Skyscraper City Forum banner
Status
Not open for further replies.
1 - 20 of 137 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
20 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 · (Edited)
What cities spread the furthest?

What cities have the largest urban expanse? For example the urban area surrounding London stretches from Reading in the west to Southend in the east - a distance of over 80 miles of continuous urban area or suburbs. how does this compare with your city?
 

·
Resurrected
Joined
·
25,540 Posts
If you cound overbuild area you have to compare London without the green belt.

For Sao Paulo it's E-W about 84km and N-S about 60km of continuous overbuild area (excluding Santos or Jundiai).


Zurich is more difficult, because it is starshaped urban sprawl into the surrounding vallies. N-S (Lachen-Büllach): 50 km, E-W (Uster-Brugg): 45km
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
20 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
"If you cound overbuild area you have to compare London without the green belt"

Although London's spread has been greatly limited by the green belt it hasn't been completely halted. The green belt has been breached in a number of place by low density suburbs such as Virginia Water in Surrey which effectively connects towns such as Reading and Bracknell to the urban area. It has also been breached in Essex, Hertfordshire and Kent meaning that London's built up area spreads along way outside the green belt and includes towns such as St Albans, Gravesend, Bracknell, Hemel Hempstead amongst others
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,010 Posts
The Greater Toronto Area (Including Hamilton) is approx 75 miles of continuous urban area along Lake Ontario, but varies in 'depth' between 5-25 miles from the lakeshore. Most of this expanse is suburban, though it is anchored at each end with high density, older urban centres in Hamilton to the west, and to a much lesser extent, Oshawa in the east. Not saying it's the biggest, just have to represent, yo.



Here's a cool shot including Buffalo, NY

 

·
Banned
Joined
·
18,001 Posts
NN said:
What cities have the largest urban expanse? For example the urban area surrounding London stretches from Reading in the west to Southend in the east - a distance of over 80 miles of continuous urban area or suburbs. how does this compare with your city?
Official census figures:

- Los Angeles urbanized area covers 4,320 km² of land (source), i.e. 1,668 sq. miles

- Paris urban area covers 2,723 km² of land (source), i.e. 1,051 sq. miles

- London urban area covers 1,623 km² of land (source), i.e. 627 sq. miles
 

·
Moderator
South East Nine
Joined
·
39,931 Posts
Is that the total area of the Greater Paris region, or just the urban (built-up) area?

By the Thames at London:



Here's London's city-proper and a few miles of outlying area:



and a wider metro area.. with the widest points being East-West: (although you can see an urban streak from north to south)

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
20 Posts
Discussion Starter · #8 ·
"Official census figures:

- Los Angeles urbanized area covers 4,320 km² of land (source), i.e. 1,668 sq. miles

- Paris urban area covers 2,723 km² of land (source), i.e. 1,051 sq. miles

- London urban area covers 1,623 km² of land (source), i.e. 627 sq. miles "


All these figures are arrived at using different methods. As I understand it the US method to calculate an urban area is to includeall adjacent areas above a certain population density. The French method includes all built up areas within 200m of each other. The British method includes all built up areas within 50m of each other. The US method tend to produce the largest urban area figures and the British method produces the smallest. If either ther US or French method were used to calculate the London urban area a significantly larger area would be arrived at. Demographia have arrived at an area of approx. 1500 sq. miles for London
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
18,001 Posts
SE9 said:
Is that the total area of the Greater Paris region, or just the urban (built-up) area?
That's the total area for just the built-up area. The Greater Paris region is six times larger.
NN said:
The French method includes all built up areas within 200m of each other. The British method includes all built up areas within 50m of each other.
No, the British method has changed and now includes all built-up areas within 200 meters of each other. You didn't properly read the notes in the Excel table that I linked to. So the French and British figures are strictly comparable.
NN said:
Demographia have arrived at an area of approx. 1500 sq. miles for London
Please don't spread false information. Demographia confirms the 627 sq. miles figure for London urban area that I gave above (check Demographia here).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
20 Posts
Discussion Starter · #10 ·
Am not spreading false information. Look:http://www.demographia.com/db-lonlanypar.htm If you check Google Earth or any detailed map against the British figures you will see how far London spreads using the French method. If you look at the maps produced by the Office of National Statistics and compare this to Google earth you will see that the London figures have been calculated according to the 50m rule.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
18,001 Posts
Look, check the Excel document produced by the UK National Statistics Office (here), click on Notes at the bottom of the table, and read the note in the cell A29 which unambiguously states that the UK National Statistics Office use the 200 meters criteria for calculating urban areas, same as in France. I can't understand why Londoners on this forum always have to deny reality whenever it doesn't conform with their ideas.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
27 Posts
brisavoine said:
Official census figures:

- Los Angeles urbanized area covers 4,320 km² of land (source), i.e. 1,668 sq. miles

- Paris urban area covers 2,723 km² of land (source), i.e. 1,051 sq. miles

- London urban area covers 1,623 km² of land (source), i.e. 627 sq. miles
Completely wrong, the london figure quoted is just for the offical area of greater London only, the question possed was in regard to total urban expanse which, with all this cities extends far beyond the offical boundries, the urban area around london is quite a bit larger than that of Paris as urban areas in Britian are generaly less dense than those in Europe, Urban areas in the US are even less dense again.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
20 Posts
Discussion Starter · #13 ·
London (1998) Los Angeles (1990) New York (1990) Paris
(1999)
Population
Inner Area 2,761,000 1,711,000 1,488,000 ,2125,000
Balance of Core 4,427,000 1,774,000 5,835,000 4,039,000
Total Core 7,188,000 3,485,000 7,323,000 6,164,000
Outside Core 5,044,000 7,917,000 8,721,000 3,481,000
Urbanized Area 12,232,000 11,402,000 16,044,000 9,645,000

Land Area: Square Miles
Inner Area 124 128 22 41
Balance of Core 486 339 280 248
Total Core 610 467 302 289
Outside Core 990 1,499 2,665 762
Urbanized Area 1,600 1,966 2,967 1,051

These figures are pretty definitive, coming from demographia and using similar methodology to calculate the figures for each city. You only have to look at a detailed map or satellite image to see that London's urban area spreads out further than the Uk Office for National Statistics allows. For example Reading, Bracknell and a large swathe of the Surrey suburbs are not include in the UK stats when satellite images and maps say otherwise. Or try taking a drive through these areas.

Using UK Office of national statistics methodology, Birkenhead and Liverpool are seperate urban areas when all that seperates them is the river Mersey which is narrower than both the East River and the Hudson in NY. Using UK methods Manhattan would be classed as a seperate urban area from Queens or Brooklyn and NY would be classed as a number of seperate urban areas which would be plainly ridiculous.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
2,760 Posts
The answer is New York followed by LA.
After that Tokyo and Chicago.

Buenos Aires, Sao Paulo, Mexico City, Osaka after that.

London, Paris, Moscow come next.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
18,001 Posts
okletsgo said:
Completely wrong, the london figure quoted is just for the offical area of greater London only, the question possed was in regard to total urban expanse.
Could people who post to this thread care to read documents before writing silly things? The London urban area defined by the UK National Statistics Office is NOT the same thing as the administrative territory of Greater London. Greater London covers 1,579 km², of which hundreds of sq. km. are unbuilt land (most notably in the borough of Bromley), whereas the London urban area covers 1,623 km² and includes the built-up areas of Greater London PLUS the contiguous built-up areas located in Surrey, Hertfordshire, etc.

I must say it is quite frustrating to try to have a reasonable discussion about this topic with people who seem to know very little about statistics and to be motivated only by a desire to make their hometown appear bigger than it is in reality.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
18,001 Posts
NN said:
You only have to look at a detailed map or satellite image to see that London's urban area spreads out further than the Uk Office for National Statistics allows. For example Reading, Bracknell and a large swathe of the Surrey suburbs are not include in the UK stats when satellite images and maps say otherwise. Or try taking a drive through these areas.
Of course you know better than the UK Office for National Statistics. You know what, they should scrap the Office for National Statistics and make you chief statistician of Great Britain instead.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
20 Posts
Discussion Starter · #18 ·
brisavoine said:
Could people who post to this thread care to read documents before writing silly things? The London urban area defined by the UK National Statistics Office is NOT the same thing as the administrative territory of Greater London. Greater London covers 1,579 km², of which hundreds of sq. km. are unbuilt land (most notably in the borough of Bromley), whereas the London urban area covers 1,623 km² and includes the built-up areas of Greater London PLUS the contiguous built-up areas located in Surrey, Hertfordshire, etc.

I must say it is quite frustrating to try to have a reasonable discussion about this topic with people who seem to know very little about statistics and to be motivated only by a desire to make their hometown appear bigger than it is in reality.
Has Brisavoine not seen earlier post with demographia figures? Have you seen the map of urban areas produced by Office for National Statistics? It appears to me that you are the one who can't understand simple statistics. A cursory glance at the National Statistics map when compared with a satellite image or a large scale ordnance survey map will show you that the whole urban area of London is not included in the NS figures. You have to compare like with like as the urbanised area figures from demographia do. Comparing figures from different national agencies will not give you like for like results. Each country will measure an urban area according to different criteria.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
18,001 Posts
Funny how when comparisons are unfavorable to London the Londoners come with arguments like "comparing figures from different national agencies will not give you like for like results". Yet when comparisons are in favor of London people usually have nothing against comparing figures from different national agencies...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
47 Posts
NN said:
A cursory glance at the National Statistics map when compared with a satellite image or a large scale ordnance survey map will show you that the whole urban area of London is not included in the NS figures. You have to compare like with like as the urbanised area figures from demographia do.
Are you saying the National Statistics Office does not follow its urban area criteria when tallying up the urban area figure for London? Also, the figures in the newer demographia publications match with the National Statistics figures.
 
1 - 20 of 137 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top