One in six of the US population live in 2% of its land area, and other things we learned from this mapping tool

Wow. Lot of people. Image: Sedac.

So here’s a cool thing doing the rounds on social media, as cool things are wont to do: a tool, courtesy of the Socioeconomic Data & Applications Center (Sedac), which estimates the population of any slice of the planet Earth you fancy drawing a line around.

Actually that’s not exactly right: technically, it allows you to estimate the population of any slice of the planet Earth back in 2005, which I note to my horror is a surprisingly long time ago now. But it is, nonetheless, a very cool tool, and allowed the Wall Street Journal’s Mike Bird to do this:

I haven’t actually checked Mike’s maths on this (that sounds like far too much work to me). But that snake seems to contain London, Birmingham, Nottinghma, Sheffield, Leeds, Manchester and Liverpool, plus their hinterlands and a chunk of territory between them, so it definitely seems plausible. Andwhen I did my own much lazier version I got this:

Back in 2005, the UK’s population was around 60m. If 35m lived in that wedge, then it seems entirely plausible that 30m lived in Mike’s snake. After all, nearly 47m lived in this circle:

That’s well under half the UK’s land area, containing over three-quarters of its population.

The Sedac tool isn’t restricted to the UK, of course. In European geography, there’s a wonderfully bizarrely-named concept called the “blue banana”: the sliver of territory running from northern England to southern Italy which is the most densely populated slice of the continent. It’s basically this bit:

Finding historic population figures for Europe is surprisingly difficult - in part, I suspect, because defining the boundaries of Europe is surprisingly difficult. But the whole of the EU had slightly under 495m people in 2005, so 188m is a pretty hefty chunk.

If you really want a megalopolis, though, try the Bos-Wash corridor in the north eastern United States:

That’s more than 1 in 6 of the US population, in around 2 per cent of its land area. (Yes, I know it looks like more than 2 per cent. It isn’t, I’ve checked. Blame the Mercator Projection.)

Just one more, for a giggle. In 2005, China had a population of around 1.3bn. More than 1bn of them lived in this area:

 

That’s about a quarter of the country, containing more than three quarters of its population.

Anyway, you get the idea. If you fancy wasting your afternoon drawing shapes on maps to see how many people live inside them, you can do so here.

UPDATE: The nice people who built the map have been in touch to point me to the most recent version, with data from 2015. So, there you go.

Jonn Elledge is the editor of CityMetric. He is on Twitter as @jonnelledge and on Facebook as JonnElledgeWrites

Want more of this stuff? Follow CityMetric on Twitter or Facebook


 

 
 
 
 

To boost the high street, cities should invest in offices

Offices in Northampton. Image: Getty.

Access to cheap borrowing has encouraged local authorities to proactively invest in commercial property. These assets can be a valuable tool for cities looking to improve the built environment they offer businesses and residents.

Councils are estimated to have spent £3.8bn on property between 2013 and 2017, funded through the government’s Public Works Loan Board (PWLB) at very low interest rates. Offices accounted for half of this investment, and roughly a third (£1.2bn) has been spent on retail properties. And local authorities were the biggest investor group for UK shopping centres in the first quarter of 2018.

Why are cities investing? There are two major motivations.

First, at a time when cuts are squeezing council revenue budgets, property investments can provide a long-term revenue stream to keep quality public services up and running. Second, ownership of buildings in areas marked for redevelopment allows councils to assemble land more easily and gives them more influence over the changes taking place, allowing them to make sure the space evolves to meet their objectives.

But how exactly can cities turn property ownership into successful place-making? How should they adapt the buildings they invest in to improve the performance of the economies?

Cities need workers

When developing the city’s property offer, the aim should be to get jobs back into the city centre while reducing the dominance of retail space. For councils who have invested in existing retail space and shopping centres, in particular, the temptation may be to try and retain their existing use, with new retail strategies designed to reduce vacancies.

But as the Centre for Cities’ recent Building Blocks report illustrates, the evidence points to this being a dead-end. Instead, cities may need to convert the properties they own so they house a more diverse group of businesses.

Many city centres already have a lot of retail – and this has not offered significant economic benefit. Almost half (43 per cent) of city centre space in the weakest city economies is taken up by shops, while retail only accounts for 18 per cent of space in strong city centre economies. And many of these shops lie empty: in weaker city centres vacancy rates of high-street services (retail, food and leisure) are on average 16 per cent, compared with 9 per cent in stronger city economies. In Newport, nearly a quarter of these premises are empty, as the map below shows.

The big issue in these city centres is the lack of office jobs – which are an important contributor to footfall for retailers. This means that, in order to improve the fortunes of the high street, policy will need to tackle the barriers that deter those businesses from moving to their city centres.

One of these barriers is the quality of office space. In a number of struggling city centres, the quality of office space on offer is poor. But the low returns available for private investors mean that some form of public sector involvement will be required.


Ownership of buildings gives cities the opportunity to reshape the type of commercial space on offer. Some of this will involve improving the existing office stock available, some will involve converting retail to office, and some of will require demolishing part of the space without replacing it, in the short term at least. Without ownership of the land and buildings on it, this task becomes very difficult to do but will be a fundamental part of turning the fortunes of a city centre around.

Cheap borrowing has provided a way not only for local authorities to generate an income stream through property investment. but also opens up the opportunity to have greater control over the development of their city centres. For those choosing to invest, the focus must be on using ownership to make the city centre a more attractive place for all businesses to invest, rather than hoping to revive retail alone.

Rebecca McDonald is an analyst at the Centre for Cities, on whose blog this article first appeared.