Is Chicago the only urban area in the developed world that is growing fast enough to become a megacity by 2050?

I think we may see some megacities in the Sunbelt...possibly Dallas, Atlanta, Houston, Miami...one of them will surpass 10 million by 2050 if current growth continues. The only reason why Chicago could look like it's the only one is because it's already close to that level...it's growth rate is nothing special.

Hong Kong, The Bay Area, and Toronto will all certainly be megacities by then as well. Maybe even some others like Madrid, Singapore, and Sydney.

But these are in presently developed countries only. We have to take into account the many developing countries which will become developed by 2050 and will no doubt have new megacities as well.

Toronto will definately be a megacity by 2050. Its metro is already 6 + million and is increasing very rapidly

By 2050, Hartford will be swallowed by New York City. :lol:

Other than extreme changes in the CSA, I don't think there is much potential for more megacities in the US Northeast. The population is too stagnant. Boston and Philadelphia both have over 7 million apparently, but they have too much areas in their CSAs, plus their growth is too slow anyway.

Meh, population growth is overrated anyway. :)

By 2050, all countries in the world will be developed except for much of Sub-Saharan Africa. Therefore, the only non-developed mega-cities by then will be:

List [in no particular ranked-order]:
1. Lagos
2. Kinshasa
3. Addis Ababa
4. Khartoum

By that time, the world will be more-defined as: clumps of mega-cities and hyper-cities rather than politically-sub-divided landmasses and islands (into countries and non-sovereign states).

How would you define a megacity? I would say appropriate standards for the current year would be 10 million in the city proper/downtown area and at least 20 million in the metropolitan area. The only two cities in the developed world that truly fit the definition of a megacity are New York City and Tokyo.

Most of the cities mentioned (Toronto, Atlanta, Dallas, Houston, and Miami) have what I like to describe as New World city structure, which is low-density, car-reliant, single family detached house suburban sprawl type city. It is very prevalent in the "New World" ie: Australia, New Zealand, Canada, and United States. On the other hand, Old World city structure is high-density, subway/suburban rail reliant, mid or highrise apartment suburban sprawl type city. These are very prevalent in the "Old World" ie: Europe and Asia. Of course there are exceptions like the Northeast United States, which certainly has a number of Old World cities and Saudi Arabia, which is clearly New Word city type.

With that being said, I feel like it is very hard for a "New World" type city to achieve megacity status because it would be too energy inefficient and infrastructure will not be able to handle a megacity. No matter how many freeways a city builds, it won't be able to handle 20 million people all using their cars to get around. I could see a scenario where a city for example Houston, starts to "crunch up against itself" when it can sprawl no more and yet the population keeps growing. So huge tracts of inner suburbs immediately outside the downtown area gets rezoned as high-rise sections. More buildings begin to get built where parking lots used to be. And a massive subway/suburban rail system gets built. In effect, Houston would have transformed itself from a New World city to an Old World city.

By 2050, Hartford will be swallowed by New York City. :lol:

Other than extreme changes in the CSA, I don't think there is much potential for more megacities in the US Northeast. The population is too stagnant. Boston and Philadelphia both have over 7 million apparently, but they have too much areas in their CSAs, plus their growth is too slow anyway.

Meh, population growth is overrated anyway. :)

Boston and Philidelphia don't have 7 millio^^...Bostons metro is about 4.8 million and phili's is 5.9 million

That would make them bigger than Toronto and their not, Toronto's metro is around 6.2 million and increasing fast, it's currently the 6th largest city in North Amercia.

I was talking about CSAs, not MSAs. There is a difference.

They are ridiculously huge, but they are the main metro area stats used in the US. Most of the reason why Boston is even to 7 million is because the metro area swallowed the entire state of Rhode Island and parts of New Hampshire...hell, even parts of Connecticut too! :shocked:

I exaggerated a bit on Philly, it has 6.3 million. That seems more accurate, although the Philly metro area goes all the way to Atlantic City, I believe. Bottom line: American metro definitions are ridiculous, but they are what we use.

You could check the stats here:
http://www.census.gov/population/www/estimates/CBSA-est2007-annual.html


Boston: 7,476,689
Philadelphia: 6,385,461


Toronto is growing faster than both, and if Statscan used the metro figures like the US census does, it would be much larger than both, probably more than 8 million. Neither Boston nor Philadelphia have the potential to grow to 10 million by 2050, they are growing too slow.

But, we don't care about this thing called population growth here in the US Northeast. :lol:

I do think that NYC will hit 25 million by then though.

With that being said, I feel like it is very hard for a "New World" type city to achieve megacity status because it would be too energy inefficient and infrastructure will not be able to handle a megacity. No matter how many freeways a city builds, it won't be able to handle 20 million people all using their cars to get around. I could see a scenario where a city for example Houston, starts to "crunch up against itself" when it can sprawl no more and yet the population keeps growing. So huge tracts of inner suburbs immediately outside the downtown area gets rezoned as high-rise sections. More buildings begin to get built where parking lots used to be. And a massive subway/suburban rail system gets built. In effect, Houston would have transformed itself from a New World city to an Old World city.

For that to take place, there would have to be MASSIVE zoning and development changes. I'm talking a 180 degree change. Unless gasoline hits $5 or above here in the US (or the subprime crisis continues to stop sprawl like it is now), there will be no change...especially in Houston of all places.

I do agree with you though...there are only a handful of cities in this world that can actually sustainably be a megacity. New York is one. I don't want to think about a Houston with 10 million people though. :lol:

With that being said, I feel like it is very hard for a "New World" type city to achieve megacity status because it would be too energy inefficient and infrastructure will not be able to handle a megacity. No matter how many freeways a city builds, it won't be able to handle 20 million people all using their cars to get around. I could see a scenario where a city for example Houston, starts to "crunch up against itself" when it can sprawl no more and yet the population keeps growing. So huge tracts of inner suburbs immediately outside the downtown area gets rezoned as high-rise sections. More buildings begin to get built where parking lots used to be. And a massive subway/suburban rail system gets built. In effect, Houston would have transformed itself from a New World city to an Old World city.

^^ Los Angeles may reach mega-city (defined as one city--as opposed to urban agglomerations or metropolitan areas) status by 2050. And, according to your definitions (based on your posts/comments), it is a "New World" city. IMO, it is the only "New World" city that might.

BTW, the minimum population requirement to be met before a city is to be considered a "megacity" is 10 million. The 20 million-figure is for cities that are considered as "hypercities".

^^ Isn't LA already a megacity?

We're going to need alot of oil to keep these megacites running without causing a worldwide famine and if not oil the issue of renewable energy seriously needs to be addressed. Although cities will get big in the future they will be very fragile if we don't take care of how we power them.

^^ Isn't LA already a megacity?

The Greater Los Angeles Area is. But the City of Los Angeles, perse, hasn't reached mega-city status yet. ;)

take a look at the growth patterns of vancover, bc. lots of highdensity downtown, but also in the surrounding suberbs like burnaby and north van. i dont know that its growth rate is high enough to make it a mega city by 2050, but certainly lots of potential in that brilliant urban planing.

Yeah. Vancouver, along with Toronto, are the dynamic duos of Canadian urbanism. :D

Depends what you mean by 'mega cities' and what you already count within that definition. Also depends on what you mean by developed. Assuming you mean countries with >$15,000 USD/capita GDP and taking the '10 million people in the greater area' definition we get:
Tokyo
New York
Los Angeles
London
Paris
Seoul


Of cities which are already considered in the 'developed world' and not yet >10 million but will surely reach that in the next 42 years:
Hong Kong (Will likely coalesce with Shenzhen into one hyper city)
Chicago (8-9 million now, will reach 10 million in 40 years no doubt)
Toronto (5.6 million in 2006, growing at 100,000/year for the last 25 years, will reach 10 million by 2050 if this continues)

Of course any speculation that far into the future is probably pointless. For instance if California falls into the sea, maybe you'll see a regression of cities there. If there's major upheaval in Eastern Europe, maybe the western Europe cities will suddenly expand exponentially. Who knows.

For that to take place, there would have to be MASSIVE zoning and development changes. I'm talking a 180 degree change. Unless gasoline hits $5 or above here in the US (or the subprime crisis continues to stop sprawl like it is now), there will be no change...especially in Houston of all places.

I do agree with you though...there are only a handful of cities in this world that can actually sustainably be a megacity. New York is one. I don't want to think about a Houston with 10 million people though. :lol:

Dude, gasoline will probably reach $5/gallon summer 2009, at least in some areas.

It will? Oh, shit. We're boned. :doh:

(actually, I know it will, my point is that there needs to be a major sea change for all these re-zoning to take place...aka, higher gas prices.)

Washington-Baltimore is already at 8.2 million and should easily reach 10 million by 2050.

Madrid is a city that could manage that too if immigration to Spain continues it's recent trend. It's adding 1,000,000 a decade at it's current growth rate and has the 6 million mark.

Toronto should be able to reach the 10 million threshold especially as it merges with Hamilton.

Milan is another city that could reach that mark. It's currently at 7.4 million and with immigration increasing could also do that.

Chicago will obviously reach 10 million well before 2050.

tampa orlando will become a huge metro mega region with a population of 11 million by 2050 if current growth continues

How would you define a megacity? I would say appropriate standards for the current year would be 10 million in the city proper/downtown area and at least 20 million in the metropolitan area. The only two cities in the developed world that truly fit the definition of a megacity are New York City and Tokyo.



Neither one of them has over 10 million ppl. The only city to fit in the developed world would be Seoul.

Toronto will definately be a megacity by 2050. Its metro is already 6 + million and is increasing very rapidly

Milano metro is 7.5 mio and increases in population

I can't make projections till 2050 but could be possible the same area could have 10 + mio

Today Lombardy region (the region of Milan) still got 10 mio hinabitants...

I reckon that in the UK none lol, well the closest is obviously Birmingham and by 2050 it may have a population of about 4 million, thats my estimate. I dont think any other cities in the UK will even come close to that as Birmingham is the only city in the UK apart from London which has a population of just over 1 million.

I would say that London is about to become a Megacity. We have alot of skyscrapers being built, which is going to encourage more workers and increase the cities population.

Do you define megacity only by population numbers? What about infrastructure, transportation etc. Don't you think that to deserve to be called a megacity, a settlement must be not only suffciently large but also developed enough. Is a 15 million slum with most of polulation living without running water or access to urban transit more "mega" then 8 million area with large metrosystem, superstructures, skyscrapers etc?

Milano metro is 7.5 mio and increases in population

I can't make projections till 2050 but could be possible the same area could have 10 + mio

Today Lombardy region (the region of Milan) still got 10 mio hinabitants...

This is very uncertain. The fertility rate is at around 1,41 in Lombardia. That means, if there would be no migration, the population would half around every 60 years. And I don't think that the immigration to Italy will continue at that rate for 43 years.

Do you define megacity only by population numbers? What about infrastructure, transportation etc. Don't you think that to deserve to be called a megacity, a settlement must be not only suffciently large but also developed enough. Is a 15 million slum with most of polulation living without running water or access to urban transit more "mega" then 8 million area with large metrosystem, superstructures, skyscrapers etc?

Well the title of the thread is megacities in the developed world so we don't need to worry about massive slums. But you do bring up a good point though. Infrastructure is a big issue, which is also why I don't see any "New World" cities becoming megacities because their transportation infrastructure is too energy inefficient so sustain tens of millions of people.

Also, can someone define what a megacity will be in 2050? Because the idea of megacities change obviously. 100 years ago, its was a city over ~5,000,000 and 200 years ago it was a city over 1,000,000. 2,000 years ago, it was a city over 100,000. Rome was the Tokyo of the ancient world. What would the definition of a megacity be in 2050?

This is very uncertain. The fertility rate is at around 1,41 in Lombardia. That means, if there would be no migration, the population would half around every 60 years. And I don't think that the immigration to Italy will continue at that rate for 43 years.

Totally agree, But im not too sure that Milano's metro is 7.5 million, thats quite out there..I mean what kind of measurments do they use in Italy. I've been to Milano many times and have family that lives there, and to me and them (who have been to Toronto) say that Toronto is bigger on a land scale.
7.5 million must encompass a HUGE area that is redundant to the actual city of Milano.

Toronto is not bigger then Milan...:|

Totally agree, But im not too sure that Milano's metro is 7.5 million, thats quite out there..I mean what kind of measurments do they use
Not so difficult in that case: in a ray of about 60 km from Milan city center live about 7.5 mio people

About population... Lombardy increased of 1 mio hinabitants thanks immigration in few years

Maybe immigration continues with this rate till 2050, maybe not... difficult to say
Surely we cannot say birth rate will be low 'forever', 'cause just 30 years ago ther was already the baby boom wave... and in 30 years by now?

Anyway even birth rate increased in these years (even thanks immigration who have an high birth rate) and probably will increase again in the next future

HK, and Chicago are most probable answers. Shanghai and Moscow may be considered developed by 2050, although i don't claim that whole Russia or China will be devepoled by then.

Anyway, by 2050, having a megacity in one's country may be nothing to be proud of. Just look: in 1900 all the largest cities: London, New York, Chicago, Paris, Berlin or Vienna were also world's primary economical centres, and among world richest regions. By now, already most of 10+ million agglomerations are located in developing world, and on economy map often remain behind smaller 1st world financial centers as Frankfurt or Geneve. By 2050, megacity may be identified universally with poverty, congestion and pollution, while population of developed nations will live in more comfortable medium-sized towns and suburbs.

tampa orlando will become a huge metro mega region with a population of 11 million by 2050 if current growth continues
I agree, maybe not by 2050, but the growth in this area is substantial. Like most sunbelt cities, growth has been steady, with the continuous Tampa area DMA the largest in the state of Florida, including areas as south a Sarasota and north to Pasco and Hernando. The area forms an "H" shape from Tampa and the west coast through the Orlando area and on the east coast including Daytona down to Melbourne. The "Orlampa" region is predicted to be the next Megaregion, with a population increase of 350,000 in just the rural areas seperating the two large cities within the next 20 years.

Dublin! LOL

probably not a mega city, but the celtic tiger is well on its way to becoming the next big european economic center.

Not so difficult in that case: in a ray of about 60 km from Milan city center live about 7.5 mio people


Well, in that case, Toronto is a little smaller or a little larger than Milan depending on the catchment area considered.

Toronto is the epicentre of what Ontarians call the Golden Horseshore. Within the inner ring lie 6,488,062 people. Within the outer ring lie 8,102,163 people. At about 120 km, the outer ring is a more extravagant catchment than the metro Milan figure of 60 km.

It seems accurate to give Milan the edge here, but that order will probably be reversed within a decade. Toronto attracts more immigrants each year than any city in the western world. It's topped 100,000 newcomers for many many years. This figure doesn't even include migration to Toronto from other parts of Canada.

It's not difficult to see Toronto breaching the 10 million mark. The rapid growth has been continuous for decades and shows no signs of letting up. It will be interesting to see if cities like Madrid will get there. Spain seems to be growing much quicker than the rest of Europe.

Well, in that case, Toronto is a little smaller or a little larger than Milan depending on the catchment area considered.

Toronto is the epicentre of what Ontarians call the Golden Horseshore. Within the inner ring lie 6,488,062 people. Within the outer ring lie 8,102,163 people. At about 120 km, the outer ring is a more extravagant catchment than the metro Milan figure of 60 km.A radium of 120 km has no sense for Europe... I know Australian and American MAs have often these very big size; but it depends the bigness of the territory itself annd its extensive use

Normally in Europe 120km split different territories, with differnt history, tradition and so on
Anyway on a radium of 120 km from Milan city centre live I think about 15/16 mio people (in 120 km you have all Lombardy region -it has 10 mio alone- a huge part of Switzerland, a very huge part of Piedmont end Emilia Regions, and even a part of Veneto region)
But this is absolutely not Milan metro in any way... in 120 km you almost reach the city of Turin, for example, that simply can't be considered part of Milan metro

It seems accurate to give Milan the edge here, but that order will probably be reversed within a decade.I said it is possible within 2050 that area of 7.5 mio will have 10 mio... but I underlined to forecast by now what will happen in next 40 years is not so reasonable
With today growth it can reach 10 mio; but in 40 years growth can stop, or decrease, or increase more and more... who can say it with any doubt

It will be interesting to see if cities like Madrid will get there. Spain seems to be growing much quicker than the rest of Europe.
Probably you don't know in last years Italy grew as much as Spain in population

London is an megacity yet , it has 12 million people in agglomeration , future megacities must be Washington DC , Dallas , Miami, Chicago , Toronto madrid , belo horizonte ...

Gauteng (Johannesburg + Pretoria) in South Africa. We have 9.5 million people already.

I would say that London is about to become a Megacity. We have alot of skyscrapers being built, which is going to encourage more workers and increase the cities population.

Eh...London has been a megacity for the last 100 years or so.:nuts:

I reckon that in the UK none lol, well the closest is obviously Birmingham and by 2050 it may have a population of about 4 million, thats my estimate. I dont think any other cities in the UK will even come close to that as Birmingham is the only city in the UK apart from London which has a population of just over 1 million.

no offence, but that's gotta be one of the ignorant posts i've ever read. First of all, the only city in the uk with a population over a million? you are joking right? Try Birmingham, Manchester, Leeds, Glasgow, Newcastle, Liverpool

Secondly, the nearest thing we have to a mega city in the uk: birmingham?? lol, what?? the metro area of Liverpool and Manchester is already over 4 million!

No, the nearest thing to a future mega city in the uk, maybe even including London is the collection of cities in north england:

http://www.johndavies.org/Pic-urbis-supercity.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2020/2133340657_724962148e_b.jpg

(left to right) BRADFORD, LEEDS, SHEFFIELD
|
MANCHESTER

and looking the other way:

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/120/316411702_e1e2036ccb_b.jpg

(top to bottom) LIVERPOOL
|
MANCHESTER

the only thing that stops these cities joining is green belt.

so nobody believes that Dubai would be a megacity?
I say it will surely be.. ;)

^^
It will became a 10+ mio city or it willl be an empty skyscrapers city :D

Taipeh in Taiwan could easily become a new Megacity of the developed world. They do have around 8.5 million ppl. today.

Eh...London has been a megacity for the last 100 years or so.:nuts:

That's not true, London became a megacity after WW2, probably in the late 50's to early 60's.

Those nighttime aerial photos are incredible! They really show just how close the cities of the North are to each other.

Taipei is a definate potential one though. How fast is Hong Kong growing?

Depends what you mean by 'mega cities' and what you already count within that definition. Also depends on what you mean by developed. Assuming you mean countries with >$15,000 USD/capita GDP and taking the '10 million people in the greater area' definition we get:
Tokyo
New York
Los Angeles
London
Paris
Seoul


People tend to forget Germany's Rhine Ruhr Area.

That's not true, London became a megacity after WW2, probably in the late 50's to early 60's.

Well, what was the definition of a megacity in the 50s? And what was it fifty years earlier? In the 19th century London was by far the most populous city in the world. During the early years of the century Edo held the title though.

By 1911 London had a population of 7.1 million people and a Metropolitan population of 9.5 million people. By comparison NYC (the second largest city in the world at the time) had roughly 4.7 million people in 1910.

In 1951 London was home to 8.1 million people (it had dropped from the peak of 8.6 million in 1939). The metro.pop. was 12 million.

Today London has a population of 7.5 million people and there are atleast 15 million people living in the metropolitan area.

To me it looks as though London has been a so called megacity for quite a long time.

Kids --> Birmingham is the only city outside London to have a population greater than 1 million.

Oh my mistake. :crazy:


No. If we use your definition then Birmingham is the only city in the UK with a population over a million.

1 Birmingham 1,006,500
2 Leeds 750,200
3 Sheffield 525,800
4 Bradford 493,100
5 Manchester 452,000
6 Liverpool 436,100
7 Bristol 410,500
8 Kirklees 398,200
9 Croydon 337,000
10 East Riding of Yorkshire 330,900

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

Go figure, cities with a population over a million in the uk are London, Birmingham, Manchester, Leeds, Glasgow, Newcastle.

I reckon that in the UK none lol, well the closest is obviously Birmingham and by 2050 it may have a population of about 4 million, thats my estimate. I dont think any other cities in the UK will even come close to that as Birmingham is the only city in the UK apart from London which has a population of just over 1 million.

Some projections have Manchester reaching 5 million by 2050 (Allied London). Manchester is equally as close as Birmingham, in fact probably more so due to it's higher population growth. Also, remember that the distance between Manchester and Liverpool is very small. Some sources show Manchester-Liverpool as a single metropolitan area with a population of around 4.5 million. I would expect their metro areas to have combined fully by 2050. Possibly their urban areas too.

How fast is Hong Kong growing?

The CIA factbook says the growth rate is 0.53%, which is low considering that China as a whole is urbanizing so dramatically. The fertility rate is second lowest in the world, and the border with the mainland cannot be changed until at least 2047. Thus, HK will be growing very little population-wise.

Of course, you'll need to remember that HK is only a small part of the emerging mega-mega-megatropolis of the entire PRD, which could total 100+ million before anyone notices, by which time China could be considered developed. Just imagine Tokyo/Yokohama, stretched out over maybe three times the area. That's scary.

No. If we use your definition then Birmingham is the only city in the UK with a population over a million.

And what's my definition?

EDIT: Just checked your wikipedia page and obviously you fail to understand that London is composed of multiple boroughs, whereas all the other cities are wholly contained by their respective administrative boundaries.

What you might be getting confused with is the difference between a 'city' and what American's might term 'metro'. In this regard, you might argue that Greater Manchester has a population higher than 452k, that is, if you include places such as Stockport, Cheshire etc. as being the city of Manchester. Of course, this leads us into a whole different debate about the definition of a city - where it finishes and ends.

For the purposes of this thread, it's probably best to just concentrate on the population contained with the official administrative boundaries.

Kids --> Birmingham is the only city outside London to have a population greater than 1 million.

Please see the Department for Communities and Local Government's "State of the English Cities" report.

tampa orlando will become a huge metro mega region with a population of 11 million by 2050 if current growth continues

That is unless Florida sinks into the ocean thanks to global warming. Or at the very least, people stop moving there (or all the old baby boomer retirees all die out) thanks to constant hurricanes.

In Europe :

Istanbul/London/Paris/Moscou => will try go to hypercities

Milan/Madrid/Ankara/Barcelona/St-Petersburg/Randstad/Munich/Frankfurt => will all try to be megacities

Lisbon/Rome/Warsaw/Athens/Manchester/Berlin/Hamburg/Kiev/Oresund/Naples/
Stuttgart/Izmir/Lyon/Brussels(Diamond) => If not already, will go to supercities

Ruhr will surely stagnating at megacity level in profit of other german cities. Berlin can be the one gaining the most (at least if their european centrist work ahah). Not sure cities are surely italian ones and also some cities specialized in few economical areas, in case of crisis, it can slow down their growth (see Deutsche Börse importance for Frankfürt). Uncertain future either for Budapest, Bucarest and Birmingham (the 3 B ahah ).

You leave me speechless, Cunning Linguist. Why can't Manchester have multiple boroughs?? Why can only London have multiple boroughs included in its population?? Do you not understand that you're not comparing like for like when you use local authority boundaries?

To be honest I can't believe people as ignorant as you are still floating around on this forum. Do as irwell does and read the "State of the English Cities" report. I can't be arsed explaining it to you. Just take my word for it; you're being naive. Come out with that in the uk forums and they'd laugh at you.

"For the purposes of this thread, it's probably best to just concentrate on the population contained with the official administrative boundaries."

that has to be a joke.

Dubai

To be honest I can't believe people as ignorant as you are still floating around on this forum.

Who's the joker now? You ever been on the internet before? I normally don't bother lowering myself to arguing with people on the internet but your pigheadedness leads me to doing so. I am obviously not the most idiotic person on this forum, and neither are you (despite your rash outburst).

The way I see it, there are two ways of arguing this. Firstly, by restricting the defintion of the city to an administrative boundary you have a discrete definition of what constitutes as "Leeds" or "Manchester". Now that doesn't necessarily say the cities sphere of influence doesn't extend beyond those boundaries, but you cannot define those areas as being within the city.

The second argument involves (at least what I think your argument involves) the idea that the UK's city's are so interconnected economically, socially and are so geographically close when compared to other places such as America, that you could consider these to be one 'city'. However, they are not one city, otherwise they would be one city. There are distinct breaks in the Liverpool-Manchester-Leeds corridor, and very few people would consider that corridor to be one city. It might act as one economic zone or unit, but a more accurate definition might be a megalopolis, but not a single city.

Likewise, you ask 100 people from Croyden whether they are Londoners, and 99% will probably answer yes. You ask the same for Stockport with regards to being Manc, the figure will be much lower than that. Now I've not bothered reading your State of the English cities report, but I'm assuming here your argument is based on the fact that in that report, Stockport is classed as being Manchester. While economically and socially it is basically a borough of Manchester, it technically isn't. When you start relaxing limits like this you could end up arguing that the whole of Randstad is basically one city, or the Liverpool-Manchester-Leeds corridor is just one city. They act as one (although not to the extent that Stockport relies on Manchester), but you can't class them as one.

What I think it boils down to is pedantics, and how we define the ideas of city, metropolitan area (metro), megalopolis, economic, political and social spheres, and the built up environment. Your definition of city appears to be an interconnected economic unit (which is so vague you could class any urban agglomeration as being a city, and so the definition of city almost becomes meaningless). My definition relies on ideas of space and place, while these feelings do not follow administrative boundaries exactly, they are the best we've got.

The ball is now in your court.

^^
I was born in Stockport and I consider it part of Manchester.

The way I see it, there are two ways of arguing this. Firstly, by restricting the defintion of the city to an administrative boundary you have a discrete definition of what constitutes as "Leeds" or "Manchester". Now that doesn't necessarily say the cities sphere of influence doesn't extend beyond those boundaries, but you cannot define those areas as being within the city.


You know, you restrict the definition of all cities to their central administrative boundary. Birmingham would probably be the largest city in the world.

The second argument involves (at least what I think your argument involves) the idea that the UK's city's are so interconnected economically, socially and are so geographically close when compared to other places such as America, that you could consider these to be one 'city'. However, they are not one city, otherwise they would be one city. There are distinct breaks in the Liverpool-Manchester-Leeds corridor, and very few people would consider that corridor to be one city. It might act as one economic zone or unit, but a more accurate definition might be a megalopolis, but not a single city.


Well you've put words into my mouth there. Note the title of the thread future megacities.

Likewise, you ask 100 people from Croyden whether they are Londoners, and 99% will probably answer yes. You ask the same for Stockport with regards to being Manc, the figure will be much lower than that. Now I've not bothered reading your State of the English cities report, but I'm assuming here your argument is based on the fact that in that report, Stockport is classed as being Manchester. While economically and socially it is basically a borough of Manchester, it technically isn't. When you start relaxing limits like this you could end up arguing that the whole of Randstad is basically one city, or the Liverpool-Manchester-Leeds corridor is just one city. They act as one (although not to the extent that Stockport relies on Manchester), but you can't class them as one.

What I think it boils down to is pedantics, and how we define the ideas of city, metropolitan area (metro), megalopolis, economic, political and social spheres, and the built up environment. Your definition of city appears to be an interconnected economic unit (which is so vague you could class any urban agglomeration as being a city, and so the definition of city almost becomes meaningless). My definition relies on ideas of space and place, while these feelings do not follow administrative boundaries exactly, they are the best we've got.

You're on a thread about mega-cities, arguing that administrative boundaries are the best way to measure the population of a city. Again i'm speechless.

If you actually brought anything to do this argument, or had anything constructive to say I'd actually bother giving you a decent reply. As it stands I won't.

Quoting portions of what I've said and then replying with one line soundbites does not an argument make.

I'm not trying to have an argument. As i said, i really can't be bothered with someone as wrong and as ignorant as you. Everyone else knows you're wrong. I've got nothing to prove, you have.

This is why I normally don't bother wasting my time having arguments/debates on the internet. It boils down to a pissing contest of who can throw the most mindless insults.

YOU'RE WRONG BECAUSE YOU'RE WRONG. HAHA. YOU SUCK.

Note the sarcasm. Great logic there.

I'm sorry but you just are wrong. If you think Birmingham is the largest city in the world, fine. I am not gonna argue with you.

You're arguments are incredibly ignorant, and i can't be bothered explaining it to you. Go read that report if you want answers.

You, sir are a classic case of internet stupidity. Didn't you get my last point? Arguing that I'm wrong because I'm wrong just proves your idiocy. And likewise you've dragged me into this mud slinging contest. Your own ignorance is explained by your moniker. Please keep your playground antics to the playground.

Oh and who is putting words into people's mouths now? In fact, I never did that in the first place. If you had the communication skills to understand a relatively well thought out and reasoned argument, you might have realised the same.

When it comes to defining cities, believing that administrative boundaries are, as you put it, "the best thing we have", you also believe that Birmingham is the largest city in the world. No?

No matter how you dress it, Cunning Linguist, you cannot argue out of ignorance, and that is not an argument what i just said. I am not mud slinging. I am not debating. I am just telling you, that you are being very, very ignorant.

^^
What about stopping that quarrel? :bash:

Some projections have Manchester reaching 5 million by 2050 (Allied London). Manchester is equally as close as Birmingham, in fact probably more so due to it's higher population growth. Also, remember that the distance between Manchester and Liverpool is very small. Some sources show Manchester-Liverpool as a single metropolitan area with a population of around 4.5 million. I would expect their metro areas to have combined fully by 2050. Possibly their urban areas too.

Hasn't Manchester already reahced 5 million, combined with Liverpool?

I wonder if casablanca will be a mega city in future I do not think population of greater casablanca is now 4.2 million people and is forecast to be 5 million in 2030 so I am not sure

Well, what was the definition of a megacity in the 50s? And what was it fifty years earlier? In the 19th century London was by far the most populous city in the world. During the early years of the century Edo held the title though.

By 1911 London had a population of 7.1 million people and a Metropolitan population of 9.5 million people. By comparison NYC (the second largest city in the world at the time) had roughly 4.7 million people in 1910.

In 1951 London was home to 8.1 million people (it had dropped from the peak of 8.6 million in 1939). The metro.pop. was 12 million.

Today London has a population of 7.5 million people and there are atleast 15 million people living in the metropolitan area.

To me it looks as though London has been a so called megacity for quite a long time.

The problem I have with your answer is that all the sources say NYC's urban area surpassed London's urban area around 1925.

After further research I found this.
NYC's urban area had a population of 7.798 million people in 1920(5.62 million in city and 2.178 in surrounding areas, mostly NJ). London's urban area was marginally ahead of NYC in 1920 at around 8 million. By 1930 NYC's urban area had a population of 10.098 million and became the first megacity. In 1939 when Greater London's population peaked at 8.6 million the urban area had 9.9 million after which it declined due to War. During the late 40's and 50's the city continued to decline, but the surrounding areas exploded. Technically London became a megacity during the late 50's. Today London's urban area has a population of around 12 million, NYC's around 18 million. Both urban areas declined during the 70's and were basically stable during the 80's or saw very little growth. Since the 90's both have been growing.

http://www.sptimes.com/News/073000/photos/flo-SATELLITE.jpg

You can see here the Tampa-Orlando region. sorry its small its the only one I could find.

Check out this website: http://www.nielsenmedia.com/nc/portal/site/Public/menuitem.3437240b94cacebc3a81e810d8a062a0/?vgnextoid=130547f8b5264010VgnVCM100000880a260aRCRD
towards the bottom right it says top DMA markets click it, its a pdf.
The number in millions is not population, it is TV households, so generally multiply that number by 2.88 and you'll get the population. You'll see that Tampa is 13th in the country, and Orlando is 19th.
Together they would be fourth in the country, just behind Chicago. And these numbers are their populations this day. With the increase in population and emergence of "Orlampa" We may bypass Chicago. This is how large the population of this area is. And if you look at this and say the cities are too far apart, you are wrong. Look at NYC DMA, throughout New Jersey down to Trenton and north through Connecticut. These cities are close, and This will be a megaregion in the future, look out.

Hasn't Manchester already reahced 5 million, combined with Liverpool?

In terms of a Manchester-Liverpool metro area it's probably quite close, though not quite there. In the first comment I was talking about the population of the actual city (not metro or administrative area).

Now I've not bothered reading your State of the English cities report, but I'm assuming here your argument is based on the fact that in that report, Stockport is classed as being Manchester. While economically and socially it is basically a borough of Manchester, it technically isn't. When you start relaxing limits like this you could end up arguing that the whole of Randstad is basically one city, or the Liverpool-Manchester-Leeds corridor is just one city. They act as one (although not to the extent that Stockport relies on Manchester), but you can't class them as one.

The "State of the English Cities" report is a former Office of the Deputy Prime Minister project in which they have defined what the true extent of our cities are to allow for comparisons to be drawn.

The CIA factbook says the growth rate is 0.53%, which is low considering that China as a whole is urbanizing so dramatically. The fertility rate is second lowest in the world, and the border with the mainland cannot be changed until at least 2047. Thus, HK will be growing very little population-wise.

Of course, you'll need to remember that HK is only a small part of the emerging mega-mega-megatropolis of the entire PRD, which could total 100+ million before anyone notices, by which time China could be considered developed. Just imagine Tokyo/Yokohama, stretched out over maybe three times the area. That's scary.


actually the Pearl River Delta in area is quite small as far as megacities go. Its currently at 40 million in an area smaller than NYC or LA:

(Hong Kong is the small peninsular to the right of the delta mouth)
http://www.geocarto.com/images/P-107_large.jpg

in terms of poulation density it would be considered one city almost contiguous by US standards:
http://www.chinabusinessreview.com/public/0305/images/lemancallout7.gif




It may not even need to suburbanise before it all joins up, so fast is it growing - all this is highrise at
the mo' (it takes 10moths to construct a 10 storey building and 18 months for a 30 storeys here).

http://www.johomaps.com/as/china/guangdong/pearldelta.jpg


Shenzhen has grown at 28% a year, 'slowing' to 15% from 2005, but densifying to, currently at 9000 per sq. mile. It jumped in population more
than 70x from 200,000 to 14 million in 25 years. At current rates it could
reach 23 million within a decade.

1979 20,000:
1982 200,000
2005 9 million
2008 11 million officially registered (14 million unofficial)


The 8 years difference between 1988 and 1996

http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a000000/a001000/a001060/shenzhen1988_false_web.jpg http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a000000/a001000/a001060/shenzhen1996_false_web.jpg


1979 and 2004

http://na.unep.net/digital_atlas2/imagery/site_41_image1.jpg http://na.unep.net/digital_atlas2/imagery/site_41_image2.jpg


http://www.nature.com/naturejobs/2007/070927/images/nj7161-502a-i4.0.jpg

http://images.beijing-2008.org/20070415/Img214036527.jpg

1990s Shenzhen, before the makeover
http://na.unep.net/digital_atlas/pictures/site_41_pic_505.jpg

That's a map i've made. I think i've posted it months ago here in this forum:


http://img442.imageshack.us/img442/9353/ballungsrumewachstum200kr3.png

Ok if the people that are saying Manchester is bigger, well your counting the metro area so in that case Birmingham has a population of about 2,700,000 people, oh and considering Coventry is close by we may aswell count that, thats what everyone else seems to do so about 3million people at the moment.

The problem I have with your answer is that all the sources say NYC's urban area surpassed London's urban area around 1925.

Yeah I know, but I fail to see how this is relevant in this case. The original point I made was that I think London has been a megacity for almost a century. We are not comparing London with NYC.

By 1930 NYC's urban area had a population of 10.098 million and became the first megacity.

From wiki:"A megacity is generally defined as a metropolitan area with a total population in excess of 10 million people."

London had a metropolitan population of 9.9 million in 1921, by 1931 it had risen to 10.9 million. So London became a megacity in the early 1920s (if we assume the modern definition of a megacity applies here). I don´t know whether the 10 million figure for NYC is urban or metropolitan area.

Technically London became a megacity during the late 50's.

I just proved this to be incorrect.

Today London's urban area has a population of around 12 million, NYC's around 18 million.

You´re mixing terms here. London´s urban area has a population of 8-9 million people. The metropolitan area is home to atleast 15 million people (some sources claim the population to be as high as 18million). Greater London is home to 7.5 millon people.

NYC has a population of 8.2 million. According to wiki the urban population is 18.5 million and the metro population 18.8 (the whole state of New York - a geographically enourmous area).

By 2050 Bangladesh will be a 200-million mega city.

and the metro population 18.8 (the whole state of New York - a geographically enourmous area).

NYC's metro is not the entire state of New York. :lol:

The city also borders the states of New Jersey and Connecticut. http://maps.google.ca/maps?client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&hl=en&tab=wl - use it. :)

By 2050 Bangladesh will be a 200-million mega city.

That is if they aren't underwater.

No ones goin underwater you stupid liberal.

ALtought my home town casablanca is a big city where I was born with sprawling suburbs it does not even compare to some mega cities
greater casablanca is only 4 million people as of 2000 census ( today it I think 4.2 million )
casablanca was rated as the 104 th largest metro area orlando where I live now is rated as the 160th largest metro area in the world

NYC's metro is not the entire state of New York.

Yeah I figured that would be impossible :). It´s jsut that the state of New York is home to 18.8 million people - and NYC´s metro.pop. is also around that figure.

Yeah I know, but I fail to see how this is relevant in this case. The original point I made was that I think London has been a megacity for almost a century. We are not comparing London with NYC.



From wiki:"A megacity is generally defined as a metropolitan area with a total population in excess of 10 million people."

London had a metropolitan population of 9.9 million in 1921, by 1931 it had risen to 10.9 million. So London became a megacity in the early 1920s (if we assume the modern definition of a megacity applies here). I don´t know whether the 10 million figure for NYC is urban or metropolitan area.



I just proved this to be incorrect.



You´re mixing terms here. London´s urban area has a population of 8-9 million people. The metropolitan area is home to atleast 15 million people (some sources claim the population to be as high as 18million). Greater London is home to 7.5 millon people.

NYC has a population of 8.2 million. According to wiki the urban population is 18.5 million and the metro population 18.8 (the whole state of New York - a geographically enourmous area).

I was talking about urban areas all along so my evaluation is still right. You were talking about metropolitan areas. I like to talk about urban areas, because there is a universal definition, in terms of metropolitan areas there is none and all kinds of numbers exist. The problem people have today is they mix the two together like you did. London's urban area is 12 million, metropolitan area is 15 million. NYC's urban area is 18.5 million, metropolitan area is 22 million.

No ones goin underwater you stupid liberal.

Stop global whining!

If New York's metro is 22 million, London's is 18 million not 15.

Oh and there isn't an universal definition of urban area either and even if there was, London has a green belt so "urban area" would not reflect the true size of the city.

That's a map i've made. I think i've posted it months ago here in this forum:


http://img442.imageshack.us/img442/9353/ballungsrumewachstum200kr3.png

This is an excellent map of world's metropolitan areas. If you want to make it more accurate you should zoom in on some regions like the US Northeast and Europe, because you left lots of 1 million+ metros out. Anyway good job.

This is my map of the world's metropolitan areas
(it's not quite done yet)

http://img59.imageshack.us/img59/8711/acitiesworld4re6.png

Red = >20 million
Orange = >10 million
Black = >5 million (or important city close to 5 million)

If New York's metro is 22 million, London's is 18 million not 15.

Oh and there isn't an universal definition of urban area either and even if there was, London has a green belt so "urban area" would not reflect the true size of the city.

This is what the problem with the definitions of urban and metropolitan areas is, no one can agree on anything.

This is what the problem with the definitions of urban and metropolitan areas is, no one can agree on anything.
We can agree on that if you apply the US Census method which gives New York 22 million to London, you end up with 18 million...;)

He has a point. New York's CSA is incredibly overgrown...and it's still growing.

As I keep on saying here...between now and 2025, Hartford (my residence) will be part of the metropolitan area, and we are about 185km northeast! When the New Yorkers find out how cheap our housing is compared to theirs, and when the commuter rail comes...we will boom. :shifty:

Here is a tidbit: I live about 25-30km from the official end of the NY metro area.

We can agree on that if you apply the US Census method which gives New York 22 million to London, you end up with 18 million...;)

And Tokyo at 34.5 million.

Also that method has been abandoned since 2000. Current estimates use the built-up area as the metropolitan definition, so today's estimates of NYC Metro are around 18.5 million.

Maybe you know more than the US Census but that's not true at all.

No ones goin underwater you stupid liberal.

Water level might rise by over 1m. So they have to build an expesnive dike system. If Bangladehs develops fast enough they might afford it, otherwise they are doomed.

Maybe you know more than the US Census but that's not true at all.

No, I don't know more than the US Census. I use their website on a regular basis and I came to the conclusion that it would be easier to just call today's metropolitan areas the built-up areas, because when I compared their definition with the built up area population of NYC I came up with the same figure.

NYC's metro is not the entire state of New York.
Look at that

http://www.health.state.ny.us/facilities/hospice/images/nycounty_610x442.png
No way all that is NY metro... and NY has one of the biggest metro of the world

Look at Buffalo, for istance, close to Niagara Falls: this city is about 700/800km far from NY, but is not too far from Toronto: driving from Buffalo/Niagara to Toronto, following Ontario shores, landscape is pretty all urbanized
Then my conclusion is that if Buffalo (NY State) is part of New York City metro area, then even Toronto is part of it :D :D :D

This is my map of the world's metropolitan areas
(it's not quite done yet)

http://img59.imageshack.us/img59/8711/acitiesworld4re6.png

Red = >20 million
Orange = >10 million
Black = >5 million (or important city close to 5 million)

That's a map i've made. I think i've posted it months ago here in this forum:


http://img442.imageshack.us/img442/9353/ballungsrumewachstum200kr3.png
These are two interesting maps :okay:

I noticed Europe has a good concentration of big metro anyway (even if super-super big ones are in other continents) despite usually its population it's supposed to live prevalently in medium-sized city

You can see how in Germany and Italy the big metros are more than one or two (not a surprise, though)

Chrissib map has an accuracy... there is even the pop increasing

Anyway, for Italy, I thought that Rome increased as much as Milan in percentage, while Torino a bit less
While Napoli is not substantially increasing that much as the map shows

For Europe in its complex: interesting to see increasing rates high in countries which today have a strong immigration (as Spain) and low where immigration is low (as Germany, where there is an immigration 'sboom' despite decades of strong immigration)

Can't beat the stat monsters.

If you are counting people who live within 120km of a city as being within the metro then here in the Uk...

London c30million
Birmingham c20million
Manchester c20million

As an example within 120km of Manchester you have:-
Greater Manchester
Cheshire
Merseyside (including Liverpool)
Lancashire
West Yorkshire (including Leeds)
South Yorkshire (including Sheffield)
Derbyshire
Stafffordshire

Patently absurd to include all these in the Manchester metro.

London c30million
Birmingham c20million
Manchester c20million

Obviously there is a 'sovrapposition' because the total is 10 mio more than UK inhabitants

Chrissib map has an accuracy... there is even the pop increasing

Anyway, for Italy, I thought that Rome increased as much as Milan in percentage, while Torino a bit less
While Napoli is not substantially increasing that much as the map shows

For Europe in its complex: interesting to see increasing rates high in countries which today have a strong immigration (as Spain) and low where immigration is low (as Germany, where there is an immigration 'sboom' despite decades of strong immigration)

For Rome I used the province of Roma. But it's also interesting that the growth of the Paris-metro is based entirely on natural increase.

For Rome I used the province of Roma.Updated to?

Anyway I provide you the census official data web-site with updated tables till December 31st 2006 and updates till August 2007
http://demo.istat.it/
But it's also interesting that the growth of the Paris-metro is based entirely on natural increase.Really?
I knew France had a very good birth rate for Europe, but, anyway, I thought Paris actracted immigrants

Apparently anything to do with the topic, but anyway something which can give you a more global vision on Italian urban settlements

A satellite night vision of the country

http://www.cielobuio.org/cielobuio/foto/i_italia10.jpg

A map of urban settlements (elaboration of 1991 by Torino Politecnico University)

http://www.polito.it/ateneo/inaugurazioni/1997/fig1.gif

You can see there are at least other two big 'metro areas' after Milano, Roma, Napoli, Torino
The one between Firenze and the sea and between Venezia and Vicenza; I extimate they both have about 2 mio inhabitants

At the end of the day if youre going to give a count of people 'in' NYC as 22million+, taking in open spaces the size of mainland Scotland, calculated on densities over 1000ppsm and their commuting
habits....


you get this for 'London'.


Thus London=most of central England, 48 million people in an area smaller than Maine, (and
far denser than 1000ppsm):


Population concentrations:
http://www.iiasa.ac.at/Research/ERD/DB/data/maps/gb_1.jpg

If you want to look at the density of the 'countryside' between the major centres, check it out:

The so called, protected 'Green' Belt:

http://img248.imageshack.us/img248/4702/londonunitedkingdomsx4.jpg

http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/1/10/Greater_London_Urban_Area.PNG


this intense urban 'peppering' extends up to the metropolises up north too.

These are all different but closely linked cities from the same viewpoint:

The urban north of England

http://www.johndavies.org/Pic-urbis-supercity.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2020/2133340657_724962148e_b.jpg

(left to right) BRADFORD, LEEDS, SHEFFIELD
|
MANCHESTER

and looking the other way:

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/120/316411702_e1e2036ccb_b.jpg

(top to bottom) LIVERPOOL
|
MANCHESTER

Total population (manchester-liverpool, south yorkshire, north yorkshire) 7,042,343

And what's my definition?

EDIT: Just checked your wikipedia page and obviously you fail to understand that London is composed of multiple boroughs, whereas all the other cities are wholly contained by their respective administrative boundaries.

What you might be getting confused with is the difference between a 'city' and what American's might term 'metro'. In this regard, you might argue that Greater Manchester has a population higher than 452k, that is, if you include places such as Stockport, Cheshire etc. as being the city of Manchester. Of course, this leads us into a whole different debate about the definition of a city - where it finishes and ends.

For the purposes of this thread, it's probably best to just concentrate on the population contained with the official administrative boundaries.

Please explain how you think it is logical to compare one cities "city proper" or "council area" with another cities metropolitan area? It's a bit like measuring the height of two men, one in bare feet and the other on stilts and consider this acceptable and accurate.

No, I don't know more than the US Census. I use their website on a regular basis and I came to the conclusion that it would be easier to just call today's metropolitan areas the built-up areas, because when I compared their definition with the built up area population of NYC I came up with the same figure.
But a metro area is not just build up area, that's the whole point!...To include areas with an economic and social dependence.

Anyway, the US Census recognizes MSA's which are metropolitan areas and CSA's which are "combined" metropolitan areas. The latter is always used in international comparisons for some reason. Fine by me, but we should compare like for like in that case...so if New York shows up in lists as 22 million, don't underestimate cities like Mexico City, Seoul, Sao Paulo, Shanghai, Jakarta which are all larger in a like for like comparison.

But to keep it short, you deciding for yourself that the urban area definition for New York is better suited, does not mean that this is universally accepted and I would certainly disagree that urban area is a suitable measure for fair comparisons (hint: it's because of green belts and different standards for what constitutes "continues developed area")

At the end of the day if youre going to give a count of people 'in' NYC as 22million+, taking in open spaces the size of mainland Scotland, calculated on densities over 1000ppsm and their commuting
habits....


you get this for 'London'.


Thus London=most of central England, 48 million people in an area smaller than Maine, (and
far denser than 1000ppsm):

:ohno:

How many times do people on this website have to explain to you how US CSA's work?
What you are suggesting is not true at all!
CSA's are not calculated using density figures!
A CSA is calculated adding counties with a certain % of commuters! Some of these counties are large in area, but most of that area is empty with the population centers closer to the central city of the CSA they are added to.

So AGAIN...if you measure New York as 22 million on 29,000 sq km and you apply the same method to London, you get 18 million in an area of approx. 27,000 sq km.

So none of this 48 million on the size of Scotland nonsense...

This is the New York CSA btw

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4b/New_York_Metropolitan_Area_Counties_Illustration.PNG

That's 300km from Ulster County to Ocean County. Very impressive!!

This is an excellent map of world's metropolitan areas. If you want to make it more accurate you should zoom in on some regions like the US Northeast and Europe, because you left lots of 1 million+ metros out. Anyway good job.

Yes, it was my intention to leave the 1-2 million-metro-areas out because then the map would become too crowded.

Guess where I am. It's only a matter of time until Hartford becomes a NY exurb. :D

http://img293.imageshack.us/img293/1791/1111hh7.png

BTW, you guys are getting CSAs and MSAs mixed up. New York's MSA is just the orange parts, and it still has well above 10-13 million in that area anyway.

Thus London=most of central England, 48 million people in an area smaller than Maine, (and
far denser than 1000ppsm)

If we are looking it at that way...the Northeast Corridor of the US has over 44 million people, and I think it's in an area smaller than Maine too. Add some outlying areas into the mix and extend from Virginia to Southern Maine and it goes up to 55 million people.

There is still some farmland in between, but compared to the distances between cities in other parts of the US, we are pretty much clumped together.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/70/Boswash.png

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ea/BosWash-Night-Labeled.png

Imagine the night shot in 25 years. There will be one big blob of light from Northern Virginia to Central Connecticut, which is a bit less than 570km from each other. Boston will probably stay isolated though. I bet that by 2050, it will be one giant megacity.

http://img293.imageshack.us/img293/1791/1111hh7.png

BTW, you guys are getting CSAs and MSAs mixed up. New York's MSA is just the orange parts, and it still has well above 10-13 million in that area anyway.
Actually New York's MSA is the orange, blue, green and red parts and has nearly 19 million.

The main part, the New York-White Plains-Wayne NY-NJ division, has a bit more than 11 million.

That is what I was talking about...it gets too muddled when you add other areas.

Correct, but that's not the MSA...;)

Anyway, there's merit in using CSA figures in international comparisons. Just don't underestimate non US cities is what I'm saying.
Usually you see "lists" where New York is listed as 4th, 3rd or even 2nd biggest city in the world (sometimes even adding Philly to make it 30 million+ :crazy:).

I'd say that Tokyo, Seoul, Sao Paulo, Mexico City, Jakarta and Shanghai are all definately bigger than New York. Mumbai and Delhi, if not already there are very close.
At best New York is the world's 7th biggest city, but more likely 9th and soon to fall out of the top 10.

The problem I have with your answer is that all the sources say NYC's urban area surpassed London's urban area around 1925.

After further research I found this.
NYC's urban area had a population of 7.798 million people in 1920(5.62 million in city and 2.178 in surrounding areas, mostly NJ). London's urban area was marginally ahead of NYC in 1920 at around 8 million. By 1930 NYC's urban area had a population of 10.098 million and became the first megacity. In 1939 when Greater London's population peaked at 8.6 million the urban area had 9.9 million after which it declined due to War. During the late 40's and 50's the city continued to decline, but the surrounding areas exploded. Technically London became a megacity during the late 50's. Today London's urban area has a population of around 12 million, NYC's around 18 million. Both urban areas declined during the 70's and were basically stable during the 80's or saw very little growth. Since the 90's both have been growing.

London's urban area is 12 million, metropolitan area is 15 million. NYC's urban area is 18.5 million, metropolitan area is 22 million.
Your figures are correct till WW2, but not for today. You seem to be confusing urban and metropolitan area in the case of London. The London urban area has between 8.5 and 9.5 million inhabitants depending on definitions (8.5 million is the definition of the UK Office for National Statistics). As for the London metropolitan area, it has 12.1 million inhabitants according to Eurostat. 15 million is just an exagerated number, one of these exagerated numbers that circulate on online forums (another one even more crazy is 18 million) and which refer to the the largest part (15 million) or the entire area (18 million) of South-East of England including Southampton, the Isle of Wight, Oxford, etc. If we took such a large area in Western Germany and Holland, around Cologne and Rotterdam, we'd find 30 million people living within that area.
But it's also interesting that the growth of the Paris-metro is based entirely on natural increase.
I knew France had a very good birth rate for Europe, but, anyway, I thought Paris actracted immigrants
And you are right Genius Loci, and Chrissib is wrong. There are three components to the population growth of a city/metropolitan area: 1- natural increase (births - deaths); 2- internal net migration (i.e. migration flows between the city/metro area and other regions of the same country); 3- international net migration (i.e. migration flows between the city/metro area and foreign countries).

In the case of the Paris metro area, the natural increase is very high. The internal net migration is negative (i.e. there are more people moving from Paris to the French provinces than from the French provinces to Paris), and it has been negative since the end of the 1960s. The international net migration is positive (i.e. there are more immigrants who arrive in Paris than immigrants who return to their home countries and Parisians who move abroad).

So Paris' growth is not based on natural increase only. Without international immigration, Paris' growth would be slower. Concerning internal migration, it's interesting to note that those moving from the French provinces to Paris are young people, whereas those moving from Paris to the French provinces are older people. This is why the natural increase in Paris is so high: young people move in, older people leave, therefore more births and less deaths.

As for the London metropolitan area, it has 12.1 million inhabitants according to Eurostat. 15 million is just an exagerated number, one of these exagerated numbers that circulate on online forums (another one even more crazy is 18 million) and which refer to the the largest part (15 million) or the entire area (18 million) of South-East of England including Southampton, the Isle of Wight, Oxford, etc. If we took such a large area in Western Germany and Holland, around Cologne and Rotterdam, we'd find 30 million people living within that area.

Another one of those who refuse/pretend not to understand metro areas because it doesn't suit their agenda at times (in this case London having a very generously defined official definition comparable to US metro's and Paris using the more narrowly defined INSEE definition).
London's officially defined metro area is about 27,000 sq km, with clear and calculated commuter patterns towards the central area. It does not include the Isle of Wight (more ignorance on your part), it does however include a corridor to Oxford (which isn't that far from London in the first place) because of commuting patterns allow for it.
The urbanised parts of Holland, Flanders and Western Germany you are refering to are about twice as large in area with commuting patterns all over the place, but most notably NOT between the various conurbations in the region. It is by any measure a densely populated area, one of the densest in the world even, but it is not a single metropolitan area!! (it's in fact similar to the Pearl River Delta).
London is and instead of people like brisavoine whining all the time, you should calculate a CSA for Paris so we can finally put this matter to rest.

:bash:

And for your information, Eurostat doesn't calculate metro areas...

Correct, but that's not the MSA...;)

Anyway, there's merit in using CSA figures in international comparisons. Just don't underestimate non US cities is what I'm saying.
Usually you see "lists" where New York is listed as 4th, 3rd or even 2nd biggest city in the world (sometimes even adding Philly to make it 30 million+ :crazy:).

I'd say that Tokyo, Seoul, Sao Paulo, Mexico City, Jakarta and Shanghai are all definately bigger than New York. Mumbai and Delhi, if not already there are very close.
At best New York is the world's 7th biggest city, but more likely 9th and soon to fall out of the top 10.

There isn't an international standard when it comes to population figures anyway. Some are more generous, like the US, than others, like the UK.

As for falling out of the top 10, who cares?

Updated to?

Anyway I provide you the census official data web-site with updated tables till December 31st 2006 and updates till August 2007


I used all the data from citypopulation.de, as there you have these map-viewer. A very good invention!

And for your information, Eurostat doesn't calculate metro areas...
For your information, Eurostat does define metropolitan areas for all the cities in the EU. They call them Larger Urban Zones (LUZ) in Eurostat parlance. Here on Spliff Fairy's satellite view I have indicated the limits of the London LUZ. The London LUZ has 12 million inhabitants. The rest (15 million, 18 million) is just fantasy figures by adding most or all areas in the entire southeastern corner of Great Britain.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/mt/thumb/4/40/London_LUZ.png/900px-London_LUZ.png

I'd say that Tokyo, Seoul, Sao Paulo, Mexico City, Jakarta and Shanghai are all definately bigger than New York. Mumbai and Delhi, if not already there are very close.
At best New York is the world's 7th biggest city, but more likely 9th and soon to fall out of the top 10.

there is a plan to make Jakarta Megapolitan city concept
if some cities such as Tangerang, Bekasi, Bogor, Depok, and Cianjur will blame
into a big cities

here the news.. :

'Megapolitan' Model Ideal for Crowded Jakarta
Links to surrounding cities could ease traffic jams, drug problems

Aloysius Wisnuhardana (wisnuhard)
Published 2006-06-24 01:25 (KST)

Jakarta's governor Sutiyoso said in a commemoration speech for the city's 479th anniversary at Monas Square, central Jakarta, Thursday that the "megapolitan concept" should be realized for Jakarta to fight against poverty, clean the city and see peace on the streets. The revolutionary urban idea to connect Jakarta to its surrounding cities was introduced by former governor Ali Sadikin who led this capital city from 1966 to 1977. The city has strayed ever since.

The megapolitan concept would make Jakarta the center of economic growth. Neighbor regencies Bogor, Depok, Tangerang, Bekasi and Cianjur would connect to the capital city via transportation, telecommunications, power and other infrastructure links on a massive scale. As Jakarta grows, the other regencies would become new economic areas but without any further coordination and synchronization. Currently, there are many problems in the surrounding cities as they are akin to economic islands isolated from each other.

The idea has stalled because the surrounding governments continue to think Jakarta will seize their territory and undermine their authority. Sutiyoso has repeatedly explained that the megapolitan concept is both a synchronization and coordination, not annexation. Sutiyoso also urged the national government to appoint a single authority to manage the greater Jakarta area.

Traffic jams, for example, have become a daily problem as the growth of vehicles cannot be accompanied by an increment of roads. Officials say the traffic around Jakarta will completely halt at 2014 if there are no solutions for mass rapid transport.

"At that time, we will have to face a traffic jam as we leave our homes," Sutiyoso said. With the population around 12 million in the afternoon and 9 million at night, Jakarta would become a tired city.

Jakarta has a specific traffic lane for buses, but it has not solved the problem of traffic jams. A monorail transportation system is under construction and is set to run during the next two years.

Passengers need about two hours to reach only a distance of 20 kilometers. Pollution is also a consequence of the traffic.

Drug abuse is the city's other major problem. A study conducted by the International Labor Organization (ILO) in 2005 revealed that 92 percent of children under 18 years old who have used drugs have also been a drug dealer. Jakarta has become a destination for drugs, rather than a place to transport them. Poverty and the lack of law enforcement are two main reasons why drug abuse expands exponentially every year. Where is the biggest ecstacy-making factory in the land? Jakarta. Where is the elementary school student trying to use drugs? Jakarta. Where do we find people buying drugs like they are buying cigarettes? Jakarta, of course. In a Thursday bust, police destroyed a variety of drugs, such as heroin and ecstasy tablets, with a value of almost 334 billion rupiahs ($36 million) on Thursday. According to the National Narcotics Board, the value of the drugs circulating in Jakarta is around 20 billion rupiahs ($2.1 million) everyday.

©2006 OhmyNews


btw for my self I prefer Tokyo.. :okay: :D

I think herein lies the unsaid thing about MSA/CSA's.

the most notable thing about CSAs working as a count is that they allow physical seperation from the city as still being part of the city.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/mt/thumb/4/40/London_LUZ.png/900px-London_LUZ.png

Defined by commuting patterns as in NYC/ US, imagine the area devoid of that dense peppering of communities but instead having disparate clumps of sprawl in vast open areas with nothing between. This is the American model. Because a person spends 8hrs of his 24 hr day in the city, 5 out of 7 days, means they get counted within that city. Your outline shows that same case for London but exposes the built density of Londons urbanity too for what it is - there is no change in the density of 'peppering' on either side of that line. In short that line only defines behavioural patterns, no other physical differences otherwise.

Now imagine CSA defined just purely by such densities, both in people numbers and physical built up areas. Now this new version of CSA would see 'London' spread out to most of Central England, no big jumps as the NYC CSA nor Eastern seabord.

At the end of the day because a region, like the US, has the luxury/misery to travel further distances into town means they get higher counts. Self supporting - 'smart growth' regions, even despite being more built up and dense, suffer lower counts and smaller boundaries (when theres no discernable change either side of these boundaries, other than perceived behaviour) because not all people travel to the centre.

In short CSAs are not representative as a standard measuring stick, most notably because they take into account intangibles such as behaviour rather than physicality - and of course people around the world behave differently. (as opposed to to being all the same in terms of their physical existence).

^Fair enough, but what is galling is that they dont point that out, they list places together and disseminate the information as an equal comparison (even worse, often including homegrown CSA counts alongside foreign city proper counts). This is without a doubt a tool of inflation in comparison lists.

@ brisavoine: A LUZ is not a metropolitan area. It was quite an anticlimax for us city lovers when Eurostat came up with the ridiculous LUZ concept which is above all political. Look at that London map! It's ludicrous how some clear London commuter towns are left out, based on nothing more then arbitrary borders.

Anyway, like I said, stop whining and calculate a CSA for Paris to compare to US cities and London.



@=NaNdA=: There already is such a thing: The Jabotabek Metropolitan Area with 23 million on 7,317 sq km



@the spliff fairy: I can't believe it...are you thick in the head or something? CSA's have NOTHING to do with densities, is that really so hard to understand?

Eurostat came up with the ridiculous LUZ concept which is above all political.
Political? A German konzpiracy perhaps?

All I know is LUZ is the best tool we have to compare European metropolitan areas. Eurostat based them on commuter patterns, even if you don't find them perfect. The rest is just tailor-made areas that do not allow comparisons between European cities.

The LUZ's are total bullshit. Do you really believe Hamburg is bigger than Naples? Valencia bigger than Vienna, Stockholm or Copenhagen?
Yeah Bari, Italy is bigger than Amsterdam :|
Did you know Upper Silesian Industrial Region is the 12th city in Europe? (while Rhein/Ruhr and Randstad are not grouped together)

The whole LUZ project is a failed one. It even manages to shrink an already narrowly defined (by INSEE) Paris from 12 million to 10 million.

Please come up with a better argument...:|

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larger_Urban_Zones_%28LUZ%29_in_the_European_Union

Anderson, I can't believe it, are you thick in the head or something?...I FU**ING KNOW.

If you care to read my posts, my point was CSA definition (by commuting patterns) have an unfair advantage over normal physical-built agglomerations.
When organisations and individuals list them together as the be all and end all its not representative.

For example, BY CSA(read: commuting) NYC comes up as the 2nd 'biggest' city in the world.
By physical agglomeration it would fall WAY behind, the very highest (depending on how you define the physical agglomeration) 8th.
GEDDIT?????????????????????????????????????

You need to better distingish between agglomerations/urban areas/whatever and metropolitan areas. These should not be compared to one another. What should be compared is New York 22 million on 30,000 sq km and London 18 million on 27,000 sq km. A fair comparison, there are no "advantages" because of the built environment of one versus the other.

And New York does not come up as 2nd biggest city in the world by CSA, more like 7th-9th.
And as a physical agglomeration it would still harbour some 18 million, and yes that is because of relatively low density sprawl connecting it all. Has nothing to do with CSA's though which so it seems you are not getting...

I think we're starting to agree. My point though is its not necessarily the area that's at fault but the boundaries. By CSA the boundaries are 30,000 sq. km for NYC and 27,000 for London. By physical built environment (this is where pop. densities come into the equation a little), the dense peppering of urbanity(and people), shown in that London pic, would have boundaries stretching all the way up north and taking in far far larger an area. I think this is more representative for size, and in terms of global perspectives, I dont feel CSAs are relevant really anywhere outside the US. But that is utterly my opinion, that's all.

I totally agree, we need to better distinguish between agglomerations/urban areas/whatever and metropolitan areas.

So far there's the counts:

1. city proper (as defined by political jurisdiction)
2. city contiguous (the old definition for 'metro area')
3. Agglomeration as calculated by CSA/ MSA (increasingly the new definition for 'metro area')
4. Agglomeration as defined by proximities of built environment to a minimum population density (usually 1000 ppsm)
5. Agglomeration by population density alone

^I think also when creating lists, the media wouldnt misleading mix n match all those categories above into the same lists, thereby giving innacurate renditions and comparisons.

I think the essential quatification for an area to be included in a "metro" area of a city is whether people can commute between the area and the city on an everyday basis. In this sense, the extent and accessibility of public transport and expressways should be the most decisive factors in determining a metro area, and hence the size of the metropolis, or "megapolis" if you will.

^that would make the Tokyo-Osaka megalopolises, Guangzhou-Shenzhen, Hangzhou-Shanghai, and I think the Nile Delta come under 'one' metro. Theyd all count between 40-60 million.

^that would make the Tokyo-Osaka megalopolises, Guangzhou-Shenzhen, Hangzhou-Shanghai, and I think the Nile Delta come under 'one' metro. Theyd all count between 40-60 million.

I believe I said commuting on an everyday basis. That means commuting has to be affordable, accessible and timely efficient so that workers in a metro area can commute to their workplace in the city and vice versa.

But there is an even higher stage and a wider measure a city can reach. London itself is part of the blue banana, a metropolis stretching from middle england to Milano following the Rhine through western Germany. The blue banana is three times the size of the bos-wash-corridor.

I think we're starting to agree. My point though is its not necessarily the area that's at fault but the boundaries. By CSA the boundaries are 30,000 sq. km for NYC and 27,000 for London. By physical built environment (this is where pop. densities come into the equation a little), the dense peppering of urbanity(and people), shown in that London pic, would have boundaries stretching all the way up north and taking in far far larger an area. I think this is more representative for size, and in terms of global perspectives, I dont feel CSAs are relevant really anywhere outside the US. But that is utterly my opinion, that's all.

I totally agree, we need to better distinguish between agglomerations/urban areas/whatever and metropolitan areas.

So far there's the counts:

1. city proper (as defined by political jurisdiction)
2. city contiguous (the old definition for 'metro area')
3. Agglomeration as calculated by CSA/ MSA (increasingly the new definition for 'metro area')
4. Agglomeration as defined by proximities of built environment to a minimum population density (usually 1000 ppsm)
5. Agglomeration by population density alone

^I think also when creating lists, the media wouldnt misleading mix n match all those categories above into the same lists, thereby giving innacurate renditions and comparisons.
Man you keep getting me confused. First you say you agree that there is a distinction between an urban area/agglomeration and a metro area and then You make that list which (no offense) is neither here not there. Basically that whole list is mixing up metro area and urban area/agglomeration.
So...agglomeration = urban area, metro area is central core or network of cores with the surrounding area, urbanised or not which is economically and socially dependent. By definition, metro areas incoorperate rural or undeveloped land!
What you are saying is that we should come up with definitions of dry water.

Also, metro area never meant city continous, not by old definition or otherwise.
Yes there are some confusing titles used out there such as metro Manila which is not the metro area for Manila at all, but rather the urban core.

Lastly, CSA's are as good a measure as any (I personally prefer them in this increasingly connected world) as long as you compare like for like.

I think the essential quatification for an area to be included in a "metro" area of a city is whether people can commute between the area and the city on an everyday basis. In this sense, the extent and accessibility of public transport and expressways should be the most decisive factors in determining a metro area, and hence the size of the metropolis, or "megapolis" if you will.
You are totally right.
Therefore it is no surprise that metropolitan London, with the world's 2nd largest transport network covers such a large area relatively speaking.

I think the essential quatification for an area to be included in a "metro" area of a city is whether people can commute between the area and the city on an everyday basis. In this sense, the extent and accessibility of public transport and expressways should be the most decisive factors in determining a metro area, and hence the size of the metropolis, or "megapolis" if you will.
You are totally right.
Therefore it is no surprise that metropolitan London, with the world's 2nd largest transport network covers such a large area relatively speaking.

(btw lets reserve the term megapolis or megalopolis for the extensive urbanised regions like BosWash, The Blue Banana, or indeed The Pearl River Delta. No need to complicate things even further...;))

^that would make the Tokyo-Osaka megalopolises, Guangzhou-Shenzhen, Hangzhou-Shanghai, and I think the Nile Delta come under 'one' metro. Theyd all count between 40-60 million.
On the contrary, that would not make those places metropolitan areas, not even CSA type (yet?).

This is what we call megalopoli. There is a chance some (core) areas will develop into CSA's equivalents, but as of now they're not on such a level of interconnection. Compare it to the close but not interconnected metro areas of Randstad (combined metro area), Flemish Diamond (combined metro area) and Rhine/Ruhr (combined metro area).

The whole LUZ project is a failed one. It even manages to shrink an already narrowly defined (by INSEE) Paris from 12 million to 10 million.
The Paris LUZ has 11.6 million inhabitants, not 10. Yes, the Paris LUZ is a bit smaller than the INSEE defined Paris metro area (they should have included the Oise department), and you can probably argue with the limits of LUZs here and there, but by and large the LUZs are a good approach of European metropolitan areas, even if they miss a few km² of metro area here and there. The only two real problems that I can see are with the Randstad and the Rhine-Ruhr metro areas, as you mentioned.

The Paris LUZ has 11.6 million inhabitants, not 10. Yes, the Paris LUZ is a bit smaller than the INSEE defined Paris metro area (they should have included the Oise department), and you can probably argue with the limits of LUZs here and there, but by and large the LUZs are a good approach of European metropolitan areas, even if they miss a few km² of metro area here and there. The only two real problems that I can see are with the Randstad and the Rhine-Ruhr metro areas, as you mentioned.
Common be real dude and look at this list.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larger_Urban_Zones_%28LUZ%29_in_the_European_Union

Randstad and Rhein/Ruhr are far from the only "problems".

According to Eurostat LUZ:
Bari, Italy 1,560,000 vs Amsterdam 1,320,000

Reality:
Bari, Italy 1,56,000 is the entire Province of Bari of 5,138 km², while
Amsterdam has an officially defined metropolitan area of 2,200,000 on 1,500km² (and is part of the combined metropolitan area (CSA anyone?) Randstad/Deltametropolis of almost 8 million in 7,500 km².

This Eurostat definition overestimates Bari by about 500,000 people while underestimating Amsterdam by a million. All because it is based on predetermined lines on a map. A faulty method...

What should be compared is New York 22 million on 30,000 sq km and London 18 million on 27,000 sq km.
That, I'm afraid, is a stupid comparison. You cannot compare metropolitan areas based on same land area. Metro areas in very dense countries like England are quite different from metro areas in not very dense countries like the US. In dense countries, metro areas are necessarily smaller in terms of land area, because agglomerations and cities are nearer to each other than in non dense countries.

Let me give an example to show this. You say since the NY CSA covers 30,000 km² it is "fair" to compare with an area of 27,000 km² and 18 million people in southeastern England with London at its center. But now suppose I take an area of 27,000 km² in central Java with the city of Surakarta at its center. In this area there live approximately 27 million people due to the very high density of Java. Does that mean that when comparing with New York CSA we should say that Surakarta is a city of 27 million people in its metro area? That would make Surakarta the second most populated metro area in the world after Tokyo. :nuts:

Another one...
The LUZ for Valencia (2,2 million) is basically Valencia Province.
The LUZ for Milan (3,9 million) is basically Milan Province.

Only...
Valencia Province: 10,563 km².
Milan Province: 1,984 km²

Can you see the problem here?
the method is rubbish...:|

That, I'm afraid, is a stupid comparison. You cannot compare metropolitan areas based on same land area. Metro areas in very dense countries like England are quite different from metro areas in not very dense countries like the US. In dense countries, metro areas are necessarily smaller in terms of land area, because agglomerations and cities are nearer to each other than in non dense countries.

Let me give an example to show this. You say since the NY CSA covers 30,000 km² it is "fair" to compare with an area of 27,000 km² and 18 million people in southeastern England with London at its center. But now suppose I take an area of 27,000 km² in central Java with the city of Surakarta at its center. In this area there live approximately 27 million people due to the very high density of Java. Does that mean that when comparing with New York CSA we should say that Surakarta is a city of 27 million people in its metro area? That would make Surakarta the second most populated metro area in the world after Tokyo. :nuts:
Either you are ignorant or you are deliberatly trying to twist my words...or both...:|

Where did it say that these CSA's and calculated equivalents are based on sq km's? Answer: nowhere did it say that.
The 18 million metro area for London is a calculated one based on commuting patterns.

The rest of your post is just more whining because noone claimed Surakarta's metro area is 27 million.
But for your information, Jakarta's with 23 million on 7,300 sq km is larger than both New York and London. Unfortunately no big commuting network between Jakarta, Bandung and Surabaya yet so no CSA for that area...

It really isn't all that complicated, even you should be able to understand...:|

The Paris LUZ has 11.6 million inhabitants, not 10. Yes, the Paris LUZ is a bit smaller than the INSEE defined Paris metro area (they should have included the Oise department), and you can probably argue with the limits of LUZs here and there, but by and large the LUZs are a good approach of European metropolitan areas, even if they miss a few km² of metro area here and there. The only two real problems that I can see are with the Randstad and the Rhine-Ruhr metro areas, as you mentioned.

The problem is that Eurostat's Larger Urban Zones, unlike conventional Metropolitan Areas, only take into account commuting ties from surrounding areas into the core city, not a core area. This makes a huge difference when compared to North American metropolitan areas (let alone US CSAs) and puts areas where a significant portion of the core population live outside the city proper at a disadvantage, especially when there are other cities over 100.000 in this core area (as is the case with Frankfurt).
For some odd reason they made an exception for the French cities and a few others though, where they didn't use the city proper as the basis but a larger area.

The problem is that Eurostat's Larger Urban Zones, unlike conventional Metropolitan Areas, only take into account commuting ties from surrounding areas into the core city, not a core area. This makes a huge difference when compared to North American metropolitan areas (let alone US CSAs) and puts areas where a significant portion of the core population live outside the city proper at a disadvantage, especially when there are other cities over 100.000 in this core area (as is the case with Frankfurt).
For some odd reason they made an exception for the French cities and a few others though, where they didn't use the city proper as the basis but a larger area.
And that's why brisavoine likes the LUZ's so much. It bends the rules for Paris because it has to be somewhat comparable in size to London for political reasons. So while La Defense, the inner suburbs and the airports are happily added to Paris proper, cities like Amsterdam with Haarlemmermeer and Schiphol (huge commuter magnets) just outside its administrative borders get shafted.

The 18 million metro area for London is a calculated one based on commuting patterns.
Calculated by whom? Only statisticians at the ONS could make such a calculation, because only they have access to the detailed results of the census with exact commuting figures for each community. Little problem here, ONS has never calculated a London CSA based on the US definition of CSAs (they have better things to do than waste their time with calculations based on definitions used in foreign countries just for the sake of a few urban forum enthusiasts :lol:). As for the internet wannabes who try on their own the complicated calculation of a London CSA based on US definitions of CSA, without having access to the detailed results of the census, it really makes me laugh.

Either you are ignorant or you are deliberatly trying to twist my words...or both...:|

Where did it say that these CSA's and calculated equivalents are based on sq km's? Answer: nowhere did it say that.
The 18 million metro area for London is a calculated one based on commuting patterns...:|

In fact it is wrong.
They tried every method two years ago to prove it, Two years it was London metro 18 million inhabitants calculed with INSEE method (Well I don't think that 40% of Dover active populaton work in London urban area).
With INSEE methode if London metro had 18 million inhabitants, there would be at least 7.5 million jobs in London urban area. :nuts:

Infact London metro has between 12 and 14 million inhabitants.

And that's why brisavoine likes the LUZ's so much. It bends the rules for Paris because it has to be somewhat comparable in size to London for political reasons. So while La Defense, the inner suburbs and the airports are happily added to Paris proper, cities like Amsterdam with Haarlemmermeer and Schiphol (huge commuter magnets) just outside its administrative borders get shafted.

In an other way Paris with 6.8 million inhabitants has an higher density than inner London. :|
So should we miss it.

For some odd reason they made an exception for the French cities and a few others though, where they didn't use the city proper as the basis but a larger area.
I think the main reason for this is the size of the NUTS. The French NUTS-3 are rather large, encompassing not only city propers but also their suburbs, whereas German NUTS-3 are rather small, corresponding to the cities proper (kreisfreie Städte). They should have used the NUTS-5 level to define the limits of the LUZs, instead of using the NUTS-3.

More whining...

If only the ONS has access to the data necessary to calculate, THEN WHO ARE YOU TO SAY IT ISN'T SO? By your own admission you don't have the data to make claims to the contrary, so quit while you are ahead...:|

Mail the GLA, because they are the ones making the claim...
And in fact, yes "little internet wannabees" have checked the numbers, waaaayyy before your time on this site and they were all better men then you are (sadly most have left since this place became so sucky...)

Minato, it is not "wrong" there does in fact exist a official definition of a London metro area which is comparable to a US CSA. The Paris definition by INSEE of 12 million is based on parameters stricter then those used for MSA's. There's no shame, they're not even comparable.

What you guys need to do is stop the whining and calculate a CSA like metro area for Paris.
There are no "wrongs" in this case, just different definitions and frankly it is getting quite pathetic to have this same debate here on this forum for the twentieth time...:|

I think the main reason for this is the size of the NUTS. The French NUTS-3 are rather large, encompassing not only city propers but also their suburbs, whereas German NUTS-3 are rather small, corresponding to the cities proper (kreisfreie Städte). They should have used the NUTS-5 level to define the limits of the LUZs, instead of using the NUTS-3.
In other words...the whole basis for the calculations of the LUZ's are skewed and not comparable to begin with...
--> faulty method, not usefull in any way, shape or form...

I think the main reason for this is the size of the NUTS. The French NUTS-3 are rather large, encompassing not only city propers but also their suburbs, whereas German NUTS-3 are rather small, corresponding to the cities proper (kreisfreie Städte). They should have used the NUTS-5 level to define the limits of the LUZs, instead of using the NUTS-3.

Shouldn't it be the other way around then?
Anyway, there is no reason to delineate London's/Amsterdam's/Frankfurt's/Vienna's LUZ based on commuting ties from outlying NUTS 3 into the city proper only, while for Paris all commuting into the petite couronne is considered. Instead, all Larger Urban Zones should be based on commuting patterns between a core area and adjacent outlying areas (as is the case with all metropolitan area definitions, including INSEE's Aires Urbaines).

Infact London metro has between 12 and 14 million inhabitants.

Source?
Or let me spare you the trouble, there is absolutely no official source claiming such a thing anywhere.




In an other way Paris with 6.8 million inhabitants has an higher density than inner London. :|
So should we miss it.
This has absolutely nothing to do with metro areas.
You and the spliff fairy should take a course together on what metro areas are.

Of course it was about city proper.
You were complaining that the city of Paris were not the 2.2 million inhabitants of the city proper but inner Paris and petite couronne (6.5 million inhabitants) and I say that this area was as dense as inner London.
Paris and petite couronne is the core like Greater London is the core.

(Actually paris 6.8 million inhabitants is with the coeur d'agglomeration data for the Paris region authority a bit different that Paris and Petite couronne, more populated, smaller and denser)

Yeah but what does that have to do with the discussion at hand? ;)

Of course it was about city proper.
You were complaining that the city of Paris were not the 2.2 million inhabitants of the city proper but inner Paris and petite couronne (6.5 million inhabitants) and I say that this area was as dense as inner London.
Paris and petite couronne is the core like Greater London is the core.

(Actually paris 6.8 million inhabitants is with the coeur d'agglomeration data for the Paris region authority a bit different that Paris and Petite couronne, more populated, smaller and denser)


The point is that the city proper doesn't give an accurate picture of any area's functional core.

Mail the GLA, because they are the ones making the claim...
The GLA mentioned a "metropolitan region" covering the entire southeastern corner of England in one of their publications some years ago. They never claimed that this metropolitan region is a metropolitan area, let alone a US defined CSA. It is only some forumers around here that try to force this idea on the rest of us.

In any case I suggest you watch your tone because you come off as a rather hot-tempered and aggressive person in the way you address people.

Yeah and what is the difference between a region and an area?
Your responses are becoming increasingly more pathetic (and btw I will adress you as I please, like it or not. If you don't want to be treated like an in denial troll, don't act like one...:|)

When are you going to stop the whining and actually do some research for yourself? Mail the GLA and ask how they came up with 18 million. Do some calculations and apply the US Census CSA definition to London. You will discover that I am right and you are wrong. Or you can shut up about it altogether, which I'd actually prefer because I'm getting sick of having this debate over and over again, with the few deniers who ruin it for the rest.

It's very simple really..what we are trying to "push" on you is a perfectly legitimate way of looking at things for one specific city. The ones who came up with it, specifically made it so that comparison was possible with US defined metro areas. They are not making claims about any other city then their own...
And then we have the continued whining of people like yourself going on about how this method is "wrong", while pushing their own little lists (talking about the LUZ's here) which do far more then defining just one city. These lists pretend to have a comprehensive method for a multitute of cities, but one can easily see how biased and flawed it really is.
So who is at fault here? Don't like what the GLA has done? Fine, but don't pretend you have any better insights because you don't.

Calculated by whom? Only statisticians at the ONS could make such a calculation, because only they have access to the detailed results of the census with exact commuting figures for each community. Little problem here, ONS has never calculated a London CSA based on the US definition of CSAs (they have better things to do than waste their time with calculations based on definitions used in foreign countries just for the sake of a few urban forum enthusiasts ). As for the internet wannabes who try on their own the complicated calculation of a London CSA based on US definitions of CSA, without having access to the detailed results of the census, it really makes me laugh.


What are you guys on about? Detailed commuter flows throughout the UK are available to the public down to OA level.

@Anderson Geimz: your aggressive messages have been reported to the moderators.

@Cunning Linguist: detailed commuter flows are not available online. The Neighbourhood website only contains distance travelled to work, but they don't tell you where the people work, only what distance they travel, which is not enough to calculate a metro area, let alone a CSA.

so what's the definition exactly of Future Megacities?
only by population or density?

let me see... :)

Jakarta, Indonesia
population :14,250,000
Land Area ( sq Km ) : 1,360
Density people ( per sq Km ) : 10,500
number 17th in the world ranking of biggest cities

number 1st is

Mumbai, India
Population : 14,350,000
Land Area ( Sq Km ) : 484
Density ( per sq Km ) : 29,650

n NY is 114th!

from http://www.citymayors.com/statistics/largest-cities-density-125.html

so? ;)

The reason is so obvious^^ look at the difference between densities and land area.

oh, i see...yup you're right
i've wrong read the number.. :D

in a 200 squares mile city you can have 100,000 people and in a 150 square miles city u can have 5 million people plus how weird is that

brsiavoine
@Cunning Linguist: detailed commuter flows are not available online. The Neighbourhood website only contains distance travelled to work, but they don't tell you where the people work, only what distance they travel, which is not enough to calculate a metro area, let alone a CSA.

Try searching for WICID. Commuter orgin/destination matrices can be downloaded for Local Authorities, Wards, and Output Areas.

I'm not sure if the data suffers from SCAM but either or it's at a very specific geography.

Oh and you need an Athens account.

EDIT: Oh and I think it's just a 10% sample, not the usual 100% census shit.

in a 200 squares mile city you can have 100,000 people and in a 150 square miles city u can have 5 million people plus how weird is that

It's all about population density:)

@Anderson Geimz: your aggressive messages have been reported to the moderators.

:lol:

May I close this discussion with a quote of my English teacher?:

It's all London!!!

in casablanca u have both type u got some areas with very high population in tiny area and other areas with small population that is sprawled out
for example the southside of casablanca is about 50 square km with population of 500,000 people but yet the west side of casablanca is 100 square km with population of only 25,000 people yep chris u are right population density

@Anderson Geimz: your aggressive messages have been reported to the moderators.


Noone likes a snitch. :lol:

@Anderson Geimz: your aggressive messages have been reported to the moderators.

@brisavoine, can´t handle a simple discussion? :lol:

I don't think it was the discussion, it was the underhand 'namecalling', eg describing responses as 'pathetic' and 'whining' etc. and pretty much misunderstanding any response, and ridiculing them for his misunderstanding. Pretty baiting imo.

^^Exactly.

back to topic please , !

So i think future megacities in the devolped world can be 2050 Miami with 12 million inhabitans , Dallas with 10 and Washington-Baltimore with 10 million , in Europe theres only madrid on the way to megacity .eventually in 2050 madrid will be an megacity ...

Chicago in US is close to 10 million mark , so it will reach megacitity status in 2015 ...

^3 biggest European cities - Moscow, London, Istanbul all growing very fast.

Officially Paris is bigger than Istanbul.
If we apply a CSA like metro area to all, it certainly is...

^^ Another thing to keep in mind is how compiling statistics may change in the next 40 years. If, by 2050, Europe starts to use similar metropolitan definitions as the US, then by all means, a fair number of European cities will reach megacity status.

And European cities are not shrinking or remaining as static as some might assume. Like in the rest of the world, people are moving out to the satellite towns surrounding these cities and they are often growing.

Although Europe hasn't experienced the migration from the countryside to the city as much as many other parts of the world, this also of cause could change.

back to topic please , !

So i think future megacities in the devolped world can be 2050 Miami with 12 million inhabitans , Dallas with 10 and Washington-Baltimore with 10 million , in Europe theres only madrid on the way to megacity .eventually in 2050 madrid will be an megacity ...
Dallas? I didn't know it was that big and growing fast

Anyway as previously said in the thread there is even Milano on the way: its metro still is 7.5mio and grows as much as Madrid

However, as Justme correctly said, we're talkin' of 2050, more than 40 years... too much time to make projections with accurtacy
e.g. in Europe in '60s there were baby boom, in some country immigration, in other ones emigration; then decades of sboom, then immigration for every country, deurbanization e newly 're-urbanization'... and so on

P.S.
In your opinion could the European Union and the more and more intensive relations between the countries of an Union of more than 500 mio inhabitants (now... and in 2050?) create some actraction poles for internal massive 'immigration' (like it happens in USA for istance in cities like NY or LA actracting many people from the rest of US) wich can bring some city to an 'hypercity' status?

^^ Another thing to keep in mind is how compiling statistics may change in the next 40 years. If, by 2050, Europe starts to use similar metropolitan definitions as the US, then by all means, a fair number of European cities will reach megacity status.

And European cities are not shrinking or remaining as static as some might assume. Like in the rest of the world, people are moving out to the satellite towns surrounding these cities and they are often growing.

Although Europe hasn't experienced the migration from the countryside to the city as much as many other parts of the world, this also of cause could change.

In the city where you live and in whose suburbs I live is experiencing rapid reurbanization. You can see it in nearly all German cities. In the metro areas today, the cities are growing much faster then the suburbs. Dresden, Leipzig and Nürnberg are already having over 500,000 people again. Hamburg is heading to 1.8 million, Köln wants to reach the 1 million border and Frankfurt is also well over 650,000 again.

The overall population of Germany is declining though, so it's not like German cities are going to grow terribly. At best they'll stagnate, otherwise they'll lose inhabitants as is already the case in Eastern Germany.

Hah, imagine the gigantic 100 million people city that will be NYC, Philly, Baltimore, East Coast of Connenicuit, New jersey, Boston. Pretty mmuch the whole Upper East Coast. Will be insane!!!

The overall population of Germany is declining though, so it's not like German cities are going to grow terribly. At best they'll stagnate, otherwise they'll lose inhabitants as is already the case in Eastern Germany.

The rural areas will loose the population first, then the suburbs will start to fall. And before the cities are going to shrink, we'll have the right family-policy to lift our birth rate.:)

^^That's the rosy scenario. Now you care to tell people the more realistic scenario?

^^That's the rosy scenario. Now you care to tell people the more realistic scenario?It's not a good thing for anyone that the German population shrinks. It's not good for Germany, but it's not better for France, which is still a key commercial partner of Germany. We have all interests to have a demographically prosperous Germany as neighbour. Germany must get rid of its taboo and starts to do something, politically speaking, about it.

Has anyone a link to a map/statistic that shows the birth rates in france relatet to the departements?

It's not a good thing for anyone that the German population shrinks.
It's not a question of whether it's a good or bad thing, it's a question of describing reality, that's all. No need to introduce judgment values here.
Has anyone a link to a map/statistic that shows the birth rates in france relatet to the departements?
Yes, here.

Fertility rates 2003:
Color codes:
- red: total fertility rate (TFR) under 1.3
- pink: TFR between 1.31 and 1.40
- orange: TFR between 1.41 and 1.50
- yellow: TFR between 1.51 and 1.70
- light green: TFR between 1.71 and 1.90
- dark green: TFR between 1.91 and 2.10
- very dark green: TFR above 2.10. REPLACEMENT OF GENERATIONS ASSURED.
http://img46.imageshack.us/img46/4402/fertilitefceall2003uz8.png

It's not a good thing for anyone that the German population shrinks. It's not good for Germany, but it's not better for France, which is still a key commercial partner of Germany. We have all interests to have a demographically prosperous Germany as neighbour. Germany must get rid of its taboo and starts to do something, politically speaking, about it.

The thing is that it has actually never been proved that natalist policies have an effect on birth rates.

Fertility rates 2003:
Color codes:
- red: total fertility rate (TFR) under 1.3
- pink: TFR between 1.31 and 1.40
- orange: TFR between 1.41 and 1.50
- yellow: TFR between 1.51 and 1.70
- light green: TFR between 1.71 and 1.90
- dark green: TFR between 1.91 and 2.10
- very dark green: TFR above 2.10. REPLACEMENT OF GENERATIONS ASSURED.
http://img46.imageshack.us/img46/4402/fertilitefceall2003uz8.png
The difference is incredible, but not a surprise; France has a very high fertility: even if we compare it with the most part of Western Europe countries the result would be the same

I'm wondering why just France; what kind of peculiar conditions do they have respect the rest of EU?
Maybe a policy wich give a big help to family; I know for istance more sons you have less taxes you pay, in some cases no taxes at all

It's not a question of whether it's a good or bad thing, it's a question of describing reality, that's all. No need to introduce judgment values here.

Yes, here.

Fertility rates 2003:
Color codes:
- red: total fertility rate (TFR) under 1.3
- pink: TFR between 1.31 and 1.40
- orange: TFR between 1.41 and 1.50
- yellow: TFR between 1.51 and 1.70
- light green: TFR between 1.71 and 1.90
- dark green: TFR between 1.91 and 2.10
- very dark green: TFR above 2.10. REPLACEMENT OF GENERATIONS ASSURED.
http://img46.imageshack.us/img46/4402/fertilitefceall2003uz8.png

Interesting that the south of France has a lower fertility than the north.

Here's a map of the USA:

http://img530.imageshack.us/img530/9974/usafertilittwg9.png


Yellow, orange and red are above replacement fertility - The population will have nearly infinite natural growth.

^^Very interesting map of the US Chrissib, but it doesn't use the same colors as my map. I have recolored the US map using the same colors to allow easy comparisons. I have found exact fertility rate figures for each US state for the year 2004. For France I've made a newer map than the one above, using 2004 figures (which are higher than in the 2003 map posted in my previous message). For Germany the latest figures available are from 2003, but the situation has remained unchanged in 2004. Enjoy!

Color codes:
- red: total fertility rate (TFR) under 1.3
- pink: TFR between 1.31 and 1.40
- orange: TFR between 1.41 and 1.50
- yellow: TFR between 1.51 and 1.70
- light green: TFR between 1.71 and 1.90
- dark green: TFR between 1.91 and 2.10
- very dark green: TFR above 2.10. REPLACEMENT OF GENERATIONS ASSURED.
http://img117.imageshack.us/img117/2981/tfrqz2.png

It's interesting to note that in 2004 the total fertility rate of the USA was 2.05, but the total fertility rate of non-Hispanic White women was only 1.85, which is almost the same as the total fertility rate of White women in France. The only reason why the total fertility rate of the US is higher than in France (and Europe) is because of Hispanics, in particular Mexicans. In details, for 2004:
- Hispanics: 2.82 (among whom Mexican immigrants: 3.02)
- Black Americans: 2.02
- Asians or Pacific Islanders: 1.90
- White Americans: 1.85
- Native American Indians: 1.73

According to INSEE, 25% of babies born in France (from married parents) have at least one of their parent being foreign.
http://www.insee.fr/fr/ffc/pop_age3c.htm

Personally, I don't care if babies come from immigrants. The important is to have babies, and I would actually be quite proud if the average Frenchman would have a browner skin in 2100 than in 2000. I want little French babies of all colours!

^^Metropolitan, several studies by INSEE have already shown that French women have a fertility rate only 0.1 point lower than the French average (which includes immigrants women).

Now that the fertility rate of France is nearly 2.0, basically it means that French women have a fertility rate of 1.9 (i.e. almost the same as White American women) whereas immigrant women in France have a fertility rate of 2.8, giving an average of 2.0 (since there are more French women than immigrant women in France). If you don't believe me read Le temps des immigrés by François Héran, pages 60 to 66.

In fact as can be seen on the map above the French deparments with the highest fertility rates are in Western France where there are few immigrants.

According to INSEE, 25% of babies born in France (from married parents) have at least one of their parent being foreign.
I think in whole Europe (and even in Usa) is the same thing... for istance in Italy percentage is similar: immigrants make more baibes than Italians with Italian anchestor; and in some way this fact helped to get our low birth rate a bit more high ( there is an increasing in its complex too, not only due to immigrants sons... anyway with a difference it decreases in Southern Italy -where normally birth rate is the highest- and increases in Center and North -apart some regions as Liguria)


Then, if immigrants babies have the same 'weight' in percentage, why in France birth rate is so high?
I'm still convinced French family policy helped

^^Metropolitan, several studies by INSEE have already shown that French women have a fertility rate only 0.1 point lower than the French average (which includes immigrants women).

Now that the fertility rate of France is nearly 2.0, basically it means that French women have a fertility rate of 1.9 (i.e. almost the same as White American women) whereas immigrant women in France have a fertility rate of 2.8, giving an average of 2.0 (since there are more French women than immigrant women in France). If you don't believe me read Le temps des immigrés by François Héran, pages 60 to 66.

In fact as can be seen on the map above the French deparments with the highest fertility rates are in Western France where there are few immigrants.Yeah departments such as Val d'Oise or Seine-Saint-Denis...

Anyway, I've already told that I don't care about that. My point was simply that what you were saying for the US was also true in its way for France.

^^Too bad, but the department with the highest total fertility rate is Mayenne. Not really a place famed for its immigrant communities.
My point was simply that what you were saying for the US was also true in its way for France.
In France there is only a 0.1 point discrepancy between White women fertility rate and the overall fertility rate, whereas in the US this discrepancy is 0.2 point. That's probably because the proportion of immigrants in the US is higher than in France.

I agree with Brisavoine. Western France (Britanny, Loire Valley, Charente, etc.) has a notoriously low proportion of immigrants. And you find the most fertile departments in this region, along with the northern Parisian suburbs, where yes, the high fertility rate is probably explained by their important number of immigrants.

In Germany, we have a different situation. The most fertile counties are in the north west, where we have not a high percentage of migrants, but a high percentage of voters of conservative parties. The fertility in the immigrant community number one in Germany, Berlin-Kreuzberg is at 1.24. On the map you can see also that the fertility is lower in ciies than in the suburbs and the countryside.Immigrants are mostly concentrated in cities in Germany. But onl time will tell whether the Germans or the Immigrants have the higher fertility-rate.

I think in whole Europe (and even in Usa) is the same thing... for istance in Italy percentage is similar: immigrants make more baibes than Italians with Italian anchestor; and in some way this fact helped to get our low birth rate a bit more high ( there is an increasing in its complex too, not only due to immigrants sons... anyway with a difference it decreases in Southern Italy -where normally birth rate is the highest- and increases in Center and North -apart some regions as Liguria)


Then, if immigrants babies have the same 'weight' in percentage, why in France birth rate is so high?
I'm still convinced French family policy helped

In Italy, south tyrolia has the highest fertility rate. It stands at around 1.6-1.5.

It's funny how the Mexicans in the US have a much higher fertility rate than even the highest fertility rate Mexican states (in the south of Mexico).

It's funny how the Mexicans in the US have a much higher fertility rate than even the highest fertility rate Mexican states (in the south of Mexico).

The same with the Germans. In the USA, the german-americans have a higher fertility than in Cloppenburg, the county with the highest fertility in Germany.

Maybe the USA is a very family-friendly country.^^

^^
It's easy explainable: immigrants are quite all young, while in motherland there are plenty of middle aged and old people whose fertility is rather zero

Then in a pop of immigrants who is prevalently from 18 to 40 aged obviuosly the tax of fertility is higher than motherland pop where people are from 0 to 99 and over in a more homogeneous way

^^
It's easy explainable: immigrants are quite all young, while in motherland there are plenty of middle aged and old people whose fertility is rather zero

Then in a pop of immigrants who is prevalently from 18 to 40 aged obviuosly the tax of fertility is higher than motherland pop where people are from 0 to 99 and over in a more homogeneous way

No. Fertility rate only takes into account the fertile age people. You are confusing birth rate (births per 1000 people in the population) with fertility rate.

Any Chinese city... probably more and more Indian ones as well, Dubai, Tokyo-Yokohama, Seoul, Sao Paulo, Belo Horizonte, Buenos Aires, London, Paris, Moscow, Istanbul, Ruhrstadt, New York, Los Angeles - Sand Diego - Tijuana... might be some new ones that I am not aware of.

Dude, gasoline will probably reach $5/gallon summer 2009, at least in some areas.

How many liters is a gallon???

In Portugal a liter of gasoline costs 1.5€
Almost 9.5$ a gallon.

In Portugal a liter of gasoline costs 1.5€
Almost 7€ a gallon.

We're at 8$ a gallon here in Germany.

In UK its $11.36 a gallon / $3 a litre, or $477 a barrel :(.

In France, as in the rest of Europe, only premium gas is available. Regular gas is not sold in Europe. In Central Paris premium gas costs between US$8.10 and US$9.43 a gallon depending on gas stations, with a median price of US$8.74 per gallon (those are the latest prices quoted by online websites).

In the outer suburbs of Paris premium gas costs between US$7.87 and US$9.08 per gallon depending on gas stations, with a median price of US$8.31 per gallon.

In my parent's hometown in southern France where gas is always cheaper than in Paris, premium gas cost $8.29 a gallon at their local supermarket two days ago.

that is crazy !

In France, as in the rest of Europe, only premium gas is available. Regular gas is not sold in Europe. In Central Paris premium gas costs between US$8.10 and US$9.43 a gallon depending on gas stations, with a median price of US$8.74 per gallon (those are the latest prices quoted by online websites).

In the outer suburbs of Paris premium gas costs between US$7.87 and US$9.08 per gallon depending on gas stations, with a median price of US$8.31 per gallon.

In my parent's hometown in southern France where gas is always cheaper than in Paris, premium gas cost $8.29 a gallon at their local supermarket two days ago.Yeah well... those expensive prices you mention are quite artificial since it's a lot more the result of a cheap dollar than of expensive oil. The increase isn't felt that strong by European consumers.

As a matter of fact, the price of premium unleaded gas is between €1.40/L and €1.50/L (between €5.30/gallon and €5.70/gallon). It's a record high, but the increase isn't that strong compared to crude oil. Indeed, from 2002 to 2008, gasoline prices in France have increased of 50% whereas crude oil prices have increased of 450%!!

Petrol in New Zealand doesn't look so expensive now

Petrol in Croatia costs about 1.15 € per litre or 4.35 € per gallon.

Petrol in Perth, Australia is $1.45 a litre.
$1.00AUS = $0.90US.

However gas (LPG) is very cheap since we produce it abundantly in West Australia.

I've found a map where you can see the fertility rates of whole Europe in 2001.
http://www.schrumpfende-stadt.de/magazin/0402/bilder/0_1.jpg

Petrol in Perth, Australia is $1.45 a litre.
$1.00AUS = $0.90US.

However gas (LPG) is very cheap since we produce it abundantly in West Australia.

I thought Australian gas was sold in the global market at global market prices like it is in many western nations? National differences stem from transportation costs and different taxation rates.

The Canadian province of Alberta produces over 2 million barrels of oil equivalent/day, so they are awash in oil too. In Canada though, we have to compete with every other buyer on the planet for our own oil. This is done to ensure Alberta producers get the same price for their product as the market is willing to pay.

I think it's ridiculous, but that is the way it is. Alberta gas stations actually ran out of gas a few times, because a production decrease meant there wasn't enough left to supply Alberta because it was all spoken for by Americans. Canada is not permitted to intentionally reduce supplies to the USA, unless we make an equally large decrease in supply to our own country. We signed a free trade document saying so. The Americans insisted on it or face the consequences. Since 80% of our exports go to the US, we didn't have much choice. :ohno:

Canada has the oil, but we actually pay about 10-20% more for it than Americans do. The biggest difference is that we tax it more heavily. It is about $1.10 to $1.50 depending on where in Canada you are. Oil producing regions of Canada are prospering, but we really signed away a huge economic advantage we had over the Americans.

Next up: water. Hopefully, Canadian leaders will stand up for this country next time. Just say no. Cutting off our exports will hurt their own economy and they know it. Unfortunately, Canada blinked first last time around.

Well, it's around $3.89 ($1.02/l) for regular near my place...premium is probably all above $4 now.

Diesel is around $4.69 nearby ($1.23/l).

Before anyone goes saying "OMG! So cheap!", the prices here are rising faster than most other places thanks to the dollar. The price of gasoline has almost risen 40% since October.

http://img117.imageshack.us/img117/2981/tfrqz2.png



I find it very interesting that even the least fertile parts of the US, that are dealing with rapid aging and kids leaving (mostly in the Great Plaines and Northeast), and many that may even have more seniors than children in a couple of years, are still higher than the highest in Germany.

It's all relative though, only the dark green areas are above replacement. All ethnic groups where I live (including Hispanics) are below replacement. We don't have much Mexicans here.

Most people in western nations pay more for gas than we do in the US. The problem for the US is systemic. The cities were built, more or less, on the presumption that everyone will drive to where they need to go. You could say that cities and urban planners in the US presumed cheap gas. So, while gas is 2 to 3 times more expensive elsewhere, Americans probably use 2 to 3 times more gas (about 460/per person per year in 2004) than those other places, especially those who bought giant SUV's and trucks to drive everywhere. Part of it is "keeping up with the Jones's" that is, my neighbor just bough a brand new big-ass SUV, now I need to so that I can look as wealthy and important as he does. It's really a terrible problem here. Anther pat of it is the belief that we (Americans) are owed some sort of right to be able to do whatever we want whenever we want.

I love this country, but I'm not oblivious to problems facing it, and there are a lot more than problems than short sighted urban design and gas prices.

here the vast majorty of immigrants 95 % of them are between age 15 and 45

Anther pat of it is the belief that we (Americans) are owed some sort of right to be able to do whatever we want whenever we want.


We are owed that right. Americans should be allowed to live how they want to.

Haha :) That's supposed to be a Universal right, you silly. It's just not easily achievable with the present world population. Certainly not when US citizens keep on consuming all natural resources about ten times as fast as the rest of the world.

Haha :) That's supposed to be a Universal right, you silly. It's just not easily achievable with the present world population. Certainly not when US citizens keep on consuming all natural resources about ten times as fast as the rest of the world.

Well, its not as if we are getting it for free.

The U.S. should be allowed to use all the oil it wants. Same goes with China, India, etc. Although, these developing nations seem to get a pass on pollution and their emerging car cultures.

We are owed that right. Americans should be allowed to live how they want to.

Americans do not have the right to do whatever we want. Yell "fire" in a crowded theater and see what kinds of rights you have.

I may have been a bit loose with my words. what I meant was that Americans have sense of entitlement. as a whole we feel we are entitle to cheap gas, entitled to a house with a yard, entitled to big car or truck. It's the entitlement aspect that is hurting the nation.

^^ Americans aren't alone in that sense of entitlement. We're no better on this side of the border. In some instances, we are worse because we have more space, more oil, more water, etc. It seems the more abundance one has, the worse the sense of entitlement and subsequent waste.

Americans get a lot of heat, because it absolute terms, your numbers add up to a lot. When you look at the behaviour of Canadians, we are just as guilty, and in many cases more so. It may be a shock to most people, but Canadians use more energy than Americans, live in bigger houses, and produce more garbage. There are only 34 million of us, so we tend to slip under the radar.

Well, its not as if we are getting it for free.

The U.S. should be allowed to use all the oil it wants. Same goes with China, India, etc. Although, these developing nations seem to get a pass on pollution and their emerging car cultures.

Well, we could. But then again...when a barrel of oil hits $200 because as you said, we all should use as much oil as we want, please don't complain when gasoline hits $5-6/gallon. Demand can only go so far that anything is possible.

Hey, anyone noticed that an average Singaporean uses about three times the oil an US-American uses?

I heard from somewhere that if everybody on planet Earth consumed the same amount of food, natural resources etc like in the USA, the limit of the population would be around 3 billion. And I believe it's true.

For me thr future Megacity of the developed world, will be:

VIGO, in Galiza, Spain

^^ Americans aren't alone in that sense of entitlement. We're no better on this side of the border. In some instances, we are worse because we have more space, more oil, more water, etc. It seems the more abundance one has, the worse the sense of entitlement and subsequent waste.

Americans get a lot of heat, because it absolute terms, your numbers add up to a lot. When you look at the behaviour of Canadians, we are just as guilty, and in many cases more so. It may be a shock to most people, but Canadians use more energy than Americans, live in bigger houses, and produce more garbage. There are only 34 million of us, so we tend to slip under the radar.

That's interesting. I wonder if Australia is like the US and Canada too? It's a relatively new nation that has a lot of the same values as the US, Canada, and UK.

Americans do not have the right to do whatever we want. Yell "fire" in a crowded theater and see what kinds of rights you have.

I may have been a bit loose with my words. what I meant was that Americans have sense of entitlement. as a whole we feel we are entitle to cheap gas, entitled to a house with a yard, entitled to big car or truck. It's the entitlement aspect that is hurting the nation.

Well obviously we cannot say 'fire' in a crowded theater or shoot people.

Americans are entitled to all of these things. Why should they not be? "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Americans wanting to live in big houses and driving whatever kinds of cars is not a bad thing that is hurting the nation.

I dont think anyone feels entitled that they should be rewarded with a large house and car. Americans work hard for these suburban lifestyles. Nobody is given this lifestyle for free.

Well, we could. But then again...when a barrel of oil hits $200 because as you said, we all should use as much oil as we want, please don't complain when gasoline hits $5-6/gallon. Demand can only go so far that anything is possible.

Im only going to complain that the government and special interest groups are hurting the American people. We are sitting on all kinds of oil, throughout the nation. In Montana, Alaska, the Gulf, etc. Why can't we starting drilling these places and build more refineries? And on that same note, why cant we build more and more nuclear power plants?

And when oil goes up that high, which I have no doubt it will, Americans will simply adapt to it. We will create new and better technology, changing our lifestyle. Who knows, it might be the best thing that can happen to American cities.

That's interesting. I wonder if Australia is like the US and Canada too? It's a relatively new nation that has a lot of the same values as the US, Canada, and UK.

Yeah, Australia is just like the U.S., Canada, and New Zealand. All these nations have had the wealth and space to comfortably sprawl.

I heard from somewhere that if everybody on planet Earth consumed the same amount of food, natural resources etc like in the USA, the limit of the population would be around 3 billion. And I believe it's true.

I think this logic is faulty, as it assumes no economic response to these different conditions.

If the world was consuming resources at this rate, scarcity would have made it more profitable to explore alternatives to the existing pattern of consumption. We would be much further along in the development of alternative energy sources as it would have been driven earlier by market forces.

Most people in western nations pay more for gas than we do in the US. The problem for the US is systemic. The cities were built, more or less, on the presumption that everyone will drive to where they need to go. You could say that cities and urban planners in the US presumed cheap gas. So, while gas is 2 to 3 times more expensive elsewhere, Americans probably use 2 to 3 times more gas (about 460/per person per year in 2004) than those other places, especially those who bought giant SUV's and trucks to drive everywhere. Part of it is "keeping up with the Jones's" that is, my neighbor just bough a brand new big-ass SUV, now I need to so that I can look as wealthy and important as he does. It's really a terrible problem here. Anther pat of it is the belief that we (Americans) are owed some sort of right to be able to do whatever we want whenever we want.

I love this country, but I'm not oblivious to problems facing it, and there are a lot more than problems than short sighted urban design and gas prices.


Don't forget that we drive a whole lot farther than Europeans. Distances between our cities are MUCH larger than anywhere in Europe - and on top of that, we have no alternatives to cars because mostly right-wing lobbyists are viciously opposed to public transit funding . It has gotta change soon, but much of our supposed wastefulness is because we have no choice, and no chance against Republican lobbyists (until november).

And we do have the right to do whatever we want, so long as it is lawful.

I dont think anyone feels entitled that they should be rewarded with a large house and car. Americans work hard for these suburban lifestyles. Nobody is given this lifestyle for free.

Americans do work hard. But hard work alone doesn't always mean that they can afford what they want so what do they do (enough of them anyway). Take out a loan and mortgage their house at rates they can't pay off. Of course the loan and mortgage companies are often as much to blame if not more so. However, generally all these companies did was tell the people that they have that house with a yard and whatever else they wanted and these people took them up on that not caring for the consequences and now they are crying out that they got a raw deal. Meanwhile the economy takes a downturn affecting the one of us who work hard and live within our means.

That is the end of my rant. All apologies.

Americans do work hard. But hard work alone doesn't always mean that they can afford what they want so what do they do (enough of them anyway). Take out a loan and mortgage their house at rates they can't pay off. Of course the loan and mortgage companies are often as much to blame if not more so. However, generally all these companies did was tell the people that they have that house with a yard and whatever else they wanted and these people took them up on that not caring for the consequences and now they are crying out that they got a raw deal. Meanwhile the economy takes a downturn affecting the one of us who work hard and live within our means.

That is the end of my rant. All apologies.

There is no problem with people wanting a house with a yard. These are easily affordable in much of suburbia and even in cities. It was a mistake for many of these people to buy houses they couldnt afford.

That's interesting. I wonder if Australia is like the US and Canada too? It's a relatively new nation that has a lot of the same values as the US, Canada, and UK.

Yes, Australians are big energy consumers and we are used to living in detached houses in sprawling suburbs. However, I have noticed a general change in attitudes recently, in part due to an increased awareness and concern regarding climate change. Our long running drought may or may not be directly linked to climate change, but it has I believe focused people’s attention to climate change issues. The recent increase in fuel prices has also had an impact. We are starting to realise that we need to both invest in alternative sources of energy and reduce consumption by being more efficient. We are also starting to encourage more intensive land use development around public transport corridors increasing densities in areas already serviced by public transport rather than increase sprawl.

However, while we are right up there with Canadian and US citizens when it comes to energy use per capita some still argue that because our population is so small changing our behaviour will have only the smallest impact globally. It is also argued that adopting policies that limit our energy use could just send jobs from Australia to developing countries that don’t have such limitations.

We (Australians) are in no position to point the finger at anyone else. In fact, I think our cities can learn from the experiences of some North American cities (Toronto comes to mind), particularly regarding planning development along public transport.

Energy consumption per capita in kilograms of oil equivalent for selected countries:

Canada 8300.7
Australia 5723.3
France 4518.4
Japan 4040.4
Germany 4203.1
United Kingdom 3918.1
United States 7794.8

Outside of Luxembourg and small oil rich states like Kuwait, the USA and Canada are in a league of their own when it comes to energy consumption.

Another comparison, this time of electricity consumption per capita (kWh/year):

Canada 16,047
Australia 10,035
France 7,791
Japan 7,424
Germany 6,189
United Kingdom 5,784
United States 12,187

Top 10 total consumption

1 United States 3,816,900
2 China 2,859,800
3 Russia 985,200
4 Japan 974,228
5 Germany 545,400
6 Canada 540,900
7 India 507,900
8 France 458,000
9 South Korea 368,700
10 Brazil 368,400

11 United Kingdom 348,100
16 Australia 200,700

There is something seriously wrong when Canada consumes more energy than India, France, Brazil, or the UK, and nearly as much as Germany. Americans get so much criticism, but we're even worse. I'm embarrassed to say that right now, I have my computer on, the television on in another room so I can hear it, and multiple lights on in every room. Just a second, I'll go turn them off.

:runaway:

All data from the following sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_energy_consumption_per_capita
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_electricity_consumption

I must admit that Toronto is doing a tremendous job at becoming much smarter regarding the footprint we make on the earth. Mandatory recycling programs, government subsidized energy retrofitting of buildings, enforced densification of the city instead of sprawl, and a massive investment in transit are just some of the steps that have been taken.

Thanks for that.

Guess I should have done some research before posting.

Ok, we can point our fingers at the Canadians.

I'm embarrassed to say that right now, I have my computer on, the television on in another room so I can hear it, and multiple lights on in every room.
Same here in France, don't worry. :D

The difference of course is that here almost 90% of our electricity is produced by nuclear plants and hydropower, so we can use as much electricity as we want without contributing to global warming. Thanks to France's tradition of State central planning. The problem in North America is too much reliance on the private sector (which doesn't work for big infrastructures), and too much of your electricity produced by coal and gas power plants (Canada has a lot of hydropower electricity though, contrary to the US).

Don't forget that we drive a whole lot farther than Europeans. Distances between our cities are MUCH larger than anywhere in Europe - and on top of that, we have no alternatives to cars because mostly right-wing lobbyists are viciously opposed to public transit funding . It has gotta change soon, but much of our supposed wastefulness is because we have no choice, and no chance against Republican lobbyists (until november).

And we do have the right to do whatever we want, so long as it is lawful.

American's may drive more than Europeans, but distances are not always that small in Europe. It depends where you want to go. Remember, Lisbon to Moscow is about the same distance as say Los Angeles to New York. We do have a lot more cities packed in close to each other in the densest parts of Europe though.

I think the unsaid thing is that energy consumption per capita has reached worst than worst case scenario in the West, long ago. If / when China or India alone reach the same levels the world will be well and truly f***ed. This is why China (at least one lobbying arm of the regime) is trying to cut down on its carbon emissions, which per capita would already be a paragon of virtue to a Western country. Problem is the other lobbying arm, in true globally capitalist style (read short term gain, get-rich-quick) is opening 2.5 coal powered power stations a week, while the ecologists instate some of the strictest environmental laws and opening up wind/ water farms and a windmill on every roof.

This environmental lobby, although the fastest growing and most profitable arm of govt, and pretty ruthless too (millions of workers laid off as industry is kicked out the megacities, huge cityscapes razed to keep park area per capita, per vicinity to its mandatory levels), but also has to contend with local corruption, claiming only 10 percent of its laws are enforced. It has now resorted to that rare thing in an authoritarian regime - grass roots, people powered political groups to help it, of which there are hundreds of thousands such eco-groups helping in shutting down factories and putting together cases of corruption despite the threat of imprisonment and even torture from local police. The country puts a loss of 5.8% of GDP every year due to environmental degradation. At the moment this has helped Beijing put aside $200 billion a year for China's ecology.

It does have a sterling argument though in its ammunition - China let alone the world, does not have an economic future if it follows North American levels of excess. By its accounts, on the current development level alone, the country would have run out of its sand, brick, mortar and wood supplies if all the new buildings since the 1990s were made out of traditional styles and materials.

The other unsaid thing is to criticise a capitalistic, carbon burning China, without criticising ourselves, would be very much the case of the pot calling the kettle black. On another level, blaming the worlds global workhouse/ factory would be like the drug dealer blaming the client for his life in crime (or vice versa).

The last thing implied, in my view wrongly, is that the West thinks it has the right to use up the worlds resources and noone else, (and it will at its rates). I don't think this is true, I just think people want to keep their lifestyles simple as. Its not due to superiority, just selfishness, considering they're depriving their own children of such a life, let alone a foreigner's.


What needs to be done is constructive criticism. Things definitely need to change in China just as much as in the West. Both sides are bleeding the world dry, its pointless to point fingers at each other without doing anything ourselves (China as much as the West). If China/ US caved in and started drastically cutting its carbon emmisions, what would be the point if the other side just kept helping themselves to what resources you had saved (for them), driving their cars and powering their tvs, and flying their holidays in thanks for the other's 'sacrifice'?

MADRID
TODAY
-Madrid city: 3,190.000
-Madrid metropolitan area: 6,100.000
-Madrid metropolitan region: 6,800.000
Madrid metropolitan area have 65.000 new inhabitants at year, Madrid metropolitan region probably 90.000 new inh/year. In 2020 years with this growt the metropolitan area: 6,900.000. & the metropolitan region: 8,000.000
But they are doing many new neighborhoods, just in the SE of ONLY MADRID CITY they are doing neighborhoods for more than 600.000 new inh. And totally in metropolitan region can be new neighborhoods & sprawls for more than 1,000.000 new inh. Then the population in 2020 can be more than 8,700.000 in metropolitan region.
The GDP per capita today are 52.000$ & growl a 4% at year, then in 2020 can be 80.000$.
Madrid is one of the 5 principal financial center in the world.

^^Stop with the propaganda, thank you.

In the real world population growth in the Madrid metropolitan area has greatly diminished because there are less immigrants coming to Spain now compared to the beginning of the 2000s. In the year 2006 the population in the three provinces of Madrid, Toledo and Guadalajara combined increased only by 86,661 people, so not 180,000 new inhabitants per year as you claim. Besides, with the collapse of the Spanish housing market and the hard landing of the economy, most analysts expect that immigration flows to Spain will be largely reduced. As for natural population growth, Spaniards have an extremely low fertility rate, and their population is actually diminishing. So it is only in your dreams that the Madrid metropolitan area will have more than 10 million inhabitants in 2020.

At the moment the three provinces of Madrid, Toledo and Guadalajara combined, which cover a very big area of 35,559 km² (13729 sq. miles), have 6,923,967 inhabitants (as of Jan. 2007). At the most I can imagine 8 million people within these three provinces in 2020, if Spain still manages to attract lots of immigrants.

^^Stop with the propaganda, thank you.

In the real world population growth in the Madrid metropolitan area has greatly diminished because there are less immigrants coming to Spain now compared to the beginning of the 2000s. In the year 2006 the population in the three provinces of Madrid, Toledo and Guadalajara combined increased only by 86,661 people, so not 180,000 new inhabitants per year as you claim. Besides, with the collapse of the Spanish housing market and the hard landing of the economy, most analysts expect that immigration flows to Spain will be largely reduced. As for natural population growth, Spaniards have an extremely low fertility rate, and their population is actually diminishing. So it is only in your dreams that the Madrid metropolitan area will have more than 10 million inhabitants in 2020.

At the moment the three provinces of Madrid, Toledo and Guadalajara combined, which cover a very big area of 35,559 km² (13729 sq. miles), have 6,923,967 inhabitants (as of Jan. 2007). At the most I can imagine 8 million people within these three provinces in 2020, if Spain still manages to attract lots of immigrants.
:crazy: Why you attack me?

Just I was confused, I went to say in 2 years... Then the data was bad.

The metropolitan region isn't Madrid, Toledo & Guadalajara, some zones of Segovia & Avila too, & not all the provinces of Guadalajara and Toledo are in the MR. The figures of new inmigrants/year in Madrid and Spain are hardly equals than years ago.

And why not do propaganda of MY city...? Because you say it... not? :crazy: If I don't attack other cities I don't do any bad thing.... But you attack cities, you could have said: "Hello Pavlemadrid, I think you've been wrong with the data", but you prefere attack...

I don't want speak with you, thank you! ;)
PD: People, sorry my bad english :( :)

^^ Just ignore him. brisavoine has a tendency to forget about manners when discussing. It's a pity really, as he does have a wealth of figures worth bringing into any population discussion. The problem is, his social skills have never been developed.

^^And Pavlemadrid has a tendency to claim exagerated things about Madrid. This is not the first time.

^^And Pavlemadrid has a tendency to claim exagerated things about Madrid. This is not the first time.
It wasn't exagerated... I was confused with the data... Just it! :crazy: :lol:

Well, Brisavoine always makes lots of efforts to prove France isn't actually like its cliché, but this obviously ends up when rudeness is getting involved. :D

:cheers:

^^I have little patience with exaggerated claims and trumpeting, that's a fact. Especially when people are repeat offenders.