so are the rhine ruhr area in germany in megacity or just clumped together cities ??

the ruhr area is located in germanys state nordrhine westphalia and have an population of 12 million people

it icludes cities like essen, bonn , düsseldorf,cologne mönchengladbach , duisburg , bochum , dortmund and hamm

so are the rhine ruhr area in germany in megacity or just clumped together cities ??

the ruhr area is located in germanys state nordrhine westphalia and have an population of 12 million people

it icludes cities like essen, bonn , düsseldorf,cologne mönchengladbach , duisburg , bochum , dortmund and hamm

Yes of course it is. Los Angeles, Paris and all the other Megacities are also cities lumped together. There are only a very few 'true' megacities who have 10 million people inside their city boundaries.

But the difference is that Los Angeles and Paris are centered on one city, where this is half a dozen large cities that have seen their urban areas meet at the edges. So, yes it is a large conurbation/metro area of 12 million people, but I wouldn't call it a "megacity".

^^ I'd agree with Hudkina, the Ruhr is too polycentric to be considered a true megacity. A large metropolitan area? Yes. A single megacity? No.

a perfect example of that is London..its really not a big city at all..its actually called the city of westminister with loads of smaller cities and boroughs connecting it making up the total population

But regardless of the administrative divisions, "London" i still centered on one "city".

I wouldn't consider it a megacity. Despite the density there is often still a lot of green space between the big cities.

But regardless of the administrative divisions, "London" i still centered on one "city".

Right, regardless of how large the central cities of LA or Paris or London might be...the areas around them for the most part were built because of one thing - the presence of the central city.

In Germany many of these cities grew up themselves, and then molded together in clumps. There is still a lot of open land and unbuilt spaces between many of those cities. It doesn't flow as one huge region in the sence that LA does with it's almost uniform built-up areas over hundreds of KM's.

Look at Chicago, 3 million in the city and almost 7 million in the suburbs. It's not like those 7 million people would be there if it weren't for what's sitting in the middle of it all.

No, it's not a megacity, but rather a collection of medium size cities and towns very close together :D

When you are on the ground, traveling or driving between the cities of the Ruhr region, it really doesn't feel like a single metro area. It feels more like an arc of cities wrapped around an area of sparse population. Sort of like the way that Manchester, Leeds, and Sheffield wrap around the top of the Peak District in England.

a perfect example of that is London..its really not a big city at all..its actually called the city of westminister with loads of smaller cities and boroughs connecting it making up the total population

err what, that's not true at all.

I would call it a large metro of 12million. But it's not a single mega city. Mainly because it is so polycentric. That said, when I visit say Köln and travel to Düsseldoft I hardly notice I have left any urban area. But each downtown feels like a proper downtown in it's own right.

Of course, much of this is perception. Afterall, if there was a political amalgamtion and it all become officially one city, then people would tend to percieve it as such despite nothing else as changing.

But unlike many other large cities such as London, Los Angeles or Paris, having the single dominant core does make them feel more like a single city, even though the suburbs may actually be officially seperate cities.

when I visit say Köln and travel to Düsseldoft I hardly notice I have left any urban area.
What about when you travel from Cologne to Dortmund?

http://img142.imageshack.us/img142/7817/essenp.png

^^ Doesn't appear to be to much rural area if you take the Dusseldorf to Dortmond via Essen route, looking at Google maps, it's possible to take an almost entirely urban route without any countryside apart from a small section slightly over a kilometer just north of Düsseldorf if you follow roads. If you go by train, it does pass some non urban area's though. But seriously, by road it can be almost all urban if you take the right routes.

And when I travel between Köln and Düsseldorf I think I am travelling between two close cities with lots of green space in between. You definitly don't get the feeling of a continous urban area.

I think the Ruhrgebiet is a category in it's own.
Can someone give me an example which you can compare with this region in Germany?

The Ruhr Area is an urban mess. Its an agglomeration of less than average cities without a shining core.

@nabob: Randstad and Silesia (Wroclaw, Katowice, Krakow)

Its a megalopolis. Which is defined "as an extensive metropolitan area or a long chain of roughly continuous metropolitan areas". That would be a pretty accurate description of Rhine-Ruhr.

Mega city? No. Megalopolis? Yes.

Is not a megacity, because every city have it's own history and identity.

Most megacities have relatively new suburbs, with no "real" history.

New York is a megacity alone, but you can't consider New York - New Jersey a megacity (even if it's a continuous urban area), because each one have it's own identity. (is a megalopolis)

@nabob: Randstad and Silesia (Wroclaw, Katowice, Krakow)

I can agree with Silesia, but the Randstad? No, this region does only exist in the minds of politicians and urban planners.

I think the Ruhrgebiet is a category in it's own.
Can someone give me an example which you can compare with this region in Germany?

The stretch of land between Stamford, CT and Springfield, MA is similar in nature. There are half a dozen cities connected via a few smaller cities and towns. It covers about the same land area as the Ruhr Area (around 2,000 sq. mi.) but has less than half the population (3 million vs. 7.5 million for the Ruhr). The main cities are also much smaller and a little further apart. The largest cities are Hartford, Springfield, Bridgeport, New Haven, Stamford and Waterbury.

New York is a megacity alone, but you can't consider New York - New Jersey a megacity (even if it's a continuous urban area), because each one have it's own identity. (is a megalopolis)

Are you kidding me? The New Jersey cities are definitely suburbs geared towards New York. The only city that is arguably somewhat independent of New York's influence is Newark. But the likes of Jersey City, Hoboken, etc. are clearly an extension of New York and really no different from Brooklyn.

How about the San Francisco bay area? Also a polycentric urban area (somewhat less than the Ruhr though).

While Köln (Cologne) is the largest city, it does not define the Rhine-Ruhr area, since there are numerous cities with 200.000 - 500.000 inhabitants which are major centers on their own.

Randstad is not really similar to the Ruhr, Randstad is a polycentric conurbation, but more spread out and overall less dense than the Ruhr.

Are you kidding me? The New Jersey cities are definitely suburbs geared towards New York. The only city that is arguably somewhat independent of New York's influence is Newark. But the likes of Jersey City, Hoboken, etc. are clearly an extension of New York and really no different from Brooklyn.
That is not the point... is about history and identity. They might function as New York suburbs now, but 300 years ago, they where independent from each other, both cities where just somme small towns. People from Jersey might work in Manhattan now, but those cities when they where founded, where not somme suburbs of New York, as New York itself was just a small town (not to mention no bridges, no tunnels, no ferris... :lol:) hard for people of year 1750 from New Jersey to commute to New York. (hope you can make the difference between a city that "become" unoficially a suburb of a bigger town, and a city that was founded as a suburb for the big city)

Randstad is not really similar to the Ruhr, Randstad is a polycentric conurbation, but more spread out and overall less dense than the Ruhr.

I've took trains from Amsterdam to Rotterdam (via Den Haag) and from Rotterdam to Delft and also traveled around a bit in the Ruhr Area. The feeling was the same for me.

There are no official definitions for the Randstad, but the Randstad and Ruhr area are approximatly the same area, but the Rhine-Ruhr has 10 million inhabitants, and the Randstad about 7 million.

There's no one center in Ruhr, no core which would than draw the suburbs toward it. So it's just a bunch of cities close together... Not exactly my favorite part of the continent...

Mega city? No. Megalopolis? Yes.

Rhein-Ruhr is not a Megalopolis, but it's part of one, the Blue Banana!

There's no one center in Ruhr, no core which would than draw the suburbs toward it. So it's just a bunch of cities close together... Not exactly my favorite part of the continent...

So you more like centralistic ordered cities? Then Moscow would be ideal for you with concentric streets around the city core?

That is not the point... is about history and identity. They might function as New York suburbs now, but 300 years ago, they where independent from each other, both cities where just somme small towns. People from Jersey might work in Manhattan now, but those cities when they where founded, where not somme suburbs of New York, as New York itself was just a small town (not to mention no bridges, no tunnels, no ferris... :lol:) hard for people of year 1750 from New Jersey to commute to New York. (hope you can make the difference between a city that "become" unoficially a suburb of a bigger town, and a city that was founded as a suburb for the big city)

What cities are you even talking about? How is Jersey City any different from Brooklyn? Or how is Weehawken or Hoboken any different from neighborhoods in Queens? The only difference is that New York wasn't able to annex these early neighborhoods due to their being located in a different state. There have been ferries across the Hudson River ever since there have been people in the region, including commercial ferry services since the very early 1700's. Believe me. Northern New Jersey exists in its current form not because a bunch of different cities just happened to grown in the same area. It's because New York's power, capital, and influence gave them reason to grow. Again, there was a time when Brooklyn and Williamsburgh were "separate" cities, but that doesn't mean they were completely independent of New York.

That is not the point... is about history and identity. They might function as New York suburbs now, but 300 years ago, they where independent from each other, both cities where just somme small towns. People from Jersey might work in Manhattan now, but those cities when they where founded, where not somme suburbs of New York, as New York itself was just a small town (not to mention no bridges, no tunnels, no ferris... :lol:) hard for people of year 1750 from New Jersey to commute to New York. (hope you can make the difference between a city that "become" unoficially a suburb of a bigger town, and a city that was founded as a suburb for the big city)

I have absolutely no idea what point you are trying to make. What has 300 years ago to do with a city today?

How about the San Francisco bay area? Also a polycentric urban area (somewhat less than the Ruhr though).

While Köln (Cologne) is the largest city, it does not define the Rhine-Ruhr area, since there are numerous cities with 200.000 - 500.000 inhabitants which are major centers on their own.

Randstad is not really similar to the Ruhr, Randstad is a polycentric conurbation, but more spread out and overall less dense than the Ruhr.

Yes, the Bay Area & Rhine-Ruhr are comparable in population & decentralization, but in other ways they differ.

The Rhine-Rohr aglomeration is really more akin to the post-industrial cities of North & Central NJ or southern CT, but without NYC.

The Bay Area is much more urbanized than the Rhine-Ruhr. It is really not comparable. If you travel from San Jose to San Francisco, it is continuous urbanization without any coutryside at all. Quite different from the Rhine-Ruhr where there is still countryside everywhere, especially between Cologne and the Ruhr.

i say no.. I think it is a densely populated area, but not a 'megacity', mainly because there is no definitive core city, as there is in say London or Moscow

Yes, the Bay Area & Rhine-Ruhr are comparable in population & decentralization, but in other ways they differ.

The Rhine-Rohr aglomeration is really more akin to the post-industrial cities of North & Central NJ or southern CT, but without NYC.

this is a good analogy... but it implies that the things that are in nyc are dispersed throught northern NJ, in the case of the ruhrgebeit

The Bay Area is much more urbanized than the Rhine-Ruhr. It is really not comparable. If you travel from San Jose to San Francisco, it is continuous urbanization without any coutryside at all. Quite different from the Rhine-Ruhr where there is still countryside everywhere, especially between Cologne and the Ruhr.

True, but these green belts between the cities in the Rhein Ruhr, if they are anything like the ones in the inner Rhein Main then they are treatest as parks by the locals. As soon as you leave the direct urban area of Frankfurt, you will have to pass through small sections of forest or fields to reach the next town. But these are crossed with paths and benches and are treated by locals pretty much as parks. People even walk through them to reach the built up area on the other side.

So, in reality, are these really any different to parks? If they were officially parks, and still not built up, would you consider it then a single urban area?

No.

Rhine-Ruhr is no megacity first and foremost because its inhabitants don't think that they live in one. No one from Cologne considers Essen to be a suburb, let alone part of the same city.

True, but these green belts between the cities in the Rhein Ruhr, if they are anything like the ones in the inner Rhein Main then they are treatest as parks by the locals. As soon as you leave the direct urban area of Frankfurt, you will have to pass through small sections of forest or fields to reach the next town. But these are crossed with paths and benches and are treated by locals pretty much as parks. People even walk through them to reach the built up area on the other side.

So, in reality, are these really any different to parks? If they were officially parks, and still not built up, would you consider it then a single urban area?
You have to drive the 80 km from San Jose to downtown San Francisco on the 101 once in your life to realize what I meant when I said comparing the Rhine-Ruhr with the Bay Area is like comparing apples and pears. Driving from San Jose to SF is IMPRESSIVE. It's an 8 to 10-lane motorway/freeway, packed with cars day and night (even the Paris Périphérique is not as busy at midnight), going through endless urbanization. I once drove through the Rhine-Ruhr, and it was much less impressive, more like a collection of cities close to each other with bits of countryside everywhere, and not the continuous 80 km of urbanization that you can see between SF and SJ. San Francisco also acts as a central pole for the Bay Area much more than any city in the Rhine-Ruhr (it's more comparable to the role played by Frankfurt in the Rhine-Main area). In fact when people in the Bay Area refer to San Francisco they simply call it "the City" (which always confuses those newly arrived in the Bay Area who wonder which city people refer to).

That's the 101 about half-way between San Jose and San Francisco (i.e. 40km from San Francisco and 40 km from San Jose). It's urbanized like on this picture for the entire 80 km length (the things that appear to be woods are in fact urbanized areas planted with trees in the streets and the backyards of houses). The Rhine-Ruhr is nowhere near that.
http://www.mccullagh.org/db9/1ds-3/route-101-bayshore-freeway-aerial.jpg

^^ I know what you mean, but it's all down to impressions. A busy freeway in a city which has much less rail infrastructure is expected. A busy freeway passing through mostly low density empty suburban sprawl also doesn't impress me as much as it may you.

Right behind where I live in Frankfurt is the Frankfurt city forest. This seperates Frankfurt from Neu Isenberg. It is probably exactly what you would mean by a seperation between the cities. Yes, on a summers day I am sure you would find more people walking through this on the paths than you would find on a summers day in those low density suburban streets. Take a look at street view of those low density suburban streets between San Jose and San Francisco and they are void of street life (and no, of course a section with shops maybe more crowded).

But walk through the Frankfurt city forest which is exactly the sort of green belt division I am talking about and I am sure in 15minutes you will pass many more people than you would in those bland suburbs.

So, which has more vibrancy? more pedestrian activity? The forest, or those suburbs?

That just proves how land consuming american cities are. Buildup areas in american metropolitan areas stretch much longer despite having lower overall density than european metropolitan areas.

@nabob: Randstad and Silesia (Wroclaw, Katowice, Krakow)

Perhaps Krakow may be considered one metropolitan area with Upper Silesian agglomeration, but Wroclaw is far apart.

http://www.wiking.edu.pl/upload/geografia/images/Polska_rozmieszczenie_ludno.jpg

A busy freeway passing through mostly low density empty suburban sprawl also doesn't impress me as much as it may you.
Between San Jose and San Francisco the municipalities crossed by the 101 all have densisties between 2,000 and 3,000 inh/km². I wouldn't call that low density. The city of Essen, for example, has a density of 2,753 inh/km². Even the city of Cologne has a density of only 2,457 inh/km². And in between Cologne and the Ruhr most municipalities have densities below 2,000 inh/km². In fact the Kreis Mettmann which is located between Cologne and the Ruhr has a density of 1,231 inh/km² which is lower than the densities found between SJ and SF.

In the Rhine-Main area, between Frankfurt and Mainz, Raunheim has a density of 1,120 inh/km², Flörsheim am Main has a density of 876 inh/km², Rüsselsheim has a density of 1,017 inh/km², Bischofsheim has a density of 1,391 inh/km². In other words, all the corridor between Frankfurt and Mainz has much lower densities than the corridor between SF and SJ. That's because mountains in the Bay Area constrain urbanization and the built-up part of the peninsula between SF and SJ is therefore quite dense contrary to what you imagine, quite dense for US standards, and even denser than the corridor between Cologne and the Ruhr, and between Frankfurt and Mainz.
Right behind where I live in Frankfurt is the Frankfurt city forest. This seperates Frankfurt from Neu Isenberg. It is probably exactly what you would mean by a seperation between the cities. Yes, on a summers day I am sure you would find more people walking through this on the paths than you would find on a summers day in those low density suburban streets. Take a look at street view of those low density suburban streets between San Jose and San Francisco and they are void of street life (and no, of course a section with shops maybe more crowded).
I don't need to take a look at street view, I LIVED there, so I know exactly how it is. In the US people walk less than in Europe, so it doesn't mean much, but streets are definitly busy throughout the peninsula between SF and SJ, and I never felt I was in some kind of dead suburbia. In fact I find some suburbs of Paris much more dead than the 80km between SF and SJ. The only part of it that I found a bit dead was the stretch between San Bruno and South San Francisco. The stretch between downtown SJ and Redwood City is very busy anytime of the day (shops, streets, malls). San Mateo city is also very busy and quite pedestrian actually in its downtown. Really, I find most Paris suburbs much more dead and dull than those communities in the Bay Area.
So, which has more vibrancy? more pedestrian activity? The forest, or those suburbs?
Definitely the Bay Area. Even in downtown Frankfurt I didn't find as much vibrancy as in the Bay Area to be honest, but I visited on a Sunday, so maybe that's why.

Between San Jose and San Francisco the municipalities crossed by the 101 all have densisties between 2,000 and 3,000 inh/km². I wouldn't call that low density. The city of Essen, for example, has a density of 2,753 inh/km². Even the city of Cologne has a density of only 2,457 inh/km². And in between Cologne and the Ruhr most municipalities have densities below 2,000 inh/km². In fact the Kreis Mettmann which is located between Cologne and the Ruhr has a density of 1,231 inh/km² which is lower than the densities found between SJ and SF.


Whatever you say, spotting density figures, this is not high density to me.
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=de&geocode=&q=san+francisco&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=50.157795,78.75&ie=UTF8&ll=37.494201,-122.250795&spn=0.024754,0.038452&t=h&z=15&layer=c&cbll=37.495177,-122.253317&panoid=7dKv3QOO_ydGNU_ms5DH8Q&cbp=12,323.78739835183046,,0,12.734375000000007

You can't use population density like you have and claim it is accurate. This population density includes all the open area's as well which may fall into the city boundary's. The simple fact is that within built up area's, the population density of a German city is higher than that of the San Jose suburbs.


In the Rhine-Main area, between Frankfurt and Mainz, Raunheim has a density of 1,120 inh/km², Flörsheim am Main has a density of 876 inh/km², Rüsselsheim has a density of 1,017 inh/km², Bischofsheim has a density of 1,391 inh/km². In other words, all the corridor between Frankfurt and Mainz has much lower densities than the corridor between SF and SJ. That's because mountains in the Bay Area constrain urbanization and the built-up part of the peninsula between SF and SJ is therefore quite dense contrary to what you imagine, quite dense for US standards, and even denser than the corridor between Cologne and the Ruhr, and between Frankfurt and Mainz.

Again, it is not rocket science to work out that these figures include the land area which is non urban. If you have ever been to Bischofsheim, you would know that it is made up of multi-apartment 2-4story dwellings or high rises. This is significantly more dense than those single dwelling bungalow's shown above
http://static4.bareka.com/photos/medium/17162479.jpg

This photo below explains the situation perfectly. What gives it a lower density is the open fields or "greenbelts" that seperate the urban area's. Now, granted, in a German perspective, Bischofheim is not considered a dense neighbourhood but compared to the single dwelling suburbs of San Jose it certainly is more dense, despite your figures which also include the open spaces. By the way, in the photo below, those "houses" are apartments that would contain several families. And those paths in the green area in summer would without doubt have more pedestrian traffic than the type of streets I showed in Streetview above
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/35/Aerial_fg009.JPG

I think it's time for population-density maps. I've prepared one for Nordrhein-Westfalen (Rhein-Ruhr) and one for Hessen (Rhein-Main).

This is the map for NRW: You can clearly see that the Rhein-Ruhr-Area is connected with areas above 1000 ppl/km².

http://img147.imageshack.us/img147/6251/bevlkerungsdichtenrw200.png

This is the map for Hesse for comparison:

http://img147.imageshack.us/img147/4385/bevlkerungsdichtehessen.png

Both maps are at muncipiality-level. Bigger borders are county-, regional- and state borders.

Whatever you say, spotting density figures, this is not high density to me.
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=de&geocode=&q=san+francisco&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=50.157795,78.75&ie=UTF8&ll=37.494201,-122.250795&spn=0.024754,0.038452&t=h&z=15&layer=c&cbll=37.495177,-122.253317&panoid=7dKv3QOO_ydGNU_ms5DH8Q&cbp=12,323.78739835183046,,0,12.734375000000007
Well of course, you chose a side street, and in San Carlos, which is itself not the densest community in the Peninsula by far. I can also pick a side street somewhere in the Rhine-Ruhr or Rhine-Main area, and it will look just like... a side street.
You can't use population density like you have and claim it is accurate. This population density includes all the open area's as well which may fall into the city boundary's. The simple fact is that within built up area's, the population density of a German city is higher than that of the San Jose suburbs.
The municipalities between SJ and SF that I mentioned also include some open areas, undevelopped land (in the moutains usually), so it's the same as the German municipalities.
If you have ever been to Bischofsheim, you would know that it is made up of multi-apartment 2-4story dwellings or high rises.
There are also many apartment buildings (condos) in the Bay Area. It's not just single detached houses. Housing is a big problem in the Bay Area due to the mountains, the Peninsula is already entirely built-up, and in order to accomodate newcomers they had had to tear down single houses and build condos, so the density in the Peninsula has increased a lot in the past 20 years. People who lived there 20 years ago told me how much the density (and traffic) has increased.

Many communities oppose this densification, they would like to keep their green, peaceful suburbs of single houses as in the good old days, and they have so far vetoed the extension of the BART subway towards the Silicon Valley because they fear it would attract more people and increase density even more. So there is a constant tension between the long-time residents who oppose raising the density, and the civil planners who allow condos and multi-storey buildings to accomodate newcomers, but overall it's much more dense than what you imagine (I would say it's less dense than the Paris inner suburbs, but denser than the Paris outer suburbs).

Anyway, since pictures speak a thousand words, here are a few pics of the communities between SJ and SF.

Sunnyvale (they are building a new highrise downtown, part of the densification process I mentioned):
http://siliconvalleybroker.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/100_8446.jpg

Typical condo estates that they are building now (this one is in San Jose). Most of my friends have bought appartments in estates like this one. I know few young people who live in detached houses:
http://rets.mlslistings.com:6103/Image.ashx?fileid=13361549

Another one, in Cupertino:
http://rets.mlslistings.com:6103/Image.ashx?fileid=13358052

Frankly, in the Peninsula, only very rich people still build single houses these days. All the land is built up, so if you want to build a single house, you have first to buy an old house (easily above 500,000 dollars), then destroy it, then build your house, so only rich people can afford. Most other people either buy old houses, or buy condos in the new estates that are being built everywhere in replacement of single houses. Those who want to buy new single houses and who are not rich have to move very far (to the south of San Jose, and to the east of Oakland), because along the bay, and particularly between SF and SJ, almost all the land is built up already.

This one is in San Mateo:
http://rets.mlslistings.com:6103/Image.ashx?fileid=13305401

I have a friend who lives in a high-rise like that in Palo Alto, but I have always found it scary because of earthquakes. I'd rather live in a low-rise, but our house in Palo Alto cost 1.7 million dollars when I was there, so it's not for young people who are starting a career (I didn't buy the house, I was just renting an aisle :D).

That's in San Mateo too:
http://rets.mlslistings.com:6103/Image.ashx?fileid=13338333

Here in Redwood City:
http://rets.mlslistings.com:6103/Image.ashx?fileid=13353653

In Redwood Shores they have built a new district of singles houses in the marshlands on the shores of the bay, but all the houses are attached and most of them have small or no backyard, so the density is very European. One of my classmates bought a house there, but it's quite expensive and I found it a bit claustrophobic.

http://rets.mlslistings.com:6103/Image.ashx?fileid=13280985

http://rets.mlslistings.com:6103/Image.ashx?fileid=13280986

Nice new condos in Mountain View. The older condos tend to be inhabited by immigrants, especially Mexicans and Central Americans.
http://rets.mlslistings.com:6103/Image.ashx?fileid=13290692

That's an older one, in Mountain View. My best friend lived in one like that in Mountain View for two years. Almost all the tenants were Latin American. Now he's moved to a more upmarket condo in San Jose.
http://propimages.apartments.com/102085/316/BL010132.JPG

In Mountain View again. Typical blend of European and Colonial Spanish urbanism that is very popular in the Bay Area now (these sorts of almost communal dwellings would have been unthinkable 20 years ago except for the poors).
http://rets.mlslistings.com:6103/Image.ashx?fileid=13207655

This brand new one is in San Mateo. It didn't exist when I lived there. It's called "Versailles"!
http://imgs.sfgate.com/c/pictures/2009/03/03/re-versaille08_p_0499863375.jpg

Some older condos in San Mateo (picture from the 1970s as you can see). Nowadays, I bet lots of Mexicans live in these.
http://innovant.org/B-1C-10C-36/Residential/SanMateo-condo2.jpg

Another one in San Mateo:
http://sanfrancisco.condo.com/PropertyUploads/4472637/8a0f9e31-95a4-41df-9fb3-f5ae75703f17.jpg

http://sanfrancisco.condo.com/PropertyUploads/4472637/a0c3c6a8-e260-4782-b5e0-7d4aa850ea97.jpg

I could go on and on, but as these few pictures show, it's perhaps a bit denser than what you imagined (it's not condos everywhere in the Bay Area of course, but a significant part of the dwellings are condos, and the figure is increasing).

Regardless of what you show, the fact is, that 90% of all times I dropped to street level on street view, I saw single detached housing. I am not talking about the central parts of the Bay Area, but the linking area.

Oh, and there is no need to post pictures of the Bay Area here. I can see what ever I like with Street View. Whilst your pictures show what you want me to see, Street View shows me any part of the whole city so I can see what it really is like. It is just a pity that Street View won't be up for Germany for another couple of months.

And you can plaster all the stats on density levels as much as you like, but the fact remains is that they include large area's of non urban land which voids them completely in this discussion. As far as built up land goes, FAR more in the Rhein Main or Rhein Ruhr is apartments than in the San Francisco Bay area.

The point is, between the centers of the Bay Area, you have low density suburbs with streetlife void of activity (Of course there still are denser area's like shown in your pictures). In between the built up area's of the Rhein Main (which in general, the built up area's are of higher density than that of the Bay Area) you also have a void of activity. In the Bay area, this void of activity and streetlife is called the "suburbs", in the Rhein Main or Rhein Rurh, it is the green belts between the urban areas.

I know which you prefer, and you are fully welcome to do so. I on the otherhand would rather stroll through a forest or field between urban area's rather than a bland suburb with no street life.

Which is the more city like? Well,. San Francisco beats either Frankfurt or any city in the Rhein Main as far as I am concerned. I am not denying that. But to me, I don't differenciate between a large park, or the water of San Francisco Bay which seperates Berekely and San Francisco with the greenbelts of German cities.

The Bay Area is one of the few American urbanized areas that you couldn't possibly argue against the density. There are over 5 million people living in a small strip of land hugging the bay. Only New York, Los Angeles, and maybe Chicago have more people in such a small area. The developed area of San Mateo County (the majority of the development between San Francisco and San Jose) contains well over 600,000 people in around 200 sq. km.

Also, you'd be surprised how dense single-family homes can be. There are single-family home neighborhoods with densities upward of 20,000 people per square mile, so it's not as if they automatically equate to "low-density" suburbia.

I see you talking about Rhine Ruhr area, I'd like to ask about crime rates in this area.

Are there slums or neighbourhoods with increased crime rates in this area? In Berlin, for isntance, Kreuzberg can be considered such a neighbourhood. I don't believe it's as bad as in London and Paris though.

I see you talking about Rhine Ruhr area, I'd like to ask about crime rates in this area.

Are there slums or neighbourhoods with increased crime rates in this area? In Berlin, for isntance, Kreuzberg can be considered such a neighbourhood. I don't believe it's as bad as in London and Paris though.

I've heard of serious cases in Köln. The wards Chorweiler and Kalk are examples. Chorweiler was created in the 70s as a middle-class commieblock-city. Now it's almost entirely lower-class with high unemployment and of course also crime rates. 38,4% are foreign people without a German passport, so the real share of foreign people is maybe above 40%.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/71/Chorweiler-panorama.jpg

Another Example would be Marxloh in Duisburg.

Thank you for information. I guess smaller cities such as Aachen, Koblenz, Hagen etc are relatively safe?

And generally, where can I get that kind information as you provided, unemployment, immigrant and crime rates per neighbourhood, not just per whole city?

Thank you for information. I guess smaller cities such as Aachen, Koblenz, Hagen etc are relatively safe?

And generally, where can I get that kind information as you provided, unemployment, immigrant and crime rates per neighbourhood, not just per whole city?

Most of the cities provide statistics on their main page, although in most cases only in German.

Here's a link for the Statistical Yearbook Köln 2007: http://www.stadt-koeln.de/1/zahlen-statistik/jahrbuch/

I've heard of serious cases in Köln. The wards Chorweiler and Kalk are examples. Chorweiler was created in the 70s as a middle-class commieblock-city. Now it's almost entirely lower-class with high unemployment and of course also crime rates. 38,4% are foreign people without a German passport, so the real share of foreign people is maybe above 40%.

Another Example would be Marxloh in Duisburg.

Chorweiler's crime statistics don't seem that bad compared to many neighbourhoods even in Auckland (NZ). I think you're being a bit reactionary to the fact that it has a high immigrant population.

Regardless of what you show, the fact is, that 90% of all times I dropped to street level on street view, I saw single detached housing. I am not talking about the central parts of the Bay Area, but the linking area.

Oh, and there is no need to post pictures of the Bay Area here. I can see what ever I like with Street View. Whilst your pictures show what you want me to see, Street View shows me any part of the whole city so I can see what it really is like. It is just a pity that Street View won't be up for Germany for another couple of months.

And you can plaster all the stats on density levels as much as you like, but the fact remains is that they include large area's of non urban land which voids them completely in this discussion. As far as built up land goes, FAR more in the Rhein Main or Rhein Ruhr is apartments than in the San Francisco Bay area.

The point is, between the centers of the Bay Area, you have low density suburbs with streetlife void of activity (Of course there still are denser area's like shown in your pictures). In between the built up area's of the Rhein Main (which in general, the built up area's are of higher density than that of the Bay Area) you also have a void of activity. In the Bay area, this void of activity and streetlife is called the "suburbs", in the Rhein Main or Rhein Rurh, it is the green belts between the urban areas.

I know which you prefer, and you are fully welcome to do so. I on the otherhand would rather stroll through a forest or field between urban area's rather than a bland suburb with no street life.

Which is the more city like? Well,. San Francisco beats either Frankfurt or any city in the Rhein Main as far as I am concerned. I am not denying that. But to me, I don't differenciate between a large park, or the water of San Francisco Bay which seperates Berekely and San Francisco with the greenbelts of German cities.

Now its true, the Bay Area has a long way to go before its suburbs approach levels of density that are common in European cities. But as noted, quite a bit of transit-oriented development has sprouted up around the regional rail stations over the past decade. In the East Bay, Emeryville has made big strides, having transformed itself from a tiny industrial village to a hub of hi-rise & hi-density condo, commercial, & retail space. There's also a very large amount of preserved green space around the Bay, in Marin County in the North Bay, in the East Bay Hills, & on along the San Mateo Peninsula.

No, the Rhein-Ruhr isn't a "Megacity" , since a Megacity would mean that it's a metropolitan area which is centered around a core city, and has a pop. of over 10 million people (I don't know if there's any official definition, but this is what it says on wikipedia:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megacity ).
The Rhine-Ruhr IMO should be considered an agglomeration , or a metropolitan area (the two are basically the same), but not a megacity since it isn't centralized, but has many large cities, though none except Cologne has over 1 million people, and even Cologne doesn't have the same influence in the Rhine-Ruhr as San Francisco has in the Bay Area or Amsterdam in Randstad) .
Maybe this is because Cologne is located quite far away (ca. 40 km) from the centre part of the Ruhr region (roughly where Essen or Bochum are located).

A metropolitan area is not the same as an agglomeration.

No chance is Rhine Ruhr a megacity, mainly because it isn't a city. :crazy:

And I'm glad it isn't!


Btw, Köln-Chorweiler is considered as one of, if not the worst district of Germany.
It's still safer than the Banlieus of Paris or the trabants of London or most other shaby districts in Europe, I'd say.

And other parts of Cologne are really safe and friendly actually, pure joy of life everywhere.

And I'm glad it isn't!


Btw, Köln-Chorweiler is considered as one of, if not the worst district of Germany.
It's still safer than the Banlieus of Paris or the trabants of London or most other shaby districts in Europe, I'd say.

And other parts of Cologne are really safe and friendly actually, pure joy of life everywhere.

Maybe Kreuzberg is also bad, but not because of 'everyday-crime'. Each year on May 1st leftists burn cars and throw stones.

And I'm glad it isn't!


Btw, Köln-Chorweiler is considered as one of, if not the worst district of Germany.
It's still safer than the Banlieus of Paris or the trabants of London or most other shaby districts in Europe, I'd say.

And other parts of Cologne are really safe and friendly actually, pure joy of life everywhere.

^^ Banlieue (=suburbs) host over 8 million inhabitants, from the wealthiest to the poorest, from the safest to the most dangerous.
The large majority of Paris banlieues are nice and very safe.
We can't generalize a such big area.

So don't say that Köln-Chorweiler is less dangerous than the banlieue of Paris because I could find thousands of municipalies in banlieue less dangerous.
Say that Köln-Chorweiler is less dangerous than the most dangerous banlieue of Paris. ;)

I should have said "some" Banlieus, me knows, but - dammit. Did you really have to take this part of my post with a pinch of salt like that? :|

And sure, we know how darn great peripheral Paris is, Minato. But I think everybody got the point of my post ;)

Let's head back to Rhein-Ruhr! What would/should be it's epicentre, btw? Düsseldorf?

There is no Epicentre.
If we exclude Koln, Dortmund is most populated city and Dusseldorf is the most important business center.

For me Cologne (Koln) is too excentred, in fact I would not include Cologne in the same "metropolitan area" than Essen.
I even think the same for Dusseldorf.

http://img142.imageshack.us/img142/7817/essenp.png

From a Cologne perspective, I think that Cologne, Bergisch-Gladbach, Leverkusen, Neuss, Krefeld, Düsseldorf and Bonn, though of course distinct cities, form one urban area. Lots of people commute between these cities (for their jobs, shopping, leisure etc.) by S-Bahn and local trains. People from Cologne go party and shopping in Düsseldorf and vice versa. Couples would live in between, one works in Düsseldorf, the other in Cologne etc.. Business travellers for Cologne would land at Düsseldorf airport and take a train to Cologne. Cologne and Bonn share a common airport and a tram connects the two cities. On the right bank side of the Rhine river Bonn and Cologne are connected continuously through urban areas.

While US-cities like SF might have x-lane highways we have full trains (Local trains, S-Bahn, Subways, Trams - whatever you want) running every 10 minutes in the morning, may be less impressive in satellite pictures, but they prove high density that you only experience in New York at that level. Our trains are even full at weekend nights when people come back from nightlife in the other city. I havent seen that in US cities (except for NY) at that level at all.

Thats from a Cologne perspective.

From a Duisburg perspective it looks a little different, you would go out and work for example in Düsseldorf, shop in Oberhausen, but probably you would not as frequently go to Cologne or even Bonn.
From a Bonn perspective, Cologne belongs to the same urban space, but people from Bonn would not go for nightlife to Düsseldorf, but to Cologne. The same for Dortmund or Essen, they would go to the nearby cities like Oberhausen, but not to Bonn, Cologne or Düsseldorf.
So you can see that of course Dortmunders wouldnt say that Bonn is in the same urban area, but the two cities are connected continously by urban areas.

Crime in Cologne:nuts:: Having lived on the US west coast as well as Paris, I can say that crime levels here are really a joke particularly compared to US-cities. Gun crimes are very rare and I have often been to Chorweiler. The center of Chorweiler is a well visited shopping mall that anybody goes to and there is no problem at all walking around. Chorweiler is surrounded by greenery and lakes where people BBQ, go jogging etc.. There is also a popular swimming pool. Of course if you are into drug trade you can get into trouble, but as a normal citizen you will only notice that level of foreigners is higher and that housing is a little less nice than elsewhere. In some of the US suburbs you have every night helicopters flying over your condo chasing some criminals and there are some suburbs of some cities where you cannot go because you have the wrong race. Cologne is a safe city as by the way is Paris - compared to the US with their guns, drugs, racial/low income gettos and death penalty.

^^Finally a forumer from Cologne giving his opinion. Thanks.

Concerning crime in the Paris suburbs, just a few stats to debunk some myths.

These were the crime rates in 2006 according to INSEE (crimes here include everything, from murders to simple robberies, frauds, and drug consumption):
- entire Greater Paris: 84.5 crimes per 1,000 inhabitants
- City of Paris proper: 118.6 crimes per 1,000 inh.
- Seine-Saint-Denis (the "93", the immigrant-heavy department with a bad reputation where the 2005 riots started): 101.2 crimes per 1,000 inh. (less than the City of Paris, shocking isn't it!)
- Val-d'Oise (another immigrant-heavy suburban department): 84.9 crimes per 1,000 inh.
- Yvelines (home of Versailles and affluent White people in the western suburbs): 67.5 crimes per 1,000 inh.
- Hauts-de-Seine (also in the western suburbs, and home of La Défense): 68.0 crimes per 1,000 inh.
- entire France: 60.7 crimes per 1,000 inh.
- entire Germany: 77 crimes per 1,000 inh. (in 2005)
- entire UK: 98 crimes per 1,000 inh. (in 2005)
- entire Sweden: 138 crimes per 1,000 inh. (in 2005) (Sweden! who would have thought)

If you can find crime rates for Cologne and the Rhine-Ruhr, don't hesitate to post them here to compare (remember that ALL crimes should be included, from simple thefts and frauds to murders).

No way. There is clear countryside between Dusseldorf and Koln. It's like saying Liverpool & Manchester are one city.

I disagree.
1. Distance between DUS-CGN: 38km; Manchester-Liverpool: 55km
2. Düsseldorf and Cologne are connected through one urban area, because in between lies on the right-bank side Leverkusen (170k), Langenfeld (60k) or Monheim (60k) on the way to Düsseldorf. Look on Google Earth and you can see that the main roads (not motorways) are always going through urban area which is interrupted by a few (5 mid-size) fields. On the left-bank side it similar. Between CGN and DUS there is Dormagen (60k) and Neuss (170k).
3. As I outlined earlier, the most important evidence of this urban area being one is the commuter behavior. Many people work, shop, leisure in any of these cities not depending where they live. Giving you one example: A colleague of mine lives in DUS and commutes everyday to Cologne, another lives in Bonn and does the same. On weekends they would go out to Cologne or the other respective city they live in as I would go to Düsseldorf occasionally for shopping, leisure etc.. Similarly a friend of mine lives in Düsseldorf and works in Mülheim/Ruhr (170k), but would go party in Cologne. So you can say people of the following areas use the following as their urban space:
-Bonn (Cologne, Troisdorf, Siegburg)
-Cologne (Düsseldorf, Bonn, Leverkusen, Neuss, Bergisch Gladbach)
-Düsseldorf (Cologne, Duisburg, Neuss, Leverkusen, Mühlheim, Krefeld, Mönchengladbach, Wuppertal)
-Wuppertal (Düsseldorf, Hagen, Solingen)
-Hagen (Witten, Dortmund, Wuppertal)
-Duisburg (Düsseldorf, Oberhausen)
-Oberhausen (Duisburg, Essen, Mülheim)
-Mülheim (Düsseldorf, Essen)
-Essen (Oberhausen, Mülheim, Bochum, Gelsenkirchen)
-Gelsenkirchen (Bochum, Essen, Herne)
-Bochum (Dortmund, Gelsenkirchen, Essen)
-Dortmund (Witten, Bochum, Herne, Hagen)

So: Anybody living in Bonn would very rarely out for weekend in Dortmund or vice versa, but both cities are connected by one urban space. Its like people from San Bernadino - they dont go to Santa Monica to grab a beer, but Los Angeles is still one urban area.

Crime rates per 1,000 in the Ruhr area depends on the city but varies in the bigger cities from 70-130, but this really includes all kind of crimes incl. pickpocketing etc.. Violent crime rates are much lower.

^^ Well in fairness you do have lots and lots of towns between Manchester and Liverpool too which do almost form a continuous urban area connected by frequent transport and effective (enough) roading systems. Most of the areas are only again separated by a few fields.

If you look on Google Earth you can see this (starting at Liverpool).

Liverpool - Huyton - Prescot - St Helens - Wigan -Atherton and then you're into the outskirts of Bolton which is on the outskirts of Manchester. The whole area is one seething mass of towns. You can also see another clear continuous line of development via Widness/Runcorn into Great Sankey and Warrington and then through Partington and into Manchester too.

Crime rates per 1,000 in the Ruhr area depends on the city but varies in the bigger cities from 70-130, but this really includes all kind of crimes incl. pickpocketing etc.. Violent crime rates are much lower.
So it's not very different from the Paris banlieue then.

So it's not very different from the Paris banlieue then.

Crime statistics are hard to compare though - graffiti could be endemic and treated as a crime in one place, yet could only be a misdemeanor in another (thus not contributing to the crime statistics for the country). Rather than assessing total crime, the best measure is violent crime and murder considering these variables are at least slightly less likely to vary from one country to another to quite the same degree.

^^I don't think that graffiti are considered a crime anywhere in Europe.

It's funny but before today, I've never noticed how huge was the concentration of Bundesliga teams in the Rhein-Rhur area !

We can find there:
- Borussia Dortmund
- Schalke 04
- Bayer Leverkusen
- VfL Bochum
- Mönchengladbach
- FC Köln

That's a third of Bundesliga teams for a region representing only about 12% of the German population.

Rather than assessing total crime, the best measure is violent crime and murder considering these variables are at least slightly less likely to vary from one country to another to quite the same degree.
If violent crimes include violent and armed robberies, murders and murder attempts, attacks causing bodily harm, sexual crimes, and abuse of children (incl. lack of care such as not feeding children), then these were the violent crime rates in Greater Paris in 2006 (look at my previous post to find out what each jurisdiction encompasses):
- entire Greater Paris: 9.5 violent crimes per 1,000 inh.
- City of Paris: 13.0 violent crimes per 1,000 inh.
- Seine-Saint-Denis: 15.7 violent crimes per 1,000 inh.
- Val-d'Oise: 9.7 violent crimes per 1,000 inh.
- Yvelines: 5.9 violent crimes per 1,000 inh.
- Hauts-de-Seine: 6.7 violent crimes per 1,000 inh.

Here the Seine-Saint-Denis has a higher rate than the City of Paris, but all the other suburbs have a lower rate, and the City of Paris is way above the Greater Paris average. In other words, most of the banlieue is safer than the City of Paris.

Now if you can find the same stats for cities in the Rhine-Ruhr (making sure to include the same things that I have included), it will be interesting to compare.

^^I don't think that graffiti are considered a crime anywhere in Europe.

In Germany, Austria and Switzerland illegal graffiti can be treated as a crime, as it is property damage, and can lead to fines and prison.

Entire Northrine-Westphalia had a crime-rate of 80.75 crimes per 1,000 inhabitants (all crimes) in 2008.

Its not a city...its just a conurbation...its like calling the Manchester-Liverpool-Warrington-Stockport-Salford area in England a city...

Hey nerds, maybe it will be interesting to you:

http://www.espon.eu/mmp/online/website/content/projects/261/420/file_2420/fr-1.4.3_April2007-final.pdf

It's a "ESPON project 1.4.3 Study on Urban Functions" (14Mb).

No, the Rhein-Ruhr isn't a "Megacity" , since a Megacity would mean that it's a metropolitan area which is centered around a core city, and has a pop. of over 10 million people (I don't know if there's any official definition, but this is what it says on wikipedia:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megacity ).
The Rhine-Ruhr IMO should be considered an agglomeration , or a metropolitan area (the two are basically the same), but not a megacity since it isn't centralized, but has many large cities, though none except Cologne has over 1 million people, and even Cologne doesn't have the same influence in the Rhine-Ruhr as San Francisco has in the Bay Area or Amsterdam in Randstad) .
Maybe this is because Cologne is located quite far away (ca. 40 km) from the centre part of the Ruhr region (roughly where Essen or Bochum are located).

Had the Rhein-Ruhr bee a rapidly-growing region like the SF Bay Area or say the Hong Kong-Shenzen-Macao area in South China, maybe it would have morphed into a true mega-city by now. But haven't most German cities including these been, at most, fairly stable in terms of their population?

^ That matters on which historical era you put into perspective.


During the industrialization (esp. the "Gründerzeit" era) we had anything but a "stable" pop. growth. And even in post-war times there was quite a growth thanks to immigrants and war refugees.

Nowadays it's rather stable or even declining, thou. But urban centers still grow, and if the Rhein-Ruhr area gets its act together and transforms from a resources-oriented economy into a service or scientific oriented one, it could def. grow again as well.

The stretch of land between Stamford, CT and Springfield, MA is similar in nature. There are half a dozen cities connected via a few smaller cities and towns. It covers about the same land area as the Ruhr Area (around 2,000 sq. mi.) but has less than half the population (3 million vs. 7.5 million for the Ruhr). The main cities are also much smaller and a little further apart. The largest cities are Hartford, Springfield, Bridgeport, New Haven, Stamford and Waterbury.

Hmmm, actually there is a resemblance. Although Hartford is by far the largest metro-wise, city-proper they are all approximately similar in size. There really is no dominant city or metro for the area, and I suppose that the crazy metropolitan areas that they put us in is a statement.

However, we have a major difference: New York. As you probably already know, every major town here south and west of Hartford is part of NYC's sphere of influence and CSA, and slowly the state is being more integrated into it. I suppose if the Rhine Rhur area was next to an even larger metro that half of it's cities were influenced by, then we'd be more similar. They seem even more disorganized than us.

I wish we had their rail system too. :D

^ That matters on which historical era you put into perspective.


During the industrialization (esp. the "Gründerzeit" era) we had anything but a "stable" pop. growth. And even in post-war times there was quite a growth thanks to immigrants and war refugees.

Nowadays it's rather stable or even declining, thou. But urban centers still grow, and if the Rhein-Ruhr area gets its act together and transforms from a resources-oriented economy into a service or scientific oriented one, it could def. grow again as well.

In that sense, the Rhein-Ruhr's rise & decline in many ways mirrors that of the US rustbelt, cities like Pittsburgh & Detroit were America's boomtowns in their day.

Had the Rhein-Ruhr bee a rapidly-growing region like the SF Bay Area or say the Hong Kong-Shenzen-Macao area in South China, maybe it would have morphed into a true mega-city by now. But haven't most German cities including these been, at most, fairly stable in terms of their population?
Nowadays it's rather stable or even declining, thou. But urban centers still grow, and if the Rhein-Ruhr area gets its act together and transforms from a resources-oriented economy into a service or scientific oriented one, it could def. grow again as well.
I calculated the population of the Rhine-Ruhr some time ago, for every year since 1963. These population figures refer to the Metropolregion Rhein-Ruhr (Rhine-Rurh Metropolitan Area) officially defined by German authorities. The officially defined Rhine-Ruhr Metropolitan Area has a land area of exactly 10,819 km². Here on this map you can see the limits of the officially defined Rhine-Ruhr Metropolitan Area (all the territories that have bright colors are part of the Rhine-Ruhr Metropolitan Area).

http://img196.imageshack.us/img196/3075/rhineruhr.png

And here is the population of the officially defined Rhine-Ruhr Metropolitan Area since 1963, with its peaks and throughs:
- Jan. 1, 1963: 11,066,754
- Jan. 1, 1974: 11,535,178
- Jan. 1, 1987: 10,922,944
- Jan. 1, 1997: 11,574,717
- Jan. 1, 2005: 11,507,401
- Jan. 1, 2006: 11,491,395
- Jan. 1, 2007: 11,471,732
- Jan. 1, 2008: 11,450,528
- Nov. 1, 2008: 11,424,034

The Rhine-Ruhr reached its highest peak of population in 1997. Since 2003 the population decline has accelerated. Of course the population of the Rhine-Ruhr already declined between 1974 and 1987, and then recovered, but this time, unlike in the 1970s and 1980s, it is the entire Germany that is experiencing population decline, so it will be much harder for the Rhine-Ruhr to halt its current population decline (21,204 inhabitants lost in 2007, 26,494 inhabitants lost in the first 10 months of 2008).

I calculated the population of the Rhine-Ruhr some time ago, for every year since 1963. These population figures refer to the Metropolregion Rhein-Ruhr (Rhine-Rurh Metropolitan Area) officially defined by German authorities. The officially defined Rhine-Ruhr Metropolitan Area has a land area of exactly 10,819 km². Here on this map you can see the limits of the officially defined Rhine-Ruhr Metropolitan Area (all the territories that have bright colors are part of the Rhine-Ruhr Metropolitan Area).

http://img196.imageshack.us/img196/3075/rhineruhr.png

And here is the population of the officially defined Rhine-Ruhr Metropolitan Area since 1963, with its peaks and throughs:
- Jan. 1, 1963: 11,066,754
- Jan. 1, 1974: 11,535,178
- Jan. 1, 1987: 10,922,944
- Jan. 1, 1997: 11,574,717
- Jan. 1, 2005: 11,507,401
- Jan. 1, 2006: 11,491,395
- Jan. 1, 2007: 11,471,732
- Jan. 1, 2008: 11,450,528
- Nov. 1, 2008: 11,424,034

The Rhine-Ruhr reached its highest peak of population in 1997. Since 2003 the population decline has accelerated. Of course the population of the Rhine-Ruhr already declined between 1974 and 1987, and then recovered, but this time, unlike in the 1970s and 1980s, it is the entire Germany that is experiencing population decline, so it will be much harder for the Rhine-Ruhr to halt its current population decline (21,204 inhabitants lost in 2007, 26,494 inhabitants lost in the first 10 months of 2008).

The rise between 1987 and 1997 was just because Germans from the former communist states migrated home. The Soviet Union was one of the countries with the highest shares of Germans in the world. Population is shrinking because of the very low birth rates in the Ruhr areas and the cities of Düsseldorf and Köln. Birth rates in the suburban areas are higher but also very low.

You can also see that the Rhein-Ruhr-Area had over 10 million inhabitants long before Ile-de-France reached that mark. Paris became Megacity in the early 80s, and the Rhein-Ruhr-Area in the early 50s. Rhein-Ruhr was the third or fourth metro-area to break the 10-million barrier.

Here is a graph showing the population in the officially defined Rhine-Ruhr Metropolitan Area (10,819 km²) and in the Greater Paris (aka Île-de-France) administrative region (12,012 km²) since 1963. Population in the Greater Paris region passed the officially defined Rhine-Ruhr during the year 2005. Historically the Greater Paris region had 1.4 million inhabitants at the beginning of the 19th century. I wonder how many inhabitants there were in the Rhine-Ruhr at the time.

http://img32.imageshack.us/img32/3345/parisluz.png

I calculated the population of the Rhine-Ruhr some time ago, for every year since 1963. These population figures refer to the Metropolregion Rhein-Ruhr (Rhine-Rurh Metropolitan Area) officially defined by German authorities. The officially defined Rhine-Ruhr Metropolitan Area has a land area of exactly 10,819 km². Here on this map you can see the limits of the officially defined Rhine-Ruhr Metropolitan Area (all the territories that have bright colors are part of the Rhine-Ruhr Metropolitan Area).

http://img196.imageshack.us/img196/3075/rhineruhr.png

And here is the population of the officially defined Rhine-Ruhr Metropolitan Area since 1963, with its peaks and throughs:
- Jan. 1, 1963: 11,066,754
- Jan. 1, 1974: 11,535,178
- Jan. 1, 1987: 10,922,944
- Jan. 1, 1997: 11,574,717
- Jan. 1, 2005: 11,507,401
- Jan. 1, 2006: 11,491,395
- Jan. 1, 2007: 11,471,732
- Jan. 1, 2008: 11,450,528
- Nov. 1, 2008: 11,424,034

The Rhine-Ruhr reached its highest peak of population in 1997. Since 2003 the population decline has accelerated. Of course the population of the Rhine-Ruhr already declined between 1974 and 1987, and then recovered, but this time, unlike in the 1970s and 1980s, it is the entire Germany that is experiencing population decline, so it will be much harder for the Rhine-Ruhr to halt its current population decline (21,204 inhabitants lost in 2007, 26,494 inhabitants lost in the first 10 months of 2008).

Interesting, that's quite a contrast with the San Francisco Bay Area, where the population nearly doubled from 3.7 million to over 7 million between 1960 & 2000.

So was the Rhur area, in the sixties, one of the largest agglomerations in the world?

Here is a graph showing the population in the officially defined Rhine-Ruhr Metropolitan Area (10,819 km²) and in the Greater Paris (aka Île-de-France) administrative region (12,012 km²) since 1963. Population in the Greater Paris region passed the officially defined Rhine-Ruhr during the year 2005. Historically the Greater Paris region had 1.4 million inhabitants at the beginning of the 19th century. I wonder how many inhabitants there were in the Rhine-Ruhr at the time.

http://img32.imageshack.us/img32/3345/parisluz.png

Maybe a bit less than half a million perhaps. Köln had 50k at that time, Düsseldorf 13k, Duisburg 5k, Essen 4k, Dortmund 4k and Bochum 2k. They were all little towns 200 years ago.

Maybe a bit less than half a million perhaps.
Well, at the French census of 1806, the Roër département had a population density of 108 inh./km². The Roër département covered the left bank of the Rhine from Cologne to Cleves:

http://www.stadtteilforum-oberaussem.de/uploads/pics/Departement_de_la_Roer.jpg

http://www.r-steger.de/Bilder/Roer_Departement%201808.jpg

If we assume that the rest of the Rhine-Ruhr on the right bank of the Rhine had also a density of 108 inh./km², that means the officially defined Rhine-Ruhr had 1,170,000 inhabitants in 1806. Of course, I don't know if the Ruhr was as densely populated as the left bank of the Rhine, so this is just a wild guess. The Ruhr was never part of the French Empire, so there's no way to know its population density at the time.

PS: I've just discovered that the Ruhr was turned into two French-style départements, the "Département Rhein" and the "Département Ruhr", which were part of the Grand Duchy of Berg. The Grand Duchy of Berg was in theory not part of the French Empire, but it was in fact ruled first by the French marshal Murat and then by Napoleon's nephew who was only 5 y/o at the time, so it was French bureaucrats who in fact administered the Grand Duchy. They may have carried out a census just like in the French Empire, I don't know. If they published population figures, I don't know where they are stored now. Perhaps at the archives of North Rhine-Westphalia.

That was the territory of the Grand Duchy of Berg between 1806 and 1813:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b1/GhdBerg.png/180px-GhdBerg.png

After some further research, I was able to find some statistics for the Grand Duchy of Berg. Here you have a map of the 4 départements that made up the Grand Duchy of Berg in 1809 (Rhein département, Ruhr département, Ems département, and Sieg département):

http://www.histunif.com/confederation/Berg/berg1809_departements.gif

The Rhein département and Ruhr département (on the right bank of the Rhine) were significantly less densely populated than the Roër département (on the left bank of the Rhine). If I sum up the population of these three départements at the time of the First French Empire and calculate their population density, in the end I find that the officially defined Rhine-Ruhr (10,819 km²) must have had about 800,000 inhabitants in the beginning of the 19th century.

So in 200 years (from the beginning of the 19th century to the beginning of the 21st century), the population of the Rhine-Ruhr increased from 0.8 million to 11.4 million, i.e. it increased slightly more than 14 times. In comparison, during the same 200 years the population of Greater Paris (Île-de-France) increased from 1.4 million to 11.8 million, i.e. it increased almost 8.5 times. This is less than the Rhine-Ruhr, which shows how attractive was the Rhine-Ruhr until the mid-20th century. Also, the birth rate in Germany was much higher than in France in the 19th century and first half of the 20th century, so that's another reason why the Rhine-Ruhr grew much more than Greater Paris, despite the fact that Greater Paris attracted migrants from all across France.

So was the Rhur area, in the sixties, one of the largest agglomerations in the world?
No. At the time the Rhine-Ruhr was three separate urban areas (agglomerations). There was the Central Ruhr-Essen urban area, the Southern Ruhr-Wuppertal-Düsseldorf urban area, and the Cologne-Bonn urban area. In the beginning of the 1990s, the Central Ruhr-Essen urban area had 4,669,000 inhabitants, the Southern Ruhr-Wuppertal-Düsseldorf urban area had 2,503,000 inhabitants, and the Cologne-Bonn urban area had 2,220,000 inhabitants. It is only in the 1990s that these three urban areas finally merged with each other (no more than 200 meters of unbuilt land between the extremities of each urban area), with 10,015,000 inhabitants in 2000 according to the Geopolis database (the 11+ million figures that I previously gave are for the metropolitan area and not for the urban area), so the Rhine-Ruhr can now technically be considered a megacity, although as has been pointed out it doesn't really feel like a single city due to its history and its thinly spread urbanization (instead of a big large center).

What is the economic output of the Rhine-Ruhr cluster compared to that of Paris or London?

so are the rhine ruhr area in germany in megacity or just clumped together cities ??

the ruhr area is located in germanys state nordrhine westphalia and have an population of 12 million people

it icludes cities like essen, bonn , düsseldorf,cologne mönchengladbach , duisburg , bochum , dortmund and hamm

I can see the Ruhr area as one polycentric metropolitan area (interestingly, the actual Ruhr river is located at the southern fringe of this area, and not centrally: but it's still called Ruhrgebiet because the area by the Ruhr is where coal was first heavily mined, until those seams were exhausted and the mining as well as industry moved northwards), but I find it hard to see the whole Rhine-Ruhr region as one metropolis.

What is the economic output of the Rhine-Ruhr cluster compared to that of Paris or London?
It's easy to compare between the Rhine-Ruhr and Paris, because both have officially defined metropolitan areas which correspond quite well with administrative units, but it's much harder to compare with London because there is no clear definition of what's included within the London metropolitan area, so we can only give tentative numbers.

In 2006 the GDP of the officially defined Rhine-Ruhr (11.5 million inhabitants in 2006) was 338 billion euros. That same year the GDP of the Greater Paris (Île-de-France) region (11.5 million inhabitants in 2006) was 511 billion euros.

For London it would be best to calculate the GDP of the London LUZ (a statistical area defined by Eurostat and akin to a metropolitan area which encompasses Greater London and scores of districts surrounding Greater London), but it is impossible to do so because GDP figures are not available at the English district level. All we have are GDP figures at the English county level. If we take Greater London and all the counties surrounding it, which is an area larger than the London LUZ and which includes far away places such as Dover (and thus the GDP generated in Dover by the cross-Channel traffic), then in 2006 the GDP of this vast area (14.3 million inhabitants in 2006) was 425 billion sterling pounds. At today's exchange rate that's 477 billion euros.

I've also calculated the Randstad (Amsterdam, Rotterdam, The Hague, Utrecht, etc.). In 2006 the GDP of the Randstad (6.9 million inhabitants in 2006) was 255 billion euros.

^^ Surely because the Euros value against the pound has increased (and inflation of course) if we want to find out the GDP value of London metro in 2006 in 2008 money we need to convert it based upon the 2006 Exchange rates then adjust for inflation??

I have the figure of 512 billion euros.

No. At the time the Rhine-Ruhr was three separate urban areas (agglomerations). There was the Central Ruhr-Essen urban area, the Southern Ruhr-Wuppertal-Düsseldorf urban area, and the Cologne-Bonn urban area. In the beginning of the 1990s, the Central Ruhr-Essen urban area had 4,669,000 inhabitants, the Southern Ruhr-Wuppertal-Düsseldorf urban area had 2,503,000 inhabitants, and the Cologne-Bonn urban area had 2,220,000 inhabitants. It is only in the 1990s that these three urban areas finally merged with each other (no more than 200 meters of unbuilt land between the extremities of each urban area), with 10,015,000 inhabitants in 2000 according to the Geopolis database (the 11+ million figures that I previously gave are for the metropolitan area and not for the urban area), so the Rhine-Ruhr can now technically be considered a megacity, although as has been pointed out it doesn't really feel like a single city due to its history and its thinly spread urbanization (instead of a big large center).

Interesting, I do see that Rhein-Ruhr North ranked as the #7 city region in the world in 1950, with 5.3 million population, the 4th largest in Europe at that time, just below London, Paris, & Moscow, & way ahead of Berlin.

Interesting, I do see that Rhein-Ruhr North ranked as the #7 city region in the world in 1950, with 5.3 million population, the 4th largest in Europe at that time, just below London, Paris, & Moscow, & way ahead of Berlin.

Berlin had certainly grown to a Megacity if there were no two world wars and the cold war...

those "coal" cities are impressive, it's what demography specialists call "grapes"... north of france does have one too, going from Béthune to Valenciennes and hosting 3 millions people, but compared to rhein-ruhr and silesia, here Lille is the leader city...

those "coal" cities are impressive, it's what demography specialists call "grapes"... north of france does have one too, going from Béthune to Valenciennes and hosting 3 millions people, but compared to rhein-ruhr and silesia, here Lille is the leader city...Not really, Lille is clearly separated at the North of the urban strip linking Béthune, Lens, Douai, Hénin-Beaumont and Valenciennes. Lille's position can somewhat be compared to Cologne's in that regard.

However, the French urban stip from Béthune to Valenciennes is clearly more sparsely urbanized than is the Ruhr area from Duisbourg to Dortmund. Though you're still correct, they are rather similar in nature.

I was in San Fransisco recently and I got almost the opposite impression. Driving from San Francisco to SFO alone (which is half way to San Jose, or maybe even less) you pass through some distinctly pastoral appearing communities, and some spots that seem almost empty.

Berlin had certainly grown to a Megacity if there were no two world wars and the cold war...

Quite true. Up thru the 1930s, Berlin was very much the leading, dominant city in Germany....but yea, that all changed.

I was in San Fransisco recently and I got almost the opposite impression. Driving from San Francisco to SFO alone (which is half way to San Jose, or maybe even less) you pass through some distinctly pastoral appearing communities, and some spots that seem almost empty.

The Bay Area's not all uniformally built-up, there are big clusters of development, isolated from each other by large open, preserved, or undeveloped spaces

Quite true. Up thru the 1930s, Berlin was very much the leading, dominant city in Germany....but yea, that all changed.
Population of the urban areas:

1900:
London: 6.5 million
Paris: 3.7 million
Berlin: 2.6 million
Ruhr: 1.3 million

1921:
London: 7.4 million
Paris: 4.85 million
Berlin: 3.9 million

1939:
London: 8.6 million
Paris: 6.0 million
Berlin: 4.3 million

1950:
London: 8.15 million
Paris: 6.1 million
Ruhr: 3.55 million
Berlin: 3.3 million

2009:
Paris: 10.5 million
Cologne-Düsseldorf-Ruhr: 9.9 million
London: 8.6 million
Berlin: 3.8 million

Not really, Lille is clearly separated at the North of the urban strip linking Béthune, Lens, Douai, Hénin-Beaumont and Valenciennes. Lille's position can somewhat be compared to Cologne's in that regard.

However, the French urban stip from Béthune to Valenciennes is clearly more sparsely urbanized than is the Ruhr area from Duisbourg to Dortmund. Though you're still correct, they are rather similar in nature.

INSEE urban areas :

http://www.recensement.insee.fr/images/H59.png

INSEE metro areas :

http://www.recensement.insee.fr/images/M59.png

Population of the urban areas:

1900:
London: 6.5 million
Paris: 3.7 million
Berlin: 2.6 million
Ruhr: 1.3 million

1921:
London: 7.4 million
Paris: 4.85 million
Berlin: 3.9 million

1939:
London: 8.6 million
Paris: 6.0 million
Berlin: 4.3 million

1950:
London: 8.15 million
Paris: 6.1 million
Ruhr: 3.55 million
Berlin: 3.3 million

2009:
Paris: 10.5 million
Cologne-Düsseldorf-Ruhr: 9.9 million
London: 8.6 million
Berlin: 3.8 million

Is the London numbers just Greater London and some nearby towns?

I kind of find it hard to believe that it has barely grown between 1950 and 2009, although Greater London hasn't hit it's peak population in the mid century.

Of course, I could be wrong. :dunno:

^^The London figure is Greater London except the most recent figure i think that is for the whole urban area. Greater London lost over 1 million people from the 1960s-80s as the government relocated people out of London to new towns and created the green belt, it only started to grow again in the 1990s

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_London#Population

Okay that makes sense.

I didn't know, I thought that London would have seen better growth over the years, as it is much more prosperous than either Berlin or the Ruhr valley in that period.

Is the London numbers just Greater London and some nearby towns?

I kind of find it hard to believe that it has barely grown between 1950 and 2009, although Greater London hasn't hit it's peak population in the mid century.

Of course, I could be wrong. :dunno:
The numbers refer to the contiguously urbanized areas (less than 200 meters between buildings). Figures come from the Geopolis database which used ancient maps and current satellite pictures to determine the urbanized areas of the world since 1900.

For London, before 1965 the London urban area encompassed the County of London + many districts around the County of London. Since 1965 it encompasses essentially the entire Greater London plus some areas beyond Greater London (for example Epsom in Surrey is part of the London urban area).

The London urban area reached a maximum of population in 1939, then it declined as people moved out of London to either South-East England (beyond the Green Belt) or to other areas of England (or even abroad: many Londoners moved to Australia in the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s). The London urban area reached its post-war minimum in the beginning of the 1980s, then started to increase again.

In 1950, London ranked as the 3rd largest metropolitan agglomeration, after NYC & Tokyo.

By 1985, London had dropped way down to #18.

As of 2005, London had completly fallen off the top 20 list.

Moscow, which ranked as the #5 largest urban agglomeration in 1950, is the only European city still left among the top 20, & its #20.

Probably won't be any European cities among the next top 20 listing.

Size though doesn't count for everything. The quality of life in most European cities certainly beats life in nearly all Asian, African, Latin American, & US cities.

Population of the urban areas:

1900:
London: 6.5 million
Paris: 3.7 million
Berlin: 2.6 million
Ruhr: 1.3 million

1921:
London: 7.4 million
Paris: 4.85 million
Berlin: 3.9 million

1939:
London: 8.6 million
Paris: 6.0 million
Berlin: 4.3 million

1950:
London: 8.15 million
Paris: 6.1 million
Ruhr: 3.55 million
Berlin: 3.3 million

2009:
Paris: 10.5 million
Cologne-Düsseldorf-Ruhr: 9.9 million
London: 8.6 million
Berlin: 3.8 million

Berlin population from Berlin State Statistical Office :

4,593,825 ! Berlin passed over the 1939 mark ! the city is coming back...

I was in the Ruhr area today. I drove through several major cities, including Bochum, Wuppertal and Essen. (eastern and central part of the Ruhr). It feels like one continuous urban area, there are motorway exits like every kilometer, overpasses of S-bahn, railroads, expressways etc. But, it's also clear you're not in one single city, since all cities are seperatly signed.

The most important focal points on the signage are Köln, Düsseldorf, Oberhausen and Dortmund, and other cities like Essen, Mülheim, Duisburg, Bochum, Herne, Recklinghausen, Gelsenkirchen, Wuppertal etc. are less prominent signed because of the proximity of eachother, and you don't want signs to be flooded with destinations.

That said, there is still a obvious difference between the Ruhr valley (Duisburg to Dortmund), and the less dense, and more forested and hilly cities south of that, especially around Wuppertal, Remscheid and Solingen. There is also a more rural area immediatly south of Essen and Bochum, with more smaller towns and villages, without the urban feeling of just 5 - 10 km to the north.

This is what it's like to drive through the Ruhr area. You mostly see trees, overpasses and interchanges, but barely anything from civilization. That's why it doesn't really feel like a megacity.
bW_qvep8pNM

Freeways aren't necessarily the best way of "seeing" a city though, as often times you'll find a small green buffer between the highway and the city.

This is what it's like to drive through the Ruhr area. You mostly see trees, overpasses and interchanges, but barely anything from civilization. That's why it doesn't really feel like a megacity.
bW_qvep8pNM

From this vantage point, it looks a lot like Toledo on I-475. :lol:

:dunno:

Nice video Chris! I hoped you fixed the cam in some way an didn't make this freehand ;)

I never make my videos freehand ;)

I use velcro to tape it to the dash.

williamkayla (http://americablogger.com/williamkayla/)samanthachristopher (http://americablogger.com/samanthachristopher/)berkeleysmith (http://americablogger.com/berkeleysmith/)benson (http://americablogger.com/benson/)beniciobrown (http://americablogger.com/beniciobrown/)