# Power Shift: Cities



## Pavlemadrid (Nov 30, 2006)

^^
That's false:
*MADRID*








Source: Wikipedia. Población. Madrid.

*BARCELONA*








Source: Wikipedia. Demografía. Barcelona.

Madrid is most populated than Barcelona at least since 1842.


----------



## Awell (Jan 9, 2007)

Ok I didn't know that, but in that graph you can see what i've said, Barcelona has had more population than Madrid during some periods, it was a reply to another post where it was said that this was not posible...


----------



## Pavlemadrid (Nov 30, 2006)

Only around 1930, when Barcelona had 50k more inh. than Madrid.


----------



## KeanoManu (Mar 1, 2012)

Is this thread only for comparisons between two cities?
Something close to this subject, and that has been touched in the thread, that I find more interesting is cities that are rising from small and unimportant to very important during a fairly short time period. And also the other way around.

Johannesburg is one example already talked about in the thread. Dubai could be another one. Never heard of that city while growing up in the late 90's. It had about a quarter of todays population and was without most/all of their current landmarks.
Miami and Las Vegas both had less than 3.000 inhabitants in the year 1900. Las Vegas even had less than 100. Today both are the center of metropolitan areas of over 1 million people.

Cities that once were important but today has lost most of it's glory also exists. Vienna, which has been mentioned, can be one. Once one of the most important cities in Europe but today rather anonymous even though it still has a fairly large population. Not comparable to the biggest in Europe though.

Going even further back in history cities like Toledo, Spain and Lübeck, Germany can be mentioned. Toledo as the capital of maybe the biggest power of it's time and Lübeck as the most important trade port in northern Europe for many years.

Sorry if off topic.


----------



## Brunarino (Jul 11, 2010)

I'd add the famous case of San Francisco and Los Angeles

Frisco:
1852 - 34,776
1860 - 56,802
1870 - 149,473
1880 - 233,959
1890 - 298,997
1900 - 342,782
1910 - 416,912
1920 - 506,676
1930 - 634,394
1940 - 634,536
1950 - 775,357
1960 - 740,316
1970 - 715,674
1980 - 678,974
1990 - 723,959
2000 - 776,733
2010 - 805,235


Los Angeles:
Year	Population
1790	131
1800	315
1810	365
1820	650
1830	1,300
1840	2,240
1850	1,610
1860	4,385
1870	5,730
1880	11,200
1890	50,400
1900	102,500
1910	319,200
1920	576,700
1930	1,238,048
1940	1,504,277
1950	1,970,358
1960	2,479,015
1970	2,816,061
1980	2,966,850
1990	3,485,398
2000	3,694,820
2010	3,792,621




abrandao said:


> *Barcelona bigger than Madrid?* Although Barcelona has grown a lot in the past few decades, Madrid has always been bigger in population and land area. Nowadays there are more than 6,500,000 people in Madrid, while Barcelona still hasn't achieved the 5m mark.


Well, since Madrid has been founded in the XVI° century I assume that must have been a long period in wich Barcelona were more populated than Madrid...


----------



## Pavlemadrid (Nov 30, 2006)

Madrid has been founded in the IX century, please read a little before posting.


----------



## Brunarino (Jul 11, 2010)

Pavlemadrid said:


> Madrid has been founded in the IX century, please read a little before posting.


I know history and before getting picked up by Felipe II as the official headquarter of the royal court it was a simple village with basically no history.
Whereas Barcelona has always been a sort of capital and an internationally recognized city, none knew of Madrid before 1561.


----------



## Pavlemadrid (Nov 30, 2006)

So... it was a little village or it was founded in the XVI century? :| I think they're different concepts.

In any case you're wrong, it's true Madrid wasn't one of the most populated cities until XVI century, but it wasn't a little village, in the year of 1123 it was oficially recognized as a "villa" (a city) by the king, and the "Cortes de Castilla" (the main political institution of the historical region of Castile) met in Madrid in 1309 for the first time.

Hmmmmmmmmm, I think you don't know so many history about Madrid, sorry :dunno:


----------



## nikoooo (Oct 26, 2008)

*Rosario vs Cordoba (metropolitan area)*

Rosario:









Córdoba:









1895

*Rosario 91.669*
Córdoba 47.609

1914

*Rosario 245.199*
Córdoba 121.982

1947

*Rosario 485.000*
Córdoba 380.000

1960

*Rosario 669.173*
Córdoba 591.563

1970

*Rosario 806.942*
Córdoba 792.925

1980

*Córdoba 1.004.929*
Rosario 956.761

1991

*Córdoba 1.208.584*
Rosario 1.118.905

2001

*Córdoba 1.368.301*
Rosario 1.161.188

2010

*Córdoba 1.390.000*
Rosario 1.251.000

Probably in 10 or 20 years Rosario pass Córdoba.


----------



## dark_shadow1 (May 24, 2009)

Brunarino said:


> I'd add the famous case of San Francisco and Los Angeles
> 
> Frisco:
> 
> ...


Your figures don't mean much since they don't include the entire metro's population, and the city's land areas are extremely different (1,200 km^2 for LA against 120 km^2 for SF).


----------



## sebvill (Apr 13, 2005)

Didnt know Rosario used to be larger than Cordoba. It makes sense since its an important port in a more densely populated area of Argentina closer to Buenos Aires. Whilst Cordoba is located inland in a more scarcely populated area.

What made Cordoba so attractive in the 70s? Agriculture? Manufacture? While I guess in those years Rosario may have been shadowed by the Buenos Aires port, better located for the arrival of larger ships.

And yes. I agree with you. From what Ive seen in Latinscrapers, Rosario will probably recover its place as Argentinas second largest city soon. Even Mendoza may catch up in the long run.


----------



## Yuri S Andrade (Sep 29, 2008)

^^
It seems Cordoba is still growing more than Rosario. Mendoza is indeed growing faster: 

*---------------- 2010 ------ 2001 ---- Growth*

Córdoba --- 1,652,943 --- 1,541,732 --- 7.21%

Rosario --- 1,350,860 --- 1,263,538 --- 6.91%

Mendoza --- 1,086,633 ----- 986,341 -- 10.17%


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------




dark_shadow1 said:


> Your figures don't mean much since they don't include the entire metro's population, and the city's land areas are extremely different (1,200 km^2 for LA against 120 km^2 for SF).


*Los Angeles* 








http://www.flickr.com/photos/mike_s_etc/

*vs*

*San Francisco*








http://www.flickr.com/photos/tiascapes/8133461501/sizes/l/in/photostream/


*San Francisco*
1860 ------ 119,018
1870 ------ 274,551 -- 130.7%
1880 ------ 440,514 --- 60.4%
1890 ------ 573,300 --- 30.1%
1900 ------ 686,256 --- 19.7%
1910 ------ 959,889 --- 39.9%
1920 ---- 1,218,175 --- 26.9%
1930 ---- 1,626,753 --- 33.5%
1940 ---- 1,790,757 --- 10.1%
1950 ---- 2,762,226 --- 54.2%
1960 ---- 3,738,554 --- 35.3%
1970 ---- 4,770,215 --- 27.6%
1980 ---- 5,392,930 --- 13.1%
1990 ---- 6,290,008 --- 16.6%
2000 ---- 7,092,596 --- 12.8% 
2010 ---- 7,468,390 ---- 5.3%
2012 ---- 7,668,355 ---- 2.7%


*Los Angeles*
1860 ------- 16,884
1870 ------- 19,297 --- 14.3%
1880 ------- 59,829 -- 210.0%
1890 ------ 156,718 -- 161.9%
1900 ------ 250,187 --- 59.6%
1910 ------ 648,316 -- 159.1%
1920 ---- 1,150,252 --- 77.4%
1930 ---- 2,597,055 -- 125.8%
1940 ---- 3,252,720 --- 25.2%
1950 ---- 4,934,246 --- 51.7%
1960 ---- 7,751,616 --- 57.1%
1970 ---- 9,972,037 --- 28.6%
1980 --- 11,497,486 --- 15.3%
1990 --- 14,531,529 --- 26.4%
2000 --- 16,373,645 --- 12.7%
2010 --- 17,877,006 ---- 9.2%
2012 --- 18,238,998 ---- 2.0%

^^
San Francisco is growing faster than Los Angeles once more.


----------



## Yuri S Andrade (Sep 29, 2008)

We also have a major regional shift in *Ohio* in the early XXth century:

*Cleveland* 








http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2012/01/survey_of_northeast_ohio_resid.html

*vs*

*Cincinnati*

Skyline by k.ditty, on Flickr


*Cleveland*
1900 ------ 704,768
1910 ------ 972,764 --- 38.0%
1920 ---- 1,491,856 --- 53.4%
1930 ---- 1,852,870 --- 24.2%
1940 ---- 1,886,863 ---- 1.8%
1950 ---- 2,233,447 --- 18.4%
1960 ---- 2,825,417 --- 26.5%
1970 ---- 3,098,513 ---- 9.7%
1980 ---- 2,938,277 --- -5.2%
1990 ---- 2,859,644 --- -2.7% 
2000 ---- 2,945,831 ---- 3.0%
2010 ---- 2,881,937 --- -2.2%

*Cincinnati*
1900 ------ 793,758
1910 ------ 851,338 ---- 7.3%
1920 ------ 901,151 ---- 5.9%
1930 ---- 1,052,895 --- 16.8%
1940 ---- 1,101,539 ---- 4.6%
1950 ---- 1,270,310 --- 15.3%
1960 ---- 1,574,663 --- 24.0%
1970 ---- 1,721,901 ---- 9.4%
1980 ---- 1,788,404 ---- 3.9%
1990 ---- 1,880,332 ---- 5.1%
2000 ---- 2,050,175 ---- 9.0%
2010 ---- 2,172,191 ---- 6.0%

_CSAs_



----------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Only the *core* of the metropolitan areas:

*Cleveland*
1830 ------- 16,069
1840 ------- 58,692 -- 265.2%
1850 ------- 88,839 --- 51.4%
1860 ------ 123,353 --- 38.9%
1870 ------ 178,253 --- 44.5%
1880 ------ 248,795 --- 39.6%
1890 ------ 368,500 --- 48.1%
1900 ------ 515,657 --- 39.9%
1910 ------ 736,389 --- 42.8%
1920 ---- 1,062,774 --- 44.3%
1930 ---- 1,352,335 --- 27.2%
1940 ---- 1,379,660 ---- 2.0%
1950 ---- 1,613,673 --- 17.0%
1960 ---- 2,014,095 --- 24.8%
1970 ---- 2,175,343 ---- 8.0%
1980 ---- 1,986,110 --- -8.7%
1990 ---- 1,898,765 --- -4.4%
2000 ---- 1,906,153 ---- 0.4% 
2010 ---- 1,811,519 --- -5.0%

*Cincinnati*
1830 ------- 91,741
1840 ------ 126,315 --- 37.7%
1850 ------ 228,649 --- 81.0%
1860 ------ 307,016 --- 34.3%
1870 ------ 368,836 --- 20.1%
1880 ------ 443,506 --- 20.2%
1890 ------ 518,741 --- 17.0%
1900 ------ 570,073 ---- 9.9%
1910 ------ 629,427 --- 10.4%
1920 ------ 666,862 ---- 5.9%
1930 ------ 795,662 --- 19.3%
1940 ------ 831,973 ---- 4.6%
1950 ------ 959,599 --- 15.3%
1960 ---- 1,174,094 --- 22.4%
1970 ---- 1,270,699 ---- 8.2%
1980 ---- 1,267,924 --- -0.2%
1990 ---- 1,299,901 ---- 2.5%
2000 ---- 1,349,351 ---- 3.8%
2010 ---- 1,368,604 ---- 1.4%

_*Cincinnati*: Boone, Campbell, Kenton, Clermont and Hamilton counties; *Cleveland*: Cuyahoga, Lake and Lorain counties_



----------------------------------------------------------------------------------



And finally the *city proper* (both have exactly the same size, 201 km²):

*Cleveland*
1820 ---------- 606
1830 -------- 1,075 --- 77.4%
1840 -------- 6,071 -- 464.7%
1850 ------- 17,034 -- 180.6%
1860 ------- 43,417 -- 154.9%
1870 ------- 92,829 -- 113.8%
1880 ------ 160,146 --- 72.5%
1890 ------ 261,353 --- 63.2%
1900 ------ 381,768 --- 46.1%
1910 ------ 560,663 --- 46.9%
1920 ------ 796,841 --- 42.1%
1930 ------ 900,429 --- 13.0%
1940 ------ 878,336 --- −2.5%
1950 ------ 914,808 ---- 4.2%
1960 ------ 876,050 --- −4.2%
1970 ------ 750,903 -- −14.3%
1980 ------ 573,822 -- −23.6%
1990 ------ 505,616 -- −11.9%
2000 ------ 478,403 --- −5.4%
2010 ------ 396,815 -- −17.1%
2012 ------ 390,928 --- −1.5%

*Cincinnati*
1800 ---------- 850
1810 -------- 2,540 -- 198.8%
1820 -------- 9,642 -- 279.6%
1830 ------- 24,831 -- 157.5%
1840 ------- 46,338 --- 86.6%
1850 ------ 115,435 -- 149.1%
1860 ------ 161,044 --- 39.5%
1870 ------ 216,239 --- 34.3%
1880 ------ 255,139 --- 18.0%
1890 ------ 296,908 --- 16.4%
1900 ------ 325,902 ---- 9.8%
1910 ------ 363,591 --- 11.6%
1920 ------ 401,247 --- 10.4%
1930 ------ 451,160 --- 12.4%
1940 ------ 455,610 ---- 1.0%
1950 ------ 503,998 --- 10.6%
1960 ------ 502,550 --- −0.3%
1970 ------ 452,525 -- −10.0%
1980 ------ 385,460 -- −14.8%
1990 ------ 364,040 --- −5.6%
2000 ------ 331,285 --- −9.0%
2010 ------ 296,945 -- −10.4%
2012 ------ 296,550 --- −0.1%


^^
As both cities are on the edges of the state, not sharing an influence area, I believe the shift was rather symbolic.

Cincinnati is now growing more than Cleveland for the past 40 years, as Cleveland is the second largest Rust Belt metro area after Detroit. However, another shift in Ohio will involve another player: *Columbus*, the capital lying in the centre of the state. With a quasi-Sun Belt growth rate (12.9% in the past decade), it went from 1,835,189 inh. (2000) to *2,071,052* inh. (2010). It will take over Cincinnati in the next years (already did using the new CSAs definition), and will get closer and closer to Cleveland.


----------



## Brunarino (Jul 11, 2010)

dark_shadow1 said:


> Your figures don't mean much since they don't include the entire metro's population, and the city's land areas are extremely different (1,200 km^2 for LA against 120 km^2 for SF).


It's the same
even calculated as metro areas San Francisco used to be larger than that of Los Angeles until a point (the 20s) when it reversed.


----------



## FAAN (Jun 24, 2011)

A shift in Northeastern Brazil

*Fortaleza*










Source

*vs*

*Recife









*Source*
*
*1872*
Recife ------- 126,671
Fortaleza ------ 42,458

*1890*
Recife ------- 111,000
Fortaleza ------ 40,902

*1900*
Recife ------- 113,106
Fortaleza ------ 48,369

*1920*
Recife ------- 238,843
Fortaleza ------ 78,536

*1940*
Recife ------- 348,424
Fortaleza ------ 180,901

*1950*
Recife ------- 524,682
Fortaleza ------ 270,169

*1960*
Recife ------- 788,336
Fortaleza ------ 514,818

*1970*
Recife ------- 1,060,701
Fortaleza ------ 842,702

*1980*
Fortaleza ------ 1,308,919 
Recife ------- 1,203,899

*1991*
Fortaleza ------ 1,766,794 
Recife ------- 1,288,607

*2000*
Fortaleza ------ 2,138,234
Recife ------- 1,422,905

*2010*
Fortaleza ------ 2,477,409
Recife ------- 1,546,516


_*Considering just city proper_


----------



## Nijal (Mar 8, 2007)

Why has Fortaleza grown faster than Recife ?


----------



## FAAN (Jun 24, 2011)

Nijal said:


> Why has Fortaleza grown faster than Recife ?


Recife has always been one of the regional leaders due to investments and housing development dating to the time of Dutch colonization on the coast of the state of Pernambuco. In the 17th century Recife was the capital of New Holland (Dutch Brazil) for 24 years and also main economic hub during the early production of cotton and slave trade at that time. After the end of the Dutch colonization the Portuguese invasion caused a "war", the city was left partially destroyed. After the war many Portuguese traders arrived in the city helping a populational and economic growth.

During the 20th century, Recife was already the second most important city of Brazil. In the 10s, there was a new population boom caused by Brazilian rural exodus, which led many peasants to the city. After that the city had population increase in the national average.

Fortaleza had its colonization began in the 16th century by the Portuguese colonizers, after that there was a Dutch invasion, so the city slowly began to develop with the installation of Schoonenborch Fortification, later groups of Amerindians destroyed the fortification and killed some Dutch people, and came to dominate the area.

In the 19th century there was a new housing incentive and development due to high production of cotton and construction of a port that had direct travel to Europe.

Finally in the 20th century there were major changes in Fortaleza due to Brazilian rural exodus in 10s, and especially the installation of the Industrial District of Fortaleza during the military dictatorship that boosted the economy and housing mainly by Europeans, farmers and people of the south / southeast / center-west of Brazil, the city in that period had average population growth above the national average, and has established itself as the 5th largest city in Brazil, important industrial pole, port and touristic city.


----------



## Yuri S Andrade (Sep 29, 2008)

Nijal said:


> Why has Fortaleza grown faster than Recife ?


Considering the metro area, Recife is still larger: *4,375,642* inh. for *3,671,713* in Fortaleza. I believe *Recife vs. Salvador* is the biggest contest in Northeast though. Salvador used to be the largest one, then Recife overtook in the early XXth century, to see Salvador growing faster in the past decades. Salvador, as 2010, has *3,728,753* inh. in its metro area.


----------



## KeanoManu (Mar 1, 2012)

I'm surprised that no-one has mentioned San Francisco and San José. They're both part of the same metropolitan area though. San José has always been the smaller one until 1980's where it grew larger than San Francisco.

---

Which shifts will we possibly see in the future?


----------



## Brunarino (Jul 11, 2010)

KeanoManu said:


> I'm surprised that no-one has mentioned San Francisco and San José. They're both part of the same metropolitan area though. San José has always been the smaller one until 1980's where it grew larger than San Francisco.


Maybe because none even know of this... how do you call it?San Jose?
:lol:

San Jose doesn't exist in the collective imagery
everyone thinks Bay Area is made of one big city, Frisco, and a crown of several smaller satellite cities


----------

