An accepted definition of mega city is one which comprises at least 10,000,000 people. There are 20-30 such mega cities around the world depending upon which source one uses. What other cities look set to join that group over the coming decades? Almost all will come from the developing world due to higher population growth relative to cities in the developed world.

Which cities do you believe will reach that 10,000,000 benchmark? Please limit the discussion to metropolitan areas rather than discussions about megalopolis or whole regions that are loosely connected by a string of cities and towns. Otherwise it will get bogged down and quickly become a useless exercise. I'll start by making the case for Toronto.

Can Toronto reach 10,000,000?

What boundaries to use for metropolitan Toronto? I've used the Greater Toronto Area + Hamilton (GTA+H) since it's a continuously built up area where one city merges into the next with no breaks in between. The GTA+H has an area of * 8,245 km2 so it's reasonably compact and doesn't take into account far flung areas that aren't in close proximity to the urban area. By comparison the MSA of New York is 17,405 km², the MSA of Chicago is 24,814.7 km2, and Île-de-France (Paris) is 12,012 km2.

I've listed the 2011 population projection as shown on the Ontario Ministry of Finance website. http://www.fin.gov.on.ca/en/economy/demographics/projections/table6.html

GTA+H: (6,825,300)
Durham: 634.8
York: 1,055.0
Toronto: 2,712.9
Peel: 1,372.4
Halton: 517.1
Hamilton-Wentworth: 533.1

Assuming 10% population growth every 5 years, the GTA+H would reach ** 9,992,922 in 2031, or 20 years later. 10% is a reasonable growth rate. The GTA+H is growing at close to 10% every 5 years with only the CMA of Hamilton growing significantly slower. It grew 4.61% between 2001 and 2006. The CMA of Toronto grew 9.19% while the CMA of Oshawa grew 11.57%. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_100_largest_metropolitan_areas_in_Canada

I'm not sure if the Minister of Finance boundaries and those listed on the map line up exactly, but it will give you an approximation of how many people in each area and where they are located.

http://www.ontariosasquatch.com/communities/9/004/006/042/429/images/4515851497.jpg

http://www.ontariosasquatch.com/communities/9/004/006/042/429/images/4515851497.jpg

* 10,097.45 km2 - 1,852 km2 = 8,245 km2
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Horseshoe
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regional_Municipality_of_Niagara

** Population of 6,825,300 growing at 10% every 5 years:
2011: 6,825,300
2016: 7,507,830
2021: 8,258,613
2026: 9,084,474
2031: 9,992,922

Which other cities have a good chance of getting there? Bogota? Hong Kong? Dallas? Riyadh? Johannesburg?

Which other cities have a good chance of getting there? Bogota? Hong Kong? Dallas? Riyadh? Johannesburg?

There are several candidates. I'll post mine:


Toronto, Phoenix, Chicago, Dallas, Houston, Atlanta, Washington, Bogota, Lima, Algier, Abidjan, Accra, Kinshasa, Addis Abeba, Nairobi, Dar Es Salaam, Khartoum, Kampala, Baghdad, Riyadh, Lahore, Bangalore, Chennai, Hyderabad, Ahmedabad, Kuala Lumpur, Saigon, Hanoi, Wuhan, Tianjin, Xian, Chongqing and Chengdu.

There won't be any new Megacities in Europe. Toronto needs to attract far more migrants from other provinces and rural Ontario to became megacity, because the possible international migration pool will dry up very fast.

Johannesburg already is a megacity, Pretoria has over 10 million inhabitants.

Why do you believe that the possible international migration pool will dry up quickly? I see no reason for this to happen. Additionally, with the troubles happening in Europe, immigration levels by Europeans may grow, as many countries there face future economic uncertainty.

Why do you believe that the possible international migration pool will dry up quickly? I see no reason for this to happen. Additionally, with the troubles happening in Europe, immigration levels by Europeans may grow, as many countries there face future economic uncertainty.

I just read an article this week about the rising number of Irish moving to Toronto. I definitely agree that we will be seeing more Europeans immigrating to Canada.
http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/article/807065--irish-job-seekers-hope-for-greener-pastures-in-canada

Toronto will hit 10 million, maybe sooner than some people think. My US picks are: Chicago, which is very close now, Washington/Baltimore, San Francisco/Oakland/San Jose, Dallas, Houston and Atlanta. High beta potential in Miami, Phoenix, the Charlotte-Raleigh/Durham corridor, Denver and the Front Range, Austin/San Antonio which may yet grow into each other, and Boston/Providence.

Toronto will hit 10 million, maybe sooner than some people think. My US picks are: Chicago, which is very close now, Washington/Baltimore, San Francisco/Oakland/San Jose, Dallas, Houston and Atlanta. High beta potential in Miami, Phoenix, the Charlotte-Raleigh/Durham corridor, Denver and the Front Range, Austin/San Antonio which may yet grow into each other, and Boston/Providence.

I don't foresee Austin and San Antonio growing into each other, the distance between the two is near 50 miles. Also I can not see Phoenix growing to much in the next decade given the economy and what it has down to the South west. I can see some of the other cities you stated, Dallas, Houston, the Bay Area reaching 10 million, but I don't know how soon that will be. I see the GTAH hitting 10 00 000 with in 30 years.

Toronto needs to attract far more migrants from other provinces and rural Ontario to became megacity, because the possible international migration pool will dry up very fast.


Possibly, but the Toronto area has been attracting roughly 100,000 immigrants/year for 20 years now. Why would they stop coming?

Toronto will hit 10 million, maybe sooner than some people think. My US picks are: Chicago, which is very close now, Washington/Baltimore, San Francisco/Oakland/San Jose, Dallas, Houston and Atlanta. High beta potential in Miami, Phoenix, the Charlotte-Raleigh/Durham corridor, Denver and the Front Range, Austin/San Antonio which may yet grow into each other, and Boston/Providence.

Chicago is probably there already. I agree with all of those cities in your first grouping. In the second grouping, Miami and Phoenix may, but those others are so much smaller. It would take a very long time to attain because they're starting from such a small base.

Besides Chicago, I'd say Dallas will get there next. I do agree that Toronto is just a matter of time. It has far too much momentum not to get there.

I don't foresee Austin and San Antonio growing into each other, the distance between the two is near 50 miles. Also I can not see Phoenix growing to much in the next decade given the economy and what it has down to the South west. I can see some of the other cities you stated, Dallas, Houston, the Bay Area reaching 10 million, but I don't know how soon that will be. I see the GTAH hitting 10 00 000 with in 30 years.

Austin and San Antonio have a combined population of 4 million. Oddly, both cities are growing to the north so San Antonio's northern suburbs would have to travel a few more miles to trigger a megalopolis effect. Austin's exploding northern suburbs will probably keep going. It's definitely a ways off but I see their metros combining and hitting 7 million+ by 2050. Phoenix will hit 5 million just off natural increase by 2020 and that could double again by 2040. The real problem is water but having already spent billions on the CAP, Phoenix has already shown itself to be very aggressive about securing water supplies. Their economy is based on its resort climate and the outgrowth of its regional position. The current economic mess won't hold it back much longer...

I also think a bi-national mega city might happen with Seattle and Vancouver. Some see a megalopolis extending from Vancouver down the Cascades to Central Oregon. Included in that conurbation are already some 10+ million people.

Possibly, but the Toronto area has been attracting roughly 100,000 immigrants/year for 20 years now. Why would they stop coming?

Even if people still come at 100,000 a year, the growth of Toronto will slow down because of the increasing birth deficit.

I also think a bi-national mega city might happen with Seattle and Vancouver. Some see a megalopolis extending from Vancouver down the Cascades to Central Oregon. Included in that conurbation are already some 10+ million people.

The question he asked was a about megacities, not megalopolis'. So I don't think Vancouver-Seattle will count. Plus the distance between them is 3 hours drive.

Austin and San Antonio have a combined population of 4 million. Oddly, both cities are growing to the north so San Antonio's northern suburbs would have to travel a few more miles to trigger a megalopolis effect. Austin's exploding northern suburbs will probably keep going. It's definitely a ways off but I see their metros combining and hitting 7 million+ by 2050. Phoenix will hit 5 million just off natural increase by 2020 and that could double again by 2040. The real problem is water but having already spent billions on the CAP, Phoenix has already shown itself to be very aggressive about securing water supplies. Their economy is based on its resort climate and the outgrowth of its regional position. The current economic mess won't hold it back much longer...

As above Austin-San Antonio falls in the same thing.

I still can not see Phoenix growing that large, with the water problems and all. They have no source of there own water other than the Colorado River and unless they can find some way to find other sources, I can't see them growing to 10 million people.

Hasn't Phoenix already stalled to some degree?

The question he asked was a about megacities, not megalopolis'. So I don't think Vancouver-Seattle will count. Plus the distance between them is 3 hours drive.



As above Austin-San Antonio falls in the same thing.

I still can not see Phoenix growing that large, with the water problems and all. They have no source of there own water other than the Colorado River and unless they can find some way to find other sources, I can't see them growing to 10 million people.

The northernmost suburbs of San Antonio are 20 miles south of Austin's Travis County, about the distance from Downtown LA to West Covina. Phoenix draws water from numerous sources and along with recycling and desalination, has the capacity to serve well over 3 million households. Assuming new households in the area will be either xeriscaped or stacked in water-efficient multifmily developments, Phoenix can easliy support 10 million people.

Even if people still come at 100,000 a year, the growth of Toronto will slow down because of the increasing birth deficit.

The Canadian fertility rate of 1.53 births/woman in 2005-2010 is below the replacement rate of 2.1 births/woman, but it's actually gone up since the 2000-2010 period when it was 1.52 births/woman. There is a birth deficit, but it's not increasing. It's been quite stable.

At present, Canadian population levels wouldn't decline if immigration fell to zero tomorrow. Demographers predict that that point in time is still a few decades away. By that time, Toronto would already be at 10,000,000. We shall see though.

I do agree that Canada shouldn't rely on immigrants to increase of maintain the population. Canada really needs to boost the fertility rate to 2.1, at the very minimum.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_territories_by_fertility_rate

I also think a bi-national mega city might happen with Seattle and Vancouver. Some see a megalopolis extending from Vancouver down the Cascades to Central Oregon. Included in that conurbation are already some 10+ million people.

But now we're getting into the area of megalopolis rather than actual metropolitan areas. A megalopolis is a different ball of wax completely and would triple the number of areas that get close to that 10,000,000 threshold.

Why do you believe that the possible international migration pool will dry up quickly? I see no reason for this to happen. Additionally, with the troubles happening in Europe, immigration levels by Europeans may grow, as many countries there face future economic uncertainty.

The troubles here will be cleaned up, I hope^^. But anyway, the number of countries that recieve migrants is growing with time as more and more countries will develop. Recently South Korea and some eastern European countries (Czech Rep, Slovenia...) have joined the immigration-club, and others will follow. What about China joining the immigrants-club. A modest immigration rate for China would be 2 million /year. Maybe some SEAsian counries will also start recieving immigrants. There's noting sure about future migration ;)

Which other cities have a good chance of getting there? Bogota? Hong Kong? Dallas? Riyadh? Johannesburg?

HK as a city alone has a long way to go before it reaches 10 million. There is no more space for such population.

HK is already part of a mega region which is The Pearl River Delta. The only difference is you can just go freely across the border.

As for Toronto, isn't Buffalo, NY. already part of that area despite being across the border?

HK as a city alone has a long way to go before it reaches 10 million. There is no more space for such population.


+1. the only thing they can do is to "raze" the mountains lol...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_territories_by_fertility_rate

omg! HK is last, together with macau, with a fertility rate of 0.97 births/woman. :ohno:

As far as Morocco maybe the Casablanca Rabat regions will merge making a new mega urban area of 8 million people
today greater Casablanca is 4 million and great rabat is almost 3 million people

The troubles here will be cleaned up, I hope^^. But anyway, the number of countries that recieve migrants is growing with time as more and more countries will develop. Recently South Korea and some eastern European countries (Czech Rep, Slovenia...) have joined the immigration-club, and others will follow. What about China joining the immigrants-club. A modest immigration rate for China would be 2 million /year. Maybe some SEAsian counries will also start recieving immigrants. There's noting sure about future migration ;)

There is no doubt that immigration destinations around the world will spread as more countries continue to experience economic growth. None of this changes the fact, though, that Canada has the highest per capita immigration rate in the world (1), with no signs that this will slow down. Canada continues to accept less immigrants than those who desire to move here (creating large problems in backlogs). Toronto, as the premier destination of immigrants to Canada, shows no signs of slowing down. Additionally, whose to say that there is a certain level of immigrants that will always be, and that the numbers of such wont increase over time.



(1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration#Canada

Countries and cities with huge population (10million up)' has d potential.. :)

What boundaries to use for metropolitan Toronto? I've used the Greater Toronto Area + Hamilton (GTA+H) since it's a continuously built up area where one city merges into the next with no breaks in between. The GTA+H has an area of * 8,245 km2 so it's reasonably compact and doesn't take into account far flung areas that aren't in close proximity to the urban area. By comparison the MSA of New York is 17,405 km², the MSA of Chicago is 24,814.7 km2, and Île-de-France (Paris) is 12,012 km2.


MSA's for the most part are also continously built up areas. CSA's on the other hand may have some non-urban land.

Chicago's MSA is at least 9.6 million right now.

http://img684.imageshack.us/img684/613/87345429.png



Our CSA is approaching 10 million now....

http://img714.imageshack.us/img714/4668/80093558.jpg


Perhaps the most accurate identification is that of the urbanized area. Here is the 2009 estimates of world cities and their projections for 2025.

Notice most US cities the urbanized area closely resembles the populations of the MSA's.


http://img692.imageshack.us/img692/9134/66737088.jpg

^^^ They have the projection for GTA+H way to low... By 2025 the population will probably be closer to 8 million and by 2031 should be up over 8.6 million.

The numbers I'm using are from the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe.

https://www.placestogrow.ca/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=9&Itemid=14

^^^ They have the projection for GTA+H way to low... By 2025 the population will probably be closer to 8 million and by 2031 should be up over 8.6 million.

The numbers I'm using are from the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe.

https://www.placestogrow.ca/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=9&Itemid=14


Is there a difference between the GTA+H and the Greater Golden Horseshoe? Also, the growth plan is 5 years old almost..... Could there have been revised projections?

Is there a difference between the GTA+H and the Greater Golden Horseshoe? Also, the growth plan is 5 years old almost..... Could there have been revised projections?

The GTA+H includes only the Regions of Durham, Halton, Peel, York and the Cities of Toronto and Hamilton. The GGH includes the above plus the County of Northumberland, County of Peterborough, City of Peterborough, County of Simcoe, City of Barrie, City of Orillia, City of Kawartha Lakes, County of Dufferin, County of Wellington, City of Guelph, County of Brant, City of Brantford, Region of Waterloo, Region of Niagara and County of Haldimand. The total population for the whole area is expected to be 11.5 million in 2031. For just the GTA+H it is expected to be 8.62 million. I have not seen any revised numbers, but other people may have some. The next revision will probably occur in 2011 or 2012 after the census is done in 2011.

It depends what year the cities will pass 10m. India already has Mumbai, Delhi & Kolkata. Bangalore, Chennai, Hyderabad, Ahmedabad, Surat & Pune should pass over the next 10-15 years.

The GGH includes the above plus the County of Northumberland, County of Peterborough, City of Peterborough, County of Simcoe, City of Barrie, City of Orillia, City of Kawartha Lakes, County of Dufferin, County of Wellington, City of Guelph, County of Brant, City of Brantford, Region of Waterloo, Region of Niagara and County of Haldimand. The total population for the whole area is expected to be 11.5 million in 2031. .

The Goldern Horshoe is a rather huge area. Some 13,000sq miles. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Horseshoe


Comparing it to the Chicago CSA which is 10856 sq mi http://wapedia.mobi/en/Chicago_metropolitan_area

The Goldern Horshoe is a rather huge area. Some 13,000sq miles. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Horseshoe


Comparing it to the Chicago CSA which is 10856 sq mi http://wapedia.mobi/en/Chicago_metropolitan_area

The core area of Golden Horseshoe is only 10 000 sq km (less than 4000 sq mi). The population for that area is 6 488 062. The core is what most people consider the Golden Horseshoe. Areas such as Peterborough and Kitchener would not be in the Golden Horseshoe. The GGH is the much larger area that is over 30 000 sq km (near 13 000 sq mi). That area has a population of 8 102 163.

The population for the core area is expected to be over 8.6 million in 2031. The whole area of over 30 000 sq km is expected to be over 11 million. I do think that the numbers are going to be revised and I would not be surprised if they are revised higher.

The core area of Golden Horseshoe is only 10 000 sq km (less than 4000 sq mi). The population for that area is 6 488 062..

THis is about half the size of Chicago's urbanized area 5498.1sqkm/2122.8sqm and in 2000 we had 8,307,904 people. By now upwards of 9 million.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Largest_urban_areas_of_the_United_States

Toronto's urbanized area is significantly smaller. 1748.6sqkm/675.1sqmi with a population of 4,753,120 in 2006.


http://www12.statcan.ca/english/census06/data/popdwell/Table.cfm?T=801&PR=0&SR=1&S=3&O=D


Personally, I think urbanized areas of cities shows us the true size of a city.

THis is about half the size of Chicago's urbanized area 5498.1sqkm/2122.8sqm and in 2000 we had 8,307,904 people. By now upwards of 9 million.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Largest_urban_areas_of_the_United_States

Toronto's urbanized area is significantly smaller. 1748.6sqkm/675.1sqmi with a population of 4,753,120 in 2006.


http://www12.statcan.ca/english/census06/data/popdwell/Table.cfm?T=801&PR=0&SR=1&S=3&O=D


Personally, I think urbanized areas of cities shows us the true size of a city.

I do think so too. The core is divided into many different urban areas. The Toronto urban area is the second densest in North America only behind Los Angeles.

Any way you slice it, Chicago is the bigger city. You won't get any arguments from most Torontonians regarding that. The population gap is significant, but getting smaller all the time.

Chicago grew about 6% in the last 10 years, while Toronto grew about 19%. It's not a recent phenomenon either. It's been like that for decades. Back in 1950, Chicago had 5,587,000 people while Toronto only had 1,262,000. Chicago was 4.4 times bigger back then. Today Chicago is only 1.6 times bigger.

http://www.demographia.com/db-1950metro.htm

Unless trend lines alter significantly, there will come a time when the population gap between Chicago and Toronto disappears altogether.

I do think so too. The core is divided into many different urban areas. The Toronto urban area is the second densest in North America only behind Los Angeles.

Toronto's urban area isn't even densest in Canada. Montreal is denser, followed by Vancouver. There was a thread about this very subject, but I can't find it. Montreal has had the densest urban area in Canada for over a century. Before that, I believe it was Quebec City.

Toronto's urban area may become densest soon, but it's not there yet. Another 10-15 years of growth in Toronto should accomplish that.

Toronto is definately on the rise. Now we need to fix the subway.

I think Dallas can do it, they will hav 8.7 million in 2025 so in 2035 10 million will be reality rather than a posibility.

Chicago - Rockford will add Milwaukee to its CSA at some point before 2030, there's another 13 million

Can Toronto reach 10,000,000?
Yes, but would it in fact be a city by then, considering its current, overall taste for suburban sumptuousness, right?

Lampposts, asphalt, gutters, etc: there's more to city life than just those incidental ingredients (oops, I ought to have written "hydro poles" in place of lampposts...). Where I live, for instance, it's clear -say- telling apart which passengers on my trains hail from the 'burbs (or outlying areas) from those hailing from within the city itself; among many others, this distinction never revealed itself there.

Nowadays in Canada, the term "urban" merely implies "suburban"; that's cheating plus the country knows it.

Chicago - Rockford will add Milwaukee to its CSA at some point before 2030, there's another 13 million

Yeah a merging of the Milwaukee CSA with the Chicago CSA along with Rockford is a forgone conclusion. There is a mere 75 miles that separates the city of Chicago from both Milwaukee, and Rockford.

Though I think this will happen sometime shortly after 2030. Not before. Commuter levels between the two areas need to increase for there to be an official merger by Census definition. But like you said, the population of Chicago/Milwaukee/Rockford will be over 13 million by then. Easily. Heck, Chicago's CSA alone should be close to 12 million by 2030 or 2040 and in addition, 2.4 million from Milwaukee and 400,000 from Rockford you get a total of near 15 million.




Unless trend lines alter significantly, there will come a time when the population gap between Chicago and Toronto disappears altogether.

I think the Greater Golden Horseshoe will continue to experience robust growth, but I doubt that it will ever catch up to Chicago. For one, we will eventually swallow up Milwaukee and Rockford, and even if we didn't, at current growth rates, it wont be until 2040 at minimum when the Golden Horshoe and Chicago's CSA (as defined today) will have similar populations. Chicago's CSA is growing by about 600,000 per decade. So at this rate Chicago's CSA will be at 11.8 million by 2040. This without Milwaukee.

In terms of urbanized area, Chicago Milwaukee and Chicago and Rockford are nearly completely merged. This is a map of urban land in 2000. There was probably no more than 20 miles of rural land btween Chicago and Milwaukee and Chicago and Rockford then. I'd imagine that has been intense urbanization between the two since.


http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b8/chicagogeorge/53798828.gif

http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b8/chicagogeorge/53798834.gif

I recall an old CMSA designation that had Chicago's metro reaching around the lake into Michigan! :nuts: Leaving out secondary cities like Hamilton and Milwaukee that are still somewhat independent of their larger neighbors, both T.O. and Chicago should reach parity. for now, the momentum is clearly on Toronto's side and if it can expand the TSX into a major global exchange, T.O. could pull away. Chicago's problem is that while every major US and global firm has a presence there, very few are based there. In a bad economy, the first thing they do is "cut the Chicago office". Chicago needs to rebuild its manufacturing base and leverage the intellectual capital to hedge that problem or it could just keep spinning its wheels.

I recall an old CMSA designation that had Chicago's metro reaching around the lake into Michigan! :nuts:.

Even by the new CSA standards, Michigan City (near the Michigan/Indiana state border) is included in Chicago's CSA which is about the same distance from the city limits of Chicago as is Milwaukee and Rockford.

Even by the new CSA standards, Michigan City (near the Michigan/Indiana state border) is included in Chicago's CSA which is about the same distance from the city limits of Chicago as is Milwaukee and Rockford.

The old one I saw included New Holland Mich.!

Chicago's problem is that while every major US and global firm has a presence there, very few are based there. .

The city of Chicago has 11 fortune 500 companies, Only NYC, Houston, and Atlanta have more.

The Chicago area has 33 fortune 500 companies, and 60 of the 66 fortune 1000 companies based in Illinois are located in the Chicago metropolitan area.

(2007)
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune500/2007/states/CA.html

There are several candidates. I'll post mine:


Toronto, Phoenix, Chicago, Dallas, Houston, Atlanta, Washington, Bogota, Lima, Algier, Abidjan, Accra, Kinshasa, Addis Abeba, Nairobi, Dar Es Salaam, Khartoum, Kampala, Baghdad, Riyadh, Lahore, Bangalore, Chennai, Hyderabad, Ahmedabad, Kuala Lumpur, Saigon, Hanoi, Wuhan, Tianjin, Xian, Chongqing and Chengdu.

There won't be any new Megacities in Europe. Toronto needs to attract far more migrants from other provinces and rural Ontario to became megacity, because the possible international migration pool will dry up very fast.

Johannesburg already is a megacity, Pretoria has over 10 million inhabitants.is it really impossible that europe want have any new megacity in the next decades ?? i think there are madrid and barcelona they both have god chance to become megacities .. ??

^^
Madrid has around 6,700.000 inh in the real metropolitan area, and it has grown around 1,500.000 inh. since 2000.
Past year Madrid during our famous spanish crisis grew in 70.000 new inhabitants.

The city of Chicago has 11 fortune 500 companies, Only NYC, Houston, and Atlanta have more.

The Chicago area has 33 fortune 500 companies, and 60 of the 66 fortune 1000 companies based in Illinois are located in the Chicago metropolitan area.

(2007)
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune500/2007/states/CA.html

Major insurers that exist there as part of their regulator shopping, Boeing, which only has their CEO suite in Chicago, and Walgreens? Where are the big financials? The big banks? Chicago has the coveted CBOT but aside from that, the city's financial sector was hollowed out in the 1980s and '90s.

I seriously don't see Atlanta seeing 10 million anytime. There has to be serious infrastructure to accomodate that number. It's nothing against Atl, seriously but I can't believe that will happen. I think Dallas, Houston and Phoenix are on that list as well.

Chicago has the coveted CBOT but aside from that, the city's financial sector was hollowed out in the 1980s and '90s.


Yes this did occur, but do you have to have big banks based in your city to give it a "global" stamp? I think having multifaceted industries is extremely important to the vitality of a city. Chicago has suffered a gutting in certain business sectors like you said, but hopefully better times are ahead.



Chicago along with Toronto are both in the same Alpha ranking.


http://www.lboro.ac.uk/gawc/images/world2008t.jpg







Btw, this was an interesting graph on the GTA's population forecast for 2031..


http://www.fin.gov.on.ca/en/economy/demographics/projections/images/Slide8_eng.gif



The GTA projection of 9.1 million in around 2030 and Chicago's MSApopulation projected to be 10.8 million leave a 1.7 million difference.

http://img692.imageshack.us/img692/9214/msaprojections.jpg

Yeah a merging of the Milwaukee CSA with the Chicago CSA along with Rockford is a forgone conclusion. There is a mere 75 miles that separates the city of Chicago from both Milwaukee, and Rockford.

Though I think this will happen sometime shortly after 2030. Not before. Commuter levels between the two areas need to increase for there to be an official merger by Census definition. But like you said, the population of Chicago/Milwaukee/Rockford will be over 13 million by then. Easily. Heck, Chicago's CSA alone should be close to 12 million by 2030 or 2040 and in addition, 2.4 million from Milwaukee and 400,000 from Rockford you get a total of near 15 million.




I think the Greater Golden Horseshoe will continue to experience robust growth, but I doubt that it will ever catch up to Chicago. For one, we will eventually swallow up Milwaukee and Rockford, and even if we didn't, at current growth rates, it wont be until 2040 at minimum when the Golden Horshoe and Chicago's CSA (as defined today) will have similar populations. Chicago's CSA is growing by about 600,000 per decade. So at this rate Chicago's CSA will be at 11.8 million by 2040. This without Milwaukee.

In terms of urbanized area, Chicago Milwaukee and Chicago and Rockford are nearly completely merged. This is a map of urban land in 2000. There was probably no more than 20 miles of rural land btween Chicago and Milwaukee and Chicago and Rockford then. I'd imagine that has been intense urbanization between the two since.


http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b8/chicagogeorge/53798828.gif

http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b8/chicagogeorge/53798834.gif

Wow Milwaukee at 2.4 million? I thought they only had 1.7 million?

Wow Milwaukee at 2.4 million? I thought they only had 1.7 million?

They currently are estimated at 1.8 million, but bu 2030-2040, they should be between 2.1 and 2.4 million.

Yes, but would it in fact be a city by then, considering its current, overall taste for suburban sumptuousness, right?


I suppose you haven't read 'Places To Grow', information on the green belt, or any of the other urban plans for the Golden Horseshoe. They're not exactly news any more; they came out a long time ago. Your perceptions are about 5 years out of date.

If you read through the posts, it also suggests that the GTA+H should reach 10,000,000 by itself. The GTA+H at 10,000,000 would equate to 1,213 people/km2. That's not high, but still dense enough to be considered 'city'. The density of the Montreal CMA in 2006 was 854 people/km2, while the density of the New York metropolitan area in 2009 was 1,096 people/km2.

I suppose you haven't read 'Places To Grow', information on the green belt, or any of the other urban plans for the Golden Horseshoe. They're not exactly news any more; they came out a long time ago. Your perceptions are about 5 years out of date.

If you read through the posts, it also suggests that the GTA+H should reach 10,000,000 by itself. The GTA+H at 10,000,000 would equate to 1,213 people/km2. That's not high, but still dense enough to be considered 'city'. The density of the Montreal CMA in 2006 was 854 people/km2, while the density of the New York metropolitan area in 2009 was 1,096 people/km2.

The area that will actually be developed is not really going to grow much over the next 25 years. The Places to grow has set the urban limits for the areas that are with in the Places to Grow. The area will expand, but for the population increase will be greater than the actually land that is developed. 40% of all development will be infill by 2014. I think it will also be increased once it is revised, maybe not this time, but the next revision.

I seriously don't see Atlanta seeing 10 million anytime. There has to be serious infrastructure to accomodate that number. It's nothing against Atl, seriously but I can't believe that will happen. I think Dallas, Houston and Phoenix are on that list as well.

Atlanta has been making serious efforts to rein in the sprawl and densify with infill and vertical growth and it's paying off. The city is at a historical population peak. The surrounding counties are still stuck in the 1960s but eventually, they'll see the light. The metro is already so massive geographically that simply bringing their density closer to LA's will put them in the ballpark. Dallas/Ft Worth already has over 6.5 million and continues to grow fast, doubling nearly every 25 years. Houston likewise. The US is on track to reach 400 million people by 2040. Where will they all live? Dubuque?

The area that will actually be developed is not really going to grow much over the next 25 years.

That's right! It's densification that will absorb almost all of the population growth.

The metro is already so massive geographically that simply bringing their density closer to LA's will put them in the ballpark. Dallas/Ft Worth already has over 6.5 million and continues to grow fast, doubling nearly every 25 years. Houston likewise. The US is on track to reach 400 million people by 2040.


Atlanta, Houston, and Dallas will surely hit 10 million by no later than 2050. Phoenix on the otherhand may not considering the fact that there are serious viability factors in play. Water for one thing.



Where will they all live? Dubuque?


Here is somthing interesting in the news....


New population study redefines ‘heartland’By DAVID GOLDSTEIN
The Star’s Washington correspondent

So are you, Charleston, S.C, even with all your Spanish moss and Southern charm, and Portland Ore., way out there on the Pacific Coast.

Geographically, these metropolitan areas are far apart.

Demographically, however, they might have more in common with each other than some of their regional neighbors, according to a recent study by the Brookings Institution, a Washington think tank.

Social changes over the last decade — especially the increase in racial and ethnic minorities — are scrambling regional stereotypes and dramatically altering the traditional portrait of America.

“Our metropolitan areas are on the front lines of demographic transformation,” said Bruce Katz, director of the Metropolitan Policy Program at Brookings. “Every trend that is affecting the nation — growth, diversity, aging, education disparities, income inequities — is affecting our major metropolitan areas first at a speed, scale and complexity that are truly historic.”

The “New Heartland” is one of seven divisions that Brookings developed in its study, “State of Metropolitan America,” to reflect the changing economic, demographic and social climate since 2000.

The Kansas City area is one of 19 “fast-growing, highly educated locales” in this redefined heartland, with diversity levels below the national average.

“We are right there in the middle of these trends, not experiencing their extremes,” said Frank Lenk, director of research at the Mid-America Regional Council in Kansas City. “As a result, the negative changes, like more income inequality, didn’t hit us here.”

Indeed, wages for middle-class workers in the Kansas City area actually went up slightly as of 2008, compared with the national average, according to Brookings. The median income was higher, too. The percentage of children in poverty locally also was lower than it was nationally.

The region had one of the highest percentages of commuters who drive alone. It also had some the highest numbers of commuters who switched to public transit since 2000.

The percentage of the population older than 25 with college degrees ranks in the top third of the leading metro areas. But it hugs the bottom as far as 18- to 24-year-olds enrolled in higher education.

Nationally, the report said the nation was on course to become a nonwhite-majority country in three decades or so.

Among the study’s highlights:

•The population grew by nearly 9 percent in the last decade, fueled largely by the influx of racial and ethnic minorities. Metro areas grew even faster — by 10.5 percent.

•Half of all children in the top 100 metro areas are nonwhite.

•Nationally, one in eight Americans was foreign-born; in metro areas, one in six.

•Five of the top metro areas had populations in 1990 where minorities made up the majority. Now 17 do.

The combined total of baby boomers and seniors reached more than 100 million in the past decade, the study found. Most live in the suburbs. But those neighborhoods weren’t built to accommodate aging populations.

And they live alongside the growing percentage of nonwhite youths, which the report called a recipe for a “cultural generation gap.”

Another emerging divide is in education, according to the report. More than 80 percent of Hispanic and African-American adults don’t have bachelor’s degrees, compared with whites and Asians, who are more than twice as likely to have completed college.

The data, likely to reflect many of the findings of the 2010 census, come from the Census Bureau’s annual America Community Survey.

Besides “New Heartland,” other divisions group metro areas near the southwestern border, and those with higher growth, diversity and education levels. But shared geography was definitely not a factor.

Take Wichita, for example. There might not be a more iconic symbol of the heartland. But Brookings placed the city in its “Industrial Core,” a collection of older, slow-growth manufacturing centers with aging, less diverse populations.

“A new map is emerging,” Katz said


Read more: http://www.kansascity.com/2010/05/14/1946843/new-population-study-redefines.html#ixzz0oTWzrzbc

chicagogeorge Dallas is supposed to have 8.8 million in 2025. 10 million will not be that far off.

chicagogeorge Dallas is supposed to have 8.8 million in 2025. 10 million will not be that far off.

Dallas might indeed hit 10 million by 2030-2040. It depends on a number of scenarios.
http://www.visionnorthtexas.org/regionalchoices/RegChoices_NorthTexas2030.pdf

http://img594.imageshack.us/img594/5585/dfw.jpg



For Houston, the city alone will have 3.6 million and it's seat, Harris County is projected to have 6.7 million people by 2060
http://www.houstontx.gov/planning/Demographics/demograph_docs/PopProjections.htm

LOL at people believing Dallas, Houston or Atlanta hitting 10 million or the US 400 million.
Not going to happen people...

LOL at people believing Dallas, Houston or Atlanta hitting 10 million or the US 400 million.
Not going to happen people...

The US Census Bureau Populations Projection Program is projecting a population of 405,655,000 by 2040. I think they may know more about the subject than a random eurotroll. :|

Since 1990, the Dallas CMA has grown over 58%, the Houston CMA has grown over 53%, and the Atlanta CMA has grown over 77%. To presume that that kind of massive growth would halt would be a big bet against history.

The US Census Bureau Populations Projection Program is projecting a population of 405,655,000 by 2040. I think they may know more about the subject than a random eurotroll. :|

Since 1990, the Dallas CMA has grown over 58%, the Houston CMA has grown over 53%, and the Atlanta CMA has grown over 77%. To presume that that kind of massive growth would halt would be a big bet against history.
They must be the only bureau in the world that can predict the future. Wow..., 30 years no less!
You can't take current or past growth rates and project them that far into the future.
Dallas, Houston and Atlanta already are among the least sustainable cities in the world. They did see high growth rates in the past, do you really think they're going to sustain those for the next 30/40 years or is it more likely they go the way of each and every other city in history and stabilize at one point (maybe to have other periods of decline or growth in the future, who knows?). This is the bet against history!
Same thing with US growth. I know Americans think they're living in some special place but it is more likely that birthrates are going to drop like everywhere else in the developed world, that immigration is going to drop as Mexico is getting more developed and especially in a period of relative decline for the US.

LOL at people believing Dallas, Houston or Atlanta hitting 10 million or the US 400 million.
Not going to happen people...

Why is this so shocking to you? We are already estimated to be at around 308 million and are steadily growing.

As for Dallas, Houston, and Atlanta. These cities will continue to grow as long as they are attractive. Warm climates, low taxes, cheap costs of living, continued immigration, jobs/manufacturing continuing to move down there, etc. All three of these cities will eventually densify, add more public transit, etc.

They must be the only bureau in the world that can predict the future. Wow..., 30 years no less!
You can't take current or past growth rates and project them that far into the future.
Dallas, Houston and Atlanta already are among the least sustainable cities in the world. They did see high growth rates in the past, do you really think they're going to sustain those for the next 30/40 years or is it more likely they go the way of each and every other city in history and stabilize at one point (maybe to have other periods of decline or growth in the future, who knows?). This is the bet against history!
Same thing with US growth. I know Americans think they're living in some special place but it is more likely that birthrates are going to drop like everywhere else in the developed world, that immigration is going to drop as Mexico is getting more developed and especially in a period of relative decline for the US.

We receive immigrants from all over the world. A large number of recent mexican immigrants are not even counted by the census. That number has been estimated in the 6 million-12 million range. Birth rates in the US are holding steady at above replacement. And WTH does "sustainability" have to do with growth? How sustainable is Dubai which has doubled in the last decade? Or any major city around the world with growing populations and far fewer sewer, water and sanitation services than the US? You're so 2002 in your thinking it hurts! :ohno:

The US grew by 100 million people since 1980. I see know reason why we wont add an addition 100 million in another 30 years if not more. As desertpunk said, birth rates are holding steady overall, but immigration rates are actually increasing


It is evident that our little Eurotroll has penis envoy. :D

The US grew by 100 million people since 1980. I see know reason why we wont add an addition 100 million in another 30 years if not more. As desertpunk said, birth rates are holding steady overall, but immigration rates are actually increasing


It is evident that our little Eurotroll has penis envoy. :D
Yes I have penis envoy...:|
Learn to write your own language you douche...

Was that really necessary anderson?

^^

Don't worry he has made a many friends over in the DLM thread :rofl:


Yes I have penis envoy...:|
Learn to write your own language you douche...




I tend to skip spell checking when I'm in a rush, or when I'm dealing with chimps like you on the internet.
Why are you such a turd? Weren't you hugged enough when growing up?



Penis envy:


know Americans think they're living in some special place

Most people think their country is a special place.


but it is more likely that birthrates are going to drop like everywhere else in the developed world,

they has been, yet our population is continuing to grow.


that immigration is going to drop as Mexico is getting more developed

You are totally clueless as to what the economic, political, and social situation is in Mexico, and btw clueless posterboy... Only 1/3rd of all immigrants to the US are from Mexico. This translates to nearly 900,000 immigrants arriving from countries other than Mexico to the United States each year. How do you like dem apples :yes:


and especially in a period of relative decline for the US.

Yeah right..... You wish.... hence the envy of the larger membrane :D



The US Census has in fact underscored population growth by their own estimates for at least the last two decades. So it is very likely that 400 million is not only going to be our population bby 2050 (barring a nuclear attack, an asteriod, or some massive pandemic), we may actually be closer to 420 million by some scenarios.


Census Projection - US Population
At 420 Million by 2050

New population projections from the Census Bureau show U.S. population will grow to 420 million by 420, not 404 million as projected in its last estimate five years ago. The higher projection is based on Census 2000 data
http://www.rense.com/general35/420.htm




Even the folks over in the US lovin United Nations give a best estimate of 400 million for the U.S.

http://static.flickr.com/38/105028076_5ab82352e6_o.png


But then again, the UN has been wrong on sooooo many projections as of late :D

^^
1 billion has been discussed by the end of the century. But it's too far to project.

^^
1 billion has been discussed by the end of the century. But it's too far to project.

At some point I really hope that more city pllanners and suburban governments adopt smart growth policies. For Chicago (suburban sprawl) they are non existent. A professor of urban studies at UIC once told me (back about 20 years ago) that suburban sprawl outside the city of Chicago was eating away land at a rate of 0.7 miles in every direction.

Our Euro chimp thnks the US is headed the way of many EU countries....

Kinder, küche … Germany's lowest birthrate yet blamed on dated policy (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/may/19/germany-children-birthrate-lowest)

http://img227.imageshack.us/img227/4656/12418698.jpg
Image: Der Tagesspiegel (http://www.tagesspiegel.de/politik/deutschland-schrumpft/1840562.html)

I do not understand why states do not implement something like the Places to Grow Act that the Province of Ontario has implemented. The individual municipalities and Regions/Counties continue to be the approval authority, but the province basically sets out a list of goals and requirements for any new developments.

One thing you do not see here in the Golden Horseshoe area is miles and miles of really low residential development. We have suburban sprawl but is somewhat dense, even though it is bad, the lots are not super large. Biggest you see being built today are 50'x100' for most part, with the average lot being 30'-35' wide.

http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/members/2004/112-11/top10sm.jpg

It is evident that our little Eurotroll has penis envoy. :D

Hey my fellow Americans, I know you're the better Europe, but can you give us some demographic hints for more growth?^^

Hey my fellow Americans, I know you're the better Europe, but can you give us some demographic hints for more growth?^^

Easy, bring in millions of immigrants with high birth rates...and let the Mormon missionaries work their magic!

Easy, bring in millions of immigrants with high birth rates...and let the Mormon missionaries work their magic!

First thing we've done, the second thing will come from itself, says the book 'Shall the religious inherit the earth'. :lol:

I do not understand why states do not implement something like the Places to Grow Act that the Province of Ontario has implemented. The individual municipalities and Regions/Counties continue to be the approval authority, but the province basically sets out a list of goals and requirements for any new developments.

One thing you do not see here in the Golden Horseshoe area is miles and miles of really low residential development. We have suburban sprawl but is somewhat dense, even though it is bad, the lots are not super large. Biggest you see being built today are 50'x100' for most part, with the average lot being 30'-35' wide.

A lot of city planners have been studying Portland Oregon and its Urban Growth Boundary as well as planning in Canada something that all down here admire. The problem is a political system fueled at the local level by real estate interests who demand pro-sprawl policies. Unlike Canada's provinces, states have very little say in local planning issues and the federal government continues to reward sprawl with huge highway spending and too little support for mass transit due to the heavyhanded tactics of rural state senators in particular.

Learn to write your own language you douche...
Uhm, they don't own it because folks here don't bother to master it; the same could be said for French and Spanish. :ohno: By the way, N Americans go to great extremes at cooking/doctoring their statistical data, I just know we're gonna get caught real bad some day...

The UN has NEVER been right on demograpic projections. They projected that Brazil would be 200 million by 1990. Twenty years later they're at 196 million.

Anyone who thinks the US is going to reach 400 million and already overstretched cities like Dallas, Houston or Atlanta 10 million is severly delusional.

Uhm, they don't own it because folks here don't bother to master it; the same could be said for French and Spanish. :ohno: By the way, N Americans go to great extremes at cooking/doctoring their statistical data, I just know we're gonna get caught real bad some day...

Troll much? :|

^^
1 billion has been discussed by the end of the century. But it's too far to project.

:lol::lol::lol:

And 2050 isn't? :bash:

1 billion?! I bet there are even idiots believing nonsense like that.
You see that blue line in the UN graph? That's what's going to happen (more or less). I guess it's some American thing religiously believing in everlasting growth...

:lol::lol::lol:

And 2050 isn't? :bash:

1 billion?! I bet there are even idiots believing nonsense like that.
You see that blue line in the UN graph? That's what's going to happen (more or less). I guess it's some American thing religiously believing in everlasting growth...

LOL Do you even read your own posts? :lol:

The US grew by nearly 100 million since 1990. We also grew by at least 30 million in the last 10 years. Why is it so inconceivable for some people to think that we wont be able to reach 400 million in the next 40 years??

http://img43.imageshack.us/img43/2787/popqd.jpg



I guess it's some American thing religiously believing in everlasting growth...


The United States has more resources than India and China yet they manage to tack on hundreds of millions in just a few short decades.....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:India-demography.png

The US grew by nearly 100 million since 1990. We also grew by at least 30 million in the last 10 years.
First it was 100 million since 1980, now it's 100 million since 1990...:nuts:

We already knew that besides English you also have a problem interpreting graphs, or in this case just reading them right.
Back here in reality, the US grew by 100 million since 1973. It took 37 years, almost twice as long as what you claim.
And the growth rate is slowing. For the first time since WW2 it's below 10%. Expect that to go down more.


Why is it so inconceivable for some people to think that we wont be able to reach 400 million in the next 40 years??
Because there is no such thing as unlimited growth.

First it was 100 million since 1980, now it's 100 million since 1990...:nuts:

We already knew that besides English you also have a problem interpreting graphs, or in this case just reading them right.

I'm at work. I can only take short breaks so I have to type fast. Ok. I'm sorry . Is that ok with you jackass?



In 1980 the US had a population of 226,545,805. In 2010 we are near 310 million. 83 million in 30 years. In 40 more years at these levels we will add 100 million more.



And the growth rate is slowing. For the first time since WW2 it's below 10%.
Expect that to go down more.

% growth rates can decrease but numerically we are adding more than ever.



Because there is no such thing as unlimited growth.


No kidding.

Still they each reached a billion (and growing even with one child policies in place for China) on very limited resources.

First it was 100 million since 1980, now it's 100 million since 1990...:nuts:

We already knew that besides English you also have a problem interpreting graphs, or in this case just reading them right.
Back here in reality, the US grew by 100 million since 1973. It took 37 years, almost twice as long as what you claim.
And the growth rate is slowing. For the first time since WW2 it's below 10%. Expect that to go down more.


Because there is no such thing as unlimited growth.

But the US has space for billions of additional people, it has more arable land than China, so I would say 2 billion would be adequate for the USA.

Because of fast growing religious minorities like Mormons, Amish and Haredis the fertility rate will rise over time, therefore it's unlike that the growth rate will go to the negative. It may slow down, but not as severe as here in Europe.

http://www.prb.org/Articles/2008/pewprojections.aspx


U.S. Population Could Reach 438 Million by 2050, and Immigration Is Keyby Carl Haub

(February 2008) A new report from the Pew Research Center projects that immigration will propel the U.S. population total to 438 million by 2050, from 303 million today (see Figure 1). Along with this growth, the racial and ethnic profile of Americans will continue to shift—with non-Hispanic whites losing their majority status. (U.S. Population Projections: 2005-2050)



It is no surprise that immigrants and their descendants will play a large role in future U.S. population growth, as they do now and have for much of the country's history. But the projections detailed in the new report, authored by demographer Jeffrey S. Passel and writer D'Vera Cohn, differ from previous projections from the U.S. Census Bureau by assuming that the rate of immigration will hold steady—sending the net number of immigrants from 1.4 million per year in 2005 to 2.1 million per year by 2050 as the population total rises. This assumed increase in immigrants is, as the Pew report puts it, "in line with, but somewhat slower than, the growth trend of the last several decades."

The Pew projections also offer a unique analysis of immigrants' role by taking into account the different birth rates of first-, second-, and third-generation immigrants. The authors estimate that immigrants arriving after 2005, and their children and grandchildren, will account for 82 percent of the population growth between 2005 and 2050.

Older Age Profile, Lower Birth Rates Slow Growth of Non-Hispanic Whites
The report also provides considerable detail on the country's future ethnic makeup (see Figure 2). With little immigration and low fertility, the non-Hispanic white population is projected to edge from 200 million to 207 million between 2005 and 2050, while the three other major racial and ethnic groups will see much more growth. The share of Non-Hispanic whites is slated to slip from 67 percent to 47 percent over the 45-year period. Indeed, they would decline in number by 2050, if not for immigration.

http://www.prb.org/images08/uspopincrs.gif

http://www.prb.org/images08/incrsracegrps.gif

With the majority population holding steady, the significant growth must come from some other group—and it does. This is where the assumptions about immigration levels become crucial. Under Pew's assumed immigration and fertility rates for major ethnic groups, the number of Hispanics will rise from 42 million to 128 million, and Asians from 14 million to 41 million.

Predicting Future Immigration
Immigration is the most volatile demographic variable. Because it is affected by unforeseeable political, economic, and social forces, it is the most difficult to predict. Previous U.S. projections usually assumed either that immigration would taper off or would remain constant. But actual immigration levels have run above projected levels, and the resulting projections underestimated U.S. population growth. The 2000 Census count was about 7 million higher than expected, an indication that immigration was higher than assumed in the 1990s.

Given that U.S. population projections depend so heavily on the immigration assumption, and that immigration is certainly in the forefront of national attention, what are the pros and cons of an assumption that immigration will increase, albeit rather slowly?

Arguments for the immigration increase can begin with fundamental changes ushered in by the Immigration and Nationality Act amendments of 1965, which opened immigration to all regions of the world. Previous laws had favored the traditional sending countries in Europe. Immigration legislation since that time has only served to increase immigration further and no laws to seriously curb immigration are on the horizon. Indeed, some want to keep immigrants coming: viewing them as necessary to fill gaps in an aging U.S. labor force and to provide support for retirees.

The continued increase in immigration also suggests that the United States will continue to symbolize a better life for millions of people from developing countries, with a stronger economy and greater opportunities.

Global demographic trends also point to continued U.S. immigration. The populations of many sending countries and regions continue to grow, creating an expanding pool of potential immigrants. Africa will grow by about 1 billion between 2005 and 2050, India by at least a half billion. Latin America, the source of at least one-half of today's immigrants, will add another 40 million or so.

Immigrants in the U.S. maintain ties to their home communities, and family reunification provisions in immigration law usually mean continued and sometimes increasing flow into the country. Unforeseen wars and political crises may bring new groups of immigrants as refugees, creating new links to countries abroad.

Why would immigration cease or slow? We could see some type of national consensus that population growth must be curbed in some way to preserve the quality of life and the environment. Economic conditions could improve in sending countries, dampening the enthusiasm for coming to the United States. It seems unlikely, but the U.S. economy could deteriorate to the point that it will no longer attract newcomers.

Regardless of what may happen in the future, the United States will become a more diverse country: The only question is how diverse. The assumptions underlying the new Pew report, as does any projection of the U.S. population, cause us to stop and think about the national demographic future.

But the US has space for billions of additional people, it has more arable land than China, so I would say 2 billion would be adequate for the USA.

Because of fast growing religious minorities like Mormons, Amish and Haredis the fertility rate will rise over time, therefore it's unlike that the growth rate will go to the negative. It may slow down, but not as severe as here in Europe.
The US is already living beyond its means for like a factor 6 to the world average. No way there is "space" for billions of people.
Those religious minority groups are tiny and fertility rates are dropping dropping dropping.

Blue line people, blue line...

Why would immigration cease or slow? We could see some type of national consensus that population growth must be curbed in some way to preserve the quality of life and the environment. Economic conditions could improve in sending countries, dampening the enthusiasm for coming to the United States. It seems unlikely, but the U.S. economy could deteriorate to the point that it will no longer attract newcomers.


...


All of that --> already happening.

The US is already living beyond its means for like a factor 6 to the world average. No way there is "space" for billions of people.
Those religious minority groups are tiny and fertility rates are dropping dropping dropping.

Blue line people, blue line...

No signs of dropping in Utah^^ Look at Israel, the most advanced country regarding that transition. since the late 1990s jewish fertility is rising steady, and it is likely to reach 4 children/woman in 2050, only because certain religious subgroups are having more children than the average.

...


All of that --> already happening.

Btw, the fertility rate of Urk, a town in your country, hasn't dropped, but it's hovering above 3 children/woman the whole time.:lol:

...


All of that --> already happening.

Wrong again. Maybe you are thinking about the situation in the EU at the moment? :D


More immigrants arriving than ever before.

http://www.willisms.com/archives/immigrationtousa.gif

and in the 2000's (up to 2008) we added 7 million LEGAL immigrants into the US population on track to match the record arrivals of the 1990's. Gaining 900,000 between 2007 and 2008:cheers:

http://img535.imageshack.us/img535/6447/46195874.jpg

Anyway...


I have been waiting for Los Angeles to crack 20 million, when will this finally happen.

Also, I believe Chicagoland and Metro Milwaukee should come to an agreement now, in the interest of the futures of both cities, as they are increasingly interconnected.

You can't take current or past growth rates and project them that far into the future.

You have a point here, this is why I don't put much stock in projections that far in the future...too much uncertainities.

You have a point here, this is why I don't put much stock in projections that far in the future...too much uncertainities.

is 40 years really that far into the future though?

^^

We gained 30 million in 10 years. I don't see 400 million impossible in fact it is probably a lower estimate.

You have a point here, this is why I don't put much stock in projections that far in the future...too much uncertainities.


It seems that he is making his own proejections though.



Anyone who thinks the US is going to reach 400 million and already overstretched cities like Dallas, Houston or Atlanta 10 million is severly delusional.

400 million in the United States is easily attainable. That's only a 29.4% increase. Given that the US birth rate is at replacement level and immigration isn't likely to decline significantly, 400 million is a reasonable expectation.

Side note: the US only attracted 2.5 million immigrants from 1951-1960? That's only 250,000/year. I just assumed it's been over 800,000/year for most of the last 100 years.

Hopefully, Canada will bump it's quota up to about 400,000/year from current levels.

Side note: the US only attracted 2.5 million immigrants from 1951-1960? That's only 250,000/year.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_Nationality_Act_of_1965

I don't see any cities in the UK getting that big, maybe London in 100 years

The US is already living beyond its means for like a factor 6 to the world average. No way there is "space" for billions of people.
Those religious minority groups are tiny and fertility rates are dropping dropping dropping.

Blue line people, blue line...

I was going to say basically the same thing, save one point. Although the Amish and Hasidic Jews are obviously very tiny groups, LDS is not. They are the dominant religious group in Utah and the fastest growing religion on the planet. They are also the 4th largest "christian" denomination in the US. LDS now has more American followers than Judaism. Don't underestimate the Mormons.

400 million in the United States is easily attainable. That's only a 29.4% increase. Given that the US birth rate is at replacement level and immigration isn't likely to decline significantly, 400 million is a reasonable expectation.

Side note: the US only attracted 2.5 million immigrants from 1951-1960? That's only 250,000/year. I just assumed it's been over 800,000/year for most of the last 100 years.

Hopefully, Canada will bump it's quota up to about 400,000/year from current levels.

IMO, I would like a country the size of Italy or GB... around 55 or 60 million should bode well, the population doubling in SK and MB.

What do you think?

IMO, I would like a country the size of Italy or GB... around 55 or 60 million should bode well, the population doubling in SK and MB.

What do you think?

I'm all for it, but 100,000,000 would be a more suitable population for Canada in the age of emerging global giants like India and China. If we're to protect our national interests and maintain a significant voice in the world, 60,000,000 isn't really going to be enough 30-40 years from now. Canada would slowly become marginalized. We're even on the verge of losing our place as 2nd largest economy in north America to Mexico! Canada needs to decide whether we want to remain a significant nation on the world stage or shrink to a nation on the periphery.

90% of Canadians live within a few hours drive of the US border, so we're under the false impression that we only have a tiny bit of 'hospitable' land. On closer inspection, we really have huge swaths of land in the south. Southern Ontario (126,819 sq km) alone is the same size as England (130,395 sq km), and England has 50,000,000 people.

The Maritimes (132,416 sq km) represent another block of land the size of England, then you've got southern Quebec about the same size. The prairie provinces represent 1,963,698 sq km. The southern third of the prairies (654,566 sq km) represents an area 5 times the size of England. BC is mountainous, but 7 times the size of England.

Southern Canada could easily support 100,000,000 people. We'd still have tons of open land and nothing approaching English density levels. At the bare minimum, Canada needs to boost the birth rate to replacement levels, and increase the immigration quota to 1.5% of national population or 510,000/year. Doing so should accomplish roughly 16% growth in the national population every 10 years:

2010: 34,115,000 (est.)
2020: 39,573,400
2030: 45,905,144
2040: 53,249,967
2050: 61,769,962
2060: 71,653,156
2070: 83,117,661
2080: 96,416,487

As you can see, even with a significantly higher growth rate it would take 40 years just to get to 62 million, and 70 years to get to 96 million. At this population level, we could expect 2 or 3 mega cities within our borders.

I'm all for it, but 100,000,000 would be a more suitable population for Canada in the age of emerging global giants like India and China. If we're to protect our national interests and maintain a significant voice in the world, 60,000,000 isn't really going to be enough 30-40 years from now. Canada would slowly become marginalized. We're even on the verge of losing our place as 2nd largest economy in north America to Mexico! Canada needs to decide whether we want to remain a significant nation on the world stage or shrink to a nation on the periphery.

90% of Canadians live within a few hours drive of the US border, so we're under the false impression that we only have a tiny bit of 'hospitable' land. On closer inspection, we really have huge swaths of land in the south. Southern Ontario (126,819 sq km) alone is the same size as England (130,395 sq km), and England has 50,000,000 people.

The Maritimes (132,416 sq km) represent another block of land the size of England, then you've got southern Quebec about the same size. The prairie provinces represent 1,963,698 sq km. The southern third of the prairies (654,566 sq km) represents an area 5 times the size of England. BC is mountainous, but 7 times the size of England.

Southern Canada could easily support 100,000,000 people. We'd still have tons of open land and nothing approaching English density levels. At the bare minimum, Canada needs to boost the birth rate to replacement levels, and increase the immigration quota to 1.5% of national population or 510,000/year. Doing so should accomplish roughly 16% growth in the national population every 10 years:

2010: 34,115,000 (est.)
2020: 39,573,400
2030: 45,905,144
2040: 53,249,967
2050: 61,769,962
2060: 71,653,156
2070: 83,117,661
2080: 96,416,487

As you can see, even with a significantly higher growth rate it would take 40 years just to get to 62 million, and 70 years to get to 96 million. At this population level, we could expect 2 or 3 mega cities within our borders.


Now this I can get behind. I feel the immigration cap should be at 650,000/yr or even 1.5 million/yr personally. Then we could protect are national intrests while we are both still young. Maybe even a new basketball league or 20 team CFL.

You have a point here, this is why I don't put much stock in projections that far in the future...too much uncertainities.

Yep... if pass projections of 'long term' can teach us something is that they're often wrong.
In particular about demography, because it depends by too many 'factors' which can't be 'implemented' in advance: like immigration policy and economics

Anyway I think that we in Europe are not accustomed still to deal with 'big numbers'
But if we see at European Union in its complex we can point out that the population of its 27 members overcame 500 mio and grew of 20 mio in past 10 years (source Eurostat, EU official census http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/tgm/table.do?tab=table&init=1&language=en&pcode=tps00001&plugin=1 )

I don't have data to provide for the previous decades but probably the growth was similar: in comparison with US, EU growth was lower in percentage. But the datus is more 'comparable'

The real difference between EU and USA is that the first one has a more disomogeneous growth: for istance I remember during '90s Germany growth was high thanks to a massive immigration, while Italy one was very low; in pass ten years it was the contrary



Anyway I think the topic has been a bit hijacked...

Are we just talking populations figures here? To me a "mega city" is a large urban metropolis that can offer a sophisticated urban lifestyle. Many large cities in the US does not live up to this. Let's take Houston, the fourth largest city in the US, as an example. The city is home to almost 6 million people but still the high-rise core is tiny, and the city overall is a gigantic sprawl (just like LA).

A European city like Copenhagen (2 million people) is denser, more urban and can definitely offer its citizens a greater urban experience in every sense of the word. Still, Houston is considered a great metropolis while Copenhagen is not.

To stay on topic I wanted to submit to you the Milan case

Milan is the main city of a Region of more than 10 mio inhabitants: mostly of 'em live in the urban plains sprawled in a densely urbanized axe between Varese and Brescia with Milan city as 'core'

http://web.cheapnet.it/guidaditalia/mappa_lombardia.jpg

A map of the soil cosumption (dark grey are the 'historical' inurbations, while grey are the following expansions)

http://i49.tinypic.com/mbllbd.jpg

Milan proper metro area has a 60 km radium circa from Milan city geographical center: within this area live about 7.5 mio people

Lombardy in its complex grew of 10% in population in last decade, and Milan proper metro grew a bit more: if it will remain at this level for next ones (what we can't project for sure as I said in my previous post) probably the same area will have more than 10 mio in 30 years or so.
But something else could happen: Milan metro and Brescia (80 km East of Milan) metro can merge in few years thanks to the continuos urbanization forming a gigantic conurbation.
Today Brescia metro is is between 1.5 and 2 mio

Are we just talking populations figures here? To me a "mega city" is a large urban metropolis that can offer a sophisticated urban lifestyle. Many large cities in the US does not live up to this. Let's take Houston, the fourth largest city in the US, as an example. The city is home to almost 6 million people but still the high-rise core is tiny, and the city overall is a gigantic sprawl (just like LA).

A European city like Copenhagen (2 million people) is denser, more urban and can definitely offer its citizens a greater urban experience in every sense of the word. Still, Houston is considered a great metropolis while Copenhagen is not.

You're right: but with Megacity we mean a city with +10 mio, as Metropolis stands for a city with +1 mio inhabitants... obviously a metropolis is something more complex and different in common sense, but the 'word' was born on 'quantity basis'

Milan seems very more closely linked than most NA cities. Thanks for the picture.

What are the population projections for Italy in 2020?

Is the population declining?

What are the population projections for Italy in 2020?

Is the population declining?

From the International Data Base, International Programs Center, Population Division, Us Census Bureau: *whew*

Italy 2025: 56,234,163
.......2050: 50,389,841

Canada 2025: 37,558,781
...........2050: 41,135,648

Hopefully you realize population decline for Italy has been predicted for years now and every year it has been growing...

That above prediction means absolutely shit...

Are we just talking populations figures here? To me a "mega city" is a large urban metropolis that can offer a sophisticated urban lifestyle. Many large cities in the US does not live up to this. Let's take Houston, the fourth largest city in the US, as an example. The city is home to almost 6 million people but still the high-rise core is tiny, and the city overall is a gigantic sprawl (just like LA).

A European city like Copenhagen (2 million people) is denser, more urban and can definitely offer its citizens a greater urban experience in every sense of the word. Still, Houston is considered a great metropolis while Copenhagen is not.

To be a mega city, you only need a population requirement. Sure, Houston isn't as charming or as dense as Copenhagen---but it is still a huge city that offers an urban lifestyle. It sprawls quite a bit, but it's core isn't tiny at all.

check these photo threads out if you doubt this.

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=1122317

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=1119831

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=1102237

L.A. sprawls too, but it's dense and urban sprawl. By all means is it a mega city. It just doesn't have a whole bunch of skyscrapers like NY or Chicago. Copenhagen probally has L.A. beat on charm and historic buildings though.

Hopefully you realize population decline for Italy has been predicted for years now and every year it has been growing...

That above prediction means absolutely shit...

That many North Africans, eh? :lol:

That many North Africans, eh? :lol:


Correct. But add 500,000 Albanians in the last 15 years to the North Africans in Italy!:lol: The ONLY reason why Italy's population (like many other European nations) are growing is precisely just that. Immigration.


If not for immigration the US would also eventually be on the decline (or stabilize) but not for a few decades....

http://www.flsuspop.org/images/population459.gif

I will not dispute the US population projectios like Anderson did. I believe US will reach the 400 million barrier before 2050.

However, he made a good point: demographic growth can change suddenly, specially for metropolitan areas (and specially in the US, where people move around all the time). It's impossible to say for sure if Dallas, Houston and Atlanta will keep the same growth rate or not. Looking into the past:

Detroit Metro Area population growth (9 counties area):

http://img29.imageshack.us/img29/7209/detroitn.jpg (http://img29.imageshack.us/i/detroitn.jpg/)

So, between 1900-1910, 30,7% of growth; 1910-1920, 90,1%; 1920-1930, 61,9%; 1930-1940, 9,6%; 1940-1950, 27,1%; 1950-1960, 25,9%; 1960-1970, 13,7%. The riots take place in 1967, and suddenly, everything changes: 1970-1980, -0,5%; 1980-1990, -2,1%; 1990-2000, 5,1%.

How someone in the early 60's could forecast the Detroit trends in the next decades? The trends suggested that Detroit could reach the 10 million barrier before 2000.

To be a mega city, you only need a population requirement. Sure, Houston isn't as charming or as dense as Copenhagen---but it is still a huge city that offers an urban lifestyle. It sprawls quite a bit, but it's core isn't tiny at all.

check these photo threads out if you doubt this.

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=1122317

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=1119831

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=1102237


I wasn´t only talking about charm and quality of architecture. Those pics you posted are nice but supports my argument, not yours. I don´t want to sound harsh but all I can see in those pics is a huge office park and suburbia. Some people may like that but "urban", "sophisticated" and "trendy" are not words I would use to describe Houston. Houston lacks all those things that makes a city a true metropolis. In that sense a city like Boston is more urban and sophisticated than Houston.

But if we're talking population figures then this is irrelevant.

L.A. sprawls too, but it's dense and urban sprawl. By all means is it a mega city. It just doesn't have a whole bunch of skyscrapers like NY or Chicago. Copenhagen probally has L.A. beat on charm and historic buildings though.

But "a whole bunch of skyscrapers" is not the reason why NYC is more of a real city than LA. LA has a tiny centre when compared with a city like Barcelona which is home to only 5 million people compared to LA´s 15. Still, I imagine Barcelona offers an urban experience more like Paris or New York, while LA looks more like Houston.

From the International Data Base, International Programs Center, Population Division, Us Census Bureau: *whew*

Italy 2025: 56,234,163
.......2050: 50,389,841

Cool projections

In the real world Italy passed from 56 mio of 1999 to over 60 mio of 2009

Thanks to immigration previously

This is Italian official census website if you want to check http://www.demo.istat.it/index.html

Correct. But add 500,000 Albanians in the last 15 years to the North Africans in Italy!:lol: The ONLY reason why Italy's population (like many other European nations) are growing is precisely just that. Immigration.


If not for immigration the US would also eventually be on the decline (or stabilize) but not for a few decades....

http://www.flsuspop.org/images/population459.gif

Actually immigration in Europe has a similar 'behaviour' to the one in US

Italy had a 0 growth or even negative growth from half of '80s till 2000; there was immigration but at low level (30/50k per year maximum during the '90s) and couldn't undo the effect of negative natural balance.
From 2000 to 2010 immigrants each year were everagely 300/500k with max. of over 700k: what happened is not only the overcome of the negative growth of population, but even a higher birth rate (still low), because immigrants have a better birth rate.
In particular you can see this in regions with a high percentage of immigrants, as Lombardy

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=400883&page=76
^^
Illegal immigrants from Africa are not counted to Italian population growth. Most Italian immigrants come from EE especially ex-Yugoslavia and South America, many from East Asia and Christian Africa…muslim immigrants are the minority.
The town where I live is inhabited by a small society of Italians…(Bielsko-Biala is FIAT headquarter for Poland). I talked with one guy who explained me that immigrants who made up 10% of Italian society are responsible for creating 20% of GDP…without them Italy would die…The major problem with Italian economy is its south regions, that is what north Italian claim…

The urbanization process in north part of Lombardy can also be made up by “second-houses”, I mean apartments that are visited only on weekends or holidays, apartments that can also be purchased by people outside Lombardy or even outside Italy but generally stay empty for most part of a year.

Second houses are a phenomenon you can find quite everywhere in Italy.

About illegal immigrants from Africa: I think the mediatic effect of people reaching Italy by see (who are prevalently Central Africans and not North Africans) make the things appear a bit 'distorted'... percentually they're few respect the total amount of illegal immigrants who for most enter the country by plane with a touristic visa (and obviously remain over the time of the visa to work), secondarily through land borders and finally by the see

Anyway the data I provided about Italy population don't take in account illegal immigrants: they're estimated to be at least 1 mio (some one says over 3 mio...)

P.S.
@aliveinchains
In the link you provided in that page we're talking about immigrants who become Italian citizens

Cool projections

In the real world Italy passed from 56 mio of 1999 to over 60 mio of 2009

Thanks to immigration previously

This is Italian official census website if you want to check http://www.demo.istat.it/index.html

I thought Italy was over 60 million too and then I saw these projections. BTW, the US Census Bureau projections can be dead-on or they can can be so far off the mark it's laughable. Their projections for many US cities have been challenged in court since the government uses them to budget money.

I wasn´t only talking about charm and quality of architecture. Those pics you posted are nice but supports my argument, not yours. I don´t want to sound harsh but all I can see in those pics is a huge office park and suburbia. Some people may like that but "urban", "sophisticated" and "trendy" are not words I would use to describe Houston. Houston lacks all those things that makes a city a true metropolis. In that sense a city like Boston is more urban and sophisticated than Houston.

But if we're talking population figures then this is irrelevant.



But "a whole bunch of skyscrapers" is not the reason why NYC is more of a real city than LA. LA has a tiny centre when compared with a city like Barcelona which is home to only 5 million people compared to LA´s 15. Still, I imagine Barcelona offers an urban experience more like Paris or New York, while LA looks more like Houston.


Yes, you are talking about charm and architecture. Houston has a heavilly populated core, yet you are essentially judging it on aesthetics. It's more spread out and car dominant, but it's still urban---but in a different way from most cities. Being walkable and dense really has nothing to do with a city being a mega city. I really don't see where you are getting suburbia and office park out of these pictures.

As for L.A., you really don't know what your talking about and are probally judging L.A. from photo threads of only certain neighborhoods. To say it isn't a real city is ignorant. It's density and urbanity is pretty varied. It has a smallish downtown core (compared to cities like NY or Chicago), but that doesn't mean it's not urban. It just means that it's a very spread out city. Urban experience has nothing to do with mega city, although L.A. offers a good urban experience. The L.A. metro area is huge. The city itself (4 million city proper) is probally closer to mega cities like London----which is a huge city, but much less dense then cities like Barcelona or Paris.

Look at this epic photo thread. It shows more of L.A. then just Beverly Hills. It's not the prettiest city or the most compact, but to deny the fact that this is one of the prime examples of the word "mega city" is borderline laughable. Like Houston, you are judging it on charm, walkability, and skyscrapers.

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=435705&highlight=

http://img188.imageshack.us/img188/2923/3456999952674fbac9a5b.jpg (http://img188.imageshack.us/i/3456999952674fbac9a5b.jpg/)


http://img686.imageshack.us/img686/5382/31978254885db5c6a631b.jpg (http://img686.imageshack.us/i/31978254885db5c6a631b.jpg/)

A dense core doesn't mean that the city has charm, that the city is livable, and that the streets of the city are used for recreational purposes.

Compare LA to these photos:

http://metro.mitkbh.dk/uploads/05a73c4c9a066dd79006923a0c5bba62.jpg

http://game.itu.dk/cig2010/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/nyhavn.jpg

http://i224.photobucket.com/albums/dd286/mettamorph/Europe%202008/Copenhagen/DPP_0096-2.jpg

^^lol... what's your point? I'd rather live in LA than there, personally.

I'd take Copenhagen over LA any day personally :)

is it really impossible that europe want have any new megacity in the next decades ?? i think there are madrid and barcelona they both have god chance to become megacities .. ??
Thankx Gods no!
We don't like suburban sprawl like in those hideous north American cities , tens of miles of roads , (small) backyards , parking lots , malls , highways with no identity at all.
A kind of urbanization that's also unfit for mass transit , that is the most efficient transportation system , both economically and environmentally.



Because there is no such thing as unlimited growth.
It does make sense but it seems now (some) people wanna be crowded and see the environment spoiled.
I don't know why they think so...

Are we just talking populations figures here? To me a "mega city" is a large urban metropolis that can offer a sophisticated urban lifestyle. Many large cities in the US does not live up to this. Let's take Houston, the fourth largest city in the US, as an example. The city is home to almost 6 million people but still the high-rise core is tiny, and the city overall is a gigantic sprawl (just like LA).

A European city like Copenhagen (2 million people) is denser, more urban and can definitely offer its citizens a greater urban experience in every sense of the word. Still, Houston is considered a great metropolis while Copenhagen is not.
fixed.

What are the population projections for Italy in 2020?

Is the population declining?
We were declining as regars to birthrates but due to immigration we're slighty growin.

Hopefully you realize population decline for Italy has been predicted for years now and every year it has been growing...

That above prediction means absolutely shit...
They were perfect but didn't take in account immigration.

^^
Madrid has grown 1,500.000 inhabitants in 10-12 years and now it has around6,700.000 inhabitants, and... Madrid isn't a megacity but we have enormous sprawls, tens of miles of roads (Madrid wins all european cities in this aspect), lots of malls... Sometimes it's not good but it's real.

They were perfect but didn't take in account immigration.

That obviously got an efect even on birth rate

^^
Madrid has grown 1,500.000 inhabitants in 10-12 years and now it has around6,700.000 inhabitants, and... Madrid isn't a megacity but we have enormous sprawls, tens of miles of roads (Madrid wins all european cities in this aspect), lots of malls... Sometimes it's not good but it's real.

Anyway a megacity by definition is a city (or a metro area, more properly) with 10 mio people or more: its structure or conformation are not that important

Anyway I'm convinced, as I said, in Europe first candidate could be Milan, more than Madrid (over all because it still is in a region of 10 mio)
Then there is the 'strange case' of Rhein-Rhur area: it has 12 mio inhabitants; technically it is a megacity

About the sprawl: Roberto-i pointed out that in Europe we don't 'like' North American enormous sprawls; it's true european cities are more compact, but sometimes not 'controlled' sprawl produce similar 'waste' of territory

^^
Yes, I was answering Roberto-i, he said Madrid didn't have sprawls, malls, etc.
Milan is in a region of 10 mio, but Madrid has today more inh. than Milan, we only speak about metropolitan population.

Metropolitan population of Milan is 7.5 mio, as I said in a radium of 60 km from city center


The problem of Milan, unlike Madrid or Paris or London, is that its sprawl is not compact due to the lack of any metropolitan figure... it is even true that it is less 'monocentric'

Pavle I actually didn't even mentioned Madrid , I talked generally about European cities.
It's true that Madrid recently (startin from early '90s?) has experienced an odd , and to me non-European , kind of suburban sprawl , it's very widespread.
And metropolitan population of milan is 7.5 mio
Once I made the math and counted 5.5 millions inhabitants , have you counted also Como and Varese?

Obviously: I said in a radium of 60 km

Yes, you are talking about charm and architecture. Houston has a heavilly populated core, yet you are essentially judging it on aesthetics. It's more spread out and car dominant, but it's still urban---but in a different way from most cities.

Spread out, car dominated and still urban? Eh..

Being walkable and dense really has nothing to do with a city being a mega city. I really don't see where you are getting suburbia and office park out of these pictures.

No it doesn't but that is not my point. If you can´t see what I mean by suburbia and office park you should travel more. Judging by those "amazing" pics Houston looks like any suburban office park here in Helsinki x 10000.

As for L.A., you really don't know what your talking about and are probally judging L.A. from photo threads of only certain neighborhoods. To say it isn't a real city is ignorant. It's density and urbanity is pretty varied. It has a smallish downtown core (compared to cities like NY or Chicago), but that doesn't mean it's not urban. It just means that it's a very spread out city. Urban experience has nothing to do with mega city, although L.A. offers a good urban experience. The L.A. metro area is huge. The city itself (4 million city proper) is probally closer to mega cities like London----which is a huge city, but much less dense then cities like Barcelona or Paris.

This is ridiculous! How dare you compare LA with London or Paris?? You haven´t got a clue have you? I mean wtf?

Look at this epic photo thread. It shows more of L.A. then just Beverly Hills. It's not the prettiest city or the most compact, but to deny the fact that this is one of the prime examples of the word "mega city" is borderline laughable. Like Houston, you are judging it on charm, walkability, and skyscrapers.

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=435705&highlight=

Epic? In half of those pics the city looks like a slum. LA is huge, and probably "charming" in its own way, but you´re talking out of your ass here. Again you post two pics that support my point.

Copenhagen

http://img192.imageshack.us/img192/3558/2nh1dag.png (http://img192.imageshack.us/i/2nh1dag.png/)

Houston

http://img188.imageshack.us/img188/8770/downtownhouston4a.jpg (http://img188.imageshack.us/i/downtownhouston4a.jpg/)


Which is more urban and city-like? Get a grip man.

lol... what's your point? I'd rather live in LA than there, personally.

:lol:

poor guy.

^^
This kind of Euro-superiority feeling is so annoying. We get it! Europe gets great cities, hundreds of millions visit Europe to enjoy the nice architecture, and stuff.

However, it doesn't mean that you are the single reference in terms of good urbanism or what is urban and not-urban. Other cities, for "n" reasons developed a different pattern of growth and there is no need to hate them.

Ever thought about that of the existing megacities only Los Angeles, Cairo, Lagos, Delhi, Krachi and Manila have a birth rate high enough to sustain their population?

People in the US never think about the economic and social costs of their way of life, the suburban way.
Cars and oil pollute and are expensive, but necessary in over 90% of US cities. This necessity makes them almost like a tax. Social life for kids in suburbs suffers, a lot, because there is not much to do other than play video games and smoke. In the next hundred years there has been here a lot of talk about city sprawls combining in the US. As rich as the US is in land and resources and as innovative as it is, I think that in the next 100 years cities in the US will geographically contract while still in grow in population.
In the 50's the US could afford the waste of such sprawls, but I do not think that they can afford it indefinitely.
Think of the yearly (social and economic) expenses of Houstonian who goes to work, a game, on a date, to buy condoms, one pack of cigarettes or a sandwich within a car, multiply that by millions, and tell me if that future is reliable and affordable

As for my own experience, with few obvious exceptions (NY, Boston and Co) most US cities seem like overgrown villages with a nice business/theme park at the center. I respect Houston as a big city, with big businesses in energy, but I think I would be fairly bored if I lived there.

Spread out, car dominated and still urban? Eh..

No it doesn't but that is not my point. If you can´t see what I mean by suburbia and office park you should travel more. Judging by those "amazing" pics Houston looks like any suburban office park here in Helsinki x 10000.

This is ridiculous! How dare you compare LA with London or Paris?? You haven´t got a clue have you? I mean wtf?

Epic? In half of those pics the city looks like a slum. LA is huge, and probably "charming" in its own way, but you´re talking out of your ass here. gain you post two pics that support my point.

Which is more urban and city-like? Get a grip man.

Nice retarded post. All your charming cities in Europe were mostly built BEFORE the automobile. By the time cars emerged and replaced walking and other forms of transport in America, Europeans were still living in much the same way they did in the 19th century. But what about post-war Europe? Did they build charming little urban centers with stone paved roads? No, they built charmless suburban public housing estates and hideous car parks! American cities before the automobile were little different than European ones except for the fact that they weren't the product of one failed kingdom or empire stacked on top of each other.

People in the US never think about the economic and social costs of their way of life, the suburban way.
Cars and oil pollute and are expensive, but necessary in over 90% of US cities. This necessity makes them almost like a tax. Social life for kids in suburbs suffers, a lot, because there is not much to do other than play video games and smoke. In the next hundred years there has been here a lot of talk about city sprawls combining in the US. As rich as the US is in land and resources and as innovative as it is, I think that in the next 100 years cities in the US will geographically contract while still in grow in population.
In the 50's the US could afford the waste of such sprawls, but I do not think that they can afford it indefinitely.
Think of the yearly (social and economic) expenses of Houstonian who goes to work, a game, on a date, to buy condoms, one pack of cigarettes or a sandwich within a car, multiply that by millions, and tell me if that future is reliable and affordable

As for my own experience, with few obvious exceptions (NY, Boston and Co) most US cities seem like overgrown villages with a nice business/theme park at the center. I respect Houston as a big city, with big businesses in energy, but I think I would be fairly bored if I lived there.

The more the oil-price rises, the more the suburban dwellers are under pressure to move to the city. So the big migration to the cities will start when we have arrived at peak oil.

^^Understanding American Cities 101:

American cities (with a few exceptions) thrive in their peripheries (outer suburbs) not in their downtowns. They are mostly designed to be experienced by car, not walking.

Many europeans and asians tourists go straight to their downtowns, but with the exception of a few museums and arenas the downtowns are only places of work.

I live in Phoenix and very seldom I go downtown. I can find everything I need in the outer suburbs such as: entertainment venues, nigth clubs, libraries, shopping centers, parks, etc.

I will tell you a secret: When you visit a modern American city look at outer Loop Freeway: Just head straight to that outer loop freeway, that is the place along which, most likely, all the best venues are located, never downtown!!!

I will tell you a secret: When you visit a modern American city look at outer Loop Freeway: Just head straight to that outer loop freeway, that is the place along which, most likely, all the best venues are located, never downtown!!!
You don't experience a city by driving around in a car.

^^Understanding American Cities 101:

American cities (with a few exceptions) thrive in their peripheries (outer suburbs) not in their downtowns. They are mostly designed to be experienced by car, not walking.

Many europeans and asians tourists go straight to their downtowns, but with the exception of a few museums and arenas the downtowns are only places of work.

I live in Phoenix and very seldom I go downtown. I can find everything I need in the outer suburbs such as: entertainment venues, nigth clubs, libraries, shopping centers, parks, etc.

I will tell you a secret: When you visit a modern American city look at outer Loop Freeway: Just head straight to that outer loop freeway, that is the place along which, most likely, all the best venues are located, never downtown!!!

That's true of cities like Phoenix that barely even existed before WWII, but a large number of US cities like NYC, Seattle, San Francisco, Portland, Boston, Philadelphia, Chicago, San Diego, Oakland, Denver, Salt Lake City, New Orleans, Atlanta, Baltimore, St. Louis, Minneapolis, St. paul, Louisville, Pittsburgh, Providence, etc have large, vital and active downtowns with plenty to see and do, although it is true you can't play golf and eat at an Outback Steakhouse in those inner cities. For any Eurotroll that hates the US and our cities, the solution is simple: don't come here. Stay in your lovely, charming, slowly dying cities and grow old with the rest of the pensioners and bicycle monarchists.

You don't experience a city by driving around in a car.

Yes you do. Think outside your preconceived notions.

The more the oil-price rises, the more the suburban dwellers are under pressure to move to the city. So the big migration to the cities will start when we have arrived at peak oil.

Wont happen for at least 100 years. Oils shale will ensure this..... And even then, alternative fuels will make easy for auto centric people to live in their cozy suburbs.

Those religious minority groups are tiny and fertility rates are dropping dropping dropping.


Yeah for now. But they're the ones having all the kids, remember? ;)

is 40 years really that far into the future though?

40 years is at least two/three generations, it is very far in the future IMO. The projections might be significantly more or less than what is forecasted. It is very much a crapshoot with assumptions that might apply today, but not in the future.

This kind of Euro-superiority feeling is so annoying. We get it! Europe gets great cities, hundreds of millions visit Europe to enjoy the nice architecture, and stuff.

However, it doesn't mean that you are the single reference in terms of good urbanism or what is urban and not-urban. Other cities, for "n" reasons developed a different pattern of growth and there is no need to hate them.

There are many urban, dynamic and sophisticated cities in America. Just look at NYC and San Francisco for example.


Nice retarded post. All your charming cities in Europe were mostly built BEFORE the automobile. By the time cars emerged and replaced walking and other forms of transport in America, Europeans were still living in much the same way they did in the 19th century. But what about post-war Europe? Did they build charming little urban centers with stone paved roads? No, they built charmless suburban public housing estates and hideous car parks! American cities before the automobile were little different than European ones except for the fact that they weren't the product of one failed kingdom or empire stacked on top of each other.

So much ignorance, distorted history and self-pity in one post :lol:

Most, if not all of today´s large American cities were founded before the automobile. They were not similar to European cities at all, as you claim. They were much more urban and denser than they're now, but the modern architecture and grid iron street pattern made them very different. The cities of west Europe have always been modern and progressive unlike you stupidly claim.

And what have housing estates got to do with this? They´re all over America too, not to mention the endless suburban sprawl American cities suffer from. At least we didn´t replace our city centres with sterile office parks.

So much ignorance, distorted history and self-pity in one post :lol:

Most, if not all of today´s large American cities were founded before the automobile. They were not similar to European cities at all, as you claim. They were much more urban and denser than they're now, but the modern architecture and grid iron street pattern made them very different. The cities of west Europe have always been modern and progressive unlike you stupidly claim.

And what have housing estates got to do with this? They´re all over America too, not to mention the endless suburban sprawl American cities suffer from. At least we didn´t replace our city centres with sterile office parks.

Such trollishness in one post, why haven't you been banned? Personal attacks won't make your points for you...but if you knew that, you might start making sense.

American cities were PATTERNED after European ones. The gridded street system, WHICH WAS INVENTED IN EUROPE IN THE 1600s as an extension of defensive fortifications and which was proposed for London after the disasterous fire in 1666, came to the US along with other "rational" concepts of EUROPEAN scholars and politicians. Washington DC's grid system was devised by Charles L'Enfant, a FRENCHMAN. The developments in Europe after 1920 and in America were almost IDENTICAL: suburban garden housing developments, big urban department stores, airports, etc. You obviously don't even know your own history.:ohno:

That's true of cities like Phoenix that barely even existed before WWII, but a large number of US cities like NYC, Seattle, San Francisco, Portland, Boston, Philadelphia, Chicago, San Diego, Oakland, Denver, Salt Lake City, New Orleans, Atlanta, Baltimore, St. Louis, Minneapolis, St. paul, Louisville, Pittsburgh, Providence, etc have large, vital and active downtowns with plenty to see and do, although it is true you can't play golf and eat at an Outback Steakhouse in those inner cities. For any Eurotroll that hates the US and our cities, the solution is simple: don't come here. Stay in your lovely, charming, slowly dying cities and grow old with the rest of the pensioners and bicycle monarchists.

for sure we're dyin' at a much slower pace than you...

http://pixelperfect-photo.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/DetroitTrainStationFlat8x10.jpg

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2008/01/05/nyregion/21369869.JPG

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_p2jgVV2iZVs/SGep_SuqxDI/AAAAAAAADeI/QZemLrsm1AA/s400/decay+6-29.jpg

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/216/450280658_404272f446.jpg
There are many urban, dynamic and sophisticated cities in America. Just look at NYC and San Francisco for example.




So much ignorance, distorted history and self-pity in one post :lol:

Most, if not all of today´s large American cities were founded before the automobile. They were not similar to European cities at all, as you claim. They were much more urban and denser than they're now, but the modern architecture and grid iron street pattern made them very different.
Right , the fact is America is ruled by ignorance and greed , that's why (most of)those who were in charge let the historical* city centers being demolished to get spaces for highways.

*as you mentioned most US cities were founde before 1900 so there were relevant historical remnants , even if not so ancient like European ones.

ONE city ~ Detroit. Any others?

Mini photo thread: "The Detroit You're Not Allowed To See"

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2440/4012304149_58e9b9d697_d.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2469/4012305609_81a0e0bcec_d.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2611/4012306997_a51461f1ba_d.jpg

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/54/165716446_747fea72d6_d.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2595/3977098941_f4fe2ca0ee_d.jpg

^^
And we're "not allowed to see", the beautiful high-rises in the European suburbs where people use to lit cars on fire, the urban sprawling everywhere or the destruction perpetrated in Europe against old buildings following the 1960's. The damages, some argue, were worst than the carpet-bombing in WWII.



Right , the fact is America is ruled by ignorance and greed , that's why (most of)those who were in charge let the historical* city centers being demolished to get spaces for highways.

In the Brazilian forum, that kind of post would put you "in the brig" for at least a month...

We all got it: US cities are the worst in the world and you hate American people. Your expertise about American society completely overpowered us.

So let's back to the topic: next cities to reach 10 million... Dallas, Houston and Atlanta could do it or not...

ONE city ~ Detroit. Any others?

Only the first one refers to Detroit , the others are taken in NYC and Philly.

I'm sure that if I check any abandoned placeslike websites I can find similar decay for most US cities.

We also have in Western Europe some slum who doesn' lool that fine but nothing compared to those rotten districts , it's pure third world.

In the Brazilian forum, that kind of post would put you "in the brig" for at least a month...

We all got it: US cities are the worst in the world and you hate American people. Your expertise about American society completely overpowered us.

So let's back to the topic: next cities to reach 10 million... Dallas, Houston and Atlanta could do it or not...

what a ridicolous post :lol:

I've just reminded you how it works in America , they prefer demolish everythin' that is old and no more fit for economic development REGARDLESS its historical value , because money rules over (almost) evrything in America.

It's a MIRACLE there's still some builiding prior to 1900 still in USA.

^^
Europe destroyed far more historical buildings than US. Following the 60's, there has been an orgy of destruction in Europe. Your anti-americanism is so out-dated. You should be embarassed to post such things around.

Let's back to the "next 10 million city"...

Mini photo thread: "The Detroit You're Not Allowed To See"


Just for the record I didn't say Detroit is a ghost city , I merey replied to an inconsisten statement , that of that European cities are decayn' while American ones are thrievin'.

^^
Europe destroyed far more historical buildings than US. Following the 60's, there has been an orgy of destruction in Europe.
Where??
The Germans even managed to rebuild a lot of sites destroied during the WWII , take Dresden for instance...

Your anti-americanism is so out-dated. You should be embarassed to post such things around.
Accordin' to what I've been seein for so long now it's the American classical way of demolish and rebuild that is outdated , I see a lot or urban renovation that try to imitate European urbanism , one example par exellance is the Gaslamp in San Diego , in San Francisco they also have demolished that ugly elevated highway branch that vilified the city center , in so many cities municipalities are developin' mass transit , just like Europe :)

^^
Europe destroyed far more historical buildings than US. Following the 60's, there has been an orgy of destruction in Europe. Your anti-americanism is so out-dated. You should be embarassed to post such things around.

Sure, compare pics of German cities before and after the war, you will see the same buildings in most historical cities, even though they were destroyed. Try to inform yourself better next time. ;)

^^
Look around the UK foruns and elsewhere, there are many many threads about the destruction of European cities post-war.

And talk about German cities: have you ever see Düsseldorf, Essen, Berlin, Dortmund, Leipzig, Mannheim, Frankfurt?

Well, I don't like the american model because low density suburbia doesn't feel like a city, no matter how big it is.

And yes I've seen those cities, lots of excellent post-war reconstruction :cheers2:. That obvisouly doesn't mean new construction is forbidden and that everything has to stay like it was pre-1945.

^^
Doesn't matter the reason: unlike people are saying, Europe destroyed much much more historical buildings than US. You cannot even compare.

I don't mean being to be disrespectful, but your opinions about suburbs, or of the other colleague talking about the "advantages of Copenhagen over Houston and LA", or how "American people are ignorant and greed" really don't matter here. We were having a nice discussion about the "next 10 million people city" or if Dallas, Houston and Atlanta would get there, and suddenly the discussion was disrupted by this kind of trolling behaviour.

Such trollishness in one post, why haven't you been banned? Personal attacks won't make your points for you...but if you knew that, you might start making sense.

If you take a discussion on an online forum so personally you shouldn't be here. Focus on the relevant stuff please.

American cities were PATTERNED after European ones. The gridded street system, WHICH WAS INVENTED IN EUROPE IN THE 1600s as an extension of defensive fortifications and which was proposed for London after the disasterous fire in 1666, came to the US along with other "rational" concepts of EUROPEAN scholars and politicians.

London is a poor example as Wren's plan was never realized. Furthermore it doesn't look anything like the strict pattern applied on American cities. A city can be planned without using a gridded street system.

Washington DC's grid system was devised by Charles L'Enfant, a FRENCHMAN.

Washington doesn't look like your average American city. Helsinki´s neo-classical core was modeled after St Petersburg and designed by a German architect. What's your point?

The developments in Europe after 1920 and in America were almost IDENTICAL: suburban garden housing developments, big urban department stores, airports, etc. You obviously don't even know your own history.:ohno:

Which is what I said in the first place. You then went on about tower blocks and post-war Europe. Make up your mind.


Europe destroyed far more historical buildings than US. Following the 60's, there has been an orgy of destruction in Europe. Your anti-americanism is so out-dated. You should be embarassed to post such things around.

What utter nonsense. In Germany almost all of the destruction was caused by the war, same goes for Poland. In Britain and the Nordic countries some cities were "modernised" in a horrible way. In Finland the medieval city of Turku has almost been swept away. In Britain large cities (some of the largest in the world a century ago) like Brimingham, Manchester and Liverpool has suffered a lot, but even now these cities are architecturally superior to most cities in the US.

Look at old pics of American cities and you'll see that many have been completely destroyed by suburbia, high ways, malls etc. No comparison to Europe there.


Let's back to the "next 10 million city"...

Don't expect people to get back on topic after a comment like that.

http://members.cox.net/dogmatix/Thread%20Hijacked.JPG

This Europe vs America is boring and pointless, though

^Great contribution.

^^
Doesn't matter the reason: unlike people are saying, Europe destroyed much much more historical buildings than US. You cannot even compare.

Alt , wait a minute , you first talked of the 1960s
^^
And we're "not allowed to see", the beautiful high-rises in the European suburbs where people use to lit cars on fire, the urban sprawling everywhere or the destruction perpetrated in Europe against old buildings following the 1960's. The damages, some argue, were worst than the carpet-bombing in WWII.


and then of the WWII , yes we had a war , that's why , unfortunately , a lot of city centers were lost for ever , USA didn't had a war , yet , they succesfully managed to get rid of most of their pre-1900 historical city centers.

That's because the mindset of Europeans and Americans are different , here we try to take care of our past and renovate it when needed , there they don't care , just demolish and rebuild something new.

So don't be :eek: if someone claim US cities to be soulles , boring , no-pedestrian friendly and with no identity but utilitarianism based.

^Great contribution.

I'm sorry: but this thread has become an America vs Europe, what it's not only Off Topic, but even against forum rules
I don't know if it is or not a great contribution: it's just an attempt to stop the OT, probably useless

In Europe you it is better to talk about conurbations made of different big cities than one mega city because there are some regions that are densely populated. Like whole Rhine region, from Basel to Rotterdam, like whole Lombardy region in Italy, like southern Poland and eastern Czech Republic, like Danube valley etc.

But the next new mega city (in terms of population) in Europe will probably be Milan, but last years Madrid is growing rapidly, and probably in the future will be true mega city like Paris and London. Berlin is also develloping, and we should never underestimate Germans. We musn't forget about Athens, actually the whole Attica region.

About US I can't say a lot because I was there only once, so I don't know much.

French Guiana over 3? :lol: I doubt there will be more megacities in the developed world. The number of immigrants often hardly replace the birth deficits. Germany had a demographic loss of 300k last year!

In Europe you it is better to talk about conurbations made of different big cities than one mega city because there are some regions that are densely populated. Like whole Rhine region, from Basel to Rotterdam, like whole Lombardy region in Italy, like southern Poland and eastern Czech Republic, like Danube valley etc.

But the next new mega city (in terms of population) in Europe will probably be Milan, but last years Madrid is growing rapidly, and probably in the future will be true mega city like Paris and London. Berlin is also develloping, and we should never underestimate Germans. We musn't forget about Athens, actually the whole Attica region.

About US I can't say a lot because I was there only once, so I don't know much.

Milan? One of the fastest shrinking cities in Europe? In several year the population of Milan will fall below 1 Mio. And the whole agglomeration is not growing that fast either.

^^
Milan central-core (like the majority of European and North American cities) loses population. However, Lombardia (some sort of a Milan Metro) has strong growth.

Strong growth is >1.5% everything else is growth. And even if it still grows at the moment, it will not be able to revert a process of almost all of Europe. And it will shrink before it passes 10 million.

^^
I meant strong growth for European standards. :)

^^
I meant strong growth for European standards. :)
:lol: Okay, then it is strong growth. :D

^^
Milan central-core (like the majority of European and North American cities) loses population. However, Lombardia (some sort of a Milan Metro) has strong growth.Anyway even the core (Milan municipality) has increased its population in last years (anyway last decades decrease was just people who went to live in metro, where house prices are lower, and living standards are better - greenery, row houses with gardens, low pollution, etc. Even I went to live in Milan hinterland) and there is a new plan under approuval which has the target to reach within 2030 2 mio inhabitants in Milan city proper (which doesn't mean it will happen)

Strong growth is >1.5%

Anyway last datus of Lombardy annual growth (2008) is 1.03% and data are the same in the previous years

source: http://www.demo.istat.it/bil2008/index.html

Spread out, car dominated and still urban? Eh..

yes, that still is urban. Usage of car means nothing. Milwaukee for instance has no train or fixed mass transit, but is still very much urban. The pop. density of Milwaukee is 2,399.5/km2 with an area of 251 km, and a city proper population of over 600,000. That is comparable to some European cities. You can live in dense, urban cities and still own a car.



No it doesn't but that is not my point. If you can´t see what I mean by suburbia and office park you should travel more. Judging by those "amazing" pics Houston looks like any suburban office park here in Helsinki x 10000.

How? A suburban office park is low-rise for the most part and cut off from the city. I am not saying these office towers are pedestrian friendly at the street, but they are still urban. And Houston has areas with skyscrapers, outside it's downtown core.

This is ridiculous! How dare you compare LA with London or Paris?? You haven´t got a clue have you? I mean wtf?

Why? L.A. is a monsterous city. It's overall density isn't a far cry from that of London. It's not as dense as Paris, but it's still very much a mega city. I sense some Euro-snobbery here.



Epic? In half of those pics the city looks like a slum. LA is huge, and probably "charming" in its own way, but you´re talking out of your ass here. Again you post two pics that support my point.

No, these pictures show the variety of urbanity in L.A. For you to say it's not a real city is laughable. It dwarfs Copenhagen and has four million people in it's city limits.

How do the pictures support your argument. Those pictures clearly show L.A. as a mega city and the thread I posted show that it's also very urban.



Which is more urban and city-like? Get a grip man.

did I say that Houston was more urban then Copenhagen? Yes, we all know Copenhagen has a dense, historic core. That doesn't change the fact that it's a rather small metro area. Houston dwarfs it, regardless if it's less walkable, has fewer historical structures, and more car oriented. Copenhagen is probally more similar to Milwaukee in population and metro area.

Anyway last datus of Lombardy annual growth (2008) is 1.03% and data are the same in the previous years

source: http://www.demo.istat.it/bil2008/index.html

Economic crisis for sure has ended the immigration-rush of Italy and Spain. The Growth of Milan and Madrid will be much slower in this decade than in the 2000s.

40 years is at least two/three generations, it is very far in the future IMO. The projections might be significantly more or less than what is forecasted. It is very much a crapshoot with assumptions that might apply today, but not in the future.

I don't see why there is reason to doubt 400 million or something close to it. I really am not seeing what can change so rapidlly in 40 years for this to be a pipe dream.

for sure we're dyin' at a much slower pace than you...

http://pixelperfect-photo.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/DetroitTrainStationFlat8x10.jpg

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2008/01/05/nyregion/21369869.JPG

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_p2jgVV2iZVs/SGep_SuqxDI/AAAAAAAADeI/QZemLrsm1AA/s400/decay+6-29.jpg

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/216/450280658_404272f446.jpg



great job there, pointing out certain areas of Detroit now and the South Bronx circa 1980.

Thank you desert for posting those pictures of Detroit to shake up the image of that city. Sure, it's not perfect but it isn't a hellhole either that people imagine it to be.

Milan? One of the fastest shrinking cities in Europe? In several year the population of Milan will fall below 1 Mio. And the whole agglomeration is not growing that fast either.

Just because Germany has low birth rates and even emigration last few years, doesn't mean that the whole Europe is going down. Just look at amazing immigration in Spain, or huge population growth in France.

great job there, pointing out certain areas of Detroit now and the South Bronx circa 1980.

Thank you desert for posting those pictures of Detroit to shake up the image of that city. Sure, it's not perfect but it isn't a hellhole either that people imagine it to be.

Fact is Europe experienced that kind of desolation only in WWII , American cities didn't need a world war , and I'm sure there are still now similar areas if I do a search for abandoned places.

Fact is Europe experienced that kind of desolation only in WWII , American cities didn't need a world war , and I'm sure there are still now similar areas if I do a search for abandoned places.

no, you will not see areas like the South Bronx circa 70's-80's anywhere in America.

And you are going to honestly tell me there aren't any abandoned buildings in Europe?

By comparison the MSA of New York is 17,405 km², the MSA of Chicago is 24,814.7 km2, and Île-de-France (Paris) is 12,012 km2.
Don't forget that Paris manages to pack 10 million people in just 2,200 km². New York manages to pack 10 million people in just 1,400 km². Toronto is still very far from reaching such a concentration of human masses.

Just because Germany has low birth rates and even emigration last few years, doesn't mean that the whole Europe is going down. Just look at amazing immigration in Spain, or huge population growth in France.

Italy's birth rates are just as poor as the birth rates of Germany. And Milan was for a long time a fast shrinking city. All the biggest cities in Germany continue to grow.
And honestly I have nothing against some kind of people leaving Germany. Spain has no longer an "amazing" immigration. That "amazing immigration" also caused an "amazing unemployment" with "amazing slum growth". Honestly I think that immigration into social welfare systems is a bad business.
And France's growth is due to high fertility rates with moderate immigration rates and not due to mass immigration.
You just show to have no clue on this topic... :ohno:

Strong growth is >1.5% everything else is growth.
At the moment (post financial crisis), the only metropolitan areas above 1 million people in Europe which are still growing at a rate above 1.5% per year are (warning, short list):
- Oslo
- Toulouse
- and to my knowledge, that's it.

At the moment (post financial crisis), the only metropolitan areas above 1 million people in Europe which are still growing at a rate above 1.5% per year are (warning, short list):
- Oslo
- Toulouse
- and to my knowledge, that's it.

This list is really short!!!! :eek:

If you take a discussion on an online forum so personally you shouldn't be here. Focus on the relevant stuff please.

I don't take anything that dribbles from your troll claws onto your keyboard personally. You just consistently violate forum rules with your personal attacks. That was my point.

London is a poor example as Wren's plan was never realized. Furthermore it doesn't look anything like the strict pattern applied on American cities. A city can be planned without using a gridded street system.

Before that street grid, there was no such thing as street planning city streets were essentially pathways between property boundaries and nothing more. What London DID do was widen their streets so that flames would not leap so easily between buildings in the future. they also banned extreme overhangs that jutted out into the streets.

Washington doesn't look like your average American city. Helsinki´s neo-classical core was modeled after St Petersburg and designed by a German architect. What's your point?

Buffalo NY had the same planner as Washington DC. Some US cities like Boston and Santa Fe NM have a very jumbled, European street layout at their center. My point, since your reading comprehension skills are lacking, is that the ideas that shaped american cities were European, not American. The first truly American street plans were devised in the inner suburbs of Boston and Chicago in the late 1800s.

Which is what I said in the first place. You then went on about tower blocks and post-war Europe. Make up your mind.

All that I said, in addition to those tower blocks, not instead of.

What utter nonsense. In Germany almost all of the destruction was caused by the war, same goes for Poland. In Britain and the Nordic countries some cities were "modernised" in a horrible way. In Finland the medieval city of Turku has almost been swept away. In Britain large cities (some of the largest in the world a century ago) like Brimingham, Manchester and Liverpool has suffered a lot, but even now these cities are architecturally superior to most cities in the US.

How are they "architecturally superior"? You mean Lego towers and blobs?

Look at old pics of American cities and you'll see that many have been completely destroyed by suburbia, high ways, malls etc. No comparison to Europe there.

The concepts behind the urban destruction in the 1950s and '60s were borrowed from Le Corbusier.

Don't expect people to get back on topic after a comment like that.

As if you knew anything about being on topic. Troll.

This list is really short!!!! :eek:
What else? Spain is kaput (in 2009 the population growth rate in the Madrid province was only +0.6%, whereas in the Barcelona province it was only +0.1%, almost German-like). Ireland is kaput (in 2009 the Irish population registered 0 growth). Italy is kaput (in 2009 the population growth rate in Lombardy was +0.9%). Britain and the Benelux have grown slow for the past 30 years. Germany, well, let's not even talk of Germany. Austria and Switzerland are only in a marginally better state than Germany (Geneva is booming though, but it has less than 1 million people). Sweden, Denmark and Finland are not doing too bad, but neither Copenhagen, nor Stockholm, nor Helsinki reach a growth rate of 1.5% I believe. Eastern Europe is a catastrophe. Only Moscow experiences a significant growth rate, but not above 1.5% due to its already large population.

So the last countries standing are... Norway (thank you gas and oil reserves) and France (thank you French moms). Oslo, the only Norwegian metropolitan area with more than 1 million people, is growing fast, and managed to attract lots of immigrants in 2009, despite the world crisis (they probably came due to the oil and gas economy). In France the Atlantic and Mediterranean costs are still booming despite the crisis (thanks to a teflon birth rate immune to the crisis and thanks to domestic migration, i.e. Parisians moving to coastal sunny areas, which is not influenced by the health of the economy). In those areas (Atlantic coast and southern France), there are four metropolitan areas with more than 1 million people (Bordeaux, Toulouse, Marseille, and Nice), and only Toulouse manages to reach a rate above 1.5%. Bordeaux has always grown more slowly than Toulouse, Nice is a place for retired people, i.e. high death rate, and Marseille has recovered quite a lot since 1999 but due to its already large population (large in a French context) it can't reach a rate above 1.5% (it would need lots of international immigration to achieve that, domestic migration wouldn't be enough, besides the Parisians don't like Marseille, they prefer to move to Toulouse and Bordeaux if they are young, or Nice if they are old).

What else? Spain is kaput (in 2009 the population growth rate in the Madrid province was only +0.6%, whereas in the Barcelona province it was only +0.1%, almost German-like). Ireland is kaput (in 2009 the Irish population registered 0 growth). Italy is kaput (in 2009 the population growth rate in Lombardy was +0.9%). Britain and the Benelux have grown slow for the past 30 years. Germany, well, let's not even talk of Germany. Austria and Switzerland are only in a marginally better state than Germany (Geneva is booming though, but it has less than 1 million people). Sweden, Denmark and Finland are not doing too bad, but neither Copenhagen, nor Stockholm, nor Helsinki reach a growth rate of 1.5% I believe. Eastern Europe is a catastrophe. Only Moscow experiences a significant growth rate, but not above 1.5% due to its already large population.

So the last countries standing are... Norway (thank you gas and oil reserves) and France (thank you French moms). Oslo, the only Norwegian metropolitan area with more than 1 million people, is growing fast, and managed to attract lots of immigrants in 2009, despite the world crisis (they probably came due to the oil and gas economy). In France the Atlantic and Mediterranean costs are still booming despite the crisis (thanks to a teflon birth rate immune to the crisis and thanks to domestic migration, i.e. Parisians moving to coastal sunny areas, which is not influenced by the health of the economy). In those areas (Atlantic coast and southern France), there are four metropolitan areas with more than 1 million people (Bordeaux, Toulouse, Marseille, and Nice), and only Toulouse manages to reach a rate above 1.5%. Bordeaux has always grown more slowly than Toulouse, Nice is a place for retired people, i.e. high death rate, and Marseille has recovered quite a lot since 1999 but due to its already large population (large in a French context) it can't reach a rate above 1.5% (it would need lots of international immigration to achieve that, domestic migration wouldn't be enough, besides the Parisians don't like Marseille, they prefer to move to Toulouse and Bordeaux if they are young, or Nice if they are old).

Hmmm, Munich had an annual growth of 1.2%, Mainz of 1.01%, Potsdam hit 2.2% from 2000-2008. Many smaller cities of less than 100k inhabitants had a percentual high growth rate - but regarding a small city in a percentual, then it becomes difficult because 1% of nothing is still nothing. :lol:
Of the big cities, only Dortmund and Essen and Duisburg had negative growth.

What else? Spain is kaput (in 2009 the population growth rate in the Madrid province was only +0.6%, whereas in the Barcelona province it was only +0.1%, almost German-like).

Madrid province population grew aprox. 63.000 inh. during 2009, 0,97%.

Hmmm, Munich had an annual growth of 1.2%, Mainz of 1.01%, Potsdam hit 2.2% from 2000-2008.
You have to look at metro area level, not at central city level. In Europe the central municipalities all tend to register increasing growth rates because people are moving back to the centers, but these figures are an optical illusion, just like the figures in the 1970s and 1980s which showed that the central cities were losing population, it was also an optical illusion (because the suburbs were growing a lot, so the metro areas overall were not shrinking). What matters is the growth rate of the entire metro area, which is what I talked about in my post (for example I said Marseille doesn't reach +1.5% per year, that's the entire metro area; the city proper of Marseille, on the other hand, is above +1.5% per year).

Madrid province population grew aprox. 63.000 inh. during 2009, 0,97%.
No. According to INE the population of the Madrid province grew from 6,295,011 on Jan. 1, 2009 to 6,335,780 on Jan. 1, 2010, i.e. +40,769 people, or +0.65%. That's a massive deceleration compared to the booming years.

You have to look at metro area level, not at central city level. In Europe the central municipalities all tend to register increasing growth rates because people are moving back to the centers, but these figures are an optical illusion, just like the figures in the 1970s and 1980s which showed that the central cities were losing population, it was also an optical illusion (because the suburbs were growing a lot, so the metro areas overall were not shrinking). What matters is the growth rate of the entire metro area, which is what I talked about in my post (for example I said Marseille doesn't reach +1.5% per year, that's the entire metro area; the city proper of Marseille, on the other hand, is above +1.5% per year).

tsc tsc. No no. Mainz does not even have a metro area. It is for itself a metro city of Frankfurt. It was city proper, yes. :cheers:
You will have to scroll down the page to see the table:
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liste_der_Gro%C3%9Fst%C3%A4dte_in_Deutschland

tsc tsc. No no. Mainz does not even have a metro area. It is for itself a metro city of Frankfurt.
I know. That's why you have to look at the growth rate of the entire Rhine-Main metro area. It makes little sense to look at the growth rate of Mayence only, just as it makes little sense to look at the growth rate of Versailles only. What if Versailles grew at +3% a year? Ok, it grows at 3%, it has a huge impact locally, but at a macro level it means nothing. What matters is the growth rate of the metro area.

I know. That's why you have to look at the growth rate of the entire Rhine-Main metro area. It makes little sense to look at the growth rate of Mayence only, just as it makes little sense to look at the growth rate of Versailles only. What if Versailles grew at +3% a year? Ok, it grows at 3%, it has a huge impact locally, but at a macro level it means nothing. What matters is the growth rate of the metro area.

I think Rhein-Main is doing well in terms of growth, just as Munich and Hamburg. But as far as I know. Rhine-Ruhr has only local points the are still growing, while it is overall shrinking. This is more due to the Ruhr region than the Rhine region. Essen fell behind Stuttgart and will also fall behind Düsseldorf. It has once been the 6th biggest city.

Italy's birth rates are just as poor as the birth rates of Germany. And Milan was for a long time a fast shrinking city. All the biggest cities in Germany continue to grow.
And honestly I have nothing against some kind of people leaving Germany. Spain has no longer an "amazing" immigration. That "amazing immigration" also caused an "amazing unemployment" with "amazing slum growth". Honestly I think that immigration into social welfare systems is a bad business.
And France's growth is due to high fertility rates with moderate immigration rates and not due to mass immigration.
You just show to have no clue on this topic... :ohno:

Frances population is not growing because of high fertility-rates, but because of population-momentum. When the baby-boomers of France will move to the age of death, 80, which will happen in 15 years, then the growth of France will stop, with births equalling deaths.

Btw, the intrinstic rate of growth for a fertility-rate of 2.0 is still -0,16% p.a. if a generation lasts 30 years. The only reason France and the other countries with TFRs between 1.5 and 2.1 still have natural growth is because there were higher fertility rates in the past, resulting in fewer old people and therefore lower death-rates. When France will sustain a TFR of 2.0 over a long time, population growth will stabilize at -0,16%. If France wants to continue growing with 0.6% it would need a fertility-rate of 2.5.

Thats the dilemma with population-forecasts stated here, they don't take into account population momentum. Parallel to the rising share of elderly people the death-rate will rise, lowering population growth. So more and more immigration is needed to sustain a particular growth rate.

No. According to INE the population of the Madrid province grew from 6,295,011 on Jan. 1, 2009 to 6,335,780 on Jan. 1, 2010, i.e. +40,769 people, or +0.65%. That's a massive deceleration compared to the booming years.

Comunidad de Madrid, Jan. 1 2010:
6,445,499 inh. You can find it on the net.

Madrid province population grew aprox. 63.000 inh. during 2009, 0,97%.

But aren't Spain's cities growing through immigration only? Immigration from abroad as well as from rural areas where towns are emptying out?

But aren't Spain's cities growing through immigration only? Immigration from abroad as well as from rural areas where towns are emptying out?

Cities of every country grow like that. Only a few cities in USA and Birmingham have fertility-rates that would lead to sustained natural growth. But the countryside of Spain showed still healthy growth, on the contrary American and German countryside is emptying very fast.

Comunidad de Madrid, Jan. 1 2010:
6,445,499 inh. You can find it on the net.

INE, the national statistics agency tells in it's population now-cast:

2009-04-01: 6,299,111
2010-01-01: 6,335,780
2010-04-01: 6,349,901

Growth rate April 2009 - April 2010: 0.806%

Link: http://www.ine.es/jaxiBD/menu.do?L=1&divi=EPOB&his=0&type=db

Italy's birth rates are just as poor as the birth rates of Germany. And Milan was for a long time a fast shrinking city. All the biggest cities in Germany continue to grow.
And honestly I have nothing against some kind of people leaving Germany. Spain has no longer an "amazing" immigration. That "amazing immigration" also caused an "amazing unemployment" with "amazing slum growth". Honestly I think that immigration into social welfare systems is a bad business.
And France's growth is due to high fertility rates with moderate immigration rates and not due to mass immigration.
You just show to have no clue on this topic... :ohno:

When you have no arguments it is easiest to say "you have no clue". The only thing that I know is that Italian population grows, it is about 60 milion today, and fifty years ago it was about 50 milion and there is still a lot of immigration. Also population of France is about 63 milion, and fifty years ago it was 43 milion, and immigration is high, because French society integrates immigrants quite well. And, yes France has the highest birth rate in Europe, even bigger than Ireland, so French society is growing at very good speed. Germany now has about 82 milion people, and fifty years ago had about 80 milion, not a huge growth like France. Also I have read the other day in DW that in last few years there is even emmigration in Germany. I don't know how your cities are growing, when the population is shrinkig at high speed. You have to do something about it, because it seems that in future France will have the biggest population and thus it will be the biggest european economy.

I think Rhein-Main is doing well in terms of growth, just as Munich and Hamburg. But as far as I know. Rhine-Ruhr has only local points the are still growing, while it is overall shrinking. This is more due to the Ruhr region than the Rhine region. Essen fell behind Stuttgart and will also fall behind Düsseldorf. It has once been the 6th biggest city.
If we look at the growth rates of cities proper, i.e. the municipalities, instead of entire metropolitan areas, then these are the highest population growth rates in France (those growth rates are the average yearly growth rates between 1999 and 2007; they haven't changed much since the start of the financial crisis).

Towns and cities with more than 2,000 people:
1- Magny-le-Hongre (in the eastern suburbs of Paris): +14.5% per year
2- Serris (in the eastern suburbs of Paris): +14.3% per year
3- Soubise (a town on the Atlantic coast, near Rochefort): +11.1% per year
4- Bussy-Saint-Georges (in the eastern suburbs of Paris): +10.4% per year
5- Chessy (in the eastern suburbs of Paris): +9.7% per year
6- Canet (in the vineyards of Languedoc, between Montpellier and Béziers): +8.5% per year
7- Saint-Laurent-du-Maroni (in French Guiana, on the border of Suriname): +7.7% per year
8- Castelnau-d'Estrétefonds (in the suburbs of Toulouse): +7.5% per year
9- Apatou (in French Guiana, on the border of Suriname): +7.4% per year
10- Montévrain (in the eastern suburbs of Paris): +7.4% per year
11- Saint-Georges de l'Oyapock (in French Guiana, on the border of Brazil): +7.2% per year
12- Chauconin-Neufmontiers (an eastern exurb of Paris): +7.1% per year
13- Bérat (an exurb of Toulouse): +6.9% per year
14- Bailly-Romainvilliers (in the eastern suburbs of Paris): +6.8% per year
15- Gagnac-sur-Garonne (a suburb of Toulouse): +6.8% per year

In total there are 1,217 French towns and cities of more than 2,000 people that have a growth rate higher than 1.5% per year.

Cities with more than 50,000 people:
1- Courbevoie (inner suburb of Paris): +2.6% per year
2- Ajaccio (the city proper, in Corsica): +2.6% per year
3- Saint-André (in Réunion): +2.4% per year
4- Issy-les-Moulineaux (inner suburb of Paris): +2.2% per year
5- Saint-Denis (inner suburb of Paris): +2.1% per year
6- Le Tampon (in Réunion): +2.0% per year
7-Aubervilliers (inner suburb of Paris): +2.0% per year
8-Clichy (inner suburb of Paris): +2.0% per year
9- Levallois-Perret (inner suburb of Paris): +1.9% per year
10- Saint-Paul (in Réunion): +1.8% per year
11- Saint-Louis (in Réunion): +1.8% per year
12- Cayenne (the city proper, in French Guiana): +1.8% per year
13- Grasse (in the Nice urban area): 1.8% per year
14- Bondy (inner suburb of Paris): +1.6% per year
15- Toulouse (the city proper; the metro area has a higher growth rate): 1.5% per year

Cities of every country grow like that. Only a few cities in USA and Birmingham have fertility-rates that would lead to sustained natural growth. But the countryside of Spain showed still healthy growth, on the contrary American and German countryside is emptying very fast.

In the US, the rural depopulation affects different areas differently. Indeed in some regions like the upper midwest and the Dakotas, this is happening very badly. In others, such as the rural South and West, populations are growing and there's some migration from the metros and cities to them. it's a very mixed story. It would be very nice to see rural Spain growing!

Comunidad de Madrid, Jan. 1 2010:
6,445,499 inh. You can find it on the net.
The only accurate figures are those of the Spanish statistical office. The other figures that circulate on the net are of little scientific value.

When you have no arguments it is easiest to say "you have no clue". The only thing that I know is that Italian population grows, it is about 60 milion today, and fifty years ago it was about 50 milion and there is still a lot of immigration. Also population of France is about 63 milion, and fifty years ago it was 43 milion, and immigration is high, because French society integrates immigrants quite well. And, yes France has the highest birth rate in Europe, even bigger than Ireland, so French society is growing at very good speed. Germany now has about 82 milion people, and fifty years ago had about 80 milion, not a huge growth like France. Also I have read the other day in DW that in last few years there is even emmigration in Germany. I don't know how your cities are growing, when the population is shrinkig at high speed. You have to do something about it, because it seems that in future France will have the biggest population and thus it will be the biggest european economy.

Russias population is shrinking heavily, nevertheless Moscow has massive groth just as St. Petersburg. The reason for this is the same as in Germany: re-urbanisation trends. In Russia they are even more visible than in Germany. And surely there are cities growing in shrinking populations: The main shrinking regions are those of Eastern Germany. And some economically weaker rural regions and cities. I don't know what is so hard to understand about that. Maybe brisavoine can explain it better to you.
Germany's population is not growing, it's shrinking. We had a loss of 300k, not necessarily a bad thing. 10% of this loss is a negative balance in migrations with Turkey. This also means there are more Turkish people going back to Turkey than Turkish people moving in. This has a good point for us: Most of those who go back to Turkey are well-skilled, have good knowledge of the German language and they can deepen economic relationships.
Also the countries that "send" immigratns to Germany have shifted from Muslim countries to Asian countries. Asians almost never live from social welfare, they commit less crimes and they are mostly well-skilled or at least earn their money - often more than the native Germans. Same goes for the people who come from Eastern Europe who succeed very well. Their unemployment rates are far below average and their income is above average.
What France is experiencing is also an influx and high growth rates of Muslim populations, able to turn France into a mainly Muslim country. This can lead to less democracy, dismantling of the social welfare systems and loss of progress for women's, gay's and other rights. It also brings in a lot of conflict potential, as we often see in Paris with burning cars and tires....

13- Grasse (in the Nice urban area)Better to say in Côte d'Azur conurbation

What France is experiencing is also an influx and high growth rates of Muslim populations, able to turn France into a mainly Muslim country. This can lead to less democracy, dismantling of the social welfare systems and loss of progress for women's, gay's and other rights. It also brings in a lot of conflict potential, as we often see in Paris with burning cars and tires....
Riots have nothing to do with religion.

Ireland is kaput (in 2009 the Irish population registered 0 growth).


Ireland's population grew by 1% in 2009. Source - Central Statistics Office in Ireland.

What else? Spain is kaput (in 2009 the population growth rate in the Madrid province was only +0.6%, whereas in the Barcelona province it was only +0.1%, almost German-like)

No. According to INE the population of the Madrid province grew from 6,295,011 on Jan. 1, 2009 to 6,335,780 on Jan. 1, 2010, i.e. +40,769 people, or +0.65%. That's a massive deceleration compared to the booming years.

INE, the national statistics agency tells in it's population now-cast:

2009-04-01: 6,299,111
2010-01-01: 6,335,780
2010-04-01: 6,349,901

Growth rate April 2009 - April 2010: 0.806%

Link: http://www.ine.es/jaxiBD/menu.do?L=1&divi=EPOB&his=0&type=db

From Jan. 1, 2009 to Jan. 1, 2010 the provisional data of INE show as Madrid has grown 58.567 inhabitants in the last year. In fact, Madrid region is the fastest growth region in Spain after Murcia region with 0,92, almost 1%. But this is not all, the province of Guadalajara 54 km from the center of Madrid is the fastest growth province in Iberian Peninsula 2,18 and Toledo province in the south of Madrid region growth 1,12. So Madrid grow and makes grow to her neighbors. And all of this with our crisis and the bullshit Zapatero that is anti-madrid, yes is crazy but is true.

This is a nice map of Xemita

variación relativa:

http://i257.photobucket.com/albums/hh230/jmmezquita/Untitled-1copy-18.jpg


Parece que Segovia, que otros años se veía beneficiada por la proximidad de Madrid, ha dado un bajón importante.

The provisional data of all spanish regions from Jan. 1, 2009 to Jan. 1, 2010

Ya están aquí....

http://img72.imageshack.us/img72/125/pob.png

Riots have nothing to do with religion.:nono:

That's why we see the most riots in Islamic countries. The most riots in the West are either committed by Muslims or Leftists.

Ireland's population grew by 1% in 2009. Source - Central Statistics Office in Ireland.
Nope, not at all. The thing you may have heard on your local radio is the figure recently published by the Irish statistical office for the year from April 2008 to April 2009. In that one year between April 2008 and April 2009, the population of the Republic of Ireland grew by 0.84% (a sharp decrease compared to the previous years). The population growth rate in 2009 however, i.e. from Jan. 1 2009 to Dec. 31, 2009, was 0 according to Eurostat.

From Jan. 1, 2009 to Jan. 1, 2010 the provisional data of INE show as Madrid has grown 58.567 inhabitants in the last year. In fact, Madrid region is the fastest growth region in Spain after Murcia region with 0,92, almost 1%. But this is not all, the province of Guadalajara 54 km from the center of Madrid is the fastest growth province in Iberian Peninsula 2,18 and Toledo province in the south of Madrid region growth 1,12. So Madrid grow and makes grow to her neighbors. And all of this with our crisis and the bullshit Zapatero that is anti-madrid, yes is crazy but is true.

The provisional data of all spanish regions from Jan. 1, 2009 to Jan. 1, 2010
The Spanish forumers, despite having been told 1,000 times, still continue to use figures from the municipal population registers (padrón municipal), which are not accurate because they do not properly register immigrants who leave the country. The only accurate figures are the "actual population" figures (población actual) published by the Spanish statistical office. The padrón municipal has a legal value to calculate state subsidies and things like that, but it is not a true count of the population.

So your figures above come from the padrón municipal, which overestimate the Spanish population because many immigrants who leave the country are not removed from the population registers, whereas the figure Chrissib and I posted in this thread are población actual figures, the only credible figures. Note that Eurostat only uses población actual figures.

:nono:

That's why we see the most riots in Islamic countries. The most riots in the West are either committed by Muslims or Leftists.

Muslim and leftist are not the same thing

Anyway France riots had a social root, not a religious one, and many rioters were Christians... they only were banliuezards

I suggest you to watch the French movie La Haine. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Haine

It is a 1995 movie (more than 10 years before the last main banlieue unrest) but it seems a nowaday movie: the problem is how French social housing created enormous ghettos (in the whole nation: not only Paris or big cities; even small ones)

What France is experiencing is also an influx and high growth rates of Muslim populations, able to turn France into a mainly Muslim country. This can lead to less democracy, dismantling of the social welfare systems and loss of progress for women's, gay's and other rights. It also brings in a lot of conflict potential, as we often see in Paris with burning cars and tires....
:lol:

You're usually more serious in your comments. At the moment the people with a Muslim background make up only 6% of the French population (source (http://pewforum.org/Muslim/Mapping-the-Global-Muslim-Population%2814%29.aspx)), but not all of them are practicing Muslims. Many 2nd and 3rd generation immigrants do not practice, to the point of not even doing the Ramadan anymore. Also, the fertility rates in the Maghreb have decreased dramatically in recent years. In Algeria and Tunisia they are now lower than in France, and only Morocco still has a fertility rate slightly above France, but well below 3 children per woman. Last but not least, the French statistical office INSEE has shown that the immigrants in France increase the French fertility rate by only 0.1 (without the immigrants, the French fertility rate would be 1.9 instead of 2.0).

Nope, not at all. The thing you may have heard on your local radio is the figure recently published by the Irish statistical office for the year from April 2008 to April 2009. In that one year between April 2008 and April 2009, the population of the Republic of Ireland grew by 0.84% (a sharp decrease compared to the previous years). The population growth rate in 2009 however, i.e. from Jan. 1 2009 to Dec. 31, 2009, was 0 according to Eurostat.

I don't know Ireland data... anyway Eurostat ones are based on stastistic provided by the single countries

:lol:

You're usually more serious in your comments. At the moment the people with a Muslim background make up only 6% of the French population (source (http://pewforum.org/Muslim/Mapping-the-Global-Muslim-Population%2814%29.aspx)), but not all of them are practicing Muslims. Many 2nd and 3rd generation immigrants do not practice, to the point of not even doing the Ramadan anymore. Also, the fertility rates in the Maghreb have decreased dramatically in recent years. In Algeria and Tunisia they are now lower than in France, and only Morocco still has a fertility rate slightly above France, but well below 3 children per woman. Last but not least, the French statistical office INSEE has shown that the immigrants in France increase the French fertility rate by only 0.1 (without the immigrants, the French fertility rate would be 1.9 instead of 2.0).

Muslims have a TFR of 3 in France. The official stated TFr of Tunisia is the same as France's and Algeria's TFR has increased, at least the birth-rate has, you can read it on the national statistical agencies of Tunisia and Algeria.

The French Departement with the highest fertility is Seine-Saint-Denis, that's where the riots started and the share of migrants is the highest in France.

Last but not least: The hispanics are also increasing the TFR of the US 'just' by 0.2, they're causing demographic trouble anyway. French and American demography is very similar concerning the fertility-rates.

I don't know Ireland data... anyway Eurostat ones are based on stastistic provided by the single countries
Yeah, but they usually give their most recent estimates to Eurostat without publishing them on their own websites.

Muslims have a TFR of 3 in France. The official stated TFr of Tunisia is the same as France's and Algeria's TFR has increased, at least the birth-rate has, you can read it on the national statistical agencies of Tunisia and Algeria.

The French Departement with the highest fertility is Seine-Saint-Denis, that's where the riots started and the share of migrants is the highest in France.

Last but not least: The hispanics are also increasing the TFR of the US 'just' by 0.2, they're causing demographic trouble anyway. French and American demography is very similar concerning the fertility-rates.
Immigrants usually tend to have a higher TFR than the country they come from, because they usually delay the birth of their children until they arrive in the host country, and women under 40 predominate, so it's only natural that the TFR is higher. TFR, however, doesn't tell the actual number of children a woman will have over her entire life. People often fail to understand that. The actual number of children a woman will have over her entire life is called final descendance, and here it's not higher among immigrants than in the country where they come from. In fact it tends to be lower, because after a few years the immigrants tend to adopt the fertility pattern of the country they move to, so their final descendance tends to be lower (for example if an immigrant comes from Congo where final descendance is 5 children per woman, you can be certain that in Europe the final descendance of Congolese immigrants will be below 5, even though their TFR may be above 5, because the TFR is skewed for the statistical reasons I explained).

Muslim and leftist are not the same thing

Anyway France riots had a social root, not a religious one, and many rioters were Christians... they only were banliuezards

I suggest you to watch the French movie La Haine. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Haine

It is a 1995 movie (more than 10 years before the last main banlieue unrest) but it seems a nowaday movie: the problem is how French social housing created enormous ghettos (in the whole nation: not only Paris or big cities; even small ones)

Okay, it has nothing to do with religion if they riot over caricatures and other alleged offenses? Hum.

This is not quite a riot, but anyway strange:
wZU6KYgz-14

Skyline FFM don't mind Genius Loci , he's a leftist :gossip:

;)

the reason of racaille are both , a mix of hatred combined with an ethnic identity that is too different from the host country.

And the two things flame up each other.

^^ I agree with you. It is a reciprocity of incompatibility.

The Spanish forumers, despite having been told 1,000 times, still continue to use figures from the municipal population registers (padrón municipal), which are not accurate because they do not properly register immigrants who leave the country. The only accurate figures are the "actual population" figures (población actual) published by the Spanish statistical office. The padrón municipal has a legal value to calculate state subsidies and things like that, but it is not a true count of the population.

So your figures above come from the padrón municipal, which overestimate the Spanish population because many immigrants who leave the country are not removed from the population registers, whereas the figure Chrissib and I posted in this thread are población actual figures, the only credible figures. Note that Eurostat only uses población actual figures.

We'll see when INE publish the final data for that year but i have never see this great differences that you tell us at least for Madrid but is true that in some regions local governments invent population.

^^ I agree with you. It is a reciprocity of incompatibility.

Very well said, Frankfodder Jung:)

Very well said, Frankfodder Jung:)

;) But currently living in the hellhole of Bielefeld :cry:

In the US, the rural depopulation affects different areas differently. Indeed in some regions like the upper midwest and the Dakotas, this is happening very badly. In others, such as the rural South and West, populations are growing and there's some migration from the metros and cities to them. it's a very mixed story. It would be very nice to see rural Spain growing!

There's not much doubt that the US is climbing toward the 400 million population level. What's key is SMARTER growth. We need less growth in places like Nevada & Arizona & other less sustainable parts of the Sunbelt, and less displacement of highly productive agricultural regions like California's Central Valley. While we need regrowth in the depopulated rustbelt regions around the Great Lakes where's there's plenty of water.

There's not much doubt that the US is climbing toward the 400 million population level. What's key is SMARTER growth. We need less growth in places like Nevada & Arizona & other less sustainable parts of the Sunbelt, and less displacement of highly productive agricultural regions like California's Central Valley. While we need regrowth in the depopulated rustbelt regions around the Great Lakes where's there's plenty of water.

Unfortunately migration patterns within the US either follow jobs or lifestyles. That's a twin headache for the Great Lakes region because there's a trendloss of both. The lifestyles around the lakes are actually quite nice if people could get past preconceived notions. I loved the years I lived in Buffalo. But the jobs is the tough one. The trick is to find ways to leverage the resources and the education of people in that region to reclaim lost ground in manufacturing and other areas. The resilience of much of the area in the wake of the recession bodes well. If more jobs are grown there as we emerge, people will follow. Jobs and income have always mattered much more than climate or anything else.

the years I lived in Buffalo
Now everything becomes clear.

Unfortunately migration patterns within the US either follow jobs or lifestyles. That's a twin headache for the Great Lakes region because there's a trendloss of both. The lifestyles around the lakes are actually quite nice if people could get past preconceived notions. I loved the years I lived in Buffalo. But the jobs is the tough one. The trick is to find ways to leverage the resources and the education of people in that region to reclaim lost ground in manufacturing and other areas. The resilience of much of the area in the wake of the recession bodes well. If more jobs are grown there as we emerge, people will follow. Jobs and income have always mattered much more than climate or anything else.

Chicago & Toronto show that its indeed possible for Great Lakes cities to be growing, vibrant, dynamic economic & cultural centers.

Lets hope more of the other cities in that region follow their examples!

Now everything becomes clear.

Whatever that means...

Skyline FFM don't mind Genius Loci , he's a leftist :gossip:


Curious how half of my beloved Italian forumers think I'm a leftist while the other half think I'm a rightist.
Actually I think the left/right classification is something stupid and quite hate it when people want to label me

Anyway, back on topic of French riots (which actually should be Off Topic), they were caused by 'gangs' of young people livin' in the 'ghettos'... they're the same thing of similar unrests happened in the past decades in USA
These youngs were prevalently second generation immigrants and their main origin were two: Northern Africa and Caraibi (from French Territoire d'outre-mer)
It wasn't just one ethnical group with just one religion. It was one social group

The unrests with a religious purpose are other ones (as the one for the Danish Cartoons)
The racaille, according Sarkozy's definition, had other purposes and it's a 'product' of French social houses policy. Infact other countries in Europe with a similar immigration and a similar number of muslims didn't have this kind of problems

. Infact other countries in Europe with a similar immigration and a similar number of muslims didn't have this kind of problems

Can you give some examples?

:?

I saw those kind of riots only in France

Or are you suggesting me that in Germany (with has a similar number of muslims) there were riots of that bigness?

Yes, there was. It is quite a long time ago. An aunt of mine who lives in the city of Solingen had to stay away form the windows while Muslims rioted through the streets. But okay, this is nothing compared to the numerous riots in France. Actually, IF there is violent demonstrations here in Germany or riots, it is mostly leftist of Muslims or both together. I have never seen an African, East Asian, Latino or Greek going mad in the streets.

:?

I saw those kind of riots only in France

Or are you suggesting me that in Germany (with has a similar number of muslims) there were riots of that bigness?

There aren't many riots here, but the young muslims commit crimes at a rate multiple times the christians do, especially violent crimes. We had the case a few weeks ago when a 16yr old killed a 19yr old in hamburg without reason.

Just because Germany has low birth rates and even emigration last few years, doesn't mean that the whole Europe is going down. Just look at amazing immigration in Spain, or huge population growth in France.

Spain got a huge jump in population for a many years after joining the European Union. Most of this was attributable to northern Europeans re-locating to a warmer part of the continent, was it not? Those that were interested in moving to Spain already have. Any further migration would need to be fueled by a strong economy. With 20% unemployment in Spain and a 4.6% contraction in GDP, I doubt that in migration pattern has continued.

France is a different matter and does seem to grow at a steady pace. What's behind French population growth? Is it an even split between natural increase and in migration? Are most of the immigrants non European Union migrants?

It's not likely that Europe will see the emergence of another mega city any time soon. Moscow, Istanbul, and Paris are past 10,000,000. London is also past 10,000,000 by some measures while Rhine-Ruhr is another that could be considered.

I have never seen an African, East Asian, Latino or Greek going mad in the streets.I have seen Chinese in Milan, for istance, in clashes against the police

http://www.ilgiornale.it/foto-id=199984-x=800-y=800/taffferu.jpg

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/6550725.stm

Curious how half of my beloved Italian forumers think I'm a leftist while the other half think I'm a rightist.


Genius! You are a "Centrist"!!! :D

Spain got a huge jump in population for a many years after joining the European Union. Most of this was attributable to northern Europeans re-locating to a warmer part of the continent, was it not? Those that were interested in moving to Spain already have. Any further migration would need to be fueled by a strong economy. With 20% unemployment in Spain and a 4.6% contraction in GDP, I doubt that in migration pattern has continued.

France is a different matter and does seem to grow at a steady pace. What's behind French population growth? Is it an even split between natural increase and in migration? Are most of the immigrants non European Union migrants?

It's not likely that Europe will see the emergence of another mega city any time soon. Moscow, Istanbul, and Paris are past 10,000,000. London is also past 10,000,000 by some measures while Rhine-Ruhr is another that could be considered.

Rhine-Ruhr is not quite a megacity. It is an agglomeration of many mid-size and small cities without a real core city. So it cannot be considered a megacity like Moscow, Paris or London.

Rhine-Ruhr is not quite a megacity. It is an agglomeration of many mid-size and small cities without a real core city. So it cannot be considered a megacity like Moscow, Paris or London.

Yes, that's why I diplomatically phrased it as 'could be considered'. I don't really count it either although it's area is the same size as metropolitan Toronto. If Rhine-Ruhr grew at a steady clip could you see Essen growing into a core city for the region?

Do you consider London to be a mega city? Greater London is only at 7,500,000 people. If one counts outlying areas, London is sometimes counted as having upwards of 13,000,000.

Genius! You are a "Centrist"!!! :D

a christian-democrat :)
and that's his chair as moderator ^^

http://waltergirardi.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/andreotti_3.jpg

Genius! You are a "Centrist"!!! :D

:bash: :bash: :bash:

Nuooo, Casini nuoooooo

France is a different matter and does seem to grow at a steady pace. What's behind French population growth? Is it an even split between natural increase and in migration?
France's growth is essentially due to natural increase, which is a unique case in Europe. In the 4 years between 2006 and 2010, the population of France increased by 1,481,257 people. 1,150,804 (or 78%) was due to natural increase, and 330,453 (or 22%) was due to net migration. In other words four-fifth of the French population growth is due to natural growth, and one-fifth is due to immigration.
Are most of the immigrants non European Union migrants?
Between March 1999 and January 2005, the number of immigrants in France increased by 650,473. The European immigrants increased by 49,242 (i.e. 7.6% of the total increase). The Maghreban immigrants increased by 227,501 (i.e. 35% of the total increase). The sub-Saharan African immigrants increased by 188,389 (i.e. 29% of the total increase). The Turkish immigrants increased by 46,013 (i.e. 7.1% of the total increase). The Asian immigrants (excluding Turkey) increased by 93,821 (i.e. 14.4% of the total increase). The immigrants from the Americas increased by 43,656 (i.e. 6.7% of the total increase). The immigrants from Oceania increased by 850 (i.e. 0.1% of the total increase).

Do you consider London to be a mega city? Greater London is only at 7,500,000 people. If one counts outlying areas, London is sometimes counted as having upwards of 13,000,000.
In terms of urban area, i.e. contiguously built-up areas, London is under 10 million. It reaches 10 million only if you include exurbs not physically linked to the urban area.

Yes, that's why I diplomatically phrased it as 'could be considered'. I don't really count it either although it's area is the same size as metropolitan Toronto. If Rhine-Ruhr grew at a steady clip could you see Essen growing into a core city for the region?

There are many problems over the definition of Megacity over all in Europe.

Anyway, about Rhein-Ruhr: it's not a single city, but surely is a single 'cluster' of cities, with many poles with the same importance

Isn't the city of Los Angeles conceptually the same thing?
Many cores which were 'merged' in a single administrative entity

Yes, that's why I diplomatically phrased it as 'could be considered'. I don't really count it either although it's area is the same size as metropolitan Toronto. If Rhine-Ruhr grew at a steady clip could you see Essen growing into a core city for the region?

Do you consider London to be a mega city? Greater London is only at 7,500,000 people. If one counts outlying areas, London is sometimes counted as having upwards of 13,000,000.

Rhine-Ruhr is above 10 million, so it would be a megacity if it had a core.

BTW: Some people here already said that London Metro had 18 million. Wherever they got this info from!

Do you consider London to be a mega city? Greater London is only at 7,500,000 people. If one counts outlying areas, London is sometimes counted as having upwards of 13,000,000.
In terms of urban area, i.e. contiguously built-up areas, London is under 10 million. It reaches 10 million only if you include exurbs not physically linked to the urban area.
Just for the records, and based on the latest figures available:
- New York manages to pack 10 million people in 1,350 km²
- in Paris, you get 10 million people in the 2,200 km² around the city center
- in London, you get 10 million people in the 3,250 km² around the city center

Rhine-Ruhr is above 10 million, so it would be a megacity if it had a core.

BTW: Some people here already said that London Metro had 18 million. Wherever they got this info from!

They're talking about southeast England minus a few areas here and there.

There are many problems over the definition of Megacity over all in Europe.

Anyway, about Rhein-Ruhr: it's not a single city, but surely is a single 'cluster' of cities, with many poles with the same importance

Isn't the city of Los Angeles conceptually the same thing?
Many cores which were 'merged' in a single administrative entity

The difference is that in the case of Los Angeles, you have a major primary city of nearly 4 million surrounded by bedroom suburbs that have evolved into secondary cities with some economic independence. The only other truly 'primary' city in the Greater LA metro area is Long Beach which was quite independent of LA from the start but has only a tenth the population. In the Rhein-Ruhr, you have fully independent primary and secondary cities that have grown together over time. They are significant as an aggregate but lack that big primary driver that gives the region a unified focus and urban identity. It's more megalopolis than mega-city.

France's growth is essentially due to natural increase, which is a unique case in Europe. In the 4 years between 2006 and 2010, the population of France increased by 1,481,257 people. 1,150,804 (or 78%) was due to natural increase, and 330,453 (or 22%) was due to net migration. In other words four-fifth of the French population growth is due to natural growth, and one-fifth is due to immigration.


It's interesting comparing France and Canada. The increase is roughly the same, but the source of growth is different.

Canada
2006 Estimate July 1st: 32,623,490
2010 Estimate July 1st: 34,157,487

Increase of 1,533,997 in 4 years. I used population estimates for both moments in time rather than census data. The Canadian census tends to under count by roughly 1,000,000 people so you either compare census to census or estimate to estimate so that you're comparing 'apples to apples'.

From 2006 to 2010, Canada added slightly more people than France, but was highly dependent on immigration. If Canada could reach the replacement fertility rate of 2.1, the Canadian population would surge due to the immigration rate.

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/hp-pa/estima-eng.htm
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/ig-gi/pop-ca-eng.htm

The difference is that in the case of Los Angeles, you have a major primary city of nearly 4 million surrounded by bedroom suburbs that have evolved into secondary cities with some economic independence. The only other truly 'primary' city in the Greater LA metro area is Long Beach which was quite independent of LA from the start but has only a tenth the population. In the Rhein-Ruhr, you have fully independent primary and secondary cities that have grown together over time. They are significant as an aggregate but lack that big primary driver that gives the region a unified focus and urban identity. It's more megalopolis than mega-city.I agree

What I wanted to underline is how could be Rhein-Rhur evolution (or maybe will be in the future?) if it had just one administrative level

The difference is that in the case of Los Angeles, you have a major primary city of nearly 4 million surrounded by bedroom suburbs that have evolved into secondary cities with some economic independence. The only other truly 'primary' city in the Greater LA metro area is Long Beach which was quite independent of LA from the start but has only a tenth the population. In the Rhein-Ruhr, you have fully independent primary and secondary cities that have grown together over time. They are significant as an aggregate but lack that big primary driver that gives the region a unified focus and urban identity. It's more megalopolis than mega-city.

L.A. in itself is quite polycentric though. I think the L.A. and Rhine-Ruhr areas are very similar in the way they function.

Thank you desert for posting those pictures of Detroit to shake up the image of that city.
Canadian French- and English-language radio programmes have been having interesting things to say and reports about Detroit the past few months. Detroit's a prime place; most people knows this... :cheers:....I doubt any of us be about to hear any piece about --say-- some wealthier US place...




would equate to 1,213 people/km2. That's not high, but still dense enough to be considered 'city'.
I can't tell your rationale at putting a sample in the subjunctive while pegging two others in the past.

The meaning of the term city has greatly diminished these past few decades. All I know is, here, I needn't huff at catching an approaching bus when walking its direction instead of loungin' away beside some route-identified bus stop pole (as opposed to beside some iconic telegraph pole substitute http://www.skyscrapercity.com/images/icons/icon10.gif). There's so little all about you in most Canadian cities that their busses there creep on you out of nowhere and end up stranding you. Loads of traffic lights prove the city density where I live. Need I continue?

Canada cheats by supposing its society being predominantly urbanised (I bet it's not the only country that does this).




What I reckon about (the majority of) statistics:
N Americans go to great extremes at cooking/doctoring their statistical data, I just know we're gonna get caught real bad some day...

What I wanted to underline is how could be Rhein-Rhur evolution (or maybe will be in the future?) if it had just one administrative level
The Rhine-Ruhr has a declining population. Between Jan. 2005 and Jan. 2009, the Rhine-Ruhr lost 99,250 inhabitants. It reached its maximum population in Jan. 1997 with 11,574,717 inhabitants. In Jan. 2009 the population had declined to 11,408,151 inhabitants (in a territory of 10,819 km²). The population is now the same as in 1970.

I don't take anything that dribbles from your troll claws onto your keyboard personally. You just consistently violate forum rules with your personal attacks. That was my point.

You cant´t fool me :lol: You´re fucking furious:

Troll.

your reading comprehension skills are lacking

Now what did you say about personal attacks?

Before that street grid, there was no such thing as street planning city streets were essentially pathways between property boundaries and nothing more. What London DID do was widen their streets so that flames would not leap so easily between buildings in the future. they also banned extreme overhangs that jutted out into the streets.

Before the 1600? What utter nonsense.

Buffalo NY had the same planner as Washington DC. Some US cities like Boston and Santa Fe NM have a very jumbled, European street layout at their center. My point, since your reading comprehension skills are lacking, is that the ideas that shaped american cities were European, not American. The first truly American street plans were devised in the inner suburbs of Boston and Chicago in the late 1800s.

America itself is largely a European product, I thought that was obvious. However, the fact still remains that American cities are nothing like European.

All that I said, in addition to those tower blocks, not instead of.

Ok. Shall be drop the tower blocks?

How are they "architecturally superior"? You mean Lego towers and blobs?

Yeah that's exactly what I mean:nuts:

I´m talking about that fact that British cities overall are older, and therefore architecturally superior and more diverse.

The concepts behind the urban destruction in the 1950s and '60s were borrowed from Le Corbusier.

Aha. Why are you telling me this?

As if you knew anything about being on topic. Troll.

Whatever mate :lol:

yes, that still is urban. Usage of car means nothing. Milwaukee for instance has no train or fixed mass transit, but is still very much urban. The pop. density of Milwaukee is 2,399.5/km2 with an area of 251 km, and a city proper population of over 600,000. That is comparable to some European cities. You can live in dense, urban cities and still own a car.

I´m no talking statistics here. I´m talking about the appearance of cities. Houston can´t offer an "urban" lifestyle like denser, more urban and more sophisticated cities like London, Paris or NYC. These cities can, however, offer all the things Houston can. Except obvious things like weather and vibe.

How? A suburban office park is low-rise for the most part and cut off from the city. I am not saying these office towers are pedestrian friendly at the street, but they are still urban. And Houston has areas with skyscrapers, outside it's downtown core.

Just look:

Houston

http://img718.imageshack.us/img718/6853/houstondowntown7.jpg (http://img718.imageshack.us/i/houstondowntown7.jpg/)

Copenhagen

http://img37.imageshack.us/img37/3366/nyhavn.jpg (http://img37.imageshack.us/i/nyhavn.jpg/)




Why? L.A. is a monsterous city. It's overall density isn't a far cry from that of London. It's not as dense as Paris, but it's still very much a mega city. I sense some Euro-snobbery here.

Statistics again. Look at google maps. London has a huge dense city centre, just like NYC. London is miles ahead of LA.

And please stop that "Euro-snobbery" bullshit. I thought we had left these childish accusations behind us.

No, these pictures show the variety of urbanity in L.A. For you to say it's not a real city is laughable. It dwarfs Copenhagen and has four million people in it's city limits.

How do the pictures support your argument. Those pictures clearly show L.A. as a mega city and the thread I posted show that it's also very urban.

They show that LA is a mega suburb. And cities like Copenhagen dwarfs LA when it comes to a densly built-up downtown core, even though LA is "monstrous".

did I say that Houston was more urban then Copenhagen? Yes, we all know Copenhagen has a dense, historic core. That doesn't change the fact that it's a rather small metro area. Houston dwarfs it, regardless if it's less walkable, has fewer historical structures, and more car oriented. Copenhagen is probally more similar to Milwaukee in population and metro area.

If you like suburbia and high ways, you'll find that in Copenhagen as well. No one likes a never ending sprawling metro area. It´s quite the nightmare.

I agree

What I wanted to underline is how could be Rhein-Rhur evolution (or maybe will be in the future?) if it had just one administrative level

The area has now some kind of administration for the region called Metropole Rhein-Ruhr. They want to integrate the cities better and they want to increase the level of co-operation. But until now it failed since some cities simply cannot concur others. While Bonn, Cologne and Düsseldorf are still prosperous (Düsseldorf is free of any public debt), other cities like Duisburg (this one in very first place), Dortmund, Bochum or Wuppertal suffer from decreasing populations, lack of tax revenue and structural transformation doesn't have the strong effect it had in other regions like Stuttgart.
The cities concur each other rather than co-operating.
It is still the main producer of exportation goods and has a very strong industry. But it's reputation of the Ruhr area is worse than the Ruhrgebiet actually is. This is why many people move away or do not even consider to move there. Honestly, I wouldn't want to live there either.
The Rhineland region however is much better off than the Ruhr area.

I´m no talking statistics here. I´m talking about the appearance of cities. Houston can´t offer an "urban" lifestyle like denser, more urban and more sophisticated cities like London, Paris or NYC. These cities can, however, offer all the things Houston can. Except obvious things like weather and vibe.

Well obviously Houston isn't as urban as Paris, London, or NYC. Nor can it match the lifestyles there. Then again, those cities are older and are the primary cities of their respective countries. And who says the residents of Houston even want to live in some crowded, overpriced city like NYC? That doesn't take away from the fact that Houston is a major city, an urban city, and larger then cities like Copenhagen. It's just urban in a different way and I am sure that it will densify over time.



Just look:

Houston

http://img718.imageshack.us/img718/6853/houstondowntown7.jpg (http://img718.imageshack.us/i/houstondowntown7.jpg/)

Copenhagen

http://img37.imageshack.us/img37/3366/nyhavn.jpg (http://img37.imageshack.us/i/nyhavn.jpg/)

thats kind of a silly comparison. You are comparing pictures of a CBD and a known tourist spot that is always crowded with tourists. Houston isn't a tourist city, so of course it will never match the Copenhagen waterfront.






Statistics again. Look at google maps. London has a huge dense city centre, just like NYC. London is miles ahead of LA.

what statistics? I am going off density. London is not miles ahead of L.A. in terms of population density. 4,761/km vs. 3,168/km city proper population density.



They show that LA is a mega suburb. And cities like Copenhagen dwarfs LA when it comes to a densly built-up downtown core, even though LA is "monstrous".

how can a city with 4 million people in it's city proper be considered a suburb? Thats most of the entire population of Denmark within the L.A. city limits.

look at this entire pano and try to tell me that L.A. isn't an urban mega city.

http://img46.imageshack.us/img46/2306/losangelesmountainstooc.jpg (http://img46.imageshack.us/i/losangelesmountainstooc.jpg/)