whats are the cities with the biggest urban area in miles /km 2 ,i think it must be la , nyc and toyko // berlin must have the biggest buildt up area in europe , i am right ??

The problem is how you define what is urban and what is not urban. While it seems relatively simple, it's a lot harder than you think.

New York, Tokyo and LA. In that order.
In Europe it's London.

According to Demographia.com.

In the world:
1- New York: 11,264 km² of built-up land
2- Tokyo: 7,835 km²
3- Chicago: 5,952 km²
4- Los Angeles: 5,812 km² (mountains are not counted)
5- Boston: 5,501 km²

In Europe:
1- Moscow: 4,533 km² of built-up land
2- Paris: 3,043 km²
3- Essen-Dusseldorf: 2,642 km²
4- Milan: 2,370 km²
5- London: 1,623 km²

Someone else in another thread already told you about Demographia right?

Don't quote it if you expect to be taken seriously...

Demographia is the best source I know online. They do some serious research about the world's urban areas. Before, there used to be an even better source, the Geopolis database at the University of Avignon, but they took it offline.

1- New York: 11,264 km² of built-up land

I stopped reading here.

Demographia is the best source I know online. They do some serious research about the world's urban areas. Before, there used to be an even better source, the Geopolis database at the University of Avignon, but they took it offline.

So London is half the size of Paris, doesn't sound very credible.

Demographia is the best source I know online...
I feel for you...


(pssst! Demographia is an anti urbanist site. It's polar opposite to what we love and what we are here for on this site. Hopefully you will figure that out soon.)

Edit

So London is half the size of Paris, doesn't sound very credible.
Planning regulations in England are extremely stringent, built-up areas are limited to the maximum to prevent the countryside from being engulfed by cities, so I'm not surprised that the London built up area is smaller than other European cities. In countries like Russia and France (and of course the US) there is much more extensive urbanization because land is more abundant.

In any case, the figure listed by Demographia for the London built-up area is absolutely consistent with the figure reported in the 2001 UK census: http://www.statistics.gov.uk/statbase/ssdataset.asp?vlnk=8271&More=Y
(pssst! Demographia is an anti urbanist site. It's polar opposite to what we love and what we are here for on this site. Hopefully you will figure that out soon.)
The figure in Demographia is exactly the same as in the UK 2001 census. So perhaps the British census authorities also have an "anti-urbanist" agenda and are not a credible source? :lol:

Anyway I agree with Blackpool88.
Paris figure use municipalities size and in the edge municipalities have the majority of their land not yet urbanized.

So while Paris urban area population is correct, the land size is overrated.
I think that we are closer to the 2,000 km².

According to the Census Bureau the largest urbanized areas in the U.S. as of 2000 are:

1. New York - 8,683.20 sq. km.
2. Chicago - 5,498.06 sq. km.
3. Atlanta - 5,083.06 sq. km.
4. Philadelphia - 4,660.72 sq. km.
5. Boston - 4,496.67 sq. km.
6. Los Angeles - 4,319.93 sq. km.
7. Dallas - 3,644.22 sq. km.
8. Houston - 3,354.72 sq. km.
9. Detroit - 3,267.14 sq. km.
10. Wasington - 2,996.01 sq. km.
11. Miami - 2,890.67 sq. km.
12. Seattle - 2,469.88 sq. km.
13. Minneapolis - 2,316.02 sq. km.
14. San Juan - 2,309.42 sq. km.
15. Pittsburgh - 2,207.70 sq. km.
16. St. Louis - 2,146.97 sq. km.
17. Tampa - 2,077.87 sq. km.
18. Phoenix - 2,069.42 sq. km.
19. San Diego - 2,026.11 sq. km.
20. Baltimore - 1,768.26 sq. km.
21. Cincinnati - 1,739.86 sq. km.
22. Cleveland - 1,675.73 sq. km.
23. Kansas City - 1,513.63 sq. km.
24. Indianapolis - 1,432.06 sq. km.
25. Norfolk - 1,364.41 sq. km.
26. Providence - 1,304.40 sq. km.
27. Denver - 1,291.91 sq. km.
28. Milwaukee - 1,261.44 sq. km.
29. Portland - 1,227.51 sq. km.
30. Hartford - 1,215.59 sq. km.
31. Bridgeport-Stamford - 1,205.14 sq. km.
32. Orlando - 1,173.76 sq. km.
33. Riverside-San Bernardino - 1,136.42 sq. km.
34. Richmond - 1,131.19 sq. km.
35. Charlotte - 1,126.42 sq. km.
36. Nashville - 1,115.69 sq. km.
37. San Francisco - 1,107.75 sq. km.
38. Jacksonville - 1,063.23 sq. km.
39. San Antonio - 1,055.57 sq. km.
40. Memphis - 1,035.52 sq. km.
41. Columbus - 1,030.06 sq. km.
42. Birmingham - 1,015.53 sq. km.
43. Louisville - 1,013.46 sq. km.
44. Sacramento - 955.78 sq. km.
45. Buffalo - 949.73 sq. km.
46. Knoxville - 879.26 sq. km.
47. Dayton - 838.01 sq. km.
48. Oklahoma City - 834.89 sq. km.
49. Raleigh - 827.79 sq. km.
50. Austin - 823.94 sq. km.

Anyway I agree with Blackpool88.
Paris figure use municipalities size and in the edge municipalities have the majority of their land not yet urbanized.

So while Paris urban area population is correct, the land size is overrated.
I think that we are closer to the 2,000 km².
That would mean one-third of the Paris urban area defined by the French statistical office is undevelopped land, which is not very credible when you look at a satellite picture. I don't know how much of the Paris urban area defined by INSEE is undevelopped land, but one-third seems a bit exaggerated.

According to the Census Bureau the largest urbanized areas in the U.S. as of 2000 are:
The US Census Bureau, unfortunately, has a strange way of defining urbanized areas, based on density and not based on continuous urbanization unlike the rest of the world, so these figures are not very usefull. For example, with their strange definition they consider that San Francisco and San Jose are two separate urbanized areas when in fact there is absolutely continuous urbanization from downtown San Jose to downtown San Francisco.

That would mean one-third of the Paris urban area defined by the French statistical office is undevelopped land, which is not very credible when you look at a satellite picture. I don't know how much of the Paris urban area defined by INSEE is undevelopped land, but one-third seems a bit exaggerated.

I would agree with you if Paris urban area was a circle (like London) but infact Paris urban area is more like a several branchs system that follow suburban lines, highways and rivers.

There's been threads on this before, with lots of pictures posted. Use the search.

New York is biggest, BTW.

Planning regulations in England are extremely stringent, built-up areas are limited to the maximum to prevent the countryside from being engulfed by cities, so I'm not surprised that the London built up area is smaller than other European cities. In countries like Russia and France (and of course the US) there is much more extensive urbanization because land is more abundant.

In any case, the figure listed by Demographia for the London built-up area is absolutely consistent with the figure reported in the 2001 UK census: http://www.statistics.gov.uk/statbase/ssdataset.asp?vlnk=8271&More=Y

The figure in Demographia is exactly the same as in the UK 2001 census. So perhaps the British census authorities also have an "anti-urbanist" agenda and are not a credible source? :lol:


But its 35 miles of urban area from East-West London, surely some of these figures are wrong, how can Cleveland have a larger area then London!!

US city spread out.

This topic is prohibited. Sorry.