Largest modern era municipal population drops

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by Wigs

Interesting. Thanks for your input since most of us don't know much about Brazil in general.
Why did Central São Paulo decline so much?

Influx of poorer immigrants from Northeast and specially the HQs moving away. First the went to Paulista Avenue and today to Faria Lima.

I guess it's like a tsunami, the broken window theory. When those things start they seem unstoppable.

And its current rebound it's similar to the US: young people eager for an urban life and São Paulo can delivery it greatly. Boosterism aside, but when it comes to nightlife, Downtown São Paulo might be the hottest places in the world right now. A massive city in a very outgoing country with an alternative/creative centre. It's basically a bigger Berlin.

But when it comes to Downtown flight, Johannesburg CBD hands down: from far away, in the pics, it seems a massive US Downtown, bigger than anything outside New York and Chicago. On the ground, it's a dystopic movie. Scary as hell.

Originally Posted by iheartthed

When I visited São Paulo way back in 2011 there was a lot of visible "urban decay" in the core. Even though SP has the much better economy, there seemed to be a lot less decay in the core of RJ.

Even today it's very rough. In 2011,

You nailed it: Rio de Janeiro Downtown seems to be intact even though every single big company left it for São Paulo. It's weird to think that up to the early 1990's, Rio Stock Exchange was still bigger than São Paulo's and it's been closed for years now. There is nothing left in Rio, not a single bank.

And today, with the Light Rail everywhere, Downtown Rio became even more friendly.

[Yuri]

As I love numbers:

Downtown São Paulo
1950 --- 437,355 -- +14.7%
1960 --- 515,289 -- +17.8%
1970 --- 516,094 --- +0.2%
1980 --- 591,769 -- +14.7%
1990 --- 513,512 -- -13.2%
2000 --- 413,896 -- -19.4%
2010 --- 477,670 -- +15.4%

São Paulo Metro Area
1950 ----- 2,662,786
1960 ----- 4,739,406 -- +78.0%
1970 ----- 8,139,705 -- +71.7%
1980 --- 12,588,745 -- +54.7%
1990 --- 15,444,941 -- +22.7%
2000 --- 17,878,703 -- +15.8%
2010 --- 19,683,975 -- +10.1%

Note that Downtown São Paulo population fall might not seem that impressive compared to say Detroit or St. Louis, but we have to consider the number of jobs lost and specially the high-paid jobs. It was insane. Textbook urban decay, a perfect scenario for dystopic movies in the middle of decaying modernist architecture.

But things improved and I'm anxiously waiting for the 2022 Census numbers. I see Downtown growing up to 20% as this decade was way better than the past one, while the metro area will come to 7.5% or so.

[MAC123]

What was going on in Sao Paulo in the 90s?

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by MAC123

What was going on in Sao Paulo in the 90s?

São Paulo as a whole was doing fine, picking up the last institutions left in Rio. The 1990's was way more violent than today (murder rates at 40/100,000 as opposed to 6/100,000). In a Downtown already plagued by urban decay, massive business flight, made things much worse.

Crawford once said here that one cannot even seen urban decay in Detroit anymore as everything was demolished by now. And Detroit has always been very "suburban" in any case. If one really wants to see urban decay, than go to central areas of Johannesburg or São Paulo. And in São Paulo's case, come soon as gentrification is kicking in.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Yuri

São Paulo as a whole was doing fine, picking up the last institutions left in Rio. The 1990's was way more violent than today (murder rates at 40/100,000 as opposed to 6/100,000). In a Downtown already plagued by urban decay, massive business flight, made things much worse.

Crawford once said here that one cannot even seen urban decay in Detroit anymore as everything was demolished by now. And Detroit has always been very "suburban" in any case. If one really wants to see urban decay, than go to central areas of Johannesburg or São Paulo. And in São Paulo's case, come soon as gentrification is kicking in.

You can definitely still see a LOT of urban decay in Detroit. And the most urban areas of Detroit were the places that decayed first. I also disagree that Detroit is very "suburban". The outer areas of Detroit are predominantly single-family homes on small lots, similar to a place like L.A. or Oakland, but inner-Detroit was one of the most urban places in the world in the mid-20th century.

Anyway, as far as decay, what I saw in SP back in 2011 wasn't nearly as extreme as what you could see in a number of U.S. cities both then and now. It was nowhere near as bad as places like Detroit, Cleveland, or Baltimore. But the decay was very visible in comparison to what you'd see in NYC, SF, and the core areas of Chicago. And what struck me most was how intact Rio was by comparison.

[Crawford]

1990's and early 2000's Detroit had a ton of visible decay. Large swaths felt like a "dead city". I wish there were Google Streetview from that era.

Detroit obviously still has tons of decay, but the most urban neighborhoods are pretty vacant these days, and the outer neighborhoods, which still have a lot of intact, vacant structures, don't have the same urban heft as when (say) Dexter Davison was intact, but vacating.

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

You can definitely still see a LOT of urban decay in Detroit. And the most urban areas of Detroit were the places that decayed first. I also disagree that Detroit is very "suburban". The outer areas of Detroit are predominantly single-family homes on small lots, similar to a place like L.A. or Oakland, but inner-Detroit was one of the most urban places in the world in the mid-20th century.

Anyway, as far as decay, what I saw in SP back in 2011 wasn't nearly as extreme as what you could see in a number of U.S. cities both then and now. It was nowhere near as bad as places like Detroit, Cleveland, or Baltimore. But the decay was very visible in comparison to what you'd see in NYC, SF, and the core areas of Chicago. And what struck me most was how intact Rio was by comparison.

Yeah, it's hard to compare because São Paulo urban morphology is very different from the US. But you have very visible things showing how bad it fell: Queen Elizabeth II visited São Paulo in 1968 and stayed in the city's most luxurious hotel back then which was in Downtown, very close to the beautiful Municipal Theatre. Anyway, this hotel was an invasion till recently and only few years ago it was formalized, becoming social housing. The level of decay cannot be overestimated: Downtown was evacuated by the people and most of its institutions.

Back to Rio's comparison, I guess their main liability is the lack of residents (except for slums that surrounding their Downtown). São Paulo's, on the other hand, has always had a big residential population (República, Bela Vista) and today it's serving as springboard for the current boom we're going through.

It hear Rio de Janeiro is trying to figure this out, with a couple of buildings going up, but it's hard to start from the scratch.

[tdawg]

It'll be wild to see how the pandemic affects American city Census estimates throughout the rest of the 2020s.

[Wigs]

Originally Posted by Yuri

Influx of poorer immigrants from Northeast and specially the HQs moving away. First the went to Paulista Avenue and today to Faria Lima.

I guess it's like a tsunami, the broken window theory. When those things start they seem unstoppable.

And its current rebound it's similar to the US: young people eager for an urban life and São Paulo can delivery it greatly. Boosterism aside, but when it comes to nightlife, Downtown São Paulo might be the hottest places in the world right now. A massive city in a very outgoing country with an alternative/creative centre. It's basically a bigger Berlin.

But when it comes to Downtown flight, Johannesburg CBD hands down: from far away, in the pics, it seems a massive US Downtown, bigger than anything outside New York and Chicago. On the ground, it's a dystopic movie. Scary as hell.

Even today it's very rough. In 2011,

You nailed it: Rio de Janeiro Downtown seems to be intact even though every single big company left it for São Paulo. It's weird to think that up to the early 1990's, Rio Stock Exchange was still bigger than São Paulo's and it's been closed for years now. There is nothing left in Rio, not a single bank.

And today, with the Light Rail everywhere, Downtown Rio became even more friendly.

Glad to hear that SP is undergoing a renaissance and revitalizing after sounding like it bottomed out in the 90s.

Brazil in general seems to have a nightlife culture that no other North American city can rival besides maybe Miami or Mexico City.

Interesting that Rio has been able to keep its downtown intact despite, as you inform us, massive amounts of office jobs leaving. And if they've built a light rail that's another good sign

(Johannesburg seems fascinating and many people say it's a fun and interesting city but I agree it looks downright scary from even daytime photos I've seen.)

[jmecklenborg]

For those of us who were kids and teenagers and college students during the decline of pretty much all U.S. cities, it's pretty mind-boggling observing the online behavior of younger people who complain endlessly about the high cost of living. They think they're victims because rent is high. We were actually victims because...we were mugged and had our cheap apartments and barely-running cars broken into repeatedly.

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

For those of us who were kids and teenagers and college students during the decline of pretty much all U.S. cities, it's pretty mind-boggling observing the online behavior of younger people who complain endlessly about the high cost of living. They think they're victims because rent is high. We were actually victims because...we were mugged and had our cheap apartments and barely-running cars broken into repeatedly.

Yeah… I bet it sure was nice being able to go out and have a drink after with your friends and have a social life where you could complain about all of those awful things that happened to you because you could afford it.

Climb on down from your high horse, buddy, and recognize that the high cost of living IS JUST AS MUCH a crisis for mental health as the problems you lived through were on your physical health.

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by wwmiv

Yeah… I bet it sure was nice being able to go out and have a drink after with your friends and have a social life where you could complain about all of those awful things that happened to you because you could afford it.

Climb on down from your high horse, buddy, and recognize that the high cost of living IS JUST AS MUCH a crisis for mental health as the problems you lived through were on your physical health.

Thanks for illustrating my point. So...paying a rent check is as stressful as being jumped and beaten?

[Don't Be That Guy]

Originally Posted by Wigs

I'm surprised Pittsburgh is still shrinking considering the insane amount of redevelopment/reinvestment in that city!

Baring a few residential turnarounds, the (urban) redevelopment and reinvestment are largely concentrated in the immediate core and East End neighborhoods. Developers can't build apartments or infill housing fast enough in these neighborhoods, and good luck buying a house in many of them. The hilltop neighborhoods and truly blighted communities that housed lots of industry or never recovered from the 1968 riots are still dropping in population - largely to the suburbs.

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

Thanks for illustrating my point. So...paying a rent check is as stressful as being jumped and beaten?

Paying a rent check is not stressful. Spending all month wondering how you are going to afford all of this and not end up homeless living in your car, on the other hand, is stressful:

• median Denver rent: $1,900
• average phone: $125
• average used car note: $500
• average car insurance: $150
• average fuel cost: $150
• average-ish food cost: $300
• average utilities (gas, electric, water, sewage): $300
• personal hygiene, toiletries, and cleaning products: $125

All of these numbers (I rounded for simplicity) can be found via a simple Google search.

That’s $3,550 already and doesn’t even include clothing and personal upkeep, health, life, and home/renters insurance, doctors visits, medications, loans, debt, etc. Let’s assume the remainder of these things without Googling put the necessities at around $4k/month. If you’re living alone and work a standard 40-hour week, you’d need to be making over 25/hour to just simply survive.

Exactly where does that leave time and money for savings, emergency funds, travel, entertainment, dating, a social life, large purchases like furniture, and other things that actually make life worth living? It doesn’t, because we have to do gig work just to make ends meet.

Wanna know why so many Americans are unhappy? Because the rich have been hoarding the money and screwing the rest of us for the last ~25 years. Anyone who can’t see the reality for what it is happens to be an ostrich with its head stuck not only down in the sand, but in sand that happens to be living under a rock.

Sorry, but I’ve been mugged. I have been shot at. I have been held with a knife to my neck. I have been raped. And trust me, I would take all of those things again occasionally if it meant that I didn’t have to be homeless ever again—because trust me, when you end up homeless those things like being mugged feel like first world privileges compared to the ignominious treatment Americans direct at our homeless AND constantly being afraid for your life because you’re then way more likely to be mugged. And shot at. And held at knifepoint. And especially more likely to be raped or sexually taken advantage of.

It isn’t a black and white, this or that proposition. The shade of gray is that because so many Americans are a bad week or month or bad day away from being homeless, many of these same people wonder if they will then be physically safe when they break. Truth is, many that break won’t be safe and will experience the same crap you did. But hey! It was all miserable for you even though you had a cheap roof over your head, right?

Most of my personal bills are cheaper, some significantly, than the above numbers and I still am one bad month away from being homeless again. EVERYONE who has a job and puts in the work to earn it should, morally and ethically, be paid enough to meet their basic needs given the social and economic realities of their place and time. Period. Anything less than that leaves your fellow man destitute and begging for handouts.

[Yuri]

Another two: San Juan, Puerto Rico:

1970 Census ----- 463,242
2021 Estimate --- 337,300

-125,942 (-37%)

And as Puerto Rico population are collapsing, it will keep falling fast. Note it's not only suburb flight. If we pick the inner metro area (San Juan plus 7 municipalities for 624 Km²), it peaked at 1,208,360 (2000) and it's now at 1,005,081 (2020). A -17% fall.

And Riga, Latvia. Another case on a country with population collapse. Riga is interesting because city capitals in Eastern Europe managed to dodge decline even when the country is in free fall, but Riga didn't.

1989: 910,445
2022: 605,802

-304,643 (-33%)

[MolsonExport]

I think it is always important to distinguish the cause of the declines. War being an obvious one. In the case of (old city) Toronto, for example, the decline was mostly due to smaller household sizes. In other places, there was a compounding effect of white flight and smaller household sizes, combined with low immigration. Historically, the USA has been one of the most mobile places.

[niwell]

Originally Posted by Yuri

But when it comes to Downtown flight, Johannesburg CBD hands down: from far away, in the pics, it seems a massive US Downtown, bigger than anything outside New York and Chicago. On the ground, it's a dystopic movie. Scary as hell.

Massive flight, however unlike American downtowns in decay the population in the broader CBD actually increased massively during this time. Lots of hijacked buildings where multiple people / families lived in one room apartments with next to no services, and "rent" paid to an illegal owner. Most of these families either poor transplants from the far Townships or rural areas looking for work, or even more commonly (undocumented male) immigrants from other parts of Sub-Saharan Africa - Zimbabwe in particular - looking for any form of work to send money back home. Basically people that are very easy to take advantage of.

The process actually began in the late 80s as it became clear that there wasn't enough demand to fill the hundreds of apartment towers built on spec in-line with the rules of apartheid. The government was starting to lose control so landlords began renting out to multiracial tenants, and then usually took off completely post 1994.

Even today you see ads looking for someone to share a bed with on message boards. Not a room, a bed - one person would work during the day and the other at night..

[suburbanite]

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

Thanks for illustrating my point. So...paying a rent check is as stressful as being jumped and beaten?

There were plenty of places that were cheap where residents would not be subject to daily muggings. These kind of places are now few and far between. It's also just a ridiculous premise in the first place to compare an acute effect like an individual being a victim of a random crime, to a chronic effect like growing unaffordability nationwide.

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by wwmiv

All of these numbers (I rounded for simplicity) can be found via a simple Google search.

This is a bizarre, baiting post that doesn't merit a response.

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by suburbanite

There were plenty of places that were cheap where residents would not be subject to daily muggings.

Most areas of most American cities were either bombed-out or heading in that direction until about 2015. We had a blog in my city that posted the dozens of homes and apartments that were demolished every month up until that time. Now we're down to a handful of demo permits per month, and usually a new house is being built in place of the falling-down one. The population hasn't risen by much but people are much wealthier and can increasingly afford to live alone or as couples rather than living with relatives or roommates. That's where much of the housing crunch is coming from - the motivation to live alone.

It's also just a ridiculous premise in the first place to compare an acute effect like an individual being a victim of a random crime, to a chronic effect like growing unaffordability nationwide.

It's a free country and people are free to move to cheaper areas or, in my case, never consider relocating to an expensive city. It's not 1920 anymore - you don't have to live in NYC to trade stocks.