Power Shift: Cities

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

that's nuts.

can you imagine if NYC & LA constituted 40% of america's population?

they'd both need metro populations of around 65 million!

australia really is big and empty.

I think it's weird to us because we're American, but many, if not most, countries populations are hyper-concentrated in the top 3 or 4 cities.

[10023]

^ As discussed, not Germany. Or some of the other largest economies in the world, like China or India.

Tokyo, surprisingly, accounts for ~30% of Japan’s population (including Yokohama).

Hey, when did Tokyo’s population surpass Kyoto’s? That’s another one for this thread.

Originally Posted by Jonesy55

I'd say London and Paris are fairly similar in terms of their weight within the country, 14m is a slightly generous definition of the London metro based on commuting, and Ile de France if anything has a slightly higher proportion of French GDP than a London metro definition of similar population does of UK GDP.

But there’s nothing then surrounding the Île-de-France that is as disproportionately wealthy and economically productive as Southeast England. The next wealthiest region is Rhône-Alps on the other side of the country (and Manchester is no Lyon, frankly).

[Sun Belt]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

I think it's weird to us because we're American, but many, if not most, countries populations are hyper-concentrated in the top 3 or 4 cities.

In the range of 20% of the total population per city?

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

I think it's weird to us because we're American, but many, if not most, countries populations are hyper-concentrated in the top 3 or 4 cities.

yeah, i know that the US style of massive population dispersion isn't the norm, but i was just surprised a bit by australia because it is a MASSIVE nation in terms of land area, roughly the same size as the lower 48, but it is just so empty, particularly the interior.

i just read that 85% of australia's population lives within 30 miles of the coast. that's just crazy to have such a massive chunk of land that is primarily only inhabited on its very edges. there are no chicagos or detroits or atlantas or denvers or even milwaukees or nashvilles or omahas, etc. just an unbelievably vast and wild desert.

[Jonesy55]

Originally Posted by 10023

But there’s nothing then surrounding the Île-de-France that is as disproportionately wealthy and economically productive as Southeast England. The next wealthiest region is Rhône-Alps on the other side of the country (and Manchester is no Lyon, frankly).

Yes, that's true, which is one reason for the concentration on Paris. The likes of Reading, Oxford, Cambridge, Milton Keynes etc are not prosperous because everybody commutes to London, in fact very few people do and not enough to include them in a London metro, but because they have their own specialisms and job markets. The area surrounding Ile de France, the 'Bassin Parisien' is not nearly as well off, in fact it has pretty low GDP per capita compared with the French/EU averages. That's why the Paris metro extends further than the London metro on standard commuting definitions, there aren't the same competing employment centres in fairly close proximity like there are in SE England.

I think I'm right in saying that Rhone-Alpes is now the only French region other than IDF which has a GDP per capita (PPP) that is above the EU average. Alsace and Provence-Alpes-Cote d'Azur used to also be over the average but have now fallen just below.

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

that's nuts.

can you imagine if NYC & LA constituted 40% of america's population?

they'd both need metro populations of around 65 million!

australia really is big and empty.

Originally Posted by Acajack

Yeah, Rio is arguably one of the top 10 iconic cities in the world, and easily the most iconic Brazilian city.

I meant in terms of domestic reaching. Up to the 1980's, Rio was still the most important national reference, long before São Paulo's takeover population wise. Heck, even people in São Paulo had to go to Rio for an international flight up till the 80's, as it was the only international gateway. Today, São Paulo international traffic is almost 4x larger.

Rio's Stock Exchange was the largest till the early 1990's. It doesn't exist anymore, as it's all centered in São Paulo Stock. Same for domestic and international companies which had their HQs mostly in Rio. Virtually everybody flew to São Paulo.

Rio-SP shift was much more dramatic than the iconic Montreal-Toronto one.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

yeah, i know that the US style of massive population dispersion isn't the norm, but i was just surprised a bit by australia because it is a MASSIVE nation in terms of land area, roughly the same size as the lower 48, but it is just so empty, particularly the interior.

i just read that 85% of australia's population lives within 30 miles of the coast. that's just crazy to have such a massive chunk of land that is primarily only inhabited on its very edges. there are no chicagos or atlantas or denvers or even milwaukees or nashvilles or omahas, etc. just an unbelievably vast and wild desert.

Kind of like how 90% of Canadians are within 100 miles of the U.S. border.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Kind of like how 90% of Canadians are within 100 miles of the U.S. border.

yeah, canada has some unbelievably MASSIVE swaths of virtually uninhabited land as well, but even canada has edmonton, which is roughly 300 miles north of the border, and reasonably inland (if you consider the US border to be canada's "coast").

in the interior of australia (200+ miles from the coast), i can't find ANYTHING at all of any real urban consequence. alice springs seems to be the biggest deal in the outback and it has a metro population of ~26,000.

for comparison, that's rouhly the same size as the Greensburg, IN Micropolitan Statistical Area (some no-name farm town no one has ever heard of). imagine if the largest city in the whole interior of the US was Greensburg, IN. crazy.

[Jaborandi]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

yeah, i know that the US style of massive population dispersion isn't the norm, but i was just surprised a bit by australia because it is a MASSIVE nation in terms of land area, roughly the same size as the lower 48, but it is just so empty, particularly the interior.

i just read that 85% of australia's population lives within 30 miles of the coast. that's just crazy to have such a massive chunk of land that is primarily only inhabited on its very edges. there are no chicagos or detroits or atlantas or denvers or even milwaukees or nashvilles or omahas, etc. just an unbelievably vast and wild desert.

Well, there is Alice Springs and its caravans of wild camels.

[10023]

Well, you can’t surf in the Outback.

[Jonesy55]

Originally Posted by yuriandrade

I meant in terms of domestic reaching. Up to the 1980's, Rio was still the most important national reference, long before São Paulo's takeover population wise. Heck, even people in São Paulo had to go to Rio for an international flight up till the 80's, as it was the only international gateway. Today, São Paulo international traffic is almost 4x larger.

Rio's Stock Exchange was the largest till the early 1990's. It doesn't exist anymore, as it's all centered in São Paulo Stock. Same for domestic and international companies which had their HQs mostly in Rio. Virtually everybody flew to São Paulo.

Rio-SP shift was much more dramatic than the iconic Montreal-Toronto one.

International perception is lagging way behind reality when it comes to Brazil I think. Here in the UK at least I'm sure that if you asked people to name one Brazilian city most people would say 'Rio de Janeiro' rather than Sao Paulo even if the latter is much more important and has been for several decades. Maybe SP lacks a couple of globally famous landmarks and tourism draws to symbolise the city (an Eiffel Tower, or a Statue of Liberty, or a Burj Khalifa) which would increase the profile among those who might not be familiar with the city or country.

Then again maybe Paulistas might be happier being the domestic titan of Brazil and letting Rio and its geographical setting keep its place as the international popular face of the country?

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by Jonesy55

International perception is lagging way behind reality when it comes to Brazil I think. Here in the UK at least I'm sure that if you asked people to name one Brazilian city most people would say 'Rio de Janeiro' rather than Sao Paulo even if the latter is much more important and has been for several decades. Maybe SP lacks a couple of globally famous landmarks and tourism draws to symbolise the city (an Eiffel Tower, or a Statue of Liberty, or a Burj Khalifa) which would increase the profile among those who might not be familiar with the city or country.

Then again maybe Paulistas might be happier being the domestic titan of Brazil and letting Rio and its geographical setting keep its place as the international popular face of the country?

I don't think São Paulo resents of the lack of an international brand. Maybe as the city, for over a century, kept growing in size and importance, people didn't bother to think about it.

Even though Rio, for historical reasons, but mostly for its very unique setting and culture, is much more recognizable abroad, that didn't stop São Paulo to gather virtually every international company Brazilian HQs on the past decade. For what really counts (business, investiments), São Paulo's international low profile didn't get in the way.

I personally believe São Paulo should work in an international identity. It managed to build a very strong domestic one, so nothing stops to be succesful abroad too. For one thing, São Paulo, being much safer, wealthier, more work-oriented, milder cilmate, is more friendly to a foreigner than Rio.

[Centropolis]

Originally Posted by isaidso

The last sentence isn't true but point taken.

i was speaking of the upper canada hangdown...not as familiar with what is called "prairie" in canada but i think of it more like the brutal plains of the u.s. but it may not be facing the same issues as further south.

http://www.neptis.org/publications/a...-lands-located

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by yuriandrade

I meant in terms of domestic reaching. Up to the 1980's, Rio was still the most important national reference, long before São Paulo's takeover population wise. Heck, even people in São Paulo had to go to Rio for an international flight up till the 80's, as it was the only international gateway. Today, São Paulo international traffic is almost 4x larger.

Rio's Stock Exchange was the largest till the early 1990's. It doesn't exist anymore, as it's all centered in São Paulo Stock. Same for domestic and international companies which had their HQs mostly in Rio. Virtually everybody flew to São Paulo.

Rio-SP shift was much more dramatic than the iconic Montreal-Toronto one.

I fully agree that Sao Paulo can exert this type of dominance within Brazil itself.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by isaidso

Of the people from Australia/NZ I've met, a surprising number of them were surprised that Vancouver wasn't Canada's biggest city. They were even more surprised that it wasn't even 2nd. When I said 'think Brisbane' to put it in an Australian context, their eyes bugged out.

Another one I quite liked was when this Aussie girl asked 'what are the Leafs?' Many jaws dropped.

On the western side of the Pacific Rim Canada's image is dominated by Toronto and Vancouver with Montreal faintly registering.

[Capsicum]

Originally Posted by Acajack

On the western side of the Pacific Rim Canada's image is dominated by Toronto and Vancouver with Montreal faintly registering.

Western side of Pacific Rim meaning East Asia and Australasia?

What about on the same side of the Pacific Rim -- do Californians or Chileans pay far more attention to Vancouver than further eastern or central Canadian cities?

But then someone mentioned Mexicans being aware of Montreal more than Toronto, so maybe there's the shared Romance language thing making Latin Americans pay attention to Montreal more than Anglo-Canada (A quick googling for driving distance on the map suggests that with both in the high 4000-something km range, Mexico city is about equally far from Vancouver as it is from Montreal).

[Capsicum]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

I think it's weird to us because we're American, but many, if not most, countries populations are hyper-concentrated in the top 3 or 4 cities.

Originally Posted by 10023

^ As discussed, not Germany. Or some of the other largest economies in the world, like China or India.

Here's an interesting article/blog post about this topic.

https://medium.com/migration-issues/...l-fccd76f8e683

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Capsicum

Western side of Pacific Rim meaning East Asia and Australasia?

Yes, that's what I meant.

Originally Posted by Capsicum

What about on the same side of the Pacific Rim -- do Californians or Chileans pay far more attention to Vancouver than further eastern or central Canadian cities?

But then someone mentioned Mexicans being aware of Montreal more than Toronto, so maybe there's the shared Romance language thing making Latin Americans pay attention to Montreal more than Anglo-Canada (A quick googling for driving distance on the map suggests that with both in the high 4000-something km range, Mexico city is about equally far from Vancouver as it is from Montreal).

Not sure about paying "more" attention to us than Anglo-Canada, but having travelled in the region quite a bit I might label it as a part of the world where Montreal pulls even with Toronto in terms of renown.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by yuriandrade

I meant in terms of domestic reaching. Up to the 1980's, Rio was still the most important national reference, long before São Paulo's takeover population wise. Heck, even people in São Paulo had to go to Rio for an international flight up till the 80's, as it was the only international gateway. Today, São Paulo international traffic is almost 4x larger.

Rio's Stock Exchange was the largest till the early 1990's. It doesn't exist anymore, as it's all centered in São Paulo Stock. Same for domestic and international companies which had their HQs mostly in Rio. Virtually everybody flew to São Paulo.

Any frustration on the part of Paulistas about Rio getting so much of the global attention?

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by yuriandrade

Rio-SP shift was much more dramatic than the iconic Montreal-Toronto one.

Montreal was able to retain a lot of stuff (even *most* stuff - only on a smaller scale) that you typically find in a metropolis, due largely to the language difference.

I wouldn't say everything but certainly a lot of the "national" stuff you have in Toronto (in English) also exists in Montreal but in French. This includes an entertainment industry, book publishers, magazines, TV networks, professional associations, trade unions, corporate headquarters, marketing departments, you name it...

There is a lot of stuff in life that logically or practically can't be ideally run for French-speaking Canada from a base in Toronto.

It was and is much easier to move stuff from Rio to SP due to the cultural cohesiveness of Brazil.