By Tyler Falk
Posting in Cities
A new infographic from UNICEF shows the world's rapid urbanization.
The United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF) created a fascinating infographic showing the world's urban growth from 1950 to its growth projection for 2050. Here's how urban our world is expected to look in 2050:
Click here (or the map) to watch the urban growth of the world's countries from 1950-2050 in 15 seconds.
Looking at the map above we can get a good sense for how urban our world will be in 2050. The red circles are countries that will have an urban population larger than 75 percent. The yellow circles, which include the large populations of China and India, will have urban populations between 50-75 percent. The scattered blue circles, which were prevalent in 1950, show countries with urban populations between 25-50 percent.
The infographic accompanies a new report from UNICEF that shows how the basic needs of millions of children are not being met in the world's cities.
“When we think of poverty, the image that traditionally comes to mind is that of a child in a rural village,” said UNICEF Executive Director Anthony Lake in a statement. “But today, an increasing number of children living in slums and shantytowns are among the most disadvantaged and vulnerable in the world, deprived of the most basic services and denied the right to thrive.”
While we like to write about the amazing things that are happening in cities, both the infographic and report are good reminders about the scale of innovation that still needs to happen to make cities more livable for everyone.
Mar 6, 2012
The megacity/suburb sprawl as a way of populating the world is a 20th century idea that no longer applies in the 21st century. Small town living has it over urban living in every aspect you might consider. Our town (pop. ~ 3600) is economically viable, unlike all the big cities and suburban areas, which are mostly bankrupt. There's much less crime because everyone knows everyone else's business. It's a cleaner environment with better schools and friendlier people. A small town has all the benefits of urban/suburban living without any of the detriments. I think that all the factors that originally led to big urban environments developing have been mitigated by modern technology. The mega city has seen its day. Now, if we could only get a handle on our population growth, we could set about to make the planet a much better place.
I do like the proposition that small towns could be made less remote with current technology but I think your assumption about the financial insolvency is groundless. In my neck of the woods, Saskatchewan (ie. real rural life) only the cities are generally solvent. Here, you can see the real issues with isolation. Saskatchewan is about the size of Texas with a population of 1 Million. We have 2 cities over 100k and 7 over 10k, your "small" town would be the 16th largest centre here. The unemployment rate is 5.3% yet people are flooding the 2 major cities because there's no work in smaller centres. We have Canada's highest rates of poverty and crime. Our utilities and transit is public because companies will only serve the 2 cities and those en route from major centres outside the Provence. For example, there is a private cellular tower in each of the major cities and no where else. You often have to drive in to one of these cities get a UPS parcel and Greyhound runs though our Provence between major centres and stops en route. Our public companies fill these gaps, often at a loss. Either we pay through taxes or live without service here. Medical service is a challenge since it's expensive to have small hospitals everywhere and we can't pay doctors enough to establish in small communities. It would be nice to a find way to keep these towns alive with all the amenities but were still far off. In case your wondering we still have a high standard of living, higher average wage and lower crime rate than anywhere in the U.S. so don't go thinking we're just doing it wrong.
If you take immigration from Central and South America, Africa and Asia out of the equation, most western nations like the US, Great Britain, France and Germany, are showing population losses. It is the nations where allegedly millions are dying of starvation that the populations are exploding. What an odd contradiction between charity advertising and facts.
Animals have less offspring when their survival is assured and yes humans are animals like any other. I think the only real way to slow population growth is to make struggling countries as good as ours and bring the birth rate down to western levels.