Power Shift: Cities

[Yuri]

This phenomenon of cities changing position as largest of a country/region/province always interested me. Let's start with the two most dramatic cases in the world:

Rio

Ipanema by Jean Léonard Polo, on Flickr

vs

São Paulo

Source

Rio de Janeiro had been the largest city of Brazil since the XVIII century, while São Paulo, although few years older was just a small provincial city up to late XIX century.

Then coffee happened, immigrants came, industrialization began and everything changed: São Paulo skyrocketed while Rio de Janeiro stagnated (relatively). The most important mark of this process came with the national capital leaving Rio to Brasília. On the early 1990's, as a final blow, Rio de Janeiro Stock Exchange were bought by São Paulo's and ceased to exist.

By the 2000's, oil gave Rio de Janeiro some hope, but the city still keeps losing ground for São Paulo, although pretty much everything is already in São Paulo by now. Today São Paulo is the centre of Brazil, working much more as a "Brazilian London" than a "Brazilian New York".

Let's see the figures:

1872

Rio de Janeiro
City ------- 274,972

São Paulo
City -------- 31,385


1890

Rio de Janeiro
City ------- 522,651

São Paulo
City -------- 64,934


1900

Rio de Janeiro
City ------- 811,443

São Paulo
City ------- 239,620


1920

Rio de Janeiro
City ----- 1,157,873

São Paulo
City ------- 579,033


1940

Rio de Janeiro
Metro ---- 2,203,345
City ----- 1,764,141

São Paulo
Metro ---- 1,568,045
City ----- 1,326,261


1950

Rio de Janeiro
Metro ---- 3,137,977
City ----- 2,377,451

São Paulo
Metro ---- 2,662,776
City ----- 2,198,096


1960

Rio de Janeiro
Metro ---- 4,811,937
City ----- 3,307,163

São Paulo
Metro ---- 4,791,245
City ----- 3,825,351


1970

São Paulo
Metro ---- 8,139,705
City ----- 5,924,612

Rio de Janeiro
Metro ---- 6,797,976
City ----- 4,251,918


1980

São Paulo
Metro --- 12,588,745
City ----- 8,493,217

Rio de Janeiro
Metro ---- 8,637,995
City ----- 5,090,723


1991

São Paulo
Metro --- 15,444,941
City ----- 9,646,185

Rio de Janeiro
Metro ---- 9,647,165
City ----- 5,480,768


2000

São Paulo
Metro --- 17,878,703
City ---- 10,434,252

Rio de Janeiro
Metro --- 10,681,517
City ----- 5,857,904


2010

São Paulo
Metro --- 19,672,582
City ---- 11,244,369

Rio de Janeiro
Metro --- 11,604,332
City ----- 6,323,037

[Yuri]

Montreal

montreal from above by solli_amihod, on Flickr

vs

Toronto

Toronto Waterfront by Brady Fang, on Flickr

I think Montreal vs Toronto might be even bigger than Rio vs São Paulo. Here a forumer's thought about it:

Toronto overtaking Montreal caused massive political, economic, and social upheaval in Canada. Toronto surpassed Montreal in population around 1978 or just after the Montreal Olympics. Montreal was our dominant city in every respect for over a century. It was where the Canadian establishment was based and at one point home to a massive concentration of wealth. It's often mythologized that the families that lived in Montreal's 'Golden Mile' in Westmount once controlled one-sixth of the north American economy.

Toronto's rise has been rapid and very very recent. It goes a long way in explaining how Toronto has sort of come out of nowhere and is still a work in progress. Toronto's roots are blue collar/industrial and for most of its history was viewed as a provincial backwater despite its economy. It's been trying to transform itself at break neck speed, and succeeding thus far.

1931
Montreal --- 1,064,000
Toronto ------ 810,000

1941
Montreal --- 1,192,000
Toronto ------ 900,000

1951
Montreal --- 1,539,000
Toronto ---- 1,262,000

1961
Montreal --- 2,216,000
Toronto ---- 1,919,000

1971
Montreal --- 2,743,000
Toronto ---- 2,628,000

1981
Toronto ---- 2,999,000
Montreal --- 2,862,000

1991
Toronto ---- 3,894,000
Montreal --- 3,127,000

2001
Toronto ---- 4,683,000
Montreal --- 3,426,000

2011
Toronto ---- 5,583,000
Montreal --- 3,824,000

[Steely Dan]

^ EDIT: you beat me to it.

[Yuri]

On California we had:

Los Angeles

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

vs

San Francisco

http://www.flickr.com/photos/tiascap...n/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.

It's not comparable to Rio vs São Paulo or Montreal vs Toronto, as the two cities were too distinct and there was no shift of people, money, from one area to another.

[caligrad]

Originally Posted by yuriandrade

On California we had:

Los Angeles

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

vs

San Francisco

http://www.flickr.com/photos/tiascap...n/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.

It's not comparable to Rio vs São Paulo or Montreal vs Toronto, as the two cities were too distinct and there was no shift of people, money, from one area to another.

WOW. it amazes me. somehow this thread got derailed into a city comparison thread back at page 13. What wack job decided to bring in the Toronto against / every major city in America topic knowing what it will turn into..... RIDICUCOULS. I wish you guys would stop commenting on that specific topic or change the title of this thread so that people know its Toronto against "X" instead of "City shift of power" our a moderator needs to step up and shutdown this thread. SO ANYWAY. back on topic.

In terms of L.A. and the Bay Area shifting power as mentioned on the first page. The Bay area may be gaining population at a faster rate than the greater L.A. area currently but I think in terms of the economic factor of things, I think In the long run L.A. has solidified its position as the west coast hub of power for the USA. and with the expansion of LAX, Metro rail system and the boom happening in DTLA. it might make it harder for San Fran to pass LA. But that being said, there will always be a rivalry between the bay area and LA. Its been that way since the early days of western expansion. But LA will always be the gateway to Asia. it has a bigger seaport, bigger airport, its tech industry may be behind the bay area but almost every other area of industry is still more solid in LA. the only other City that I see trying to knock LA out of place with a economic shift of power in the USA may be Houston... yeah it has to pass Chicago in terms of population and economic power but Chicago is on a little downturn right now, losing population according to the census and corporations are starting to see other cities as a better option like L.A., the bay area, Seattle and Houston/Dallas...........And on a side note... that pic of L.A. is a little dated/old. Downtown has grown a bit since than. with many more towers in the works.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by yuriandrade

By the 2000's, oil gave Rio de Janeiro some hope, but the city still keeps losing ground for São Paulo, although pretty much everything is already in São Paulo by now. Today São Paulo is the centre of Brazil, working much more as a "Brazilian London" than a "Brazilian New York".

Brazil's not as polycentric as the US but it's far more polycentric than the UK. Birmingham (or Manchester) isn't much more than an afterthought to London, whereas Rio is still pretty prominent behind São Paulo. I'd say Rio is even more prominent compared to São Paulo than Montreal is compared to Toronto. Brazil is probably most like Australia or China, where much of the urban population is spread among a few big cities.

[iheartthed]

Some other American reversals:

New York and Philadelphia
Houston and Galveston
Houston and New Orleans
Charleston and Atlanta

[jd3189]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Some other American reversals:

New York and Philadelphia
Houston and Galveston
Houston and New Orleans
Charleston and Atlanta

The change here wasn't really significant, if any. As soon as the first US census was made, NYC had already overtaken Philly as the largest city. Things just stayed like that ever since.

Originally Posted by ue

In the future, we may be talking about LA and New York, as that city has the potential to overtake New York in a few decades after centuries of New York being America's largest city.

We could, but I highly doubt it. New York has too much dominance already and it isn't stopping. Los Angeles would have had a chance if NYC continued to be in the decline of the 70s, because now it's slowing down a bit. Unless most Americans start to suddenly love the ultra urban feel that New York has always had and wish this kind of feel could be applied to other cities instead of suburban sprawl and whatnot, things aren't really going to change.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by jd3189

The change here wasn't really significant, if any. As soon as the first US census was made, NYC had already overtaken Philly as the largest city. Things just stayed like that ever since.

I don't agree. New York was only larger than Philadelphia on the first census because of technicality. If you compared the population in 1790 of Philadelphia with present day borders versus New York with present day borders then Philly would be the largest city.

Three of the 10 largest cities in the 1790 census are within present day borders of Philadelphia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Largest...by_decade#1790

[iheartthed]

Another more obvious American shift: Baltimore and Washington

[ThePhun1]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Some other American reversals:

New York and Philadelphia
Houston and Galveston
Houston and New Orleans
Charleston and Atlanta

Galveston never grew into much in the first place. The foundation was and still is there but Houston was just a red headed step child and more or less equal with Galveston around the turn of the 20th century as Galveston lost its moxy.

Houston's real comparison is with Dallas, which as recently as 15 years ago was clearly a higher notch of a metro area but now, despite DFW being a little bigger, the metros are more or less equal. You mention Charleston, what about Savannah? It's mind boggling how it didn't grow to become the region's heavyweight with a great port and a beautiful cityscape on the coast. Atlanta is cool I suppose but nothing to fawn over.

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Brazil's not as polycentric as the US but it's far more polycentric than the UK. Birmingham (or Manchester) isn't much more than an afterthought to London, whereas Rio is still pretty prominent behind São Paulo. I'd say Rio is even more prominent compared to São Paulo than Montreal is compared to Toronto. Brazil is probably most like Australia or China, where much of the urban population is spread among a few big cities.

São Paulo is THE economic centre of Brazil. And I mean this not as the biggest one, but the central one. Everything goes through the city, converges to it. The majority of major companies are based there or have their main offices there. I really doubt Toronto makes its influence to be felt all over Canada the way São Paulo does over the entire country.

Rio de Janeiro is more famous internationally, but on national level, it's just another city when compared to São Paulo. I guess Paris was a better analogy as although London is huge, it seems the rest of the UK ignores it, while France looks more to Paris.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by yuriandrade

Today São Paulo is the centre of Brazil, working much more as a "Brazilian London" than a "Brazilian New York".

Though this status is largely internal, rather than external.

If you ask someone outside of Brazil, Rio will be the best-known city, the top site for visitors, and the most beloved city. This is even true for outsiders who have traveled to Brazil and have some understanding of the national dynamics.

And I'm still not entirely sure if you aren't exaggerating the dominance of SP somewhat. Rio is still huge, and Brazil has a half-dozen major cities of some importance. It isn't really analogous to a place like London, which absolutely dominates every facet of the UK.

And look to the upcoming Olympics and World Cup. Rio, not SP, is the star. Can you imagine the UK hosting the World Cup and the finals are held in Manchester? I don't think so.

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Though this status is largely internal, rather than external.

If you ask someone outside of Brazil, Rio will be the best-known city, the top site for visitors, and the most beloved city. This is even true for outsiders who have traveled to Brazil and have some understanding of the national dynamics.

So you're saying Rio de Janeiro is like Venice, right?

Originally Posted by Crawford

And I'm still not entirely sure if you aren't exaggerating the dominance of SP somewhat. Rio is still huge, and Brazil has a half-dozen major cities of some importance. It isn't really analogous to a place like London, which absolutely dominates every facet of the UK.

Rio, today, has a very small influence over Brazil. It became a really insular place, whose hinterland don't goes further the state border. A person in Southern Brazil, Midwestern Brazil has no business to do in Rio as much as in Belo Horizonte or Recife. Most of them doesn't know Rio and only sees Rio through stereotypes.

São Paulo's influence cannot be exaggerated. If you make a Forbes 100 in Brazil, pretty much every company would be in São Paulo (HQs or major offices or main operations). That's how powerful São Paulo is. Unlike Rio, its hinterland is the entire country: just go through air routes, bus routes and you'll see everything goes down to São Paulo. It's often said half of Brazilian trucks have São Paulo area as destination or starting point. It's in every single domain, Brazil's hub.

Maybe for a foreigner that might come as a shock, but it's a common place in Brazil: there is São Paulo, and there is the rest. The city's influence in every domain, especially economic, it's overwhelming.

[HowardL]

Originally Posted by yuriandrade

Rio, today, has a very small influence over Brazil.

Help me understand one thing. The only cable network I can get in the US is O Globo which is VERY carioca. Which makes me insane because I cannot understand that dialect to save me. It seems that Rio dominates the media. Is that the case in Brasil as well?

Originally Posted by yuriandrade

São Paulo's influence cannot be exaggerated.

Absolutely. I love that monster.

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by antinimby

It also helps that Sao Paulo has a milder climate than Rio.

Some cities go up, while others go down. It's a fascinating subject.

Originally Posted by HowardL

Help me understand one thing. The only cable network I can get in the US is O Globo which is VERY carioca. Which makes me insane because I cannot understand that dialect to save me. It seems that Rio dominates the media. Is that the case in Brasil as well?

Globo is the Rio's last stronghold. It's the major Brazilian TV network (around 60% of the market share) for half century. But I wouldn't say Rio dominates the media, but Globo. All the other networks are in São Paulo as the largest newspapers, magazines and publishers. Even Globo has huge operations in São Paulo.

Brazilian soap operas production (monopoly of Globo) are very popular and are all centered in Rio as the movie industry. But that's only part of we call cultural influence and in that case, Rio de Janeiro is like Los Angeles, which is not representative of the US. São Paulo represents Brazilian mainstream way better than Rio de Janeiro, as Brazilian old capital has seen its bonds with the rest of the country to erode over the last decades.

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Some other American reversals:

New York and Philadelphia
Houston and Galveston
Houston and New Orleans
Charleston and Atlanta

iheartthed, do you have detailed data on those shifts?

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by yuriandrade

iheartthed, do you have detailed data on those shifts?

Admitted, I don't know much about Houston or Galveston but I do know that Galveston was once the dominant city of that region. Some people point to the 1900 hurricane hitting Galveston as the turning point, but Houston had already slightly overtaken Galveston by the time it hit. However, Houston's growth rate does seem to have accelerated quite a bit after the hurricane. I'll do the others a little later.

Houston vs Galveston (percentages represent Houston's population as percentage of Galveston's population)
Houston
1850 2,396 ----- 57.36%
1860 4,845 ----- 66.31%
1870 9,332 ----- 67.54%
1880 16,513 ----- 74.22%
1890 27,557 ----- 94.75%
1900 44,633 ----- 118.11%
1910 78,800 ----- 213.08%
1920 138,276 ----- 312.45%
1930 292,352 ----- 552.25%
1940 384,514 ----- 631.78%
1950 596,163 ----- 895.57%
1960 938,219 ----- 1396.68%
1970 1,232,802 ----- 1994.53%
1980 1,595,138 ----- 2576.88%
1990 1,630,553 ----- 2760.37%
2000 1,953,631 ----- 3412.63%
2010 2,100,263 ----- 4399.10%



Galveston
1850 4,177
1860 7,307
1870 13,818
1880 22,248
1890 29,084
1900 37,789
1910 36,981
1920 44,255
1930 52,938
1940 60,862
1950 66,568
1960 67,175
1970 61,809
1980 61,902
1990 59,070
2000 57,247
2010 47,743

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by yuriandrade

The city's influence in every domain, especially economic, it's overwhelming.

Again, I think this is a little exaggerated.

Economic, yes, obviously. Population too. But a place like London or Paris or Seoul or Moscow or Tokyo dominates almost every facet of life in their respective countries.

Sao Paulo isn't the capital. It isn't the iconic tourist/visitor center. It doesn't host the most famous sports teams, or the most important art museums, or the most legendary neighborhoods, or the longest history. It's clearly the dominant city, but as part of a major country, with a number of important cities.

On a scale from Germany (no dominant city whatsoever) to South Korea (mega-dominant city), I would put Brazil somewhere in the middle.

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Again, I think this is a little exaggerated.

Economic, yes, obviously. Population too. But a place like London or Paris or Seoul or Moscow or Tokyo dominates almost every facet of life in their respective countries.

Sao Paulo isn't the capital. It isn't the iconic tourist/visitor center. It doesn't host the most famous sports teams, or the most important art museums, or the most legendary neighborhoods, or the longest history. It's clearly the dominant city, but as part of a major country, with a number of important cities.

On a scale from Germany (no dominant city whatsoever) to South Korea (mega-dominant city), I would put Brazil somewhere in the middle.

São Paulo indeed isn't the capital and Brazil is a big government country. However, Brasília is too young to have any kind of influence, but political. And it's too fay away of Brazil's centre (85% of Brazilian population live in South, Southeast, Northeast and São Paulo lies in the middle of it).

For internal tourism, São Paulo is unmatched. People from all over the country come to the city for the most different reasons. About famous football clubs, in Brazil we have the "Big 12", and four of them are based in São Paulo with a national fanbase.

Indeed Brazil has many important and big regional centres, but what I'm saying is São Paulo is the national one and have very strong and direct relations with all of them. The don't "converse" much between them, but with São Paulo.

São Paulo maybe is not London or Tokyo, but it's not in the middle either. Brazil certainly belongs to countries centered in one major city.

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by ChiMIchael

I seems like Edinburgh was more stable while Glasgow went through the boom and bust much like other provincial industrial cites.

Yes. Glasgow used to be called the "second city of the British Empire". However, as many industrial cities in the developed world, experienced the industrial boom to watch a strong decline afterwards.

Edinburgh, on the other hand, it was the political center and home of Scotland's establishment. It's a very affluent area and handled the last five decades way better than Glasgow. It seems, however, Glasgow is finally rebounding.

Originally Posted by Centropolis

also, St. Louis overtaking the mother city New Orleans.

When did it take place?