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 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.
Well you've put words into my mouth there. Note the title of the thread future megacities.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.
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.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.
Hasn't Manchester already reahced 5 million, combined with Liverpool?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.
The problem I have with your answer is that all the sources say NYC's urban area surpassed London's urban area around 1925.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.
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).Hasn't Manchester already reahced 5 million, combined with Liverpool?
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.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 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.
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.The problem I have with your answer is that all the sources say NYC's urban area surpassed London's urban area around 1925.
From wiki:"A megacity is generally defined as a metropolitan area with a total population in excess of 10 million people."polako said:By 1930 NYC's urban area had a population of 10.098 million and became the first megacity.
I just proved this to be incorrect.polako said:Technically London became a megacity during the late 50's.
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.polako said:Today London's urban area has a population of around 12 million, NYC's around 18 million.