaria or Frankfurt area.


Not really. Not in post-war times at least. What Vienna lost before the trend was stopped not so long ago, was gained by the immediate surrounding districts of Vienna. 

There is no big suburban belt around Vienna though. Basically its still the same villages or towns, just that they expanded to varying degrees. Except for the very south. There is a suburban corridor extending from Vienna's southern border down to the 50 km distant Wiener Neustadt. 

What you have to consider is also that Vienna does not have so many official suburbs because "Transdanubia", ie the districts north of the Danube but within city limits are largely suburban in style, but more like Parisian banlieues, with a very heterogenic mix of densities and uses and a decent public connection compared to real suburbs.


----------



## Blackpool88

the spliff fairy said:


> Similarly London's population has now jumped to 8.2 million (although thousands of households didn't fill in the census form), a whopping 400,000 over projection, and averaging growth of 85,000 per year over the last decade. The metro has an additional 8 million. It's basically now the size of NYC but growing 6x faster.
> 
> 
> .


Where does the stat for the metro having 8 million growth come from? I haven't seen that reported anywhere and find it very difficult to believe, are you saying that London's metro area population is now in the low 20millions? That simply isn't true.


----------



## the spliff fairy

no, not growth - that would be unbelievable (but so wish it!), just total population.

The south east region south of London is now 8.6 million, the east England region north of London is 5.85 million, but you wouldn't count all of them as metro (though conceivably you could, and well further by US standards - England fits 47 million urbanites in an area smaller than Maine). Both these regions were the fastest growing, along with London at 8-12% in a decade. Together they added nearly 2 million and accounted for more than half of all growth in the country.

A realistic metro based on proximity (not one based on commuting, or density - that would take up most of the country) I reckon would be about 14-15 million with the revised stats?


----------



## Blackpool88

the spliff fairy said:


> no, not growth - that would be unbelievable (but so wish it!), just total population.
> 
> The south east region south of London is now 8.6 million, the east England region north of London is 5.85 million, but you wouldn't count all of them as metro (though conceivably you could, and well further by US standards - England fits 47 million urbanites in an area smaller than Maine). Both these regions were the fastest growing, along with London at 8-12% in a decade. Together they added nearly 2 million and accounted for more than half of all growth in the country.
> 
> A realistic metro based on proximity (not one based on commuting, or density - that would take up most of the country) I reckon would be about 14-15 million with the revised stats?


ha yes your wording threw me, a growth rate of 100% would be pretty impressive!


----------



## the spliff fairy

We need to start squeezing out more babies.


----------



## SE9

London's population

*1991:* 6,829,300

+7%

*2001:* 7,322,400

+12%

*2011:* 8,174,100


----------



## stefanguti

VIE

2001: 1.550.123

2011: 1.737.727

+ 12,1%

Agglomeration
2011: 2.419.000


----------



## Metro007

Zurich (agglomeration)

2000: 943'374
2010: 1'170'203 

---> *+24%*


----------



## Slartibartfas

^^ Agglomeration numbers are lame. Agglomerations have been growing for a long time. Whats new is that cities proper start growing again as well instead of merely loosing to the suburbs. 

If the agglomeration growth however is largely or mainly due to growth in Zurich proper, its a different case. That would be great, but then numbers of the city would show that better.


----------



## poshbakerloo

I think with a lot of English cities we are seeing the reverse of what happened in the 60s. People then left cities to live in new towns and far out suburbs, making the populations reduce. But now with all the redevelopment they are coming back.


----------



## Yuri S Andrade

Slartibartfas said:


> ^^ Agglomeration numbers are lame. Agglomerations have been growing for a long time. Whats new is that cities proper start growing again as well instead of merely loosing to the suburbs.
> 
> If the agglomeration growth however is largely or mainly due to growth in Zurich proper, its a different case. That would be great, but then numbers of the city would show that better.


I don't agree. I think it's very very impressive, even if we're talking about agglomerations. Compare to Brazilian metro areas for instance:



Yuri S Andrade said:


> Madrid's growth is amazing! *23.8%* in the past decade!
> 
> To compare with Brazilian cities, São Paulo metro area (22.4 million) grew *10.6%* in the same period; Rio de Janeiro (12.5 million) *9.1%*; Belo Horizonte (5.5 million) *12.3%*; Recife (4.4 million) *10.4%*; Porto Alegre (4.2 million) *6.9%*; Salvador (3.7 million) 14.2%; Brasília (3.7 million) *25.6%*; Fortaleza (3.7 million) *17.9%*; Curitiba (3.2 million) *14.5%*; Campinas (2.9 million) *19.6%*; Goiânia (2.5 million) *23.5%*; Belém (2.5 million) *16.8%*. Among Brazilian cities over 2 million people, only Brasília grew faster than Madrid.


----------



## Metro007

So once again the datas for only the city of Zurich:

2001: 340'197 
2011: 390'082

---> *+14.7%*

That means that the agglomeration (+24% see above) grew faster than the core-city .


----------



## stefanguti

poshbakerloo said:


> I think with a lot of English cities we are seeing the reverse of what happened in the 60s. People then left cities to live in new towns and far out suburbs, making the populations reduce. But now with all the redevelopment they are coming back.


I don't think it's a proper english development. As Slartibartfas said, it is a development that many European cities show.


----------



## Slartibartfas

^^ I'd even say its a Western phenomenon.


----------



## SE9

MANCHESTER

*2001:* 422,900

+19%

*2011:* 503,100



OSLO

*2001:* 508,726 

+18%

*2011:* 599,230



BRUSSELS

*2001:* 964,405

+16%

*2011:* 1,119,088



STOCKHOLM

*2001:* 754,948 

+14.5%

*2011:* 864,324



ZURICH

*2001:* 340,197 

+14%

*2011:* 390,082



VIENNA

*2001:* 1,550,123

+12%

*2011:* 1,737,727



LONDON

*2001:* 7,322,400

+12%

*2011:* 8,174,100



MADRID

*2001:* 2,938,723

+11%

*2011:* 3,265,038


----------



## fetg_

Stockholm municipal. A bad way of measuring it since it's a political geographical definition.

2001: 754 948 
2011: 864 324
change: 109376
+14,5%

Anyway, the city itself went from 1.212.179 to 1.372.565 2000-2010 without growing together with any suburbs. Which is approx 13%.

Demographic history:
http://www.usk.stockholm.se/arsbok/Tabell 2.3.htm
and scb.se for recent changes


And since there have been too little construction going on in the recent years theres fewer sqms per capita.


----------



## stefanguti

SE9 said:


> MANCHESTER
> 
> *2001:* 422,900
> 
> +19%
> 
> *2011:* 503,100
> 
> 
> 
> STOCKHOLM
> 
> *2001:* 754,948
> 
> +14.5%
> 
> *2011:* 864,324
> 
> 
> 
> ZURICH
> 
> *2001:* 340,197
> 
> +14%
> 
> *2011:* 390,082
> 
> 
> 
> VIENNA
> 
> *2001:* 1,550,123
> 
> +12%
> 
> *2011:* 1,737,727
> 
> 
> 
> LONDON
> 
> *2001:* 7,322,400
> 
> +12%
> 
> *2011:* 8,174,100
> 
> 
> 
> MADRID
> 
> *2001:* 2,938,723
> 
> +11%
> 
> *2011:* 3,265,038



Thank you for compiling the list. Maybe we can find more European cities with good growth rates.


----------



## fetg_

stefanguti, wikipedia is full of referenced demographic statistics. I guess a lot of cities can beat Vienna, London and Madrid in relative increase, but you should be critical toward it since it measures political defined areas such as municipals etc.

An example:

Oslo:
2001 508,726 +10.2%(1991-2001)
2011 599,230 +17.8%
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oslo


----------



## fetg_

How about Germany? If you look at the whole country, you can see a decreasing trend, but some of the biggest cities have a rapid population growth.


----------



## Phoenyxar

Searched a while for data from 2001:
Brussels (2001) : 964.405
Brussels (2011) : 1.119.088 (+16.04%)

_And new results for June (not confirmed): 1.151.670 (that's again +2.9% o.o)_
What will it be at the end of the year...


----------



## Isek

fetg_ said:


> How about Germany? If you look at the whole country, you can see a decreasing trend, but some of the biggest cities have a rapid population growth.




MUNICH

*2001:* _1.227.958_

+12%

*2001:* _1.378.176_



DRESDEN

*2001:* _478.631_

+11%

*2001:* _529.781_



LEIPZIG

*2001:* _493.052_

+8%

*2001:* _531.809_



FRANKFURT

*2001:* _641.076_

+8%

*2001:* _691.518_



KÖLN

*2001:* _967.940_

+5%

*2001:* _1.017.155_



DÜSSELDORF

*2001:* _570.765_

+4%

*2001:* _592.393_



STUTTGART

*2001:* _587.152_

+4%

*2001:* _613.392_



BERLIN

*2001:* _3.388.434_

+3%

*2001:* _3.501.872_



HAMBURG

*2001:* _1.710.932_

+3%

*2001:* _1.760.017_


----------



## Jonesy55

With the population of Germany overall pretty static over that decade I guess some of the smaller cities, towns and rural areas must have witnessed quite heavy depopulation?


----------



## fetg_

The two other big cities in Sweden:

Malmö(municipal):
2001:262 397
2011:302 835
diff: 40438
+15,5%

Gothenburg(municipal):
2001: 471 461
2011: 520 374
diff: 48913
+10,5%


----------



## ZZ-II

Ingolstadt is one of the fastest growing cities in Germany. Because it's the hometown of Audi. Just 18km away from me .


----------



## isaidso

fetg_ said:


> The two other big cities in Sweden:
> 
> Malmö(municipal):
> 2001:262 397
> 2011:302 835
> diff: 40438
> +15,5%



That's not bad.


----------



## LtBk

> MUNICH
> 
> 2001: 1.227.958
> 
> +12%
> 
> 2001: 1.378.176


Pretty impressive for a city that refuses to "grow".


----------



## Isek

LtBk said:


> Pretty impressive for a city that refuses to "grow".


According to the city politicians and local population growth should be exactly 0,0 %. Just yesterday i read an article about how negative growth is and what measures can be taken to push economy plus people to other places than Munich. How insane?!?

And look how prices went up the last years. You will find almost nothing cheaper than 4000 Euro per squaremeter - even in the worst quarters. Moreover if you want to buy a "normal" flat you need to invest somewhat from 5500 to 6500 €/sqm.


----------



## Jonesy55

Isek said:


> According to the city politicians and local population growth should be exactly 0,0 %. Just yesterday i read an article about how negative growth is and what measures can be taken to push economy plus people to other places than Munich. How insane?!?
> 
> And look how prices went up the last years. You will find almost nothing cheaper than 4000 Euro per squaremeter - even in the worst quarters. Moreover if you want to buy a "normal" flat you need to invest somewhat from 5500 to 6500 €/sqm.


That is expensive, I knew Munich was one of the most expensive places in Germany but that works out at around 320,000 Euro in the worst quarters for an 80sqm apartment and 500,000 in the better areas!

How does that compare to other German cities like Stuttgart, Frankfurt or Hamburg?


----------



## Minato ku

^^ It would be great if Paris had prices like that. 
In average German cities have cheap real estate for western european standard, Munich is more an exception than the norm.


----------



## Jonesy55

That's why I'm interested in how that compares to othe German cities, I know Berlin is cheap but are the others closer to Berlin or to Munich?


----------



## Minato ku

Average price by sq.m in 2011.
Munich: €3,920
Frankfurt: €2,900 
Hamburg: €2,840 
Düsseldorf: €2,600 
Berlin: €2,400


----------



## Jonesy55

Thanks! A lot cheaper than Munich I see,but not as cheap as I thought, especially Berlin. They seem fairly similar to prices in most British cities (London excepted of course).


----------



## Minato ku

But these cities are almost more important than any British or French cities outside London and Paris.
Düsseldorf has a power similar to Manchester or Lyon, maybe even higher.


----------



## Jonesy55

Yes, I realise that, but still, I've heard stories of people buying Berlin apartments for 25,000 Euro just a few years ago. On those figures it seems the city is more expensive now, not muxh different to somewhere like Manchester or maybe regional French cities like Marseille perhaps.


----------



## BE0GRAD

ilovecoffee said:


> Shenzhen was the 2nd fastest growing city over the last decade behind Karachi.
> 
> So yes and no?


Is Shenzhen's growth really well managed? It doesn't seem to have neither good architecture ,neither good urbanism ,neither good cultural and social life.


----------



## ilovecoffee

BE0GRAD said:


> Is Shenzhen's growth really well managed? It doesn't seem to have neither good architecture ,neither good urbanism ,neither good cultural and social life.


fast growth and business capacity adds to a cities gdp, as it does good jobs. 
foriegn and domestic investors are pouring millions into new shenhen products. Shenzhen is more densely populated than hong kong, so the growth is at least well planned or sustainable.. it may even over-take hongkong in gdp within the next ten years. So yeah if its done smartly.


----------



## BE0GRAD

GDP and jobs are a different thing. I'm talking about quality of living.


----------



## VECTROTALENZIS

BE0GRAD said:


> GDP and jobs are a different thing. I'm talking about quality of living.


Shenzhen got China's highest living standards. I've been there and I have relatives that live there, it's the best city in China.


----------



## Chrissib

ilovecoffee said:


> Shenzhen is more densely populated than hong kong,


No, using both measures it is not. Neither has the area of Shenzhen a higher population density than HK nor are the built up areas of Shenzhen more dense than those of HK. By looking only at the built up areas, HK is at least three times as dense as Shenzhen.


----------

