SkyscraperCity banner

Status
Not open for further replies.
41 - 60 of 668 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,022 Posts
I reckon that in the UK none lol, well the closest is obviously Birmingham and by 2050 it may have a population of about 4 million, thats my estimate. I dont think any other cities in the UK will even come close to that as Birmingham is the only city in the UK apart from London which has a population of just over 1 million.
no offence, but that's gotta be one of the ignorant posts i've ever read. First of all, the only city in the uk with a population over a million? you are joking right? Try Birmingham, Manchester, Leeds, Glasgow, Newcastle, Liverpool

Secondly, the nearest thing we have to a mega city in the uk: birmingham?? lol, what?? the metro area of Liverpool and Manchester is already over 4 million!

No, the nearest thing to a future mega city in the uk, maybe even including London is the collection of cities in north england:





(left to right) BRADFORD, LEEDS, SHEFFIELD
|
MANCHESTER​

and looking the other way:



(top to bottom) LIVERPOOL
|
MANCHESTER​

the only thing that stops these cities joining is green belt.
 

·
Margela Schurkel
Joined
·
1,973 Posts
Taipeh in Taiwan could easily become a new Megacity of the developed world. They do have around 8.5 million ppl. today.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,491 Posts
Those nighttime aerial photos are incredible! They really show just how close the cities of the North are to each other.

Taipei is a definate potential one though. How fast is Hong Kong growing?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
365 Posts
Depends what you mean by 'mega cities' and what you already count within that definition. Also depends on what you mean by developed. Assuming you mean countries with >$15,000 USD/capita GDP and taking the '10 million people in the greater area' definition we get:
Tokyo
New York
Los Angeles
London
Paris
Seoul
People tend to forget Germany's Rhine Ruhr Area.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,168 Posts
That's not true, London became a megacity after WW2, probably in the late 50's to early 60's.
Well, what was the definition of a megacity in the 50s? And what was it fifty years earlier? In the 19th century London was by far the most populous city in the world. During the early years of the century Edo held the title though.

By 1911 London had a population of 7.1 million people and a Metropolitan population of 9.5 million people. By comparison NYC (the second largest city in the world at the time) had roughly 4.7 million people in 1910.

In 1951 London was home to 8.1 million people (it had dropped from the peak of 8.6 million in 1939). The metro.pop. was 12 million.

Today London has a population of 7.5 million people and there are atleast 15 million people living in the metropolitan area.

To me it looks as though London has been a so called megacity for quite a long time.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,022 Posts
Oh my mistake. :crazy:


No. If we use your definition then Birmingham is the only city in the UK with a population over a million.

1 Birmingham 1,006,500
2 Leeds 750,200
3 Sheffield 525,800
4 Bradford 493,100
5 Manchester 452,000
6 Liverpool 436,100
7 Bristol 410,500
8 Kirklees 398,200
9 Croydon 337,000
10 East Riding of Yorkshire 330,900

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_English_districts_by_population

Go figure, cities with a population over a million in the uk are London, Birmingham, Manchester, Leeds, Glasgow, Newcastle.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,747 Posts
I reckon that in the UK none lol, well the closest is obviously Birmingham and by 2050 it may have a population of about 4 million, thats my estimate. I dont think any other cities in the UK will even come close to that as Birmingham is the only city in the UK apart from London which has a population of just over 1 million.
Some projections have Manchester reaching 5 million by 2050 (Allied London). Manchester is equally as close as Birmingham, in fact probably more so due to it's higher population growth. Also, remember that the distance between Manchester and Liverpool is very small. Some sources show Manchester-Liverpool as a single metropolitan area with a population of around 4.5 million. I would expect their metro areas to have combined fully by 2050. Possibly their urban areas too.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,514 Posts
How fast is Hong Kong growing?
The CIA factbook says the growth rate is 0.53%, which is low considering that China as a whole is urbanizing so dramatically. The fertility rate is second lowest in the world, and the border with the mainland cannot be changed until at least 2047. Thus, HK will be growing very little population-wise.

Of course, you'll need to remember that HK is only a small part of the emerging mega-mega-megatropolis of the entire PRD, which could total 100+ million before anyone notices, by which time China could be considered developed. Just imagine Tokyo/Yokohama, stretched out over maybe three times the area. That's scary.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
353 Posts
No. If we use your definition then Birmingham is the only city in the UK with a population over a million.
And what's my definition?

EDIT: Just checked your wikipedia page and obviously you fail to understand that London is composed of multiple boroughs, whereas all the other cities are wholly contained by their respective administrative boundaries.

What you might be getting confused with is the difference between a 'city' and what American's might term 'metro'. In this regard, you might argue that Greater Manchester has a population higher than 452k, that is, if you include places such as Stockport, Cheshire etc. as being the city of Manchester. Of course, this leads us into a whole different debate about the definition of a city - where it finishes and ends.

For the purposes of this thread, it's probably best to just concentrate on the population contained with the official administrative boundaries.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,747 Posts
Cunning Linguist said:
Kids --> Birmingham is the only city outside London to have a population greater than 1 million.
Please see the Department for Communities and Local Government's "State of the English Cities" report.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,120 Posts
tampa orlando will become a huge metro mega region with a population of 11 million by 2050 if current growth continues
That is unless Florida sinks into the ocean thanks to global warming. Or at the very least, people stop moving there (or all the old baby boomer retirees all die out) thanks to constant hurricanes.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,805 Posts
In Europe :

Istanbul/London/Paris/Moscou => will try go to hypercities

Milan/Madrid/Ankara/Barcelona/St-Petersburg/Randstad/Munich/Frankfurt => will all try to be megacities

Lisbon/Rome/Warsaw/Athens/Manchester/Berlin/Hamburg/Kiev/Oresund/Naples/
Stuttgart/Izmir/Lyon/Brussels(Diamond) => If not already, will go to supercities

Ruhr will surely stagnating at megacity level in profit of other german cities. Berlin can be the one gaining the most (at least if their european centrist work ahah). Not sure cities are surely italian ones and also some cities specialized in few economical areas, in case of crisis, it can slow down their growth (see Deutsche Börse importance for Frankfürt). Uncertain future either for Budapest, Bucarest and Birmingham (the 3 B ahah ).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,022 Posts
You leave me speechless, Cunning Linguist. Why can't Manchester have multiple boroughs?? Why can only London have multiple boroughs included in its population?? Do you not understand that you're not comparing like for like when you use local authority boundaries?

To be honest I can't believe people as ignorant as you are still floating around on this forum. Do as irwell does and read the "State of the English Cities" report. I can't be arsed explaining it to you. Just take my word for it; you're being naive. Come out with that in the uk forums and they'd laugh at you.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,022 Posts
"For the purposes of this thread, it's probably best to just concentrate on the population contained with the official administrative boundaries."

that has to be a joke.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,374 Posts
Dubai
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
353 Posts
To be honest I can't believe people as ignorant as you are still floating around on this forum.
Who's the joker now? You ever been on the internet before? I normally don't bother lowering myself to arguing with people on the internet but your pigheadedness leads me to doing so. I am obviously not the most idiotic person on this forum, and neither are you (despite your rash outburst).

The way I see it, there are two ways of arguing this. Firstly, by restricting the defintion of the city to an administrative boundary you have a discrete definition of what constitutes as "Leeds" or "Manchester". Now that doesn't necessarily say the cities sphere of influence doesn't extend beyond those boundaries, but you cannot define those areas as being within the city.

The second argument involves (at least what I think your argument involves) the idea that the UK's city's are so interconnected economically, socially and are so geographically close when compared to other places such as America, that you could consider these to be one 'city'. However, they are not one city, otherwise they would be one city. There are distinct breaks in the Liverpool-Manchester-Leeds corridor, and very few people would consider that corridor to be one city. It might act as one economic zone or unit, but a more accurate definition might be a megalopolis, but not a single city.

Likewise, you ask 100 people from Croyden whether they are Londoners, and 99% will probably answer yes. You ask the same for Stockport with regards to being Manc, the figure will be much lower than that. Now I've not bothered reading your State of the English cities report, but I'm assuming here your argument is based on the fact that in that report, Stockport is classed as being Manchester. While economically and socially it is basically a borough of Manchester, it technically isn't. When you start relaxing limits like this you could end up arguing that the whole of Randstad is basically one city, or the Liverpool-Manchester-Leeds corridor is just one city. They act as one (although not to the extent that Stockport relies on Manchester), but you can't class them as one.

What I think it boils down to is pedantics, and how we define the ideas of city, metropolitan area (metro), megalopolis, economic, political and social spheres, and the built up environment. Your definition of city appears to be an interconnected economic unit (which is so vague you could class any urban agglomeration as being a city, and so the definition of city almost becomes meaningless). My definition relies on ideas of space and place, while these feelings do not follow administrative boundaries exactly, they are the best we've got.

The ball is now in your court.
 
41 - 60 of 668 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top