Glasgow Population Decline

[Vladimir]

In 1931 1,000,000 people lived in Glasgow, now there are less than 600,000 people in the city. No world city has experienced such a loss. This decline is to continue not just in Glasgow but throughout its conurbation.

Will this decline have a negative effect for the city and its cityscape

[shuttle534]

How do you vote?
I can't see any button or the likes of.

Although I did manage to find my way to my polling station the other day. Unlike the time before when I got two polling cards through. One for parents house and one at my own.

[Vladimir]

Can you not see a button at the top

[KonstantinL]

There are now vast swathes of the East End that are completely devoid of people. Especially around the Easterhouse area. Whole areas demolished and any remaining buildings boarded up.

Seems really sad to me, when ever I pass through. Someone once told me if Easterhouse was 'seperate' from Glasgow it would be the fifth biggest city in Scotland.

I doubt that would be the case anymore.

[Captain Brittles]

We seem to take a narrow view of what is 'Glasgow' - with the city council boundaries used to compute the population of the city. This is patent nonsense. In many other countries they count the population of the greater connurbation. Sydney, Australia for example has a pop. of around 3.6 million - but the city of Sydney probably has less than 100,000. They count suburbs and towns as far as 45km from Sydney harbour bridge as being 'Sydney' - but thats the whole metropolitan area.

When we talk of Glasgow's population we should likewise include districts outside the official city boundaries like Rutherglen, Bearsden, Newton Mearns, Paisley and even Cumbernauld and East Kilbride. I think you'd find the metropolitan area would exceed a million.

I really think Glasgow sells itself short and damages its image by publicising a decline in the population when most of the 'loss' has only moved a mile or two along the road.

[Vladimir]

Sadly, apparently the greater conurbations in decline too, so is the rest of Scotland, or perhaps The Scotsman (who publishes mos of these apocalyptic stories) is just scaremongering

There are between 1.7 and 2.3 million people in and around Glasgow at the moment (inner and within 45kms)

[paladin]

When we talk of Glasgow's population we should likewise include districts outside the official city boundaries like Rutherglen

Rutherglen is a Royal Borough, a principality, the centre of the universe......why should it be included in Glasgow's population?

[Captain Brittles]

When we talk of Glasgow's population we should likewise include districts outside the official city boundaries like Rutherglen

Rutherglen is a Royal Borough, a principality, the centre of the universe......why should it be included in Glasgow's population?

I'm aware that it has an ancient history and was the equal of Glasgow but the truth is that it is an economic component of Greater Glasgow just like the other districts I mentioned.

The figure of 1.7 million is probably the more accurate of the two Vlad. The story of Glasgow proper and the population shift outwards is complex but hopefully some of it will come out in this thread.

[Apollo]

The narrow view has to be a bit silly, and just another way for those with an issue to manipulate the figures to say what they want to hear. I get the impression if you went round all the cities in the country, you's be unlikely to come up with 2 matching defintions of how they determine their population.

In my own case, although my street is over half a mile long, over half the residents (including me) wouldn't count, as the city boundary crosses it. We used to have a sign, but it's gone.

Similarly, although much of the area inside the boundary has become wasteland, the area outside it and around me has sprouted endless housing estates on what was green grassland 20 years ago, and is still sprouting more.

[paladin]

The narrow view has to be a bit silly, and just another way for those with an issue to manipulate the figures to say what thy want to hear.

You should only count in the population of Glasgow if you can sing all the words to 'I belong to Glasgow' sober.......that should narrow it down a bit.

Boundaries are always going to be a bone of contention apart from population issues, biggest issue is healthcare where the postcode lottery is played.....so although you may reside in a certain area you fall outside the boundary to receive certain prescription drugs, simply because you are under a different PCT (Primary Care Trust). Then there are Borough Councils/County Councils/Regional Councils etc etc. all setting benchmarks for appropriate areas governed by ever-changing Boundaries.

That apart, there are not many large families like there used to be, so that has an effect on population.

[Vladimir]

As for the figure of 1.7m, ive heard 2.5, 2.2, 2.0 million so it cant be sure what the total really is. But the truth is that whatever total, there are less people every year, not as a result of out migration from the conurbation but as a result of having the lowest birth rate and lowest life expectancy in the British Isles.

This is having a bad effect upon the city, economically and socially.

[excoriate]

I dont believe population decline is a problem.

- The population of Glasgow was unsustainably large when the figures of a million were being thrown around, with immigrants from Ireland and the Highlands.

- The knocking down of the slums and the new towns act resulted in people moving away

- The population is only falling among the middle to upper classes, among the working classes and housing schemes the population is still renewing itself.

- The argument for the low population meaning we have to import those with skills is a bit short sighted. There are thousands of potential workers out there in the drug ridden schemes who just need some guidance away from the soured lives that many young adults live and be given the skills instead of being ignored...

[Sharon]

There is a good discussion on Glasgows population here http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=183052

All the various ways that it can be broken down seem to be covered, with a general consensus that 1.7 million is about right.

[Vladimir]

Thanks Sharon thats given me a good perspective

1.7million it is

[KonstantinL]

I heard a 'fact' that half the population of Scotland lived within 30 minutes drive of George Square.

I think that must be under ideal conditions and not, say, trying to get across the Kingston bridge in rush hour!