3 ms·

It is simply not true that European cities continued to grow in the manner you describe. Deindustralisation and urban decay were the defining elements of post-w

It is simply not true that European cities continued to grow in the manner you describe. Deindustralisation and urban decay were the defining elements of post-war Europe. The loss of industrial employers in cities led to conditions that were so bad that the post-war UK government demolished large amounts of city-center housing as “slums” and the development of an increasingly dysfunctional urban environment - Birmingham, which peaked in 1951 was the inspiration for Stanley Kubrik’s “A Clockwork Orange”. The contemporary inversion of the core of European cities is a modern phenomenon because most European cities spent the latter half of the 20th century in a similarly impoverished situation to the US. It is gentrification and taxpayer-funded regeneration that has fixed this problem - Don’t make the mistake of thinking that the problem never occurred. So how did Europe fix it? Perhaps because Europe has better social programs and social housing and is able and willing to fund them. As a European looking at the US I see a place that, despite its complex history, is really not so different in terms of the factors driving urban and suburban living. Its racism may be unique and distinguishing but it is not always the most important factor.

rayiner 8y ago
It's interesting you use Birmingham as an example. Birmingham peaked in 1951, but lost only 10% of its population by the 1980s, and is now nearly as populous as it was before. Philadelphia, a comparably-sized city, lost a quarter of its population since 1950, and never recovered. Baltimore lost 40% of its population and never recovered. D.C. lost 30% of its population and is only gradually recovering now. Chicago lost 25% of its population. Detroit lost 2/3 of its population, even while the surrounding suburbs were booming by providing the cars that made suburbanization possible. Major European cities (Munich, Rome, Madrid, London, Paris), meanwhile, grew consistently during that time. Where is the precedent in Western Europe for a city of 1.8 million people (bigger than Munich or Barcelona) losing 65% of its population? It doesn't exist. And unlike Birmingham, whose decline was tied to specific economic problems, the metro areas of these U.S. cities continued to do well despite staggering population losses and ghettofication in the core cities. It's not like the suburbs of Birmingham were prospering while the core city was in decline. Europeans really don't understand the scale of the race problem in the U.S. Many Americans don't understand it--it's hard to understand until you spend some time in Philadelphia, etc., and see a place that is majority minority and disproportionately low income, surrounded by prosperous mostly white suburbs. It's a demographic trend that happened literally because white people didn't want to live next to black people, and simply left.
- jahewson 8y ago
  Your numbers aren't quite right. Birmingham lost 15% of its population between 1950 and 2000, Philadelphia lost 26% in that period. It's not hard to find other similar industrial UK cities which were harder hit. Newcastle lost 24% of its population over the same period, Liverpool lost a staggering 43%. Even in London, within the inner city where industry resided the working poor lived, e.g. Hackney, lost 22% of its population. None of these areas have recovered their former populations. This refutes your claim about London growing - it's the suburbs within greater London that have grown and it is there where the population shifted. Just as in the US, cities have shrunk while their surrounding metro areas have grown. Having seen the desolation of the boarded up industrial sites of Philadelia and of the UK, I can say that they look pretty similar (that is to say shocking - though far more so in my youth). The general pattern of cities in the UK's industrial north is exactly the same as that seen in the US - a small, regenerated downtown, surrounded by small, low-quality dwellings occupied by low income families, surrounded by increasingly nice suburbs where everybody else lives. I'm not sure why anybody thinks this problem is unique to the US.

rayiner 8y ago

It's interesting you use Birmingham as an example. Birmingham peaked in 1951, but lost only 10% of its population by the 1980s, and is now nearly as populous as it was before. Philadelphia, a comparably-sized city, lost a quarter of its population since 1950, and never recovered. Baltimore lost 40% of its population and never recovered. D.C. lost 30% of its population and is only gradually recovering now. Chicago lost 25% of its population. Detroit lost 2/3 of its population, even while the surrounding suburbs were booming by providing the cars that made suburbanization possible. Major European cities (Munich, Rome, Madrid, London, Paris), meanwhile, grew consistently during that time. Where is the precedent in Western Europe for a city of 1.8 million people (bigger than Munich or Barcelona) losing 65% of its population? It doesn't exist. And unlike Birmingham, whose decline was tied to specific economic problems, the metro areas of these U.S. cities continued to do well despite staggering population losses and ghettofication in the core cities. It's not like the suburbs of Birmingham were prospering while the core city was in decline. Europeans really don't understand the scale of the race problem in the U.S. Many Americans don't understand it--it's hard to understand until you spend some time in Philadelphia, etc., and see a place that is majority minority and disproportionately low income, surrounded by prosperous mostly white suburbs. It's a demographic trend that happened literally because white people didn't want to live next to black people, and simply left.

jahewson 8y ago
Your numbers aren't quite right. Birmingham lost 15% of its population between 1950 and 2000, Philadelphia lost 26% in that period. It's not hard to find other similar industrial UK cities which were harder hit. Newcastle lost 24% of its population over the same period, Liverpool lost a staggering 43%. Even in London, within the inner city where industry resided the working poor lived, e.g. Hackney, lost 22% of its population. None of these areas have recovered their former populations. This refutes your claim about London growing - it's the suburbs within greater London that have grown and it is there where the population shifted. Just as in the US, cities have shrunk while their surrounding metro areas have grown. Having seen the desolation of the boarded up industrial sites of Philadelia and of the UK, I can say that they look pretty similar (that is to say shocking - though far more so in my youth). The general pattern of cities in the UK's industrial north is exactly the same as that seen in the US - a small, regenerated downtown, surrounded by small, low-quality dwellings occupied by low income families, surrounded by increasingly nice suburbs where everybody else lives. I'm not sure why anybody thinks this problem is unique to the US.