The last decade has been pretty good for many cities. Recent 2020 Census data tells us that of the 50 largest cities in the US, 46 of them grew their population over the last 10 years. On average, these 50 cities grew by about 8.5%, compared to 5.6% for the decade between 2000-2010.
As you might expect, the fastest growing cities tended to be in the south and the west. The top 3 fastest growing cities over the last decade were Fort Worth (24%), Austin (21.7%), and Seattle (21.1%). The cities with the biggest population declines were Detroit (-10.5%), Baltimore (-5.7%), Milwaukee (-3%).
It's important to keep in mind that city boundaries can skew these numbers depending on how they are drawn. A declining "city" population doesn't necessarily mean that the broader urban area is losing people. Though it does still tell you something about the "city."
Another thing that happened over the last decade is that most of the largest US cities continued to become more diverse. In 2000, white populations were a majority (>50%) in 25 of the 50 largest cities. This dropped to 17 cities in 2010 and then 14 cities last year (2020). Meaning that 36 of the largest cities are now "white minority" cities.
For more data check out this recent article from Brookings.
Last week's general election in the UK was yet another example of the urban-rural divide that we are all seeing emerge around the world. Taking a look at this chart from the Centre for Towns, it's pretty clear that the type of community someone lives in (i.e. how urban), says a lot about the way in which they probably voted. In big cities, the vote share was 49% Labour. And in villages, communities, and small towns, the vote share was about 48-58% Conservative.
But what does this stem from? According to John Burns Murdoch of the Financial Times, the biggest predictor (for constituencies) of a swing vote over to the Conservatives during this last election was the share of the population in a blue collar job. Here is a graph from John's article. Circles with a black outline are constituencies that changed hands last week. Note Great Grimsby, which I wrote about here, in the top right corner.
“The concentration of economic growth and prosperity in large metro areas defines the modern global economy, creating both opportunities and challenges in an era in which national political, economic, and societal trends are increasingly influenced by subnational dynamics.” -Brookings Institute
The Metropolitan Policy Program at the Brookings Institute has a new report out for 2018 called the Global Metro Monitor.
Here are some of the highlights (data is from 2014 to 2016):
- The 300 largest metro areas in the world accounted for 36% of employment growth and 67% of GDP growth.
- Metro areas in China and the Asia-Pacific region outperformed, whereas Latin American cities, and in particular the largest Brazilian cities, were weaker performers.
- The majority of large metro areas had growth rates that exceeded that of their respective regions. So again, cities are the driver.
And here is an interesting interactive chart (better to click through) that shows the % change in GDP per capita.
Look at how much of an outlier San Jose is. Though, check out Dublin in the footnote. And if you look at the actual data table, it is all China, except for Dublin at the top.
For the rest of the charts, click here. And to download the full Global Metro Monitor report, click here.
The last decade has been pretty good for many cities. Recent 2020 Census data tells us that of the 50 largest cities in the US, 46 of them grew their population over the last 10 years. On average, these 50 cities grew by about 8.5%, compared to 5.6% for the decade between 2000-2010.
As you might expect, the fastest growing cities tended to be in the south and the west. The top 3 fastest growing cities over the last decade were Fort Worth (24%), Austin (21.7%), and Seattle (21.1%). The cities with the biggest population declines were Detroit (-10.5%), Baltimore (-5.7%), Milwaukee (-3%).
It's important to keep in mind that city boundaries can skew these numbers depending on how they are drawn. A declining "city" population doesn't necessarily mean that the broader urban area is losing people. Though it does still tell you something about the "city."
Another thing that happened over the last decade is that most of the largest US cities continued to become more diverse. In 2000, white populations were a majority (>50%) in 25 of the 50 largest cities. This dropped to 17 cities in 2010 and then 14 cities last year (2020). Meaning that 36 of the largest cities are now "white minority" cities.
For more data check out this recent article from Brookings.
Last week's general election in the UK was yet another example of the urban-rural divide that we are all seeing emerge around the world. Taking a look at this chart from the Centre for Towns, it's pretty clear that the type of community someone lives in (i.e. how urban), says a lot about the way in which they probably voted. In big cities, the vote share was 49% Labour. And in villages, communities, and small towns, the vote share was about 48-58% Conservative.
But what does this stem from? According to John Burns Murdoch of the Financial Times, the biggest predictor (for constituencies) of a swing vote over to the Conservatives during this last election was the share of the population in a blue collar job. Here is a graph from John's article. Circles with a black outline are constituencies that changed hands last week. Note Great Grimsby, which I wrote about here, in the top right corner.
“The concentration of economic growth and prosperity in large metro areas defines the modern global economy, creating both opportunities and challenges in an era in which national political, economic, and societal trends are increasingly influenced by subnational dynamics.” -Brookings Institute
The Metropolitan Policy Program at the Brookings Institute has a new report out for 2018 called the Global Metro Monitor.
Here are some of the highlights (data is from 2014 to 2016):
- The 300 largest metro areas in the world accounted for 36% of employment growth and 67% of GDP growth.
- Metro areas in China and the Asia-Pacific region outperformed, whereas Latin American cities, and in particular the largest Brazilian cities, were weaker performers.
- The majority of large metro areas had growth rates that exceeded that of their respective regions. So again, cities are the driver.
And here is an interesting interactive chart (better to click through) that shows the % change in GDP per capita.
Look at how much of an outlier San Jose is. Though, check out Dublin in the footnote. And if you look at the actual data table, it is all China, except for Dublin at the top.
For the rest of the charts, click here. And to download the full Global Metro Monitor report, click here.
These facts probably aren't all that surprising to most of you. But it is an important reminder of how concentrated the new economy is becoming in big -- or perhaps I should say, certain -- cities. The Brookings Institution recently referred to this as "a crisis of regional imbalance." Because it's not just a case of urban vs. rural. Brookings found that from 2005 to 2017, more than 90% of innovation sector growth in the US could be traced back to just five metro areas. (You'll be able to guess most of the five. Only one stood out for me.)
This is the world we live in.
These facts probably aren't all that surprising to most of you. But it is an important reminder of how concentrated the new economy is becoming in big -- or perhaps I should say, certain -- cities. The Brookings Institution recently referred to this as "a crisis of regional imbalance." Because it's not just a case of urban vs. rural. Brookings found that from 2005 to 2017, more than 90% of innovation sector growth in the US could be traced back to just five metro areas. (You'll be able to guess most of the five. Only one stood out for me.)
This is the world we live in.
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog