Which cities are MEGACITIES?

[rocky]

Originally Posted by Metropolitan

Paris has 10.2 million people in its urban area.

According to the INSEE, the official statistics bureau in France, the population of Paris metropolitan area has been calculated at 11.6 million people for 2005.


About your list, wouldn't you add Buenos Aires for South America ? I would also bet Karachi in Pakistan is one of them.

lol i actualy found 11.6 myself using my own calculation methods !

[Metropolitan]

Originally Posted by london-b

Why is Paris so much denser than London?

Check out the subway maps and you'll get a hint. Paris subway is far less extensive than London's. As a result, appartment buildings have raised in all the neighbourhoods served by the metro.

This being said, Paris has always been very dense. It has reached its population peak in 1920, with 3 million inhabitants, making an average density of 34.400 inh./km² ! With the developments of cars and highways, the suburban life has reduced the population of the city of Paris to 2.1 million today. However, I personally think that the lack of extensiveness of public transportation networks in Paris have limited that suburbanization of the city. Of course, that's just an opinion. The only thing I know is that there's currently a densification in all suburbs served by the metro.

[drfeelgood17]

In other words according to INSEE, "Paris metropolitan area" is more or less the same thing as Ile-de-France region.
This is what I found :
Paris only (75):
2,142,80 (2005 estimate)
The whole of Ile-de-France: 11,264,000 (2005 estimate)

[eklips]

Paris only is like Manhatan.

Ile de France is the region, but most of the region's population is in the continuous build up area.

Understand?

[drfeelgood17]

This is what I understand from you're enthusiastic replies: in terms of population, the Paris urban area is, too all intents and purposes, practically the same as the population of Ile-de-France, there is no big difference, you've just proven my point - unless you want to count all the cows and pigs of the surrounding farms...

HINT: I am not "confusing" Paris (city proper) with its "aire urbaine" or region. Relax.

[drfeelgood17]

[QUOTE=Look]I would say that megacity should have not only mega- populaton but also a mega- amount of urban infrastructure - subways, airports, highways, skyscrapers, residential and communal buildings etc. That's why I hesitate if such cities as Lagos could be considered as megacities, while their infrastructure is well under the level of medium developed world city, and most of their population live in slums, without running water, electricity etc.

This would leave these cities as megacities:
London
Paris
Moscow
Istanbul
Shanghai
Beijing
Seoul
Tokyo
Osaka
New York
Los Angeles
Chicago
Mexico city
Sao Paulo
Rio de Janeiro
Buenes Aires

maybe also:
Mumbai
Delhi
Calcutta
Jakarta
Manila
Cairo

There's no need for this "maybe also". All of these cities are megacities, even without inventing/adding aires urbaines for each of them.

[Saigoneseguy]

According to GoogleEarth tm,I would consider those followings, in term of urban sprawl area:

San Francisco
Washington DC-Philadelphia-New York-Boston (big!)
Los Angeles-San Diego (big!)
Chicago-Milwaukee
London
Paris
Moscow (perhaps?)
New Delhi
Shanghai-Wuxi-Nanjing
Hong Kong-Shenzhen-Guangzhou
Seoul
Tokyo (big!)
Nagoya-Kyoto-Kobe (big!)
Sydney
Sao Paulo
Buenos Aires
Mexico city

Smaller:
Houston
Dallas
Detroit
Rheinland cities
Roma
Istanbul
Tehran
Karachi
Mumbai
Bangkok
Manila-Makati city
Beijing-Tianjin
Chengdu (perhaps?)
Taipei
Melbourne
Rio de Janeiro
....
maybe Lagos, Johanesburg, Cairo, Kuala Lumpur or Singapore....

Tel Aviv? Madrid? Athens? Perth? Miami? Chongqing?

[drfeelgood17]

Originally Posted by rocky

i thought the urban area of london was 8 and the metro 12 to 14.

urban area of paris is around 10

these numbers seems of since it was NYC metro or LA metro and not urban area which where supposed to have such numbers

This is because NYC and LA have very large "urban areas" - in NYC case, Washington and Boston are sometimes included - debatable, yes, but that's how they come up with such big numbers. If we did the same for Europe, the whole of Belguim and the Netherlands would be one big megacity!

[eklips]

Originally Posted by drfeelgood17

This is what I understand from you're enthusiastic replies: in terms of population, the Paris urban area is, too all intents and purposes, practically the same as the population of Ile-de-France, there is no big difference, you've just proven my point - unless you want to count all the cows and pigs of the surrounding farms...

HINT: I am not "confusing" Paris (city proper) with its "aire urbaine" or region. Relax.

THis is what you said

Exactly...so they should use the same criteria for all cities when compiling such lists, and be consistent. For example, when you say Paris's population is 10m+, you are clearly referring to Ile-de-France, which includes farmland and forests, hardly 100% urban. Paris "Intra-muros" has a population of only around 2m. If we are to include regions for all major cities of the world, in that case, the London urban area would be much more than 10m. The article I quoted makes this clear.

The 18 million figure (for which you must be refering too) for London, contains the metro area, the difference with the 12 million figure, is that they took into account the surounding countryside and towns.

cows, pigs and farms if you prefer.

All in all, the London urban area is only slightly bigger than Paris'

[drfeelgood17]

Originally Posted by wjfox2002

If you include the metro area then yes. The urban population is about 12m though.

18m, according to the GLA.

[London]

It MUST be somewhere around 18 million for London to ever be as competitive as it is to NY, which has 22million in metro?

[london-b]

Originally Posted by virtual

You are completly right, I'm sorry, I have no idea why I wrote Toronto

lol, I thought something was wrong but couldn't be botherd to bring it up.

[drfeelgood17]

Originally Posted by London

It MUST be somewhere around 18 million for London to ever be as competitive as it is to NY, which has 22million in metro?

It would make more sense, wouldn't it?

[london-b]

Originally Posted by drfeelgood17

18m, according to the GLA.

That is one metro figure! Not urban population.

[drfeelgood17]

yes, I meant urban LOL

[Saigoneseguy]

And Dhaka Jakarta and Frankfurt are not that big!!!

Originally posted by Xantarx
Poverty in Zurich or Calgary is far richer than upper-middle class in Bangkok or Jakarta

Very doubt that, common stereotype thou.

[paradyto]

The Mega Kuningan ...

[Metropolitan]

Originally Posted by virtual

All in all, the London urban area is only slightly bigger than Paris'

Paris urban area is actually bigger than London urban area. Paris is indeed the largest urban area in the EU. There is about 8.5 million people in London urban area compared with slightly more than 10 million people in Paris urban area.

However, there's an explanation for this. The thing is that London has a green belt surrounding it which is limiting the size of its urban area. Of course, economically speaking, London doesn't stop at the green belt, and considering the population density of the UK's South East, there's no doubt London has a larger metropolitan area than Paris.

Here is a map of Paris urban area and metro area according to the INSEE :

The figures in black are the code names of administrative departments. And here's a table giving you all the detailed population figures about things represented on that map :

Even without counting its metropolitan area, just in counting its urban area, Paris' population exceeds 10 million people. This is not the case of London by the way... because of the green belt limiting the size of its urban area.

[drfeelgood17]

What "limits" London's population is politics not geography or green belts (by the way, the red area on your map also contains many "green belts". And don't forget, the UK uses 50 metres for urban areas, as opposed to the 200 metres used in France. This is why the UK is much stricter in its definition of continuous urban areas. Things would be very different if we used the same system). Also, when you say London's population is under 10m, you are of course referring to Greater London only (7.5m)- which you seem to be saying, is the equivalent of your aire urbaine - which clearly, is not the same thing.

[Metropolitan]

Originally Posted by drfeelgood17

What "limits" London's population is politics not geography or green belts (by the way, the red area on your map also contains many "green belts". And don't forget, the UK uses 50 metres for urban areas, as opposed to the 200 metres used in France. This is why the UK is much stricter in its definition of continuous urban areas. Things would be very different if we used the same system).

Nope... there's no green belt in Paris. That's why there is such a thin difference between the urban area and the metro area. There are indeed many parks and forests, but they never form a belt breaking the continuity of the urbanization.

By the way, I doubt the 200m vs 50m thing is really an issue as it exists European statistics using only the 200m criteria, including for British cities, and figures aren't much different.

Also, when you say London's population is under 10m, you are of course referring to Greater London only (7.5m)- which you seem to be saying, is the equivalent of your aire urbaine - which clearly, is not the same thing.

Nope. The "aire urbaine" in French is the metropolitan area in English. The French equivalent of the urban area is the "unité urbaine" (litteraly translated into "urban unit").

And by London urban area, I'm referring to inside the green belt, which is a larger area than the Greater London. London urban area is about 8.5 million people.

Actually, as urban areas are based on the "physical" shape of the city, it's easier to build up a good comparison at the European scale in using the exact same criteria no matter the country. That's not possible yet with metropolitan areas, as it's more complicate to calculate.

You can find here a list of the largest urban areas in Western Europe. That list only use the 200m criteria for ALL cities in Western Europe, no matter the country.

Now this being said. The urban area doesn't have any particular interests (outside proving to Brits the 10 million figure for Paris isn't counting cows). As Justme will certainly point out if he reads this thread, there's no economical or demographical relevancy in this. The metropolitan areas are a lot more significant from this point of view as they are based on employment.

Hence, saying Paris urban area is the largest in Western Europe actually don't prove anything. It's nothing else than a simple statistical curiosity.