It seems unimaginable that the population of Vancouver could ever have dropped – not a drop in the rate of growth but in actual numbers. That is, less people living in our 44 square miles from one decade to the next.
And yet it happened. Not that long ago: the 1970s. And we weren’t alone.
Andy Coupland, that always-helpful numbers guy, passed along this chart of population growth in west-coast cities:
.
.
For data junkies, lots more comparative facts on these four cities here.
So why? Perhaps the recession following the first oil shock, increasing rates of suburbanization, aging population as the kids left home, and, in the States, white flight. But Vancouver was also following a trend, though briefer and later here than most, of a decline in population that started as early as the 1950s.
Other theories welcome.
.
UPDATE: Another one just occurred to me.
The early 1970s marked the end of the apartment/highrise rental boom that characterized the 1950s and 60s. (The West End, rezoned in 1956, saw most of its several hundred highrises all built between 1962 and ’72.) The TEAM Council, elected with a majority in 1972, subsequently downzoned most of the streetcar neighbourhoods, resulting in the absence of any new highrises from the mid-1970s to mid-80s, when the condo boom started.
As well, the overbuilding of the 1960s and changes in the income-tax act, removing incentives to construct rental apartments, also led to the end of new development.
Consequently, the decline in population of the 1970s was partly because very little new housing was being constructed in the city, while development in the suburbs (eg, Metrotown) was just gearing up.
This would seem to be suburbanization from start to finish. This was probably at a time when there was quite a bit more substandard single family dwelling housing stock in Vancouver, and new homes in new areas of Richmond, Burnaby, Surrey etc were probably quite appealing. This is probably especially true for San Francisco where much of the housing stock was even older – and just old, not retro – so new homes were even more appealing.
Almost all major cities, at least in the USA and perhaps Canada, lost population the decade of the 1970s. Reactions to the 1960s riots, among other race-related factors, I would surmise. As you know, Gord, the rather small scale of the townhouses of the original South False Creek development was intended to help stem that outmigration by offering families an in-city suburban alternative. Has worked pretty well, noting the longevity of tenancies there.
Remarkable comparisons between Van and San Fran (which had a century head-start). While the land area is similar, SF has 31% more population, 27% more housing units and 20% more renters.
I think it is important to note that the population decline starts after 1950, for US cities the first census after the Depression and World War II. For most cities, that meant that little new housing got built after 1930, and population continued to increase, with pronounced bumps in the early 1940’s as war workers moved to West Coast cities. Portland was so inundated with new residents, that the City Council voided the zoning and housing codes and allowed property owners to subdivide their houses for as many residents as they could. This seems to have resulted in a lot of substandard and overcrowded housing conditions. It took a long time to work out those problems.
This does not deny that suburbanization occurred in the 1950-80 period, but it is to say that the 1950 numbers are unrealistically high–at least for the building stock that was available at the time. It also helps explain why people wanted to move to the suburbs–a significant portion of the urban housing stock had not been rehabbed and was pretty beat up from overcrowding. (And of course, urban transit systems suffered the same fate–gas rationing and the lack of new cars resulted in a dramatic spike in transit ridership, with almost no new equipment coming on line to handle the loads. The end result was crowding on vehicles that were not being maintained due to overuse and understaffing)
It should be pointed out that the population in a community equals the number of households times the average number of persons per household. During the 1970s few babies were born, but many baby boomers reached adulthood and moved out of their parental homes. As a result, average household size declined significantly during the 1970s. This alone probably explains the entire decline in population; there was probably no decline at all in the number of households.
What happened in the 80s? All four cities had been trending downward, each starting the down tread at a different time. But, suddenly, all four cities simultaneously started an upward trend in the 80s. Economy? Immigration?
A new generation came of age. After the exodus of people in the ’70s from cities, the artists, freaks and punks moved in and made cities interesting and attractive.
The graph shows that the decline in population in Vancouver started in the early 1970’s.
The Canadian government legalized all forms of contraception in 1969.
The birth control pill became available and in use gradually in the United States, from 1960. It was not available in all states until 1965.
Since the pill quickly became widely accepted and used, it would seem highly probable that the birth numbers declined.
This graph shows a radical drop in birth numbers in Canada, starting in the mid-1960’s.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_of_Canada#/media/File:Canada_immigration_graph.png
Another important aspect of population numbers is immigration and employment. Immigration numbers clearly rose in Canada after the second world war, with various waves from Europe. The majority of these people settled in Eastern Canada, or, in the case of Ukrainians, on the prairies. With the increase in numbers of immigrants from Asia settling in the west of both Canada and USA, the population of western cities has increased.
In the case of Canada during the 1970’s, immigration from Europe became less significant. The Soviets slowed their invasions and European economies recovered from the war and improved to the point where Canada was less appealing from an economic perspective. Then, in 1967, Canada radically altered its immigration act and visible minorities became the focus. These groups settled primarily in Ontario and Quebec.