what will be the 15 biggest agglomerations in 2050 ,i think there a a few surprises in this time .

So this is my list :

1.) Mumbai (Bombay ) 40 million in agglomeration 16 million city proper

2.) Dhaka (bangladesch) 39 million agglo , 12 million city proper

3.) Delhi 38 million agglo ,20 million city proper

4.) Shanghai 35 million agglo , 20 million city proper

5.) Mexico city (DF) 33 million agglo, 20 million city proper

6.) Tokyo 30 milion, agglo 6 million city proper (it will shrink)

7.) Jakarta 29 million agglo , 12 million city proper

8.) Manila 28 million agglo ,9 million city proper

9.) Los Angeles 27 million agglo ,6 million city proper

10) Guangzhou 27 million incl.foshan

11.) NYC 25 million agglo ,12 million city proper

12.) Lagos 25 million agglo ,??

13.) Karatchi 25 million agglo ,??

14.) Seoul 22 million ,city proper 5 million (it shrink)

15.) Sao Paulo 22 million ,city proper 13 milion

i think this numbers are thinkable .whats youre numbers??

For comparison, the top15 of 2007 (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agglomeration ;english site has newer data but only top10) :


1 Tokio 33,4 Mio.
2 Seoul 23,2 Mio.
3 Mexiko-Stadt 22,1 Mio.
4 New York 21,8 Mio.
5 Mumbai 21,3 Mio.
6 Delhi 21,1 Mio.
7 São Paulo 20,4 Mio.
8 Los Angeles 17,9 Mio.
9 Shanghai 17,3 Mio.
10 Osaka 16,6 Mio.
11 Kairo 15,9 Mio.
12 Kolkata 15,5 Mio.
13 Manila 15,4 Mio.
14 Jakarta 14,9 Mio.
15 Karatschi 14,8 Mio.

Well maybe some metropolitan area within the blue banana could merge into a huge agglomeration within 40 years. But that depends on immigration as this regions don't grow by births anymore.

guangzhou has big chances i guess considering it merges with foshan and other cities are near too

Well maybe some metropolitan area within the blue banana could merge into a huge agglomeration within 40 years. But that depends on immigration as this regions don't grow by births anymore.

Then it would be a conurbation, not an agglomeration. Nerd!;)

8.) Manila 28 million agglo ,9 million city proper:lol:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manila -> Manila has an area of 38.55 sq km.

9 000 000 / 38.55 = 233 463.035 people per sq km

That's nearly nine times as densely populated as today's Manhattan
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manhattan).

^^The keyword is agglomeration, not city limits. Right now, the agglomeration is approx 23 million. The conurbation of MegaManila is close to 40 million.

Then it would be a conurbation, not an agglomeration. Nerd!;)
Nah we already have conurbations in the Blua Banana. In 40 years we could see further integration around one middle sized centre to form a big centre.

Well, those are my thoughts, numbers are metropolitan areas and city population in brackets.

Pearl River Delta 65 million
Dhaka 60 million
Delhi 55 million
Karachi 50 million
Manila 50 million (10 million in Metro Manila)
Mumbai 45 million
Cairo 40 million
Tokyo 40 million (10 million)
Jakarta 40 million (10 million)
Lagos 40 million
Beijing 35 million
Shanghai 35 million
Mexico City 30 million (10 million)
Sao Paulo 30 million (12 million)
Seoul 30 million (11 million) I'm sure we'll have a united Korea in 2050

You guys think Dhaka will grow so much? It's really vulnerable to flooding, whether it's due to global warming or plain old typhoons/moonsoon, or it could just sink under it's own weight. Or it could just sink under it's own weight. Shanghai was sinking by 10cm per year at one point, which is 4m in 40 years at that rate. Dhaka is 4m above sea level. Now Dhaka might not be sinking as fast since Shanghai's sinking was largely due to its consumption of groundwater, but it's also something that should be taken into consideration. And Bangladesh is really crowded and poor already, does it produce enough food to substain a city of 60 million?...

You guys think Dhaka will grow so much? It's really vulnerable to flooding, whether it's due to global warming or plain old typhoons/moonsoon, or it could just sink under it's own weight. Or it could just sink under it's own weight. Shanghai was sinking by 10cm per year at one point, which is 4m in 40 years at that rate. Dhaka is 4m above sea level. Now Dhaka might not be sinking as fast since Shanghai's sinking was largely due to its consumption of groundwater, but it's also something that should be taken into consideration. And Bangladesh is really crowded and poor already, does it produce enough food to substain a city of 60 million?...

Well, the reason for Dhaka in the list is that currently it's the second fastest growing megacity after Karachi. There are reasons to believe that Bangladesh's economy will accelerate over the next decades. Currently it's already growing at 6% per year. So will the urbanisation of the country accelerate. Dhaka is the most important city by far for currently 150 million people. In the future, it will be for 250 million. Just because Bangladesh is so densely populated, the number of big cities is very small. Look at South Korea, half of the population lives in their biggest metro area. Bangladesh is the same size, so I asume that Dhaka will grow ever more important in the country.

Bangladesh is now 6 times richer than it was in 1971. The country is populated very dense and developing. In the future, they can afford huge dams and other things we might don't know by now that will protect Bngladesh from more floodings.

Well, the reason for Dhaka in the list is that currently it's the second fastest growing megacity after Karachi. There are reasons to believe that Bangladesh's economy will accelerate over the next decades. Currently it's already growing at 6% per year. So will the urbanisation of the country accelerate. Dhaka is the most important city by far for currently 150 million people. In the future, it will be for 250 million. Just because Bangladesh is so densely populated, the number of big cities is very small. Look at South Korea, half of the population lives in their biggest metro area. Bangladesh is the same size, so I asume that Dhaka will grow ever more important in the country.

Bangladesh is now 6 times richer than it was in 1971. The country is populated very dense and developing. In the future, they can afford huge dams and other things we might don't know by now that will protect Bngladesh from more floodings.

I'm not sure there is a single country which had it's GDP shrink from 1971 to 2009. Even Somalia had its GDP increase almost 3 fold. I just calculated the GDP per capita increase of about a dozen countries over that period, and Bangladesh was pretty close to the bottom. Unfortunately firefox crashed so I wasn't able to post it. But, I do remember Bangladesh had a roughly 4.5 fold increase. Countries like Japan, South Korea, Indonesia, China, Malaysia, Thailand and Brazil all increased their GDP per capita more than 15fold. Canada, US and Germany all increased their GDP per capita by 8.5 to 11 fold. Several African countries like Egypt, Nigeria, Sudan, Kenya and Rwanda as well as India increase about 10 fold. Even Iraq increased by around 5-6 fold.

The countries that did worse than Bangladesh were Somalia, Ghana, Afghanistan and Niger. Their Muslim brother to the West in Pakistan increased their GDP per capita by 5.63.

Based on this, I would rate Bangladesh's economy as struggling. Maybe if we look less far in the past, or if you can convince me that there is a better measurement than growth in GDP per capita, they won't look as bad.

I'm not sure there is a single country which had it's GDP shrink from 1971 to 2009. Even Somalia had its GDP increase almost 3 fold. I just calculated the GDP per capita increase of about a dozen countries over that period, and Bangladesh was pretty close to the bottom. Unfortunately firefox crashed so I wasn't able to post it. But, I do remember Bangladesh had a roughly 4.5 fold increase. Countries like Japan, South Korea, Indonesia, China, Malaysia, Thailand and Brazil all increased their GDP per capita more than 15fold. Canada, US and Germany all increased their GDP per capita by 8.5 to 11 fold. Several African countries like Egypt, Nigeria, Sudan, Kenya and Rwanda as well as India increase about 10 fold. Even Iraq increased by around 5-6 fold.

The countries that did worse than Bangladesh were Somalia, Ghana, Afghanistan and Niger. Their Muslim brother to the West in Pakistan increased their GDP per capita by 5.63.

Based on this, I would rate Bangladesh's economy as struggling. Maybe if we look less far in the past, or if you can convince me that there is a better measurement than growth in GDP per capita, they won't look as bad.

You're right that Bangladesh struggled in the past. After independence, GDP growth struggled at 4%, so per capita growth was 2%. But since then, the economy has accelerated very smoothly to a 6% growth. Population growth is now at 1.5%, so now the per capita growth has doubled from 2% in the 70s to 4.5% now. The IMF predicts that Bangladesh will accelerate further to 7% growth over the next 5 years. The country is catching up and benefiting from the boom in India.

When China will slow and itself out-source production, Bangladesh will for sure be one of the countries where industry will move to.

You're right that Bangladesh struggled in the past. After independence, GDP growth struggled at 4%, so per capita growth was 2%. But since then, the economy has accelerated very smoothly to a 6% growth. Population growth is now at 1.5%, so now the per capita growth has doubled from 2% in the 70s to 4.5% now. The IMF predicts that Bangladesh will accelerate further to 7% growth over the next 5 years. The country is catching up and benefiting from the boom in India.

When China will slow and itself out-source production, Bangladesh will for sure be one of the countries where industry will move to.
Because I find these numbers interesting, I'll recalculate them when I have a bit of time. Do you think 1999 to 2009 would be a good time range?

:lol:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manila -> Manila has an area of 38.55 sq km.

9 000 000 / 38.55 = 233 463.035 people per sq km

That's nearly nine times as densely populated as today's Manhattan
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manhattan).

When we talk about Manila we are more talking about Metro Manila which is the city proper.

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

Which has a population of around 11,553,427 and an area of 638.55 km2. Its density is around 18,093.2/km2

Its neighbouring suburbs and outskirts will double or even triple both area and population.

Manila (city) only has a population of 1,660,714 and an area of 38.55 km2. Its density is around 43,079/km2

Nevertheless, it is still one of the densest cities in the world.

More than 28 million people already live within a distance of 130km from downtown Sao Paulo.

For 2050, I believe that there will be at least 35 million people living in this area. Not to mention that it is very likely that by 2050 the megalopolis Sao Paulo - Rio de Janeiro will be a reality with at least 55 million inhabitants.

I'm still confused how a country like Bangladesh could sustain 250 milion people ,especialy when taking into account that urbanisation of Daka and other cities reduce arable surfaces.

I'm still confused how a country like Bangladesh could sustain 250 milion people ,especialy when taking into account that urbanisation of Daka and other cities reduce arable surfaces.

At least until now, the surface area of Dhaka is very small. The 14 million people of the metropolitan area live on roughly 300km² (estimated by me using google earth). That makes an urban density of just below 50,000 people/km² which is one of the highest levels on earth and 50 times the overall density of the country.
The United States have an urban density of 2,000/km² and a overall population density of 34/km². That is 70 times the overall density. Bangladesh's cities occupy only a little higer share of the area than the American cities. So I don't think that urbanisation will create land-problems.

In addition to that, land is far more valuable in Bangladesh than in the USA, so land reclamation from the sea will be very lucrative, especially to built new cities, industry and ports on it.

Guangzhou 27 million incl.foshan
? too many,you make huge assumption

Well maybe some metropolitan area within the blue banana could merge into a huge agglomeration within 40 years. But that depends on immigration as this regions don't grow by births anymore.

Blue banana:

London,brussels,Amsterdam, Paris,Milano

this arc?

Blue banana:

London,brussels,Amsterdam, Paris,Milano

this arc?

and the complete economic zone of northrhine westfalia and the frankfurt area

But no Paris:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Banana
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/04/Blaue-banane.png

More than 28 million people already live within a distance of 130km from downtown Sao Paulo.

For 2050, I believe that there will be at least 35 million people living in this area. Not to mention that it is very likely that by 2050 the megalopolis Sao Paulo - Rio de Janeiro will be a reality with at least 55 million inhabitants.

Not in a dream.

The concept of urban agglomeration is fluid, and I do not want do descend into faux-technicality debate over them. However, Sao Paulo has physical, geological restrictions for that "merge" ever happening.

i've always thought the Blue Banana is misleading: there are large tracts of nothingness in parts whilst the Southern part is quite separated from the Northern part (and feels it). It isn't seamless in the way the Eastern Seaboard is in the US. Also, it is not a complete land transport network in terms of connections.

Far better, IMO, is to view a sort of NW European 'diamond' with Brussels at the centre. North is Amsterdam and the Randstad; South is metro-Paris; West is London and its commuter belt; East is the Rhine-Ruhr. This cluster features Europe's economic, political, cultural, art, industrial and logistical centres (two busiest ports and passenger airports). It is the heartbeat and driver of the EU and is densely populated with few large tracts of real countryside. It is soon to feature the continent's first true transnational HS rail network when London gets direct access to the Netherlands and NW Germany (Cologne as gateway). This will mean you can go from any point to any other directly.

It is soon to feature the continent's first true transnational HS rail network when London gets direct access to the Netherlands and NW Germany (Cologne as gateway). This will mean you can go from any point to any other directly.

Not really. There are no plans to link Antwerpen to Bruxelles with high-speed tracks, for instance, neither are plans to connect Amsterdam with Germany with truly high-speed (250km/h+) tracks anytime soon.

The majority of the route between Brussels and Amsterdam is over 250km, and if you read what I said, I was referring to the points connecting, not cities or places within, so it's irreverent concerning Antwerp.

I was wrong about Amsterdam to the Rhine-Ruhr though.

Not in a dream.

The concept of urban agglomeration is fluid, and I do not want do descend into faux-technicality debate over them. However, Sao Paulo has physical, geological restrictions for that "merge" ever happening.

It is not a dream. It is all true. There are already more than 28 million people living within a distance of less than 130 km of downtown Sao Paulo.

And what makes you think that megalopolises must be 100% of urban area???? Sorry, but if you think so, you are way too mistaken...

It is not a dream. It is all true. There are already more than 28 million people living within a distance of less than 130 km of downtown Sao Paulo.

And what makes you think that megalopolises must be 100% of urban area???? Sorry, but if you think so, you are way too mistaken...

I agree. New York Metropolitan Area, for example, includes New Haven, 100 miles away from NYC.

It is not a dream. It is all true. There are already more than 28 million people living within a distance of less than 130 km of downtown Sao Paulo.

And what makes you think that megalopolises must be 100% of urban area???? Sorry, but if you think so, you are way too mistaken...
Well, the Thread asks for Agglomerations. A Agglomeration is a continuity of urban space.

The United States have an urban density of 2,000/km² and a overall population density of 34/km². That is 70 times the overall density. Bangladesh's cities occupy only a little higer share of the area than the American cities. So I don't think that urbanisation will create land-problems.
In addition to that, land is far more valuable in Bangladesh than in the USA, so land reclamation from the sea will be very lucrative, especially to built new cities, industry and ports on it.
I'm not sure the U.S. would be country to compare to Bangladesh the state where i live(oklahoma) is larger than bangladesh and has a little under 4 million people. I don't think bangladesh can support 250 million people. You left out the fact that the area of bangladesh's metropolitan areas will grow a lot and you can only reclaim so much land from the sea. It will be very hard for bangladesh to urbanize without a lot of land being grabbed for high rise apartments and many other urban developments.

Well, the Thread asks for Agglomerations. A Agglomeration is a continuity of urban space.

No it is not. Agglomeration is not conurbation. :ohno:

GDP per capita growth from 1999 to 2009:
http://i273.photobucket.com/albums/jj228/memphremagogness_monster/GDPpercapitagrowth.jpg
Legend:

Dark Maroon: 650-900% (ex Angola)
Maroon: 400-650% (ex Russia)
Dark Red: 300-400% (ex China)
Red: 200-300% (ex Indonesia)
Light Red: 150-200% (ex India)
Peach: 120-150% (ex Brazil)
Yellow: 100-120% (ex Turkey)
Greeny-Yellow: 80-100% (ex Canada)
Green: 70-80% (ex France)
Dark Green: 60-70% (ex Bangladesh)
Light Blue: 30-60% (ex USA)
Blue: 0-30% (ex Japan)
Dark Blue: -20-0% (ex Argentina)

So even in the last 10 years, Bangladesh hasn't been doing so hot. Based on population growth, wealth increases and size of existing cities, I would say:

1. New Delhi (50 million)
2. Tokyo (40 million)
3. Bombay (38 million)
4. Sao Paulo (36 million)
5. New York City-Philadelphia (35 million)
6. Kolkatta (30 million)
7. Jakarta (28 million)
8. Shanghai (28 million)
9. Mexico City (28 million)
10. Karachi (27 million)
11. Dkaha (22 million)
12. Rio de Janeiro (22 million)
13. Los Angeles (20 million)
14. Manilla (20 million)
15. Lagos (20 million)

Pearl River Delta, which is already contiguous with the cities of Shenzhen,
Guangzhou and Dongguan (check it out on Google Earth) already counts 30 million as
one conurbation (and doesnt include HK), with 45 million in an area the size of LA, and
growing (the largest metro currently being built, twice as large as any other even
conceived to connect them all up).

http://www.chinabusinessreview.com/public/0305/images/lemancallout7.gif

urban satellite pic here, after and before (and bear in mind the after shot is near 10 years old already):

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=7949

http://eoimages.gsfc.nasa.gov/images/imagerecords/7000/7949/pearlriver_l7_2003010.jpg



Meanwhile the Yangtze River Delta is the worlds largest concentration of adjacent
conurbations, and each rapidly growing, which counts 90 million of which 50 million
are urbanites:

http://msittig.wubi.org/imgs/light-pollution-google-map.jpg

The 'countryside' in this area is made up of hundreds of km of China's richest peasants
and looks like this (some 'villages' even have supertalls), hence why it may take 30 minutes
on high speed rail to pull into Shanghai, but an hour of deceptive 'cityscape' to pull into the
much smaller Hangzhou.

http://img212.imageshack.us/img212/5977/hangzhou1ca5.jpg

(^note the fields and lack of roads)

This is the monster in its reality (with only the densest areas lit up, not the countryside):

http://www.iseis.cuhk.edu.hk/groundstation/event/shanghi.jpg

spliff: I took the train from Hong Kong to Guangzhou and from Shanghai to Nanjing. It doesn`t feel like one city.

I think no city will be able to beat the urban feeling of Tokyo in the next 20 years. The city is just too big.

Number two will be interesting. Could be Osaka, Shanghai or Seoul.

Take the train from the other direction from Hangzhou (actually about a few hours south from Hangzhou) to Shanghai. It took me about 5 years to find out the ginormous city, that stretched for hundreds of km, had been 'countryside' (and hence why Hangzhou in my mind seemed the larger city).

As for Shenzhen (not HK, its not included), a massive coastal strip connects it up to Dongguan and Guangzhou. Its actually contiguous (completely joined up, no gaps), you can check it out on Google Earth. The train of course doesnt hug the coastline or the urban belts, but cuts direct across farmland between the cities (same applies to the Shanghai-Nanjing line I would think).

According to absolute number-growth, Delhi is one of the fastest growing metro areas on Earth. Anyway, here's a map I made showing all metropolitan areas above 2 million inhabitants and their annual growth over the last years (usually since the last census):

http://img94.imageshack.us/img94/5994/ballungsrumewachstum201.png

Source: citypopulation.de

Definitions: by myself

^^nice work. i reckon the chinese cities high growth is from emigration and not from high birth rates.

spliff: I took the train from Hong Kong to Guangzhou and from Shanghai to Nanjing. It doesn`t feel like one city.

I think no city will be able to beat the urban feeling of Tokyo in the next 20 years. The city is just too big.

Number two will be interesting. Could be Osaka, Shanghai or Seoul.

I agree with Tokyo's massive size. There is a possibility that Shanghai or Seoul could be next.

cool map
I see that in my country , Rabat ( 1.8 million in the metro area ) is growing faster than Casablanca ( 4.5 million in the metro area )
another interesting thing which I do not understand , Rabat metro region is actually larger in size than Casablanca

it disgusts me to see this, why do some of you sound proud to see such disaster happen to your nations?

it disgusts me to see this, why do some of you sound proud to see such disaster happen to your nations?


what are you talking about?

With all these large urban areas happening. The emerging mega regions within The United States is to me more fascinating.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/51/MapofEmergingUSMegaregions.png/800px-MapofEmergingUSMegaregions.png

In the future, The Great Lakes might end up as the largest mega region sometime in the future with Chicago as the hub.

it disgusts me to see this, why do some of you sound proud to see such disaster happen to your nations?

It's better in almost every conceivable way to massively populate a relatively small area than to sprawl out.

No it is not. Agglomeration is not conurbation. :ohno:

yes, it is
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Agglomeration

1. a jumbled cluster or mass of varied parts.
2. a confused mass


ie. all parts of conurbation located under different jurisdiction.

With all these large urban areas happening. The emerging mega regions within The United States is to me more fascinating.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/51/MapofEmergingUSMegaregions.png/800px-MapofEmergingUSMegaregions.png

In the future, The Great Lakes might end up as the largest mega region sometime in the future with Chicago as the hub.

From a sustainability standpoint, a great lakes mega region would be great.

Plenty of of fresh water. However, a number of the Great Lakes metros are stagnant & a few are shrinking.

From a sustainability standpoint, a great lakes mega region would be great.

Plenty of of fresh water. However, a number of the Great Lakes metros are stagnant & a few are shrinking.

yeah definetly right about that not lot of people talk about either. Hopefully Great Lakes cities (and states) can start doing things to attract people and jobs. Because it's truly a blessing to have a natural wonder like the Great Lakes and hopefully this next decade this region makes a come back or at least stops shrinking.

it disgusts me to see this, why do some of you sound proud to see such disaster happen to your nations?

from an ecological perspective it is better to concentrate human activity to large nodes rather than distributing them over a vast area. It is easier to build infrastructure and control pollution for a large dense mass than a massive sprawling mess. It also makes HSR and mass transit much more favorable.

from an ecological perspective it is better to concentrate human activity to large nodes rather than distributing them over a vast area. It is easier to build infrastructure and control pollution for a large dense mass than a massive sprawling mess. It also makes HSR and mass transit much more favorable.

You have done a wonderful job of describing a maximum security prison or concentration camp.

What you are really saying is that crowding people together benefits urban planners and bureaucrats. Don't confuse this with benefitting the people who actually live in the city. The people have a very simple way of deciding where they want to live; they move there.

With all these large urban areas happening. The emerging mega regions within The United States is to me more fascinating.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/51/MapofEmergingUSMegaregions.png/800px-MapofEmergingUSMegaregions.png

In the future, The Great Lakes might end up as the largest mega region sometime in the future with Chicago as the hub.

This map is fiction of the grossest order. Many of these areas have 10's of miles between human habitation and some 100 miles or more.

The NE and LA (excluding LV) are not too ridiculous; some parts of the Great Lakes make pefect sense (but not KC and the Twin Cities).

The Arizona and Colorado ones (among others) must be drug induced.

You have done a wonderful job of describing a maximum security prison or concentration camp.

What you are really saying is that crowding people together benefits urban planners and bureaucrats. Don't confuse this with benefitting the people who actually live in the city. The people have a very simple way of deciding where they want to live; they move there.

Well, then we're very lucky, because it seems that people want to live in cities, the more crowded the better. Or why do you think that appartements are the most expensive in the most densely populated areas?

GDP per capita growth from 1999 to 2009:
http://i273.photobucket.com/albums/jj228/memphremagogness_monster/GDPpercapitagrowth.jpg
Legend:

Dark Maroon: 650-900% (ex Angola)
Maroon: 400-650% (ex Russia)
Dark Red: 300-400% (ex China)
Red: 200-300% (ex Indonesia)
Light Red: 150-200% (ex India)
Peach: 120-150% (ex Brazil)
Yellow: 100-120% (ex Turkey)
Greeny-Yellow: 80-100% (ex Canada)
Green: 70-80% (ex France)
Dark Green: 60-70% (ex Bangladesh)
Light Blue: 30-60% (ex USA)
Blue: 0-30% (ex Japan)
Dark Blue: -20-0% (ex Argentina)



You used nominal GDP figures. Better are real GDP figures. Here I've made a map showing annual real GDP/growth from 1990 until 2008, the last year before the crisis.

http://img89.imageshack.us/img89/153/wirtschaftswachstum1990a.png



In comparison, here's the performance from 2009-2011(projected).:

http://img3.imageshack.us/img3/7948/wirtschaftswachstum2008.png

During Former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo's term, she divided the Philippines into 4 economic regions and one of them is the Luzon Urban Beltway which basically is an agglomeration of Metropolitan and urban areas around Metro Manila. Although this division is much larger in comparison to what is presented in the photo below, much of the industry and population reside in the areas surrounded by red circles.

Metro Manila alone produces about 1/3 of the Philippine GDP, so putting into account this area, the percentage of economic output as compared to the rest of the country would be larger.

http://i221.photobucket.com/albums/dd198/otakaw/Picture1.jpg

Here I've made a map showing annual real GDP/growth from 1990 until 2008, the last year before the crisis.
Why stopping in 2008? You should extend the figures until 2010 to show the full economic cycle, otherwise your figures are deceiving, such as in the case for Spain or Ireland.

Also, I see you did not color the French overseas departments and territories. I can give you some figures for them.

The 4 French overseas departments had a combined real GDP growth of +2.65% per year between 1990 and 2008.

In detail, for each overseas department, figures are only availale from 1993. In the 15 years from 1993 to 2008 the real GDP growth was:
- Réunion: +4.43% per year
- French Guiana: +3.63% per year
- Guadeloupe: +3.41% per year
- Martinique: +2.76% per year

Real GDP growth for the overseas collectivities:
- New Caledonia: +3.62% per year (between 1998 and 2008)
- French Polynesia: +2.01% per year (between 1990 and 2006)

Why stopping in 2008? You should extend the figures until 2010 to show the full economic cycle, otherwise your figures are deceiving, such as in the case for Spain or Ireland.


I wanted to go from top to top. 1990 was the last year the former east bloc was in healthy condition. Also, 1990 was one year before a crisis in the West. Similarily to that, 2008 was the last year before the crisis in 2009.

If I had gone from 1990 to 2010, there would have been 3 recessions (1991, 2001 and 2009) in it but only 2 growth phases. This would make no sense.

Then you could go from 1993 to 2010. That would make more sense.

Then you could go from 1993 to 2010. That would make more sense.

I took those maps out of a series I made:

1. 1950-1973
2. 1973-1990
3. 1990-2008
4. 2008-?

I wanted to find out how all countries performed GDP wise in periods between significant years in the economic history. I assume that the crisis of 2009 was the first year of a new era different from the post-communist and housing-bubble era that lasted from 1990-2008. Similar to that in 1974 after the oil crisis a new era started.

^^But 2009 is the result of the 2000s, so showing the growth rate of the 2000s while leaving out 2009 is a bit deceiving. That's all I was saying.

i read an article that the growrates of the core city- zones of NYC and LA are very low since 2002,so i think only the areas around the main core city of both are still growing .So the metropoltian areas of NYC and LA will end up by 24 million for NYC and 26 million for LA by 2050 . So LA will the biggest metropoltian area of the US . (all numbers are CSA) is that right?

^^But 2009 is the result of the 2000s, so showing the growth rate of the 2000s while leaving out 2009 is a bit deceiving. That's all I was saying.

Why dont you make your own map then?

The people have a very simple way of deciding where they want to live; they move there.

So the fact that nearly all of the US was, and mostly still is, extremely prescriptive in zoning, with separation of uses and very low densities required, is unrelated to how we've grown?

And different federal policies for highway funding vs. transit funding haven't been relevant?

And so on?

I'm mystified.

So the fact that nearly all of the US was, and mostly still is, extremely prescriptive in zoning, with separation of uses and very low densities required, is unrelated to how we've grown?

And different federal policies for highway funding vs. transit funding haven't been relevant?

And so on?

I'm mystified.

Me too. Why is it hard to see that if people don't like the zoning, laws, etc., where they are they move somewhere else? Every form of social science, administrative or business theory and policy planning make this assumption as to human behavior.

Do you have a better theory of human behavior? There are a few out there, but they usually get torn apart very quickly.

Sorry: this all seems to be a bit off topic.

Pearl River Delta is going to be huge, maybe other cities in India whick has a very low urbanization if I am correct.

I won't see sprawl anymore, but well designed cities with good density no american sprawl neither asian densities.

I'dl like to see a more compact and smart Los Angeles. now his metropolitan region is wasting a lot of space, a great space imho, with a better and wider centre, less poor neighborhoods, more condos, a good public transposrtation system and no more new suburbs coul de awesome but it will be just a dream.

You have done a wonderful job of describing a maximum security prison or concentration camp.

Since when is living in a condo or apartment in a dense downtown setting "a maximum security prison". Since when is Manhattan, the Pearl River Delta or the Bosh-Wash (Boston-Washington corridor) a "concentration camp". People living in this urban setting have a much higher quality of life than people in the suburbs. They drive less and usually walk, take transit, have better access to city services, etc so they are usually healthier and pollute less. Please don't mistaken this dense for informal slums or something. I am talking about planned or well developed density.

What you are really saying is that crowding people together benefits urban planners and bureaucrats. Don't confuse this with benefiting the people who actually live in the city.

Well these "urban planners and bureaucrats" are the ones that are providing your basic services and infrastructure why would you not make it easier for them. If there was an easier way to run a bus route which would improve the service quality would you not do it? According to you "it might benefit the bus driver we can't have that." Your missing the point, the point is to control man's impact on the earth while making it easier to serve the population's basic needs so it benefits the people.

The people have a very simple way of deciding where they want to live; they move there.

yes, a lot of people are moving to denser places because they are smart enough to know they will get better services there. Some people want to live in a suburban wasteland where they have to drive 5 km to the nearest hospital, school, etc. other people don't. no one is not forcing anyone to do anything.

Pearl River Delta is going to be huge, maybe other cities in India whick has a very low urbanization if I am correct.

I won't see sprawl anymore, but well designed cities with good density no american sprawl neither asian densities.

I'dl like to see a more compact and smart Los Angeles. now his metropolitan region is wasting a lot of space, a great space imho, with a better and wider centre, less poor neighborhoods, more condos, a good public transposrtation system and no more new suburbs coul de awesome but it will be just a dream.

I want the PRD to be the next Greater Tokyo except with a mass transit system on steroids (because Greater Tokyo's is not good enough ;) )

i read an article that the growrates of the core city- zones of NYC and LA are very low since 2002,so i think only the areas around the main core city of both are still growing .So the metropoltian areas of NYC and LA will end up by 24 million for NYC and 26 million for LA by 2050 . So LA will the biggest metropoltian area of the US . (all numbers are CSA) is that right?

Los Angeles current area with 26 million by 2050? Very unlikely. And what explains these huge discrepancy between LA and NY projections? First, the growth rates are not that different and additionally, the LA's is falling decade after decade while NY's is pretty stable.

Anyway, if NY reaches 25 million people in its current area, probably it will merge with Philadelphia, Allentown and Hartford's areas adding 8 million people (maybe more) while Los Angeles could add only San Diego and Santa Barbara, or 3.5 million people.

Well, those are my thoughts, numbers are metropolitan areas and city population in brackets.

Mexico City 30 million (10 million)


I don't think the population of the inner city (federal district) will grow that much, as a fact we have that since the 80's it has been stable or decreasing and incresing with low percentages

1980 - 8831079 2,4%
1990 - 8235744 -0,7%
2000 - 8605239 0,4%
2005 - 8720916 0,2%
2010 - 8851080 0,3%

^^^but what about the surrounding neighborhoods, i bet they are growing really fast.

^^ I heard Mexico's population growth is already stabilizing. Because of this, I doubt that its capital's population growth would continue to explode in the coming years.

I've seen night photos of the Korean strait that's fairly lit-up by Japan's huge fishing fleets. Is this still true, now that Japan's fishing industry has drastically shrank in size since the last decade? :?

If so, can this sort-of represent as a "connection" between Japan and the rest of East Asia (the Korean Peninsula and Chinese coastal plain) as forming a megalopolis the likes of the "Blue Banana"? :?

If so, I can imagine a megalopolis stretching from Tokyo (and environs) all-the-way to Shanghai (and environs) encompassing the densely built-up Korean Peninsula and the densely farmed lands connecting the entire Chinese coastal plain. This might just well be the single most impressive megalopolis on Earth, the Indo-Gangetic Plain notwithstanding.

Just thinking about it, while considering that Greater Tokyo is the planet's most impressive urban agglomeration, I feel that it is only fitting that it is within the most physically expansive megalopolis in the world.

I don't think the population of the inner city (federal district) will grow that much, as a fact we have that since the 80's it has been stable or decreasing and incresing with low percentages

1980 - 8831079 2,4%
1990 - 8235744 -0,7%
2000 - 8605239 0,4%
2005 - 8720916 0,2%
2010 - 8851080 0,3%
By now most of Mexico City is not DF, is Edomex.
There is a problem with Mexico City and that is the availability of water.
At 2200m, of attitude 400km from the nearest sea, continuing drainage and 20 million people, I don't think it will be sustentable. Soon water will make cost of life expensive, which could prevent further growth in the future, people would migrate.

Los Angeles current area with 26 million by 2050? Very unlikely. And what explains these huge discrepancy between LA and NY projections? First, the growth rates are not that different and additionally, the LA's is falling decade after decade while NY's is pretty stable.

Anyway, if NY reaches 25 million people in its current area, probably it will merge with Philadelphia, Allentown and Hartford's areas adding 8 million people (maybe more) while Los Angeles could add only San Diego and Santa Barbara, or 3.5 million people.

And Tijuana/Ensenada, maybe another 5-6M in 2050.

And Tijuana/Ensenada, maybe another 5-6M in 2050.

Tijuana is in Mexico. It wil always be counted as a different metropolitan area. Metropolitan areas have to be in the same country.

In South America I see very hard the formation of Megacities as we are the second less dense continent in the World after Australia and the continent is already heavily urbanized (above 80%) and with a population growth projection below 0.9% for 2010-2015.

One interesting area would be South East and South Brazil together with Uruguay and the Buenos Aires province in Argentina. However their are huge agricultural spaces in between as well as forests and grassland for cattle, besides of the huge River Plate that separates Buenos Aires from Uruguay. That combined with a very slow population growth in that area makes it imposible for the formation of a megacity.

A second option would be central Colombia. With a population density over 50 pop/km2 Colombia is the regions densiest country. While half of it remains almost unpopulated, most of the population concentrates in the central valleys. Bogota, Medellin and Cali form an industrial triangle that contains the Coffee-Axis on it. In this relatively small area we can found a population between 20 - 25 million. The only problema here is that we are talking about the Andes, so its very hard to see a continious urban sprawl even if the population keeps growing. Also Colombia has many other big and dynamic cities outside this area like Bucaramanga, Cucuta, Barranquilla and Cartagena. All of them above 1 million people and as attractive for rural migrants as the industrial triangle.

Other big cities in the region like Lima, Caracas and Santiago are far away from other important and big cities. The nearest city with 1 million people to Lima is Arequipa, 1000 kms South. Santiago has Valparaiso conurbation nearby but together dont add more than 8 millions in central Chile. And Caracas has Valencia and the Litoral but again they dont get to a seizable number.

Industrial Triangle Colombia

http://www.inversionestulua.com.co/parqueindustrial/images/Mapa-Tulua-TrianguloG.jpg

sebvill
do not mix up cities with economic areas. there is nearly 300km of rural area between bogota and medellin.

Yeah I know but thats the closest we get to a megacity in South America. Theres no one in here.

Well maybe Río-Sao Paulo as someone mentioned before. If the Rapid train project comes to life the distance between this two would be reduced even more.

By now most of Mexico City is not DF, is Edomex.
There is a problem with Mexico City and that is the availability of water.
At 2200m, of attitude 400km from the nearest sea, continuing drainage and 20 million people, I don't think it will be sustentable. Soon water will make cost of life expensive, which could prevent further growth in the future, people would migrate.

Yes I know, I was only talking about the inner city which is just the Federal District, maybe 40 years in the future we will have the Greater Mexico containing other main cities, like Pachuca(300k), Toluca(2million), Puebla-Tlaxcala(3 million), Cuernavaca(1 million) + the current Mexico City. Which just today would form a city of about 26 million

From a sustainability standpoint, a great lakes mega region would be great.

Plenty of of fresh water. However, a number of the Great Lakes metros are stagnant & a few are shrinking.

I've seen a documentary on TV, What If?. They had a segment on overpopulation and mentioned that The Great Lakes area would form the largest mega region in The United States with Chicago as its hub.

The main reason, fresh water.

In South America I see very hard the formation of Megacities as we are the second less dense continent in the World after Australia and the continent is already heavily urbanized (above 80%) and with a population growth projection below 0.9% for 2010-2015.

One interesting area would be South East and South Brazil together with Uruguay and the Buenos Aires province in Argentina. However their are huge agricultural spaces in between as well as forests and grassland for cattle, besides of the huge River Plate that separates Buenos Aires from Uruguay. That combined with a very slow population growth in that area makes it imposible for the formation of a megacity.

(...)

I played with possible "metropolitan expansions" in Brazil, using as unit the microrregiões, as defined by IBGE (Brazilian Statiscal Office), formed by a group of municípios:



(...)

---- 2010-1940 ----

(...)

http://i951.photobucket.com/albums/ad358/johnbullxx/PopulaoEM20101.jpg

(...)

Anyway:

---------- Census 2010 --- Census 2000 --- Growth %

São Paulo (SP) --- 24,006,110 --- 21,628,908 --- 10.99%

Rio de Janeiro (RJ) --- 13,799,953 --- 12,624,372 --- 9.31%

Campinas (SP) --- 5,164,560 --- 4,490,585 --- 15.01%

São José dos Campos-Taubaté (SP) --- 2,262,723 --- 1,992,110 --- 13.58%

Cabo Frio-Macaé (RJ) --- 962,680 --- 635,908 --- 51.39%

Rio-São Paulo Axis --- 46,196,026 --- 41,371,883 --- 11.66%


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


And to ilustrate, the maps (missing Cabo Frio-Macaé, along the coast, east from Rio de Janeiro). Between São Paulo and Campinas are 94 km (58 miles, road distance) and between São Paulo and Rio de Janeiro are 428 km (266 miles):

São Paulo (SP)

http://img33.imageshack.us/img33/6504/sopaulox.jpg (http://img33.imageshack.us/i/sopaulox.jpg/)

Rio de Janeiro (RJ)

http://img188.imageshack.us/img188/2377/riodejaneiro.jpg (http://img188.imageshack.us/i/riodejaneiro.jpg/)

Campinas (SP)

http://img171.imageshack.us/img171/7025/campinas.jpg (http://img171.imageshack.us/i/campinas.jpg/)

São José dos Campos-Taubaté (SP)

http://img442.imageshack.us/img442/5248/sojosdoscampostaubat.jpg (http://img442.imageshack.us/i/sojosdoscampostaubat.jpg/)

Tijuana is in Mexico. It wil always be counted as a different metropolitan area. Metropolitan areas have to be in the same country.

You have remarkable knowledge of the future!

If you will note WANCH's map, 5 of the regions are multi-national. World-wide there are many more. Your approach is not only arbitrary but doesn't comport with economic and social reality.

^^
How can San Diego e Tijuana be part of the same metropolitan area? Do they form a single labour market? Of course not. In that respect, Boston is closer to San Diego than Tijuana is. There ia wall between them.

^^There is a single labor market. Lots of Mexicans work legally in San Diego while living in Tijuana and some Americans do their lives in a similar way. I used to live in Tijuana and had a crossing visa. I crossed the border almost daily to go shopping, movies or meet with frieds.

There are also plans of both governments to build in Tijuana a secondary airport for San Diego...

^^
How can San Diego e Tijuana be part of the same metropolitan area? Do they form a single labour market? Of course not. In that respect, Boston is closer to San Diego than Tijuana is. There ia wall between them.

All border cities in USA and Mexico are a single market, a lot of people living in the mexican cities work in the border city of USA, and the other way around too, a great part of my family do this.

You have remarkable knowledge of the future!

If you will note WANCH's map, 5 of the regions are multi-national. World-wide there are many more. Your approach is not only arbitrary but doesn't comport with economic and social reality.

If you watch closely, you can see that WANCHs map is about mega-regions, which are made of several metropolitan areas each. The reality is that there is a border and a wall.

^^There is a single labor market. Lots of Mexicans work legally in San Diego while living in Tijuana and some Americans do their lives in a similar way. I used to live in Tijuana and had a crossing visa. I crossed the border almost daily to go shopping, movies or meet with frieds.

There are also plans of both governments to build in Tijuana a secondary airport for San Diego...

Really? So everybody in Tijuana or Ciudad Juárez can work in the US freely? If I move to Tijuana like tomorrow, can I get a job in San Diego on the next day?

Tijuana is in Mexico. It wil always be counted as a different metropolitan area. Metropolitan areas have to be in the same country.

metro SD-TJ
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Diego%E2%80%93Tijuana

tijuana with downtown san diego on the background, from this single photoit doesnt look like its 2 countries lol
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2754/4402599869_c2a835c573_o.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/hotu_matua/4402599869/)
San Diego desde Tijuana (http://www.flickr.com/photos/hotu_matua/4402599869/) by Hotu Matua (http://www.flickr.com/people/hotu_matua/), on Flickr

border
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4137/4853754577_a744308d0c_z.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/miggychan/4853754577/)
Tijuana Estuary (http://www.flickr.com/photos/miggychan/4853754577/) by Miggy Chan (http://www.flickr.com/people/miggychan/), on Flickr
i tried doing this too!
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2238/2484471555_1ff2908e12_z.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/mazie73/2484471555/)
Fence 3 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/mazie73/2484471555/) by mazie73 (http://www.flickr.com/people/mazie73/), on Flickr
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3029/2484478295_286fa7e902_z.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/mazie73/2484478295/)
tijuanans relaxing at the border
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3157/2879212267_722bee5a82_z.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/mjkaplow/2879212267/)
Tijuana Beach Goers (http://www.flickr.com/photos/mjkaplow/2879212267/) by The Dalai Lomo (http://www.flickr.com/people/mjkaplow/), on Flickr

i know many people who lives in TJ & work in SD legally(or vice versa) they just cross the border everyday. some study in the US & some just go shopping in SD then go back to TJ

i have filipino-american friends/relatives who lives in the US & they drive to mexico for work everyday

Tijuanans play a big role in SD's economy & San Diegans play a big role in TJ's economy

the San Diego Airport traffic into Tijuana airport rumor is true

^^
How can San Diego e Tijuana be part of the same metropolitan area? Do they form a single labour market? Of course not. In that respect, Boston is closer to San Diego than Tijuana is. There ia wall between them.

It is just like HK-Shenzhen.

http://cdn.wn.com/pd/98/18/235b1d8b77922b88d49f68ddc02e_grande.jpg

The Pearl River Delta have 2 special administrative regions and people who pass through HK or Macao have to pass through immigration.

In fact immigration between HK and China is as strict as SD to TJ.

It is just like HK-Shenzhen.

http://cdn.wn.com/pd/98/18/235b1d8b77922b88d49f68ddc02e_grande.jpg

The Pearl River Delta have 2 special administrative regions and people who pass through HK or Macao have to pass through immigration.

In fact immigration between HK and China is as strict as SD to TJ.

That's why HK and Shenzhen are also 2 separate metropolitan areas. If everything goes as it's planned, they'll merge in 2047.

Guangzhou - Shenzhen is still single built up area.

Yuri: as some have noted, Tijuana and SD are very much integrated, as are many cities along the Mexican border. If you have a legitimate economic or social reason to cross, it is easy to do so.

You might want to search "maquiladora" for some background on the billions of dollars of goods that cross the border, back and forth, every month. And this is just the tip of the iceberg: many smaller service and assembly businesses provide cross-border services as well. Often you will get management living on the US side and crossing-over daily; and labor living on the Mexican side and crossing in the millions (legal and illegal). Families are often split and visit each other routinely.

But, if you prefer, there is also Vancouver-Seattle, Detroit-Windsor, Toronto-Hamilton-Buffalo.

I don't want to worry about agglomeration vs. mega-region vs. whatever. This is just a statement about how many people live and work on the ground in the Ventura-Ensenada corridor. About 25M now. I won't speculate on 2050 since I don't have a clue, but it will presumably grow a lot.

Really? So everybody in Tijuana or Ciudad Juárez can work in the US freely? If I move to Tijuana like tomorrow, can I get a job in San Diego on the next day?

If you have a visa that allows you to, of course you can.

Is that visa easy to get?

Is that visa easy to get?

by 2050 it will be.

from an ecological perspective it is better to concentrate human activity to large nodes rather than distributing them over a vast area. It is easier to build infrastructure and control pollution for a large dense mass than a massive sprawling mess. It also makes HSR and mass transit much more favorable.

yes i know but again, the way it seems is not creating more concentrated living areas, but the megaregions are more to connect dense centres by low density areas, causing lots of sprawl, rather than strictly concentrating cities

yes i know but again, the way it seems is not creating more concentrated living areas, but the megaregions are more to connect dense centres by low density areas, causing lots of sprawl, rather than strictly concentrating cities

This sounds about right. Bigger means more sprawl; density by its nature is very small.

This reminds me of the radical eco proposal about 20 years ago to concentrate all of the Bay Area residents in 1 or 2 sq. miles of high-rises in SF (SF being already ecologically devasted beyond hope). The rest of the area would be returned to as it was in 1700 or so. The building and reinstatement of nature would be accomplished by forcing architects and builders to do it as punishment for the profits they made from devasting the earth with highways, houses, shopping centers, etc. I remember sending it to all my architecture friends. They mostly denied culpability.

And, no, I am not advocating this.

by 2050 it will be.

It's not that difficult, you just need to have the money to pay it, also the cost depends if you want your visa for student trip, for bussiness, for residence, for vacations, and for how many time you will need it (from one week to 10 years), mine will expire on 2014 :S

guys i think Tehran and Tehran - Karaj will be in that list aswell

It's not that difficult, you just need to have the money to pay it, also the cost depends if you want your visa for student trip, for bussiness, for residence, for vacations, and for how many time you will need it (from one week to 10 years), mine will expire on 2014 :S

If it's not that difficult then why are there an estimated 12-20 million illegal immigrants in the USA?

Almost all the people who are ilegally in the USA are poor in Mexico, those who can't pay US$200 bucks for their VISAS.

Are there more opportunities for lower class Mexicans to enter the US illegally instead of seeking greener pastures in cities like Guadalajara or Mexico City?

Well the ilegal immigration to USA has decreased a 70% during the past 5 years, also a great quantity of mexicans who were living there have gone back to Mexico because the opportunities in USA have decreased, so now it is easier aquiring an employement in any of those cities or towns.

Well the ilegal immigration to USA has decreased a 70% during the past 5 years, also a great quantity of mexicans who were living there have gone back to Mexico because the opportunities in USA have decreased, so now it is easier aquiring an employement in any of those cities or towns.

In general, people with legitimate business or social needs can cross the border legally on a temporary basis. People with no money and no jobs are considered likely to seek employment and are considered unlikely to return to Mexico, both of which are generally violations of temporary travel papers. Pretty much the same concept applies for visitors from every country although details vary considerably.

Hopefully the trend toward returning to Mexico will increase. Ideally, it should be much easier to move capital to Mexico than people to the US.

I think thats a bit exaggerate. The USA economy may not be at its best but the Mexican economy is not doing very well either. After a big fall in 2009 the economy has been growing at a very slow pace in 2010 and 2011. If you add the big increase in criminality, specially in the northern states. I dont think many Mexicans in the USA would find it attractive to return to Mexico yet.

www.npr.org › News › World › Latin America

Just to round out the discussion, NPR has an article on the boom in business along the Mexican border. It focuses on Ciudad Juarez but the same story (with less drug violence) could be told in other cities. While this is not new news, it emphasizes that the boom is continuing in spite of violence.

The conjunction of Mexican labor rates and US capital could make this area a massive manufacturing powerhouse. In effect, it is a rationalization of the current process, which has cheap labor sneaking into the US to find capital. Instead the capital goes to Mexico for low-skilled production. Mexico and the US win and (to some extent) China loses.

If this continues in the LA-SD-Tijuana area, the size and manufacuturing diversity of the area could be quite amazing.

Hopefully the trend toward returning to Mexico will increase.

Actually its been quite the opposite. When the border was more porous, migrants moved back & forth across depending upon their employment situation.

As the border has been "hardened", more & more migrants are simply staying in the US, rather than going back.

Why is it so hard for others to understand that borders are simply imaginary lines?!

Some cities simply grow too close to one another that, despite the existence of a border (i.e., San Diego-Tijuana or Hong Kong-Shenzhen), they form a physical unity. And, isn't that one major factor in considering whether these cities have become an agglomeration?

Well, those are my thoughts, numbers are metropolitan areas and city population in brackets.

Pearl River Delta 65 million
Dhaka 60 million
Delhi 55 million
Karachi 50 million
Manila 50 million (10 million in Metro Manila)
Mumbai 45 million
Cairo 40 million
Tokyo 40 million (10 million)
Jakarta 40 million (10 million)
Lagos 40 million
Beijing 35 million
Shanghai 35 million
Mexico City 30 million (10 million)
Sao Paulo 30 million (12 million)
Seoul 30 million (11 million) I'm sure we'll have a united Korea in 2050
The Pearl River Delta is not going to work. These cities doesn't want to merge with each other, since each of them has their own traditions and even dialects. Their specific local governments are trying their best to keep their cities as "their own".

Shanghai on the other hand, is very likely to merge with the nearby cities of Suzhou, Wuxi and Changzhou who shares the same traditions and dialects. This will be called the Yangtze River Delta. If they continue to grow they will reach 50 million before any other city in the world.

Also keep in mind that the Yangtze RD is way more flat and has way more water/rivers than the Pearl RD. This will be a win-win-situation for Yangtze RD in the long term, which can provide more cheap and effective transports.

What about London and Paris?

The Pearl River Delta is not going to work. These cities doesn't want to merge with each other, since each of them has their own traditions and even dialects. Their specific local governments are trying their best to keep their cities as "their own".

Merging administrative divisions ≠ metropolitan areas

Merging cities got nothing to do with PRD's integration much of the PRD shares the same traditions and dialects beside parts of Shenzhen.

PRD is quite integrated by transportation, and economy.

The Pearl River Delta is not going to work. These cities doesn't want to merge with each other, since each of them has their own traditions and even dialects. Their specific local governments are trying their best to keep their cities as "their own".

Shanghai on the other hand, is very likely to merge with the nearby cities of Suzhou, Wuxi and Changzhou who shares the same traditions and dialects. This will be called the Yangtze River Delta. If they continue to grow they will reach 50 million before any other city in the world.

Also keep in mind that the Yangtze RD is way more flat and has way more water/rivers than the Pearl RD. This will be a win-win-situation for Yangtze RD in the long term, which can provide more cheap and effective transports.


The cities in the PRD already have merged their built up area, if you look at Google Earth.

It is possible that the Shanghai metro grows to Wuxi, but i don't think it will grow any further than that. There is still plenty of room in the "cities" of Suzhou and Wuxi.

The Pearl River Delta is not going to work. These cities doesn't want to merge with each other, since each of them has their own traditions and even dialects. Their specific local governments are trying their best to keep their cities as "their own".

Shanghai on the other hand, is very likely to merge with the nearby cities of Suzhou, Wuxi and Changzhou who shares the same traditions and dialects. This will be called the Yangtze River Delta. If they continue to grow they will reach 50 million before any other city in the world.

Also keep in mind that the Yangtze RD is way more flat and has way more water/rivers than the Pearl RD. This will be a win-win-situation for Yangtze RD in the long term, which can provide more cheap and effective transports.

The majority of those living within The Pearl River Delta region speaks Cantonese which is the main dialect of The Guangdong Region.

As for now, both HK and Macao will remain Special Administrative Regions and I doubt both regions will open their borders.

The port of Ningbo is already expected to exceed Shanghai as the world's busiest port in later years. Since I've worked in logistics in China before I am pretty sure the YRD will succeed instead of the PRD.

If you look at Google Earth, alot of regions in China have merged their built-up area. However, these doesn't always qualify as "built-up" if they're just local residental blocks.

How far is Ningbo from Shanghai by car? That is if you start from Xintiandi?

I'm afraid Divineator is right.

The Yangtze River Delta is quite densely built-up. If you check the area via Google Earth the farmlands surrounding the major urban areas are far more organized and denser than the ones surrounding Guangzhou and Dongguan.

What about London and Paris?

They don't even make the top 15 now. In 2050, they're both likely to drop out of a top 30.

I think this Region ie the NYC Metro will hit at least 40 Million by 2050 with 10 or 12 Million in NYC itself. Most of the growth will occur along New Railway networks in Cheaper Central Jersey and in the Lower Hudson Valley which both grew by 400,000 this past decade. I think Philly and NYC metros might merge one day , which would mean we hit 50 to 60 Million. The Faster paced growth is happening in that region.....along Transitways... The whole Northeastern Megapolis could reach 100 Million by 2050.....

How far is Ningbo from Shanghai by car? That is if you start from Xintiandi?
Well, there's a 400 km long bridge connecting these two cities. A similar bridge was proposed down in the PRD, but recently cancelled. The reason? The local governments doesn't want to merge.

The Yangtze River Delta actually serves as the main entry point to the world's most expansive concentration of dense farmlands. Of course, there are far larger stretches of farmland like the ones in South America, the American Heartland, and Europe (including Russia and the CIS), but this one is far denser (built-up areas are less than a kilometer apart for the most part) and it stretches all the way to the Korean Peninsula. Moreover, if we take the dense presence of fishing boats in the Korean Strait as a "connector" (representing as built-up areas on water--given the semi-permanent presence of the said boats) then we're looking at a "connection" further all the way towards the densely built-up Japanese islands, as well.

That's the largest concentration of built-up areas (with less than one kilometers separation between built-up areas at its sparsest points) in the world.

Nothern Jiangsu Prov., China, farmers' houses in rows. (2004)

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6187/6038327327_97b7fb30ef_b.jpg

what about Tehran, Tehran metro is already 14-15 million...

anyway I hope it will never be more than that because it would be a chaotic place than! :s

^^
Unbelievable the density of Chinese rural areas.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

São Paulo state administration is planning to institutionalize the São Paulo Macrometropolitan Area before the end of the year:

http://s.glbimg.com/jo/g1/f/original/2011/08/12/macrometropolearte.jpg

I believe the population of this area will be around 40 million people by 2050.

^^ Wow! That's huge!

BTW, compared to other large countries like China, why is the extent of Brazil's farm land (including grazing land) far larger? In fact, Brazil might have the largest acreage of farmland of any country, the United States or Russia notwithstanding. And, it seems like the momentum of clearing of more of the Amazon for farmland (and grazing land) is speeding-up! :eek:

^^ Wow! That's huge!

BTW, compared to other large countries like China, why is the extent of Brazil's farm land (including grazing land) far larger? In fact, Brazil might have the largest acreage of farmland of any country, the United States or Russia notwithstanding. And, it seems like the momentum of clearing of more of the Amazon for farmland (and grazing land) is speeding-up! :eek:

I don't think so. In 2011, 655,326 km² were cultivated in the country (the list of products (http://www.sidra.ibge.gov.br/bda/prevsaf/default.asp?t=3&z=t&o=26&u1=1&u2=1&u3=1&u4=1)). By regions:

Norte --- 26,193 km²
Nordeste --- 127,287 km²
Centro-Oeste --- 183,522 km²
Sudeste --- 126,024 km²
Sul --- 192,300 km²

As you can see, the powerhouse of Brazilian agriculture is South. North is far way (cultivated area smaller than Belgium), the rest, is almost completely covered by the forest and probably will remain so.

And now, only the grain production (soy, corn, rice, beans, wheat, rye, oats, barley, sorghum, triticale) in 2011:

BRAZIL --- 161,535,500 t
North --- 4,707,800 t
Northeast --- 15,904,800 t
Central-West --- 55,909,400 t
Southeast --- 17,742,100 t
South --- 67,271,300 t

Again, as we can see, the production in North is almost negligible, and almost half of it's on Tocantins (state) which pretty much covered by cerrado (savanna), not forests.

The World (2004) as comparison:

http://img812.imageshack.us/img812/9756/agriculture.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/812/agriculture.jpg/)

And the pace of deforestation is always falling:

http://img13.imageshack.us/img13/3680/amaznia.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/13/amaznia.jpg/)

It peaked in 1995 (29,000 km²) and today is around 7,000 km².

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

About your question over the size of farmland, I didn't undestand if you're talking about already cultivated land or land suitable for agriculture. In the first case, Brazilian productivity is still smaller than American, European or Chinese ones. In the second case, it's due the geography and climate of the country.

^^ In terms of productivity, the United States, China, and India might be larger. However, the total footprint of Brazil's farmland and grazing land (for cattle) is bigger in terms of total surface area than any country on Earth. Try using Google Earth and you'll know what I mean. :)

^^
Grazing land is huge in Brazil. 2,000,000 km² for a 205 million cattle (the largest in the world as India's is not commercial). The trend however, is of decrease in the area as the agriculture is advancing over the pastures.

Is that visa easy to get?

Most of my friends living in the border cities can freely cross the river to go to the school, to work, to shop, etcetera (and many of them already have US citizenship). It seems its easier for those who has lived in the border for years to get a VISA.

Some people may wonder how integrated are the economies between the border cities Mx-Us.