SkyscraperCity banner
1 - 5 of 5 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,802 Posts
ok, There is a 'city proper'. That's the area under the Anytown City Council or equivalent.
However, quite often, a city expands beyond these borders and the suburbs sprawl into other cities. It would then be pointless to count individual local government areas and the population of the entire built-up area(urban area) is counted. This is the Metropolitan population.

One such example of how using City Proper figures is completely inappropriate is Sydney. The Sydney City Council area has a population of about 160,000. But of course the whole metropolitan population is in excess of 4.2 million.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,276 Posts
The urban area is the continuous build up.

The metro area is the region surounding the urban area that is directly dependent from it (the people work in the urban area).
 

·
Resurrected
Joined
·
24,358 Posts
Depends also a bit on the country's definition - here in Switzerland the city proper is the central municipality of an agglomeration, although there are bi-nuclear agglos as Olten-Zofingen or Baden-Brugg. Then you take mostly the bigger of the two municipalities as "real" center.

Then you have the before mentioned "Agglomerations" (national planing unities): you can compare them more or less with international "urban areas" - it's conglomerates of build-up areas where a certain % of workers commute to the central city or area and agriculture is very rare. But some of these agglomerations are totally connected to each other by urban sprawl. You can't tell the difference from Neuenhof/Wettingen between Zurich and Baden agglomeration (apart from a deviding river), Locarno-Bellinzona, Aarau-Olten, Luzern-Stans etc by just driving through or looking at a recent map. Therefore the national statistics define...

"Metropolitangebiete" - they are close to international standartized metro areas - although they lie somewhere between urban areas and metro areas. The French have the "Aires Urbaines", a similar definition.

If you just look at commuting, the Swiss Midlands (a more or less planned area as Randstad) is one multi-core metro-network of bigger and medium sized agglomerations - something between a metro and a urban corridor.

That is now only ONE example of a national definition. And you see the difficulty if you want to talk international definitions and terms. They exist and are defined by some organizations or research institutes, but the data they are based on are still national statistics... so don't believe everything you are reading about this subjects.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
118 Posts
_00_deathscar said:
Can someone please explain to me the difference between the two?

I'm confused...

You need not be confused - there is no agreed upon meaning. Confusion is the normal state. Sometimes these are geographical terms, sometimes they are political terms, sometimes geopolitical, etc. As with all attempts to categorize a phenomenon such as urbanization, precise definitions fail because there is so much variation by country, tradition, etc. Even a relatively clear concept like metro area becomes confused by urban areas that are composed of multiple politically defined cities that flow into each other in their build up. Thus we are stuck with the definition problem and we ask questions like “What is the population of London?” The answer is not knowable because we can’t define what London is in a way that will satisfy the different expectations of the definers..
 
1 - 5 of 5 Posts
Top