SkyscraperCity banner

Status
Not open for further replies.
61 - 80 of 668 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,022 Posts
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.
You know, you restrict the definition of all cities to their central administrative boundary. Birmingham would probably be the largest city in the world.

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.
Well you've put words into my mouth there. Note the title of the thread future megacities.

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.
You're on a thread about mega-cities, arguing that administrative boundaries are the best way to measure the population of a city. Again i'm speechless.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
353 Posts
If you actually brought anything to do this argument, or had anything constructive to say I'd actually bother giving you a decent reply. As it stands I won't.

Quoting portions of what I've said and then replying with one line soundbites does not an argument make.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,022 Posts
I'm not trying to have an argument. As i said, i really can't be bothered with someone as wrong and as ignorant as you. Everyone else knows you're wrong. I've got nothing to prove, you have.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
353 Posts
This is why I normally don't bother wasting my time having arguments/debates on the internet. It boils down to a pissing contest of who can throw the most mindless insults.

YOU'RE WRONG BECAUSE YOU'RE WRONG. HAHA. YOU SUCK.

Note the sarcasm. Great logic there.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,022 Posts
I'm sorry but you just are wrong. If you think Birmingham is the largest city in the world, fine. I am not gonna argue with you.

You're arguments are incredibly ignorant, and i can't be bothered explaining it to you. Go read that report if you want answers.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
353 Posts
You, sir are a classic case of internet stupidity. Didn't you get my last point? Arguing that I'm wrong because I'm wrong just proves your idiocy. And likewise you've dragged me into this mud slinging contest. Your own ignorance is explained by your moniker. Please keep your playground antics to the playground.

Oh and who is putting words into people's mouths now? In fact, I never did that in the first place. If you had the communication skills to understand a relatively well thought out and reasoned argument, you might have realised the same.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,022 Posts
When it comes to defining cities, believing that administrative boundaries are, as you put it, "the best thing we have", you also believe that Birmingham is the largest city in the world. No?

No matter how you dress it, Cunning Linguist, you cannot argue out of ignorance, and that is not an argument what i just said. I am not mud slinging. I am not debating. I am just telling you, that you are being very, very ignorant.
 

·
Margela Schurkel
Joined
·
1,973 Posts
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.
Hasn't Manchester already reahced 5 million, combined with Liverpool?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
283 Posts
I wonder if casablanca will be a mega city in future I do not think population of greater casablanca is now 4.2 million people and is forecast to be 5 million in 2030 so I am not sure
 

·
Kibic
Joined
·
537 Posts
Discussion Starter #72 (Edited)
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.
The problem I have with your answer is that all the sources say NYC's urban area surpassed London's urban area around 1925.

After further research I found this.
NYC's urban area had a population of 7.798 million people in 1920(5.62 million in city and 2.178 in surrounding areas, mostly NJ). London's urban area was marginally ahead of NYC in 1920 at around 8 million. By 1930 NYC's urban area had a population of 10.098 million and became the first megacity. In 1939 when Greater London's population peaked at 8.6 million the urban area had 9.9 million after which it declined due to War. During the late 40's and 50's the city continued to decline, but the surrounding areas exploded. Technically London became a megacity during the late 50's. Today London's urban area has a population of around 12 million, NYC's around 18 million. Both urban areas declined during the 70's and were basically stable during the 80's or saw very little growth. Since the 90's both have been growing.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
79 Posts


You can see here the Tampa-Orlando region. sorry its small its the only one I could find.

Check out this website: http://www.nielsenmedia.com/nc/port...toid=130547f8b5264010VgnVCM100000880a260aRCRD
towards the bottom right it says top DMA markets click it, its a pdf.
The number in millions is not population, it is TV households, so generally multiply that number by 2.88 and you'll get the population. You'll see that Tampa is 13th in the country, and Orlando is 19th.
Together they would be fourth in the country, just behind Chicago. And these numbers are their populations this day. With the increase in population and emergence of "Orlampa" We may bypass Chicago. This is how large the population of this area is. And if you look at this and say the cities are too far apart, you are wrong. Look at NYC DMA, throughout New Jersey down to Trenton and north through Connecticut. These cities are close, and This will be a megaregion in the future, look out.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,747 Posts
Hasn't Manchester already reahced 5 million, combined with Liverpool?
In terms of a Manchester-Liverpool metro area it's probably quite close, though not quite there. In the first comment I was talking about the population of the actual city (not metro or administrative area).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,747 Posts
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.
The "State of the English Cities" report is a former Office of the Deputy Prime Minister project in which they have defined what the true extent of our cities are to allow for comparisons to be drawn.
 

·
ONE WORLD
Joined
·
8,989 Posts
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.

actually the Pearl River Delta in area is quite small as far as megacities go. Its currently at 40 million in an area smaller than NYC or LA:

(Hong Kong is the small peninsular to the right of the delta mouth)


in terms of poulation density it would be considered one city almost contiguous by US standards:





It may not even need to suburbanise before it all joins up, so fast is it growing - all this is highrise at
the mo' (it takes 10moths to construct a 10 storey building and 18 months for a 30 storeys here).




Shenzhen has grown at 28% a year, 'slowing' to 15% from 2005, but densifying to, currently at 9000 per sq. mile. It jumped in population more
than 70x from 200,000 to 14 million in 25 years. At current rates it could
reach 23 million within a decade.

1979 20,000:
1982 200,000
2005 9 million
2008 11 million officially registered (14 million unofficial)


The 8 years difference between 1988 and 1996




1979 and 2004








1990s Shenzhen, before the makeover
 

·
Registered Abuser
Joined
·
7,158 Posts
Ok if the people that are saying Manchester is bigger, well your counting the metro area so in that case Birmingham has a population of about 2,700,000 people, oh and considering Coventry is close by we may aswell count that, thats what everyone else seems to do so about 3million people at the moment.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,190 Posts
The problem I have with your answer is that all the sources say NYC's urban area surpassed London's urban area around 1925.
Yeah I know, but I fail to see how this is relevant in this case. The original point I made was that I think London has been a megacity for almost a century. We are not comparing London with NYC.

polako said:
By 1930 NYC's urban area had a population of 10.098 million and became the first megacity.
From wiki:"A megacity is generally defined as a metropolitan area with a total population in excess of 10 million people."

London had a metropolitan population of 9.9 million in 1921, by 1931 it had risen to 10.9 million. So London became a megacity in the early 1920s (if we assume the modern definition of a megacity applies here). I don´t know whether the 10 million figure for NYC is urban or metropolitan area.

polako said:
Technically London became a megacity during the late 50's.
I just proved this to be incorrect.

polako said:
Today London's urban area has a population of around 12 million, NYC's around 18 million.
You´re mixing terms here. London´s urban area has a population of 8-9 million people. The metropolitan area is home to atleast 15 million people (some sources claim the population to be as high as 18million). Greater London is home to 7.5 millon people.

NYC has a population of 8.2 million. According to wiki the urban population is 18.5 million and the metro population 18.8 (the whole state of New York - a geographically enourmous area).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,069 Posts
By 2050 Bangladesh will be a 200-million mega city.
 
61 - 80 of 668 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top