Worldwide Demographics

[dc_denizen]

the right to be the usage of 'America' belongs to the first independent country in the Americas (that is, the USA).

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by dc_denizen

the right to be the usage of 'America' belongs to the first independent country in the Americas (that is, the USA).

Errr... “America” is not copyrighted so people use the word the way they want to.

[iheartthed]

Since it is President's Day here in the U.S., I was just reminded that, via the Monroe Doctrine, it has been the U.S.'s de facto policy for 200 years to treat the Americas as being solely under our own sphere of influence. This is despite the fact that we have tendency to other-ize everything south of the Texas border.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by yuriandrade

Errr... “America” is not copyrighted so people use the word the way they want to.

He was joking. Or at least, I hope he was!

[Obadno]

Originally Posted by yuriandrade

Errr... “America” is not copyrighted so people use the word the way they want to.

Yes this is a complaint often brought up but everyone uses the Term America or American to describe people from the USA

You can roll into technicalities but almost all other peoples in the "Americas" identify by their country or ethnic origin first other than people in the USA

Canadians, Cubans, Columbians and Chileans do not call themselves "Americans"

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Obadno

Yes this is a complaint often brought up but everyone uses the Term America or American to describe people from the USA

You can roll into technicalities but almost all other peoples in the "Americas" identify by their country or ethnic origin first other than people in the USA

Canadians, Cubans, Columbians and Chileans do not call themselves "Americans"

We call them "South Americans".

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by Obadno

Yes this is a complaint often brought up but everyone uses the Term America or American to describe people from the USA

That's wrong. In the American continent, outside the US, no one call the US "America".

In any case, it's time to move on. A Canadian forumer casually called the American continent by its name and some threw a tantrum over it and it's been three pages off-topic already. Meanwhile, numbers from 2020 Mexican Census and from the 2020 Canadian Estimates were lost in this nonsense.

[Elkhanan1]

Originally Posted by yuriandrade

Canadians just released their 2020 estimates: http://citypopulation.de/en/canada/, so let's redo the table. I also added Guelph to Toronto:

New York ---------- 22,589,036 --- 22,255,628 ---- 1.50%

Mexico City ------- 21,804,515 --- 20,116,842 ---- 8.39%

Los Angeles ------- 18,711,436 --- 17,877,303 ---- 4.67%

Chicago ------------ 9,825,325 ---- 9,841,359 --- -0.16%

Washington-Balt. --- 9,814,928 ---- 9,050,440 ---- 8.45%

San Francisco ------ 9,665,887 ---- 8,924,185 ---- 8.31%

Boston ------------- 8,287,710 ---- 7,893,676 ---- 4.99%

Dallas ------------- 8,057,796 ---- 6,807,889 --- 18.36%

Toronto ------------ 7,950,441 ---- 7,120,778 --- 11.65%

Houston ------------ 7,253,193 ---- 6,100,028 --- 18.90%

Philadelphia ------- 7,209,620 ---- 7,068,006 ---- 2.00%

Miami -------------- 6,889,936 ---- 6,201,499 --- 11.10%

Atlanta ------------ 6,853,392 ---- 6,054,822 --- 13.19%

Detroit ------------ 5,341,994 ---- 5,319,107 ---- 0.43%

Monterrey ---------- 5,341,177 ---- 4,226,031 --- 26.39%

Guadalajara -------- 5,268,642 ---- 4,521,755 --- 16.52%

Phoenix ------------ 5,002,221 ---- 4,246,721 --- 17.79%

Seattle ------------ 4,903,675 ---- 4,274,757 --- 14.71%

Canada --- 2020-2012
US --- 2019-2010
Mexico --- 2020-2010

* Toronto including Hamilton, Oshawa and Guelph
** Note Mexico City has a massive nertwork of neighbouring metro areas (Puebla, Toluca, etc.); Central Valley population is around 35 million

There's nothing new about Canada, but it's worth mentioning Montreal's rise, and specially the Prairies. Winnipeg has been stagnant since ever, and now it's growing at crazy rates. A lesson for sluggish US metro areas.

Did you include Barrie with Toronto? Canadian metro areas are defined more conservatively/less expansively than their American counterparts. I think Barrie is a legit part of Greater Toronto, with tons of commuters travelling between the two.

I'd say leaving out Kitchener-Waterloo and Peterborough makes sense at this point.

[IluvATX]

Originally Posted by Elkhanan1

Did you include Barrie with Toronto? Canadian metro areas are defined more conservatively/less expansively than their American counterparts. I think Barrie is a legit part of Greater Toronto, with tons of commuters travelling between the two.

I'd say leaving out Kitchener-Waterloo and Peterborough makes sense at this point.

I’ve never heard of any of those cities.

[Nite]

Originally Posted by IluvATX

I’ve never heard of any of those cities.

those cities have a combine population of around 1 million, so when added to Toronto's population they push it to almost 9 million

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by Elkhanan1

Did you include Barrie with Toronto? Canadian metro areas are defined more conservatively/less expansively than their American counterparts. I think Barrie is a legit part of Greater Toronto, with tons of commuters travelling between the two.

I'd say leaving out Kitchener-Waterloo and Peterborough makes sense at this point.

Didn’t included Barrie, but I thought so. That would put Toronto slightly ahead Dallas but wouldn’t change growth rate.

I guess the big question here is for how long those supercharged metro area will sustain double-digit growth rates. Dallas and Houston might do it for another decade. Toronto, Atlanta and Miami, a bit harder.

And about for the next megacity, I still bet on Chicago. Washington-Baltimore are still perceived as two metro areas. The 10-county San Francisco, excluding Central Valley, is at 8.1 million but growing faster than the exurban valley metro areas, and still far from the target.

Chicago just needs to attract international immigrants once again and put domestic emigration at normal levels. That would deliver the 10 million.

[MolsonExport]

While I am hoping for a major turnaround in the population sweepstakes for Chicagoland, I don't see anything looming on the immediate horizon that will change the trend. On the other hand, Toronto and surroundings have been growing by more than 100K per year, every year, for 30+ years. The GTA may get to mega city status before Chicagoland. I would not be surprised if Dallas and/or Houston get there first. Numbers for San Francisco are all over the place, depending on the definition.

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

While I am hoping for a major turnaround in the population sweepstakes for Chicagoland, I don't see anything looming on the immediate horizon that will change the trend. On the other hand, Toronto and surroundings have been growing by more than 100K per year, every year, for 30+ years. The GTA may get to mega city status before Chicagoland. I would not be surprised if Dallas and/or Houston get there first. Numbers for San Francisco are all over the place, depending on the definition.

The thing is Toronto is 2 million away (or 2 decades away). Chicago is missing it by 150k only.

I’m not exactly optimistic about Chicago, but they still have a healthy natural grow and abnormally high levels of domestic emigration (5x times higher than Detroit MSA, for instance) and low levels of international immigration (3x times lower than the last decade peak). If they correct just a bit those two items, which is not that difficult, they’d be back into positive and could easily cover those 150k still in this decade. It's not that callenging).

About San Francisco, the traditional 10-county definition (8.1 million inh.) is clearly the most sensible. However, I don’t think they will be able to touch 9 million by 2030. They’ll slow down at some point. It's too expensive and they lack of physical space to keep growing.

Then we have Dallas and Houston, both growing faster than Toronto and not to far from the target. Dallas CSA is already at 8 million. If they keep growing at the current rate, they will touch 9.5 million by the 2030 Census.

All this “America” discussion made me think about South America too. Lima is growing fast and has crossed the 10 million mark few years ago. Bogotá is about to cross it as well. But there is no other candidate at sight. Santiago is at 7.5 million, Belo Horizonte at 5.5 million and Caracas at 5 million. No other city is posed to reach the mark and I don’t see others joining the 5 million club any time soon. Brasília could do it, but it has slowed down considerably in the 2010’s.

[Yuri]

And on the top of the table, Buenos Aires is getting closer to Los Angeles. 16.0 million and 18.7 million in 2019 estimates. The Argentinian capital is the most likely to grow closer to double-digit rates, touching 17.5 million by 2030. Los Angeles started to post negative growth since 2018, let's see the situation unfolds from now on. I'd bet 19.5 million by 2030, still missing the 20 million. And it will probably never overtake New York.

Mexico City grew 8.4% between 2020-2010 Census. Brazilian 2020 Census will be carried in 2021, but I estimate São Paulo is growing at 8%-9% decade, have reached 21.2 million in 2020. Rio de Janeiro a bit slower, 6.5% or so, for a 12.6 million population in 2020.

São Paulo and Mexico City are officially defined, so their borders keep unchanged regardless how much they expand. De facto, they will start to include neighbouring municipalities from their dense surroundings, easily eclipsing New York CSA population wise. Even though they are slowing down decade after decade, it's a very smooth process, nothing like Los Angeles sudden débacle, and they still post impressive growth for such big metropolises. They are both centers of 30 million people macrometropolitan structures that grow even faster than the central metro areas.

[MolsonExport]

Aren't many South American countries about to start experiencing very slow population growth, and in some cases, in the not too distant future, population declines? I believe that the average fertility rate is now slightly below replacement level.

https://www.cepal.org/en/pressreleas...on-levels-2058

https://data.worldbank.org/indicator...N?locations=ZJ

Glad to see Lima has made the list of mega cities. I enjoyed my visit there 6 years ago.

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

Aren't many South American countries about to start experiencing very slow population growth, and in some cases, in the not too distant future, population declines? I believe that the average fertility rate is now slightly below replacement level.

https://www.cepal.org/en/pressreleas...on-levels-2058

https://data.worldbank.org/indicator...N?locations=ZJ

Glad to see Lima has made the list of mega cities. I enjoyed my visit there 6 years ago.

They are, but that’s gradual process as population is still much younger than US/Canada and TFR haven’t collapsed to Southern European levels. Brazil is at 1.75 now, still falling, but slowly. At this rate, population will start to decline only in the 2040’s, and we’ll be in the first years a smooth process, nothing like Japan experienced from 2007 and South Korea will start from 2020 onwards.

Domestic migration in Brazil used to be a big thing between the 1960’s and 1980’s, but now it’s a much much smaller player so I don’t see abrupt changes in growth rates. São Paulo metro area will probably keep growing at national average as it’s been the case for the past 30 years, which will grant it a much fast growth rate than New York. And of course there is the Macrometropolitan Area, a networking of fast growing and wealthy metro areas around São Paulo that will becoming more and more integrated as population grows.

Argentina is an interesting case, like France. One of the first countries to make the demographic transition but somehow prevented the TFR to keep falling. They hanged to the 2.0 which makes their prospects better than Brazil, something imaginable as Argentina has always been perceived as an agent country.

Buenos Aires is already growing faster than São Paulo (breaking the historical logic, by the turn of the 20th century, Buenos Aires had 1 million inh and São Paulo 150k only) and will probably keep doing so. By the late 2040’s, they will probably have reached the 20 million mark.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by yuriandrade

São Paulo and Mexico City are officially defined, so their borders keep unchanged regardless how much they expand.

Mexico City is officially defined, but isn't that true of almost all cities? What city doesn't have commonly agreed municipal boundaries? Maybe London?

Much of Mexico City proper is empty. Much of "Mexico City" isn't in Mexico City. This isn't uncommon. The southern third of Mexico City is largely empty. Some very "core" areas of Mexico City, including some of the wealthiest and best known, are technically in an adjacent state.

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Mexico City is officially defined, but isn't that true of almost all cities? What city doesn't have commonly agreed municipal boundaries? Maybe London?

Much of Mexico City proper is empty. Much of "Mexico City" isn't in Mexico City. This isn't uncommon. The southern third of Mexico City is largely empty. Some very "core" areas of Mexico City, including some of the wealthiest and best known, are technically in an adjacent state.

I meant metro areas. In the US, they aren’t. They keep adding new components as they grow.

São Paulo metro area definition dates back 1970 when metro area population was at 8 million. Today, it’s 21 million. São Paulo municipality has 12 million inh., at an inverted L shape and a third of its area is also covered by rainforest.

[Elkhanan1]

Originally Posted by yuriandrade

The thing is Toronto is 2 million away (or 2 decades away). Chicago is missing it by 150k only.

I’m not exactly optimistic about Chicago, but they still have a healthy natural grow and abnormally high levels of domestic emigration (5x times higher than Detroit MSA, for instance) and low levels of international immigration (3x times lower than the last decade peak). If they correct just a bit those two items, which is not that difficult, they’d be back into positive and could easily cover those 150k still in this decade. It's not that callenging).

About San Francisco, the traditional 10-county definition (8.1 million inh.) is clearly the most sensible. However, I don’t think they will be able to touch 9 million by 2030. They’ll slow down at some point. It's too expensive and they lack of physical space to keep growing.

Then we have Dallas and Houston, both growing faster than Toronto and not to far from the target. Dallas CSA is already at 8 million. If they keep growing at the current rate, they will touch 9.5 million by the 2030 Census.

All this “America” discussion made me think about South America too. Lima is growing fast and has crossed the 10 million mark few years ago. Bogotá is about to cross it as well. But there is no other candidate at sight. Santiago is at 7.5 million, Belo Horizonte at 5.5 million and Caracas at 5 million. No other city is posed to reach the mark and I don’t see others joining the 5 million club any time soon. Brasília could do it, but it has slowed down considerably in the 2010’s.

Actually, the Greater Golden Horseshoe (GGH), the extended region wrapping around Toronto, had a population of 9,245,438 already in 2016. Using the expansive American definition of a metro area, rather than the restrictive Canadian definition, a metro Toronto region would be only slightly under that figure today.

To get to an American-style "Torontoland," you'd have the "core" area:
*The Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area (GTHA): GTA 6,555,205 + Hamilton 804,691 = 7,359,896 (I think the provincial gov't gives the GTHA a higher pop but I can't find it.)
*Kitchener-Cambridge-Waterloo 593,882
*Guelph 167,509
*Barrie 218,188

SUBTOTAL: 8,339,475

+

the "catchment/commuter" area:
*Peterborough 131,939
*Cobourg 20,152
*Port Hope 17,731
*Kawartha Lakes 81,042
*Centre Wellington (Fergus) 31,092
*Brantford 151,566
*St.Catherines-Niagara 437,114

SUBTOTAL: 870,636

TOTAL: 9,210,111 (July 2020)

Today, the GGH almost certainly has a population greater than 9.5 million. The region's been growing like gangbusters for decades, fuelled by domestic and international migration. COVID slowed things down in 2020 but everything's expected to pick up dramatically post-COVID. The federal government's post-pandemic immigration targets are very ambitious.

[Yuri]

I’m not sure if GGH qualifies as Toronto metro area, even using the US definitions. What’s the commute flow between Toronto and Kitchener? I highly doubt it reaches 15% of population, enough to make them part of the same CSA. Ditto for St. Catherines-Niagara.

American urban areas sprawl much more than Canadian, and therefore they will add more territory in the process. Toronto urban footprint, for instance, is 2.5 times denser than Chicago’s.

If you determine Mexico City and São Paulo must have the same area New York CSA has, they would be way above 30 million today, but that’s hardly the best definition for their metro areas. Maybe in the future, not today.