Future megacities in the developed world

[Skyline_FFM]

Yes, but it is one city corpus!

[Anderson Geimz]

Originally Posted by Skyline_FFM

The only comments that may lead to ugly discussions here are YOURS!!!! Someone should report this to a moderator in order to your comments being deleted!

Maybe I was a bit too harsh to you because what you said wasn't that spectacular, but I assure you...these things turn to suck because of people presenting their opinions as facts, not because of me commenting on that.

It's simply ludicrous to suggest that cities like Mexico City, Shanghai, Mumbai, Sao Paulo, etc, etc, etc have nothing to offer besides their sheer size and that you are better of living in Frankfurt or Hamburg (fine cities btw). Especially if you have never been to those places, like you so obviously haven't (Rio isn't a concrete jungle).

Anyway..., on LA...if there ever was a decentralized megacity, it's LA.
So if LA is a megacity, so is Rhein/Ruhr. I totally agree with justme and drunkenmunkey88

[Skyline_FFM]

Originally Posted by Anderson Geimz

Maybe I was a bit too harsh to you because what you said wasn't that spectacular, but I assure you...these things turn to suck because of people presenting their opinions as facts, not because of me commenting on that.

It's simply ludicrous to suggest that cities like Mexico City, Shanghai, Mumbai, Sao Paulo, etc, etc, etc have nothing to offer besides their sheer size and that you are better of living in Frankfurt or Hamburg (fine cities btw). Especially if you have never been to those places, like you so obviously haven't (Rio isn't a concrete jungle).

Anyway..., on LA...if their ever was a decentralized megacity, it's LA.
So if LA is a megacity, so is Rhein/Ruhr. I totally agree with justme and drunkenmunkey88

I have been to Sao Paulo, Rio, Buenso Aires, Shanghai, Hong Kong and Mexico City. If you took out the forest hills from Rio, the city would be very uglier, and I think even uglier than Sao Paulo. I can surely tell you that I would NEVER like to live there! And FOR ME,, yes FOR ME it IS DE FACTO better to live in Frankfurt or Hamburg. If I would feel different I was living elsewhere... I don't hate the places, but as you know they aren't even on the list of cities with highest quality of life. Not even in their own countries!

[drunkenmunkey888]

Originally Posted by Skyline_FFM

Sorry, but if LA with 17 million inhabitants is not a true megacity, what is it then???!!!!

I feel like LA doesn't have nearly enough density. It is more like a mega suburb. Google aerial pictures of it or check it out on google earth. Then compare it to Tokyo or New York and you'll see what I mean.

[Anderson Geimz]

Skyline, there you go again assuming anyone cares where you would or wouldn't live...
This whole thing turned sour with you claiming the only megacities worthwhile are New York, London, Tokyo and maybe () Paris...This is your opinion, thus only relevant to you. Maybe you should leave the grand statements for now, because I can assure you it's exactely that which offends on these forums.

Originally Posted by drunkenmunkey888

I feel like LA doesn't have nearly enough density. It is more like a mega suburb. Google aerial pictures of it or check it out on google earth. Then compare it to Tokyo or New York and you'll see what I mean.

New York is dense in the center but LA actually is pretty dense overall.

[Skyline_FFM]

Originally Posted by Anderson Geimz

New York is dense in the center but LA actually is pretty dense overall.

This is true! Flying over LA you see pretty dense settling, mostly houses and no buildings, but also HOUSES can be dense!

[Chrissib]

Originally Posted by Anderson Geimz

New York is dense in the center but LA actually is pretty dense overall.

New York is dense over all. Of course, Manhattan is the densiest borough of the city(28,000/km²), but Brooklyn and the other boroughs (except Staten Island) have also densities over 5,000/km². The cities west of New York are also very dense, e.g. Union City or Guttenberg with around 20,000/km². Densiest city in the near of LA is Maywood, and it has only 9,500/km². LA has a very big area which is full developed with detached houses whereas New York has a smaller area, but with condos and other dense buildings.

[Chrissib]

Originally Posted by Skyline_FFM

Yes, but it is one city corpus!

So you consider only monocentric metro areas with over 10M people as megacities?

[Skyline_FFM]

Yes, this is what UNHabitat and UNO use as definition for a megacity.

[Justme]

Originally Posted by Skyline_FFM

Yes, this is what UNHabitat and UNO use as definition for a megacity.

So, for the sake of discussion, if the whole of Hesse was one single urban area without any countryside or forest, but made up of multiple city centers like the Rhein Ruhr, with 25million people, it still wouldn't be a megacity?

[Skyline_FFM]

No, it would be a multi-centre agglomeration,...

[Chrissib]

Originally Posted by Skyline_FFM

Yes, this is what UNHabitat and UNO use as definition for a megacity.

The figures of the UN are crap. For Germany and South Korea, they use the city-proper figures and are therefore comparing apples with oranges.

[Westsidelife]

Originally Posted by drunkenmunkey888

I feel like LA doesn't have nearly enough density. It is more like a mega suburb. Google aerial pictures of it or check it out on google earth. Then compare it to Tokyo or New York and you'll see what I mean.

That's the dumbest thing ever. Since when is there a correlation between density and megacity status? The Los Angeles area is home to nearly 18 million people who come from all over the globe. A true megacity if I ever saw one.

Density in Los Angeles (BTW, these aren't single family homes):


From Flickr, by Atwater Village Newbie


From Flickr, by KCgridlock


From Flickr, by Kaptain Krispy Kreme

Originally Posted by DaveofCali

Koreatown


Hollywood


Westlake


Brentwood




Westwood




Santa Monica City


Marina Del Rey


Playa Del Rey


Venice Beach


Beverly Hills City




Los Feliz


Glendale City




Sherman Oaks (yes, even in the sprawling San Fernando Valley)

[Skyline_FFM]

OMG, how can a person say LA was not a megacity? It is THE megacity!!!!

[Blackpool88]

Originally Posted by Anderson Geimz

Skyline, there you go again assuming anyone cares where you would or wouldn't live...
This whole thing turned sour with you claiming the only megacities worthwhile are New York, London, Tokyo and maybe () Paris...This is your opinion, thus only relevant to you. Maybe you should leave the grand statements for now, because I can assure you it's exactely that which offends on these forums.

Bloody hell, are personal opinions not allowed on SSC anymore?? you're so dull mate. Why is he not allowed to give his opinion on which megacities he would like to live in??? You are assuming that anybody is going to give you any credibility and respect when you speak to other forumers as if you are some divine intellectual. Don't talk to us about what may offend other forumers. To quote Jesus in Matthews gospel, "Why do you observe the splinter in you brother's eye and never notice the plank in your own?"




And those LA pictures are amazing! I definitely consider it a Megacity even if you find people claiming that it's technical population is around 4 million!

[trainrover]

Originally Posted by The Cebuano Exultor

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

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

I couldn't disagree more than with your claims above, I must debunk your imagination!

Just about every developed-country's major cities risk becoming megacities, coz, if you pay attention, the majority of the current ones are in tropical and subtropical areas that'll have to empty over to other places due to becoming overly stressed by climate. I reckon that the farther away they must resettle, then more the relief for those poor migrating ex-dwellers....

Originally Posted by Westsidelife

That's the dumbest thing ever. Since when is there a correlation between density and megacity status? The Los Angeles area is home to nearly 18 million people who come from all over the globe. A true megacity if I ever saw one.

Density in Los Angeles (BTW, these aren't single family homes):

I gotta admit, you have a point, plus you've shown me something I hadn't known all this time. But I wish you'd been courteous by not clipping the context out of DaveofCali's posting that would appear to be hailing from some other thread . . . really, I could've learned more had you maintained its integrity....

[Anderson Geimz]

Originally Posted by Blackpool88

Bloody hell, are personal opinions not allowed on SSC anymore?? you're so dull mate. Why is he not allowed to give his opinion on which megacities he would like to live in??? You are assuming that anybody is going to give you any credibility and respect when you speak to other forumers as if you are some divine intellectual. Don't talk to us about what may offend other forumers. To quote Jesus in Matthews gospel, "Why do you observe the splinter in you brother's eye and never notice the plank in your own?"

Please bugger of and don't quote the fucking bible to me...

We already laid this issue to rest, an issue you shouldn't interfered with to begin with...

[Skyline_FFM]

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

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

Sorry, but the only countries that will be full developed until 2050, now emerging are Turkey, Chile, Uruguay, Argentina, Malaysia, Thailand, perhaps South Africa, not even China, India or Brazil can be developed nations until then! They have way too large populations with too much poverty, in the case of Brazil and India the redistribution of income to lower classes is almost impossible! The gap between rich and poor will make it impossible to become full developed countries!

[philvia]

i dont consider LA a "real" city... just a giant clusterfuck of suburbs

[WANCH]

Originally Posted by Anderson Geimz

Maybe I was a bit too harsh to you because what you said wasn't that spectacular, but I assure you...these things turn to suck because of people presenting their opinions as facts, not because of me commenting on that.

It's simply ludicrous to suggest that cities like Mexico City, Shanghai, Mumbai, Sao Paulo, etc, etc, etc have nothing to offer besides their sheer size and that you are better of living in Frankfurt or Hamburg (fine cities btw). Especially if you have never been to those places, like you so obviously haven't (Rio isn't a concrete jungle).

Anyway..., on LA...if there ever was a decentralized megacity, it's LA.
So if LA is a megacity, so is Rhein/Ruhr. I totally agree with justme and drunkenmunkey88

The only thing is, the The Rhein-Rhur area doesn't have a key city or a main city kinda like what San Francisco is doing to The Bay Area. The towns and cities located in the Rhein-Rhur are equally important.