Evolving Urban Form: Development Profiles of World Urban Areas

Demographia World Urban Areas - 2025

Wendell Cox — Fri, 29 Aug 2025 20:28:38 -0400

1: Introduction

Demographia World Urban Areas (Built-up Urban Areas or Urban Agglomerations) is the only regularly published inventory of population, corresponding land area and population density for urban areas with more than 500,000 population. Unlike some other regularly produced lists, Demographia World Urban Areas applies a generally consistent definition to built-up urban areas.

2: Defining Urban Areas

Urban areas are urban footprints, or expanses of urbanization on the natural environment. Urban footprint data is reported without regard to political boundaries that are generally associated with metropolitan areas or sub-national jurisdictions. A useful definition was supplied by Alex Blei, of the NYU (New York University) Stern Marron Institute Urban Expansion Project, who described urban areas as contiguous or mostly contiguous built-up areas that “function as an integrated economic unit, linked together by commuting flows, social and economic interactions.”
Combined Urban Areas

This edition of Demographia World Urban Areas introduces a broadened definition that combines adjacent urban areas, where nearby urban areas have become a single urban footprint. This revision has been undertaken especially in response to the spreading of continuous urbanization in China, the ultimate being in the Pearl River Delta (Guangzhou-Shenzhen) and the Yangtze River Delta, stretching from Shanghai to Changzhou, which are now shown as the first and second largest urban areas in the world.

In the United States, single labor markets can be either metropolitan areas (MSAs), or combined statistical areas (CSAs), which are, overlapping metropolitan areas or metropolitan regions, with somewhat weaker commuting interchanges. Where continuous urban footprints exist within a CSA. Demographia World Urban Areas combines them into a single urban area. For example, the New York built-up urban area stretches from New York to other US Census Bureau defined urban areas, such as Bridgeport-Stamford, New Haven, and Trenton and others (Table 1).

In addition, the US Census Bureau has retained some urban areas, despite their now continuous urbanization with other urban areas within the same metropolitan areas. Demographia World Urban Areas combines this into a single built-up urban area. Cleveland and Lorain, Ohio, as well as Orlando and Kissimmee, Florida are examples of this (Table 2).

Read the full report here.

Wendell Cox is principal of Demographia, an international public policy firm located in the St. Louis metropolitan area. He is a Senior Fellow with Unleash Prosperity in Washington and the Frontier Centre for Public Policy in Winnipeg and a member of the Advisory Board of the Center for Demographics and Policy at Chapman University in Orange, California. He has served as a visiting professor at the Conservatoire National des Arts et Metiers in Paris. His principal interests are economics, poverty alleviation, demographics, urban policy and transport. He is author of the annual Demographia International Housing Affordability Survey and author of Demographia World Urban Areas.

Mayor Tom Bradley appointed him to three terms on the Los Angeles County Transportation Commission (1977-1985), which was a predecessor agency to the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro). Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich appointed him to the Amtrak Reform Council, to complete the unexpired term of New Jersey Governor Christine Todd Whitman (1999-2002). He is author of War on the Dream: How Anti-Sprawl Policy Threatens the Quality of Life and Toward More Prosperous Cities: A Framing Essay on Urban Areas, Transport, Planning and the Dimensions of Sustainability.

Hong Kong 2021 Census: The Evolving Urban Form

Wendell Cox — Tue, 27 Feb 2024 20:28:58 -0500

According to the 2021 census, Hong Kong grew from a population of 7.337 million in 2016 to 7.413 million. This article describes the population and population densities of Hong Kong and its major areas.

Hong Kong is the second densest urban area (a geography that excludes rural areas) with more than 1,000,000 residents and the densest among the large urban areas in the high-income world, at 23,000 per square kilometer or 58,000 per square mile. Yet despite the crowding, Hong Kong had achieved high income status by 1990, and exceeded Great Britain’s GDP per capita by that time. Hong Kong also ranked as the 10th densest urban area over 1,000,000 population in the world (Figure 1: District Map and Figure 2: Population History).

Hong Kong Island: Hong Kong Island includes the central business district (Figure 3), which is among the densest employment centers in the world, and with some of the tallest skyscrapers. Hong Kong Island used to be home to most of Hong Kong’s population, but has declined since 2001 from 1.336 million to 1.196 million, a loss of 10.5%. This urban core loss (reflected also below in Kowloon) is typical. Contrary to the press and popular notion that cities become denser as they grow, the opposite is largely true — urban core areas tend to lose population as cities grow both in China and elsewhere. In 2021, Hong Kong Island had a population density of 15,000 per square kilometer, or 38,700 residents per square mile, which is more than double that of the city of San Francisco.

Kowloon: Kowloon, across Hong Kong harbor from Hong Kong Island had a population of 2.232 million, down slightly from 2016, and well below the 1981 census figure of 2.449 million (Figure 4). Kowloon had been the most populous area of Hong Kong from at least 1961 to 1981. Kowloon is the densest area in Hong Kong, with 47,600 per square kilometer or 123,200 per square mile. This is about double the density of New York’s Manhattan or the ville de Paris (inside the Boulevard Peripherique).

New Territories: Much of the new residential development for the last 50 years has been in the New Territories, which are between Kowloon on the south and the mainland China border (Shenzhen) on the north. By 1991, the new territories had exceeded the population of Kowloon. The 2021 census reported a population of just under 4 million. Since the last census (2016) the New Territories accounted for virtually all of Hong Kong’s population growth, adding 144,000, while the other areas lost a combined 67,000.

The New Territories has had more than half of the population of Hong Kong since at least the 2011 census. The new territories has a population density of 4,100 per square kilometer or 10,700 per square mile (The area density figures include the rural areas). There is considerable greenfield land in the New Territories which can be expected to continue growing its population faster than any other Hong Kong area. This is likely to be aided by the proposed Northern Metropolis that is being planned for a large area adjacent to the mainland China/Shenzhen (see Note below). A population of up to 2.5 million is being planned (Figure 5: New Territories, across the river where the new Northern Metropolis will be built, photo from Shenzhen).

Marine: The marine population (living on boats) has been dropping for decades, having peaked at 137,000 in 1961 and now has around 1000 residence, a decline of 99%.

Hong Kong, The Future: It seems likely that Hong Kong will grow more slowly in the future, barring a massive infusion from the mainland. But as in China, Hong Kong suffers a very low Total Fertility Rate (TFR) of 0.772 children per woman of child-bearing years. This compares to South Korea, the lowest national rate, at 0.809, Macao (1.088), China (116.4) and Japan (1.300). Each of these World Bank 2021 TFRs is well below the replacement rate of 2.100.

In a word, Hong Kong’s future population seems likely to tilt further from its historic core. It may be more dense than any other Western urban area, but its trajectory follows the dispersion pattern common virtually everywhere.

Note: Shenzhen, which borders Hong Kong to the North, was a fishing village in the late 1970s, when it was established as a special economic region by the government of China. Shenzhen has grown to a population of nearly 18 million, as reported in the 2020 census. No city in world history has grown so much in so little time. Shenzhen is the fourth largest city in China, trailing only Shanghai, Beijing and Guangzhou, according to the 2020 census.

Wendell Cox is principal of Demographia, an international public policy firm located in the St. Louis metropolitan area. He is a founding senior fellow at the Urban Reform Institute, Houston, a Senior Fellow with the Frontier Centre for Public Policy in Winnipeg and a member of the Advisory Board of the Center for Demographics and Policy at Chapman University in Orange, California. He has served as a visiting professor at the Conservatoire National des Arts et Metiers in Paris. His principal interests are economics, poverty alleviation, demographics, urban policy and transport. He is co-author of the annual Demographia International Housing Affordability Survey and author of Demographia World Urban Areas.

Mayor Tom Bradley appointed him to three terms on the Los Angeles County Transportation Commission (1977-1985) and Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich appointed him to the Amtrak Reform Council, to complete the unexpired term of New Jersey Governor Christine Todd Whitman (1999-2002). He is author of War on the Dream: How Anti-Sprawl Policy Threatens the Quality of Life and Toward More Prosperous Cities: A Framing Essay on Urban Areas, Transport, Planning and the Dimensions of Sustainability.

Photograph: Star Ferry, between in Hong Kong Harbor between Hong Kong Island and Kowloon. There are also MTR (mass transit) and highway tunnels crossing the Harbor. All photos are by the author.

Summary of World Urban Population by Nation and Region

Wendell Cox — Mon, 18 Dec 2023 20:28:38 -0500

Defining "Built-Up Urban Area"

The term urban area refers to a continuously built landmass devoted to urban development. Unlike metropolitan areas, urban areas have no rural land within their boundaries. Similar definitions are used by national statistical authorities, such as in the United Kingdom (built up urban areas), Canada (population centres), the United States (urban areas) and Australia urban centres) and Scandinavian countries (urban areas).

Urban areas constitute "urban footprints," illuminated cityscape visible at night from an airplane or satellite. This continuous urban area is within the surrounding metropolitan region, but the two have very different definitions. This article is a summary of urban populations and densities in the nearly 1,000 urban areas with 500,000 or more residents, using data from the 19th edition of Demographia World Urban Areas.

Internal Variations in Density

Population density data for urban areas often masks significant internal variations. Within the same urban area, densities can range drastically. For example, North American Urban areas typically exhibit lower densities, sometimes below 400 people per square kilometer, whereas informal settlements (slums) can reach over 1,000,000 per square kilometer, such as in Dhaka, Bangladesh.

Comparing the Phoenix and Boston-Providence urban areas further illustrates this point in the American contest. It may seem surprising that Phoenix boasts a 60% higher average density than Boston-Providence. This is true even though the latter's highest density areas are at least five times as dense as those of Phoenix. Boston-Providence possesses a larger and denser central business district but its suburbs are far less dense than those in Phoenix. These internal variations are important to understanding the urban form. Despite its lower core densities in comparison to New York, Los Angeles' dense suburbs make it the most densely populated large urban area in the United States. This reflects the irony of the urban area most associated with "urban sprawl" factually being the least sprawling in the United States. Indeed, the San Jose urban area, nearly all of which is suburban, is denser than the New York urban area. Conversely, New York, despite much higher densities within the core, like the Boston area, sprawls over a larger area than any other urban area globally.

Similarly, London and Athens have comparable average densities, yet Athens boasts considerably higher core densities and much lower suburban densities. Likewise, the Essen-Dusseldorf and Milan Urban areas exhibit nearly identical overall densities, but Milan boasts a notably denser core.

The Difference Between Urban Areas and Metropolitan Areas

Urban areas are materially different from metropolitan areas, which are distinct entities. A metropolitan area represents a labor market (and coincidentally, a housing market), which includes the principal urban area, surrounding also economically connected rural areas and smaller urban areas outside the principal urban area.

Urban areas draw commuters from labor markets that are larger geographically. For instance, the Paris urban area encompasses 2,845 square kilometers, while the Paris metropolitan area spans 17,100 square kilometers, indicating that over 80% of the land area lies outside the urban area itself.

Due to their fundamental differences, it is generally inappropriate to make comparisons between urban areas and metropolitan areas. Comparing urban areas and metropolitan areas is akin to comparing apples and oranges (Figure 1).

Urban Densities by Extent of Development

In 2023, approximately 2.3 billion lived in nearly 1,000 urban areas with more than 500,000, at an average population density of 4,200 per square kilometer. About 555 million people — one–quarter of the urban population — lives in 249 urban areas in more developed regions. Their average urban population density is 1,800 per square kilometer.

The less developed regions include 1,752 million residents in 737 urban areas with more than 500,000 residents. The average population density of these urban areas is 7,100 per square kilometer. This is nearly four times the density in the urban areas of - more developed regions (Figure 2).

The highest urban densities at the national level are in Bangladesh (26,000) and the Democratic Republic of the Congo (17,000). This is considerably higher than in the more developed world. Urban areas in more developed nations generally thought to have dense urban areas are considerably less dense than in the less developed world, such as Japan, at 4,000) and Europe at 3,000 (Schedule 1 PDF opens in new tab or window).

The urban population densities in Japan and Europe are double to more than triple than those of Australia (1,500) and the United States (1,200). At the same time, the urban population densities of countries like Bangladesh, Nigeria, India, Pakistan and Indonesia are even higher compared to those of Japan and Europe, more than double to eight times as high (Figure 3).

Global Variations

Urban population densities constitute a diverse global picture, with significant variations between nations and, to a lesser extent within nations. This diversity often challenges common perceptions and underscores the need for tailored approaches to urban analysis.

Photo: Buenos Aires (1986), Avenida 9th de Julio with the Obelisk in the center, by Nathan Hughes Hamilton via Flickr under CC 2.0 License.

The Future of Cities: The Future of Chinese Cities

Li Sun — Fri, 10 Feb 2023 19:28:58 -0500

China represents the cutting edge of 21st century urbanism. Its successes and failures will shape global perceptions of city life, not only in that country but around the world. When future historians assess the 21st century, China, along with India, will likely be their focus. The key shapers, discussed below, include demographics, the impact of digitization, environmental protection, and a looming class divide.

This book is being published as a series, with permission of the American Enterprise Institute. Each week a new chapter will be published, with links to each chapter.

Click or tap a link below to read or download each chapter. (PDFs open in new tab or window)

Introduction: Welcome to the Urban Future – Joel Kotkin

I. The Big Picture for Global Geography

American Aspiration is Metropolitan – Ryan Streeter

The Urban Future: The Great Dispersion – Wendell Cox

The Future of the Big American City is Not Bright – Samuel J. Abrams

II. The Variety of Urban Experiences

The Future of Chinese Cities – Li Sun (new this week)

Li Sun is a lecturer in sociology and social policy at the University of Leeds. Her main research interest is China’s urbanization and governance. Sun also serves as a consultant to the UN, World Bank, and Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. She is the author of Rural Urban Migration and Policy Intervention in China: Migrant Workers’ Coping Strategies (Palgrave Macmillan, 2019).

Densification in Toronto: The Evolving Urban Form

Wendell Cox — Tue, 12 Jul 2022 20:28:58 -0400

Like many of the world’s largest cities (Note 1), public policy seeks to densify Toronto, which is already the densest urban area (the international term) or population centre (the Canadian term) in North America (as used here, north of Mexico). An urban area is continuously built up urbanization and is routinely at the core of a metropolitan area (in Canada, a Census Metropolitan Area, or CMA). In Toronto, the population centre occupies 31% of the CMA land area, while the rest of the CMA --- 69% of the land, principally rural, is outside the population centre.

Densification from 2016 to 2021

Toronto is densifying, but perhaps not as much as the public may have been led to believe. At the previous census (2016), the Toronto population center had a density of 3,028 per square kilometer (7,843 per square mile). This is 12% above Los Angeles, the second densest urban area in Northern America (2010). Perhaps more surprisingly the Toronto populaation center is 48% denser than New York. New York may be everyone’s favorite density champion, but it is the least dense megacity in the world.

By 2021, the Toronto population center had risen to a density of 3,088 per square kilometer (7,997 per square mile), an increase of 2.0%.

Overall, the Toronto CMA added 274,000 residents, a gain of 4.6% from the 2016 population. The Toronto population center added 218,000 residents, an increase of 4.0%.

Where the Densification Occurred

The table below summarizes the change in population in the Toronto CMA by sector.

Urban Core Densification: The largest percentage gain occured in the centre of Toronto, in three federal electoral districts, which are defined for this article as the urban core (Note 2). The urban core added 46,000 residents, an increase of 14.0%. This is more than three times the CMA population increase rate.

The largest increase was in the Spadina-Fort York electoral district, with an increase of 17.9%. nearly four times the CMA increase. Spadina-Fort York includes the municipality of Toronto City Hall and has a population density of 6,485/16,800.

Toronto-Centre had an increase of 15.5% and has by far the highest population density among the federal electoral districts in the CMA. At 20,531/53,175, Toronto Centre is about as dense as the ville de Paris, but about a quarter less dense than New York’s Manhattan. But, Toronto-Centre covers a much smaller land area, at 5.88 square kilometers. Manhattan is about 10 times as large (59 square kilometers) and Parisis about 18 times as large (105 square kilometers).

The third urban core federal electoral district, Toronto-St. Paul’s, gained 8.4% from 2016 to 2021.

However, the federal electoral districts that border on the urban core (defined herein as the “inner ring”) gained only modestly or even lost population over the past five years. These six districts had a net loss of 1,800 residents and a decline of 0.3%.

Municipality of Toronto: Outside the Urban Core

Outside the urban core and inner ring, the municipality of Toronto gained 19,000 residents, or 1.1%. This is less than a quarter of the CMA increase rate.

Population Center Outside the Municipality of Toronto (the Suburbs)

The third largest percentage gain was in the suburbs — the area between the Toronto municipality limits and the outer edge of the population centre. The suburbs 155,000 added residents, a 5.8% increase from 2016. The suburbs had an urban density of 2,380 per square kilometer or 6,164 per square mile.

This area includes Mississauga, the largest suburb in Canada, with a population of 718,000. Mississauga has experienced substantial high density development over the past decade (Photo above), yet its population increased only 0.6% since 2011, including a 0.5% loss between 2016 and 2021.

Metropolitan Area Outside the Population Centre (the Exurbs)

Yet the big growth, as around US metropolitan areas, has been in the suburbs and exurbs. The second largst percentage increase in population occurred between the population center and the CMA boundary. Here there was an increase of 56,000 residents, an increase of 12.0% over the five years. The population density of this principally rural sector was 136 per square kilometer (353 per square mile). Some of the land is urban, such as the Milton and Orangeville population centres.

Distribution of Population Growth

The suburbs and exurbs accounted for 77.1% of the CMA population growth between 2016 and 2021. The municipality of Toronto accounted for 22.9% of the CMA growth (Figure 1).

While the exurbs had the smallest share of the growth, they attracted one-fifth more than in the densifying urban core (56,000 versus 49,000).

In the 2021 census, the municipality of Toronto fell to less than one-half (49.5%) the population of the population centre and now has 45.1% of the CMA population.

Moreover, despite Toronto’s strong percentage growth in the urban core, it was small compared to the growth of the Toronto population centre and the Toronto CMA. Overall, only 17% of the CMA population growth was in the urban core.

A Tough Environment for Densification

One of the principal purposes of densification is to reduce auto use by enticing drivers to commute by transit instead. Yet there has been little progress on this front, as auto use and traffic congestion have increased.

This is because, for most trips, whether in Toronto, New York or Paris, autos provide greater mobility. International research indicates that the average Toronto CMA resident can reach 4.5 times as many jobs by car as by transit in 30 minutes (calculated from source). Thirty minutes is used as a standard for one-way commuting in a number of metropolitan areas.

Toronto, and all major metropolitan areas in North America, are widely dispersed. Transit can effectively serve concentrated employment, principally downtown (the central business district or the CBD). Toronto’s downtown employment density is estimated at 30,300 per square kilometer, more than 25 times that of the rest of population centres (Figure 2). Only 19% of employment in the Toronto population centre was downtown in 2016, (estimated from Statistics Canada data). The other 81% of jobs was outside downtown and far more accessible by cars (Figure 3).

Downtown’s transit concentration is illustrated byToronto’s extensive suburban rail system. Metrolinxis the second largest in North America, trailing much larger New York. Nearly all trips begin or end (96%) at downtown’s Union Station.

A New World?

The pandemic has resulted in fundamental changes in urban areas.

Remote and hybrid work have reduced auto use far more than could have been realistically expected by attracting drivers to transit. As of May 2022, the Labor Force Survey indicated that remote and hybrid work remained above 25%, more than double the pre-pandemic share of transit commuting, as reported in the 2016 census.

Meanwhile, transit ridership has been decimated. In 2021, Metrolinx carried at least 80% fewer riders than in 2019, ridership, while the Toronto Transit Commission, the subway operator, had seen its ridership drop more than 60%.Moreover, Toronto’s substantial net outmigration to more affordable markets around Ontario has been associated with its rapidly deteriorating housing affordability.

This new world makes densification even more challenging.

Note 1: This article refers to the generic forms of the city, the metropolitan area and the “population center,” which is the Statistics Canada term for “urban area”).

Note 2: Canada’s federal electoral districts provide an effective means for obtaining data that is masked in the largest municipalities (such as the municipality of Toronto). Each federal electoral district elects one of the 338 members to Canada’s House of Commons. With a national population of 37.0 million in 2021, the average federal electoral district had approximately 109,000 residents.

Also See:

Suburbanizing Canada: The 2021 Census

Comparing Urban Densities: Winnipeg and New York

Toronto Solidifies Highest Density Ranking in North America

Canada, US Cities with Largest CBDs Lost Population

Photograph: Absolute World condominiums (56 and 50 floors), in Mississauga, Canada’s largest suburb by Sarbjit Bahga via Wikimedia, CC 4.0 License.

Nashville: The Evolving Urban Form

Wendell Cox — Sun, 23 Jan 2022 20:28:58 -0500

Nashville’s has long been known as “Music City,” a title that dates nearly a century to 1925 when the first “Grand Ole Opry” performance was held in the Ryman Auditorium (above). For even longer, Nashville has been the capital of Tennessee, with the 10th oldest state capitol building in the nation (below). But the big story increasingly has been the area’s rapid growth, Nashville --- the metropolitan area --- (see: Note on Cities 1) has grown by five times in the post-World War II era and doubled since 1990. Nashville, with nearly two million residents had become the nation’s 36th largest metropolitan area according to the 2020 Census.

Tennessee State Capitol in Nashville, Tennessee in public domain, photo by Kaldari.

The Metropolitan Area: Nashville is a recent addition to the list of major metropolitan areas, having had a population of only 320,000 residents in 1950 and nearing 2,000,000 residents in the 2020 census. In 1950, the entire metropolitan area was confined to Davidson County, and the central city of Nashville had about 175,000 residents. The Nashville metropolitan area was the third largest in the state, after Memphis (not yet having spread into Arkansas and Mississippi) which was 50% larger and Knoxville, which was about five percent larger.

During the 1960s, there was a merger of much of Davidson County and the city of Nashville, which greatly increased the population of the “central city” by incorporating vast suburban areas. The successor government is the “Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County” (often referred to as Nashville-Davidson).

Now, Nashville is the largest metro in the state, with about 50% more population than Memphis (1.34 million), which now stretches into Arkansas and Mississippi, and more than double the 880,000 population of the Knoxville metropolitan area.

Between 2010 and 2020, metro Nashville grew 20.9%, trailing only Austin, Orlando and Raleigh among the 56 major metropolitan areas (more than 1,000,000 population).

Consistent with national trends much of the recent growth has been in the suburbs. The metropolitan area now has thirteen counties. Since 1990, 77% of the population growth has been in the suburban counties (as currently defined) outside Davidson County (Figures 1 & 2).

The Urban Area

The Nashville urban area (see: Note on Urban Areas 2) reaches beyond Nashville-Davidson, to include all or part of cities like Franklin and Smyrna (Figure 3: Map).

As elsewhere, both in the United States and outside, the Nashville urban area has declined in density. In 1950, when urban areas were first designated by the US Census Bureau, Nashville’s urban footprint covered fifty-five square miles, with a population of 259,000 and an urban density of about 4,800 residents per square mile.

By 2010, the urban area covered 560 square miles, with a population of 970,000 and a population density of 1,720. The urban density of core Davidson County in 2010 was 2,050. This low density is reflective of the overwhelmingly suburban form of the county.

Exurban areas, which are within the metropolitan area, but outside the Nashville urban area, accounted for a plurality of the population (Figure 4).

Domestic Migration

The Nashville metropolitan area has become one of the strongest destinations for domestic migration (moving from one county within the US to another) in the nation. The metropolitan area added 177,000 net domestic migrants between 2010 and 2020, according to US Census Bureau estimates.

Further, net domestic migration to the Nashville metropolitan area was all to the suburban counties between 2010 and 2020. Core Davidson County lost 7,800 net domestic migrants, while all suburban counties added net domestic migrants and gained a total of 185,000 (Figure 5 & 6).

A recent article in the Los Angeles Times “The Great California Migration” series, focused on Nashville, and quotes one ex-Californian’s reasons for moving: “We wanted to go to a state where we can actually live and have a cost of living that someone young like myself could start a life,” The Nashville metro attracted 58% of Tennessee’s net domestic migration between 2010 and 2020, double its share of the state’s 2020 population.

Tennessee’s Rising Net Domestic Migration

The article also noted the rising popularity of Tennessee as a domestic migration destination for exiting Californians: “Some from Golden State flock to Texas or Nevada, but others find Tennessee’s charm, affordability more alluring.” Nashville’s rise is part of a broader state-wide phenomena. Tennessee has emerged as one of the leading destination states for net domestic migration. Internal Revenue Service data indicates that Tennessee ranked 10th in attracting Californians, following leaders Texas, Arizona, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington and four others between 2014 and 2019 (Figure 7).

The latest Census Bureau estimates, for 2021 and limited to states, indicate that Tennessee is starting the current decade with even stronger net domestic migration, while other leading states have faltered. Tennessee attracted 61,000 net domestic migrants in 2021, up from the 41,000 annual average from 2015 to 2020. Washington had a small 2021 decrease (28), compared to its 2015-2020 average of 50,000. Nevada fell from 40,000 to 25,000, Colorado from 38,000 to 13,000 and Oregon from 32,000 to 8,000 (Figure 8).

Business Migration

Tennessee is also attracting businesses from elsewhere. A Hoover Institution report by Joseph Vranich and Lee E. Ohanian found that in a 3.5-year period ending in June 2021, 272 the corporate headquarters of 272 companies left California, with Tennessee ranking as the second leading destination state, following Texas. Tennessee’s second ranking was an improvement over previous years, when Arizona or Nevada ranked second (based on related research).

Metro Nashville has been a strong competitor for corporate headquarters relocation, with the automobile industry being an example. Two national automobile corporate headquarters --- Nissan and Mitsubishi --- have relocated from California to metro Nashville, both located in suburban Franklin.

Suburban Nashville is also home to two automobile manufacturing plants, including the largest America, originally built to produce GM’s now discontinued Saturn line of cars. Nissan also has a manufacturing facility in Franklin. The state has also become an emerging center for electric cars as well.

Comparative Advantages

Not only has metro Nashville emerged as one of the principal growth centers of the nation, but its momentum may be improving, especially due to net domestic migration. These improved demographics arises, at least in part, from widening competitive advantages, such as its low cost of living, and the absence of a state income tax. Nashville --- like Raleigh and newly emerging southern metros --- appear to have a bright future ahead.

Note on Cities

There are two generic forms of cities. (1) Urban areas, which are the physical extent of built up (developed) land and exclude all urban land and (2) Metropolitan areas, which are centered around the urban area, but which also include exurban areas from which sufficient numbers of resident workers commute to jobs in the urban area.

Note on Urban Areas

Urban areas are the contiguous built-up development that normally includes all or part of multiple municipalities around which, in the United States, metropolitan areas (composed of entire counties) are designated. Urban areas (originally called urbanized area) have been designated for each of the decennial censuses, starting with 1950. For example, the Los Angeles urban area includes the city of Los Angeles and other municipalities stretching 40 miles to the east (city of Ontario) and 50 miles to the south (city of Irvine in Orange County). A map (Figure 9) of the Los Angeles urban area shows all of the included municipalities, with the large yellow area to the left being the city of Los Angeles. At the time of this map (2010), the city of Los Angeles had 3.8 million residents, which is less than one-third of the Los Angeles urban area (12.2 million residents).

Top photo: Ryman Auditorium, the Mother church of country, Nashville, Tennessee - by Daniel Schwen, via Wikimediaunder CC 4.0 License.

Mexico City 2020: The Evolving Urban Form

Wendell Cox — Wed, 08 Dec 2021 20:28:58 -0500

The Mexico City metropolitan area (Zona Metropolitana del Valle de México) continues to grow, though has slowed somewhat from the previous decade. The metropolitan area is the functional or economic city.

The 2020 census of Mexico indicates that the metropolitan area had a population of 21.8 million. This growth was sufficient for Mexico City to remain the largest metropolitan area in North America, above New York’s 2020 census population of 21.4 million. However, the zona metropolitan has fewer residents than 23.6 million in the New York combined statistical area (a larger metropolitan definition).

The metropolitan population was up 8.4% from the 2010 Census but this represents a drop from 9.3% from 2000 to 2010, not to mention 18.2% growth between 1990 to 2000 growth (Figure 1).

Nor is Mexico City still a leader in the country’s growth. Over the last decade the annual growth rate of 0.81% was 30% below the 1.16% for the nation as a whole. The slow growth marks a considerable contrast with the 1980 United Nations (UN) projection that Mexico City would become the largest urban agglomeration in the world by 2000, amassing a 5.2 million lead over projected second ranked Sao Paulo and 7.6 million above third ranked Tokyo (Figure 2). However, what the UN could not predict was the devastating 1985 Mexico City earthquake, after which population growth dropped substantially.

The Mexico City metropolitan area is located in three state level jurisdictions, Ciudad de Mexico (CDMX, or Mexico City) and the states of Mexico and Hidalgo. CDMX replaced the former Distrito Federal in 2016, but, as the national capital, could not become a state under the Constitution of Mexico.

Suburban Growth Dominates

In the last decade, 93% of the growth in the Zona Metropolitana was in the suburbs, and 7% was in the urban core (Figure 3).

Ciudad de Mexico (city of Mexico City, CDMX): The Ciudad de Mexico includes the historic urban core and the area to the outside, or the inner suburbs (below).

Urban Core (CDMX): The urban core, made up of the delegations (wards) of Benito Juárez, Cuauhtémoc, Miguel Hidalgo and Venustiano Carranza added nearly 120,000 residents, or 7% of the growth. The annual growth rate was 0.66%, nearly 45% below the national rate.

Typical of many world metropolitan areas, urban core populations have fallen. These delegations combined for a population of 2.2 million in 1950, peaked at 2.9 million in 1970 and now have more than a third fewer residents (1.8 million). The population loss bottomed out in recent decades, reaching a low of 1.7 million in 1990, about 40% below the 1970 peak (Figure 4). The population density peaked in 1970 at 20,500 per square kilometer (53,900 per square mile), and was down to 13,200 per square kilometer (34,100 per square mile) in 2020. Zocolo, the historic core of Mexico City is located in Cuauhtémoc. The newer commercial core, Reforma, is located in Miguel Hidalgo.

Inner Suburbs (CDMX): The suburbs outside the urban core, but within CDMX added nearly 250,000 residents, or 14% of the growth. The 0.33% annual population growth rate was more than 70% below the national rate. The strongest growth in the inner suburbs was in municipios (municipalities) on the urban fringe, where CDMX backs up on mountainous terrain. Cuajimalpa de Morelos (2020 population 218,000, grew 16.8%, while Milpa Alta (153,000 grew 16.9%).

The newer suburban commercial centre, Santa Fe, is located in Álvaro Obregón, along the freeway to Toluca, the capital of the state of Mexico (approximately 50 kilometers/30 miles to the west). Appealing to many foreign businesses, the area looks more like LA’s Century City to what one would expect in the capital of a developing country.

Suburbs Outside CDMX: The suburbs outside CDMX are divided in this analysis between the Middle Suburbs and the Outer Suburbs.

Middle Suburbs: The middle suburbs, located in the state of Mexico and adjacent to CDMX added about 200,000 residents, or 11% of the growth. The middle suburbs accounted for the least percentage of population growth from 2010 to 2020. The annual population growth rate was 0.30%, nearly three quarters lower than the national rate of 1.16%.

The three largest municipios (municipalities) had virtual stability in their population over the decade. The largest, Ecatepec de Morelos (1.65 million in 2020) lost 0.6% of its population. Nezahualcóyotl (1.08 million) lost 3.0%, while Naucalpan de Juárez (0.83 million) lost 0.1%.

Outer Suburbs and Exurbs: Between the two censuses, the outer suburbs and exurbs, located in the states of Mexico and Hidalgo, grew by 1.1 million and captured 68% of the population growth. Municipios on or near the urban fringe (edge of the continuously developed urban area) have grown the most. Tecámac (547,000 in 2000) grew 50.2% and Zumpango (281,000 grew 75.7%. Huehuetoca (163,000, up 63.2%) and Tizayuca (168,000, up 72.7%). Tizayuca is in the state of Hidalgo, while the other three are in the state of Mexico.

The highest percentage population increase during the decade was in the Outer Suburbs, with an annual growth rate of 2.06%. This is almost 80% above the national rate and the only sector of the metropolitan area that grew faster than the nation as a whole (Figure 4).

Fitting the International Metropolitan Growth Pattern

As with nearly all metropolitan areas in the world, most growth in Mexico City has been in the suburban and exurban areas in recent decades, as opposed to the urban core. The urban core has lost population from its peak, as in other metropolitan areas like Paris, inner London, Lisbon, Vienna, and Boston. Like Paris inner London, Vienna and Boston, some, but not all of the recent population loss of recent loss has been recovered.

Typical of the international experience, Mexico City’s inner and middle suburbs have tended to grow more slowly than the suburbs on the urban fringe (continuously built up area) and the exurbs (beyond the continuously built up area). Although there has been a modest resurgence of population growth in the urban core, as in other major international cities, the preponderant growth has taken place on the urban periphery, where the cost of land is generally more affordable.

Related Articles

Expanding, Productive Mexico City Urban Form

The Evolving Urban Form: Suburbanizing Mexico

The Evolving Urban Form: The Valley of Mexico

Photo: Santa Fe business center in the western suburbs, via Wikimedia under CC 4.0 License.

Greater Manila 2020: The Evolving Urban Form

Wendell Cox — Mon, 23 Aug 2021 20:28:58 -0400

In 2021, the Manila built up urban area is estimated to have a population of 24.0 million, making it the fourth largest urban area in the world, according to Demographia World Urban Areas, covering 873 square kilometers and with a population density of 12,801 per square kilometer (33,135 per square mile). Only Tokyo, Jakarta and Delhi have larger populations. By comparison, the 2021 population of the New York urban area is 20.9 million.

The Greater Manila area continues to grow strongly (Note 1). For the purposes of this article, Greater Manila includes the provinces that share at least a part of the Manila built-up urban area. Greater Manila includes 8 provincial level jurisdictions--- the National Capital Region (NCR), Cavite, Laguna, Batangas, Rizal, Bulacan, Papanga and Angelus Cityand had a 2020 census population of 34.1 million.Greater Manila covers about 13,000 square kilometers, or 5,000 square miles. This is about the same land area as the Miami metropolitan area, which has less than one-fourth the population of Greater Manila.

City of Manila: The core municipality of Manila, in the NCR) has approximately 1.8 million residents and at 43,000 per square kilometer (111,000 per square mile) is one of the densest municipalities in the world. However, outside this crowded core, population densities are far lower.

Greater Manila: In Greater Manila, the 43,000 per square kilometer density of the city of Manila drops off by more than half, to 20,000 in the balance of the National Capital Region (inner suburbs). Then, the population density drops off again in the outer suburbs (balance of the urban area), to 9,000. Outside the Manila urban area the population density is estimated at 1,000 per square kilometer (Figure 1). There is surprisingly a considerable amount of detached and attached ground level single-family housing on small lots throughout Greater Manila, especially in the outer suburbs.

Greater Manila is predominately a suburban city. The core jurisdiction City of Manila now has barely 5.4% of Greater Manila’s population, with nearly 95% living in the suburbs. The balance of Greater Manila’s population is nearly equally split between in the inner suburbs, the outer suburbs, and the exurbs (Figure 2).

As is increasingly the case in the high-income world, the shift has been towards the periphery, particularly to the Outer Suburbs, including Cavite, Laguna, Rizal and Bulacan. Outer suburban growth was 1.9 million, or 63% of the 2015 to 2020 population increase. The inner suburbs (NCR outside the city of Manila) added 0.5 million, or 18% of Greater Manila’s growth. The gain, however, was lower, at 4.9% over five years. The Exurbs, Papanga, Batangas and Angelus City, into which the built-up urban area has recently encroached, accounted for 17% of the Greater Manila growth, also adding 0.5 million for 9.5% of Greater Manila’s growth. The city of Manila accounted for 2% of Greater Manila’s growth and gained 3.7% (Figures 3 & 4).

World Edge City Leader? Greater Manila has a number of suburban business centers that are likely to rival any such collection in the world. Referred to as edge cities, such suburban business centers have become a routine feature of metropolitan areas in recent decades and were identified by Joel Garreau in his 1992 book Edge Cities: Life on the Frontier. Sometimes these suburban developments dwarf the former predominant central business districts.

Greater Manila, for example, has a number of high-rise, high-density edge cities that resemble traditional central business districts, with their hyperdense employment densities. This is in contrast with a large percentage of edge cities, especially in the United States and Canada that are horizontal, with far lower employment densities. The largest edge city is the Makati Central Business District, which is the largest in the nation, bigger than the traditional downtown (see photo below). Makati has been called “the Wall Street of the Philippines.” However, the Philippine Stock Exchange moved from Makati to the nearby Bonifacio Global City in 2017 (photo below).

Further, Ortigas Center (photo below) is, according to the Republic of the Philippines Department of Trade and Industry as the second largest center in Manila, leaving the former Manila central business district no higher than third. Photos of other large business centers are shown below.

Having toured 29 of the world’s 36 megacities (urban areas over 10 million population), I have seen nothing to rival the extent of Manila’s dense edge city development. I doubt any of the that any of the seven remaining would equal Manila.

Greater Manila and World Trends

The Philippines is a lower-middle income nation, according to the latest World Bank assessment. Yet, Greater Manila, with nearly one-third of the national population of 109.0 million, replicates the general pattern of urbanization common throughout the rich West, Japan, and South Korea --- namely suburbanization. Like other metropolitan areas, Greater Manila has welcomed millions of migrants from other parts of the nation, as they seek better lives. Inevitably, nearly all settle where they can afford the housing, which is on the urban periphery. Contrary to the popular myth, cities do not get denser as they get larger. In 1950, nearly all of the Manila urban area was in the city of Manila, which had a population density of more than 35,000 per square kilometer, This suggests that even without complete data, the urban area density in 1950 was far higher than today’s 12,800.

This pattern is common globally. The same suburban and decentralizing trend has been evident in the urban development of Paris, Buenos Aires, Jakarta, Delhi and just about everywhere that international boundaries have not interfered. In such places, a steep decline in population density is associated with increasing distance from the urban core.

Note 1: This article is about the metropolitan area (labor and housing market) of Manila. The term “metropolitan” is avoided, however, because of confusion cause by the popular name of the central province, “Metro Manila” (formal name: National Capital Region of NCR). The NCD has only 40% of the Greater Manila population.

Note 2: This urban area population is considerably above the figure reported by United Nations (14.2 million). United Nations figure is for the National Capital Region, which is also referred to as Metro Manila. In fact, the urban area stretches well beyond Metro Manila.

Makati Central Business District, Greater Manila

Ortigas Center

Bonifacio Global City

Philippine Stock Exchange, Bonifacio Global City

Eastwood City (Quezon City)

Robinson's Cybergate, CC 3.0 License

Images published here under CC 4.0 License, except as noted above.

Lead image: Manila Built-up Urban Area (Demographia World Urban Areas), drawn on Google Earth.

Focusing on World Megacities: Demographia World Urban Areas, 2021

Wendell Cox — Thu, 29 Jul 2021 20:28:58 -0400

The 2021 edition of Demographia World Urban Areas includes current population estimates for the 985 identified built-up urban areas (Note 1 describes the background and methodology) with at least 500,000 population.This is a smaller number than last year, due to a methodology that rendered somewhat lower populations for some urban areas. Demographia World Urban Areas has largely converted (80%) to estimates based on the 250-meter grid square population estimates from the European Commission Global Human Settlement (GHS2015) 250-meter database.

The 500,000 and over urban areas have a combined population of 2.24 billion, about 51.4% of the world’s urban population or 28.9% of the combined world urban and rural population.

The Megacities

The most populous urban areas are the 36 megacities, each with more than 10 million residents. Megacities receive outsized attention due to their influence in media, finance and tourism, but they have only 14.8% of the urban population and 8.3% of the world population. The other urban areas in Demographia World Urban Areas (between 500,000 and 10 million) account for 20.5% of the world population, while smaller urban areas have 27.3% and rural areas 43.9% (Figure 1).

Figure 2 shows the 2021 estimated population for the megacities. The three largest megacities are considerably larger than the others. Tokyo continues its lead as the world’s largest urban area, with 39.1 million residents.Tokyo has been ranked as the world’s largest urban area since 1955, a 75 year record that falls somewhat short of London’s century long primacy, but is more than double the three decade reign of New York (below).

Tokyo holds a nearly 10% lead over second ranked Jakarta, at 35.4 million. Population estimates for the Jakarta urbanhave usually not reflected the entire built-up urban area (Note 2: Underestimation of urban area densities), Jakarta is nearly 10% larger than third ranked Delhi (31.9 million), which has emerged over the last decade as India’s largest, now holding a 10 million (30%) lead over perennial leader Mumbai.

There is a much larger 25% gap between Delhi and fourth ranked Manila (24.0 million), an urban area that, like Jakarta, has often had its population substantially under reported (Note 2). Manila is six percent larger than fifth ranked Sao Paulo, with a population of 22.5 million), which is South America’s largest urban area as well as in the Western Hemisphere.

From sixth rank on, the margins between adjacently ranked urban areas is smaller. The population gap between fifth ranked Sao Paulo and tenth ranked Guangzhou-Foshan is less than five percent. Seoul, ranked sixth with 22.4 million has also been characterized by other sources as having a much smaller population (Note 2).

Mumbai, which some predicted would become the world’s first or second largest urban area, ranked well below that, at 7th in 2021. Mumbai’s 2021 population was a full three million short of a 2020 forecast made in the mid-2000s.

Shanghai is eighth, with 22.1 million. This is well below the United Nations 2020 projection made mid-decade (27 million), population growth was virtually stopped by public policy. The Guardian attributes “gentrification” to be a major cause both in Shanghai and Beijing (below), as lower income areas are redeveloped with newer, less dense housing.

Mexico City, another urban area that had been predicted to become the world’s largest had been forecast before 1980 to reach 31 million residents by 2000. Yet, Mexico City’s 2021 population is only 21.5 million and still ranks only 9th largest in the world.

Guangzhou-Foshan continues to grow strongly and is now estimated to be China’s second largest urban area and 10th largest in the world at 21.5 million. New York, which was the world’s largest urban area for about three decades (starting in the 1920s). ranks 11th, at 20.9 million. New York is a combined urban area that includes the continuous urbanization stretching to New Haven, Connecticut.

Cairo, at 19.7 million ranks 12th and is the largest urban area in Africa. Beijing ranks 13th, with 19.4 million and like Shanghai, had its population growth slow due to population control policies.Beijing had been the world’s largest agglomeration in the early 19th century, and reached one million residents at that time.

Kolkata, which had been India’s largest urban area until 1975, ranked 14th, at 17.8 million. Moscow ranked 14th has 17.7 million, and is the largest urban area in Europe.

Los Angeles ranked 21st, at 15.5 million, dropped out of the top 20 for the first time since before 1950. Los Angeles stood as 12th in 1950, and reached as high as 6th largest from 1965 to 1975. London, with all of the urban area inside the greenbelt (urban growth boundary), has been growing in recent years and achieved megacity status for the first time. London ranks 34th and has a population of 11.2 million, having replaced #35 Paris as the largest urban area in Western Europe. London had been the world’s largest agglomeration for about 100 years to the 1920s.

Highest and Lowest Megacity Densities

Megacity urban population densities (Figure 3) range from a high of 36,900 per square kilometer in Dhaka (95,700 per square mile) and Kinshasa (Democratic Republic of the Congo) at 33,200 per square kilometer (83,600 per square mile) to the least dense megacity (Figure 2, above), New York, at 1,700 per square kilometer (4,500 per square mile). In recent years, considerable peripheral development has been occurring in Dhaka, which used to have a population density well above 40,000 per square kilometer (100,000 per square mile).

Seoul has the highest urban population density among the high-income megacities, at 8,100 per square kilometer (20,900 per square mile). The highest density urban areas in the high income world are in China, Macau (27,300 per square kilometer or 70,600 per square mile) and Hong Kong (25,500 per square kilometer or 66,100 per square mile).

Largest and Smallest Urban Footprint (Urban Land Area)

New York --- often seen as the epitome of dense urbanism --- in reality has the largest urban footprint of any built-up urban area, covering 12,100 square kilometers (4,700 square kilometers). New York covers nearly 50 percent more land area than much larger Tokyo-Yokohama and 90 percent more land area than Los Angeles and 27 times the land area of Dhaka.

Dhaka has smallest urban footprint, at 456 square kilometers (176 square miles), followed closely by Kinshasa, with 466 square kilometers and 180 square miles (Figure 4).

Disruptions: The Pandemic and Remote Work

There are reports that the Covid-19 pandemic has severely impacted large urban areas, with many households relocating to smaller urban areas elsewhere or nearer the urban fringe. Much of this has to do with the rise of remote work, the practicality of which was proven by its success, and muted the economic losses that would have occurred had remote workers lost their jobs rather than continuing to work. In the years to come, pandemic related disruptions to the world’s largest urban areas will become clearer. We will continue to follow these developments.

Description of Tables

Demographia World Urban Areas contains five tables that provide summary and ranking information:

Schedule 1: World Summary: Built-Up Urban Areas Over 500,000

Schedule 2: Largest Built-Up Urban Areas in the World
Schedule 3: Built-Up Urban Areas Ranked by Land Area (Urban Footprint)

Schedule 4: Built-Up Urban Areas Ranked by Urban Population Density

Schedule 5: Alphabetical List of Built-Up Urban Areas

Note 1: Demographia World Urban Areas is in its 17th year of publication. It was established to provide consistency to the estimation of urban density, in the all too frequent erroneous anecdotal data. The built-up urban area is the only level at which there is sufficiency consistency and sufficient data to estimate the densities of the urban organism at anything approximating international standards.

There continues to be considerable confusion about the measurement of urban densities. The key is in comprehending the differences between urban areas and metropolitan areas. Built-up urban areas are continuously built-up development that, by definition excludes rural lands (all of the world’s land is either in urban areas or rural). This is illustrated by the Paris built up urban area and the Paris metropolitan area in Figure 5. Built-up urban areas are the city in its physical form, as opposed to metropolitan areas, which are the economic or functional cities (the labor and housing markets). These terms are defined by Cheshire, et al. of the London School of Economics (see: “People rather than places, ends rather than means: LSE economists on urban containment”).

Demographia World Urban Areas uses base year population estimates, principally from the European Commission Global Human Settlement (GHS2015) 250 meter database (grid square estimates). National statistical authority base year estimates are used where identified and consistent with international definitions.These figures are then adjusted to account for population change forecasts, principally from the United Nations and the national statistics bureaus for a current year estimate.

Demographia combines extensions of continuously built-up areas, where they are a part of a larger labor market (such as New York, Bridgeport-Stamford and New Haven, Los Angeles, Riverside-San Bernardino and Mission Viejo and Toronto, Hamilton and Oshawa).

Demographia World Urban Areas is a continuing project providing “state of the art” data. Revisions are made as more accurate satellite photographs and population estimating resources become available. As a result, Demographia World Urban Areas is not intended for trend analysis.

Note 2: Underestimation of urban area populations: Demographia World Urban Areas was the first to identify the under-estimation of population in some of the largest urban areas, by other sources. For example, Demographia’s early population estimates for the Jakarta, Delhi, Manila, Seoul-Incheon and Kuala Lumpur built-up urban areas were far higher than reported by others at the time. Other sources have revised their estimates upward. The earlier, lower estimates of others were, in actuality, municipal estimates that did not sufficiently take into consideration the spread of urbanization beyond city or other geographical limits. Demographia’s larger population estimates resulted from satellite map examination to determine the extent of individual built-up urban areas.

Photograph: Cover, 17th Annual Demographia World Urban Areas: Buenos Aires: Retiro Railway Station with the Rio de la Plata in the background (by author)

Katowice-Gliwice-Tychy: The Evolving Urban Form

Wendell Cox — Fri, 20 Nov 2020 20:29:01 -0500

Katowice-Gliwice-Tychy (hyperlinks are audio pronunciations) is fast-developing Poland’s second largest continuously developed urban area (urban agglomeration), with 1.7 million residents. Only the Warsaw urban area has a larger population, at 1.9 million), according to the 2020 edition of Demographia World Urban Areas. The urban area covers 675 square kilometers (261 square miles and has a population density of 2,550 per square kilometer, or 6,613 per square mile (Photo 1). The area is also referred to as the Upper Silesian urban area.

A Genuine Conurbation

Katowice-Gliwice-Tychy is a genuine conurbation, an urban area formed by the merging of separate urban areas into one. Continuous urban areas have no rural territory. Unlike conurbations, most urban areas are formed as a larger urban area engulfs smaller suburbs, exurbs and rural areas. In a conurbation, there is usually no overly dominant core municipality. The largest conurbation in the world is Osaka-Kobe-Kyoto, where four historic cities (including Naha) have expanded and merged together, especially since World War II.

Katowice-Gliwice-Tychy is similar to another much larger conurbation, Germany’s Essen-Dusseldorf (the “Rhine-Ruhr”), which has more than three times as many residents (6.1 million). Both conurbations have been the leading industrial areas of their nations and major centers of coal and steel production. Other similarities will be discussed below.

The Urban Form

The largest municipality in the urban area, Katowice has about 1/6th of the population, at just below 300,000 residents. Four other municipalities have populations above 150,000, including Sosnoweic, Gliwice, Zabrze and Bytom. All of the largest cities have lost population in recent years. Katowice reached its peak population of about 370,000 in 1987, with the latest city estimate (2019) down more than 20% to 292,000.

This is also similar to the Essen-Dusseldorf urban area, where the three largest municipalities each have approximately 10% of the population, while 70 % are in smaller municipalities.

The urban area is principally linear, stretching is 55 kilometers east to west (33 miles), somewhat less than the east-west orientation of Essen Dusseldorf.

With its heavy industrial and mining economy, Katowice-Gliwice-Tychy has a multitude of factory buildings. But there has also been considerable redevelopment of the area. The photograph above shows the Silesian City Center, which is a large enclosed mall in the core of Katowice, and opened in 2005. Modern development is also evident in Photos 3 to 6.

Heritage development is illustrated in Photos in Katowice, Chorzow, Zabrze (called Hindenberg between World War I and World War II) and Gliwice (Photos 7 to 11).

Like virtually all European urban areas, Katowice-Gliwice-Tychy has developed large suburban areas. Suburban housing is illustrated in Photos 12-18.

Historical Significance

Katowice-Gliwice-Tychy has had historical significance. In 1742, the area was ceded by Austria to Prussia, after the First Silesian War and was a part of the unified Germany that emerged before World War I. The Upper Silesian Urban Area was the southeastern most extension of Germany, with Krakow in the Austro-Hungarian Empire, only 80 kilometers (50 miles away), while the Russian Empire extended to within 50 kilometers (30 miles) of both Katowice and Krakow (to the north and east).

After the German defeat, the Republic of Poland was established by the Treaty of Versailles, but the sovereignty over some border areas were not firmly established. Such as Upper Silesia. In the early 1920s, after uprisings and instability, the area was split between Germany and Poland, with western municipalities, such as Gliwice, Bytom and Zabrze becoming German, while Katowice became Polish.

The opening salvos of World War II in Europe began on September 1, 1939, as Germany invaded Poland, claiming that there had been an armed provocation by Poland on the previous day. The reality is that the provocation had been a ruse by a German force attired in Polish uniforms on a radio tower in Gliwice (Photo 19).

In another similarity, the Essen-Dusseldorf conurbation also made history before World War II, as it had been included in the demilitarized Rhineland, under the Treaty of Versailles. One of the most important events leading up to World War II was the reoccupation of the Rhineland by Germany.

After World War II, Poland was re-established and the entire Katowice-Gliwice-Tychy urban area was placed in Poland, in part to make up to eastern lands ceded to Stalin’s Soviet Union. Poland’s westward expansion went to the Oder River, under the Potsdam Agreement. This area included now Polish named Wroclaw (formerly Breslau, Photo 20), 170 kilometers (110 miles) to the west of Katowice. Baltic port Szczecin (formerly Stettin) was also added to Poland (Photo 21). At the same time, a Soviet annexation of an even larger area of Poland was included in the Potsdam agreement.

In a footnote to Cold War history, the city of Katowice was renamed Stalinogrod, in honor of Soviet leader Josef Stalin following his death in 1953. This change was reversed in 1956. More recently, with the collapse of the Communist regime in 1989 times have fared better for Poland.

Transforming the Silesian Region

Katowice is the capital of the Silesian province (Voivodeship), which has the second largest population (4.5 million) and greatest urbanization percentage in Poland. The province, like the Rhine-Ruhr and other coal producing areas of the world has seen substantial declines in mining and will need to rely on other sectors to remain prosperous. Mining has dropped as a share of the provincial economy from 9.7% in 2000 to 6.9% in 2019.

But as in other parts of central or eastern Europe, the economy is changing. CBRE has ranked the Katowice cluster (Silesian province, which includes the entire Katowice-Gliwice-Tychy urban area) as the sixth strongest high-tech growth cluster in Europe (out of 281 NUTS 2 regions of Europe). To qualify for the top ten, a tech cluster must have had double digit growth since 2010, with a projection for growth in the next five years. This is an important sign of economic transformation and progress.

Poland, whose history is marked by tragedy, has been on the ascendancy and the Upper Silesian urban area has been an important part of that change.

Photo credits: lead photo of Silesia City Center, Katowice via Wikimedia; Photo 3, by Jan Mehlich via Wikimedia; Photo 19 by Andrzej Jarczewski via Wikimedia under CC 3.0 License. Photo 4, by thepoweroflight via Wikimedia under CC 4.0 License. Other photos by author, except photo 1 from Google Earth.

Wendell Cox is principal of Demographia, an international public policy firm located in the St. Louis metropolitan area. He is a founding senior fellow at the Urban Reform Institute, Houston and a member of the Advisory Board of the Center for Demographics and Policy at Chapman University in Orange, California. He has served as a visiting professor at the Conservatoire National des Arts et Metiers in Paris. His principal interests are economics, poverty alleviation, demographics, urban policy and transport. He is co-author of the annual Demographia International Housing Affordability Survey and author of Demographia World Urban Areas.

Mayor Tom Bradley appointed him to three terms on the Los Angeles County Transportation Commission (1977-1985) and Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich appointed him to the Amtrak Reform Council, to complete the unexpired term of New Jersey Governor Christine Todd Whitman (1999-2002). He is author of War on the Dream: How Anti-Sprawl Policy Threatens the Quality of Life and Toward More Prosperous Cities: A Framing Essay on Urban Areas, Transport, Planning and the Dimensions of Sustainability.