HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Europe

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #321  
Old Posted Jun 5, 2014, 12:38 AM
New Brisavoine New Brisavoine is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,067
The urban archipelago of France 43 years apart.

__________________
New Axa – New Brisavoine
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #322  
Old Posted Jun 11, 2014, 12:28 PM
New Brisavoine New Brisavoine is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,067
Population density of France and Germany at the commune (municipal) level.

__________________
New Axa – New Brisavoine
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #323  
Old Posted Jun 25, 2014, 11:24 PM
New Brisavoine New Brisavoine is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,067
Net migration (domestic + international) of France's main metro areas (+ some particularly attractive metro areas) between the 2006 and 2011 censuses. Note that all the metro areas listed here except Douai-Lens actually grew between 2006-2011 because the excess of births over deaths more than offset the negative net migration of those in the red (except Douai-Lens).

Net migration (domestic + international) between 2006 and 2011:
- Geneva metro area (Swiss & French parts): +10,170 people per year (French part: +5,017 people per year)
- Toulouse metro area: +8,193 per year
- Bordeaux metro area: +5,783 per year
- Lyon metro area: +3,760 per year
- Rennes metro area: +3,506 per year
- Montpellier metro area: +3,101 per year
- Bayonne metro area: +2,786 per year
- Perpignan metro area: +2,649 per year
- Nantes metro area: +2,587 per year
- Toulon metro area: +1,403 per year
- Montauban metro area: +1,197 per year
- Annecy metro area: +1,142 per year
- La Roche-sur-Yon metro area: +1,136 per year
- Thonon-les-Bains metro area: +1,044 per year
- Gap metro area: +971 per year
- Avignon metro area: +454 per year
- Nice metro area: +10 per year
- Rouen metro area: -1,010 per year
- Strasbourg metro area (French part): -1,166 per year
- Grenoble metro area: -1,221 per year
- Saint-Etienne metro area: -2,062 per year
- Marseille metro area: -2,749 per year
- Douai-Lens metro area: -2,844 per year
- Lille metro area (French part): -7,617 per year
- Paris metro area: -46,607 per year

Net migration rate (net migration divided by total population) between 2006 and 2011:
- Gap metro area: +1.64% per year
- Geneva metro area (Swiss & French parts): +1.27% per year (French part: +1.87% per year)
- Thonon-les-Bains metro area: +1.25% per year
- Montauban metro area: +1.19% per year
- La Roche-sur-Yon metro area: +1.01% per year
- Bayonne metro area: +1.01% per year
- Perpignan metro area: +0.89% per year
- Toulouse metro area: +0.68% per year
- Montpellier metro area: +0.57% per year
- Annecy metro area: +0.54% per year
- Rennes metro area: +0.53% per year
- Bordeaux metro area: +0.52% per year
- Nantes metro area: +0.30% per year
- Toulon metro area: +0.23% per year
- Lyon metro area: +0.18% per year
- Avignon metro area: +0.09% per year
- Nice metro area: +0.00% per year
- Strasbourg metro area (French part): -0.15% per year
- Rouen metro area: -0.16% per year
- Marseille metro area: -0.16% per year
- Grenoble metro area: -0.18% per year
- Paris metro area: -0.38% per year
- Saint-Etienne metro area: -0.41% per year
- Douai-Lens metro area: -0.52% per year
- Lille metro area (French part): -0.66% per year

The very high net migration rate of Thonon-les-Bains and Montauban is probably in fact a spillover of the Geneva and Toulouse metro areas into these two smaller metro areas (i.e. Thonon and Montauban are more and more becoming absorbed by the Geneva and Toulouse metro areas, which means people who work in Geneva and Toulouse are more and more settling in the Thonon and Montauban metro areas).

The very high net migration rate of the Gap metro area is more surprising, given that Gap is far away from any major metro area. I have no idea why it is attracting so many people.
__________________
New Axa – New Brisavoine

Last edited by New Brisavoine; Jun 25, 2014 at 11:44 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #324  
Old Posted Jun 26, 2014, 3:53 PM
New Brisavoine New Brisavoine is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,067
+ Ajaccio, Bastia, and Vannes. And at the other end of the list, + Le Havre and Dunkirk.

Net migration (domestic + international) between 2006 and 2011:
- Geneva metro area (Swiss & French parts): +10,170 people per year (French part: +5,017 people per year)
- Toulouse metro area: +8,193 per year
- Bordeaux metro area: +5,783 per year
- Lyon metro area: +3,760 per year
- Rennes metro area: +3,506 per year
- Montpellier metro area: +3,101 per year
- Bayonne metro area: +2,786 per year
- Perpignan metro area: +2,649 per year
- Nantes metro area: +2,587 per year
- Toulon metro area: +1,403 per year
- Montauban metro area: +1,197 per year
- Ajaccio metro area: +1,180 per year
- Vannes metro area: +1,146 per year
- Annecy metro area: +1,142 per year
- La Roche-sur-Yon metro area: +1,136 per year
- Thonon-les-Bains metro area: +1,044 per year
- Gap metro area: +971 per year
- Bastia metro area: +834 per year
- Avignon metro area: +454 per year
- Nice metro area: +10 per year
- Rouen metro area: -1,010 per year
- Strasbourg metro area (French part): -1,166 per year
- Grenoble metro area: -1,221 per year
- Dunkirk metro area: -1,842 per year
- Saint-Etienne metro area: -2,062 per year
- Le Havre metro area: -2,328 per year
- Marseille metro area: -2,749 per year
- Douai-Lens metro area: -2,844 per year
- Lille metro area (French part): -7,617 per year
- Paris metro area: -46,607 per year

Net migration rate (net migration divided by total population) between 2006 and 2011:
- Gap metro area: +1.64% per year
- Geneva metro area (Swiss & French parts): +1.27% per year (French part: +1.87% per year)
- Thonon-les-Bains metro area: +1.25% per year
- Ajaccio metro area: +1.21% per year
- Montauban metro area: +1.19% per year
- La Roche-sur-Yon metro area: +1.01% per year
- Bayonne metro area: +1.01% per year
- Bastia metro area: +0.93% per year
- Perpignan metro area: +0.89% per year
- Vannes metro area: +0.79% per year
- Toulouse metro area: +0.68% per year
- Montpellier metro area: +0.57% per year
- Annecy metro area: +0.54% per year
- Rennes metro area: +0.53% per year
- Bordeaux metro area: +0.52% per year
- Nantes metro area: +0.30% per year
- Toulon metro area: +0.23% per year
- Lyon metro area: +0.18% per year
- Avignon metro area: +0.09% per year
- Nice metro area: +0.00% per year
- Strasbourg metro area (French part): -0.15% per year
- Rouen metro area: -0.16% per year
- Marseille metro area: -0.16% per year
- Grenoble metro area: -0.18% per year
- Paris metro area: -0.38% per year
- Saint-Etienne metro area: -0.41% per year
- Douai-Lens metro area: -0.52% per year
- Lille metro area (French part): -0.66% per year
- Dunkirk metro area: -0.71% per year
- Le Havre metro area: -0.79% per year

A map showing the most attractive and most "repulsive" metro areas in the list.

__________________
New Axa – New Brisavoine
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #325  
Old Posted Jun 27, 2014, 6:47 AM
Swede's Avatar
Swede Swede is offline
YIMBY co-founder
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: sol.III.eu.se.08
Posts: 6,710
How does France define metro areas?
Something I'd like to see is a standardized European (or wider) way of defining them that all countries would use (in addition to a local way if they want to keep that). Would be very interesting to see how my metro would turn out if using, say, the French method.
__________________
Forumers met so far:
Huopa, Nightsky, Jo, wolkenkrabber, ThisSideofSteinway, jacksom, New Jack City, LeCom, Ellatur, Jan, Dennis, Ace, Bardamu, AtlanticaC5, Ringil, Dysfunctional, stacey, karakhal, ch1le, Hviid, staff, kjetilab, Þróndeimr, queetz, FREKI, sander, Blue Viking, nomels, Mantas, ristov, Rafal_T, khaan, Chilenofuturista, Jonte Myra, safta20, AW, Pas, Jarmo K, IceCheese, Sideshow_Bob, sk, Ingenioren, Ayreonaut, Silver Creations, Hasse78, Svartmetall
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #326  
Old Posted Jun 28, 2014, 12:13 AM
SHiRO's Avatar
SHiRO SHiRO is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Barcelona
Posts: 15,728
Quote:
Originally Posted by Swede View Post
How does France define metro areas?
Something I'd like to see is a standardized European (or wider) way of defining them that all countries would use (in addition to a local way if they want to keep that). Would be very interesting to see how my metro would turn out if using, say, the French method.
I believe it's 40% commuters (one way) on a commune to commune level. Way more strict than US MSA definitions...

I'd like a standardized European method as well, but it should not be as strict as the French INSEE one.

I was very dissappointed when the LUZ definitions came out and I thought we were finally getting a unified method. Instead we got something that made Bielefeld bigger than Rotterdam...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #327  
Old Posted Jun 28, 2014, 4:19 PM
New Brisavoine New Brisavoine is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,067
Quote:
Originally Posted by Swede View Post
How does France define metro areas?
First you have to define the urban area. So you group together the municipalities that form an urban area (continuous urbanization, no unbuilt gap larger than 200 meters). Then when you get the urban area, you look at which municipalities around it send more than 40% of their working population to the urban area and you add them to the urban area, then which municipalities send more than 40% of their working population to the urban area + the municipalities that you've already added. It's an iterative process. In the end you get the metropolitan area.

Note that a metropolitan area is confusingly called "aire urbaine" (literally "urban area") in France's French, whereas an urban area is called "unité urbaine" (literally "urban unit") in France's French. In Canada, a metropolitan area is called RMR (Région Métropolitaine de Recensement, literally "Census Metropolitan Region").
__________________
New Axa – New Brisavoine
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #328  
Old Posted Jun 28, 2014, 4:42 PM
New Brisavoine New Brisavoine is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,067
I've completed the map for all the metropolitan areas of France. Enjoy!

A few surprises. First of all, the net migration figures between the 1999 and 2006 censuses didn't reflect the reality because they contained a positive statistical adjustment (due to the fact that the population of France had been underestimated at the 1999 census). So the French metropolitan areas artificially looked more attractive between 1999 and 2006 than they really were. As a consequence, there were way more red metro areas (negative net migration) between the 2006 and 2011 censuses than between the 1999 and 2006 censuses, but the 2006-2011 net migration depicted on the map is much more accurate, and reflects the real attraction of the French metro areas.

First of all, it's fascinating to note a neat line running from Niort in the west to Bourg-en-Bresse in the east. North of this line (and east of Rennes) is the "unattractive" France that people are fleeing. Most French metro areas with negative net migration are concentrated there. South of this line (and west of Rennes) is the attractive France that people are moving to. Most of the French metro areas with positive net migration are located there.

Among the surprises, north of the Niort - Bourg-en-Bresse line, even cities in the Loire Valley with high quality of life such as Angers, Saumur, or Blois are experiencing negative net migration. Tours barely manages to attract people. I was particularly surprised by Angers, which has the reputation of being an attractive city.

On the other hand, it's quite surprising to find out that in the North-East the metro areas of Longwy and Sarrebourg manage to attract people (Longwy is a mystery to me, given that it's your typical rust belt metro area; I can't imagine any French people in their right mind would would like to move to Longwy ).

Another fascinating thing is how unlike in England, the Channel coast in France is really unattractive (at least east of Caen; things improve a bit west of Caen, despite the fact that it's actually wetter than east of Caen, go figure).

Finally overseas the big surprise is French Guiana, where the metro areas of Cayenne, St Laurent du Maroni, and Kourou are for the first time experiencing negative net migration. I don't know whether this is a statistical adjustment, or whether French Guiana is not attracting immigrants anymore. Between 1999 and 2006, Cayenne and St Laurent du Maroni were some of the most attractive metro areas in France, so it's a bit surprising. These metro areas still grew a lot between 2006 and 2011 though, due to very high birth rates.

__________________
New Axa – New Brisavoine
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #329  
Old Posted Jun 28, 2014, 5:52 PM
New Brisavoine New Brisavoine is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,067
The most attractive metro area in France between the 2006 and 2011 censuses was L'Île-Rousse, in the stupendous Balagne region. L'Île-Rousse had a crazy net migration rate of +3.39% per year between 2006 and 2011.

Some views:







__________________
New Axa – New Brisavoine
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #330  
Old Posted Jul 1, 2014, 6:06 PM
New Brisavoine New Brisavoine is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,067
More data from the results of the 2011 French census published by INSEE last week.

We now know which immigrants groups grew and declined the most in France in 2010 (the census in France now takes place every year in January, and the full results are published 3 and a half year later).

Note that an immigrant group can grow only due to new arrivals. Children of immigrants born in France are not counted as immigrants. An immigrant group can decline either due to the death of old immigrants in France or due to the departure of immigrants from France.

The results here refer to Metropolitan France (the European part of France), and "from" refers to the country of birth of the immigrant.

Most growing and declining immigrant groups in 2010:
- from Morocco: +8,743 people in Jan 2011 compared to Jan 2010
- from Romania: +7,986
- from Algeria: +7,277
- from Tunisia: +4,395
- from Congo-Kinshasa: +4,163
- from Russia: +4,015
- from Portugal: +3,977
- from Haiti: +3,879
- from China: +3,225
- from Cameroon: +3,179
...
...
...
- from Jordan: -40
- from Slovenia: -52
- from Sweden: -107
- from Austria: -128
- from Denmark: -165
- from Cambodia: -253
- from Lebanon: -330
- from Germany: -1,459
- from Spain: -3,363
- from Italy: -6,162

The immigrants from the Congo-Kinshasa have now officially become the 4th largest sub-Saharan African community in France (they passed the Malians in 2010). I say "officially", because in reality they are already the #1 sub-Saharan African community in France. This is because many people born in the Democratic Republic of Congo write simply "Congo" in the census forms and are thus wrongly counted as coming from the Republic of Congo (Congo-Brazzaville). The immigrants from Congo-Kinshasa + Congo-Brazzaville living in France numbered 119,908 in 2011, way ahead of the Senegalese immigrants (81,526), the Cameroonians (67,458), and the Ivorians (66,970). In this total of 119,908, there should be approximately 30,000 people who really come from the Congo-Brazzaville, so the immigrants from the Congo-Kinshasa are most likely already the #1 sub-Saharan African community in France, something which the French are yet to realize, because the Congo-Kinshasa was not colonized by France and is less "visible" in France.

In the future, I predict the Congolese will become the largest immigrant community of France, period.

Growth in 2010 in relative terms (only the immigrant groups with more than 10,000 people living in Metropolitan are included):
- from Romania: +12.0%
- from Haiti: +9.9%
- from Armenia: +9.7%
- from Russia: +8.2%
- from Bulgaria: +7.8%
- from Cape Verde: +7.1%
- from Congo-Kinshasa: +7.0%
- from Guinea-Conakry: +6.3%
- from Comoros: +5.6%
- from Angola: +5.3%
...
...
...
- from The Netherlands: +0.3%
- from the UK: +0.2% (the big inflow of UK immigrants in France in the 2000s seems over)
- from Mauritius: +0.1%
- from Laos: -0.0%
- from South Korea: -0.1%
- from Cambodia: -0.5%
- from Lebanon: -0.9%
- from Germany: -1.2%
- from Spain: -1.4%
- from Italy: -2.0%

In the overseas departments, if I select only the 10 largest immigrant groups living there, their growth in 2010 was the following:
- from the Dominican Republic: +18.5%
- from China: +5.9%
- from Haiti: +3.6%
- from the Comoros: +3.5% (Mayotte is not included in those figures, so the +3.5% only reflect the growth of the Comorran immigrant community in Réunion)
- from Dominica: +3.3%
- from Brazil: +3.1% (the Brazilian immigrants in the overseas departments, i.e. almost only French Guiana, grew by +574 people, or +3.1%, in 2010, whereas the Brazilian immigrants in Metropolitan France grew by +1,345 people, or +4.6%, in 2010)
- from Suriname: +2.3%
- from Guyana: +2.1%
- from Mauritius: +1.2%
- from Madagascar: -0.7%
__________________
New Axa – New Brisavoine
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #331  
Old Posted Jul 3, 2014, 3:03 PM
New Brisavoine New Brisavoine is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,067
Since we are commemorating the centenary of the First World War, here are some enlightening figures about the population structures of France and Germany then and now. The German statistical office has finally published the post-2011 census population of Germany by ages, so we can make age structure comparisons across time (all the Reich statistical yearbooks since 1881 have also been published online).

Time comparisons here are within the borders of each country at the time, so Metropolitan France in 1911 does not include Alsace-Lorraine.

Male population whose age was from 20 to 39 y/o in 1911:
- Metropolitan France: 5,933,990
- German Empire: 9,817,084 (65% more than in Metropolitan France)

Male population whose age was from 20 to 39 y/o in 1939:
- Metropolitan France: 6,073,907 (at least 6% of whom were foreigners: Italians, Poles, Spaniards, Belgians, German Jews, etc.)
- Third Reich: 12,812,430 (nearly all of them German citizens) (111% more than in Metropolitan France)

Male population whose age was from 20 to 39 y/o in 2013:
- Metropolitan France: 7,811,463 (7,237,192 of whom French citizens)
- Germany: 9,755,227 (25% more than in Metropolitan France) / 8,444,022 of whom German citizens (17% more than in Metropolitan France)

And now for the future:

Male population whose age was from 0 to 19 y/o in 2013:
- Metropolitan France: 7,948,578 (7,574,578 of whom French citizens)
- Germany: 7,525,056 (5% less than in Metropolitan France) / 7,047,042 of whom German citizens (7% less than in Metropolitan France)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #332  
Old Posted Jul 3, 2014, 3:54 PM
Crawford Crawford is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NYC/Polanco, DF
Posts: 16,228
What accounts for the German growth between WWI and WW2?

They're measuring from 1939 so not including "Anschluss" territory gained during the war, and the German economy was horrible between the wars. I would assume birth rates would be relatively low.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #333  
Old Posted Jul 3, 2014, 5:54 PM
New Brisavoine New Brisavoine is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,067
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crawford View Post
What accounts for the German growth between WWI and WW2?
Anschluss in March 1938 and annexation of the Sudetenland in October 1938.

The census took place in the Third Reich in May 1939. The Third Reich then included the territory of the Republic of Weimar + Saarland + Austria + the Sudetenland. This is the population on which the Third Reich based its war effort (later during the war, they also enrolled the Danziger, the Memeler, the Alsatians, the Mosellans, and a few other, but in 1939 they could count on the male population that I have indicated in my previous post).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crawford View Post
They're measuring from 1939 so not including "Anschluss" territory gained during the war, and the German economy was horrible between the wars. I would assume birth rates would be relatively low.
The Anschluss took place before 1939. As for the birth rates, keep in mind that the male population between the ages of 20 and 39 in 1939 was born between 1899 and 1918. The years immediately before WW1 were those when Germany had the highest number of births in its entire history (there were 2,032,313 births in the German Empire in 1901, the highest number of births ever in Germany).
__________________
New Axa – New Brisavoine
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #334  
Old Posted Jul 9, 2014, 12:54 AM
New Brisavoine New Brisavoine is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,067
More fascinating stats extracted from the historical statistical yearbooks of Germany published online.

Between the 1939 and 1950 censuses, the population of Germany (Weimar + Saarland + Danzig in 1939 ; East & West Germany + Saarland in 1950) went from 69,705,707 to 69,172,508 inhabitants. That was a loss of 500,000 inhabitants over 11 years, and of course a much bigger loss when one takes into accounts what the German population should have been in 1950 if natural growth had taken place normally (Germany had a natural growth of +480,000 per year before WW2, so its population in 1950 should normally have been something like 75.0 million people without the war, instead of 69.2 million).

The population of the current Germany (2014 borders), however, greatly increased between 1939 and 1950, due to the relocation of millions of Germans from eastern Europe to the current Germany after 1945. At the end of the war, Germany (within its 1937 borders, i.e. Weimar + Saarland) lost 113,932 km² of land east of the Oder-Neisse line. This is the size of Scotland + Wales + Northern Ireland + half of Cornwall combined. At the 1939 census, there lived 9,630,221 people within those 113,932 km² east of the Oder-Neisse line, i.e. 14% of Germany's population (within its 1937 borders).

On top of these people, one also needs to add the 391,607 inhabitants of the Free City of Danzig as well as the 3.4 million inhabitants of the Sudetenland. So in total, that's territories inhabited by 13.4 million German people whose populations relocated essentially to the current Germany (2014 borders), and to a lesser extent to Austria. And on top of it, several hundred thousands of Germans from outside the Reich (i.e. from pre-war Poland, Bohemia-Moravia, Slovakia, Hungary, Yugoslavia, etc) were expelled and relocated to the current Germany (and to a lesser extent Austria).

As a result of these massive relocations of population, the population of the current Germany (2014 borders), despite the millions of German lives lost during WW2, swelled from 59,683,879 in 1939 to 69,172,508 in 1950. For comparison, the population of Metropolitan France went from 41,550,000 in 1939 to 41,850,000 in 1950, and the population of the UK went from 47,760,000 in 1939 to 50,280,000 in 1950.

Here is the population increase between the 1939 and 1950 censuses by German states. Württemberg-Hohenzollern, Baden, and Württemberg-Baden merged in 1952 to form the current state of Baden-Württemberg. States within the Soviet occupation zone in red, US occupation zone in pink, French occupation zone in blue, and British occupation zone in green.

Population growth between 1939 and 1950 (within constant borders):
- Lower Saxony: +2,257,700 (i.e. in 1950 Lower Saxony, within its 1950 borders, had 2,257,700 more people than in 1939, also within 1950 borders)
- Bavaria: +2,100,400
- North Rhine-Westphalia: +1,261,700
- Schleswig-Holstein: +1,005,600

- Hesse: +844,700
- Württemberg-Baden (Stuttgart, Mannheim, Karlsruhe): +690,500

- Saxony-Anhalt: +638,573
- Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania: +634,947
- Thuringia: +407,841
- Saxony: +227,602
- Brandenburg: +193,012

- Württemberg-Hohenzollern (Tübingen, Reutlingen): +154,400
- Baden (Freiburg im Breisgau, Baden-Baden): +109,000
- Rhineland-Palatinate: +44,800
- Saarland: +35,100

- Bremen: -4,300
- Hamburg: -106,300
- Berlin: -1,006,647

Note that France, for geopolitical and administrative reasons, had an official policy of not allowing eastern refugees in its occupation zone, which explains the low population increase of the blue states (in parenthesis, the Allies were quite unhappy with this French policy, but the Germans living in the French occupation zone were quite happy with it as you can imagine).

Population growth by occupation zone (excluding Berlin):
- British occupation zone: +4,418,700 (+22%) (i.e. in 1950 there lived in the British occupation zone of West Germany 4,418,700 more people than in the same territory in 1939, which means a growth of +22%)
- American occupation zone: +3,631,300 (+25%)
- Soviet occupation zone: +2,101,975 (+14%) (does not include East Berlin)
- French occupation zone and Saarland: +343,300 (+6%)

In terms of relative growth, some states really saw their population jump. The population of Schleswig-Holstein jumped by 63% between 1939 and 1950, that of Lower Saxony by 50%, that of Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania by 46%. I was quite surprised by the Schleswig-Holstein figures, as I, like many people probably, had not idea this tiny state had welcomed so many refugees, but I guess that's because of people evacuated by boat from East Prussia, Danzig, and East Pomerania who landed in the ports of Schleswig-Holstein and settled there.

Same for Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania, and more generally East Germany. I didn't imagine so many refugees had settled there, under Soviet yoke. Obviously in Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania the big population increase is explained by the people from East Pomerania and Stettin who simply moved a few tens of miles west, and could not be bothered to move further west to Lower Saxony. Minato Ku also pointed out to me how strange it was that people settled in Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania and rural Brandenburg but not in Berlin, whose population declined, but I guess the city was far too destroyed to be a pleasant destination for the refugees, even 6 years after the end of the war.

As a result of this massive relocation of people, the density of the current (post-WW2) German states increased a lot. Schleswig-Holstein went from a density of 101 inh. per km² in 1939 to 166 inh. per km² in 1950! Lower Saxony went from 96 inh. per km² in 1939 to 143 inh. per km² in 1950. Bavaria, which before WW2 was a very rural state, went from 100 inh. per km² to 130 inh. per km². I knew about Bavaria, but I was really surprised how sparsely populated (relatively-speaking) was Lower Saxony in 1939.

Overall WW2 radically changed the way the German people were spread across their territory. This series of map shows the evolution of density from 1939 until today. The big surprise here is the fact that what would become the German Democratic Republic (East Germany) was more densely populated before WW2 than West Germany!

The last map at the bottom is a glance into the future. Judging from the density of people under 20 y/o, it looks like in this century, East Germany, which was the densest part of Germany before WW2, will become less than half as densely populated as West Germany, and less densely populated than Austria and Metropolitan France, whose densities were very low compared to the current East Germany in 1939. It's a complete reversal of situation with very few examples in history. When looking at the last two maps, one can also question the choice of Berlin as the capital of the reunified Germany in the 1990s. Frankfurt would have been a more logical and practical choice.

__________________
New Axa – New Brisavoine

Last edited by New Brisavoine; Jul 23, 2014 at 12:37 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #335  
Old Posted Jul 9, 2014, 6:32 PM
Crawford Crawford is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NYC/Polanco, DF
Posts: 16,228
Quote:
Originally Posted by New Brisavoine View Post
The last map at the bottom is a glance into the future. Judging from the density of people under 20 y/o, it looks like in this century, East Germany, which was the densest part of Germany before WW2, will become less than half as densely populated as West Germany, and less densely populated than Austria and Metropolitan France, whose densities were very low compared to the current East Germany in 1939.
Fascinating and I had no idea the East was once more densely populated. Really amazing when you look at the current sitaution. It makes sense though, because Berlin, Leipzig, Chemnitz, Dresden, Erfurt, Magdeburg, Rostock were all once more important.
Quote:
Originally Posted by New Brisavoine View Post
When looking at the last two maps, one can also question the choice of Berlin as the capital of the reunified Germany in the 1990s. Frankfurt would have been a more logical and practical choice.
Frankfurt would have never been seriously considered. Bonn was specifically chosen because it was a small city, so there would be no chance once reunification occured. If Frankfurt had been chosen for W. Germany then perhaps there would have been a small chance it would have been retaned, but the emotional pull of Berlin was extremely strong, even if the logic in a redrawn Germany was lacking.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #336  
Old Posted Jul 12, 2014, 7:34 PM
New Brisavoine New Brisavoine is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,067
A comparison of Orléans and Tours within territories of equal land areas, with German and Italian cities of similar sizes. Note that in 1806, Orléans was as populated as Cologne, Frankfurt, and Munich, whereas Tours was significantly smaller. Orléans is one of those French cities which used to be a major European city but completely slipped in the European hierarchy due to France's early birth rate decline (other examples are Amiens, Rouen, Nantes, Bordeaux, Nîmes, Metz, Strasbourg, and several more).

__________________
New Axa – New Brisavoine

Last edited by New Brisavoine; Jul 12, 2014 at 7:46 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #337  
Old Posted Jul 16, 2014, 2:28 PM
New Brisavoine New Brisavoine is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,067
The post-censal populations by ages of France, the UK, Germany, and Spain have now all been published. Here below, the situation for the metropolitan areas of Paris, London, Berlin, and Madrid in 2013.

How to read the figures: 25.9% of the total population living in the red area of Paris was less than 20 y/o on Jan. 1, 2013.

All maps are at the same scale.

__________________
New Axa – New Brisavoine
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #338  
Old Posted Jul 16, 2014, 6:39 PM
Minato Ku's Avatar
Minato Ku Minato Ku is offline
Tokyo and Paris fan
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Paris, Montrouge
Posts: 3,796
Paris has the lowest ratio of the population at working age.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #339  
Old Posted Jul 16, 2014, 11:52 PM
New Brisavoine New Brisavoine is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,067
Quote:
Originally Posted by Minato Ku View Post
Paris has the lowest ratio of the population at working age.
Yes. That's due both because Parisians have a high birth rate and because France (and therefore Paris) welcomes very few immigrants, contrary to other European countries. The former is of course a good thing (with a low birth rate, the % of the working-age population would be mechanically higher, as in Berlin, but it wouldn't be something to rejoice about) , but the latter is a bad thing (a city can't prosper in the long term with a negative net migration, however high its birth rate may be).
__________________
New Axa – New Brisavoine
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #340  
Old Posted Jul 17, 2014, 11:51 AM
New Brisavoine New Brisavoine is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,067
+ Toulouse and Barcelona.

For Toulouse, note that the red area, i.e. the Haute-Garonne department, is larger than the metro area of Toulouse. The southern part of the department, i.e. the Pyrénées foothills and valleys, is entirely outside the Toulouse metro area, and it has lots of old people, so it makes the Toulouse figures look artificially older than what they really are. Unfortunately we have no 2013 data for the Toulouse metro area, so we have to use figures for the entire department instead. Based on the 2011 census, the share of 0-19 y/o in the Toulouse metro area should be around 24.8% instead of 24.3% for the entire department. The share of 25-49 y/o should be 35.5% instead of 34.9%, and the share of people older than 65 should be 14.5% instead of 15.3%.

What's surprising is the low proportion of people 20-24 y/o in Barcelona. I would have expected a higher proportion. Toulouse, on the other hand, is a big university town, and it shows in the figures. In fact the proportion of people 20-24 y/o jumps to 13.5% in the city of Toulouse proper. For comparison in the city of Barcelona proper the proportion of people 20-24 y/o is only 4.7%, i.e. slightly lower than in the entire Barcelona province. I don't think this can be explained by high rents, because in the city of Paris proper the proportion of people 20-24 y/o is 8.5% (compared to 6.9% in the entire Paris Region), and in Inner London the proportion of people 20-24 y/o is 8.2% (compared to 6.6% in the entire London LUZ).

__________________
New Axa – New Brisavoine

Last edited by New Brisavoine; Jul 23, 2014 at 12:31 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Europe
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:34 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.